Sunday, July 11, 2010

Constructing the 21st-Century Socialist State

In a speech at the University of Missouri on October 30th, 2008, just before he was elected President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama famously said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

LeninHis words possessed a chilling resonance with those of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known to history as Lenin. In November 1917, after the Bolsheviks occupied the Tsar’s Winter Palace, Lenin sat down with his comrades in their opulent new offices and said calmly, “We shall now proceed to construct the socialist state.”

And so he did — and we all know how that turned out.

The new rulers of Soviet Russia needed money, so Stalin was sent with an armed detachment to the central bank, where he ordered employees to open up the vaults. He and his men hauled big sacks of money back to their offices and set up the brand new Soviet treasury.

The Soviet FatherlandThen, once the new system was up and running, Lenin ordered the complete abolition of money. When the country ground to a halt and starvation set in, he backed off a bit from his radical utopian measures, and instead substituted absolute control by the state. The result was mass slaughter, strategic famines, a huge network of slave labor camps, the export of terror and subversion abroad, and the all but total destruction of traditional Russian culture as it had existed before 1917.

Seventy-four years of brutality and degradation would elapse before the Russian people escaped from their nightmare, and the lingering effects of the Bolshevik Revolution are far from over, even today.

Unfortunately for the ambitions of President Obama, America in 2010 is not Russia in 1917. For their human raw material Lenin and Stalin had millions of penniless and illiterate peasants who were relatively easy to coerce. Obama, in contrast, faces a nation of affluent suburbanites. Russia in 1917 was all but undeveloped, and the Bolsheviks could forcibly industrialize it to build a permanent power base for themselves. Obama, on the other hand, must destroy the existing structures if he ever hopes to effect his fundamental transformation.

The Husseinization of America over the last year and a half has involved inconceivable amounts of new debt, increased government control over an already damaged economy, abandonment of America’s allies, outreach to its enemies, unprecedented interference in the private decisions of citizens, and proposed restrictions on our civil liberties.

From Obamacare to the Gulf oil spill, one can’t escape the feeling that all of this is going according to plan, and that the plan depends on the systematic ruin of the United States as an economic and military power.

But why? What possible end can Obama and his far-left handlers hope to achieve?

Totalitarian control of a completely devastated country?

TrotskyAnyone of modest intelligence, even a totalitarian Marxist, should be able to discern that the policies of the Obama administration cannot possibly produce the desired results. The United States can be destroyed, but it cannot be transformed by debt and disarmament into a revenant 21st-century Soviet Union.

So why do it?

I keep circling round and round that question, and the only answer I can come up with is stupidity. The mandarins of Washington D.C. believe, against all the available evidence, that they can pull a socialist utopian rabbit out of a threadbare fiscal hat.

In other words, collectively speaking, they’re dumber than a box of rocks.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I bring all this up because I just read a fascinating article by Gregory R. Copley that was published last week in OilPrice.com. It’s entitled “The New Civil Wars Within the West”, and it outlines the mass hysteria and folly that are running wild across the entire Western world, and not just among the Obamanoids in the United States.

Mr. Copley has this to say in his introduction:

Internecine civil wars are underway almost everywhere within the West, and most virulently in the United States of America. They are not yet kinetic wars, but wars of grinding prepositioning, the kind which lead to foregone conclusions without a shot being fired. They are wars of survival, nonetheless, because the basic architecture for national strength is being altered incrementally or dramatically. And, in many cases, consciously.

Almost all of the strategic restructuring of states is occurring in large part as a result of an accumulation of wealth; an accumulation and value of which is seen as permanent. This has resulted in the hubris — expressed by those who did not earn it — of triumph in the Cold War. This is a Western phenomenon because the widespread growth of wealth, the creation of freedoms classically associated with democracy, resulted — as it must inevitably result — in complacencies which in turn led to a “vote too far”: the extension of the democratic franchise to those who do not help in the creation of wealth.

Once the voting franchise of the West reached the point where those who sought benefits outweighed those who created benefits, the tipping point was reached. The situation of de facto “class warfare” thus emerges automatically under such circumstances, and the envy of those who take against those who provide erupts into “rights” and “entitlement”. By deifying “democracy” above justice, the enfranchised non-producers could always outvote the producers. We are at this point. The result can only be collapse, or restructuring around a Cæsar or a Bonaparte until, eventually, a productive hierarchy reappears, usually after considerable pain.

