Do You Really Want To Know?
G. Edward Griffin is a leader in the effort to inform the public about the dark blanket of imperialism being stretched across the Globe. The blanket is still light and much of the free world is still breathing the air of peace, prosperity, and freedom. But the Specter of the blanket can be seen in the long thin clouds of spray that fill our skies and in the United Nations signs that appear outside our parks. Strands have invaded our town meetings where the phrase “Sustainable Development” has become common. It can be affirmed by the death of privacy in Swiss Banks, by massive purchases of arms and ammunition by Homeland Security, and by the burgeoning piles of information being accumulated at the National Security Agency. As light gives-way to darkness a solitary flame of freedom still burns brightly.
Informative messengers like the John Birch Society, G. Edward Griffin, Paul Craig Roberts, Rev. Chuck Baldwin and dozens of other talented internet speakers and writers have been conveying the message of clandestine danger for decades but the sparks have been too weak to ignite a fire. The sweet wine of propaganda has sated many of our citizens and the evils of centralization have been erased from their self-censored minds.
Though most of our citizens claim to be Christian there is wide spread ignorance of the government our Christian God demands. Preachers stress pietism and evangelism and assure their congregations that God’s Law is no longer valid. Efforts to please God by studying and seeking to obey His commandments have been replaced by church Bible studies where in wicked arrogance God’s children critique their Creator and King. Real Christianity has been left like a pot of gold in the middle of a Harlem street – defenseless and vulnerable.
Libertarians resist the looming tyranny with considerable energy. They monitor the strands of control and publish informative warnings. Their goal is a form of freedom with few moral restraints. Some Christians are sprinkled through their midst and a few seek a Godly legal structure but the party contains a strong band of license seeking anarchists.
R. J. Rushdoony describes this problem: “The great illusion promoted by the United States and others is that freedom, by which they mean voting, will bring wealth and prosperity, but it does not. What is required is character, moral standards put to work, a governing faith that creates its own environment. Lacking that, the people will curse freedom and democracy as much as they did Marxism and dictatorship. Freedom is a relative good: freedom can have an evil use as well as a good one. The faith and morality of a people determine their use of freedom.”
A righteous, unchangeable, overarching legal structure and an obedient people provide the basis for maximum freedom. Human beings were designed to live under the Will of their Creator; they are intrinsically unable to maintain peace and freedom any other way. Without willing obedience to The Higher Authority diverse human opinion always produces tyranny
There are several concerns with current dissenting solutions to the world’s problems. The major complaint against the progressive American entanglement in world government has been obedience to the Constitution. The Constitution encodes religious freedom. Rushdoony comments on this problem: “A multiverse of values means that men can choose their values and their lifestyles. Homosexuality, necrophilia, incest bestiality, theft, murder, lies, and more all gain an equal validity as lifestyles. In a world that affirms democracy, this means that all men have an equal right to play god and to live according to the morality of their choice. Our present moral decay is a product of this polytheistic faith. We cannot recover as a people and a culture without obedience to this first commandment. “Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”
In United States voting is considered a virtue in itself and hundreds of thousands of uninformed voters cast a ballot hoping to support their self-interest. The entire process is conducted in a sea of slanted propaganda spewed through a biased media that seeks to keep voters ignorant and thinking they can actually influence the Federal Government.
Many citizens who fail to understand the malignant nature of both political parties become addicted to the process and continue year after year to believe the contrived lies that make up political campaigns. If their candidate is elected and does exactly the opposite of what was promised they speak and write vigorous complaints. Some are so severely captivated that they make excuses for rank mendacity. It is a form of insanity!
Dislike for the existing system provides fertilizer for numerous alternatives. Waiting in the wings are powerful Communistic and Socialist organizations. In unsettled times adrenalin begins to flow through the veins of despots of all stripes. Promises of peace and prosperity come from every direction but the history of anarchic overthrows of repressive regimes is almost always another, that is often worse.
Distracting two party politics was not a product of the Constitution but was incipient before it was written. The original division was between those who favored a strong, authoritative federal government and those who championed limited federal power. This division created two political parties from the outset. Humanism had seeped into the minds of our founders. Biblical principles still lurked in their heads and though they crafted a document that showcased their desire to preserve freedom it was maligned with their prejudices.
Power seekers centralize; freedom seekers decentralize. Biblical government decentralizes power into individual families. The federal government should be a servant to the family which is overseen by the father. The law should support the family and the church should arbitrate righteousness. With God’s unchanging law standing supreme this governmental pattern could provide utmost freedom for the world and its citizens.
The United States of America has been overcome by powerful people who are willing to go along to get along. Political parties are tightly controlled by their leaders and by a handful of shadowy but powerful owners of banks, corporations, press, and media. Voters have been convinced that compromise is a component of good government. When a nation functions without absolute rights and wrongs compromise allows politicians to legislate change. Tragically, by allowing consistently inferior decisions, the change produces a constant deterioration in excellence.
Existentialism is a bane. Widespread foreboding contributes to our concern for the moment; get all the gusto we can, for tomorrow we die! The God of the Bible is concerned with the past, present, and future. God reminds His people regularly of His former merciful and miraculous actions and has designed His commandments to produce a peaceful, prosperous and free future. Rushdoony writes, “The anarchistic individualism of our time makes us mindless of the importance of our past and of our histories as people.”
God’s intentions for His people cannot be realized under a civil government that destroys the past with names like “Presidents Day”, threatens property ownership with ever increasing taxation, and the family structure by flaunting God’s directives.
Aggrandizing and distorting history sets society on a foundation of shifting sand. Our first president, George Washington, is a hero to Americans and particularly to Christians. He was, indeed, an admirable man. Nevertheless, he was not without faults and some seriously injured the future of our nation. Income to finance the Revolutionary war was always a problem to General Washington. His ability to find funds to feed and equip his troops was hampered by the lack of a legal tax structure and when His considerable power was brought to bear on the construction of our Constitution the ability to tax was successfully included. He was also very active in the Masons and religious freedom was another serious concern. He sought to create a nation of free citizens but, ultimately, his prejudices have hampered its existence.
Lou Rockwell’s internet site and a host of Libertarian writers and speakers are doing a commendable job of ferreting out the dangers our imperial government is creating but their solution is not only vague but often utopian.
Freedom is a product of a righteous and obedient society. God knows that we are sinners who require the rod and the staff of the Law if we wish to live in peace and freedom. As our Creator and King He knows us better than we know ourselves. When we become obsessed with our importance we need to consider that we had nothing to do with our entrance into this world and will not be able to control our exit. We are sojourners in a wonderful world that we did not create but that we have a responsibility to contribute to, to enjoy and preserve. We are tiny in relation the vast universe and unable to comprehend the infinite nature of its creator. We have obeyed God’s command to subdue the earth but for our own ends not for those of our Ruler
The God of the Bible is sovereign and there is no doubt that the captivity that threatens the earth is a form of punishment. We are self-ruled rebels who have forsaken God’s Commandments and thumbed our noses at His Person. We need to thank Him for his mercy since the penalty for treason is death. The Bible reports that when people repented and changed their ways He forgave them and restored them. When all else fails will we repent?
Gentle reader, do you understand that when God fights on the side of righteousness victory is assured and numbers mean nothing. We have people praying but God will not answer the prayers of a people who are under judgment. Christians who use the end times as an excuse for disobedience bring God’s judgment on themselves and on our nation. Every Christian must seek to obey God’s Commandments and to bring the nation and the world under His authority by the same obedience. Much of our law has already been changed from righteousness to evil. Changes in the law enforce confiscatory taxation, staggering debt, illegal wars, despotism, abortion and homosexuality. We must support God’s Law. The Constitution is ancillary; it is God’s Law that both we and our government must obey.
The legal codes contained in the Bible seem utopian by today’s standards but before the Constitution was ratified they were the foundation of our nation; though lonely, they are still the gold medal solution.
The Rushdoony quotes are from his book “Deuteronomy”.
When pondering our obsession with immigration, I’m reminded of how people in the ridiculous dystopian film Idiocracy were watering their crops with an energy drink called Brawndo. And even though the crops weren’t growing, the suggestion to try water instead was met with the following conditioned response in the drink’s defense: “It’s got what plants crave! It’s got electrolytes!” No one knew what electrolytes were. No one could explain why they were in Brawndo. It was all sloganeering.
And so it is with immigration. Why do we have immigration? “Because it’s got what America craves! It’s got people!” But why does the US, the world’s third most populous country, need more people? “Because they’re in immigration! It’s got what America craves!”
The problem with a blanket advocacy of “immigration” is that, as with “ideology,” it is a category, not a creed. If someone proclaimed, “We need ideology!” we should ask, will any one do? Will liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, Nazism, Marxism or socialism all serve equally well? Likewise, we should ask about immigration: would importing 10 million liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Nazis, Marxists or socialists all serve the US equally well? (Mind you, the majority of today’s new immigrants are socialist minded.) Would importing 10 million Russian nationalists, Chinese nationalists, Iranian nationalists or Mexican nationalists be as wise as having 10 million more American nationalists? Hey, who needs discernment?
No one, apparently, when in the grip of a certain simplistic dogma of our time, “immigrationism.” This is the belief that immigration is always good, always necessary and always above reproach — at least in Western nations. Nobody ever seems to ask why Japan has no immigration.
Nobody, for instance, asks where Japan will get the needed skilled workers, even though this is a popular question posed in the wake of the Swiss vote to limit their demographic upheaval. In answering this question, note that a nation — in the true sense of the word — is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family. Now, what if your family needs to have pipes fixed and no one within your home has the requisite skills? You hire someone with the necessary expertise, pay him his fee, and then he leaves when the job is done.
You don’t adopt a plumber.
In other words, work visas will suffice.
Yet much of what justifies immigration is purely ideological. For example, there is a certain argument made by certain political partisans, often, it seems, because they think it makes them sound clever, cosmopolitan and cool. It is that people of European heritage came to this continent and dominated its native peoples, so it’s merely karma if the same now happens to us. The cry is, “What about the Indians?!” Two things leap to mind here. First, how does allowing our nation to be Balkanized and to descend into tyranny help the Indians? A falling tide grounds all boats. Second, this hate-America-first position is the prattle of a child, someone having a temper tantrum and talking about how he hates mommy and will run away from home. But it’s all just theoretical. It’s easy to look forward to our 476, to Rome’s impending fall, when sitting in your warm house with a stuffed refrigerator on your equally stuffed derrière and sending your puerile Internet messages on the latest iPad. But the reality of Goths breaking down your door would shatter that fantasy world fast.
Speaking of the Indians, some have the notion that “we” (and the critics are talking about white folks here) aren’t the first Americans, anyway. But as Sitting Bull grandson Ernie LaPointe mentioned after Barack Obama cited the legendary Indian as a great American hero in his children’s book Of Thee I Sing, Sitting Bull did not consider himself an American; he was a Lakota. No doubt. Remember that “America” is of European origin — derived from Italian Amerigo Vespucci’s name — and these United States were a product of a founding document crafted by European-descent people. You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a factual thing.
Nonetheless, it is true that “we” dominated the Indians. And the Etruscans for a time dominated the Romans, who later dominated other groups on the Italian peninsula and ultimately were dominated by “barbarians” in the West and Muslims in the East. The Aztecs dominated other tribes as did Shaka Zulu in Africa. All sorts of European groups were dominated and subsumed as well, which is why you don’t hear about Goth, Frank, Lombard, Alan, Burgundian, Gaul and Frisii lobbying groups. Heck, the painfully politically correct documentary series The West pointed out that the Lakota justified their dominance of other tribes to the U.S. government by saying that they were only doing what “we” were doing. This is true. A modern-day Lakota featured in the series framed their conquest this way (I’m paraphrasing), “We were very good at what we did.” This is also true.
And the Europeans were better.
I could leave it at that, were I content to operate by the principle might makes right. But since it’s more true that right makes might, let’s delve further.
Since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” should we humans just commit mass suicide to atone for our manifold trespasses, with the West leading by example? Better virtue shorn than a goodness evil born? Sure, we shouldn’t forget that most all civilizations found their genesis in blood and conquest. And we should remember, as Genesis informs, that God brings good out of bad.
The point is that we have a civilization here, now, today, and the question is always the same: is it worth preserving? No? Then, fine, scrap it. But you’d better be sure of your judgment, not only because dead civilizations, like dead men, stay dead, but because something will take your civilization’s place. And that something will not be forged by seraphim and cherubim; it will be something very human and, though I repeat myself, very flawed.
And if the answer is yes, our civilization is worth preserving? Then you take the necessary measures to do so. And to the hate-America-first crowd you say: if death is preferable to enjoying the fruits of a painfully human past, then you lead by example and drink the hemlock. Leave the rest of us to do the work of adults.
Of course, any culture can be improved. But thinking that cultural relativists — who can’t effectively differentiate between good and evil because they’ve convinced themselves everything is gray — are equal to this task is like thinking that a dietary relativist could improve your diet. Since the latter would be blind to the laws (the truth) of human nutrition and would then have nothing but taste as a guide, he just might steer you toward junk food — and maybe worse. Those colorful berries on that bush are awfully pretty, you know.
The real lesson to be learned from North America’s second great migration (the first being the Paleoindians’ arrival approximately 20,000 years ago) is this: say what you will about the Indians, they fought the good fight. They didn’t invite millions of unassimilable foreigners into their lands, give them special privileges, and then justify it all by saying that they were just here to do jobs Indians wouldn’t do (like colonize Indians).
A discussion of immigration today is nothing less than a debate about what your nation is going to be tomorrow. Will it be relegated to the history books like the Alans, Angles, Franks, Frisii and Goths, or will it continue to write history? Is it worthy to do so? These are legitimate questions that should be tackled by legitimate thinkers, not people who hide a visceral hatred of Western civilization inside a Trojan horse proclaiming the equality of all peoples.
“You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you cannot face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says It.” – Malcolm X
I have been reading political commentary on Black Agenda Report (BAR) regularly of late. The site, which purveys a black leftist perspective, regularly excoriates President Obama, as well they should. BAR has become a trusted source in my quest to understand history and current events. This is the home of the real left, not the pseudo left that pervades the corporate airwaves masquerading as champions of equality. Here, no one is paying homage to Obama or calling him a liberal or progressive simply because he is a black democrat. No one is calling him a socialist, either. The political commentators at BAR hold Obama to the same standard to which they held George W. Bush and his fascist predecessors.
Most of the self-proclaimed liberals who castigated Bush and Cheney for their neoconservative polices are giving Obama, whose polices are no less regressive or extreme than those of his precursors, a free ride. This is because the president belongs to the Democratic Party, which continues to be associated with traditional liberalism in the minds of contemporary faux progressives and liberals, rather than the neoliberalism that defines its policies.
Those who continue to support Obama and his backsliding pro-corporate regime obviously have no conception about what classical liberalism and progressivism are. They are at least half a century behind the times.
Although I may lack the political acumen to concisely define terms such as liberalism, progressivism, and leftist, which are somewhat subjective anyway, it is apparent to me that neoliberalism, the form of liberalism that is actually practiced by today’s Democratic Party, bears much in common with the neoconservatism that is associated with contemporary Republicans. There is nothing progressive about either ideology, and nothing in them that is beneficial to workers. To call Obama a liberal or a socialist, as so many people do, is beyond farcical. It strains one’s credulity to the breaking point.
I distrust Barack Obama for the same reasons that I spurn George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the Clintons, and any other war mongering capitalist. My criticism has nothing to do with race or gender. It stems from ideological differences, class conflict, and radically dissimilar values from the ruling clique.
