[Nothing follows]
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
20 comments:
I suggest:
NATO
Ha! This is hilarious.
To call Obama a Marxist is to misread the nature of Neoconservatism, multiculturalism, and Liberal Democratism (which relates to it's pre 1914 variety like a vampire to a healthy man).
"Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. "
NEOCOSERVATISM,
Where Trotsky Meets Stalin and Hitler by Srdja Trifkovic
"Most heirs of the Trotskyite Left are internationalists and one-world globalists, whereas all neoconservatives are unabashed imperialists. The former advocate “multilateralism,” in the form of an emerging “international community” controlled by the United Nations or through a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears resemblance to the New European Order of six decades ago, or to the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. Even when they demand wars to export democracy, the term “democracy” is used as an ideological concept. It does not signify broad participation of informed citizens in the business of governance, but it denotes the desirable social and political content of ostensibly popular decisions."
Barack Obama would be the perfect poster boy for this millenial movement. The mixed-race messiah ostensibly represents the triumph of the new post-racial, post-national, post-religion, post-culture, Enlightened man - or "hope", which is contrasted with the unchanging despair of the cosmic tumult and disharmony inherent in existence as it has always been.
Baron and Natalie,
nice you liked it. I actually found it on a leftist blog. And Natalie, I've emailed you.
Homofobic Horse:
1) I do not understand why you recommend... NATO!??
2) I understand your second comment but I have another way of distinguishing left from right. In my view, the left is always desconstutionist and more or less acts towards a dismantlement of Civilisation. The right, even when revolutionary does not. That's why I have so much trouble calling Mussolini and Hitler left wingers...
And I truly do not understand the obsession of Henrik whith Fascsim and the end of private property. Maybe he sees "Corporativism" in a different light then I do. But, hey! It's me! I am the one who favours a sort of absolutist Monarchy:
"To most of the men of the XIX century, and still today, absolutism is synonym of depotism, of caprichous unilimited power. It is precisely inacurate: absolute power means exactly independent power; the monarchy was absolute once it was not dependet on any other authority, not imperial, nor parliamentary, nor popular: but it is not why it ceased to be limited, conditioned by a multitude of social and political institutions, herditary or corporatvistic, whose own powers prevented it from extrapolating the domain of its function. It's right was confined to a multitude of rights that sustained and balanced it."
Charles Maurras
What occurred to me recently is the following thought. What if Obama is the American Gorbachov? Think about it. There are similarities in the two situations. They both came to power at the time of deeply felt crisis, a feeling that the system cannot continue as it is, and the change is needed. The came at the time when both empires were overextended with their military engagements (Russia with Afganistan, America with Iraq). Both were the times of very strong criticism and censure from the international community, and in both countries there was a strong feeling of shame before people in other countries (remember the art project after Bush's election when liberals photographed themselves with signs "I am sorry"?). Yes, I do see quite a few similarities. What do you all think?
And in consequence to that, Gorbachov caused the Soviet Union to break apart. What will Obama do?
Natalie is certainly observant to point out the anxiety provoking parallel of a large nation already reeling from domestic problems and overextension internationally being tipped over by a charismatic individual bringing "change".
However, the change Gorbachev brought was loosening the chains to allow economic development to raise the USSR's poor standard of living. It got away from him as the USSR's subjugated people could no longer be controlled when Soviet troops hesitated to slaughter civilians in full view of the world on the large scale necessary to quench the freedom wildfire. (They did fire a la Tiananmen square on unarmed civilians in Riga, Latvia). Can anyone seriously argue that the subjugated people of the former USSR are not better off now and that Russians were not dragged however unwillingly to become a somewhat more civilized nation outwardly at least temporarily? World civility gained from this. That they are gravitating back to a rule by oligarchs is their choice and apparently comfort level.
