New Year's Movie Theater: "The Truth About Communism"

Launched two years ago, on the 90th October Revolution´s Anniversary, this documentary presents the violent rise of the Soviet Empire from the chaos of Revolution to the terror of the Cold War and is charted using remarkable footage of actual events.

Special interest is the subject of the Spanish Revolution. This is the best collection of historical film footage on the topic of World Communism ever assembled. Featuring an introduction from Alexander Kerensky, President of Russia following the Revolution that deposed the Czar Regime and before the Communist took over.

Narrator: Ronald Reagan. Year: 1962



Hat Tip: Veterans for Academic Freedom, who have this to add to their post:

All across America hundreds of Socialist and Communist student clubs and parties exist with the goal of eliminating the Constitution of the United States and bringing about a revolution such as was seen in Soviet Russia.

Years ago Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of Communism as he saw it for what it was: slavery to the state. In this documentary you will see the dangers of Communism explained by the first President of the U.S.S.R (...) >>>

Remarkable is that the goal of World Communism, according to the theories of Marx and Lenin, was originally believed to be triggered by wars, general mayhem or violent revolution, and pitting one social class against another.

Since it was always hard to agitate the proletariat into rebellion, Leftists sought succor elsewhere and found it with the Fabians and Social Democracy - or incremental Socialism through mob rule (rather like, voting in Sharia Law). Opposing groups also do not have to be social classes per se: these might as well be gender, racial, cultural, ideological or religious groups pitted against whoever is in power.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain - the impenetrable barrier to keep freedom out and the slaves to the 'ethical whole' in (there was a reason for that!) - they approach the matter from another angle yet. Like during the Cold War countries were infiltrated and bored from within, international institutions and the 'narrative' of Greenism form the perfect venues for the launch of yet another power grab. It goes by many names, but the proper one should be Neo Communism (if only, because it blows the cover).

Related dossiers:

- "The Dialectics"
- "The Case for Neo Communism"
- "Socialist Causes Explained"
- "Transnational Progressivism"
- "The Cold War"
- "Greenism"
- "Communist Crimes on Trial"
- "History Compiled"
- "Horowitz on Alinsky: the Postmodern War on Reality"
- "Atbashian on Commie Agit-Prop and Info War-Fare"

Obama Mobilizes the Nation Towards a Common Goal

Sitting in the image archive is a picture defining what precisely constitutes totalitarian culture. We've used it on the blogs before, but have been holding off on posting it again in relation to the Obamazation of the US. After all, we don't want to monger fear, do we?

Forget about "achieving socialism", as this a covert operation owing to Americans' allergy for the term. They'll think up a innocently sounding epithet at some point, like "social justice".

But news is breaking tonight on Big Hollywood and - while not unexpected - it is not good. We'll work on it later on, but for now, let's get to it. Here's the gist, but only from the first part, so go to the site to get it all.

In the meantime this creepy piece of State propaganda has surfaced about the "enemy within". Since there is no Bill this beggars the question what the facts precisely are?

Big Hollywood: "LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set", by John Nolte

On September 10th of this year the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) posted a press release informing the world that “from October 19-25, more than 60 network TV shows [will] spotlight the power and personal benefits of service,” and that this “unprecedented block of TV programming is the first wave of a multi-year ‘I Participate’ campaign.”

On its face this all sounds rather benign in that silly, liberal do-gooder kind of way. The networks have launched these kinds of campaigns before and other than some clunky exposition awkwardly inserted into your favorite show to meet the mandate — no harm, no foul. (...)

Like the NEA story, once again we see the same buzzwords pop up; suggested topics pitched to an overwhelmingly left-of-center group: Education, health, environment, the economy and lastly — almost as an afterthought as some kind of “bi-partisan” cover – support for military families.

We’ll have to wait until next week to see what effect this initiative will have on the 60 television (and news) programs in question, but thanks to the intrepid Patrick Courrielche and Stage Right, today we can answer the simple question of…
“What’s wrong with this?”

Doing the work the Kamikaze Media (many of whom are participating in this event rather than digging for the story) refuses, and with the help of Big Government’s Dana Loesch, Patrick and Stage Right have discovered that when it comes to this White House – whether it’s the NEA conference calls or EIF’s iParticipate programming — all roads funnel into one place: online volunteer portals, including Serve.gov, where if you plug in “health care” all kinds of Planned Parenthood openings pop up along with a video dispelling those ugly “myths” knocking ObamaCare.

There’s scarier stuff, but I don’t want to spoil the surprise *cough*Trutherism*cough* (...) >>>

The Unholy Alliance: Conflating Three Great isms

Witnessing the sad demise of democracy in front of the European Parliament building in Brussels yesterday, takes some digesting, even for one that was already aware of the realities. I will combine further comment on it with a piece I was already working on: the cooperation in the Unholy Alliance between Islam and the Left. People have often expressed their surprise over the apparent cooperation pact between two parties that - on the surface - seem to be each other's opposites. I hope to clear up that misunderstanding.

As a girl and later as a young grown-up I could never understand how - in the run up to World War II - Nazi Germany could arm itself to the teeth with no one doing anything to prevent it. Entire weapon systems were stockpiled in the Soviet Union as the arsenals and warehouses in Germany proper were stored to full capacity. Yet the furnaces and steel works were operating full steam 24/7 as unemployment rates dropped to zero percent, thanks to Hitler's National Socialist Party's 'employment policies' of everyone on the state's pay roll.

