Invasion of the Postmodern Watermelons

Phil Kerpen, Director of Policy at Americans for Prosperity, joins Breitbart TV's the B-Cast to discuss the radical network around the White House that has sprung to light in the recent days thanks to alert investigators, like Glenn Beck.

The watermelon analogy was coined by Beck in illustration of the self proclaimed Communists and other red radicals, who are hiding behind a thin layer of greenism.

Can't say with hindsight it's a great surprise: the direction environmentalism pointed in always was towards control and raking in tax money! 

Here's part I:



Part II includes the subject of the growing outrage over the hijacking of the 9/11 commemorations for political purposes and Obama's war of words over the health care reform.

The video is the first segment of last night's episode of Glenn Beck's series "The New Republic". It is running the entire week, culminating the day after tomorrow with full disclosure of what he's found this pomo cabal to be all about.

Earlier episodes and parts 2-6 can be viewed on our Vodpod page.

This blog has been warning that a new round of Communism (or collectivist totalitarianism, or postmodern fascism, or whatever) is coming our way. Well, here it is. 

I must urge all readers - in and out of the United States - to watch these videos carefully, because it is the model for, and the next and ultimate form of collectivism for the post Cold War world. 

If you think this is an exaggeration or worse, read your history books on everywhere where this social experiment has been tried: Russia, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Cuba, swathes of Africa and Latin America, and the result has ever been the piling up of sacrificial bodies! Your life, your choice.



Here's a question posed by social network "The Reagan 2.0 Revolution". The Obama energy policies are so inconsistent, it should start flags flying all over the place.  The answer I think is that the aim here isn't the protection of mother earth, but rather some other interest as laid out by the groups that make up the Apollo Project.

It would appear that the Obama Administration is promoting an “all of the above” energy solution overseas. The US Administration is offering to give a loan to a Brazilian oil company to conduct off shore drilling and in the regions bordering Iran and Turkey, the “Caucuses”, as well as in Central Asia, the US is promoting the idea of greater exploration and production of oil and natural gas. See our article on this here. 

Perhaps some might wonder why the US Administration is NOT pursuing such a policy WITHIN the United States. The emphasis at home is more about certain TYPES of energy, often referred to as “alternative” energy, but the list of alternatives WITHIN the US is rather LIMITED to solar, wind, and so-called “renewable” resources, which are fairly scarce, based on new and unproven technology, and expensive to produce, while the United States has a super-abundance of coal, natural gas and oil.

Perhaps the White House should set up a special email so that we, the People, can FLAG THEM about this inconsistency in policies. Does the President realize that his Administration is pursuing a “Limited Energy Production” policy at home while promoting an “Unlimited Energy Alternatives” policy abroad?

Go to our page and share YOUR thoughts on this question- should the US promote ONE energy policy overseas and ANOTHER at home?

As it happens today we have the unique opportunity offered by Demotix to view the Venezuelan counter revolution in action. Students in Caracas have been protesting for a month now against the closure of 34 radio stations and a new education law. More on Demotix.

Is that honestly where we all want to go? Protesting after the freedom of speech has been taken from us?

The Shadow Party, the Color of Change and The New Republic

The coup on the free world playing out in the US, is coming straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. 

The Organizer-in-Chief knows well how to implement that sort of thing.

Get this:



Should anyone like to know how we got here and what ideology underlies the entire coup, here's some additional information.

- A still ongoing series of posts written by David Horowitz, brought together on a file called "Horowitz on Alinsky: the Postmodern War on Reality"

- Indepth research into how the Democratic Party was taken over by the totalitarian, Postmodern Leftists - Logistics Monster: "Obama's American Socialism: Decades in the Making"

Don't miss David Horowitz' in "Obama’s Communist Advisor and His Billion-Dollar Army":

I’m in NY where I’ll be headed to the Fox studios in a few hours to tape the “Glenn Beck Show.” The segment I’m doing will be aired Thursday as part of a week-long series called “The New Republic,” which is Glenn’s look at the radical agendas of the Obama Administration. Last night, with Pat Caddell as his guest, Glenn made the connection between the trillion-dollar deficits Obama is deliberately running up and the Cloward-Piven strategy devised by two Columbia radicals to bankrupt the welfare system in New York in order to create a crisis that would generate radical change.