Among some black folk, charges of racism are leveled against any white folks who criticize the black president in the same way that charges of anti-Semitism are used against anyone who is critical of Israel’s Zionist polices of apartheid that, with the aid of the U.S., are being carried out against the Palestinians. This is not to deny the racism that is directed against the president. It is to philosophically and morally disassociate myself from any and all groups of white supremacists engaged in bigotry.
If a policy is morally reprehensible and unjust, just people have a moral obligation to criticize it, regardless of who is responsible for formulating and enacting such policies. Every socially conscious human being has an ethical responsibility to take action against criminal government or any corporation that is harming one’s community, or for that matter, the planet.
From my perspective, BAR and WPFW’s Jared Ball are ethically consistent and accurate in their critiques of Barack Obama and American capitalism. These venerable warriors are true leftists who do not compromise their principles for political expediency, cost them what it may.
The virtually defunct radical left was once a formidable and organized political force in the U.S. Today’s leftists are treated like pariahs by the pseudo left and its neocon brethren. Radical leftists pose a viable threat to the established orthodoxy. Anyone who refuses to carry forth the performative role assigned to them by the dominant culture is a threat to those in power. As true combatants for justice, today’s leftwing dissidents are worthy of being associated with iconic revolutionaries like Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Mumia Abu Jamal, all of whom happen to be black.
By contrast, Barack Obama, who mouths an endless stream of pseudo liberal platitudes, is an unabashed disciple of Milton Friedman and the market fundamentalism he revered. This identifies the president as a corporate fascist and thus a promoter of inequality. It allies him with America’s ruling class. Obama and his supporters should not be identified in any way, shape or form with thereal left. Whatever minutia one uses to differentiate between contemporary neoliberals and neoconservatives is akin to splitting hairs.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not mortal enemies, as portrayed in the corporate media; they are in collusion against the world’s working class and the poor. Together, they are raping and pillaging the Earth Mother and repressing workers through economic violence and imposed austerity. Like costumed wrestlers performing on television, the acrimony is not real; it is vitriolic political theater, an enthralling puppet show for diehard believers.
We must somehow move beyond party politics, beyond the simplicity of liberal versus conservative dichotomy, beyond left against right, and see things as they really are rather than as we wish them to be.
Voting doesn’t change anything in a system flush with corporate money. The structures that put the money into politics cannot be used to extract it. Without proportional representation or corporate money, third parties are not a viable option in state and federal elections. They are just another distraction from reality, a mild form of symbolic protest. Voting for justice does nothing to actually attain it. Direct action directly applied to a problem offers the best hope for revolutionary change.
Conversely, political dualism keeps us fighting the wrong people. It has us believing in people and institutions that do not promote justice and do us harm. These institutions are not what they purport to be. They are at best a mirage; something that appears real but only exists in the mind of the beholder.
Belief in the American Dream and perverted systems of power as a means to justice provides a method for directing and cajoling the masses to do the biding of the super-wealthy and all-powerful corporate state. Faith, hope, and belief in phony people and bogus institutions function as a form of mass hypnosis that keeps the people from organizing in class struggle against a common oppressor—the capitalist system.
Despite reams of contradictory historical evidence, most people in the U.S. continue to associate democracy with capitalism. It is reckless of us to allow anyone to use these terms interchangeably without contesting them at every opportunity. Let me be clear: Democracy is the antithesis of capitalism! But capitalism is the product the U.S. government, the Pentagon, and the commercial media are marketing to us as democracy. And thus the inequality gap, the disparity between rich and poor, is growing wider rather than shrinking.
The nemesis of all working people, regardless of where they live or their political affiliation, is capitalism and its linear, hierarchal, male-dominated power structures. This is why we must have a truthful critique of capitalism and patriarchy and create alternatives that promote the public wellbeing above corporate profits. Many promising alternatives, such as Professor Richard Wolff’s Worker Self-Directed Enterprise (http://www.democracyatwork.info), already exist.
When the richest and most powerful people on earth, the primary beneficiaries of capitalism, invest so many resources into demonizing and subverting the writings of one man—Karl Marx—and the various economic and philosophic alternatives to capitalism, inquisitive minds want to know why. There are elements of Marxism that makes the power elite quake in their shoes. This is what led me to read Marx years ago. I have been reading him ever since.
Marx has helped me to comprehend why capitalists fear and loathe him. Deep down, they know that he was right. If workers understood capitalism from a Marxist perspective, not one in ten thousand would voluntarily accept their performative role in this exploitative economic system. There would be widespread conflict and social upheaval. There would be global revolution. The power elite spends trillions of dollars to maintain the façade of capitalism as a manifestation of democracy. In fact, I would argue that nothing could be more opposed to democracy than American capitalism.
The key point to understand is that capitalism, a system based upon the ruthless exploitation and commodification of workers and the relentless rape of our Earth Mother, stifles and represses democracy. Capitalists abhor all forms of egalitarianism. Marx embraced them. The mere possibility of an empowered work force troubles the capitalist’s sleep, as did the possibility of slave rebellion, albeit it small, distress the slaveholder.
Consider the vitriol, not to mention counter revolutionary forces that are levied against the alternatives to capitalism. What is their source? Who but wealthy capitalists fund America’s propaganda apparatus? Working people in the U.S. are conditioned to reflexively recoil against ideas they do not understand. They are psychologically programmed to detest that which could potentially set them free. American workers are led to believe that economic servitude and wage slavery is freedom.
Why does a government that calls itself a democracy systemically spy on its citizens? Why does it punish its whistle blowers but materially reward the vilest white-collar criminals? Why is the majority of the U.S. budget spent on funding an insatiable war machine? Why do we raise classrooms of meat puppets rather than critical thinkers and political dissidents? It is all done for the benefit of capitalists at the expense of society.
It is by these means that capitalism survives and spreads like an aggressive malignancy to every organ of the planet. Furthermore, the majority of the wealth produced by labor is subverted to prop up the capitalist system and to indoctrinate and oppress the worker. To the detriment of us all, freethinking and critical analysis are discouraged and often reprimanded in academia and elsewhere. And thus hundreds of millions of human beings are transformed into herd animals that are led to slaughter in the military and the world’s sweat shops. We celebrate our freedom and patriotism on our march to the scalding pots, singing “God Bless America.” There is no fight in us. We go too quietly and too obediently into the good night of eternity.
Yet, despite everything and the repressive weight of history, Americans still have a propensity to believe in myths and fairy tales. Hope and faith in phony leaders and bogus institutions keep us servile and docile. Irrational faith requires nothing from us. Delusion has become the norm because too many of us are incapable of grappling with reality. We can and must do better than capitalism or we are doomed to an ignominious fate.
America’s ‘New’ Reality of Non-Self and Madness…
In the wake of the insurrection against the living, personal God of Revelation that began during the Renaissance eventuating in the proclamation of the death of God and cataclysmic eruptions of fire, brimstone and rivers of blood during the 20th century, ex-atheist Alexander Solzhenitsyn said the world had never before known,
“…godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.” (goodreads.com)
In his analysis of Marxist Communism and its’ alter ego, scientific materialism, Frank Meyers, an early conservative intellectual concluded that Communism is the state form,
“….taken by a materialist faith determined to rule the world.” Godless Communism is the “final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded Western civilization for many centuries.” It is materialist scientism of which, “Communism is the culminating hubris of the Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political.” (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, George H. Nash, pp. 251-252)
Both scientific evolutionary materialism and its new age evolutionary pantheist counterpart belong to the family of ‘new’ pagan or modern naturalism. Modern naturalism refers to a one-dimensional view of reality grounded in a monist pagan philosophy holding that only void, matter and evolutionary (developmental and change-making) energies exist. Therefore void, matter and energy are the Ultimate One Substance of which the universe consists and with which all life is in continuity, thus “all is one” and “everything is perpetually evolving and ascending.”
The main difference between these two views resides in whether matter is thought to be physical (i.e., Greek Atomism) or spiritual (Hinduism). However, both views share in common the following:
- Hatred of the supernatural God of Revelation and of man as His spiritual image-bearer
- One dimensional views of reality
- An inverted account of origins and history lending itself to the notion that since there was no fall then Lucifer is not the devil and men are not sinful but rather evolving into gods
- Scientific materialism or its’ New Age spiritual science counterpart
- Evolutionary conceptions. These serve two main functions. First, as a mechanical process of development and second, as a mechanism for purification of matter
- The nihilism of Buddha
Jesus Christ to Buddha,
“…you took God away (and) your espousal of an absence of self is the most unique and fearsome claim you made.” (The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Ravi Zacharias, pp. 59, 67)
Life is only with the living God of Revelation, the creator and upholder of the life and being (soul/spirit) of men. But if He does not exist, it logically follows that there is no ultimate source for life, conscious being, meaning and purpose; or for the sanctity of human life, worth, dignity, individual liberty and personal property. Without God the Father Almighty unalienable (God given) human rights are as meaningless as America’s founding documents have become in our Godless pagan society.
If man is not God’s spiritual image-bearer then he is less than nothing, a conclusion Buddha reached long before Jesus Christ God Incarnate walked this earth:
“Six centuries before Jesus Christ, the Buddha already knew that if God does not exist, then the human self cannot exist either…Therefore, he deconstructed the Hindu idea of the soul. When one starts peeling the onion skin of one’s psyche, he discovers that there is no solid core at the center of one’s being.” Thus your sense of self becomes illusion, “Reality is nonself…You don’t exist. Liberation, the Buddha taught, is realizing the unreality of your existence.” (The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, Vishal Mangalwadi, p. 6)
Naturalism: the Antithesis
Modern naturalism is in every way the antithesis of God’s Revelations and Christianity, the spiritual and moral foundation of Western civilization. For fifteen hundred years, Christendom and then later Protestant America had affirmed the biblical view of total reality. In this historically unique view total reality consists of two interfacing, interactive halves: the seen (natural) and the unseen (supernatural).
According to this view, man faces both unseen and seen and interprets truth against these two interfacing halves of reality. Thus Paul declares that as men live out their lives they are spectacles, “unto the world, and to angels and men.” (1 Cor. 4:9)
In opposition to modern naturalism’s one dimensional view, Paul affirms that total reality consists of two halves, hence this earth (the seen) is really a theater and men are actors on its stage observed not only by other men (the seen) but by the Spirit of God and angels (the unseen).
Though men cannot see the Spirit of God and very rarely see angels they can see, hear and interact with men. The Spirit of God opens our eyes to understanding (Ps. 118: 34, 125, 144), tests our hearts, knows out secrets, motives, and thoughts (Psa. 17:3; 44:21; 139:1-4).
Both holy and unholy angels are all around us, watching, listening, helping and protecting if holy, if unholy then binding the disobedient to their power. Just as the Lord of Hosts gives His Holy Spirit to those who love and obey Him, He can send evil spirits upon those who are rebellious, live in persistent sin, practice occult arts or men who in their pride, covetousness and envy reject and hate Him as was the case with Karl Marx and Nietzsche, the apostate Christian philosopher who proclaimed the death of God. Unto these men the Lord of Hosts sent evil spirits just as He sent one to King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14). The evil spirit influenced and disordered Saul’s thinking, afflicted him with obsessions and paranoia, befouled his conscience, and inflated his disordered passions thereby, “filling him with unrest, anger, fear and murderous intent.” (Occult Bondage and Deliverance, Kurt E. Koch, p. 137)
Dr. Kurt Koch (1913-1987) was a highly respected German minister who pastored, counseled and delivered in excess of twenty thousand people suffering from demonic subjection. According to Koch, demonic subjection is an increasingly common occurrence in post-Christian Western and American society. Most people have little or no clue that they are in fact demonically subjected while some people, such as Marx, Nietzsche, Hitler and Stalin seem to possess a limitless supply of demonic energy, especially when engaged in imposing their will over the wills of others.
There are many underlying causes of demonic subjection. Koch delineates some of the leading ones common to apostatizing America:
“If a person blatantly lives a life of sin and persistently resists the Spirit of God and remains completely unrepentant, or…carries the sin of murder or abortion on his conscience, or has committed perjury or practical incest, if he has cursed his fellow men or blasphemed against the cross or against Christ, the Holy Spirit, or God, then he will have laid himself open to the devil’s attacks. Every curse is in fact a cry to the devil, and can…lead a person into bondage.” (Koch, p. 138)
“….God created man in his own image…..male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27
According to the uniquely Christian view of total reality, the essence of the human is not the body and brain (the seen) but the unseen…the soul/spirit:
“It is the soul alone that God made in his own image and the soul that he loves…For the sake of the soul…the Son of God came into the world…” (Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 25, Ancient Christian Devotional, Oden and Crosby, p. 153)
Building off of the view of man as embodied spirit, St. Augustine (AD 354-430) affirmed that as all men are the spiritual image bearers of the supernatural Triune God in three Persons, then it logically follows that each man is a person; a trinity of being comprised of soul/spirit (unseen), and body, brain (seen).
The citadel of the soul is spirit (heart). Spirit is immortal and self-aware. It can will and think and is responsible for what it wills, thinks, speaks, and acts on while in this world.
Spirit is the unique property that distinguishes soul from the material body in which it is fully embedded. In Biblical thought, spirit allows man to spiritually transcend the natural dimension in order to access the third Heaven. By way of prayer and petitions the spirit of man’s mind allows him to enter into a personal relationship with the Spirit of God. Through this relationship, spirit is renewed over time, thus enabling man to more perfectly orient the manner of his thoughts, passions, words and actions in this world in preparation for eternity in Paradise.
In Christian thought, a person is a spirit (self) and personality is the total individuality of the spirit. Without spirit there is no ‘self,’ hence no person.
The key to personal liberty in the natural or sensory half of reality is man’s spiritual liberty contrasted against a genetically pre-programmed animal-like orientation. Animals have souls but not spirits, the basis of intelligence, sensitivity, imagination, self-consciousness, reflection back and forward into time, and the capacity for truth and moral goodness.
A person is uniquely free because he can spiritually transcend his material brain to access the Spirit of the Lord as Paul affirms:
“Now the Lord is Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s foremost Christian intellectual observes that this historically unique concept of man as God’s spiritual image-bearer gave birth to the “belief in the unique dignity of human beings,” and this is the force,
“…that created Western civilization, where citizens do not exist for the state but the state exists for the individual. Even kings, presidents, prime ministers, and army generals cannot be allowed to trample upon an individual and his or her rights.” (Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations, Mangalwadi, pp. 12-13)
One-Dimensional Godless Naturalism: the Reality of Non-Self
Modern naturalism, whether of materialist or pantheist permutation positing a non-existent immanent conception of deity (i.e. Omega, Gaia) is at bottom Godless, and said Ravi Zacharias, absolutely nothing,
“… has a more direct bearing on the moral choices made by individuals or the purposes pursued by society than belief or disbelief in God.” Key issues of the day “whether it be…sexual orientation and practice, or life in the fetal stage, sooner or later filter down to whether there is a God, and if so, has he spoken?” (The Real Face of Atheism, Zacharias, p. 21)
In “The Gnostic Religion,” Hans Jonas provides a full-scale study of the heretical world of pre-Christian and Christian era pagan Gnostic nihilism together with its modern variants: materialist and pantheist naturalism.
Jonas writes that while ancient Gnostic pagan man was thrown,
“…into an antagonistic, anti-divine, and therefore anti-human nature, modern man (is thrown) into an indifferent one.” (p. 338)
The ancient gnostic conception was still anthropomorphic despite the nihilism, hostility and demonic. But its’ modern counterpart with its’ indifferent nature, its’ completely godless, soulless, anti-human, demonic nature, represents the “absolute vacuum, the really bottomless pit.”