His first case study is the United States of America:
- - - - - - - - -
Virtually every conscious step of the Administration of Pres. Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democratic Party majority in Congress has been to increase the size and role of government in the economy and society, and to decrease, limit, and control the position of private enterprise and capital formation. Given that this progressively contracts and ultimately eliminates production, and reduces the inherent asset base of the country — its raw materials and productive intellect — to a null value, the tradable value of the US currency will inevitably decline. We cannot be swayed by the enormous wealth of the North American continent. Almost all areas have an inherent wealth of some kind, but assets left idle in the ground or infertile in the brain define countries which fail, or are not victorious in their quest for unbridled sovereignty.

Thus, a decline in currency value is exacerbated, or accelerated, by the increasing supply of money, inextricably depreciating its value, particularly at a time of decreasing productivity in vital perishable and non-perishable output.

The US Obama Administration has focused entirely on an agenda of expanding government — the seizure of the envied (and often ephemeral) “wealth” of the producers — without addressing the process of facilitating the production of essential commodities and goods. Even the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, during their communist periods, focused — albeit badly — on the production of goods and services, when they realized that the “wealth” to be “redistributed” existed only as the result of production and innovation. The US, meanwhile, heavily as a result of policies of the former Clinton Administration, has “outsourced” production, and the State — that is, the Government — cannot easily, in the US, become the producer.

Pres. Obama has addressed the US’ economic crisis by expanding government, and government-related, employment in non-productive sectors, while at the same time blaming and punishing the private sector for all of the US’ ills. Empowered by the extended franchise, this was the politics of envy now becoming enabled.

Moreover, the populist, short-term response to the major oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico was clearly geared toward (a) transforming a crisis into an opportunity to pursue a green energy agenda by highlighting the evils of the fossil fuels on which the US remains dependent; (b) ensuring that the President was not blamed for the poor crisis response; and (c) ensuring that the Democratic Party did not suffer from the crisis in the November 2010 mid-term Congressional elections.

The result of all the Obama initiatives has been to expand government and reduce or absolutely control and tax the private sector, even though, without the private sector, the US has no viable export or self-sustaining capability. The net effect has been to mirror — and overtake — the situation in which, for example, Germany found itself a decade ago: without the ability to retain capital investment or attract new capital investment.

Mr. Copley then outlines the foolish (or diabolical) policies that will ensure capital flight, the decline of productive capacity, recession, and inflation in the USA and other Western countries. I recommend reading the entire article, but here are some snips from his analysis of Europe:

Artificial, wealth-induced complacency following the end of the Cold War led to fury when economic collapse inevitably occurred in 2010, leading to draconian restraint in public spending in many societies, but particularly Greece and Spain. It is said that tourists are warned not to feed bears in Yellowstone National Park (in the US) because the bears do not understand when the tourists have run out of food. State-fed populations in Europe, the US, and Australia (see below) equally do not understand when the free ride is over, and work must recommence.

Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have begun the arduous path back to recovery, but the euro may, as a currency, have been irrevocably damaged, and the European Union itself may have spent the term of its virility. Clearly, the wealth-induced complacency, which had the compounding effect of allowing a decline in a sense of national survival and national identity among the European Union (EU) component states, has led now to a revived — but as yet unrealized — sense of nationalism.

This is beginning to lead to the recognition of the cohesive national efficiency required for survival and competitiveness. It can be said that the EU destroyed nationalism, without replacing it with any mechanism to create a new sense of social cohesion, thus removing Europe’s capability for economic competitiveness, self-defense, or ability to define a new culture (and identity) to replace the national identities.

Had the British Labour Party Government of outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Brown persisted in office with his slavishly doctrinaire governance — and demonstrably unworkable socialism, led by a privileged élite of Labour mandarins wallowing at the trough — it is possible that an economic recovery in the UK would have been problematic. It may still be problematic. And in this, Brown was a prototype Obama, with his rank sense of entitlement.

Even now, the British political psyche is fractured along geographic lines, and, wealth-induced, considers itself effectively “post-industrial”, and therefore beyond the need for a manufacturing (or even agricultural base). Thus, even though the UK is now far more dependent on a maritime trade base than at any time in its history, it is incapable of defending or projecting that maritime base; neither does it have the wherewithal to trade.

Mr. Copley goes on to examine Australia, and then wraps up with his general conclusions, which include this observation:

The West is at its watershed, not because of a threat from a less-productive society. The collapse of the West is not because Islam is at the gates. Islam is at the gates because of the collapse of the West.