Although the show failed to mention it, this was a strategy first identified in a book I wrote a couple of years ago with Richard Poe called The Shadow Party. That book described the coalition of Communist and anarchist radicals, Democratic Party honchos, and multi-billionaires that the malevolent George Soros put together before the 2004 presidential campaign. The Shadow Party is now the party in power and running the show. (...) read it all >>>

There's more on Van Jones in the dossier on Obama's Radical Connections in the segment "Red, green and the Color of Change". Jones is a self-described Communist, now the 'czar' for “Green Jobs”. He's also a Jeremiah Wright radical, dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement.” That's Jones' real job, "(...) to build the mass power base of what [Alinsky] calls the army.” (Rules for Radicals, p. 113)".

More segments of the Glenn Beck series "The New Republic" on the YouTube Channel.

Ready for another shocker? Guess who co-wrote the Stimulus Bill? The Chairman of the Apollo Alliance ... Jeff Jones, a founder member of the Weather Underground (for crying out loud).

I think we've only began to scratch the surface!

Update:

Yep, the builders are in ... a thorough national deconstruction effort is underway, and that includes 9/11 (and apparently 'history' as well) ... condolences everyone ... (now what?)

The Upcoming Upheaval

I'm getting more Liberal by the day. I'm doing so in equal measure to the Left's descend into fascism. In fact, I've always been a Liberal - but of the Classical variety - after Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu and Tocqueville. Not a liberal (small l) obsessed with "my personal development", but of the original "free-markets/limited government/freedom within the bounds of responsibility" persuasion.

Between Europe and America lies an ocean of misunderstanding (and possibly disinformation) where the old philosophy of Liberalism is concerned: Americans - for good reason as we shall see - identify liberalism with the Left; and the fact that real Liberals (renamed Libertarians) for that reason have long repositioned themselves on the Right-hand side of the aisle, is lost on most Europeans.

- Caption: "The Tower of Babel" (1563), by Pieter Bruegel the Elder -

That Leftist opponents, as well as Liberals proper - as a bloc - are still supporting the Democrats, rather inexplicably hasn't alerted anyone in Europe that something is ideologically afoot. They still see the American Right as a coalition of Calvinist parochians and religion-hysterical Evangelists.

As asserted many times in these pages, the Left - being at war with the status quo - will stop at nothing to lay their hands on the reigns of power. At some stage in history they saw it as expedient to that cause to usurp Liberalism, giving it a bad name and a small l in the process (it is touched upon here by David Horowitz).

For decades the corruption of the very notion of Liberty has served the purpose of subverting Western societies. The inexorable advocacy of boundless licentiousness and Narcissistic self obsession has taken its toll. But that phase now seems to have been completed. The tide is turning. Postmodern Marxism has taken over. Here's how that happened.

A better opportunity for a power grab seemed to have presented itself with the arrival of disenfranchised Muslims on the scene, but the Unholy Alliance is already backfiring on all fronts. On the political level it was a appalling miscalculation, as we shall see.

And so we find ourselves currently in the throngs of yet another historical re-alignment. Back to basics everyone! The Left is reverting to the authoritative, antimodern statism that has ever characterised it, and the Right is reclaiming the original form of Liberalism as their own.

Sadly a true form of Liberalism hardly survives in Europe today, but in the Anglo-Saxon world it is alive and kicking. It is refered to as Conservatism. The alignment of Liberals as Conservatives is justified by different adherents in different ways.

David Horowitz refers to the Founding Fathers and their believe in God as the source of inalienable rights (as an agnostic he may find that human nature is just as good and inalienable a source). My own ground for identifying as a Conservative lies in my belief in building on historical legacy, as opposed to progressives who prefer to start their eras with the first sacrificial libations in collectivist revolutions.

In an earlier post on the ongoing realignment I wrote that the Left - in their gluttony to harness the interests of yet another minority to their cause forged an alliance with Islam, a decision that left their traditional, plebeian power base completely in the lurch. It is also the reason why they now have to distance themselves from licentious liberalism. And not only that: the new allies prove to be a trifle too hot to handle!

The European Left are already paying the price for their dastard deed: the traditional base is taking refuge with the upcoming Center-Rightist populist parties, such as Geert Wilders' Freedom Party.

The ideological seachange is also not lost on the world of punditry and satire. Here's what John Stuart and Bill O-Reilly exchanged on the matter (and more). I could be mistaken, but it seems that the pejorative meaning of the very term liberal (small l) is so pervasive in America, that Bill O'Reilly shows just a hint of embarrassment, how to handle the ethical shift from liberal/bad to Liberal/good. What do you think?