Conversely, what does the USA have to look forward to? Obama plans to add chains to a free society and free market. He plans to tie down the Gulliver capitalism with Lilliputian government controls and redistributionist schemes that will drain wealth out of the United States. There will be a significant drop in the American standard of living and noticeable chill on freedom of speech, association and religion (probably Christianity only). As American economic power fades, the third world will feel the pain of less aid. World civility will take a step backwards with Islamic terrorism and Chinese communism unchecked.
Gorbachev whether intentionally or not birthed creative destruction. Obama will birth only destruction. What a tragedy considering the false hopes invested in him.
Felicie,
That's an amazing perspective. And that's the essence of what philosophy (i.e. thinking) is about: finding new perspectives to see things from (e.g. science would be nothing without it).
The perspective you are providing is so new and surprising, that I cannot assess it completely immediately, but at the same time there's clearly a strong match here. Probably it's not so much about Obama as such, but more about what he represents and the whole situation as you describe it. Also this perspective disregards what he would do domestically in America.
However, if Obama would in effect be the Gorbachev of America it would almost be too good to be true. But at the same time it is logical.
If he would disassemble the overextended American empire(in-denial): bringing home the troops from Germany, from South Korea, so that these countries can and will have to take care of their own military defence, that would be truly great.
If he would disassemble the whole imperialistic machinery of America, that would *kill* neoconservatism, and the American right-wing will be forced to go back to be real conservatives again. Without a self-identity in foreign policy of weird ideological missions on the other side of the planet (Serbia, Iraq), people with national defence ambitions will have to start caring about the near abroad, that is *real* national defence, i.e. Mexico and the ongoing hostile invasion from there.
Everything would fall in place. Europe will have to take care of herself. Perfect! The world will arrange itself in a multi-polar system. And automatically America would start taking care of herself (i.e. its near abroad). Not during Obama, but when the Republicans (now free of neoconservatism) come back.
However...
The only thing we know of Obama is that we know nothing about what he will do. Quite a lot is suggesting that he would do the very opposite. I.e. to extend and expand the American "empire". He represents the UN new-world-order dream (together with his European "base"). So out of the American empire-in-denial there will likely be more empire and more denial. But this also mean disarmament! Which might lead to something along the line of what you have been speaking of, Felicie. However, not at all out of insight, as with Gorbachev, but from being even deeper into the delusion.
Looking at how European countries reason and act (e.g. Sweden), there is an extreme disarmament, while at the same time the idea of extending over the whole world is stronger than ever. In Sweden there are no troops left in the country, essentially all the troops are for "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan and likewise.
But if this will be the policy of Obama -- more empire and more denial -- it will self-implode at some point. However, it can cause much destruction before that. If a new "Yugoslavia" appears (or rather: is created), the Democracts will fight "Euro-fascists" and/or Russians more ruthlessly then even McCain would. Unlike McCain though, they would not aggressively extend NATO forever just for the sake of it.
In trying to join the two perspectives: Obama and his people are so "righteous" that they will not hesitate to use totalitarian means to subjugate the world to their "correct" order. However, their identity is to prefer "soft power" (such as in "dialog police"). They are instinctively against military. So they will demote that, which is great if its done by America!
But this can be played in so many different ways, and it's all up to how you spin it. So it comes down to what's inside Obama head. Does he believe in all the fancy talk himself, or is he after real power? If he just spins it the right way, he will be able to increase the American army.
Obama says he will withdraw from Iraq. Is this the trend? Will he be a utopian egalitarian who lives as he learns? Will he also withdraw from other places? Well, then he could in effect become something of a Gorbachev (notice that an important feature of Gorbachev was that he unleashed much more then he intended to!, and the Soviet Union fell down).
But Obama also says he will put more focus on Afghanistan. Will he rally Europe to send more troops? Is Iraq the exception and this the trend? Obama taking America as world police to a new level, with more focus on military presence, with more Serbias to break. We know this sort of militarized egalitarianism from the Soviet Union, and yes that one was just as honest in its purpose (most people fail to see that!) as Obama and his people.