This is precisely the case. Islam is a virus of opportunity, and in the purulent corpse of the post-capitalist Western welfare state it has found a source of plunder unprecedented in its 1400-year history.

And, based on recent events, one cannot help but believe that our current self-destruction is intentional.

In 1917 Lenin intentionally destroyed the ancien régime in Russia. But even he intended to build something on the ruins. Twisted and demonic as the Bolsheviks were, they envisioned a shining utopia in the new Soviet Russia.

But what does Obama intend for us?

Beyond a smoking ruin where the United States used to be, what does he envision?


Hat tip: Arius.

19 comments:

Zenster said...

The mandarins of Washington D.C. believe, against all the available evidence, that they can pull a socialist utopian rabbit out of a threadbare fiscal hat.

This is a common mode expression of Leftist Magical Thinking™. Liberals too frequently are unable to understand how wealth is created and consequently do not realize to implications of it improper redistribution. Obama and his Chicago gangster crew are in no way able to claim any such innocence. In their hatred of America thay have openly adopted a despicable attitude towards their moral and intellectual betters.

My comments addressed this in the Gates of Vienna thread, "Minister King Samir Shabazz Revisited":

Currently, we have a Western ruling class that has lost all sight of the genius and innovative mindset that drove Europe and, especially, America to pre-eminence. The skill set of these elite is predominately limited to uninspired hucksterism and mimicry. Quite simply, they are collectively incapable of inventing their way out of a brown paper bag.

Additionally, so much of the West’s current crop of political leadership derives from an over-schooled and underworked upper class that they have evolved a near-total disdain for the actual creation of wealth. Redistribute it? Yes. Actually create it? [gasp!] What could you possibly be thinking?

Any functional student of economics knows that there are only three ways of creating wealth: mining, agriculture and manufacturing. Since when has there been a shred of political leadership with expertise in any of those vital and productive fields? We are being legislated and corporately managed to death by a bunch of Ivy League pansies who have never done a minute of heavy lifting in their entire lives and wouldn’t know which end of a hammer to grasp if they only could overcome their disdain for real work long enough to pick it up and smash their thumb with it.

Thomas Edison said that “Genius is ten percent inspiration and ninety percent perspiration”. The total absence of brilliance endemic to our halls of power stands in dumb testimony to the genius lacking within them and betrays a Socialistic bent that seeks to level all humanity through legislated equality where there is none to be expected and make interchangeable an entire workforce who’s true success relies upon innovative excellence.

Thus is Ayn Rand’s own grim prediction finally unveiled. Ellsworth Toohey’s detestation of the irreplaceable individual so symbolized in Howard Roark has become a much vaunted sigil of the Vampire Elite™. They are not only revulsed by the notion of toiling to produce an original idea but just the mere thought of such onerous mental labor gives them a case of underclass workingman vapors that a case of smelling salts can barely dissipate.

In another post I will respond to more of this excellent article.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Jeff --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

----------------------

Jeff said...

I agree with the assumption in much of this writing. Obama is not so much incompetent or disengaged (as many now say), but is purposefully destructive.

"What does [obama] envision?"

o The progressive reduction in the power of traditionalists; those who cling to guns and Christianity. An important correlate (or perhaps the main point) is the progressive reduction in the power of whites.

o An increase in entitlement.

o A place of heroism in the minds of the entitled.

What is Obama's vision is in relation to Islam? I don't know; perhaps he is like so many leftists and doesn't believe anyone could really believe that [crap]. But am not sure.

Arius said...

In the OilPrice article by Gregory R. Copley there is this statement that I think is very close to the heart of the problem: "A pseudo-post-industrial society is one which believes that it can live solely on the intrinsic value of its currency, without the necessity to sustain a balanced agricultural and industrial base to preserve sovereign independence". This is basically the utopian dream which of course shows cognitive dissonance and the self destructive nature of the modern West. NAFTA was a big step in this direction which was followed by the dismantling of the US industrial base. We are in the next phase, fighting over a shrinking pie. It was inevitable that an Obama would appear.

Anonymous said...

For more than 100 years the goal of marxism has been the annihilation of capitalism. The Marxist in the White House and his multicultural cronies pursues exactly that same goal.

With Europe and the UK already havinh succumbed to a modern day variant of socialism, the US will be brought down to exactly the same unproductive standards.