As ever the offensive lies with the Leftist deconstructionists, with the Right re-actively defending and pushing back. This apparently is the way of the world. The new alignment will take time to take hold, but under the pressure of the Left getting more fascist, dictatorial and elitist by the day, the time is near that the right people will once again take charge of Liberalism, the philosophy of Liberty.

Neo Conservatives pointed the way towards the political morality of good versus evil, spreading democracy to the Middle East as a remedy against terrorism, and condemning totalitarian regimes as the Axis of Evil. In fact this may have sparked the Leftist descend into amoral relativism and with it, into fascism. There's more evidence that Conservatives are starting to act like Liberals in PJTV's "The Power of Parody".

The "American Manifesto" (Update)

As he is committing his memoirs of the Korean War to paper, we have been sorely missing the regular contributions of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center.

Important as history may be, there's hardly denying we live in momentous times at present. In that realization Dr Holliday has interrupted his train of thought on the hotter episodes of the Cold War to share with us his analysis of the transition the world is currently passing through.

In "American Manifesto" he's following the ideals of the Classical Liberal school in the tradition of John Locke, and describes how those ideals were finally condensed and made manifest in the American Declaration of Independence and in the US Constitution.

Although the roots of the paradigm shift in a radically opposite direction were laid much earlier, it first made its proper influence felt on the North American continent after World War II, when Postmodern thought caused a social upheavel unparalled in history to the extent in which it broke loose from the roots of Western civilization.

As the forces of the counter cultural revolution are now breaking through to the highest corridors of power, the question what can be done to limit the damage has become an urgent one. How can we restore and maintain the values which have kept modern Western civilization prosperous for over three centuries?

Enjoy Dr Holliday's proposal for an American Manifesto. Earlier articles and essays posted on Politeia are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center.


American Manifesto

Those who founded the United States of America wanted to establish a new form of governance. They did not want to repeat the errors they saw in Europe, and throughout history. They opposed laws based on the “Divine Right of Kings.” They were against a democracy of unrestrained conflict, factionalism, mob rule, demagoguery, and the tyranny of popular majorities.

America has changed much since 1776. The change was slow and evolutionary until the start of the 20th century; it has been very rapid since 1942. The principles and ideals of the founders have been diminished. Is this progress or decline? The current debate is over how, and how fast, we should move toward a new and different Utopia. Yet shouldn’t the debate be over how to retain the principles and ideals of our Founders Fathers as we adjust to new realities?

- Caption: "Patriotism" (2006) by Megan Brigham - white charcoal 18x18", NFS - 

The Vision of Our Founding Fathers
What was the vision of our founders? They wanted to establish in America the foundations of a new structure and way of governance. They accepted the fact that people have many different views of right and wrong, good and bad. They wanted citizens to be able to exploit their God given (inalienable rights) talents, energies and resources to whatever extent they desired. They wanted constraints (negative rights) on government and rejected the idea of positive rights given to the people by government. They wanted checks and balances on all governmental structures. They wanted a weak Presidency and an even weaker Supreme Court. They wanted free men to establish, without external influence, a nation of free citizens who could enjoy the benefits of their successes but who would pay from their failures. They rejected the idea of equality of outcomes.

The founders did not want power in the hands of those who would exploit the weakness of human nature that tends to want security more than opportunity, comfort more than success, handouts more than self satisfaction. They did not want career politicians in positions of authority. They wanted policy determined by those willing to sacrifice wealth, life and honor to advance national interests, rather than those who gave priority to personal and factional interests. They finally reached a compromise on suffrage; they limited it to free adult male citizens who were property owners.

Then they recorded their vision in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This vision has shaped who got what, when, how, and at what cost through much of our history. However, interpretations of these documents have greatly eroded the vision of the Founding Fathers—some consider this “progress”, but others consider it decline.

Why America is Different
America is a nation of immigrants. In common, those who became Americans, came to an unknown country in order to have a better future for themselves and their children. With freedom all could use their ability, ambition and energy to succeed or to fail. Unique American values and attitudes were thus built by the initiative of individuals, not by collective efforts determined by government. The building stages of America came from the character of individuals, not any tribal, ethnic or religious identification. Although America was not perfect during its building stages, freedom plus citizens with a sense of fairness and a willingness to accept responsibility, produced success. No elite corrected the imperfections.