So rather than disassembling the USSA, Obama might be the one building the new Soviet Union. So rather than a Gorbachev, he could turn out to be a Lenin. Or he might just be a wimp in reality, and not do much at all.
It's all up to what's in Obama's head now. And if there's nothing there, it's up to his advisers.
Obama is being challenged to produce his original birth certificate to prove he meets the constitutional requirements to serve as U.S. president. Philip J. Berg, the attorney filed a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court ... the U.S. Supreme Court has said that Mr. Obama is to respond to the writ, on or before Dec. 1.
The MSM has been keeping quiet about this but now the Philadelphian Bulletin has published a story about it. The comments are interesting.
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20193200&brd=2737&pag=461&dept_id=576361
Annew
There is a memri record of an old imam shouting that Obama is a Gorbachov "who will destroy America".
The Republicans inherited the veiled crisis from their rivals, now Obama inherits the whole more and more unveiled and it can be quite difficult to distinguish what is Obama daily news and what is much older negative heritage.
Maybe Reps are quite lucky to give over the negative harvest to their rivals who are on a suicidal mission anyhow. This might indirectly help solving our problems: for years to come the immigration will be slowed down by the crisis, many will consider going home, the left will freely display their inaptitude combined/reinforced with no short term solution.
Luckily US will not be rich enough to pretend some short term leftist miracle a la Chavez buying the lawer classes for a decade or more.
And those who were clueless about fighting the evil influences from abroad on a rational basis only (in happy disarming confortable times) may find a pretext - lack of money - to do the sobre job without hesitation.
Squandering money and making depts corrupted the Western mind for decades, made it weak. Lack of money can reshape the Western mind.
Our talking/thinking/warning could not cope with the streams of debilitating money flows.
(How many problems were supposed to be solved internationally with money transfer only?)
CS:"Looking at how European countries reason and act (e.g. Sweden), there is an extreme disarmament, while at the same time the idea of extending over the whole world is stronger than ever. In Sweden there are no troops left in the country, essentially all the troops are for "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan and likewise."
Ha! That's an interesting thought! I didn't know it about Sweden. So this could be a new trend. More and more of the U.S. army gets engaged as "peacekeepers." In the meantime, order at home is kept by the newly formed "stormtroopers" - his proposed civilian national security force. It will be interesting to see how his foreign policy develops.
"We know this sort of militarized egalitarianism from the Soviet Union, and yes that one was just as honest in its purpose (most people fail to see that!) as Obama and his people."
Yes, that's the thing. It was not entirely cynical; there were also good intentions and ideals mixed in there. Just the same as in the proclaimed purpose of the U.S. foreign policy to "export democracy."
ANNEW: "The comments are interesting."
It is among these comments where I found the link to an interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector and former KGB agent, from 1985. It's so prescient. It's as if he is talking about today. You all have to see it. It's about how propaganda and demoralization work. Fascinating! (He also talks about how and why the real leftists are shot first when the regime changes).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
See the whole thing.
That´s a good news for Obama, Felicie.
He wan´t be shot first. However some tried to defend him "that he is not a real marxist". They will pity their hopefull perspective. (sarcasm off)
Such videos are useful. Combine it with Radio Moscow and RussiaTV satellite. I could witness some "improvements" in their propaganda old tools. For Iranians watch "PressTV". Very clever to avoid some Iranian name or outward hints in their satellite name.
Laine,
"Can anyone seriously argue that the subjugated people of the former USSR are not better off now(?)"
No. I think no one can seriously argue that.
"... and that Russians were not dragged however unwillingly to become a somewhat more civilized nation outwardly at least temporarily?"
With the fall of Communism? Without a doubt.
I just do not understand what you mean with "dragged". After all, it is true that many Russians were proud of their Big Power Status but many more were not; many more suffered under Communism.
It is funny that the Russians were "dragged" out of Communism... From the little I know I'd say that the Balts were "dragged" to Communism but that then, the RUSSIANS "dragged" all the peoples of the Soviet Union out of Communism.
