Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security

In the post "Treason IV: A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?" I answered the question negatively. I've changed my mind ... I've discovered the trick ... Eurika! How do I know? Because it's logical but above all, it's dead Boring!

The peoples of the West are today living in a crypto, semi totalitarian situation in which taxation, and government provided social security are the linchpin of the Leftist social contract titled "Freedom for Cradle to Grave Social Security".

As Liberalism abandoned objectivism [1], the idea that all men are created equal and that consequently all should be treated the same way in similar cases, the Left - following Marx' dichotomy of the Oppressors versus the Oppressed - instead embraced subjectivism, meaning that perceived unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. This had far reaching consequences, as we shall see.

The endless line of unequal 'victimized' groups were identified and subsequently compensated in proportion to their inequality by what usually goes under the category of 'nice things for Leftist people', the 'social hammock', or more parliamentary, social spending: welfare, grants, health care, social work, subsidized art, subsidies for politically correct pet projects, etc. For those who don't happen to belong to any unequal group (usually white men), the social contract means paying taxes in return for the benefit of living in a decent country.

In the meantime the primary, important problems - that are actually the result of the Leftist solution to Leftist problems caused by Leftist policies - are either swept under the carpet, out of sight of the voters and the general public, or are declared taboo, these days preserved to the point of ad hominem attacks in the absence of sound arguments.

This is, because the secondary, soft issues are vital to the Leftist vote. Were they no longer be able to finance subjectivism, this would ring in the end of Socialism, the Social Democracy, the Greens, the collectivist arm of the Christian Democracy, Leftist Liberals or whatever it is they call themselves these days. The news is, that is exactly what will happen if something pretty drastic isn't done very fast.

If the countries with Leftist governments didn't already belong to the most heavily tax burdened, raising rates might have been an option. But if the Left have learned one thing over the past decades, it is that Marxism must never be made applicable to the economy, hence the present concentration on social and cultural versions of Marxism (multiculturalism).

We have already established that requesting the Leftist constituency to cut down on their benefits would simply render Leftist politicians jobless in droves in no time: we have seen the angry reactions on the streets of Berlin, Paris and Amsterdam! So that's another non-starter!

Apart from subjectivism, Liberalism has championed a few other causes over the years: care for the environment being one, another one the 'liberation' of their unequal groups, among them women. Enabling women to stay in jobs longer, making the most of their subsidized higher education, the size of the family over the years tended from smaller to smallest - to the extent that, in some countries in Europe at least, even replacement levels touched danger levels.

Leftist governments could have opted for more family friendly policies, as Germany has belatedly done under Angela Merkel. But these policies are looked upon as Rightist: environmentalists hold the somewhat radical view that children are merely the polluters of the future; and larger families are seen as a phenomenon typical of the overly religious. Women would only be encouraged to become stay-at-home-mums - and that, would never do! Family friendly policies represent to the Left, all it considers anathema!

The Solution to the problem presented itself in the form of immigration, to make up for the rapidly diminishing numbers. Until quite recently - in the Netherlands for example - there was no official immigration policy, Europe being traditionally a contributor to emigration to Australia, the United States or Canada, rather than a magnet for immigrants themselves. All that changed with the arrival of guest workers in the sixties, but that was a brief spell which didn't attract much attention, the numbers still being relatively limited.

Later on, any policy that existed, was largely seen as a technical issue, best solved by multicultural technocrats in the various government ministries and departments. While immigration numbers grew exponentially - primarily through 'marriage and family re-union rights' - at no time were the voters given proper insight into the problem, allowing them a chance to make their own choice for either redefining family planning, or outside replenishment.

At present the problems are staggering. Never at any time after the colonization of the Wild West has any territory absorbed such biblical numbers of peoples! But instead of being straight about it, immigration is presented by the policy makers as a strength: it shows our capacity of 'tolerance' and flexibility; and as an act of God - as a wave coming over us, for which there happens to be no remedy. In the meantime the voters are being coaxed into accepting ever more colonization towards future broadening of the fiscal base, enabling social security spending for unequal groups to remain in tact so the Left can stay in power.

In the series "Treason", for example in the second instalment "Crimes against Europe's Indigenous Peoples" we saw how deep governments stooped in selling out their own peoples. The often lauded Swedish model fairly takes the cake by denying - through an Act of Parliament - Swedes the right to their own land: "The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn't have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes have been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it: "In Sweden, it's almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class."

In the same post we read how the treason against the native populations works on the level of city politics, as pointed out by sacked Antwerp social worker Marij Uit Den Bogaard.

One way of cloaking the fact that it is a policy of choice, is by re-framing the issue. For example in the messages: "Get used to it - immigrants aren't going to go away!" and "We live in a multicultural society now", are pieces of public manipulation, deserving of the term demagogy. It carries the message of the accomplished fact as a result of an outside cause, received by the public as a well meant appeal to be nice and tolerant towards immigrants, the issue by now far removed from the actual issue of willful design!

While the above explains the future demographic problems in the West, the most important aspect is that entire populations, either through taxation or by claiming benefits, have become loyal, dependent clients of their governments who know every personal detail, from how you raise your children to the number of surgeries. All jump through hoops, at least if you want to claim what's rightfully yours, where you've paid your taxes for.

For Europeans the news is even worse: the E.U. is presently undertaking steps to usurp yet another national prerogative: immigration policy. So forget petitioning the national governments about their treacherous policies: the E.U. is bailing the national Leftists out, shifting the entire concept of "Freedom for Cradle to Grave Social Security" to a transnational scale. See for example "Treason III: Cultural versus National Borders".

And so we see, that what is on a international level Transnational Progressivism, the locking in of nation-states in large federations to ensure stability by interdependence, is on a national level the social contract, as long as you can ensure the broad tax paying base, that is.

~ To be continued with Red Flags: what are the danger signs to watch out for? ~