Euro Rescue Operation or Mass Usurpation of Parliament?

The following posting on the site of the German publication Welt Online, written by Gunther Lachmann is relaying a video that has lately gone viral on the German language section of the Internet, much to the dismay of supporters of the parliamentary system.

- Will Europeans defend
their sovereignty? - 

What started out as a bailout program for Greece and Ireland, rendering these former proud sovereign nations de facto wards of state of the EU, has now grown into a hatchling Leviathan, EFSF. By 2013 it is to morph into a fully fledged monster (ESM) that will usurp the Parliamentary budget right of all euro zone countries.

We are sleep-walking into serfdom. The future will be taxation without representation! Where is the EuroTeaParty?

It's important to keep an eye on Germany. The Constitutional Court has pulled the brakes at the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, when politicians forgot for a moment that Europe isn't (yet) a state. In fact, there's a new ruling:

Update: ZeroHedge: "Explaining The German Constitutional Court Ruling".

Here's a translation of Lachmann's piece:

~ o ~

Video Reveals the Hidden Agenda Behind the Euro Rescue Operation

The new EU financial authority is seeking rights for itself that has left democrats dumbfounded. Politicians know it since May - and are keep stum about it.

For several days now a video about the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) has been making the rounds on the Internet. The video analyzes the draft agreement that the euro-zone countries have charted out in spring of this year. Two interesting things have emerged. First, the features have not yet been publicly debated in Germany, although the draft treaty has already been delivered to the parliamentary parties in May. Secondly, elected officials do not speak directly about the issues as mentioned in the video.



Here is some background information: As of 2013 the ESM will succeed the temporary euro rescue operation (EFSF). The German federal parliament will debate the EFSF later this month. The ESM is to be adopted in December.

In the video, the following points from the preliminary draft Treaty ESM are discussed:

• The ESM is to get a share capital of €700 billion. That's twice as much as the entire German federal budget this year.

• The ESM members agree "irrevocably and unconditionally" to payment "within 7 (seven) days".

• The Board of Governors may decide to change the share capital.

• The ESM, its property, and its financial assets enjoy full legal immunity.

• The property, funds and assets of the ESM are "exempt from access through search, seizure, forfeiture, expropriation and any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by government action or a judicial, administrative or legislative action"

"Welt Online" confronted all parliamentary parties with the findings, produced a "representatives-check.de" video and asked for a brief assessment of the points highlighted in the video. On the advisory board of "deputies check.de" are journalists, such as former "Welt" editor Adam Konrad and longtime "FAZ" correspondent, Karl Feldmeyer.

The SPD announced that it will refrain from "commenting on the video" because of the "dubious campaign" against the euro by "a single operator of various websites - including one on which present video is found". "For further information on its euro policy" the SPD referred us to their Home Page. And since the ESM contract was currently under renegotiation, the statements in the video are outdated and untrue anyway.

What does the Union think

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is defending the ESM. The financial affairs spokesman Klaus-Peter Flosbach wrote down in their stance for "Welt Online": "The video is much too biased to be informative. This only deepens the voters' confusion. Important issues, central to the functioning of the European stability mechanism, are omitted.

It does not, for example, point to the particularly high hurdles under which financial assistance may be granted. Also missing is information about the participation of the private sector, or that Germany has veto power. This video is but one example of the great need for information. We need to better explain to the voters why we have taken this route in dealing with the European sovereign debt crisis".

What say the Greens

The Green Party said that they had been in conclave the past week and spoke "very intensely about the problems as mentioned in the video". This has led to the following conclusions:

"Despite the need for improvement, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is a useful tool. Therefore, we support it. The ESM must be made operational quickly and credibly. Only that will calm down the financial markets and will a market-driven debt crisis be prevented from happening in the future. At the same time, the rights of the legislature as imposed by the Federal Constitutional Court ruling regarding Lisbon and the integrity of the German Parliament, must be maintained. Therefore a far-reaching involvement of the German Bundestag in important".

The existing laws on the participation and involvement of the German Parliament in matters concerning the EU will serve as a model for the future involvement of parliament in ESM. The Greens call for:

- "The nature, amount of German contributions, and the instruments must be determined by law and can only be changed by an amendment.

- Similarly, should other countries apply to be included in the permanent rescue plan, the agreement of the Bundestag is mandated. Should the federal government for any compelling reason disagree with the decision of the Bundestag, the Bundestag must be immediately informed before the crucial vote takes place.

- Furthermore, the government must inform Parliament of any action in the ESM and decision-making bodies at the earliest possible date, comprehensively, continuously and in writing and orally. The information includes relevant documents, including preparatory articles".

However, should the parliament not agree with the billions of aid, the Greens will immediately reserve their right of democratic participation:

"But the ESM must be able to act in a crisis and be able to respond quickly. Therefore, a mandatory decision of the Bundestag before the granting a loan would hamper coping with the crisis".

But they expect that "the European Parliament will be fully involved: the ESM is to insure financial stability in the euro zone as a whole".

What does Die Linke

Alexander Ulrich, chairman of the Group in the European Union Committee, spoke on behalf of Die Linke about the video: "Die Linke rejects the European stability mechanism - probably the only group in the Bundestag - off hand". Their reasons, however, are different from those in the video. The video completely ignores the participation rights secured by the German Goverment.

"Decisions are either taken unanimously or by a majority which includes a German vote," said Ulrich. Also, the participation rights of the Bundestag are misrepresented in the video, for example that the ESM can't raise capital independently. The Bundestag has set the ceiling for German participation in national law.

"But it is true: Parliament should have more rights in the future, and decide on euro rescue packages," said Ulrich. "What these participation rights should be is up to parliament to negotiate in the forthcoming ratification of the ESM Treaty".

Criticism of the ESM is justified, but the real weaknesses must be pointed out: "We can't waste billions of taxpayers' money in order to save banks and speculative profits. Recipients should not even be driven into recession by socially unjust and economically nonsensical reduction programs that raise their debts instead of lowering them, "Ulrich wrote.