The remarkable growth of America from 1776 until 1942 was the result of the efforts of individuals with diverse backgrounds facing dangers, challenges and demands of the new and the unknown; they built an American nation with a common identity and the bonds of kinship.

However, since 1942 there have been a noticeable change, which foreshadows the decline of America. This change is illustrated by a softening of both customs and laws, less reliance on the inner compass of individuals, the replacement of a sense of duty with self gratification, an unwillingness to accept responsibility, greater factionalism, and the seeking of governmental benefits and rewards.

The Renewal of America in Keeping with the Vision of Our Founders
Instead of using the old words of politics, which have much baggage, today a new American movement needs to be defined in terms of where our country is in the cycle of rising and falling. This would define the core convictions to insure a better future.

All groups--those who have a common identity and consider themselves "we"--are living organisms. Americans can be defined as an assembly of citizens that form an organism with a collective biography. Our country—like all groups—is subject to Darwinian like forces of survival. The distinguishing characteristic of all groups is a common identity--a sense of kinship. Survival, and the best possible future, depends on retaining that which caused the group to rise, and to avoid whatever might cause a decline.

The values and attitudes of the founders were the outcome of economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation that evolved after 1500. The four core convictions of the Founding Fathers were:

• Belief to provide individuals with an inner compass to control behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem and to be responsible for their actions. Belief prevents the individual from being only a subject of a state or nation.

• National identity to provide a sense of kinship (a nation) and a unique intellectual, creative, technological, and artistic culture.

• Patriotism to insure unity within a polity (a state) and success in achieving common goals.

• The scientific method to establish an objective way to uncover falsehoods and thus provides a means for reaching agreement.

How Things Changed
In 1776, and still in 1942, most Americans revered the four core convictions and understood that they must be kept vibrant and in equilibrium. Therefore, they can be considered the core convictions of America. However, whenever one of the four dominates the others, power shifts from citizens to an elite claiming expertise. Today American Traditionalists want to preserve balance among these four convictions, while Progressives want power to shift from citizens to a governmental elite.

Today we have a Presidency built on a cult of personality, which seeks to transform our country and change the world. No longer is the President seen as an administrator to defend the country, enforce the law, and uphold the Constitution as originally written.

Today the Supreme Court has unchallenged authority over everything, i.e. power that in the past was called “The Divine Right of Kings.” Today an elite controls our country.

We would not want to return to 1942 or 1776, even if we could. We must seek the best possible future and hold on to all true improvements. This is the aim of Traditionalists. They want to continue the evolution that began in 1500.

However, Progressives want a paradigm shift in Western Culture; they want to redefine the four convictions.

The Traditionalists do not want to "throw out the baby with the bath water". They want to prevent instability and chaos. Traditionalists seek stability through the four core convictions of Americans.

Conclusions
It is time for the American Manifesto, as presented here. Since human beings do not like to change their institutions, or re-think their philosophies, will this American Manifesto be of any practical use? It can be, but not alone. In order to reap any practical benefits more is required. The American Manifesto only states an ideal, and a path.

The next step is debate on and modification of this manifesto. Then most American citizens must share a common identity based on the principles and ideals in this manifesto. In achieving this it might be necessary to make citizenship a privilege to be earned or lost--rather than a right of birth. In that case, one aspect of earning citizenship should be acceptance of the four core convictions of America.

Finally, there must be political action—by a political party that advocates a consistent conservative philosophy.

The purpose of the American Manifesto is to present an ideal and a path to that ideal. Considerable effort by others will be required before there is a new reality in the United States of America which keeps each of the four core convictions vibrant and all of them in equilibrium.

Nations have passed away and left no traces,
And history gives the naked cause of it—
One single, simple reason in all cases;
They fell because their people were not fit.

--Kipling in ‘Land and Sea Tales’

What can be done in time of rapid change?
Some ignore the change with renunciation or flight.
Some seek only self and factional rewards in the change.
Some destroy, so something better can be built.
Some build so the future will be stable and bright.

--Sam Holliday (2009)

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. 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

An online printable version of "American Manifesto", by Dr Sam Holliday

- Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" -

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" -

Nat'l Health Care: from the horse's mouth - Update

Update:

This got the Tory furs flying on the other side of the pond! A must read for fans of the health care debate! Note it's about quality, not about principles. Check out:

Daily Record: "Tory NHS attacks leave Cameron on back foot", by Kevins Shofield

David Cameron claimed yesterday that the Tories are the party of the NHS - as Labour warned that many of his MPs want to destroy it.