Yet Europe had influential pacifist movements (here's an brilliant take by Sanity on the subject). The U.K. had Richard "Peace in our Time" Chamberlain, and Mayoresses who promised to "not so much as darn a sock if it assisted the war effort", while 'bluestockings' and other enlightened academics conducted Peace Marches in Europe's streets.

I never understood how advanced, civil societies could let such disasters as World War II take place. That is, until yesterday. In fact, it's becoming blatantly obvious how last century's great wars, the holocaust and the enslavement of half the continent in its wake, could take place. Now, as then, we are closing our eyes to a reality that is too scary to contemplate, let alone deal with it. Yesterday in Brussels we saw the conflation of three great isms taking place before our eyes. It is very sad to see just how far indeed we have already sank into the black hole of dictatorship.

It's a bit of a pity that Stephen Hicks' explanation of Postmodernism (or cultural Marxism) doesn't get the attention it deserves. Hicks comes to another categorization of ideologies than is common. He explains that both Communism and National Socialism derive from the Counter-Enlightenment movement that started with the philosophies of Rousseau. This was a reaction to the primacy of reason that features so prominently in Enlightenment thought, of which Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism became the political offshoot (not to be confused with today's liberalism, which is Left Light).

Does the following Rousseau quotation on the ideal state strike anyone as compatible with Islam? "... the state cannot ... pursue a policy of toleration for disbelievers, or view religion as a matter of individual conscience. It absolutely must ... >>>

After theocrat extraordinaire Rousseau, both Hegel and Kant expanded on anti reason philosophy, eventually even doing away with objective reality and epistemology: man is incapable of knowing anything, to each his own universe: reality is subjective. This has provided Communism and National Socialism with their subjectivist basis.

Experts in Islam never stop to point out there is not 'one Islam'. Every Muslim has his or her own subjective perception of it (apart from the five pillars that is, presumably). I have no reason to doubt it: after Rousseau's take on the ideal state, this makes the second, basic conflation of the three great isms.

As hinted at earlier, from 1939 to 1941 Communism and National Socialism shared a history of cooperation. The German army held manoeuvres in Russia and vice versa. Both totalitarian ideologies were Socialist and differed only on its implementation: the Nazis were nationally inclined (using the ethnic dialectic of the German Volk), while the Communists favoured global subjugation (hence the 'Internationale').

After World War II the Left portrayed Hitler as the great satan. Here the dichotomy of Nazism versus Communism was born: this was however a Communist PR ploy which has worked to this day. But far from being opposites both ideologies are in fact each other's mirror image, cousins if you will, while the real opposition, the actual enemy, is Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, rooted in the Enlightenment and in the West, which by the way wasn't originally radically atheist at all, on the contrary.

Over time and through various twists of history the two totalitarian isms also got transplanted onto Middle Eastern soil, where they gave birth to Panarabism, Arab Nationalism and Ba'athism.

Today's political correctness emanates from a revived Marxism from which the baby boom generation of the 60s cannot seem to say goodbye: their hatred of a free West is burnt onto their souls and treason has become their second nature. Some one described it aptly as "they just cannot pop out of the Marxist dialectic". It is their mindset that is our ruin today, as they now inhabit the corridors of power.

If a recently unearthed 1985 interview with KGB agent and Soviet defector Bezmenov is anything to go by, the moral compass of the 60's generation has been totally and irrevocably removed by the KGB subversion program. What that left undone, was completed by the fifth columnists at the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism, as the undersigned can personally attest to. (For novices, here's a commentary on Gramsci, another luminary)

The influence these intellectuals had on that generation can simply not be overstated: they prescribed how 'thinking people' should act and what their opinions should be, from the books and the newspaper they read, the friends they kept, to the movies they saw, to the brand of tobacco they smoked and the coffee they drank.

They were in no uncertain measure specifically 'present' in the bedroom, which - if they had any say in the matter, should preferably be shared by any number of people. The family a gonner as women dragged husbands through divorce courts whole-sale, Eros and Agapi were kept strictly separated as per Kinsey ukase. Children became a kind of common property, to be raised and cared for, by whoever happened to be present (if any).

Fast forward to the new millennium. The cooperation in the Unholy Alliance of the Western Left with Islamists, as the latter swap their secular subjectivism for a theological one, is simply a Feast of Recognition: egalitarian collectivism against individual liberty, totalitarian statism versus limited government at the people's pleasure, anti reason against science and technology, socialism vs. capitalism and free markets, state (which in Islam is synonymous with religion) against voluntary mutual benefit, state/divine intervention versus free will: in short, combined totalitarianism against the classical liberal values as embodied by the West: freedom and democracy.

And of course the collectivists share the dialectic of Oppressor versus the Oppressed and socially constructed victimhood. This mock epic battle is the basis of all collectivist ideologies, uniquely cultivated to keep the 'struggle' going. Communism had its classes; the Nazis the German Volk; Cultural Marxism its students, women, gays and blacks, as Islam has the true believers versus the infidel.

Multiculturalism is a later manifestation of Cultural Marxism and keeps true to the dialectic mechanism on a cultural level, while N.G.O.ism (U.N.) and transnational progressivism (E.U., N.A.U.) play the same trick on the global scale of nations and states. The same story is transposed and extrapolated on all levels. So much for defeating Marxism, fifty years overdue.