After all, who ended the Soviet Union? Chechenyans and Uzbekhs?
And even if you look impartially enough to the events of 1917, you will see that most Russians... were "kind of dragged" to Communism.
"That they are gravitating back to a rule by oligarchs is their choice and apparently comfort level."
Now, I also happen to think that notion comes from an over valuation of democracy, American style.
You see, I think democracy is only legitimate as long as it is, as Zenster has highlighted, "the most perfect form of government".
What does that mean? That means that democracy is a mean to an end. The end being "good government" and the mean being democracy. The logical conclusion is that: If there is a way in which we can provide a "better government" through an undemocratic way, then, democracy loses all its vallue. That is how the Romans saw dictatorships. This because democracy is only a mean to achieve an end.
We must not vallue democracy as an absolute vallue.
If you do, you will have an European Union like creature. I don't know what the average man thinks in more advanced Nations, but here in Portugal, and in Spain as well, the average person truly believes that "The European Union is good. And the main reason because it is good is because it is very democratic."
They may be against a multitude of laws that emanate from the European Union in a dictatorial fashion but they will nonetheless believe the European Union is democratic. They will also see the European Union as something inherently good that has its little flaws.
Russians don't vallue democracy that much and I believe they do well. Also, they apear to believe the government they have is flawed but is the "best government" possible, the government that suits them the most.
And when Gramsci is victorious, you can see, as you do in Portugal, an elite class - teachers - making enormous manifestations against Socialist measures (big totalitarian State; nobody fails because everybody is equal system; random teachers nominated by the government to avaluate what other teachers do; incentives to "tell the boss" what others may be doing against the "State Model", that is, a blow on creativity; the erradication of different salaries; etc.) in the name of "true Socialism".
The very own democracy we have now is radically different (and inferior) from the Athenian Greek concept of DEMOKRATIA.
Democracy has gone so bad, in my opinion, that the idea DEMOKRATIA today is closer to an Absolute Monarchy then to democracy itself.
Felicie,
The Yuri Bezmenov interview is amazing. I hope everyone is watching it. This shows what I have always said, that Wilson and Lenin were ideological pals. First pals, then rivals. The ideology being egalitarianism, just different interpretations of it. And due to this, the Americans (and thereby the West) was easily played by the KGB. It was easy for the KGB just to turn the Westerner's own ideology against them. And World Communism is still alive. It's just operating under different names and symbols. So yes, everything he says still applies.
He also talks about how and why the real leftists are shot first when the regime changes.
Bezmenov describes how the USSR shot all the real leftists, i.e. all the true believers, and did so overnight, as soon as they had taken control of a new society. Since they had informers everywhere, they knew exactly who these were. The USSR was fully realistic in this of course: these kind of fanatic zealots are enemies of any society -- and the worst kind, that will completely bring down and self-implode any society.
Any society that does not render these real leftists harmless cannot sustain. The only society in the history of mankind that has tolerated them is our own Western civilization of today. And they are not merely tolerated, they are celebrated. In fact the are in control, as the ruling elite.
What we can know for sure, based on these ontological laws of society, which are as firm as Newton's laws of motion, is that any successful counter-revolution to the current order -- and with successful I mean a fundamental and permanent change -- will have to render these leftist/liberal zealots harmless (as a minimum: putting them in jail for life).
Still, the majority of the "conservatives" (including in this forum) has as their main concern to defend the French Revolution slogans of liberty, equality etc.; formulated as freedom of expression, democracy, rule of law etc. And thereby just perpetuating the Western egalitarianism that is such an easy prey for World Communism (in its many guises). However, quite as described by Bezmenov, one day also these "conservatives" will wake of to the fact that this is not a struggle for defending our goodness, but defending our very existence and way of life. Which means defending the real freedom, the real interest of people, etc., not the French Revolution slogan version of it.