De Linke therefore demand euro bonds and loans from a European Bank for public bonds, so that exorbitant rates of capital markets and speculators are reigned in.

Criticism of economic law expert, Kerber

Outside of politics the issue is viewed differently, says a Berlin economic law expert, Markus C. Kerber, who represents 50 entrepreneurs in a Court action against the policies of the federal government: "The ESM is the future of Finance. The ESM contract will lead to the elimination of the budget right of Parliament". He specifically warns against this road.

More contributions by Günther Lachmann

Courtesy @hlelowrold & @berryhoning

Related

- Orphans of Liberty: "The European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism", by James Higham

Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part II)

by Dr Sam Holliday

Continued from Part I

United States Misconceptions since 1945
Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945.

Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within.

There are several critical differences between building a nation and the creation of a state, or the expansion of an empire, or the formation of a federation.

- A state is based on coercion--by either force or law--and administration.

- Expanding an empire i.e. creating hegemony, requires a desire to dominate, superiority of armed forces that control territory, and ruthlessness.

- A federation requires agreement among its parts.

- A confederation is a state with considerable decentralization of authority to smaller self-governing units.

From these, Egyptians must determine the form of governance of the new Egypt. At the heart of the new Egypt will be the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior will be self regulated, and coercion will only be required against criminals and insurgents.

Attempting to persuade rival groups, prepared to use force to eliminate each other, to form a coalition government is not wise. This should not be attempted in Egypt. It is naive to treat factions, each of whom demand control of an all powerful centralized government, as parties in a system of parliamentary government based on checks and balances.

This was the error the United States made from 1945 to 1947 in its policy toward China. The United States made the same error in Vietnam, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan—and many other places. Obsession with (1) authority of the central government, (2) “rule of law” to replace custom and tradition, and (3) “democracy” defined as universal suffrage and elections, have caused this same error to be repeated again and again since 1945.

Ideological tunnel vision of American policy makers, who wanted others to have the benefits of American democracy and economic system, have often squandered billions of dollars and produced meager results.

Economic development of the kind practiced by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), often hinders more than it contributes. It has left a trail of destruction and poverty. It has propped up corrupt and chaotic governments. Many of the dams and highways it has financed have damaged the environment and destroyed social patterns of cooperation. It has contributed to the debt of many of the poorest countries.

Economic development has too often been determined by desires of central governments in their attempts to increase the state’s power. This view of economic development needs to be replaced with economic change to provide a better life for the people of Egypt.

Economic development in Egypt is essential; however, it should not focus on centrally controlled projects financed by an external source. There should be primary economic development, controlled at the local level, which provides the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. There should be secondary economic development that provides the education and training so that Egypt can take advantage of technologic changes in production, distribution, financing, and marketing so as to benefit from an integrated worldwide capitalistic economic system.

The creation of a nation is a long--several generations at least--process; the maintenance of a nation is a never-ending process. This is at odds with the American desire for a quick fix. Today there are many examples of how long it takes to build a nation, even under favorable conditions. Spain after 500 years is still trying to absorb the Basques and the Catalans. After 300 years as the British Isles, Ireland broke away in 1922; both Wales and Scotland still have separatist movements.

Although some countries in South America and Asia seem to have developed national identities, it is difficult to find any true nation in Africa. Will Canada breakup? After extreme efforts in Germany and Italy to build nations around common languages, the primary identification of many Germans and Italians remain with something other than their nation-state.

Both building and preventing the decline of a nation is an art requiring the balancing of many factors. It is not something that can be done quickly or by following a specific recipe, and foreigners certainly cannot do it. However, a realistic conceptual framework of nationbuilding can be a useful tool for Egyptians as they tackle the difficult task of building a new Egypt.

A Conceptual Framework for a New Egypt
Egyptians should pay continual attention to four interrelated tasks:

• Achieve Security
• Provide effective local authority
• Organize and motivate
• Satisfy aspirations

Achieving a security shield is the first task since it is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, security cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of building a new Egypt. Also, if the focus was primarily on the creation of an Egyptian state, actions to establish centralized control by the police and the Army might be carried to the extreme--such actions would actually hinder identity with the Egyptian nation since they would not produce a self-regulating equilibrium.

Security is achieved when the various levels of government have a monopoly on the use of force, and no group within Egyptian territory is willing to use force to achieve political ends. In the new Egypt internal security will primarily be the responsibility of the police of the districts, villages, and neighborhoods; however, these police must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government in Cairo. In addition, the central government would have the Army to protect Egypt’s interests and to ensure stability within Egypt.

Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government must be neutralized. For Egypt this would mean insurgents of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists). First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by any insurgent group, or payment to it.

When terrorism becomes a tool, a capability greater than that appropriate for policing ordinary crime must be added. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. Finally, if insurgents gain control of a part of Egypt’s territory, control must be regained, using both the police and the Army, and the leaders of the insurgent group must be either killed or confined.

A second task for the new Egypt is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape spiritual and material life of an individual, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells and feels. This task provides local leadership.

Leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; able to accomplish primary economic development; loyal to the established institutions; capable of educating each individual with values which blend freedom, ambition, duty and responsibility as well as the skills needed for economic improvement.

The third task of the new Egypt is to organize and motivate the people. The new Egyptian nation will be no more than Egyptian citizens welded together by a common destiny that binds into an active whole, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationship; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship and facilitates both primary and secondary economic development.

The fourth task of the new Egypt is to satisfy aspirations of Egyptian citizens. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Economic development is a critical part of satisfying aspirations, but it must be joined with belief.

At this time Islam provides the strongest belief system in Egypt, but the Islamists would return Egypt to the 4th century. The belief of modern Muslims is not strong enough to effectively challenge the Islamists—nor is that of any other religion. Therefore, the only belief system that can provide a stronger horse than Islam is Egyptian nationalism and patriotism. The Egyptian military are well suited to use this belief system to neutralize the Islamists.