At least the ancient Gnostic dualism, as fantastic as it was, was at least self-consistent, as there was the illusion of a source for ‘self’ (being). Not so for its’ modern counterpart:
“So radically has anthropomorphism been banned from….nature that even man must cease to be conceived anthropomorphically if he is just an accident of nature. As the product of the indifferent, his being, too, must be indifferent. Then the facing of his mortality would simply warrant the reaction, ‘Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.” (ibid, p. 339)
“…modern nihilism (is) infinitely more radical and more desperate than gnostic nihilism ever could be for all its panic terror of the world and its defiant contempt of its laws. That nature does not care, one way or the other, is the true abyss. That only man cares, in his finitude facing nothing but death, alone with….the objective meaninglessness of his projected meanings, is a truly unprecedented situation.” (Jonas, p. 339)
In other words, the death of the living God of Revelation means there is neither source for life and ‘self’ (soul/spirit) nor for higher truth and morality, purpose, meaning, salvation and eternity. For depersonalized man, the evolved ape or bag of chemicals, there is nothing—no heaven above, no hell below and no,
“…. vast mind behind the framing of the world; no transcending voice giving counsel to this world…no light at the end of the tunnel (hence only) the loneliness of existence in its most desolate form.” (Zacharias, p. 27)
The determined assault against the living Holy God that began during the Renaissance gained speed and force with the materialist implications of Darwin’s neo-pagan theory. The idea that humans evolved by chance and natural selection from non-life bearing chemicals lay the axe at the very foundation of the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. On the heels of Darwin’s theory Christianity came under forceful attack allowing a one-dimensional worldview draining into nihilism to be declared a scientifically supported reality.
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published in 1859 and instantly and uncritically accepted by people such as Karl Marx, T.H. Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel in Germany and large numbers of clergy more eager to be thought scientific and modern than to defend the faith once given.
For materialist and pantheist alike, Darwin’s theory was a wish come true and so became the center of their respective one-dimensional worldviews.
The demonized Karl Marx hated the God of Revelation and his exuberance for Darwin’s idea prompted him to consider dedicating his Das Kapital to Darwin, an honor which he declined. Since Marx favored scientific materialism the rationale behind his invitation to Darwin was that he saw how Darwin’s materialist theory provided a scientific framework to support the economic infrastructure on which Marx could build his godless communist utopia.
Darwin’s materialist theory and Marxist materialist presuppositions (economic theory based on envy and hatred of God) together with Freud’s materialist-based analysis of religion and human sexuality threw faith in God and Christianity “over the wall of civilization,’ said Zacharias:
“With such abusive attacks directed at religious belief coming from so many directions, it was left for someone to cast this creature called theism completely out, and exorcise the world of all such influence. The one who did that was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.” (p. 25)
By the time of Nietzsche, perceptive thinkers had already been expressing apprehension at the prospect of multitudes of unsuspecting Westerners who would eventually be cruelly exploited by anti-human haters of God.
With Nietzsche, dreadful apprehension deepened into certainty, for Nietzsche despised religion in general, but upon Christianity he poured his unbridled fury:
“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of
revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhanded, too underground, and too petty.” (Nietzsche in “The Life of Nietzsche,” Faru Forster Nietzsche, 1921, p. 656)
However, rather than mindless infatuation for Darwin’s idea, Nietzsche (1844–1900) harshly criticized it:
“What surprises me most when I survey the broad destinies of man is that I always see before me the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to see today: selection in favor of the stronger, better-constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable … I incline to the prejudice that the school of Darwin has been deluded everywhere…” (Nietzsche: The evolutionist who was anti-God and anti-Darwin, Russell Grigg, creation.com)
Nietzsche was not anti-evolution but rather had his own evolutionary conception which he called “the will to power.”
While Darwin received his idea from his pantheist grandfather Erasmus Darwin, Nietzsche’s conception was preceded by mystical ecstasy. Nietzsche experienced two mystical encounters with the first one taking place in August, 1881.
Charles Andler writes that previous to his scientific reasoning, Nietzsche received revelations during mystical encounters just as Spinoza did. Mystical ecstasy,
“…. preceded (Spinoza’s) system and his geometric form, thus, with Nietzsche mystical ecstasy preceded his scientific reasoning.” (Charles Andler cited by Henri De Lubac, “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” p. 481)
According to Henri De Lubac, secret knowledge was revealed to Nietzsche that he was “….the first of men to know.’ The shock of it was sudden and profound. Though no direct document relates his experience sure evidence is found in an agitated page of Ecce Homo where Nietzsche wrote:
“Suddenly, with sureness, with indescribable delicacy, a thing makes itself seen, makes itself heard. It shakes you, it overwhelms you right to your innermost depths. You hear it…You let it fill you….A thought blazes forth like a flash of lightening…It imposes itself as a necessity…I never had to choose it. It is an ecstasy….You are enraptured, taken outside of yourself…All of this…is accompanied by a tumultuous feeling of liberty, of independence, of divinity…There you have my experience of the inspiration.” (Lubac, p. 472)
In the months that followed he remained silent about the knowledge he received. But in August of 1882 he discussed his experience with Lou Salome. Salome writes that Nietzsche spoke of his encounter only in obscure words and with hushed voice. Giving “every indication of the most profound horror“ Nietzsche described the terrible and marvelous revelation he had received with two words: Eternal Return. (ibid, p. 473)
In the autumn of 1882 he experienced his second encounter which he described in the poem Sils Maria:
“I was sitting and waiting, without waiting for anything/Beyond good and evil, tasting Light sometimes and sometimes shade/Absorbed by this brew…When suddenly…what was one became two, And Zarathustra passed before me…” (ibid, p. 475)
It was a vision without a doubt, precise and sudden:
“I could tell you the day and the hour….Zarathustra has fallen on me, he assaults me..” (ibid)
Zarathustra was an evil spirit who confirmed to Nietzsche the ‘truth’ of the revelations already received, which included man’s evolution from worms:
“You [mankind] have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now the human being is still more of an ape than any ape is.” (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue section 3, trans. by G. Parkes, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, p. 11)
Henceforth, Nietzsche is an inspired prophet who knows for certain that the God of Revelation is dead, that man’s evolution from worms is absolutely true, and that he is Jesus Christ’s successor, the ‘new’ Christ. Within ten days he drafted by way of automatic writing the whole first book of his prophecy. He called his finished work Zarathustra, the new Bible of scientific evolutionary naturalism, and told the world to throw away all other books, for now you have my Zarathustra, “a new Holy Book.”
It was Nietzsche, the ‘new’ Christ, who saw that the death of the personal God had already begun to cast its first dark shadows over Europe, and though,
“the event itself is far too great, too remote, too much beyond most people’s power of apprehension, for one to suppose that so much as the report of it could have reached them,” still its advent was certain, and it was men like Nietzsche, the ‘new’ Christ who were “the firstlings and premature children of the coming century,” the century of the “triumph of Nihilism.” (Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Eugene Rose, p. 44)
Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian to gaze fully upon man’s loss of faith and its terrifying consequences. With no living God ‘up there’ to obstruct his vision, the nihilism he saw was agonizing. As there was no longer any Light from God above, there was only darkness in the hermetically sealed world below. The paralyzing darkness that overtook the mind of the ‘new’ Christ was spiritual. It was not so much,
“….an exterior phenomenon crowding inward but rather an inner blinding that spread outward.” (Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)
This was precisely Nietzsche’s point. With the death of the personal God of Revelation the darkness of objective meaninglessness
Speaking through the writings of the ‘new’ Christ, Zarathustra went on to say that because God had died in the 19th century there would follow two terrible consequences beginning in the 20th century. (Romans 1:18)
First, the 20th century would become one of the most evil century’s in history, and second, a universal madness (Romans 1:21, 22) would break out and turn the once glorious W. Europe and America upside-down.
Though apostates and the apostatizing professed themselves wise, their cognitive thought processes would become darkened (vain) and with their conscience dead to sin they would become fools, meaning they would accept and publicly profess incredibly stupid conceptions of themselves (i.e., man is an evolved worm, ape or robot; man is evolving into god).
“And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.” Isaiah 3:4
In turning away from the Spirit of God and the truth He has given, ‘wise’ males will become effeminate cowards and females mannish. They will be adolescent emotional-tyrants in adult-size bodies: sinister, greedy, spiteful, vindictive, treacherous, back-stabbing sophists. They will celebrate Lucifer (the devil) and in their madness actively seek the way of Luciferian initiation because they will be spiritually blind in regard to total reality. Like demons they will flee from the cross of Jesus but exalt the devil as the first free thinker, the genetic creator of man, the seething energy and angel of evolution. Truth will be lies, evil will be good, unfaithfulness will be faith and the ‘wise’ will preach and blaspheme from pulpits, exercise political power, enact legislation, and wield broken law to plunder, punish, and ruin.
Zarathustra has been right on both counts. First, apostatizing W. Europe and America, though dotted here and there by small islands of Light, decency and sanity, are becoming darkened, satanically inverted places ruled by the ‘wise,’ hence boiling over with madness, particularly Hollywood, academia, mainstream media and the highest, most powerful political offices in the land. Second, Nietzsche was made to show the ‘wise’ what is in store for them by spending the last eleven years of his life insane.
In his recent New York Times op-ed piece, Princeton professor and regular columnist for The New York Times Paul Krugman observed:
“The American economy is still, by most measures, deeply depressed. But corporate profits are at record high. It’s simple: profits have surged as a share of national income, while wages and other labor compensation are down. The pie isn’t growing the way it should — but capital is doing fine by grabbing an ever-larger slice, at labor’s expense.”
And then he adds with almost shocked incredulity: “Wait – are we really back to talking about capital versus labor? Isn’t that an old-fashioned, almost Marxist sort of discussion, out of date in our modern information economy?”
This is exactly the conflict that Marx identified as the fundamental, inescapable contradiction of the capitalist system that would eventually create the conditions of its downfall: there is a tendency for the owners of businesses, the capitalists, to accumulate ever-vaster wealth while the people who work for them experience a declining standard of living.
Marx supported this conclusion by offering a description of the fundamental operating mechanism of capitalism. Capitalism is based on the principle of private ownership and competition. Private businesses compete with one another for customers, and those who fail to attract a sufficient number eventually perish. But in order to attract customers, businesses must maximize the quality of their product while minimizing its price. If two products embody the same quality but one is cheaper, customers, in pursuit of their self-interest, will purchase the cheaper version, all other factors being equal.
This means that capitalists must constantly attempt to minimize the price of their product simply for the sake of their own survival. If a business devises a way to lower costs, it can capture the market. But, as Marx pointed out, labor costs are a huge factor in determining the price of a product. So those businesses that minimize labor costs can prevail in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism. For this reason, a downward pressure on wages and benefits is always operating to one degree or another.
But Krugman made no reference to this aspect of Marx’s analysis and instead identified two other factors that contribute to the growing inequality in wealth between capitalists and workers, both of which are discussed by Marx.
The first factor involves the introduction of technology into the labor process, i.e. “labor-saving” technology. In other words, machines replace workers or reduce the amount of skill required in the labor process. To give a current example, software has been developed that analyzes legal documents at a fraction of the time it takes lawyers while costing much less. Accordingly, many well-paid lawyers lose their jobs to such software. Living during the industrial age, Marx supplied many such examples.
Krugman referred to his second explanatory factor that increases inequality between capitalists and labor as the “monopoly power” of large corporations where “increasing business concentration could be an important factor in stagnating demand for labor, as corporations use their growing monopoly power to raise prices without passing the gains on to their employees.” Here Krugman is approaching the heart of Marxist theory.
Krugman is basically arguing that large corporations use their power to override purely economic trends and simply demand that their employees work for less. But this is precisely the point of Marxism, although from the other direction. Marx persistently argued that capitalism could not function without the willingness of the working class to perform the work. When workers organize and engage in collective action by withholding their labor, the balance of power shifts in favor of the workers who can then demand higher wages as a condition for their return to work, as the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) recently did on the West Coast and the teachers did in Chicago.
Amazingly, Krugman never mentions the decline of organized labor as a huge factor explaining the decline of the standard of living of working people, adding that there has been so little discussion of these developments. But others, especially former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, have discussed these trends and identified the decline of labor as a major factor.
In the 1930s when labor unions were tenaciously fighting for working people, huge gains were made in terms of salaries and benefits. They conducted militant sit-down strikes and mobilized tens of thousands of people from the community to support labor’s struggles. Their successes were to a large degree responsible for the emergence of the so-called middle class that thrived in the 1950s and 1960s.
Workers who are organized, acting both collectively and forcefully, can change the economic landscape. But once organized labor becomes complacent and relaxes its guard and ceases to struggle, the laws of capitalism ineluctably grind down their gains and the growing inequality returns until workers again rise up.
Marx argued that eventually workers would see the futility of this repeating cycle, reject capitalism altogether, and begin to construct a socialist society built on entirely humanistic and democratic principles.
In a recent New York Times article on unionizing workers at the bottom of the pay scale, a union organizer was quoted as saying, “We must go back to the strategies of nonviolent disruption of the 1930s.” Currently organized labor is all but dying out. Strikes are like an endangered species. Rather than engaging in militant struggles, union members are urged to elect Democrats who then call on workers to accept sacrifices.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has called on working people “to fight like hell” to resist cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But these are just words. To this date, the unions have failed to mobilize their members to stage massive demonstrations across the country against cuts to these popular social programs – demonstrations that could culminate in hundreds of thousands of working people descending on Washington, D.C. to make their demands clear to the Obama administration and the rest of the politicians. Without the unions taking the lead in this struggle, there is little individual workers will be able to accomplish. And if the unions refuse to return to their more militant roots but remain invisible, economists like Paul Krugman will continue to ignore their existence and overlook their current historic failure to defend working people.
This past Tuesday night, I spoke to a large “Town Hall Meeting” audience in Cheyenne, Wyoming as to the greatest danger facing America in the 21st century: endless immigration overwhelming the United States by adding 100 million within 25 years. I informed the audience the audience that our U.S. Congress continues importing 100,000 legal immigrants every 30 days.
Most of the audience gasped at the numbers. One lady said, “Could you please repeat that figure.” When I did, she said, “I had no idea.”
Most Americans do not know nor do they comprehend the enormity of such massive numbers of human beings being imported into America without pause for the last 45 years. They cannot imagine that our country gallops toward adding 100 million more people in less than 25 years.
Few grasp the environmental, energy and resource issues that 100 million people present. Fewer still understand the quality of life and standard of living consequences. Less than that understand the sociological consequences of adding so many incompatible cultures and religions.
In his farewell speech, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, probably the most reasonable man in Congress, spoke about the five dangers to our republic.
They are as follows:
1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.
That “onrush” of tyranny stems from our own ranks as we import endless poverty into this country. We import endless numbers of people that cannot be fed, housed, employed or assimilated. Those millions will create greater attacks on our civil liberties as well as our resources, freedoms and quality of life.
2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.
If you look in on our own country, such men as Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the former preacher for Barack Obama, cursed America. Over 7 million Muslims cannot and will not assimilate into Western thought and do not feel America is their home. They bow to Muhammed five times daily and follow the Koran and wish to implement Sharia law into America.
Writer Sam Francis said, “You cannot separate a culture and its attendant civilization from the genetic endowments of its founding people, nor can you expect to transfer it to another people, i.e. [immigrants.]”
It is not in the cultural DNA of incompatible ethnic tribes to mesh with American life, and it’s even easier to condemn us for our creating wars around the world at every decade. No one supports America’s wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should they? Why would they?
3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
The fact remains that George Bush must be tried as a war criminal for his war on Iraq. He created enormous human misery and he lied to the American people about a non-existent threat of weapons of mass destruction, which were totally created out of thin air.
4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.
As our third president, John Adams said, “There are two ways to conquer a country: by the sword and by debt.” We are well on our way to self destruction by our $16 trillion debt soon to be $20 trillion at the end of Obama’s last term.