Last but certainly not least the totalitarian isms share a justification of violence to power: the Western versions' passe-partout is provided for by Messrs Rousseau and Marx; the Islamic variety is of course rooted in Koranic scripture, which in the early stages also served as a platform for the conquest of the Christian lands in the Middle East and beyond.

I have laid down the ideological histories and how the three isms relate, in Chart I: The Straight Red Line for easy reference.

But the uncovering of the close ties within the Unholy Alliance doesn't stop here. AEL's Abu Jahjah's vocabulary of choice doesn't come by accident straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook for Leftist dummies ... dhimmis.

Just in: Hodja has published "Postmodern Jihad - What Osama bin Laden learnt from the Left", insights into the more recent relations between Islamism and Cultural Marxism: have hardly read it myself, but I think I should share it.

Much is made of political correctness. Some interpret it as latter day Cultural Marxism itself. Personally I see it as soft social pressure, to coerce others into conforming with the Left's ideology: the 'redistribution' of freedoms and rights along the lines of the dialectic. The idea is to shift power, capital, rights, etc. from the Oppressor to the Oppressed minorities. The great trick is to treat gender and faith, on an equal footing with race. But what we have to keep in mind here, is that gender is subject to choice, while Muslims are born as such.

This can be taken very far indeed, as legislation is put in place in support of the same object. We have recently seen that played out with the SIOE demo and Brussels Mayor, Freddy 'The Toad' Thielemans. At that stage, we have de facto a totalitarian situation where dissenters are made common criminals, case need on trumped up charges of assaulting a bus driver. Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna is spot on in today's post "Democratic Europe R.I.P." Freddy and His Walloon Troopers made European history yesterday.

But for most, including the good people of the silent majority [1], if reality gets too scary to deal with, denial erects a impenetrable curtain of make-belief in the hope the bogey will go away. I just read this morning in a paper that the Dutch as a nation, have become happier than they were a few years back during an economic downturn. Happy totalitarian dreams every one! I hope your bank accounts grow at an even pace!

Others - like Council of Europe's Secretary General Terry Davis - have become completely deluded in their psychological pathology. To them it's simply beyond the realm of the possible - indeed, a crime! - that people might be genuinely worried about the fate of their culture and continent. This type of custodians of 'European values' have no qualm whatsoever of beating up and criminalizing civilians and politicians with whom they happen to disagree. Even manufactured charges do not seem to trigger a red-hot-moral-no-no meme with these Quislings. They have become amoral thugs, who have lost sight of their opponents humanity, and do not know it. That is what scares me to death.

Update: The New York Times is offering a fascinating view of a German officer's World War II photo album of Auschwitz. The commentary is wrong at one point, when exclaiming that this is what "antisemitism, racism and hatred" does to humans. This should actually be: "this is what happens if ideology is valued over human life".

Socialists Lead Condemnation of Anti-Islam Demo on 9/11

While already in the process of 'fisking' captioned news item on the official website of The Socialist Group in the European Parliament to shreds, I concluded with a certain tired melancholy that one doesn't actually know where to begin.

As a supporter of the SIOE, personal insults on the basis of Socialists' "beliefs" aside, let's restrict ourselves for the moment to the main conclusions:

1. The European Socialists are claiming the lead in the "international support" for the SIOE 9/11 demo ban by their ideological colleague, the Mayor of Brussels. They do so by reaffirming their "belief" that "intercultural dialogue is the best way of dealing with the sources of fundamentalist terrorism" - a discourse they propose to conduct with a cultural and religious section of society (Muslims) who "have no relation whatsoever" with said "fundamentalist terrorism". Why then have the dialogue, about its "sources", in the first place? This circular reasoning doesn't make sense and begs for a rational clarification!

2. The Euro Socialists' claim to leadership of the condemnation and ban of the Stop Islamization Of Europe Demo has been well noted. They have now become the official political Owners of the subject, on the continent.

3. This week alone there were two thwarted terrorist attempts, one in Germany and another in Denmark, both of which were totally 'unrelated' to the Religion of Peace. In the face of such a seriousness situation, the Socialists seem to be leaning rather heavily on their "belief". Actually it's rather inadequate, considering authorities' first duty: assuring the safety of the population.

4. The Socialist Group leader's title wouldn't be unbecoming the Head Boy of a local Scouting Club, but that doesn't stand in the way of launching some serious investigations. Later in the letter, belief makes place for conviction: "Like you, we are convinced that the people behind this demonstration want above all to stigmatise a community for dark racist and xenophobic reasons as is proven by the readiness to lump Islam together with fundamentalist terrorism."

It's quite obvious how Mr Schulz has convinced himself of the above, but one thing is for sure: his vigorous research didn't extend to visiting the SIOE's websites or the reading of SIOE press releases. But then, he didn't have to, did he? 'Lumping' is all the proof required for vile accusations and the withdrawal of democratic rights. Hey, let's lump some more! All Socialists are paternalistic authoritarians!

- "Stop Islamization of Europe" HQ
- "SIOE England: No Sharia Here"

Sign the petition!

* Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!
* No Sharia Here!
* Democracy not Theocracy!
* Enough is Enough!