If we counter this now, it will do with a Franco. If we do not turn it around real soon, I do not even want to think about what would be needed.
It's good to know however that regardless of what happens these real leftists/liberals that are currently ruling us will fall hard and suffer dearly for their treason (even if Islam wins they will - obviously!).
CS: "We know this sort of militarized egalitarianism from the Soviet Union, and yes that one was just as honest in its purpose (most people fail to see that!) as Obama and his people."
Felicie: Yes, that's the thing. It was not entirely cynical; there were also good intentions and ideals mixed in there. Just the same as in the proclaimed purpose of the U.S. foreign policy to "export democracy."
The point is that also Bolshevism was driven by true belief. Machiavellian scheming, as described by Bezmenov, makes people think that it was cynical in its essence. Nothing could be more wrong. It was ideological, and based on the firm belief of creating a better society. It is exactly the good intentions that gives such a movement such strength, and makes it so dangerous, so lethal and evil.
Ideology mixed with good intentions will always lead to concentration camps and death.
But people who haven't understood Bolshevism the cannot understand the West of today either, and how lethally dangerous and evil it truly is. Comparing Russia and the West of today it is easy to see which party that is ideologically driven and has all the good intentions. There's no doubt about which side that is Soviet-like today. It's exactly the good intentions that are the problem!
And for those who haven't seen how the "good intentions" West is operating cynically and ruthlessly, both at home and abroad -- in the name of the EU, in the name of NATO -- you will need to spend more time reading articles here at GoV.
Thanks to Felicie for pointing out the Yuri Bezmenov interview. He explained particularly well the impermeability of the properly demoralised to documented facts. You cannot deprogram them.
There have now been at least 3 generations of the "demoralization" phase that he said could be done in 15-20 years.
The "destabilization" phase of 5 years is also over-accomplished.
Is the intended "crisis" Obama's being disqualified by Kenyan birth and his mother's fraud from the presidency with millions ready to riot if the Supreme Court rejects their messiah and actually guards the constitution or is it the over-ride of that constitution to let the charlatan rule?
The plan may have changed, in that the media whores have been instructed to clamp down hard on the birth certificate news so one can speculate that Obama is such an ideal candidate for world communism purposes that they want to let him ride and do as much damage as possible instead of provoking a crisis at this time.
If he got out of (the party) line, communists have removed uncooperative Presidents or candidates before as in 2 Kennedys while avoiding being nailed for it.
By the way, USA will change name to UFO - United Federation of Obamerica.
H. Horse,
To call Obama a Marxist is to misread the nature of Neoconservatism, multiculturalism, and Liberal Democratism (which relates to it's pre 1914 variety like a vampire to a healthy man).
Yes I definitely agree about that. And wonderful description of the transformation of liberal democratism.
And thanks for all the Trifkovic references. You've got it right, HH.
Obama is simply a hardcore Marxist who has adapted to the replacement of the working class with race and elevation of the nomankaltura to the robber baron class. Obama is comfortable with the multi-billionaires of Google, Soros, T Boone Pickens, Warren Buffet, etc. And he has no problem giving tax money from the bourgoisie to his fellow Marxists like Wright or Ayers. Obama's Marxism exists, but it is of the corrupt Soviet nomanklatura variety where race is the paradyme.
The hammer and sickle is one of the most perfect Freudian sexual sublimational symbols ever (unconsciously?) devised.
Including the phallic hammer~ penetrating the female curve~ and ironically thereby forming a profiled breast and nipple.
(Lenin's mistress would have been amused, no doubt.)
I only wish Marxism had devoured itself faster, and vanished more completely.
The disease of Following Historical Truth is a recurring madness that preys on over-simplifying minds.
Refusing to acknowledge the fuzzy fluidity of everything and the basic Indeterminacy of nature permits these structuralistic killers to try to order the world into their cages of Certainty.
Gulags, or madrassahs, or whatever they try to softpedal them as in the West, they are always and only prisons.
The sickle cell.
Post a Comment