Just as in overtaxed and overregulated Europe, the US entrepreneur will stop performing and close down his business. That pulls the rug from under the redistributors.

At that point or slightly earlier, either one of two scenarios will set in:

- all out civil war in the US, ending in total segregation and enormous loss of life

- unopposed takeover of the US by third world mohammedan hordes

In both cases the enemies of the US will be victorious.

What more could the guy in the White House want?

Paardestaart said...

Leftist utopians do not realize that they are still only useful idiots working for an enemy who has planned their destruction. They have actually come to believe the revolutionary kitsch fed them by marxist agitprop.
This nonsensical ideology has created a virtual world in which reality has no persuasive power. The west is doing what the lemmings are known for: rushing blindly towards their own demise.
They'll come to their senses, but it will be too late.
Read Robert Buchar, about the 'end of communism' - communism isn't dead, the SU did not fall - it is manipulating western leftist institutions to create an USSR light. We're right on schedule.

Zenster said...

Per Copley: By deifying “democracy” above justice, the enfranchised non-producers could always outvote the producers.

Curiously enough, in her paean to America, "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand noted that − in the absence of criminal activity − the entire court system's only real purpose was to rule on and enforce legal contracts.

Lincoln originally sought to frame the benevolent role of government as being “of the people, by the people, for the people”. This crucial representative aspect has been perverted by purposefully skewing the electorate with a population of improperly franchised voters; be it through enablement via, and addiction to, welfare entitlements or outright fraudulent inclusion of illegal aliens who have no rightful place in the electoral constituency.

Thus has democracy been deified “above justice” when, in a legally constituted government, no such thing should be allowed to take place.

We are at this point. The result can only be collapse, or restructuring around a Cæsar or a Bonaparte until, eventually, a productive hierarchy reappears, usually after considerable pain.

Through wholesale abdication of their oath of office, America’s elected officials have gradually eroded the government’s protection of America’s indigenous population.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. [emphasis added]

Similar to what has happened in Europe, there have been created in America mendicant voter plantations. Using social entitlements and illegal recruitment of otherwise unqualified voters, career politicians have sought to impose wholly unrealistic and ruinous financial burdens upon productive citizens and businesses alike for the sake of perpetuating these same voter plantations. Make no mistake that it is career politicians of both political strips that have knowingly assisted in this scheme.

Ironically, it will most likely be through the implementation of unconstitutional measures by which disenfranchisement or simple ejection of this corrupting influence within the electorate shall be achieved. There is no possible way to overstate the immense dangers to good governance that lie in wait with respect to such “restructuring around a Cæsar or a Bonaparte”. Yet, this is exactly what our current crop of government-by-fiat apparatchiks are bringing about by default.

Per Cropley: Even the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, during their communist periods, focused — albeit badly — on the production of goods and services, when they realized that the “wealth” to be “redistributed” existed only as the result of production and innovation.

Again, how can a bunch of Ivy League pansies − especially after being subjected to lengthy indoctrination by their neo-Marxist academics − be expected to provide the least sort of qualified guidance or leadership when they exhibit such total contempt for the working man and an even greater suspicion and enmity towards those who are truly innovative? They are truly “dumber than a box of rocks”, but borne forth by their careerism with a vicious malice that despises such inventiveness even as they ride upon the increasingly threadbare financial coattails of its creative ability.

These are the Vampire Elite™ and they are killing America and Western civilization apace.

LAW Wells said...

A few comments on Australia are in order.

First, Julia Gillard has yet to show herself to be Australia's most left-wing PM. I still award that title to either Ben Chifley (who tried to nationalise the banks) or Gough Whitlam (who sent the country into such debt that we've only managed to get out of it in the last 10 years).

Second, there are serious issues regarding the super profits tax, several of the constitutional (Australians for Constitutional Monarchy argues that the minerals are owned by the Crown, but in the right of whichever state they fall into (e.g. the Crown in Right of New South Wales/Victoria/Queensland/etc), rather than the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth). There are also questions as to procedure, as the head of the Treasury, Ken Henrys, is the one who proposed it in his review of the taxation system, thus allowing for an improper politicisation of the bureaucracy (something which one generally expects from republics like America). Thus, a constitutional challenge in the High Court may be possible.