Update: Osama bin Laden has just issued another ultimatum to America, as is required by Sharia Law: convert or die. "There are two ways to end the war in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. The second way, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam." The stage is set for the next major assault. Let's face it: appeasing them (hope that word isn't too lumpy) won't help. Pretending the Islamic fanatics aren't a threat doesn't either, nor the belief that the American administration is at fault.

The War Against the Greek State

Sit down for Sunday's exclusive: an in-depth view of Greek independent journalist and Junior Analyst & Coordinator at the World Security Network Foundation (Southeastern Europe Office), Ioannis Michaletos on the context of the recent spate of wildfires in the country. The article in which he lays down his insights was published yesterday as Security Briefing on the site of the Research Institute for European & American Studies.

Let me start by stressing that the opposition's denouncing of the incumbent government's handling of the biggest crisis since World War II as 'a national humiliation' and 'organised incompetence' - given the timing (a number of fires are still raging, while funerals are yet taking place), is distasteful towards the victims, demagogic towards the electorate and irrelevant, if one takes the trouble of looking a little deeper than just subsurface at the data, underlying the problem.

On the causes of the orchestrated wildfires Michaletos writes: "one has to take into consideration the important economic-political and geoeconomic events that took place over the past few years in Greece and in the wider Balkans-Eastern Mediterranean region. New pipeline networks, importation of Chinese, Arab, Russian, and new American capital and corporations, along with the political instability that hinders an area from Bosnia to Iran and from Sudan to Caucasus."

"Furthermore, the all-pervading criminal networks have gained a lot of strength over the past decade due to the opportunities the globalization process provides for their communication, transfer of funds and recruitment. A combination of political aims, ill-aimed business strategies, and abundance of 'executive personnel', is a first clue of what might have caused the current situation and what lies ahead, not just for Greece but for the whole world" ... which touches rather deeper than a government that is simply 'incapable'.

Some figures: in the three months of summer one million hectares of forests and arable land have been destroyed, thousands of buildings, 77 people have died and an estimated 30,000 people have become homeless. As much as three hundred fires erupted on any given day, in remote regions of Greece, and at night time.

"The current available information points to a coordinated arson plan that aimed to destabilize the country’s social and political climate, as well as, a sort of wide range punitive measures against the incumbent Greek administration."

- TV Station ANT1 revealed last week that Europol had informed the Greek government of 'a plan'.
- The weekly newspaper 'To Paron' revealed an effort by the National Intelligence Service to apprehend arsonists throughout the summer.
- The Greek press reporting warnings issued by Interpol over the past few months.

What remains unreported in the international press, is that these series of arson attacks aren't isolated cases. The list of occurrences reads like a war of intimidation being waged against the Greek state. Michaletos:

"Another element that further attests to the scenario of a well-coordinated destabilization plan, is the continuous arson near power factories, such as the case of Aliveri, Megalopoli, Domokos, Lamia transmission network and Parnitha peripheral power center, amongst other."

"The prefecture of Ileia was also the target of a bombing attack against a dam of the river Alfeios, last spring. "Up to date there is no tangible evidence on who participated in this terrorist action, that failed to most extent because the dam was not destroyed, saving thus the lives of many citizens and the agricultural production of the area ..."

"There are continuous attacks against Athenian police stations since late 2006 with machine guns and hand grenades. There were tens of suspicious homicide attempts against police officers, patrolling the city of Athens."

"The only organizations having the logistics in place for the series of arson attacks are international criminal networks. "... only an internationally networked factor could have organized the whole scheme, preferably associated with illegal industries such as narcotics, trafficking and weapons smuggling."

It has become fairly obvious in recent years that the authorities can hardly distinguish the criminal from the terrorist elements. Terrorist groups and organized crime are using each others facilities; terrorism is financed with criminal activities. The article "Terrorists Teaming with Drug Cartels" in the Washington Times describes some surprising directions that this cooperation is taking and what the DEA is having the deal with.

On the Greek disaster front, the media are porting on very sophisticated methods of operation. A device that can be ignited by mobile phone at any desired time - case need even operated from abroad - which was also the method of choice in the Madrid bombings in March 2003. It is pointed out that the first time this method was used globally, was in the Greek city of Larissa, outside a provisional court by an obscure ultra-left wing terrorist group.

"That evidence alone reveals the interconnection between local 'anti-systemic' groups in Greece with international terrorism and consequently with the organized crime in and outside the Greek borders. It is safe to assume that this could well be the case in this summer's arson."

Greece is well endowed with Left wing groups: besides the main opposition Socialist party, it is even host to an old-fashioned, pro-Soviet style Communist Party, priding itself on steadily scoring just under ten percent of the vote. RevLeft is another party making up the spectrum of the Leftist opposition. The unofficial Leftist scene consists of the universally rebellious student folk, besides anarchists and nihilists.

Michaletos describes yet another arson device that could be used months after installation, in any remote forest area and easily monitored via GPS. "It provides a tremendous advantage to the arsonists in they can control the space and time they want to ignite fire and confuse the fire brigades and the police."

"If the hypothesis that it is a transnational well-organized plan is valid, then the Greek state should be prepared for more asymmetrical-nature challenges at least for the near future ... not just for Greece but for the whole world."

Personally I don't know what to make of the recent statement by the EU Commissioner Franco Frattini on 'territorial terrorism' and linking that directly to the 'construction mob'. But according to Michaletos this is "crystal-clear evidence that the EU has been to an extent prepared to face tough challenges for the future relating to a new form of terror aimed into subduing governments and the whole society under the realm of transnational criminal entities that have to be dealt with sooner or later."