Aspirations can unite people in common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two faced task. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented.

This task means that Egypt must have its own, unique, ideology. Egypt must reject the ideologies of the Islamists and the neo-Marxists, since both would enslave Egyptians to the control of non-Egyptians. However, this task, just like the first task of achieving a security shield, must not be carried to an extreme.

If this conceptual framework is to be useful for the new Egypt, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of the new Egyptian nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Conclusions
Egyptians need to remember the meaning of the Sacred Red, White, and Black of their flag. They must be prepared to fight against the ideologies of the neo-Marxists and Islamists. Americans cannot do any of this for the Egyptians, but they must understand and support Egyptians as they do about accomplishing the four tasks of building a new Egypt.

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Egypt Fallen to the Unholy Alliance (updated)

Updates Feb. 15, 2011

- UPI: "Muslim Brotherhood steps into politics"
- Associated Content: "Google Egypt: Ghonim Not the Only Tie to Protests"
- Pundicity: "Pyramid Scheme", by Clifford May

It's no secret to The New York Times. They are very open and upfront about it. But then again, the paper doesn't think a close cooperation between the Left and Islamists is any problem.

Cartoon by Mike Lester

Except if Glenn Beck is devoting a program to it. Then Media Matters steps in to deny what anyone with a pair of eyes can see for himself.

Watch the Glenn Beck program after Pres. Mubarak stepped down. Oh, and get this:

"they aspire to a Western-style constitutional democracy where civic institutions are stronger than individuals" ... 

... that would be a socialist collective! Does that sound to you like a Jeffersonian democracy based on individual rights? They have no idea what they're talking about! These kids are clueless! The NYT again (our emphasis):

In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly non-ideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

“I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. (...) Islam Lotfi, a lawyer who is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Youth, said his group used to enlist others from the tiny leftist parties to stand with them in calling for civil liberties, to make their cause seem more universal. Many are now allies in the revolt (...)

So that's the MO. You throw around a few Western sounding labels about 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'diversity', pretending cooptation towards a common cause and no one is asking questions. One Egyptian president - Anwar Sadat - was murdered by that bunch!

In the last couple of weeks the media have been jumping through hoops to picture the Muslim Brotherhood a respectable organisation in the eyes of the world.

A few enigmas that have sprung up over the last few weeks have been cleared up. Other mysteries have taken their place. Some are exceedingly disturbing!

Cartoon by Chip Bok

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence sat in front of a House Intelligence Committee this week and asserted publicly that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “largely secular” organization.

The term “Muslim Brotherhood” ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.

That would be the same Clapper who was uninformed about what was the great news on that particular day. Either the US 'intelligence community' has suffered a collective stroke, or they are exceedingly bad actors. I can't go as yet with Alex Jones' latest conspiracy theory, that it is in fact the CIA's invisible hand that's behind this cascade of uprisings.

On the other hand the Obama administration was seen flat-footed with Egypt's uprising. That perception was covered by the pretense that they had been supporting pro democracy groups all along! But that would be Bush's evil Neocons.

Obama's foreign policy was primarily framed by the narrative of 'thou shalt not foist Western style, liberal democracy on others'. Others may [sarc on] like their regimes slightly tyrannical. Who are we to judge?! There isn't just one true democracy. There are as many forms of democracy as there are people! [sarc off]. This has prompted the administration to cut funding as soon as it had changed the drapes in the Oval Office.

The information black hole sparked the institution a year ago of the bi-partisan Working Group on Egypt. It informed and warned the White House publicly and repeatedly, that Egypt was approaching a turning point and that the status quo was untenable. The first sentence of its opening statement read: "Egypt is at a critical turning point."

It should come as no surprise that the stooge for the unholy alliance is the 'social justice' loving former head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei. The safety of the world has been in this man's hands for years, during which he's been whitewashing and covering up the Iranian nuke program.

It is also no coincidence that both George Soros and ElBaradei both sat on the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group, one of Soros' agitation groups. His fingerprint is all over this revolt, as we've seen in "The Nature of the Revolution Is Socialist, Stupid!"

Here's how these misguided kids negotiate with the Muslims Brotherhood!

"On the question of alcohol — forbidden by Islam — he suggested that drinking was a private matter but that perhaps it should be forbidden in public."

They seriously believe the Brotherhood is going to stand for that! These people are going to be crushed. On the question whether the Left or the Islamists will prevail, my money is firmly on the Brotherhood.

As to what will be the model for this 'democratic' society? One Egyptian jacobin is with Tareq Ramadam on that: well, it's Turkey of course. As it happens that secular country, since the Islamists came to power, has been slowly sinking into an abyss, at the bottom of which is Islamofascist Iran! It was Turkey that aided and abetted the Gaza (r)aid flotilla for crying out loud!

Read in this article in Wall Street Journal, "The Secret Rally That Sparked an Uprising" how the revolt was pulled of, with a little help from a little worm, Google Inc. executive, Wael Ghonim.

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Well, will wonders never cease? And some are thinking the Left is against military dictatorships. But that should read of course: the Left is against any military junta, other than those they believe can be exploited to their advantage. Long live the Egyptian junta!

The same is true of Obama's neutrality and strict non-interference doctrine: that would be applicable to Iran where the lines of parley must remain open at all times. The Green movement be damned! But as far as Egypt is concerned, this is a historic moment for the Egyptian youth.

Related

- Politeia: "The Nature of the Revolution Is Socialist, Stupid!"