Third, the Australian electorate actually quite likes good economic management (we voted Whitlam out because he was incompetent, crashed the economy, and he was trying to finance his government via some very shady dealings when the Senate blocked supply). That's why Howard was returned for four terms. The ALP has history on its side this year (we haven't thrown out a government after one term since WWII. Oh, and we have had one-term Prime Ministers before, only before WWII), but even then, they're still looking at getting a thorough drubbing (especially considering the way that Gillard has handled the issue of asylum seekers. It's more than just good manners to ask the country you want to process the boat people in if they're happy with it).

Just thought it necessary to clarify that.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Zenster,

Currently, we have a Western ruling class that has lost all sight of the genius and innovative mindset that drove Europe and, especially, America to pre-eminence. The skill set of these elite is predominately limited to uninspired hucksterism and mimicry. Quite simply, they are collectively incapable of inventing their way out of a brown paper bag.

Additionally, so much of the West’s current crop of political leadership derives from an over-schooled and underworked upper class that they have evolved a near-total disdain for the actual creation of wealth. Redistribute it? Yes. Actually create it? [gasp!] What could you possibly be thinking?

No political ideologies only us and them, you're either with us or against us.

Baron you compliment excessively in comparing Lenin with Obama, the discordians have no political ideologies, they are a tyranny of individualism.

Jocke said...

The extreme Left has never been Utopian. It’s main goals have always been the destruction of “so called Democracy” and the Market Economy and, if necessary, all those supporting it.

The evidence is all in History. Look at Lenins and Stalins Soviet Union with 100M victims. Look at Chairman Mao's China with at least 30 M victims. Look at Pol Pot's Cambodia with a mere 2 million, or Kim Il Sungs North Korea. And note that all through the 20th century there was always a choir of leftist "intellectuals" in all western countries to deny or at least "explain" the atrocities.

The Revolution, that is the Leftist Coup d’État, has always led to a blood bath and vicious hunts for Capitalists and "the Bourgeoisie". And they have been found everywhere. Peasants, factory owners, monks and people wearing spectacles have all been ground into the dust. Literally. What’s so utopian about that? No, it's all about revenge out of a sense of inferiority and hate.

After the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union, many thought that the Cold War was over. But it certainly wasn't. The Left inside the West was still unharmed and hellbent on the final victory. It was too weak for an open confrontation, so it chose a strategic psy-op to be able to build it's strenght on the World Proletariat and create a situation in which the Revolution could be gained through a proxy ally - Islam.

How can we be so sure about that? Simple. Radical Islam is nominally all that which the Left is not - or rather what it used to say that it wasn't. Radical Islam is feudal, extremely sexist, racist against Jews and Blacks, child abusive, anti homo-sexual, animal abusive, extremely irrational, and so on and so on. But, according to the Left, nothing bad can come out of Islam. There is not even a single instance in which the extreme Left feels obliged to criticize Islam. Does that make the alarm bell ring, anyone? There are many examples of radical Lefties in the West who in recent years have stated strong support for radical muslim groups and there are many, many more who have stated their strong support for the “Multicultural Society” and in doing so criticizing Western racism, western males’ sexism, western homophobia and so on and so on.

How could these two seemingly different ideologies find each other? Simply because the co-operation had already begun long before the fall of the Soviet Union - under the same red flag, and because their enemy is the same, much as in 1939 when Stalin and Hitler joined hands against the despicable Democracies. Newspapers of that year bear evidence even of the Western European communist parties’ support for the alliance against “the Capitalists”. And of course the Jew illustrated the archetypal Bourgeois in both Nazi and Soviet propaganda.

Remember the tight co-operation between European radicals, such as the Rote Armée Fraktion, the Brigate Rosse, Action Directe, just to mention a few, and the PFLP. Many more were the "intellectuals", once again, who went to interview and write glorifying essays about the "freedom fighters". After the revolution in Iran, the Soviet-Afghan war and the fall of the Soviet Union these organisations in the Middle East simply dissolved in thin air and reappeared as Muslim organisations, as Hezbollah and Hamas and a revival of the Islamic Brotherhood. The contacts were still there. They simply needed a new ideological motif and context, which our "intellectuals" were ready to design. So, the islamists are not just opportunistic. They are acting on an invitation and, so far, according to the script of their Leftist allies. (There are a lot of indications that many Letters to the Editor said to be written by leaders of Muslim organizations in the west are actually written by native authors.)

Jocke said...