To my mind the destabilization efforts across the country, just a few days before the general elections, is pointing to a Spanish scenario, by which a right wing government that is seen by the forces of darkness as unsympathetic to the cause, is forced out of office by an electorate in denial about the pressures of intimidation.

"By 2012 Greece will have finished its infrastructure investment program and it will have the most advanced road, port, airport and telecommunication network in the Balkans-Eastern Mediterranean and beyond." International organized crime and terrorist organizations want to establish bases in Greece. Kosovo and the Balkans will form the hinterland, while headquarters may be located in Greece."

"The current administration has exposed many types of high level corruption in the past three years: record narcotics busts, scandals in the judicial sector, scandals in the finance sector, the scandal with the telephone surveillance, etc. Thus it is not seen as 'positive in assisting' the expansion of organized crime."

While the recent polls show a neck and neck race between the two main parties, the Socialist opposition sending a few thousand supporters by mobile phone and email bursts to the main cities' central squares to protest against the government, sounds positively vacuous in its lack of proportion and insight. The buying of votes in the largest of the stricken areas by promises of major investment must sound specifically hollow to the victims that happen to be living in other areas of the country.

This reaction lays bare the moral bankruptcy that is characteristic of the Left today, as they cry foul over the temporary loss to the environment, while the permanent loss of human life has become something of an afterthought.

The Left at this moment in time has become the victim of their own autistic, Narcissistic rage, that is only capable of waging suicidal politics through a one-track irrational mind: by hysterically decrying, scandalising and obstructing right-of-centre governments across the globe at every possible turn, and the issues - however vital and existential - be damned.

It seems to be the curse of Fourth Generation Warfare that it is defined by an adverse public relations battle at the home front.

Related:
- 28th August - "Greece: The Political Fall-Out Begins"
- 27th August - "No Let up: Devastating Wildfires, Earthquakes and Calculating EU Politicians!"
- 26th August - "Burning Our History"
- 26th August - "Who's Burning Greece?"

The Marxist Revival (9): Why the Mayor of Brussels Gags Free Speech

~ Continued from Part 8: Hysterically Moving the Goal Posts ~

In the present series on the intricacies of Postmodernism (Pomo, or crypto cultural Marxism) we are looking at the use of language, speech in particular. In the preceding posts we discussed a number of the peculiarities that are the result of the Postmodern way of looking at language: not as a vehicle for the transmission of objective data, but to convey a personal version of reality.

In this instalment we'll go further into what the consequences are for the application of Pomo speech: the restriction of free speech by the apparent changing of the rule book in mid-play, as witnessed at present by the Socialist Mayor of Brussels in prohibiting an independent, Paneuropean, grassroots demo against the Islamization of the continent.

In an article adapted from a lecture address given by Stephen Hicks at The Objectivist Center during the 2002 Summer Seminar we find our answer. Hicks uncovers the Left's totalitarian designs on free speech, which they find must be 'redistributed' like tax payer's money.

Hicks, in explaining the idea, uses the analogy of a largely American policy, which has proved useful during the early years of civil rights movement: positive action (or affirmative action, or positive discrimination), and a practical example from the world of sports: shooting hoops with a star basketball champ, who's been lumbered with ankle weights to equalize the chances.

As in some sports, this Marxist vehicle to multiculturalism posits to fit out the stronger, established groups with a similar 'handicap'. The weaker cultural, social and ethnic groups - the subjective minorities, or oppressed victims - are compensated in a measure approximately proportionate to their inequality. Thus the playing field is levelled.

As a temporary policy positive action may have served its purposes, but it has created institutionalized inequality instead of eradicating it. It now comes back to haunt us: the Left is using the same principle to suppress speech rights for the established, supposedly stronger majority.

The collectivist, subjective set of measures is the expectant mother of many evils, but a potentially devastating consequence is, that it may turn the Western world into an intellectual graveyard as individual freedom to pursue knowledge through debate, critique and free enquiry, is being suppressed.

Hicks provides a few samples of speech code which we've all come to know very well, potentially turning perpetrators into veritable criminals:

"Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual or a group on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals, etc. etc. ...... "

... which acts as a handicap for the established, stronger social groups. Moreover, Postmodern Leftists have literally taken leave of their senses, making no distinction between speech, and act, as Classical Liberalism has always made a point of doing.

Speech may have the intent to hurt. Sound waves beating against the other party's eardrums are just as bad as hitting him over the head with a baseball club. Therefore, the symbolic date of 9/11 for the Brussels demo, lumped the process of Islamization together with a terrorist act on that date!

That's why, in the International Herald Tribune Burgomaster Freddy goes on the record as saying that in a secular democracy "it cannot be that women and men are ... suspected of having committed the worst crimes" simply because they are Muslims, while in fact the demonstrators are not committing any such crudity! All they want is equality and Roman law, not Sharia.

The moving of the goal posts - declaring the rules applicable to one side only - works in tandem with the above surreal confusion of terms. It is one of Marxism's concepts to win power - or destruct. We've seen it at work in the persistent calling for tolerance, to which we should add: "yes, but that only applies to you, stupid!", as it acts as an equalizing ankle weight for the establishment: they are to practice tolerance, they may not generalize, are not allowed to stigmatize, or discriminate.