- The Graph: "The Socialist Roots Of The Egyptian Protests", by Brooks Bayne

- Africa Workers Organizer: "The Egyptian revolution has started" (Scribd doc) (via Uruknet)

- USA Survival: "U.S.-based Marxists Subvert Friendly Regimes and Support Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (PDF)

- New Zeal: "Revolution in Egypt - Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire"

- NoisyRoom: "Of Philanthropists and Monsters - Rockin' the Casbah", by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton (H/T Trevor Loudon"

Related dossiers

- "The Economy and Monetary file"
- "The Middle East Project"
- "The Levant Intricate Intrigues"

Another Grandiose Godwin in the European Parliament

The German equivalent of Alan Grayson, Comrade Schultz, the leader of the Socialist faction, has been called a Kapo (concentration kamp supervisor) by none other than Silvio Berlusconi, and many things besides.

Personally he's very fond of loosely applying the style named after Mike Godwin. But he's much less amused if someone else is doling out a reductio ad Hitlerum.

The reason these statists appear to be democratic fundamentalists, is because mob rule is the only thing separating them from the total state. It may come to that yet.



How it ended ...



Strasbourg: EU Parliament votes to oust UKIP's MEP Godfrey Bloom, posted with vodpod

Europe, and that goes for all its institutions, is filled to the brim with neo-totalitalitarians, statists and Hegelians.  Nigel Farage explains why!

PJM: "“Just who the hell do you think you people are?” Nigel Farage poses an excellent question. We’re still waiting for the answer . . .", by Roger Kimball

(...) The problem is, Mr. Farage pointed out, that people all over Europe are waking up and saying “we don’t want this, we don’t want [the EU] flag, we don’t want the anthem, we don’t this political class, we want the whole thing consigned to the dust bin of history.”

And the response by the EU bureaucrats who run things? Well, Ireland was told that it would be inappropriate from them to have a general election; they had to agree on a budget first. Mr. Farage had the perfect response to this effrontery: “Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people indeed. Your obsession with creating this Euro state means that you are happy to destroy democracy.”

Mr. Farage got it in right: the political crisis facing Europe may be exacerbated by the domino-like collapse of the economies of the member states. But the critical issue is the future of democracy, i.e., the future of freedom. It is “more serious than economics,” Mr. Farage argued, “because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the Euro project is destroyed by the markets before that really happens.” (...) >>>

The Truth about the Political Spectrum: Use or Lose!

... or in the words of the incomparable AlfonZo Rachel: "Breast Intentions: Don't Fall for Nanny-Staters' Booby Trap" ...

Much of the tranzie world is pursuing democratic principles as the highest value. It is a mistake. Democracy is not an end in itself, but the by-product of the rule of law based on individual rights. This is why the state of democracy in tyrannies is a travesty, only serving the purpose of lending legitimacy to the tyrants. 

The Revolution of a Popular Political Realignment

Leftist politicians in the Netherlands are once again outraged with Islam skeptic MP, Geert Wilders. This time not for asking the questions they seek to avert, but for foregoing participation in all but two cities in the next municipal elections. "Weak" and "evasive" are the qualifications uttered by reds and greens.

Wilders, on his party's site clarifies not to have been able to find the right candidates. The horrors that may befall a young, fast upcoming movement have been iconified by the sometimes ridiculous goings-on in Pim Fortuyn's party, which mushroomed and then collapsed in on itself through internal squabbles. This is perhaps the last chance of a popular revolt to take hold.

- Caption: design by Bosch Fawstin - 

The reds and greens are having great trouble fending off the advance of Wilders' Freedom Party. In the latest poll, while Groen Links (Greens) score 11 seats and Labor is stuck at 22 on an all time low, Wilders peaks at 28. What is going on? It has everything to do with The Unholy Alliance, the social contract the Left sought to strike with Islam.

Traditionally the party of the working class, the Left, through the art of cooptation, in the past lazily earned the loyalty of women, gays and other identity confused groups. Immigrants and Muslims were supposed to be yet two other minority groups whose interests they sought to represent. 

One culturally dense Labor Secretary not so long ago notoriously said that if we're having problems with the integration of Muslims because of our Judeo-Christian heritage, we'd just have to add another hyphen and turn our society into a Judeo-Christian-Islamic one. This statement says everything there is to know about the Postmodern Left: throwing reason to the wind, they remain oblivious of the inherent conflict in such an arbitrary, linguistic construct.

Back in the real world the Leftist 'social contract' with their voters was essentially a conspiracy of the elites and working classes to crush the bourgeoisie, traditionally detested by both. You know, the middle class on whose shoulders the duty rests to produce, manufacture, trade and keep the ship of state afloat by paying taxes and generally behaving like the good citizenry they are?

The thing is, (Muslim) immigrants started to supplant the working classes in the inner cities, alienating and marginalizing them at first, and finally pushing them out to the oh so middle class subsurbs.

Instead of being greatful for their upward social mobility, resentment set in. When Muslims began to radicalize - a process the Left claim to understand because that is what you do when you're poor and oppressed - the working class began to push back.

In their gluttony to harness the totally incompatible interests of yet another minority group, the Left have left their plebeian base in the lurch of encroaching Islamization. They are now paying the price for this politically dastard deed.

The elites meanwhile, being the elites, are getting more elitist by the day. Moreover, they' re reverting to their Postmodern roots! They've started to whine about such ingratitude ... that Wilders is a populist (a terrible insult!) ... that he's playing to the lowest sensibilities of the unwashed ... that he and his followers are closeted Nazis and fascists ... indeed, are practically subhuman. (This demonization has the precedent of the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, but the elite couldn't care less).

A self-defeating process has set in: the more ridiculous and divorced of reality these accusations become, the more often they seem to be willing to repeat them. Short of the social pressure of Nudging, political correctness and exclusion, they're at a loss what to do next. Panic is setting in.

We are seeing such insults also being traded in the US, for example in the discourse about health care reform, where Democrats are accusing their opponents - the Republican Party as well as the voters - of race baiting, hate mongering and vigilantism.

Grannies and mothers are portrayed as "angry mobs",  'Socialist health care' is really code word for racism. 