5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Such UN mandates like Agenda 21 force us out of our independence and into outside control by outside entities. World government will never work because all politics and all workable ideas for free people start at the local level and all problems must be solved at the local level. World government resembles Marxism and we know where that leads.
American citizens need to wake up to their own demise. We need to get rid of the entire Congress and vote new minds and fresh thoughts into Washington DC. Mark Twain said, “Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress, ah, but I repeat myself.” Today, Americans stand like cows watching the rancher as he circles them and heads them toward the slaughter house.
Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.
“Contemporary Political Ideologies is a text book that has been around for a long time. Many of the usual suspects are covered: Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism and Environmentalism. Since written, additional offshoots have come to include: Neoconservatism, the Paleo versions of Conservatism and Libertarianism and what we will call “Inherit Populism”.
These broad based viewpoints have distinctions, sometimes subtle, often dramatic. The reason why partisan politics is a blood sport is that it is waged to achieve a false party line. BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocates a paleo-conservative philosophy based upon traditional values and moral principles. Consistent with the historic legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose of the American Revolution.
The article, Ideology Matters, But What Is It?, clearly repudiates the destructive ideologies that result in the suicidal course this country has taken, especially in the last century.
“The test for valid support is simple. The legacy of the New Deal to the Good Society has constructed a total reputation of American ideals. To deny this reality, is to associate yourself with the cause of depravity. There is no room to compromise on this axiom. The lines are clear, distinct and irrefutable. Career operatives rationalize their support for destructive policies as the price for civility. The notion that getting along with the opposition that is bent upon the destruction of the Nation is psychotic. When polls are cited that the public wants less ranker, leadership sinks into the cauldron of deceit and treachery of our heritage. Those of us who advocate a State responsive and accountable to the citizen, are left with few champions to carry the banner of limited government.”
Rejecting an artificial left/right template for a deeper analysis of the publically accepted nomenclature of liberal vs. conservative is a constructive leap to appreciate the differences that are so prevalent among different factions within society.
How individuals assess politics often rests upon their own personality and outlook. From a report in Clinician’s Digest, the following insights are useful.
“Personality differences are a leading candidate in the race toward understanding the rift between political liberals and conservatives. Using data compiled from nearly 20,000 respondents, Columbia University researcher Dana Carney and colleagues found that two common personality traits reliably differentiated individuals with liberal or conservative identifications. Liberals reported greater openness, whereas conservatives reported higher conscientiousness. This means that liberals (at least in their own estimation) saw themselves as more creative, flexible, tolerant of ambiguity, and open to new ideas and experiences. Across the political personality divide, conservatives self-identified as more persistent, orderly, moralistic, and methodical.
Evidence suggests that these personality differences between liberals and conservatives begin to emerge at an early age. A 20-year longitudinal study by Jack and Jeanne Block showed that those who grew up to be liberals were originally assessed by their preschool teachers as more emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive when compared to those who became conservatives, who were considered more inhibited, uncertain, and controlled. Liberals may show greater tolerance for diversity and creativity, but they may also be more impulsive, indecisive, and irresponsible. On the flip side, conservatives may be organized, stable, and thrifty, but also have stronger just-world beliefs (leading to a greater tolerance for inequality), and stronger fears of mortality and ambiguity. Even recent neuroscience work published in Current Biology from University College London identifies fundamental differences in the partisan brain. Brain scans revealed a larger amygdala in self-identified conservatives and a larger anterior cingulate cortex in liberals, leading the researchers to conclude that conservatives may be more acute at detecting threats around them, whereas liberals may be more adept at handling conflicting information and uncertainty.”
Partisan party proponents, both Democrats and Republicans are practicing Statists. Mutual lust to control the levers of government closes ranks, when an external threat comes from dissenting citizens. This background brings us to examine the essay, Speaking Out Against Government is a Mental Disorder, by Susanne Posel.
“According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as “Mentality III”.
This mental disorder is defined as: “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”
Ms Posel continues:
Symptoms of ODD include:
- negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness
- resistance to directions
- unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers
- defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds
- hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)
If this alleged ailment has, any legitimate clinical application, it seems that these warning signs, foremost apply to elected officials and party organizations. Reinforcing the practice of the partisan political psychopathic art, John D. Mayer in Psychology Today asks two questions. The first is relevant while the second is naive.
“If members of Congress and the executive branch extended genuine respect to one another, wouldn’t they recognize that it is more important to vote for that which is best for the country rather than for that which may promote their political party? If they truly respected one another, wouldn’t the best and brightest among them join in a thoughtful give-and-take to promote good legislation above partisanship?”
Where is the evidence that government has the objective of “doing what is best for the country”? Frankly, the body of facts is so overwhelming that every successive administration builds upon the treason of the last government, that only a faint memory of a constitutional Republic exists. The notion that power hungry grabbers are capable of transcending partisan rhetoric for a good purpose is patently absurd. The only cooperation that ever unites the party politics is to protect the despotism of the State.
“Haidt helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five categories: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt likens these moral groupings to the five taste receptors of the tongue (sweet, sour, bitter, savory, salty). It turns out that liberal receptors failed to engage on questions of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Conservatives, on the other hand, reacted to all five moral categories more or less equally. Haidt’s conclusion is that his fellow liberals are morally tone deaf. “Republicans understand moral psychology,” Haidt concedes. “Democrats don’t.”
It gets worse for liberals. Haidt and colleagues asked their subjects to answer their questionnaire as if they were liberals, as if they were conservatives, and as themselves. Liberals don’t know their political adversaries nearly as well as the right knows them. “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” Liberals see caricatures when they see conservatives.
The thesis may prove cathartic for Republican readers. But it’s more useful to Democrats.”
As long as partisan political parties, ignore moral principles, and the “States Rights” framework of limited government the psychological disorders of the ultimate Statist mental illness will spread. It is always amusing when partisan critics rant about the lack of condemnation against opposing party foes, when their silence about the abuses of their patron party hacks goes unspoken.
It is bad enough how ignorant the average voter is when they cast their ballot. As long as people accept and tolerate the two party diatribes against viewpoints that challenge the establishment power cabal, there are no viable prospects for elective solutions. As of this writing, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has, “Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.”
How can any thinking and responsible American vote for either candidate? Both are tyrannical teammates for the globalist franchise. Those who speak out against the establishment order are not the ones with a mental illness. Those who vote for their own demise are one-step removed from the infective treachery coming out of the federal government. Paleo-conservative ideology is the righteous political philosophy for a Free People. What is the state of your own mental health?
“Judaism pays elaborate lip-service to the Bible (Tanakh), yet, in truth, the Bible is not a factor in the rise, formation, progress, and emendation of Rabbinic law, except as a prestigious cover and front for what are, in fact, entirely man-make enactments, figments of the rabbinic imagination and extensive revivals of pagan anachronism.” Michael Hoffman, “Judaism’s Strange Gods Pg. 72
“Our youth have “Bats in the Belfry” because Jews put them there. We are at war and we have a police state and our prisons are full of people wrecked by drugs, pornography, economic privation, crazy-maker sugar/fat/additives diet, alcohol, elevating sexual perversion to a political interest group, why everywhere assaulting the values and religious faith necessary for an economy to thrive with strong middle classes and no lower class that is not full of opportunity and means to self-improvement (for example, most people are landless while the country is mostly empty land that the elites have closed to development). The monopoly of real property reinforces in a symbiosis the monopoly of lending and of new money creation by Jews. The state of our morals, laws, politics all stem from this monster of Jewish control. And this monster uses false flag attacks — at the world trade center or at a Batman movie – to move people with fear to give up more and more of those things Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Patrick Henry and others told us to hold on to as the safeguard of our freedom.” Dick Eastman (Internet post)
“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (Matthew 23:4) Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abe, to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23:37-39) The Words of the Savior, Jesus, The Christ.
Quiet acquiescence to the destruction of our nominal United States Christian society by Talmudist Judaism is a mysterious and enduring anomaly. Judaism is generally thought to be a Biblical, Old Testament religion. However, according to a new book “Judaism’s Strange Gods” by Michael Hoffman, the Torah is insignificant in the thoughts and considerations of most Jewish Rabbis. The Torah is the truncated Word of God while the Talmud is a compilation of the historic thoughts of Jewish Rabbis; a collection of humanist books being used as the foundation of a religion. It is an arrogant, racist, Law defying, screed compiled by Jewish scholars who have never repented from the judgment God brought on ancient Israel for rejecting His Savior.
Hoffman offers an in depth analysis of the religion of Judaism with its surreptitious emphasis on the Talmud and the words of Rabbis who study and comment on its contents. Jewish actions throughout the world reveal an extensive use of Talmudic principles; principles that have grievously affected American society. The imprisonment of Palestinians and the incremental theft of their land is legally permissible under Judaism. Stealth is commonly used to deceive Gentiles (Goyum); who are not considered human and can be deceived, stolen from, enslaved, and in certain instances murdered. The Talmud forbids the worship of Jesus and condones the death of Christians.
Creating conflict and division is useful in weakening and enslaving a nation. Judiacs are and have been busy creating divisions in the United States for decades. Black/ White relations are worse today than they were fifty years ago. Multiculturalism has created language barriers as well as social and religious divisions. Unlimited immigration has destroyed the culture and demeaned the benefits created by our ancestors by throwing them away to foreigners who take our money but not our culture. Feminism and the blatant promotion of fornication, adultery and homosexuality have destroyed the basic family unit and debased morality here and abroad.
The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example of Talmudic principles being used to create potential violence. George Zimmerman who had not criminal record was attempting to protect an apartment complex from a rash of robberies committed by Black youth when Trayvon Martin, a Black teen with marijuana in his system and previous brushes with the law, ambled into the area. Martin was shot and Zimmerman had bloody wounds to show why. The Sanford police believed Zimmerman and released him under a Florida Stand your Ground Statute. The media immediately began showing pictures of a young, innocent looking Martin beside an ugly looking Zimmerman while emphasizing the fact the Martin was “unarmed”. This mobilized the Jewish supported Black juggernaut and created dangerous, emotional Black sympathy for Trayvon Martin. Fear of Black violence resulted in the removal of the Sanford police chief and the unwarranted arrest of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman and his wife are now entangled in a dangerous legal mess that may destroy their lives and add them to the plethora of innocents that are already imprisoned. The case will further divide Whites and Blacks and in the unlikely event that justice prevails and Zimmerman is released, Blacks may riot; if not, the Zimmermans, whose record was clean and whose actions were justifiable, will suffer an inexcusable injustice.
Kindness is not the motivation for Jewish creation and support of the Black agenda. Blacks are being used as a tool to disrupt society. They are being used to create angry separation and hate with riots like those in Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992. As James Jaeger points out in this excellent article on Cultural Marxism, it is not love for Homosexuals that causes the promotion of their agenda but, as with Blacks, a desire to disrupt the culture. Divisive emotional issues are cleverly exploited to create serious conflict.
There is a startling resemblance between the Third Reich of Hitler’s Germany and Talmudic Judaism: Racial superiority is common to both; both capture and dominated; both emphasize intellect excellence, both are deceitful and ruthlessly ambitious.
In a sense, the Holocaust was a religious war that set the stage for the rise of the Judiac. It was a Trojan Horse that created sympathy for a dangerous enemy of the Christian West an enemy that has now successfully captured most of its strongholds. Sympathy derived from the Holocaust is still a prominent reason for support of Judaism in spite of the fact that the sympathy seekers are among the world’s most wealthy and powerful.
Jewish ownership of the American press and media has resulted in censored, biased, and manipulated news coverage that has not only failed to report the breadth of the news but has purposely distorted the stories it covers. United States has been gutted; its industry has been stolen and its citizens have been robbed of their wealth because the people were not properly informed. As prison camps are constructed and plans are made to use the army to control the civilian population the press and media remain silent.
Centralized power is a prime objective for Godless Jews. They created the Revolution in Russian and were leaders in murdering millions of its citizens. In America they act as a Fifth Column for the new world order keeping the public ignorant of impending dangers.
There are interesting parallels between the Trayvon Martin case and the creation of neo-Israel. Both used a powerful latent emotion to create a scenario that demanded gross injustice. Both created a situation that cannot be equitably resolved. War and strife have constantly plagued neo-Israel since its inception and Black/White rancor will be a result of the Martin case regardless of the verdict.
Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying that Jews control America. If he said this, he was correct, they do! The tail is wagging the dog. Less than three percent of the population of the United States is controlling the remaining 97 percent. Talmudic Jews own the media which controls politics. They use that power to promote their own agenda through propaganda and control of coverage. If President Barak Obama had been properly covered before the 2008 election he would never have been elected. Congressmen and Senators consistently vote for pro-Israeli legislation because if they fail to do so the media will soon return them to civilian life.
Neo-Cons have infiltrated our government and become media spokespersons for wars that benefit Israel at American expense. Our money has been under Judiac control since the Federal Reserve Act was passed by congress in the early Twentieth Century. Control of interest rates and the money supply has allowed our wealth to be siphoned off by low interest rates, manipulated markets, and inflation.
Ninety nine percent of our citizens do not have a clue. We are in the midst of a religious war between Christianity and Judaism. Islam is a foreign religion but it is weak compared to the prevailing evil power of Talmudic Judaism. Vulnerable Christians have been deceived into supporting this wicked agenda; the same agenda that the Savior vehemently condemned.
Being constantly reminded that Israel is our only ally in the Middle East we forget that before the creation of neo-Israel we had no enemies in the Middle East.
Christians are guilty of the same dishonesty that afflicts our press and media, they fail to provide a full report on the evils in our society. The War on Christianity, abortion, homosexuality, unrestricted immigration, multiculturalism, war for the State of Israel, socialism, torture, worldwide control of currencies, restrictions on freedom of speech, and the centralization of power, all of these and more have Talmudic Jewish roots.
For decades D. James Kennedy railed against the ACLU for its role in removing Christianity from the public square. Stalwart soldier that he was, he never mentioned that the ACLU could not exist without support from powerful Jews.
Wake up America, the enemy is in your church, school, television, government, armed forces, bedroom, the wombs of your pregnant women, the nationality of your population, the sexual orientation of your children, and the civility of your culture!
“Orthodox Judaism is a religion of lies, a tangled web of deceit compounded by duplicity and wrapped in guile. We will never restore America’s Christian roots, its Constitution or its Republic as long as Judaism can masquerade as a family values partner with patriots against the forces of evil. Judaism is a religion founded upon the defiance and nullification of God’s law.” Michael Hoffman “Judaism’s Strange Gods” Pg. 208
[Review of Revolution from above, Manufacturing Dissent in the New World Order, by Kerry Bolton, 250 pages. Arktos 2011, UK]
The Left – including Communist Left – is manipulated by the super-rich for their own interests. These super-rich conspire to destroy tradition and create a collectivist world order of despotism under their own guidance, and the Left are “useful idiots” of these greedy for power and money people. This is main thesis of a new book by Kerry Bolton published by the traditionalist publisher Arktos (they also published Evola and de Benoist). Bolton produces numbers and bank accounts (well, almost) trying to prove that feminism, communism, orange revolutions, gay movement and sundry forms of dissent are all sponsored by the oligarchs, Soros or Rockefeller.
This is the stuff the Protocols were made of: their authors claimed the Left, revolutionaries and dissidents are on the payroll of the bankers. However, the Protocols marked the Jews as the ultimate plotters and the Church as the victim or the last defence. Not so in our case. Bolton thoroughly secularised and sanitised his discourse. This book has no references to Jews or the Church (which is suspicious for a theologian the author is), but it basically remained the same old-fashioned rightist screed. Without the spiritual dimension, it is just more boring.