Part 2

I am absolutely sure that any of you readers can make a simple test: Take a few of the most prominent Leftist “intellectuals” of your own country, now over the age of 60, and trace their activities back to 1968. Were they active in pro Palestinian support groups or “relief organizations”? Were they also active in obscure organizations on the extreme Left at University, such as Maoist or Trotskyist organizations? Were they among the strongest promoters of “the Multicultural Society” in the media? Have they been labeling themselves as “Liberals” in the last two decades? Do they still attack all criticism against even the most blatant negative effects of “the Multicultural Society”, such as snowballing crime numbers and the threat of terrorism, as “Islamophobia”? Well, they are not utopian and they have not found out that they have been mistaken and painted themselves into an intellectual corner that they are too proud to acknowledge. No, the reason why they still so strongly, and aggressively, defend their “Utopian ideas” against massive evidence of mounting trouble is of course that all is going according to plan. And the plan is not one of Utopian harmony but of disruption, chaos and blood. There is no Grand Plan for a New Society. The extreme Left is perfectly happy with the total destruction of the present one.

But, you may argue, the really Far Left are such a small number. They are in the society as a whole, but they weren’t in the Universities of the late 60’s and the 70’s, and the brightest of them became the new stars in the Media, the Legal system, the Culture sector and of course in the University hierarchy, especially in the social “sciences”, and after the first wave of infiltration they were in a position to recruit loyal followers. And their relative dominance of the MSM have made it possible to move the whole political spectrum to the left. It has also made it possible for their journalist franchise to interview their franchise of social “scientists” for propaganda placement, to agree to publish carefully planned propaganda in a step-by-step process of psychological warfare as scientific facts.

If you don’t believe that a small number of hard-liners that are absolutely loyal to “the Cause” can manipulate a whole society, then carefully study the short happy life of the Symbionese Liberation Army in detail (just a short summary here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army

There are also strong indications that, just as many of the militant hard-liners of red terrorist groups of the early seventies got military terrorist training in the Soviet Union, others got special training by Soviet experts on psy-ops to use in their operation as influence. Naturally it is very unlikely that top officials in the government actually belong to a hard-line leftist under-cover cell, but the main issue is that the policies of a number of successive governments in different countries show clear signs of being influenced by propaganda that will eventually lead to the destruction of the West without anyone seeming fit to break the spell.

That the Leftist/Islamist axis alliance is alive and very active is proven by a lot of activities that mainly go on under the radar of MSM but a recent example of an open cooperation is the Ships to Gaza stunt. In other cases red activists have taken part in muslim “riots”/attacks in European cities.

I think that it is very safe to conclude that, all else having failed, Islam is the Left's Final Solution to the Bourgeois Question.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

So who are the present day British bourgeoisie?

Cobra said...

Wolfman asked:"What more could the guy in the White House want?"

Answer: total retribution, for past "sins".
And for them, success is a sin.

All you need to know is to look at the bolshevik revolution in Russia/URSS, which remains the blueprint of revolution to this day.
The bolshevik revolution was a huge theft of a country and huge and continuous retribution against the Christian Russian population.

Zenster said...

4Symbols: No political ideologies only us and them, you're either with us or against us.

However dismal the prospect may be, this situation is increasingly binary in nature. Once dismissed as intransigent, “right wing” elements such as the Tea Party members are actually demonstrating more levelheadedness than their adversaries on the Left.

In my own personal experience, I have found conservative web sites to be far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints and willing to demonstrate real effort in debating differing opinions. Most Liberal forums simply cannot withstand any forensic analysis.

Outside of the cyber-world, much the same applies. A consistent retort that I hear from Liberals is that they "do not feel what I am saying is right”. Try to imagine how offended they become when I explain to them that “feelings” have nothing to do with rational or quantifiable explanations for existing issues and their solutions.

I have only one set of Liberal neighbors who, to their immense credit, demonstrate true Classical Liberalism regarding a willingness to engage me in coherent discussion about immigration, Islamic colonization and other important current events. Other than that, here in Liberal California, I am routinely ostracized for challenging the Left’s cherished memes.

This returns is to what 4Symbols’ has noted. The Liberalism’s inability to reach beyond Macical Thinking™ leaves them so vulnerable to ordinary critical analysis that they are, literally, on purpose polarizing this situation into the binary state noted above.

Terrorism is one splendid example. There is simply no way that a civilized society can countenance its existence and continue to survive. Terrorism represents such a fundamental departure from the Social Contract whereby all proponents of it constitute an anarchistic element that poisons constructive diplomatic procedure and even simple coexistence.