They've gone so far as to accuse the opposition of ... "stoking opposition" - in effect making rejection of their proposals a moral issue!

The White House had the unprecedented audacity to ask supporters to report dissent, turning the US into a latter day East Germany! (Btw, there's an app for that.) Latest rumor has it they've even resorted to spamming! (Update: we received a copy. It's absolutely true; the pamphlet is signed by the great Axelrod hisself.) Update: the spamming was done by a public private firm, paid for with taxpayer's money.)

Update: in a the latest development Obama has resorted to enlisting the assembled clergy so as to enlist God for his totalitarian purpose, and has accused opponents of being sinners ("bearing false witness"). Is this man an audicious demogogue, or is he just desperate?

It beggars the question, when does criticism qualify as criticism?  The answer is of course: never! These are just ploys to shut down the opposition: it's tyranny, pure and simple. 

Where this all will end is hard to say. The Left may make a choice yet for their original power base, letting Muslims to fend for themselves. I believe a Dutch Muslim party is in the making and may actually do some good in terms of maturing and emancipation. 

But if the Left stick to their pomo guns, the coalition of workers and the middle class, sometimes refered to as 'the people' (a concept much broader defined in the US, outside the confines of the traditional social strata), have no other recourse but to politically realign and find themselves the leaders willing to do their bidding, as was the original idea behind 'democracy' - you know, a government for and by the people. Very populist all, but there it is.

Thomas Paine wraps it up ... could we please have a just a little bit of that spirit in Europe too? (no, I thought not - still subjects to this very day, he?) ...



Related:

- PJTV/Sonja Smidt: We take on country back, our culture and our kids too (on the Leftist infiltration of education, which is where it all started!)

Update: the leftist political media complex  mainstreaming halal lifestyle choices in defiance of Liberal values: an excellent example of creeping Islamization. This is how far it's come!

A Fleeting Fragment of Breathtaking Dishonesty

As  grassroots opposition of mostly senior citizens and lovers of liberty continues to build against the Health Care reform Bill as proposed by President Obama, Breitbart TV's B-Cast yesterday premiered a Naked Emperor production of just one - just one example of the truly staggering dishonesty and hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic leadership.

Or is it? It is actually part of the political philosophy the Democrats subscribe to: the native American form of relativism, called Pragmatism. As the opposition reels with outrage over the double standards, the Dems continue to embrace the "truth of the day", the narrative which happens to be expedient to their talking point of the moment.



- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" -

Parting Ways With #IranElection

This blog to date has been actively supporting the uprising in Iran. We have done so, motivated by the conviction that any trouble sending the regime off its nuclear collision course with history, can only be a good thing. Another motive was based on the off chance that a Jeffersonian democracy might actually spring up on Cyrus the Great's real estate. This seems more unlikely by the day.

Neocon scholar and author Francis Fukuyama published an article this week in the Wall Street Journal, "Iran, Islam and the Rule of Law". It is giving fuel to an impression, gathered from the various commentaries on Twitter and elsewhere on the Internet: there seems to be no awareness at all among the activists of a very crucial point; namely, that if the current Islamofascist regime is replaced by a softer version - or by a Leftist one for that matter - the result will not be freedom, but the replacement of one oppressive collective with another.

Make no mistake - it is not Leftism or Rightism that defines freedom - both do not. Neither does some watered down, culturally determined form of 'democracy' based on inequality among groups (related to gender, race, religion or otherwise). The pre selection of candidates in accordance with the ruling elite's idea of political correctness does also not constitute a free democracy.

Relativists among us tell us not to expect Jeffersonian democracies to blossom everywhere around the globe. They assure us that democracy is merely a sort of general recipe, and that the end result is to be determed by racial, religious, historical or cultural considerations.

Implied in this is a preunderstanding that, whatever the outcome, we will accept this entity as a 'democracy' or that at least, that we will consider it morally equivalent to a democracy.

Spoken like a true nominal relativist: the Left have performed this labelling trick before: in the German Democratic Republic and in the political abomination known as Social Democracy. In their book the prefix 'democratic' makes it synonymous with the real thing, a clear case of Orwellian double speak!

Those who look beyond labels know that what constitutes freedom, are individual rights, rather than the temporary privileges bestowed on subjects by the state. That said, it helps a great deal in establishing the state of freedom if rights are derived from God or Nature, placing them well beyond reach of the long arm of the state, whose temporary privileges can be revoked at a moment's notice.

While this blog will continue to endorse regime change in Iran, I believe the time has come to part ways with the revolutionary forces of the green wave. Sadly there's this tendency to turn against the western allies at the drop of a hat. The capitalism versus socialism dualism is never far of. Religionism is good at confusing their heavenly collective with a temporal one. I wish them God's speed and loads of wisdom. 

We will also continue to translate Afshin Ellian's posts, which often contain important inside news from the region - as it does today. 

The Iranian regime is more dangerous than North Korea

Yesterday the assassination of Neda Agha Soltan was commemorated in the Iranian cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Rasht, Mashhad, Tabriz, Sari. The young philosophy student [ed. who might have been a Christian* (click the link for an enlarged image)] was shot in broad daylight before the eyes of the world.

Other students who were killed by the regime were also commemorated. In Behshte-Zahra thousands of citizens were gathered for this purpose. Later on they were abused by the troops of the Ayatollahs and dispersed. Also on Wanak Square the regime acted harshly against innocent civilians. Shots have been heard.

But not everyone is engaged in rallying for the cause of freedom. Some solely occupy themselves with money and treasure.

This week state controlled media reported that 18,5 billion dollars have been confiscated by the Turkish Government. They were forced to disclose it, because Turkish TV had beat them to it. The Turkish PM remarked that in these times of crisis help is forthcoming from the 'invisible world', in this case the Islamic Republic Iran.