Some of Bolton’s charges are justified up to a point, but his bias undermines his veracity. Granted, the Left’s war on Family, Church and Tradition could contribute to success of the Moneyed Ones. But what about the Right? The capitalist Right destroys the essence of Family, Church and Tradition, while upholding their names. The Left has a fling with Mammon now and then, but the Right is always in bed with Mammon. The wealthy guys spend some small change on the leftist dissidents, because they want to tame them, like one throws morsels to stray dogs to keep them on friendly foot (or paw). The leftists often deserve rebuke, I agree, but the rightists are even worse.
A Traditionalist should not make this mistake. I have a soft spot towards the Traditionalists and Radical Conservatives, followers of Guenon, Evola or Dugin. They are anti-Mammon. They are so far-right, that far-left can befriend them. They lost their battle in nineteen thirties, but regained some ground since then. Usually their political views are sound, whatever one thinks of their visions. Alain de Benoist’s recent maxim would endear this right-winger to any true Leftist: “The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society; on the philosophical level, individualism; on the political front, universalism; on the social front, the bourgeoisie; and on the geopolitical front, America.”
Bolton apparently is not aware that the world changed since 1870 or even 1903. Then one could say that “socialism was used as the battering ram by the new-rich to undermine the old ruling class… and [to install] worship of Mammon as the meaning of life”. Now, we have only Mammonites as the ruling class, and it is not fair to attack leftist dissidents for doing dirty jobs for the Mammonites, while giving a clean bill of health to the rightists who are the Mammonites.
Bolton’s attack on Marxism suffers the same deficiency. He notes that “both Big Business and Marxism view history as dialectical”, and for this reason capitalists support socialist movements. There is a better explanation: history, or rather historical process is objectively dialectical, and capitalists spend money on some socialist activists because they want to subvert and control this dangerous movement.
He impossibly claims that “Marxists believe that socialism cannot emerge in a peasant society”. Indeed some Marxists had this view, but that was before Lenin, Mao, Castro who are as much Marxists as anybody. Bolton remains stuck in the beginning of twentieth century. He approvingly quotes Spengler who said that “all radical parties necessarily become the tools of the Bourse… They attack Tradition on behalf of the Bourse”. Spengler wrote these lines before the Russian revolution which definitely attacked and destroyed the money power, but Bolton repeats that now.
Indeed some radicals could be used as tools by Money, but others, chiefly communists, uprooted the Bourse altogether. So much for the Bolton-Spengler contention that “there is no Communist movement that has not operated in the interests of money”. It has now the same validity as Columbus assertion that Cuba is a part of India.
Bolton dislikes Plato for he was a collectivist and believed in some gender equality. This is a view of pro-market liberals who tell us that Plato is the father of totalitarianism. Thus Bolton fails two of de Benoist criteria at once.
Probably the most misleading and annoying part of Bolton’s book is one dealing with the Bolsheviks and the Russian revolution. Perhaps he copy-pasted it from a 1920s publication. Bolsheviks were set up by New York bankers who welcomed the Russian revolution, according to Bolton. He quotes a congratulatory letter of Jacob Schiff, the banker, to the NY Times dated March 18, 1917 sharing “joy that the Russians have at last effected their deliverance from autocratic oppression through almost bloodless revolution”.
Bolton is not even aware of the profound difference between the February revolution 1917 (arranged by the Russian wealthy freemasons) which was applauded and hailed by the Western financiers, and the October Bolshevik revolution that undid the February plot. He is not aware of Arnold Toynbee’s assessment of Bolsheviks which is almost identical to the Traditionalist reading of the revolution, whether an older one by Pyotr Savitski, the founder of Eurasianism, or the new one by Alexander Dougin, the greatest Traditionalist luminary. All of them considered Bolsheviks as true representatives of the Russian spirit meeting the Western challenge.
Bolton repeats the tales of the White émigrés of 1920s uncritically. He glorifies Admiral Kolchak, the self-appointed ‘Supreme Ruler’ of Russia – but Kolchak came to Russia from the US (like Trotsky) and has been considered an American agent. Bolton speaks of dreadful Red terror and Red atrocities, but the Reds were better than the Whites towards the people, the peasants and workers. Kolchak’s troops were infamous for their atrocities and succeeded to antagonise the apolitical Siberians. The White troops shot industrial workers and hanged peasants for they were imbibed with class hatred. Bolton writes approvingly even of Ataman Semyonov, who was an extremely cruel White commander.
Bolton condemns the US for not doing enough in order to destroy the Bolsheviks right after the revolution. Well, Russia is a biggish country, and the US was not keen to fight it right after fighting Germany. You do not have to be a hidden Commie to be against an intervention, as we know on the lessons of Iraq and Iran. Bolton does not understand that it would not be an easy sailing as the Reds were more popular than the Whites among the masses. A civil war is also a form of democracy, an extreme form, granted: people vote with their bullets instead of ballots. The Reds won in the civil war because the people preferred them, not for support of some New York bankers.
After their victory, Bolsheviks did not sell their country to the named bankers. Other way around, they brought Russia to full economic independence. Bolton quotes Armand Hammer who said that “he never had any dealings with Stalin for … he was not a man with whom you could do business. Stalin believed that the state was capable of running everything without the support of foreign concessionaires and private enterprise”. Bolton also admits that Stalin refused to play ball with CFR and fit into the new world order, or even to discuss it. But was not Stalin an epitome of a Communist? One thinks that this admitted case would force Bolton to reconsider his main thesis, but it did not.
Bolton also refers to Grose, who wrote that the USSR rejected all appeals to establish a World State, and that the Cold War was a real thing, “a genuine divide between globalists and the Soviet block”, not a “conspiracy to fool the world”. Fine! But afterwards, he reverses to his view that the Left is just a tool of the Capital…
After thus dealing with the Russian revolution, the author moves on various dissident movements and attempts to prove they were set up by the super-rich. There is Marcuse, and feminists, and drugs, and rock-and-roll, and modern art, Kinsey report, psychedelic revolution, sex and pornography, and Adorno, and Frankfurt school, and LSE, and NGOs, and NED – all these persons and movements were organised by a secret society of the very-rich Mammonites. What he actually shows that some of them received grants or another financial support or promotion.
There is some truth in his accusations: money passed hands. However, there are much easier explanations than the deadly conspiracy of Kali Yuga adepts. In order to preserve capitalism, privilege and social inequality, the Western elites indeed try to distract the people, especially the rebellious and dynamic ones. Let them use drugs, drink beer, dance all night along and make no meaningful changes or revolutions. Pseudo-left movements and pseudo-radical agenda were promoted in order to keep people away from real radicalism. The people in power prefer us to discuss gender politics rather than wealth distribution.
And some conspiracies, or secretly made plans, do exist. Secret agencies, notably the CIA like to have a finger in every pie. It is well known that the CIA promoted Jackson Pollock, the abstract painter, as a proof of American culture potency against West European Americanophobia. CIA spent much money on development of youth subculture in order to subvert the Soviets, or so they say.
NED is a well-known “open conspiracy” financed by the US administration to supplement CIA efforts to undermine unfriendly regimes.
However, this is not a proof that there is One Huge Conspiracy of the Super-rich to create the World Government. There are many conspiracies, big and small, there are many views and tendencies, and they can’t be reduced to a single ill will.
Despite all these remarks, Bolton’s book has some interesting pages, and can be read – with a grain of salt.
They want to make firearms illegal, they give certain racial groups special treatment, they censor our news, they manipulate our politics, they support war, they act in unison, they regularly distort the truth by failing to report all of the story, and they degrade our society by presenting immoral and debilitating programs. They have an agenda, and, without presenting a single dissenting opinion, that agenda is parroted by every employee. They support world government, and their owners attend international meetings of like minded tyrants.
They have succeeded in jailing a man who was considered innocent by local authorities and are now busy convicting him before he is tried.
Following the shooting of Trayvon Martin (a young man with a rap sheet) by George Zimmerman (a man with a clean record) the media, deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary, began running an ugly picture of Zimmerman and an attractive picture of Martin. They ignored the fact that several thefts by young Black males had occurred in the housing development Zimmerman was policing and described Martin as an innocent 17 year old who had been to the store to buy candy.
Something is radically wrong here! Either the local officials in Sanford, Florida are prejudiced, law breakers who illegally released George Zimmerman by distorting the evidence against him or the media is run by a powerful, mendacious bunch of criminals who are trying to distort justice to serve their own agenda.
Following the shooting Zimmerman was released because his person showed evidence of having been attacked. The media told a different story: They maintained that Zimmerman had followed Martin and provoked the attack. There was some speculation that Martin was shot in the back.
As would be expected, not long after the media (by media I mean all national outlets, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX, including their affiliate stations, in unison) began every newscast with the same ugly picture of Zimmerman and the sweet, innocent picture of Martin, huge mobs of black protesters appeared on the streets of Stanford demanding “justice for Trayvon”. The police chief resigned and immediate concessions were made because angry mobs of Blacks wreak havoc on cities that defy their wishes. President Obama made reference to Martin as a son. The story became national and Black dignitaries flew in. The demand was that the decision of the local authorities be reversed and Zimmerman be arrested. Authorities in Sanford relented, a prosecutor was appointed, and Zimmerman was arrested.
Mob justice prevailed. Zimmerman, a man without financial resources, was publically demonized, endangered by a purposely created mob, and put in a position of having to defend himself. Whatever is true concerning the guilt of George Zimmerman he has been charged and arrested through the power of the media that incited a mob large enough and dangerous enough to illegally control the decisions of proper authorities. History confirms that mob justice is invariably injustice.
Fred Reed writes in his usual blunt style, “Whites are frightened of blacks. They are afraid of taking the wrong exit from the freeway and ending up in a black ghetto. They are afraid when they pass young black males in a dark neighborhood. White women clutch their purses and cross the street, try not to get into elevators with them. The fear, seldom mentioned, determines where whites live, where they go, and where they send their children to school”
“Government also is afraid of blacks. Los Angeles burned because blacks didn’t like the outcome of a trial. Recently cities in England went up because a policeman shot a black. The Zimmerman shooting looks very similar, and blacks are very angry. Jesse Jackson has said that Trayvon was ‘hunted down like a rabid dog in the street,’ that he was ‘murdered and martyred,’ that it was a ’hate crime.’“
The name of the article is “The Need to Lynch Zimmerman”. The title points to the outrageous injustice willfully brought about by media hype. When Zimmerman was arrested the preparations for the lynching began. Neither the abominable media nor emotion driven Black mobs have a right to influence the courts.
No Communist Party Candidate has ever been elected President of the United States but in spite of the massive resistance to Marxism citizens of the United States live under a government that has appropriated the principles of the system they claim to hate and most of them do not even know it. Read the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto and how they now function in our society here.
Why would the media do that? Why would they try to usurp the role of the courts and convict a person without trial? Why would they fan the flames of racial hatred?
It could be another attack on the right of citizens to bear arms. The Ten Planks of Marxism are already in place but the collectivist tyranny that allows the pogroms to proceed is still missing, deterred by an armed citizenry.
Chaos is another. Order from chaos can come by nefarious means. When ethnic pride is the glue that holds a nation together its citizens value their culture and seek to preserve it. The new world order clashes with national pride. The acute pain of chaos can overcome national pride and create a willingness to sacrifice sovereignty for peace.
Working to create chaos is a Satanic occupation. Multi-culturalism divides the house (A house divided against itself cannot stand.) and makes captivity easier. Decades ago when I was young and living in Chicago foot tapping Dixieland music rocked the Black bars on the South Side. We drove down, drank beer, and heard music the likes of which no longer exists. During that period I was treated by a Black dermatologist at his offices in South Chicago. Whites were not welcomed with open arms but they were tolerated. Then Communist Russian Talmudist immigrants got involved with Black leadership (Read here and here) and soon they created the same angry Black mobs that now demand justice for Trayon Martin. As a result Whites have been murdered in South Chicago.
The Talmudist cabal that owns and controls the media in American and mostly around the world works in concert with the forces that seek world government.
Reed believes an American race war is inevitable and the media’s handling of the Trayon Martin case appears to be a veiled effort to ignite that war.
Alan Dershowitz, that partisan Harvard legal beagle, says the persecution of Zimmerman is “immoral and stupid”. I seldom, if ever, agree with Alan Dershowitz but this time we are in partial agreement. However, as callus and immoral (he supports torture) as he is, he is not stupid. He is blaming the Florida prosecutor not his Talmudic friends in the Media. I live in Florida and I heard the local TV news outlets describe the initial release of Zimmerman and the fact that there was a witness to his being beaten, that he had blood on his face and the back of his head, and grass stains on the back of his shirt. All of this was soon ignored by the same media outlets that had announced it and Zimmerman was accused of “gunning down” Martin. The arrest and trail of George Zimmerman is a rank injustice for which the media is totally responsible.
The American media is corrupted and functions as a lackey to the forces that are bent on world domination. Uniform distortions and omissions of fact are common, disruptive, and Satanic.
It looks like the Zionists and their AZZ (anti-Zionist Zionists) allies are losing the battle. The more desperate they are to stop ‘The Wandering Who’ and myself, the more they manage to do the complete opposite. The book is now a best seller and its message has gone viral.
So far every attempt to smear the book and myself has backfired. It started in mid-September with veteran Israeli concentration camp-guard Geoffrey Goldberg insisting that professor John Mearsheimer should admit that he was endorsing a ‘Hitler apologist’ and an ‘anti-Semitic’ book. But Mearsheimer refused to bow. On the contrary, not only did he reinforce his praise for the book(1), in a masterpiece of superb writing, he also exposed Goldberg’s clumsy and deceitful hasbara tactics.
On the very same day that Goldberg launched his attack in the USA, here in the UK the notorious Zionist mouthpiece the Jewish Chronicle (JC) together with pro-war, Neocon, and thoroughly Islamophobic Harry’s Place (HP) joined forces with Britain’s once-progressive Guardian. The Guardian has already grovelled before the Zionists and labelled me as an ‘anti Semite’. Why? Because I dared to discuss the ‘Jewish Lobby’ and criticise ‘Jewish Marxism’. It’s clear that, for the Guardian, Jewish politics whether it be Israeli lobbying or tribal Marxism is quite simply beyond examination, discussion and criticism. But still, it was a rather foolish move by the Guardian because within less than 48 hours the ‘Guardian’s new dangerous cult’ had been exposed by one of the most admired reporters on Israel-Palestine – Jonathan Cook. Cook’s article spread like wildfire and, within hours, it had appeared on every dissident outlet around the world.
The Guardian has lost a lot of support recently. Its betrayal of Wikileaks and Assange was a clear sign that something was deeply rotten with the UK‘s once ‘progressive’ paper. I guess that The Guardian’s outrageous attack on myself (as well as on Counterpunch Magazine and Alison Weir) was just one more nail in its coffin. But fortunately for us all, The JC ‘s /Guardian’s assault, translated into immediate and massive book sales that took even my publisher and myself by surprise. Mind you, it had already begun to dawn on us that bad Zionist press was worth its weight in gold.
I suppose it was around this time that the tribal cheerleaders began to realise that they might have a bit of a problem. All their attempts to stop the book had failed but this did not lead them to draw the necessary conclusion. Instead of making any attempt to critically and intellectually engage with the text, they decided to bring out the big guns. Two leading Zionist ‘celebrities’ were schlepped out to do battle - the infamous Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz. These two caricatures were quick to take off the gloves. However, they too failed to realise that, this time around, they were taking on someone who has earned a reputation for not pulling his punches.