The Left on the other hand, and by extension all the weaker, oppressed minority groups which they portent to represent, are above such conventions and can breach the rule book for all they are worth. And we, stupid objectivists, still thinking there's just one set of rules for the whole of humanity ...!

It's a decades old invention of the grandfather of the Frankfurt School of Western Marxism, Herbert Marcuse. It's called repressive tolerance. The Socialist Mayor of Brussels is simply applying cultural Marxism to the entire continent of Europe!

For daily purposes the Left imposes their one-sided rules by the social pressure of political correctness. In other cases a verdict by an independent court* is required. That court will apply the Belgian Anti Racism Act.

While redistribution of capital used to be the favorite means to Utopia for economical Marxism, in this case the redistribution of speech rights is the pet vehicle to cultural egalitarianism (multiculturalism). As for the Muslims, success breeds conceit: they're supposed to be the new gays!

* Update 31/8 23:55H: A post on Brussels Journal provides the latest news on the 9/11 Stop Islamization of Europe demo, throwing as well an interesting light on the state of independent courts in the Kingdom of Belgium. The movement is gathering pace. The VLD students are also in, as they should be! The MSM are roaring increasingly louder, a sure sign this cannot be ignored anymore! Don't forget to sign the petitions!

Update 1/9 17:15H: Up Pompeii reports that "The whip for Italy's anti-immigrant Northern League party in the European Parliament, Mario Borghezio, issued a statement in Brussels on Thursday condemning the court ban on the planned protest."Banning SOIE's protest, which is intended to commemorate the victims of '9/11' and oppose the perilous Islamisation of Europe, violates the fundamental rights of the European Union," Borghezio said."The risks to public order invoked by the mayor are a clear strategem to ... >>>

Update 1/9 17.50H: Here the latest from HQ on the legal status and some instructions for the rally.

(If the video refuses service, here's a link.)

9/11 Demo in Brussels: We Shall Overcome!

The SIOE organization predicts that on 11th September the Belgian capital Brussels, seat of the European Union, will be a little more crowdy than usual this year.

- Christian pilgrims are going to Brussels to visit the religious places of interest: Brussels cathedral and the old churches that litter the historic centre of Brussels.

- Tourists will flock to the outdoor cafes and pubs around the vast square of the Grote Markt (or Grand Place) for a pint of Jupiler.

(Who will be curiously absent are nationalists and extremists.)

As if by serendipity, a great number of visitors will remember that day the old gospel song of protest, that speaks of the promise of liberty, of freedom from slavery and oppression: "We Shall Overcome".

As long as people will not see, that the chains of servitude have been replaced by the shackles of Collectivism - because the mentality of slaves is such, that the uncertainties and responsibilities that come with liberty, fill him with a paralyzing fear - we shall not be free but always seek to impose new tyrants to calm the irrational phobias.

In Europe it has been like that since Rousseau made the fundamental mistake that man - in the absence of God, the magnate that predisposes him towards the good - would instead descend into a ruthless struggle for personal supremacy, Brussels Socialist mayor Freddy Thielemans' "onmenselijke logica van het profijt", the inhuman logic of profit.

Is it any wonder he prohibits the march of free people who stand up for human autonomy - liberty as described by John Locke, de Montesquieu, de Tocqueville, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill?

The slaves have found a sedative for their fear of freedom in Collectivism and Egalitarianism, which they erroneously believe is the 'common good'. Their demand we all submit to it - to honour the commonality - should tell them something of the character of their ideology.

Radical Islam is but the latest in a long line of ideological panaceas for a non-existent evil: the result of man's distrust of himself. Consider the words of an essayist we'll hear more of in these pages, Wildmonk:

"... the "common will" that Rousseau developed ... (f)ar from being a moderating influence and a force for preventing the excesses of Capitalism, (it) became the most savage, bloody instrument of oppression in the history of mankind".

The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, the Russian Revolutions, Communism and Socialism in its various other guises, National Socialism (Nazism), China's Great Leap Forward, Cambodia (the latter two thanks to Rousseau's peaceful agrarian tribalism): this is the track record of Counter-Enlightenment ideology. The figures are staggering! Communism alone is good for 110 million dead, casualties of World War II as a result of Nazism, 72 million!

It should put to deep shame the Left's perpetual meme of egalitarian Collectivism's moral high ground!

Wildmonk: "The conclusion is inescapable that Rousseau's multi-headed hydra is genocidal in its practice regardless of its justification in philosophy. Nonetheless, Rousseau's philosophical descendants enjoy considerable support in both American and European academia and among the European media and political elite. Genocide is no deterrent to this support ..."

With this state of conduct the remnants of Egalitarianism, answering to the ridiculous abbreviation, Pomo (Postmoderns), would have us quietly submit to the latest Collectivist concoction, their Unholy Alliance with Radical Islam (see Chart I: The Straight Red Line) under the threat of senseless violence and terrorism.

It's well known they've done away with history, which in their linguistic tradition of hysterical hyperbole is characterised as "just waive after waive of ethnic cleansing". That's probably a good second after hecatomb after hecatomb on the alter of man's fear of himself, of what he'd become, if genuinely free? And so the vicious circle of the delusion of 'forced submission to the common good' perpetuates itself.