Take note: Turkish customs confiscated an unknown number of trucks in which 11 billion dollars worth of gold bullion and 7,5 billion dollar in bank notes had been loaded.  (...) Iranian state media reported the treasure belongs to the Iranian business man, Ismail Safarian.

Which business man in the world owns 11 billion dollars worth of gold bullion? Which business man in the world carries bank notes by the truck load? If it's true, this money belongs to a state or a state-person who wishes to transfer capital abroad for fear it might not be safe if left in the country. This is ironic, because the last Shah of Persia also transferred 15 billion dollars abroad before he was forced to leave.

Another explanation is that this money was earmarked for the reinforcement of terrorism. What do I mean? The Islamic regime must divert attention away from the situation in the region. Tehran made a deal with the Obama administration in the runup to the elections [sic]: in exchange for the American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi a number of Revolutionary Guard members were released from Iraqi jails. (...)

- Cartoon: Cox and Forkum - 

The guardists got a hero's welcome in Tehran. They were arrested a few years ago for terrorist activities. Five of them were so-called diplomats. Actually they were officers of the Revolutionary Guard who got themselves arrested in Arbil (Iraqi Kurdistan).

Now the situation has changed again. Creating unrest will shift attention to other areas and if the Americans plan to take counter measures, that would also be welcomed as a diversion. At this stage we don't know what the purpose of the money was. What we do know, is that the Revolutionary Guard is more active outside Iran's borders than in the past.

Terrorism and the Iranian regime are two sides of the same coin. Every year much treasure is funneled to southern Lebanon, Hamas, Iraq, the Gulf states and also Sudan. Iran has allies and friends in almost all Arab states. Taking hostage innocent civilians is a method by which Tehran negotiates with other countries, especially Western ones. During the 80s on the orders of Tehran the Lebanese Hezbollah held scores of Westerners hostage. After years of negotiations between the UN and Rafsanjani they finally were released.

Europe also needs to be on the alert. The regime has a vast network of spies and intelligence people at its disposal in Europe. If cornered, they can get exceedingy aggressive.

That is why I keep hammering on the need for the West to support the democratic movement in Iran. This regime is extremely violent and dangerous. Even more so than North Korea. Iran has funds, whereas North Korea has not.

Iran also has regional and international ambitions that North Korea lacks. North Korean leaders just want to survive. The danger of the Islamic state would increase exponentially if those in power have a number of nuclear devices at their disposal.

The transfer of billions of dollars abroad, whatever its purpose, should convince anyone that things are getting pretty serious indeed.


* It has been reported on Atlas Shrugs that on an original photo Neda Soltan is wearing a crucifix; curiously it was later cropped out of existence. It occured to me that the Cross may also be a Zoroastrian symbol. It may have merged with the Christian Cross in Roman times; many Roman soldiers appeared to have converted to Mithraism, a Zoroastrian off shoot.

Obama, the President of Shoddy Philosophy?

After the Bush administrations' adoption of the extraordinary neocon idea that the spread of democracy would bring peace and prosperity to all - including the recalcitrantly authoritarian Middle East - opponents ended up vilifying not just everything about George W. Bush, but also both the policy and the principle of democracy itself. A typical case of throwing the baby with the bath water ...

But democracy, embodyment of the values of the Enlightenment, traditionally always has been a Liberal enterprise, not a Leftist one. Leftism (as well as Rightism) grew from a 17th and 18th century counter movement. Set aside those who rejected violent revolution on principle, like the Fabians, it was only after the many failed revolutions of the last century that Socialists took another look at their ideology and adopted the epithet Democratic (as in Social Democrats, and as opposed to 'authoritarian' Socialists).

Present Postmodernists are the ideological heirs of said counter movement. It is therefore no small wonder that the original, pre democratic roots are again moving center stage with the present occupier of the White House, who is the quintessential Postmodernist. Clever politicians as they are, they're sacrificing democracy on the ethical platform of "social justice". If nothing else, the scions of the Counter-Enlightenment always appear to be spreading their lethal ideals with the best of intentions.

Here you can read who have already been thrown under the post democratic Obama bus ... Six months into the pomo administration and the record is already quite impressive.

The new motto of foreign policy seems to be "transnational peace through friendship among potentates".

The only doubt benefiting Obama, is the question whether he truly harks back to basics, or if he is merely pushing the softer Postmodern option of ethical relativism ("who are we to meddle (in Iran), we - the West - don't have the monopoly on truth (democracy)" - or alternatively "absolute truth does not exist" - or alternatively "truth is merely a subjective construct".

The world may consider itself lucky if official policy is merely shoddy, accidental moral equivalence, or the inability to understand that the fulfilment of positive rights is the result of the state respecting negative rights. In other words, oppression (fear) and starvation are the result of a lack of freedom, always.

It's all explained in detail and with great clarity in ...

Commentary Magazine: "The Abandonment of Democracy", by Joshua Muravchik

The most surprising thing about the first half-year of Barack Obama’s presidency, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy. (...) The new president signaled his intent on the eve of his inauguration, when he told editors of the Washington Post that democracy was less important than “freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people aren’t secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, in opening testimony at her Senate confirmation hearings. As summed up by the Post’s Fred Hiatt, Clinton “invoked just about every conceivable goal but democracy promotion. Building alliances, fighting terror, stopping disease, promoting women’s rights, nurturing prosperity—but hardly a peep about elections, human rights, freedom, liberty or self-rule.” (...) The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has put out 30 public releases, so far, and not one of them has discussed democracy promotion. Democracy, it seems, is banished from the Obama administration’s public vocabulary. (...)  >>>

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" - 

Open Letter from Delusional Iranian Artists in Exile

Those who have been using their wits lately, may have noticed the gaping discrepancy between the soft-spoken utterings of postmodern, relativist politicians, and their actions with regard to the situation in the less free parts of the globe. In fact, it's hard to miss unless you're rather partial to their pacifistic diplomatic overtures, much reminiscent of "peace in our time".