Notoriously deficient intellectually (as well as being a plagiarist), Dershowitz fell into the same trap as Goldberg, The Guardian and The JC. Instead of trying to dismantle the book and its message by means of deconstruction, he decided to try to bully two of America’s most distinguished intellectuals - Richard Falk and John Mearsheimer, both of whom were amongst the first to endorse ‘The Wandering Who’.
But soon it became clear that the tide has changed. No one took any notice of the Zionist bully. Mearsheimer didn’t even bother to respond to Dershowitz’ drivel and Falk dismissed the Zionist ‘celebrity’ smear as defamatory polemic. If Dershowitz had one drop of dignity in him, which I doubt, he would have done the decent thing and just faded away. But as it happens neither Dersohwitz nor his allies have an ounce of self-respect in their systems. Interestingly, this lack of self-respect and dignity, which stops any form of critical self-reflection, is symptomatic of the whole Jewish identity political discourse. It is precisely this failure to learn from past mistakes that makes Jewish politics so dangerous – particularly for Jews.
If Dershowitz and his ilk were half as clever as they think they are, they would have paused awhile to reflect on their failures. But instead, they just go on with their endlessly futile power games – only to find out that their influence is steadily withering away.
Driven by biblical, vengeful enthusiasm, my detractors thought that they could instead bring my international jazz career to an end. But destroying my music career was never going to be easy. To start with, I’m good at what I do and I have a strong fan base which, totally familiar with my thoughts, supports both me and my convictions. So it’s obvious that Jewish lobbies mounting pressure on music festivals is not going to much serve the Jewish cause. If anything, it will prove once again that Jewish identity politics is not only dangerous to our foreign policy, it is also dangerous to our cultural life.
In spite of the fact that not a single performance of mine has ever been cancelled due to pressure, my detractors still will not give up. Ahead of my concert in Goettingen Jazz Festival last Saturday, the local Jewish community, together with the Anti Deutsche, an Israeli hasbara mouthpiece, tried to pressure the Festival organisers. But the Festival didn’t surrender- its Art Director insisted that no one would interfere with his artistic decisions – not even the Goettingen Jewish community. The Festival looked into all the cherry-picked, out-of-context and sometimes forged quotes provided to them by the Jewish community, and concluded that ‘Gilad was not an anti Semite’. But the Jewish community still didn’t give up and within a day or two, the news had spread out of Goettingen, generating some very bad publicity for the Jewish community all over Germany. This clear, Israeli-inspired and crude attempt to intervene with German cultural life has, in fact, bought me many more fans in Germany. The concert sold out and many more people in Germany are now aware of the fact that one ex-Israeli jazzman openly equates Israeli ethno-centric, racist, expansionist ideology with Nazi politics. Should I thank the Goettingen Jewish community for their intensive PR campaign? Yes, I should and yes do. Yet again, it became clear that Jewish bad press is all I needed.
In the last few days the Zionist Lobby here is putting pressure on‘Raise Your Banners’, a legendary UK Folk festival. They want Gilad Atzmon to be dropped from the program. Just like Goettingen’s Jewish community, the Zionists here insist on interfering with British cultural life and unfortunately, not in a good way.
I wonder how cultured people in Britain will react once they learn that an Neo-Con, and Award Winning Islamophobic Harry’s Place is poking it’s ‘collective’ nose into their folk culture by campaigning against one of Britain most popular Jazz artist and a humanist who is endorsed by some of the greatest intellects of our time. Let me tell you, this will not make our ‘Zionist friends’ very popular.
But I suppose that some Jews in Germany in general and Goettingen in particular were also not too happy with these developments imposed on them by their Zionist brothers and sisters. Five days before the Goettingen concert, I learned that some representatives of the local Liberal Jewish community asked to meet me ahead of my concert in an attempt to reach a peaceful and harmonious solution to this saga. The liberal Jews basically wanted to express their disgust at the actions taken by their fellow Jews against the Festival and myself. Always believing n dialogue, I welcomed the approach. By the time I was in a packed hall and on stage in front of the most supportive audience ever, it was clear that some elements within Goettingen Jewish community had made the grave mistake of acting against me and against their local community.
Jewish Diaspora organisations futile dedication to my destruction is both revealing and symptomatic. Like the Jewish State itself, they cannot see the consequences of their actions.
The Israelis, the Dershowitzes, the JC, J-BIG, IJAN and HP, all are blind to their growing estrangement from the rest of humanity. As they bully and smear, they end up shouting in the echo chamber of their own cyber shtettles. It doesn’t look good, but, this is the harsh reality of that same Zionist collective psychosis which I scrutinize in The Wandering Who.
So, it looks like my detractors are doing very well indeed in exposing every possible negative aspect of Jewish Identity Politics. At each and every step, they demonstrate aggression, hysteria and Pre-Traumatic Stress symptoms and yet, there is one thing they will never manage to do. They will never stop me. Because Zionist Bad Press Is All I Need.
How do I know this? Well by now and for a decade, I have won every battle and, to be honest and I even learned to enjoy it.
“In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated (traditional) family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow, Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.” “Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.” (Cultural Marxism, L. Kimball)
Today the words Marxist, communist, and fascist have devolved into essentially meaningless, emotionalized epitaphs brandished by people whose understanding of their true meaning is so lacking as to be on a par with “I hate you!” and “you miserable scum bag!”
So just what are Fascist Socialism, Marxist Communism and its contemporary version, Cultural Marxism?
At the deepest, most important level of all, these ideologies are really about the human condition after the Fall and the causes of evil and suffering as defined by fallen mankind.
From the moment that Adam and Eve were ushered out of paradise, men began complaining:
“Why must we die? Why must there be decay? Why must we work? Why does he have (fill in the blanks) but I do not? That’s unfair! Why can’t we say, do and have whatever we desire? If it feels good (libidinous impulses) then why shouldn’t we do it? Why must there be authority, rules, norms, absolutes, and consequences? Why does it have to be this way? Why can’t it be the way we want it to be?”
And finally: Who or what is the cause of our suffering?
From Nimrod to Karl Marx and contemporary rebels and apostates, the answer is the transcendent Authority of God the Father Almighty together with the fallen condition of man and the world:
“Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God.” He “changed the government into tyranny” in order to turn them away from God and make them dependent upon his own power. He also would be revenged upon God “if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach!” And he would ”avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers.” (Jewish historian Josephus cited in” Who was Nimrod?” Dr. David Livingston)
Karl Marx dreamt of ruining the world created by God the Father and proclaiming himself ‘god.’ In his poem “Human Pride,” he writes that after ruining the world:
“I will wander godlike and victorious /Through the ruins of the world/ And, giving my words an active force/ I will feel equal to the Creator.” ((Marx and Satan, Richard Wurmbrand, pp. 30-31)
Marx’s comrade in arms, Mikhail Bakunin, aligned himself with the Devil and declared:
“The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority….Socialists recognize each other by the words, “In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done….Satan (is) the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds.” (Mikhail Bakunin, ibid, p. 27)
After confessing to his ‘cosmic authority’ problem, New York University professor Thomas Nagel admits:
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God (but) that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” (The Rage Against God, Peter Hitchens, p. 150)
It is when the terrible-willed and their followers–most generally pleasure-seeking hedonists– become possessive of the things of this world and resentful of the “way things are” that they rebel against God the Father and raise up new Towers of Babel—separate paradises— here on earth. With Nimrod it was Babylon. Marx’s Tower was the materialist Communist worker’s paradise while Hitler’s Babel was his socialist Third Reich. Today’s occult New Age heralds the coming of the final Tower—a planetary communist paradise, but it will be blatantly Luciferic rather than materialist.
In the preface to “The Silmarillion,” the all-important creation account that sets the stage for the subsequent Lord of the Rings trilogy, J.R.R. Tolkien observes of the terrible-willed:
“…. (they) will rebel against the laws of the Creator—especially against mortality.” Possessiveness toward the things of this world alone or together with hatred of death and decay “will lead to the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly effective–and so to the Machine (magic).” (p. xiii)
Tolkien defines magic as the abuse of God-given talents and powers fueled by the:
“corrupted motive of dominating: bull-dozing the real world, or coercing other wills” by way of ideologies designed for the unmaking of the world as it is.
In other words, when pride, wrath, lust and envy inflate to monstrous proportions it is then that the terrible-willed declare the death of God, usurp His powers, declare themselves gods and invent reality-denying ideologies such as rationalism, materialism, liberalism, secularism, determinism, green environmentalism, socialism, and evolutionism to seduce and coerce other wills:
“Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. ” (Anton Pannekoek, Marxism And Darwinism, Translated by Nathan Weiser. Transcribed for the Internet by Jon Muller, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company Co-operative Copyright, 1912 by Charles H. Kerr & Company)
And of course straight-forward questions are absolutely forbidden lest they expose the corpus of lies, hate, hypocrisy, deceit and delusion underlying and fueling the ‘Machine.’
On the subject of the Machine, Herbert Schlossberg perceptively observed:
“Exalting mankind to the status of deity…dates from the farthest reaches of antiquity, but its development into an ideology embracing the masses is a characteristic of modernity.” (Herbert Schlossberg, cited in The Seduction of Christianity, Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon)
Ex-Communist atheist Alexander Solzhenitsyn described the terrible-willed god-men as the masters of the world who, bearing no evil within themselves, have declared that all the evils of the world are caused not by man’s fallen human condition but by deterministic external or natural causes— unjust, unfair systems.
In his book, “Cry Havoc: The Great American Bring-Down and How it Happened,” Ralph de Toledano identifies the unfair, unjust systems:
“the morality that derives from the Old and New Testaments, the traditional family, the respect for the past as a guide to the future, the restraint of man’s baser instincts, and a socio-political organization which guaranteed freedom without license. Of these obstacles, the two greatest were God and the family.” (p. 26)
Former atheist Peter Hitchens notes that throughout the West the Left’s hostility to Christian theism is specific because orthodox Christianity:
“….is the religion of their own homes and homeland, the form in which they have encountered—and generally disliked and resented—the power of God in their own lives…..the Left sympathizes with Islam because (it is) the enemy of their (own enemy, the Christian culture).” (Hitchens, p. 131)
Hostility to God and Christianity is not confined to just the Left but shared equally with GOP atheist insiders. Because of their hostility to God and Christianity they hold in utter contempt the middle-class, mainly Christian constituents they must rely upon to be re-elected.
Solzhenitsyn summarized the whole meaning of Fascism, Marxist Communism and Cultural Marxism when he described their three main causes as rebellion against God the Father quickly followed by apostasy and denial of man’s fallen condition, allowing the rebels and apostates to comfortably “forget” that evil cuts right through the hearts of all men, themselves included.
Peter Hitchens writes that atheists and antitheists who have the good fortune to live in a society governed by religious belief:
“….may feel free from absolute moral bonds, while those around them are not. This is a tremendous liberation for anyone who is even slightly selfish. And what clever person is not imaginatively and cunningly selfish?” (Peter Hitchens, p. 148)
Modern ideologies and the murderous utopian systems spawned by them are spiritual diseases of fallen men. The only cure is spiritual regeneration through submission to God the Father Almighty.
A few hours later NATO hit a target in Tripoli, killing Gaddafi’s 29-year-old son Saif al-Arab, three of Gaddafi’s grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors.
In his TV address, Gaddafi had appealed to the NATO nations for a cease-fire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country.
Well, let’s see if we can derive some understanding of the complex Libyan turmoil.
The Holy Triumvirate — The United States, NATO and the European Union — recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that it can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like “humanitarian”.
If The Holy Triumvirate decides that it doesn’t want to overthrow the government in Syria or in Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Jordan, no matter how cruel, oppressive, or religiously intolerant those governments are with their people, no matter how much they impoverish and torture their people, no matter how many protesters they shoot dead in their Freedom Square, the Triumvirate will simply not overthrow them.
If the Triumvirate decides that it wants to overthrow the government of Libya, though that government is secular and has used its oil wealth for the benefit of the people of Libya and Africa perhaps more than any government in all of Africa and the Middle East, but keeps insisting over the years on challenging the Triumvirate’s imperial ambitions in Africa and raising its demands on the Triumvirate’s oil companies, then the Triumvirate will simply overthrow the government of Libya.
If the Triumvirate wants to punish Gaddafi and his sons it will arrange with the Triumvirate’s friends at the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for them.
If the Triumvirate doesn’t want to punish the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan it will simply not ask the ICC to issue arrest warrants for them. Ever since the Court first formed in 1998, the United States has refused to ratify it and has done its best to denigrate it and throw barriers in its way because Washington is concerned that American officials might one day be indicted for their many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, said to the world in 1998 that the United States should be exempt from the court’s prosecution because it has “special global responsibilities”. But this doesn’t stop the United States from using the Court when it suits the purposes of American foreign policy.
If the Triumvirate wants to support a rebel military force to overthrow the government of Libya then it does not matter how fanatically religious, al-Qaeda-related, 1executing-beheading-torturing, monarchist, or factionally split various groups of that rebel force are at times, the Triumvirate will support it, as it did certain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope that after victory the Libyan force will not turn out as jihadist as it did in Afghanistan, or as fratricidal as in Iraq. One potential source of conflict within the rebels, and within the country if ruled by them, is that a constitutional declaration made by the rebel council states that, while guaranteeing democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, “Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation in Islamic Jurisprudence.”
Adding to the list of the rebels’ charming qualities we have the Amnesty International report that the rebels have been conducting mass arrests of black people across the nation, terming all of them “foreign mercenaries” but with growing evidence that a large number were simply migrant workers. Reported Reuters (August 29): “On Saturday, reporters saw the putrefying bodies of 22 men of African origin on a Tripoli beach. Volunteers who had come to bury them said they were mercenaries whom rebels had shot dead.” To complete this portrait of the West’s newest darlings we have this report from The Independent of London (August 27): “The killings were pitiless. They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came.”
If the Triumvirate’s propaganda is clever enough and deceptive enough and paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi-initiated high tragedy in Libya, many American and European progressives will insist that though they never, ever support imperialism they’re making an exception this time because …
- The Libyan people are being saved from a “massacre”, both actual and potential. This massacre, however, seems to have been grossly exaggerated by the Triumvirate, al Jazeera TV, and that station’s owner, the government of Qatar; and nothing approaching reputable evidence of a massacre has been offered, neither a mass grave or anything else; the massacre stories appear to be on a par with the Viagra-rape stories spread by al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Libyan uprising). Qatar, it should be noted, has played an active military role in the civil war on the side of NATO. It should be further noted that the main massacre in Libya has been six months of daily Triumvirate bombing, killing an unknown number of people and ruining much of the infrastructure. Michigan U. Prof. Juan Cole, the quintessential true-believer in the good intentions of American foreign policy who nevertheless manages to have a regular voice in progressive media, recently wrote that “Qaddafi was not a man to compromise … his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.” Is that clear, class? We all know of course that Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron made compromises without end in their devastation of Libya; they didn’t, for example, use any nuclear weapons.
- The United Nations gave its approval for military intervention; i.e., the leading members of the Triumvirate gave their approval, after Russia and China cowardly abstained instead of exercising their veto power; (perhaps hoping to receive the same courtesy from the US, UK and France when Russia or China is the aggressor nation).
- The people of Libya are being “liberated”, whatever in the world that means, now or in the future. Gaddafi is a “dictator” they insist. That may indeed be the proper term to use for the man, but it must still be asked: Is he a relatively benevolent dictator or is he the other kind so favored by Washington? It must also be asked: Since the United States has habitually supported dictators for the entire past century, why not this one?
The Triumvirate, and its fawning media, would have the world believe that what’s happened in Libya is just another example of the Arab Spring, a popular uprising by non-violent protestors against a dictator for the proverbial freedom and democracy, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt, which sandwich Libya. But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels’ uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:
- They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
- They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of “citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases”3 and of “the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters”4
- Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country’s oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
- They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
- International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence
The notion that a leader does not have the right to put down an armed rebellion against the state is too absurd to discuss.