Why not celebrate the new millennium with true human progress: let's convince our misguided, fearful brethren of their persistent common error: come visit Brussels on 9/11 and sing away the demons of phobia that keep them shackled to their chains: We Shall Overcome The Fear of Ourselves ... Some Day!

Neo Totalitarianism (7): the Futuristic View (recap.)

Whereas yours truly is a great skeptic of futuristic vistas (the 1984 dystopia of Orwell excluded) - due to the unforeseen they rarely play out in reality - in the preceding six posts in this series on Neo-Totalitarianism we outlined, how specifically Europe, and possibly large parts of the rest of the world, might look like later on this century. Said sketches are based on the present mega-trends in political, cultural and social-economic thought. As a reminder:

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - Multiculturalism and Beyond
Part 3 - Indoctrination and Education
Part 4 - Transnational Progressivism
Part 5 - The Transnational State
Part 6 - Liberty for Social Security

A more or less free flowing train of world events is in the current postmodern constellation out of the question. Developments are largely engineered by liberal meritocracies and intelligentsias on the basis of 'best practice', driven by Left-Liberal political and ideological ideals.

It foresees in the obliteration of the nation state and nationality, and a redefinition of democracy based on proportional power-sharing among minorities; the creation of large, federal entities in which current nations become regions and provincial stretches of real estate; ethnic identity is substituted for identification with a cultural minority group; cradle to grave social security in return for economical prosperity through free market trade, high taxation and compliance with the ideology (political correctness); local government management that carries out the policies set out by a dirigiste, central, federal government, not unlike the erstwhile Soviet Union, on which model the E.U. is based anyway, as explained by Wladimir Bukovsky.

What are the Red Flags, the danger signs to watch out for?

Buzz words to influence public opinion - which is done professionally by lobbyists and P.R. agencies - with any message conveying accomplished fact, or a sense of inevitability ("We are the Borg: resistance is futile; prepare to be assimilated!"):

- "we are all interconnected now";
- "we live in a multicultural society now";
- "immigrants are not going away, so get used to it!";
- "immigration enriches cultures";
- "people have boots, not roots";
- "might is right is crude, uncivil" (Kant, not Hobbes);
- "we have passed the point of no return";
- "these are the (social) forces of history";
- admiration for world citizenship;
- all things multicultural and inter/transnational;

- The creation of a negative atmosphere against national symbols and expressions, by subtlely raising eyebrows at traditions and tut-tutting of other expressions of national unity, conveying they are at best anachronistic (a bit dumb, bourgeois, not sexy), jingoistic offences against political correctness at worst;

- The creation of a negative emotion towards the nation-state and sovereignty, which must be perceived as archaic;

- The discourse is steered away from the globalism versus anti-globalism dichotomy; it is substituted by the question transnational versus international: the notion that nation states and nationality are unsuited to deal with the global problems of the future, suggesting the answer lies in a form of global governance.

Indoctrination through education, combined with whole-sale revisionism:

- continuation of the gradual history lesson eradication program; in the meanwhile:

- re-writing of national history: non-offensive 'narrative' arranged around "themes";

- curricula and school books to be adjusted in accordance with the ideology;

- the abolition of time lines, so nobody is sure which event happened in reaction to what;

- the promotion of an altered perception of reality: nothing is what it seems, objective truth does not exist;

- manipulation of language and value system;

- thought control and preservation of 'self-esteem' at all costs.

Having thus created a receptive and passive state of mind and historical confusion - in essence a void that prevents reference and benchmarking - the creation and dissemination of the dim view that an obscure past consisted largely of disease and poverty, intermittent with ethnic and religious war fare and "wave after wave of ethnic cleansing";

Making religion in general, but Christianity in particular suspect by the message: "look at all the wars and misery that religion has caused" without blinking an eye of course at the millions and millions of victims of the last two world wars and counting, which will only be used in so far as it supports the ideology (see elsewhere: postmodern speech);

- combining moral relativism and subjectivism with dogmatic absolutism where the ideology is concerned;
- severance of the link between nationality and the place of birth;
- mind control through political correctness;
- possibly the declaration of a new era, starting for instance at the third millennium as the year 0 CNE (Common New Era);
- Marxist dialectic of oppressor versus oppressed is maintained;
- continued eradication of objectivism and eternal truths;

Central to the Law are Positive Human Rights that conform to Liberal morality; these are not universally valid across the board: subjective, unequal groups have different rights, the greater their proportion of inequality, the more positive rights; criminalization of moralities that do not conform with Liberal morals (homophobia, Islamophobia); no differentiation between the person and the act (for example condemnation of homosexual acts while respecting gays, as is the current Roman Catholic position);

Cultural group's proportionalism and representation in NGOs, government and other vital institutions, which must also reflect the world perspectives of the various minority groups;

For a typical example of a transnational state we can look at the U.N.'s proposals for the new, independent Kosovo: how its democratic proportional power sharing is supposed to work and how the country is embedded into the large 'federation' of the E.U.; the project is also seen as the cradle of a moderate, liberal, European Islam;

Promoting the acceptance of multiple passports: no loyalty towards a particular national state. According to the theory of the epoch of Fourth Generation Warfare, a period in which we find ourselves currently, multiculturalism is the death of states: cultural loyalties super-cede state loyalties;

The legitimacy of the nation-state (especially those with a persistent lead culture) is undercut wherever the opportunity arises by way of the Kosovo precedent (if it comes to fruition, which is by no means certain), thus paving the way for embedding states into the large multicultural and multi-ethnic federations, or systems of total interdependency;

Ongoing immigration in ever larger numbers, broadening the fiscal base, thus enabling Leftist governments to maintain social security spending for unequal groups;

State dependency of populations through taxation and benefits: the state acts as a parent, taking over the major responsibilities of the individual.