Since the fallacy of relativism always causes them to balance the merits of the one party - say the blessings inherent in Islamofascist theocracy, with the insidious failings in another - say western liberal democracy, it is very, very hard for them to publicly favor one system over another. Both are equally valid in their own right, you see - morally as well as culturally.

Welcome to the "under the bus" phenomenon.

So, if you happen to be rotting away in an Iranian prison cell, or slowly starving to death in the North Korean black hole, don't wait for them to take any action on your behalf: their sympathies happen to be with the oppressors who stand symbol for such systems.

If you are a Muslim woman hankering for the freedom to call your destiny your own, don't wait for these pomo politicians to help set you free, because they will ceaselessly tire for your right to wear the symbols of oppression.

While the West voted for HopenChange and the victims get deposited under the bus, the much demonized outgoing American administration was refusing them succour and funnelled money to finance democratic revolutions!

Listen to the utter irony locked up in this piece of deluded collectivism.



Update:

The Washington Times is also on the case. Be prepared to see a lot of this mechanism in the coming years. We'll end up with more people under the Obama Bus, than on it ...

- "Iranian Clerical Opposition Forming"
- "Stand for Iranian freedom - Is Obama surrending America's leadership of the free world?" 

(...) American dithering radiates weakness and indecisiveness. It tells the Iranian regime that the United States is so eager to make a deal that it will not even defend its principles. The crisis seems to be an inconvenience that risks delaying the implementation of the vaunted "engagement" plan. The administration would like to see this messy situation go away so the stately process of diplomacy can continue its march, unburdened by annoying freedom seekers with their banners, their chanting and their ideals. (...) >>>

Picked up on Twitter: photos of trashed dorms.

Overheard on Dutch public radio: an Iranian exile and reporter assuring the listener that many Iranians still believe in Ahmadinejad ... in other words: not so fast in supporting the revolution just yet. And believe it or not, a show host calling for ... some objectivity! Such is the measure of moral relativism.

- Filed on Articles in "Bus Line 0" - 

Introduction to Dossier "Bus Line O" on the Road to Nowhere

It started with the evil Neocons' influence on the Bush I Administration and their policy after 9/11 to start 'exporting' democracy as a strategy in the fight against terrorism. After all, it's not democracies that produce violence, but despotic collectives to whom terror and coercion is part of the doctrine.

It must have taken an extraordinary amount of courage. This strategy is in fact what "the war in Iraq" was all about: liberating the country from Saddam's Baathist fascist regime - and the very, very long shot indeed - of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

In the long run it paid of as it always does ... at the price of blood, sweat and tears ... no thanks to the weasel white-flag raisers and the terror apologizers all over the Leftist world. But it's historical dividend that may well continue to pay of in many ways in the years to come.

The U-turn in Western public opinion against "egocentric cultural imperialism" has baffled many: how come liberals started jettisoning their hitterto absolute belief in democratic principles, women's rights, human rights, gay rights, equal rights, civil rights? Leftist intellectuals started issuing pamphlets to the effect that democracy is "actually very much overrated"; Feminists began to campaign for their Muslim sisters' "right to wear the hijab" and other baffling inconsistencies to boot.

Watch the latest shock and awe in PJTV's "InstaVision: Is Freedom Blossoming in the Middle East?", an interview of InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds with Joshua Muravchik, author of "The Next Founders, Voices of Democracy in the Middle East".

At first it looked like perhaps another accident of the dialectic, caused by the Left's habitual and often irrational embrace of the diametrically opposite position of the opponent, no matter if - as a result - you have to start supporting something totally outrageous (like the oppression of the oppressed)! As it turned out, in the final analysis it was something much more interesting than that.

The long and short of it was, the Left's moral compass had just made an inexplicable U-turn. Present blogger embarked on a fascinating quest involving ideological archeology and in the end found that on the philosophical level the Left's about turn was not as erratic as it looked at first glance.

A more accurate description of the postmodern Left - which includes many feminists, legions of environmentalists and 'identity' theorists, hosts of Third-World'ers, New Agers, Luddites and other fruit cakes - would really be "the Collectivist Left and Right". Like all true socialists, they are the heirs of the Counter-Enlightenment, and not - repeat not -  of the mainstream Enlightenment (Classical Liberalism), or of the Radical Enlightenment (free-thinkers, Deists, naturalists, materialists: hear Pat Condell in "Liberty be Damned" and you'll get a good idea of the difference).

The Counter-Enlightenment (also known as the anti Modernists, or the anti philosophes) was a reactionary movement, that acted on every level against the values of the Enlightenment: averse to reason (i.e. philosophy), against individualism, anti democracy and contra capitalism, more often than not with a phobia for technological advancement and a suspicion and distaste for civilization.

An excerpt from "Pomo's Inside-Out, Upside-Down World of Moral Inversion":

"(...)  commentators express their surprise of postmodernism ending up on a par with Nazi, Fascist or extreme Nationalist ideas, expressing their shock, shock at postmodernist involvement in Nazi scandals, or anti-philosophes suddenly spouting crypto fascist propaganda. Richard Wolin admits that the postmodern assault on reason familiarly rings of the standard European reactionary critique as traditionally expressed by the anti-modernists [Richard Wolin, "The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism", Princeton University Press, 2004, Introduction p. 12]. " Wolin builds a good case, to which results from recent research might also be added. Surprised? Not really. All such malignant forms of state collectivism are reducible to the usual suspects."

Over the last few years it has become quite apparent that the Left, having first usurped and then perverted Liberalism for it's own dark purposes, have now reverted to the original ideology of irrational collectivism at the very opposing end of the philosophical scale. A main tenet of that ideology is cultural relativism, or polylogism as described here. As so many of its toxic ideas, today we know it under an innocent sounding epithet with a corrupt definition: multiculturalism.