Not very long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Mideast/North Africa world with perhaps the highest standards of living in the region. Then the United States of America came along and saw fit to make a basket case of each one. The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:
- Gaddafi’s plans to conduct Libya’s trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency — the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US’s dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here.
- A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: “We’ve got a big image problem down there. … Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don’t trust the US.”5
- An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There’s only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It’ll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
- Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d’être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
- Gaddafi’s role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
- The claim by Gaddafi’s son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy’s election campaign6 could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the “no fly zone” and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi’s influence.
- Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
- In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya. He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya’s oil wealth into foreign hands.
- The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it’s vital that powerful “enemies” be named and maintained.
- For yet more reasons, see the article “Why Regime Change in Libya?” by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks — Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (includes a complaint about Libyan “resource nationalism”)
A word from the man the world’s mightiest military powers have been trying to kill
“Recollections of My Life”, written by Col. Muammar Gaddafi, April 8, 2011, excerpts:
Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called “capitalism,” but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer, so, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us … I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it. … In the West, some have called me “mad”, “crazy”. They know the truth but continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip.
The state of our beloved capitalist system, early 21st century
I pay attention to the fat content of my food, so I was pleased to find a can of Pam canola oil cooking spray that had 0 grams fat per serving. Great, can’t do better than zero fat, can you? I used it often for a few months … until one day I took a closer look at the “Nutrition Facts” … Yes, it said 0 grams fat per serving. A serving. How big was that? Let’s see … “Serving Size about 1/4 second spray” … Hmmm, how does one press down on a button for 1/4 second? Is it humanly possible? Even the manufacturer had to say “about”. I had been taken. My hat is off to you Capitalist Robber Barons — You’re good!
The Dow Jones industrial average of blue-chip stocks fell 635 points on Monday August 8.
On Tuesday it rose by 430 points.
Wednesday, the market, in its infinite wisdom, decided to fall again; this time by 520 points.
And on Thursday … yes, it rose once again, by 423 points.
The Dow changed directions for eight consecutive trading sessions.
Upon such marvels of mankind countless people build careers, others wager their life savings, philanthropic foundations and universities risk much of their endowments, and conservative sages deliver sermons to the world on the wisdom and sacredness of the free market.
Main Street is the climax of civilization.
That this Ford car might stand in front of
the Bon Ton store, Hannibal invaded Rome
and Erasmus wrote in Oxford cloisters.
– Sinclair Lewis, “Main Street”, 1920
Do the economic fundamentals really change dramatically overnight? Or is our economic system as psycho as our foreign policy? The Washington Post’s senior economic columnist, Steven Pearlstein, wrote on August 14th of the four days described above: “I suppose there are some schnooks who actually believe that those wild swings in stock prices last week represented sober and serious concerns by thoughtful, sophisticated investors about the Treasury debt downgrade or European sovereign debt or a slowdown in global growth. But surely such perceptions don’t radically change each afternoon between 2 and 4:30, when the market averages last week were gyrating out of control.”
Last month “Pope Benedict XVI denounced the profit-at-all-cost mentality that he says is behind Europe’s economic crisis” as he arrived in hard-hit Spain. “The economy doesn’t function with market self-regulation but needs an ethical reason to work for mankind,” he declared. “Man must be at the center of the economy, and the economy cannot be measured only by maximization of profit but rather according to the common good.”8
“I am a Marxist,” said the Dalai Lama last year. Marxism has “moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.”
“I don’t believe in anything,” said Barack Obama. “At least not really strongly.” (No, I made that one up.)
Perhaps the worst outcome of the United States “winning the Cold War” is that countless progressive people think there’s no alternative to the capitalist system. Seventy years of anti-communist education and media stamped in people’s minds a lasting association between socialism and what the Soviet Union called communism. Socialism meant a dictatorship, it meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating “command economy”, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, few avenues for personal expression, and other similar truths and untruths. This is a set of beliefs clung to even amongst many Americans opposed to US foreign policy. No matter how bad the economy is, Americans think, the only alternative available is something called “communism”, and they know how awful that is.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party USA has endorsed Barack Obama for re-election.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
– Frederic Bastiat, (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author
- For example, see: The Telegraph (London), August 30, 2011: “Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.” There is a plethora of other reports detailing the ties between the rebels and radical Islamist groups.
- Washington Post, August 31, 2011
- McClatchy Newspapers, February 20, 2011
- Wikipedia, Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war, February 19, 2011
- The Guardian (London), June 25, 2007
- The Guardian (London), March 16, 2011
- Reuters, January 21, 2009
- Associated Press, August 11, 2011
- Agence France Presse, May 21, 2010
- “Yikes! Look who just endorsed Obama for 4 more years“, WorldNetDaily, August 3 2011
Breivik hated Reds even more than Muslims. The Pakis should be deported, but the Commies shot as traitors, he wrote in his 2083. He fumed against communism like Hitler in Mein Kampf, but Hitler had better reasons. Hitler competed against the Communists for the hearts of German workers, AND Hitler competed against the softies within the national-socialist movement in Germany, who (notably the brothers Strasser) were prepared to deal with communists.
A long time has passed since then. Communism won in the titanic struggle of 1945, but suffered a huge setback in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consequently, anticommunism has lost its meaning since at least 1991, but probably even earlier. Today, it could possibly mobilise a few old-timers in Washington DC, but maybe not even them.
It is with great astonishment we witnesses of Communism’s defeat read in 2083 that Communism was victorious:
“The US but especially W. Europe lost the Cold War due to the fact that we didn’t persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist-Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the ’68 generation, those who run things today.”
Breivik arrives at the unexpected conclusion that both the EU and the US are, in our present age, “socialist” or even “communist” states, “EUSSR and USSR” organised in accordance with Marx’s teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of paupers. One would have to be mad to describe the contemporary US and EU as “communist dictatorships” these societies are extremely inegalitarian — workers are on the bottom, while the super-wealthy have an ostentatious lifestyle unheard of even in Medici’s Florence.
The reason for this unexpected conclusion is that Breivik intentionally confuses Marxism-Leninism as the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, with the neo-Marxist western ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With all due respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them, but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with its geopolitical as well as ideological components. Western neo-Marxists were rather the allies of the Capitalist West in that war, and their contribution to the fall of the Eastern citadel of Communism was enormous, as they successfully undermined the Russian elites’ belief in their own ideology.
Though Breivik quarrels with the Western Marxists, he finds it convenient to connect them with the Gulag and with alleged mass murders in the USSR. This is dishonest: the Western neo-Marxists were against Stalin, and they called their Eastern brethren “Stalinists”, at least since the short-sighted Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956.
Khrushchev, a crypto-Trotskyite, frogmarched the Communists through an unnecessary and unpopular de-Stalinisation instead of letting bygones be bygones. Nowadays President Medvedev is talking again about de-Stalinisation; probably this talk will prevent his re-election. The people of Russia have differing views about Stalin, but the vast majority were and are against de-Stalinisation, for to them it symbolises the breakdown of the national masculine heroic paradigm.
Breivik accuses the Communists of supporting “extreme feminism”. This is odd. Joseph Stalin was the ultimate symbol of masculinity: the great Yugoslav director Dushan Makkaveev depicted him in his Mysteries of the Organism in priapic form. De-Stalinisation can be viewed as an attempt to unman the Father-figure of the Communist world. Again, Breivik’s ridiculous claim can be explained by his desire to gather all the Reds into one big heap: from grim NKVD commissars to California sociologists to the Norwegian teenagers he shot. He learned this nasty trick from his Neocon teachers: they paint every nationalist by the same brush as Adolf Hitler.
We reject it out of hand: not every traditionalist and nationalist is a Breivik or a Hitler; the Communists take differing positions on tradition, with Eastern Stalinists being quite conservative, traditional and mildly nationalist, while Western neo-Marxists rejected the bourgeois nationalism which caused two world wars.
Breivik stresses the Communist origins of the Frankfurt school’s founders, of Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukács but the neocons, too, were red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as the means of arriving at socialism. He thought that a new “Communist man” might be created before any political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken. This theory of Gramsci was used to preach a reformist, non-revolutionary way, avoiding a violent takeover of banks and factories. The idea was played up by the Euro-Communists and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.
Lenin was right, and Gramsci was wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and their newspapers, their parliament and their government, otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours to their benefit. The Frankfurt school and other Western neo-Marxists stood by the West in the Cold War.
The Western neo-Marxists behaved like the proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under the lamppost. Though he knew he had lost the coin elsewhere, there was more light under the lamppost. They did not know how to interact with workers, and so preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists. It was easier, but led nowhere, as we now see. The workers of Spain and Greece rose up last month, but the neo-Marxists were nowhere to be found. They did not lead this real popular revolt, as they were only used to their toy revolutions in the field of semantics.
The neo-Marxists gave up on revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the workers, and instead preferred to work “so no future Holocaust would be possible”. Kevin McDonald, from California State University, wrote that they choose to follow their Jewish agenda rather than the Communist one. Breivik had not read McDonald the Terrible, or at least never referred to him, being such a good pupil of Jewish pundits. KMD’s explanation was forbidden to him. He just intoned that what these men did IS communism. Actually, many texts in 2083 are old anti-Jewish screeds with find/replace Jews by Marxists.
Regretfully Breivik was wrong: the communists did not win. We did not move even one step closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and multiculturalism. Fighting against Christianity and family does not help, either. All these steps were appropriated and used by Capital and against workers. Actually, the objectives of socialist revolution and “no more Holocausts at any cost” are mutually exclusive. For the first objective, we need brave and daring men, for the second, all men must be unmanned, for real men are unpredictable.
The proof that Breivik speaks nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his 2083, where he rates European states according to their acceptance of what he calls “cultural Marxism”. Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient. Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories were never popular in the East, where capitalism was dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for a make-believe pseudo-communist ideology to paper over a capitalist economy.
As for the West, 1968 was not, as Breivik says, V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of a turn towards the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans contributed 90% of their income to the state, while now they pay less than 30% (never mind that they do not pay even that much by cleverly exploiting tax shelters, exempt funds and other tricks). It was in 1968 that the American worker’s minimum pay peaked in real terms. Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when mankind was nearest to the stars.
As children of the defeated ’68 revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act. We could travel and fly without being stripped at the airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could make love and smoke in cafés. Since then, it has been downhill all the way: smoking has been banned, free thought has been incarcerated by Political Correctness, and political action has been reduced to joining a Facebook group.
In the US, as Noam Chomsky has told me, the U-turn coincided with the teachers’ strike in New York which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are not necessarily best served by progressive and revolutionary tactics. Accordingly, the revolutionary ideologists of ’68 acquiesced in pacifying the masses, and the chances for a new holocaust or even loss of influence were indeed minimised.
The masculinity of the Left receded, too. Support of dubious gender politics and retreat from the class struggle changed the Left. While the Left had always pushed for equality between the sexes, this equality leaned rather towards the masculine pole: whether it was a worker building the barricade, sailors storming the Winter Palace, cigar-smoking barbudos of Castro, they were all manly symbols of the Left. During the epic confrontation of the first half of 20th century, the Red Guards were not more feminine than the Stormtroopers, and Ernst Thaelmann was not less masculine than Ernst Roehm.
The present misbalance of male/female factors in the developed world was caused by technological developments (man’s physical strength is less needed), by ideological shift and by capitalists’ desire to maximise profit by employing women. As a result, men are frustrated. Their old traditional role of providers is over; their jobs went away to China, fighting is done by drones. Breivik’s massacre bears the mark of a frustrated and marginalized Norwegian man.
Breivik felt his manhood threatened by “television, where nearly every major offering has a female ‘power figure’ and the plots and characters emphasize the inferiority of the male and superiority of the female by government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use ‘sexual harassment’ charges to keep men in line, [by] colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and ‘affirmative action’ is applied in admissions and employment.”
Yes, the killer is a psychotic man whose vision is hardly adequate, but his point should be considered. Even his hatred towards Muslim immigrants could be traced to the threat to his manhood presented by virile, unencumbered-by-fear-of-harassment-charges Southerners successfully competing for the charms of the Nordic girls. This massacre and its possible follow-ups might well have been averted if this European man did not feel his manhood threatened in so many ways.
The massacre is a sign that the Yin/Yang balance of Europe is severely biased; it should be restored and this urgent task can’t be delayed this is an important lesson of the Friday 22 massacre.
If I could publicly ask our beloved president one question, it would be this: “Mr. President, in your short time in office you’ve waged war against six countries — Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. This makes me wonder something. With all due respect: What is wrong with you?”
The American media has done its best to dismiss or ignore Libyan charges that NATO/US missiles have been killing civilians (the people they’re supposedly protecting), at least up until the recent bombing “error” that was too blatant to be covered up. But who in the mainstream media has questioned the NATO/US charges that Libya was targeting and “massacring” Libyan civilians a few months ago, which, we’ve been told, is the reason for the Western powers attacks? Don’t look to Al Jazeera for such questioning. The government of Qatar, which owns the station, has a deep-seated animosity toward Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and was itself a leading purveyor of the Libyan “massacre” stories, as well as playing a military role in the war against Tripoli. Al Jazeera’s reporting on the subject has been so disgraceful I’ve stopped looking at the station.
Alain Juppé, Foreign Minister of France, which has been the leading force behind the attacks on Libya, spoke at the Brookings Institution in Washington on June 7. After his talk he was asked a question from the audience by local activist Ken Meyercord:
“An American observer of events in Libya has commented: ‘The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent.’ That comment was made by Richard Haass, President of our Council on Foreign Relations. If Mr. Haass is right, and he’s a fairly knowledgeable fellow, then what NATO has done in Libya is attack a country that wasn’t threatening anyone; in other words, aggression. Are you at all concerned that as NATO deals more and more death and destruction on the people of Libya that the International Criminal Court may decide that you and your friends in the Naked Aggression Treaty Organization should be prosecuted rather than Mr. Gaddafi?”
Monsieur Juppé then stated, without attribution, somebody’s estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro-Gaddafi forces. To which Mr. Meyercord replied: “So where are the 15,000 bodies?” M. Juppé failed to respond to this, although in the tumult caused bt the first question, it was not certain that he had heard the second one. (For a counter-view of the Libyan “massacre” stories, see this video.)
It should be noted that, as of June 30, NATO had flown 13,184 air missions (sorties) over Libya, 4,963 of which are described as strike sorties. You can find the latest figures on the Allied Command Operations website.
If any foreign power fired missiles at the United States would Barack Obama regard that as an act of war? If the US firing hundreds of missiles at Libya is not an act of war, as Obama insists (to avoid having to declare war as required by US law), then the deaths resulting from the missile attacks are murder. That’s it. It’s either war or murder. To the extent there’s a difference between the two.
It should be further noted that since Gaddafi came to power in 1969 there has virtually never been a sustained period when the United States has been prepared to treat him and the many positive changes he’s instituted in Libya and Africa with any respect. For a history of this hostility, including the continual lies and scare campaigns, see my Libya chapter in Killing Hope.
America and its perpetual quest for love
Why can’t we “get some of the people in these downtrodden countries to like us instead of hating us.”