The buzz already is "well, everybody knows immigration is to make up for the low native demographic numbers", but that's just the point: people could know if they were suspicious enough to read between the lines, interpret the goings-on, read the mega trends and extrapolate, but they aren't informed by those whose duty it is, which is possibly the most scandalous of the affair. The media and the politicians deem it a too sensitive a subject to discuss it out in the open, preferring instead public manipulation as the more responsible attitude.

It seems suitable to wrap up the series with remarks from John Fonte's article that "... in the twentieth century the Bolshevik Revolution, the National Socialist revolution, the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, the Gaullist national reconstruction in France, and the creation of the E.U. were not inevitable, but were the result of the exercise of political will by elites."

In the same vein are the Musings by Maddocks on "Le Québécois Libre" (Part I and Part II) on this same subject: "Just like 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism', transnationalism and global governance aren't the forces of history, but simply ideological tools advocated by the activist elites."

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? ~

Socialism's Dangerous Games

An article by French columnist Sylvain Ephimenco in Dutch newspaper 'Trouw' brings the subject of present post to three concurring events: the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn at the hand of an animal rights fundamentalist stirred into action by Leftist invective - expressed amongst others by the former Socialist leader Ad Melkert - presently at the World Bank grinding neocon Paul Wolfowitz to Gerbil Mix; today's final round of French presidential elections in which the Gaullist candidate Nicolas Sarkozy is favorite by a margin of 10 percentage points or thereabouts, and the dangerous cards played by Socialists.

Five years after the Fortuyn revolution ended in tears, events are commemorated as postmodernity knows best: with useless polls. Forty percent of Dutch surveyed would vote for him again today, if they could. The man was popular because he broke the mold in which Dutch politicians are usually made, and because he hadn't a politically correct bone in his body.

After the dominance of politics per Ad Melkert, who was the champion of both traits, Fortuyn's eccentricity came as a fresh breeze. He was Melkert's alter ego in many respects. The situation was without precedent, and established politicians reacted as they do at present in France: by vilifying the opponent to the point of some nut taking it upon himself to "save the world of this dangerous upstart".

Ephimenco writes: "... this man was dangerous and therefore had to be taken out. If anything hasn't changed since that day, it is the cynical intolerance of politicians and pundits who hung themselves with the rags of tolerance and progressiveness to demonize him. I write this while my heart is filled with anxiety, for what I see in this French campaign for the land's highest office, strongly reminds me of the those days in the Netherlands, five years ago. The hatred towards the rightist favorite, Nicolas Sarkozy during the French election campaign is similar to what Fortuyn underwent in his short political career. The vindictive Left sometimes seems to have the exclusive rights to use improper instruments to foster intolerance. With dangerous consequences. l'Histoire se répète: as soon as electoral defeat gets into sight, demonization becomes the weapon of the poor of spirit."

If that isn't blood curling enough, he continues: "The director of the film 'Shoa' on the Jewish holocaust, Claude Lanzmann writes in magazine 'Le Point': 'I believe that never in my life in France, I have experienced such negative campaigning, so filled with stinking libel against a candidate for the presidential election. I never imagined a democratic debate could go this far.' The left camp around Ségolène Royal has struck at anything to picture the rival Sarkozy as the new Pinochet. Just to cause fear and civil unrest. Last Friday morning, on the point of losing, Royal brought forward the most repulsive arguments yet to save her campaign: with a victory of Sarkozy, France will be brought to the edge of civil war, she suggested: "It is my responsibility to sound the alarm concerning the dangers of a Sarkozy win, and the violence that will occur in this country. Everyone knows this and everyone is silent, because it's a taboo". It is my conviction that this woman who is provoking the suburbs, is deeply malicious."

Just how vile, personal and bordering the surreal the political polarization is, is exemplified by a tiny piece of vitriol on the BBC website: "In Argenteuil, the town north-west of Paris where Mr Sarkozy notoriously talked of hosing out 'rabble' before the 2005 urban riots (my emphasis), Doratine Ekoka, a 70-year-old retired computer programmer, said she trusted Ms Royal to 'clean up public life'. A Sarkozy victory, she added, "would be like a punishment from God" because of his "terrible character". How, in the name of anything that's holy did we get so far, that God and a rabble rousing moral relativist are invoked against a politician for stating the obvious, as his personal character is smeared in the process?!

Which begs the second question: just how far is the Left prepared to go in accommodating and placating the Muslim electorate and play the Islamist card, euphemistically dubbed "the suburbs"? If the Socialist win in Spain was brought about in reaction to a massive terrorist attack, the above picture is one of political blackmail and threats against the public order. All this poison might be the result of sheer panic over what's brewing in 'the suburbs', but playing it as an electoral card is a mighty dangerous game.

Muslim assertivity, discontent and victimhood might be harnassed in the service of a Socialist electoral win, it may be placated, apologised and appeased against better judgment, but it will be next to impossible to get this particular genie back into the bottle.

Today we are witnessing the next major instalment in the global culture war. At stake: survival of Western civilization.