The Tory leader had to interrupt his holiday to distance himself from Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who has launched a string of ranting attacks on the NHS in America.

But Labour said Cameron was "rattled", and told voters Hannan had revealed "the real face of the nasty party".

Hannan, a former speech writer for William Hague and Michael Howard, called the NHS "Marxist" in a speech in Washington and went on the right-wing Fox News Channel to brand it "a terrible mistake".

He claimed the health service had "made people iller", and he wouldn't wish it "on anyone".
Cameron tried his best to dismiss Hannan's outburst.

He said: "He does have some quite eccentric views.

"Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS - including my own family.

"The Conservative Party stands four-square behind the NHS. We are the party of the NHS. It is our number one mission to improve it."

Cameron's PR efforts were quickly undermined when a second Tory MEP praised Hannan's attack. (...) >>>

Click here to read Kevin Schofield's blog with some background on the Tory 'detox' in which Hannan has now cast a spanner.

Aug. 15, 2009

The Fine Art of Agitation and Community Organizing

We've been collecting all these posts and publications over the last few days pertaining to the pseudo civil war currently being fought out in the US over health care reform; but on watching the last two broadcasts of the B Cast on Breitbart TV it all became obsolete. If you've missed what has occurred on the continent of Liberty, the next two Breitbart videos provide a pretty comprehensive overview.

While we've been commenting and updating on the Articles blog in "Ruled by the Mob", on second thought what is going on is even more nefarious than initial analysis warranted. We've got only this to add on the reflexes emanating from the White House.

Folks, we don't need to go down that path again - not in the nation that embodies the philosophy of Liberty. It's been well documented over the last two centuries how Utopias always turn into dystopias, always and without exception. That is because they are build on the principle that individuals have the dire duty to exist for the improvement of everyone else, instead of the other way around.

Christian Democrats and their ilk need to stop vilifying individualism, also in Europe: they need to understand that respect for the individual is our sole guarantee against tyranny!

Here' the White House's assault on Liberty again in its full, neototalitarian glory:

The WH Blog: "Facts Are Stubborn Things" (note: you'll be hard pressed to even find one "fact", apart of the present)

It occurred to me only this morning that there's a quote circulating from one of Orwell's books, asserting that it is just not possible to control an entire nation ("we can't catch all that breathless 'dizinformation' that's percolating on the Internet, all by ourselves"). Therefore what you need to do as Big Brother is find a way for the people to control themselves (help us flag our enemies and report to us).

The devil is in the moral twist - the narrative goes like this: dissent is a deliberate lie per definition; it is therefore unethical, yes -- even evil; therefore dissenters are the enemy of the good (their own intentions are above suspicion, indeed are "all for our own good")! The enemy - not grassroots, but vile "insurance companies, lobbyists, pharmaceuticals, Republican Party activists" etc. - must be flagged and reported.

It was a common experience in all Communist countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it took the thoroughness of the Germans to take it to perfection in the German Democratic Republic (the GDR, or DDR, also known as East Germany). People suffer from it to this very day, as you can read in this article in Der Spiegel.

What you do is you take a great number of party members who're in some way beholden to it in some capacity, and you set them up as spies and informers. These spy and snitch on all the others for "ideologicial dissent", and since no one knows precisely who they are - they may be your best friend, or your son, or your own mother for that matter - nobody's trusting any one any more - the walls have ears ... As a result you have a self sustaining mechanism of perpetual and total control.

You can judge for yourselves how that might work. The 0-team may not have that intention for the moment, but neither do they have the moral compass that tells them that such activities are totalitarian and have no place in a liberal democracy. And that is perhaps the most worrying aspect.

"Democrats Rachet Up Rhetoric Against 'angry' Republican 'Mobs'"



"Rush and Rove Respond to GOP 'mob' Allegations"



Here are a few links for your reference:

• The Weekly Standard: "Think Progress, MSNBC 'Manufacture' a Story With Putative Smoking Gun 'Mob' Memo"
  
  
• Bob MacGuffie of a newly invigorated Libertarian "Right Principles" joins B Cast to discuss the DNC ad that ripped up and abused their webpage - follow them on Twitter and Facebook

Glenn Beck worked out months ago how manufactured news works:

• Glenn Beck: "Libs attacking Glenn"

On a lighter note:

• Iowahawk: "Know Your Town Hall Mob Agitators!", by Linda Douglass - Deputy Assistant Under-Minister of Truth, White House Health Care Task Force
  
  
• Michelle Malkin: "How to dress like an “authentic” grass-roots activist"
  

• New to the Mob? Generate your own Mafia name - Hat Tip: The Lonely Conservative, alias Sarina Gunindapants. Pleased to meet ... I'm Carlotta Gallo.
  