The Obama administration is no exception and it is polarizing America with an alacrity that would be astonishing were it not for the incredibly offensive postures it takes against this nation’s indigenous White Culture, let alone the Christian component of it.

If there is one thing that will drive America into another Civil War, it is this Liberal refusal to honestly engage with respect to any exchange in the marketplace of ideas. The Left’s inability to withstand rational scrutiny and it concomitant refusal to justify the hows and whys of its political platform exposes just how ideologically bankrupt modern Liberalism has become.

The Left continues to demonstrate a contradictory and hypocritical proclivity for violence. Consider Europe’s ANTIFA cadres for a prime example of this. The same abuses of power are happening here in America and honest citizens will not tolerate it for long. Republican and Democratic party members are both so overwhelmingly absorbed in matters of their re-election that they cannot be bothered with these niggling issues of political verity. For them, the broom will not distinguish between such minor aspects as party affiliation and simply sweep all of them from office, if not even more dramatically so, when the American public finally gets their fill of the political careerism that is allowing this Nation to proceed towards civil rupture.

4Symbols said...

@Zenster,

“the binary state”

In the UK there is the same ideological inertia this has created a void. This disengagement of opposing political forces has resulted in a parliament and population that is despite the illusions apolitical, thus creating a political vacuum and if nature abhors a vacuum it will abhor this political vacuum with a vengeance.

Jocke said...

4Symbols,

The present day british bourgeoisie consist, like in all other western countries, of all the white nominally christian population that do not actively support the Cause. Already in the late 60's and early 70's Maoist organizations decided to drop their effort to openly propagate Revolution among "the working class" in the West itself as it was deemed futile. The western working class was labeled class traitors and "worker aristocrats". (That was an actual term used by a Danish Maoist theorist named Gotfred Appel.) Their goal was from then on to incite a World Revolution in developing countries in order to having it spread to the Western "oppressor" countries at a later stage. At home the strategy changed direction and the activities became more covert, aiming at undermining the self-esteem of the western culture, eroding the defences and creating an atmosphere where literally all old truths, all collected empirical facts and basic reason itself was attacked and substituted in the Western collective mind by new ideals, especially designed to facilitate the build-up of a revolutionary force of new arrivals with a reliable history of extreme violence. All in the name of Christian love and humanitarianism. Who could refuse?

The hatred of the "worker aristocracy" (for not supporting the Revolution) explains why the extreme Left never ever will blow the whistle to protest against the mass rapes of western women in western cities, or of the snowballing robberies of elderly in their homes or the nightly bodily assaults on lone wanderers by gangs of "refugees".

An example of one such opinionmaker, who also illustrate the close contacts between the extreme left and Islam is Tarik Ali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Jocke,

The western working class was labeled class traitors and "worker aristocrats".

The hatred of the "worker aristocracy" (for not supporting the Revolution) explains why the extreme Left never ever will blow the whistle to protest ...


This is why at this time I vigorously defend unconditional subsistence welfare remove that income from the indigenous working class and they risk becoming nothing more than helots, totally demoralised and completely useless as a potential political or fighting force.

Here is the result of the hatered for the indigenous working class.

Jocke said...

Looks like Glasgow East would be the perfect project for the New Conservatives. Actually, today is a tremendous opportunity for real conservative parties in Europe and for Tea Party Republicans in the U.S. to offer real Change and Hope to disillusioned constituencies all over the West. The Left has clearly shown that theirs are politics to make Europe a zone of failed states in a transitionary stage to being dominated by a Caliphate. The role of the Right in recent decades have not so much been one of collaboration but, as in the 30s, of failing to demask and oppose the anti-democratic forces.

The goal of the Right must now be to recreate a strong unity and sense of "we" among the indigenous population and confront and disarm the anti-democratic extreme Left and the Islamists with the aim to remove the threat from European soil.

Otherwise, as a similar extreme Leftist or Islamist conclusion would sound, I fear that the western indigenous population would grow increasingly restless, desperate and radicalised. And then you never know what might happen.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Jocke,

In the UK I would say there has been blatant collaboration by the mainstream conservative establishment with the extreme left they were fooled into a conservative civil war fighting the "worker aristocracy" as a proxy of the left, a classic case of divide and conquer they should have taken the lefts label of "worker aristocracy" literally. Conservatives in the UK must re-engage with that "worker aristocracy" otherwise they will be completely annihilated.

In my time I have been called a F/in aristocrat.