The new addition to Politeia Articles, dossier "Bus Line O" chronicles the ideological reversal. There's no need anymore to be surprised or outraged by Obama and his ilk hobnobbing with tyrants and petty potentates, in the process propelling the innocents and the oppressed under his poisonous postmodern bus.

Here's Alfonzo Rachel again and his great satire on the bus theme.

- Filed on Articles in dossier "Bus Line O" - 

R.I.P. Parliamentary Democracy

To those who haven't noticed, to the dim of wit, the socialights, the evaders and the hard of hearing: WE ARE THROAT-DEEP IN HORSE MANURE, primarily because we are encouraged to voluntarily forfeit the faculty that makes us humans human: to reason, the ability to properly identify, to integrate concepts into a mental body of ideas that conform to reality. And then there's the inability to weigh the portent of a particular case. The march of the debilitizers rolls on.

Because of an uptick in both frequency and severity we yesterday felt the necessity to open up a new dossier on Articles named "Ruled by the Mob" (not to be confused with the tyranny of the majority, or mob rule). It consists in a political innovation (at least in our time), that is now temporarily culminating in a case in Britain: the criminalization of the opposition.

Thanks to the Obama campaign in the US - which was as close to total war as one can get without actual bloodshed - the dossier is already quite lengthy.

It occurred last Thursday November 27 when the anti-terrorist squad of the Metropolitan police arrested Shadow Minister for Immigration, Damian Green MP, while his private papers and computer files in his home and office in the House of Commons were ransacked and confiscated.

This violation against the state of parliamentary democracy happened on thinly veiled, trumped up charges of possible "intent to disrupt the visit of the Queen to the Houses of Parliament". What's next, one might ask: Jesuits thrown in dungeons for disturbing the peace in St Peter's? But that's not the point!

The following question is intriguing, but it also misses the essence: who has been infiltrating swathes of British society and has propagated to act over and beyond his or her authority? If the surfacing of the black hand of Common Purpose (CP) cabal is too contrived for you, try this.

Roger Kimball on his blog on Pajamas Media deals with the case in "How Democracies Perish, British Edition": "The Honorable Member’s offense? Embarrassing Gordon Brown’s government. How did he do this? By revealing in debate on the floor of the House of Commons and in various lapses, failures, and dirty-little-secrets about the government’s immigration policy (...) Mr. Green was doing exactly what a member of the Opposition should do: shedding light on the government’s failures in order to make it more accountable to the public."

Kimball goes on to quote Janet Daley in the London Telegraph:

"The object of the exercise seems to have been intimidation and the flaunting of power. Short of an outright, totalitarian suspension of democracy, this is about as serious as it gets. Freedom is under threat in ways that we would not have thought conceivable a generation ago. The threat seems to be coming in various forms from a government desperate to save its own credibility and to be so convinced of its moral righteousness that it can justify the most blatant abuses of what we had taken to be the fundamental principles of a free society."

Some of the comments to the post are worth quoting in full:

#7: “…it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect” --George Orwell

#8: "As Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it “This is something you might expect from a tin-pot dictatorship, not in a modern democracy.” Socrates would beg to differ. If you want to avoid going down the road that leads to this sort of thing, it helps to know how we got here in the first place. The Left’s substitution of “democracy” for freedom is a key first step to their overall goal of taking the shackles off government and placing them back on the wrists of individuals. What makes a society free is a limited government, not an elected one."

So much for Barack Obama and his contempt for negative rights, which he popularly described as "what government cannot do to you". Rather than suffering the horrors of neglect by the state, he prefers the positive rights that chain a free individual once again to the risk-free nursery of the tribal collective.

The case is also born out in an excellent article by essayist Fjordman on the site of The Brussels Journal: "The Importance of Cicero in Western Thought". It's lengthy, but worth reading in its full glory. Here's one excerpt from Hayek's work "Constitution of Liberty" that's relevant to the case in hand (p. 146):

- Caption: young Cicero, reading - mural by Vincenzo Foppa, ca. 1464 -

"Cicero indeed became the main authority for modern liberalism, and we owe to him many of the most effective formulations of freedom under the law (...) that we obey the law in order to be free (...) during the classical period of Roman law it was fully understood that there is no conflict between law and freedom and that freedom is dependent upon certain attributes of the law, its generality and certainty, and the restrictions it places on the discretion of authority."

Freedom, as well as free will are often confused with acting on whim - another case of wrongful identification - which is indeed associated with mob rule, or tyranny by the majority which is in fact democracy.

As Sam Holliday pointed out in a recent essay on this blog, "A US Weimar Republic? Red Flags: Our Republic": [America's Founding Fathers] "created a federal republic, and wrote the Constitution of the United States, based on the tenets of classical republicanism, which is dependent on sovereignty being held by citizens themselves. The Founders shared a fear of tyranny, either by dictators or Caesars, and sought ways to protect freedom; their solutions were decentralization and checks and balances. It was a remarkable compromise designed as a safe guard against mass emotionalism."

The Left and increasingly also some on the Right are blind to the perils of recent trends towards emocracy, collectivism, bailouts and nationalizations, corporatism, peace-offerings and libations to theofascists and now, demonization and criminalization of the opposition. The Government that perpetrated this abomination is - to this moment - in power.

We stand by what we concluded yesterday in a note on the precursors of censorship: "Tolerate it at your peril."

Update:

Times just reported that the police acted without a warrant and in the course of an investigation into a series of leaks traced back to the Home Office. We are not in a position to investigate, but will show no signs of surprise if Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson or the directly responsible underling, as was the case in the De Menezes shooting, turns out to have undergone training by the nefarious Common Purpose (CP), "to act beyond authority" (see above). N.B. There was one (1) Labour MP who protested the matter during the Commons Debate. Kudos to him; the rest are too demoralized to compute the longer-term course of their ideas.

- Filed on Articles in "Ruled by the Mob" -