– President Dwight D.Eisenhower, in a March,1953 National Security Council Meeting 1
The United States is still wondering, and is no closer to an understanding than Good Ol’ Ike was almost 60 years ago. American leaders still believe what Frances Fitzgerald observed in her study of American history textbooks: “According to these books, the United States had been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world: throughout history, it had done little but dispense benefits to poor, ignorant, and diseased countries. … the United States always acted in a disinterested fashion, always from the highest of motives; it gave, never took.” 2
In 2007 I wrote in this report about the US military in Iraq:
I almost feel sorry for them. They’re “can-do” Americans, accustomed to getting their way, accustomed to thinking of themselves as the best, and they’re frustrated as hell, unable to figure out “why they hate us”, why we can’t win them over, why we can’t at least wipe them out. Don’t they want freedom and democracy? … They’re can-do Americans, using good ol’ American know-how and Madison Avenue savvy, sales campaigns, public relations, advertising, selling the US brand, just like they do it back home; employing psychologists and anthropologists … and nothing helps. And how can it if the product you’re selling is toxic, inherently, from birth, if you’re totally ruining your customers’ lives, with no regard for any kind of law or morality, health or environment. They’re can-do Americans, accustomed to playing by the rules — theirs; and they’re frustrated as hell.
Here now the Google Cavalry rides up on its silver horse. Through its think tank, Google Ideas (or “think/do tank”), the company paid for 80 former Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis, U.S. gang members and other former radicals to gather in Dublin June 26-28 (“Summit Against Violent Extremism”, or SAVE) to explore how technology can play a role in “de-radicalization” efforts around the globe. Now is that not Can-do ambitious?
The “formers,” as they have been dubbed by Google, will be surrounded by 120 thinkers, activists, philanthropists and business leaders. The goal is to dissect the question of what draws some people, particularly young people, to extremist movements and why some of them leave.
The person in charge of this project is Jared Cohen, who spent four years on the State Department’s Policy Planning staff, and is soon to be an adjunct fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), focusing on counter-radicalization, innovation, technology, and statecraft. 3
So … it’s “violent extremism” that’s the big mystery, the target for all these intellectuals to figure out. … Why does violent extremism attract so many young people all over the world? Or, of more importance probably to the State Department and CFR types: Why do violent extremists single out the United States as their target of choice?
Readers of this report do not need to be enlightened as to the latter question. There is simply an abundance of terrible things US foreign policy has done in every corner of the world. As to what attracts young people to violent extremism, consider this: What makes a million young Americans willing to travel to places like Afghanistan and Iraq to risk their life and limbs to kill other young people, who have never done them any harm, and to commit unspeakable atrocities and tortures?
Is this not extreme behavior? Can these young Americans not be called “extremists” or “radicals”? Are they not violent? Do the Google experts understand their behavior? If not, how will they ever understand the foreign Muslim extremists? Are the experts prepared to examine the underlying phenomenon — the deep-seated belief in “American exceptionalism” drilled into every cell and nerve ganglion of American consciousness from pre-kindergarten on? Do the esteemed experts then have to wonder about those who believe in “Muslim exceptionalism”?
This just in! American leaders do have feelings!
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s criticism of US and NATO forces in his country grows more angry and confrontational with each passing week. Recently, US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry was moved to reply to him: “When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost — in terms of lives and treasure — hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people … they are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here. … We begin to lose our inspiration to carry on.”
That certainly may apply to many of the soldiers in the field. But oh, if only American military and political leaders could really be so offended and insulted by what’s said about them and their many wars.
Eikenberry — who has served in Afghanistan a total of five years as a senior US Army general and then as ambassador — warned that if Afghan leaders reach the point where they “believe that we are doing more harm than good,” then Americans may “reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause,” and “the American people will ask for our forces to come home.”
Well, if Eikenberry is really interested, a June 8 BBC World News America/Harris Poll found that 52% of Americans believe that the United States should move to get its troops out of Afghanistan “now”, with only 35% believing that the troops should stay; while a Pew Research Center poll of mid-June showed 56% of Americans favor an “immediate” pullout.
“America has never sought to occupy any nation in the world,” the ambassador continued. “We are a good people.” 4
How nice. Reminds me of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, after the 1999 78-day bombing of the helpless people of the former Yugoslavia, a war crime largely instigated by herself, when she declared: “The United States is good. We try to do our best everywhere.” 5
Do these grownups really believe what comes out of their mouths? Does Mr. Eikenberry actually think that “America has never sought to occupy any nation in the world”? Sixty-six years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; 58 years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea; for over a century, the United States has occupied Guantanamo Bay in Cuba against the fervent wishes of the Cuban people. And what other term shall we use to describe the American presence in Iraq for more than eight years? And Afghanistan for almost ten?
George W. Bush had no doubt: The Iraqis are “not happy they’re occupied,” he said. “I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.” 6
However, the current Republican leader in the House, John Boehner appears to be a true believer. “The United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,” he affirmed a few years ago. 7
If 18th century Americans could resent occupation by the British, when many of the Americans were British themselves, then how much easier to understand the resentment of Iraqis and Afghans toward foreign occupiers.
An excerpt from William Blum’s memoir of the 1960s-1970s: West-Bloc Dissident
What our natural enemies didn’t do to us, we naturally did to ourselves, as did many of the other underground newspapers and movement groups in the ’60s: disagreements developed, factions formed, and, eventually, a split that rent the organization hopelessly in two — the left’s traditional circular firing squad.
Putting it in the broadest terms, there were two species of activists in these large dysfunctional families who kept bumping heads, here, there, and everywhere. We can call them the “politicos” and the “yippies” (subspecies: hippies, anarchists).
The politicos placed their faith in organization and in the intellect — a mass movement, “vanguard” political parties, hierarchies and leaders, heavy on meetings, ideology, and tracts, at times doctrinaire sounding, using words and ideas to convince the great middle class, if not the great unwashed. There were theories to justify these tactics, theories based on class analysis, presented with historical annotation to certify their viability; theories that Norman Mailer disparagingly referred to as “the sound-as-brickwork-logic-of-the-next-step in some hard new Left program.”
The yippies looked upon all this with unconcealed impatience, scorn, and unbelief. Said a yippie to a politico back then: your protest is so narrow, your rhetoric so boring, your ideological power plays so old fashioned …
Let’s listen to Jerry Rubin, certainly the yippies’ most articulate spokesperson:
The long-haired beast, smoking pot, evading the draft, and stopping traffic during demonstrations is a hell of a more a threat to the system than the so-called “politicos” with their leaflets of support for the Vietcong and the coming working class revolution. Politics is how you live your life, not whom you vote for or whom you support.
The most important political conflict in the United States for Rubin was not of classes, but “the generational conflict”. “The respectable middle-class debates LBJ while we try to pull down his pants.”
Is [American society] interested in reform, or is it just interested in eliminating nuisance? What’s needed is a new generation of nuisances. A new generation of people who are freaky, crazy, irrational, sexy, angry, irreligious, childish, and mad … people who burn draft cards, people who burn dollar bills, people who burn MA and doctoral degrees, people who say: “To hell with your goals”, people who proudly carry Vietcong flags, people who re-define reality, who re-define the norm, people who see property as theft, people who say “fuck” on television, people who break with the status-role-title-consumer game, people who have nothing material to lose but their bodies … What the socialists like the SWP and the Communist Party, with their conversions of Marxism into a natural science, fail to understand is that language does not radicalize people — what changes people is the emotional involvement of action.
Hardly anyone, of course, fit precisely and solely into either of these classifications, including Jerry Rubin. Much of the yippie “party line” was to be taken metaphorically, unless one’s alienation had reached the level of an alien, while most politicos were independent of any political party.
Ray Mungo, one of the founders of Liberation News Service, later wrote of LNS:
It is impossible for me to describe our “ideology,” for we simply didn’t have one; we never subscribed to a code of conduct or a clearly conceptualized Ideal Society … And it was the introduction of formal ideology into the group which eventually destroyed it, or more properly split it into bitterly warring camps.
When Mungo speaks of “formal ideology”, he’s referring to the “politicos” who joined LNS after its inception. These people, whom he refers to as “the Vulgar Marxists”, as opposed to his own “anarchist” camp …
believed fervently in “the revolution”, and were working toward it — a revolution based on Marx and Lenin and Cuba and SDS and “the struggle”; and people were supported only on the basis of what they were worth to the revolution; and most of the things in life which were purely enjoyable were bourgeois comforts irrelevant to the news service, although not absolutely barred. … Their method of running the news service was the Meeting and the Vote, ours was Magic. We lived on Magic, and still do, and I have to say it beats anything systematic.”
Mungo would have one believe that ideology is a “thing” introduced from the “outside”, like tuberculosis, that is best to avoid. I would argue, however, that “ideology” is nothing less than a system of ideas in one’s head, whether consciously organized or not, that attempts to answer the questions: Why is the world the way it is? Why is society the way it is? Why are people the way they are? And what can be done to change any of this? To say you have no ideology comes dangerously close to saying that you have no opinions on — and perhaps no interest in — such questions. Ray Mungo, I believe, was overreacting to people whom he saw as too systematic and who didn’t appreciate his “Magic”.
Just as I knew instinctively that I wasn’t a Quaker or a pacifist, I knew I wasn’t a yippie, hippie or anarchist, which didn’t mean that I couldn’t enjoy and even take part in some of their antics. Jerry Rubin was mistaken in my case, as in many others — language, spoken and print, had played a major role in my radicalization; equally indispensable had been the sad state of the world, but it was language which had illuminated and brought home to me the sad state of the world and proffered explanations for why it was the way it was.
During the American Revolution, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which sold hundreds of thousands of copies in the first few months of 1776, used language suffused with both reason and emotion to argue powerfully the case for independence, to strike convincingly at one of the greatest obstacles to separation: American veneration of royalty; and to point out that beyond the politics and legalities of the conflict, the colonies were sources of profit the crown would never voluntarily relinquish. This message clarified the revolution for thousands of confused rebels who had been debating points of law with London. Imagine if Paine had been a yippie instead of a politico — his primary message might have been to pull down the king’s pants.
It was the movement’s politicos who stayed the course, continuing to be activists well past the ’60s, while Rubin’s long-haired beast and Mungo’s Magic people — lacking the convictions of their courage — could more likely be found in the ’70s sitting cross-legged at the feet of the newest-flavor guru, probing interpersonal relations instead of international relations, or seeking fulfillment through vegetarianism, “the land”, or Rolfing. By the ’80s they had evolved into yuppies.
- New York Times, August 10, 2003 ↩
- Frances Fitzgerald, America Revised (1980), pp.129, 139 ↩
- Foreign Policy, “State Department Innovator Goes to Google“, September 7 2010; Washington Post, June 24, 2011 ↩
- Washington Post, June 19, 2011↩
- Washington Post, October 23, 1999 ↩
- Washington Post, April 14, 2004 ↩
- United Press International, July 26, 2007
There is no better way to proclaim your lack of spiritual and philosophical depth than by, two decades after the fall of communism, disclosing that you’re Marxist. Yet this is precisely what Buddhist spiritual leader the Dalai Lama did during a speech before 150 Chinese students at the University of Minnesota this month. Journalist Tsering Namgyal reports on the story at Religion Dispatches, writing, “‘as far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist.’ ‘But not a Leninist,’ he [the Lama] clarified.”
Well, that’s a relief. Those Leninists can really kill ya’. Marxists will just murder you.
This isn’t the first time the Lama indicated that his soul is as red as the robes he wears. During a lecture in NYC on May 19, the Tibetan leader credited “capitalism” with bringing new freedoms to China but then said, “Still I am a Marxist”; he then explained that Marxism has “moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.” That’s some deep thinking right there.
Now, I have the word “capitalism” in quotation marks because it was originated by a communist, and we shouldn’t allow enemies of the good to define the vocabulary of the debate. I prefer to call the mostly free market in question a “natural economy,” as it is what naturally occurs when people are afforded economic freedom; they will buy, produce, sell and compete. In contrast, communism (in the real world, not in the stateless utopia of textbook fantasies) requires a large, intrusive, freedom-squelching government to micromanage people’s endeavors and quash the yearnings of man’s spirit. And because the Natural Economy does allow people the most freedom practical (we still must have courts to enforce contracts, for instance), it is infinitely morally superior to Marxism.
Having said this, the Natural Economy doesn’t have “moral ethics”; it just is. It is, again, what naturally occurs when man is permitted to spread his wings. And it will be as moral as the average people who operate within it.
In contrast, Marxism will be as immoral as the worst people who operate within it. This is because, while the Natural Economy is governed by those hundreds of millions of consumer votes called the market, communism is ruled by the unscrupulous few who can claw their way to the top in an inevitably corrupt political system.
But while Marxism is morally inferior, it cannot be said to have “moral ethics” any more than the Natural Economy does – not in the true sense of the term. This is because it is atheistic. And a belief in morality – “morality” properly understood, that is – correlates to a belief in God.
Why? Because what we call “morality” can originate with only one of two possible sources: Man or something outside of him. If it’s something outside of and infinitely superior to him (i.e., God) – if “Absolute Truth” exists, in other words – then we can say that morality has an existence unto itself and is, therefore, real. But what if, as wanting Greek philosopher Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things”? Then morality doesn’t really exist; the word is then just a confusing redundancy, a water-muddying term that we apply to what is nothing but man’s consensus tastes. After all, we wouldn’t say that chocolate ice cream was “bad” or “wrong” and vanilla “good” or “right” simply because we found out that the greater mass of humanity preferred the latter, would we? Yet is it any more logical to proclaim murder bad or wrong if the only basis for doing so is that the vast majority of the world prefers that we not kill in a way labeled unjust? If, as with ice cream, our attitude toward murder is just a matter of man’s collective preference, then it lies in the same realm: taste. This is, by the way, what people of faith mean when they equate atheism with amorality. Secularists such as Christopher Hitchens take umbrage at this, but they misunderstand the concepts involved; no one is saying that an atheist cannot act morally – only that atheism cannot, logically, involve “morality.”
As for Marxism’s atheism and anti-religious passions, the Lama explains them away. Writes Namgyal:
The Tibetan leader answered that the [sic] Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx’s time, with the European ruling class. He also provided an interesting anecdote about his experience with Mao. He said that Mao had felt that the Dalai Lama’s mind was very logical, implying that Buddhist education and training help sharpens [sic] the mind. He said he met with Mao several times, and that once, during a meeting in Beijing, the Chinese leader called him in and announced: “Your mind is scientific!” — an assessment that was followed by the famous line, “religion is poison.”
Well, I guess that with the Lama, flattery will get you everywhere.
I’ve never heard the above interpretation of Marx before, and I very much doubt that he was a man of even private faith and non-institutionalized religion. Regardless, one of the most important points about Marx is never made: He was most likely what we would today call mentally ill. Note that he was notorious for not washing, and this is not uncommon for people who manifest crippling depression and other psychological/spiritual problems. And would it be surprising if Marx had been thus afflicted? “There is a fine line between genius and insanity,” they say, and Marx was a classic case of a brilliant mind that was twisted enough to conjure up a truly batty theory.
As for the Lama’s mind, it doesn’t seem as if he has to worry much about a slight misstep landing him in insanity’s realm. A few years ago he was asked if he took exception to a highly sexualized image on a magazine cover, and he dodged the question politician-like, saying (I’m paraphrasing), “This world isn’t real, anyway.”
Then why is he concerned about what the Chinese are doing in Tibet? What does it matter if the Chicomms oppress its people and quash its culture? Hey, if the Lama and some fellow Buddhist monks are hauled off to a Chinese concentration camp, they can just mediate on how it’s all an illusion.
The real illusion is the Lama’s image. A man of authentic faith seeks Truth and doesn’t deny reality, either the moral variety or the physical (“Am I a man who dreamt he was a worm or a worm dreaming he is a man?!”). The reality here, though, is that the Dalai Lama is, like Gandhi (about whom I recently wrote), just another overrated Eastern spiritual leader whom elites glom onto because he is quite liberal and not Western. He should stick to playing golf with Bill Murray on the bag.