  
• On Twitter? Support #iamthemob, add a #twibbon to your avatar now! -http://twibbon.com/join/iamthemob
  

Need a tune?

• Muse - "The Uprising"
  
  
• Johnny Cash: "I Won't Back Down" - Hat Tip : "Blatherings"

Know your unaccountable czars (the Supreme Soviet, or would that be the Politbureau?) and their ethics system in which people are numbers and statistics (note: group think, and the myths that sustain them). Figures and quotas have taken the place of individual human lives, ditched the notion that each live is of equal intrinsic value and moral dignity.

• Glenn Beck: "America Senses Something's Not Right"
  

The "reasonable" alternative ... collective insurance:

• "Coop Health Care"
  

The Bill (PDF of all 1017 pages of it) and here's a summary of some of the most contentious parts:

• H. R. 3200 - To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

A few edifying quotes:

• Freedom Works: "Quotes of the Month (C.S Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien)", by Rossputin

Just in case you're wondering whatever happened to our liberals, sorry - over the last eight years the Democratic Party kicked out that foreign implant and reverted back to the original school of collectivist postmodernism (read almost every other post in this blog).

Oh and just in case you believe you're safe with the WH's assurances, know that the Regulation czar is author of "The Nudge". This is what we jotted down in "The Pomo White House" just after his appointment:

Mr Nudge - Cass Sunstein - married to National Security Council Director of Multilateral Affairs, Samantha Power - has been nominated as Regulation Czar, but ... how to put this? ... there seems to be some controversy, but in the wrong department. The appointment of the "prolific writer" and inventor of "The Nudge" would place him eminently to do at which he excels: making people act in accordance with the politically correct ethics of the day.

Sunstein is an expert at inducing obedience in the unwashed with the use of psychological trickery - some generation of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP, also known as hypnosis 2.0). The Obama campaign had Mr Nudge's signature all over it. In a later pamphlet he describes his latest thesis on group polarization (see also a number of entries on the file of "Big Brother's Smoke and Mirrors"). The relativist, hyper subjective mass manipulator would indeed come into his own as Obama's Regulation Czar - an amoral witch doctor on steroids. If appointed (and there's no doubt he will) his wishes to "litigate on behalf of animals" may well prove to be the least of our worries.

And for good measure, there's more where that came from! On the "Science Czar", another postmodern, anti human nihilist:

President Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances. His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family. (...) >>>

Congrats, Obama voters, the real coup didn't happen in Honduras but in the US, right under your own adoring noses!

Update: breaking news on an agent provocateur ...

Breitbart: "FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others"

Here's the rest of what's on file on Articles in "The Pomo White House" -

Rabid Racists!

This is getting an area of specific significance with the Postmodern Left. An avalanche of rabid racism is heading our way ...

As a matter of course the pomo linguists have taken a subject close to their own hearts (which we know to be a great many) and proceeded to craftily reconstruct the definition to almost unrecognizable proportions -

Almost that is, because they keep forgetting that language is not an end, but a tool to convey an objective meaning! You can change the labels, but that doesn't - as by magic - change the content of the bottle.

The traditional approach to racism can be summed up in the words of the Republican Dr Martin Luther King Jr. when he said that he dreamed of a day when "my four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". So far, so good.

The Left - in their advocacy of affirmative action (or the active redistribution of power) - have simply reversed the roles of victim and perpetrator. But that would still be racism, wouldn't it? Reverse racism!

So in order to make the fallacy stick, they added the previso that colored people are incapable of racism "because they have no power" (ask the current occupier of the White House). In this subjectivist book, only the white skinned portion of humanity is capable of racism.

Like all egomaniacal subjectivists the Left believe that everyone has accepted their perverted logic ... eh, 'narrative'. This enables Joan Walsh to write an article on Salon accusing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of racism and projection as they fear that they - as white men - will end up "on the bottom of the pile" as they would be, in the new and improved definition.

But Messrs Beck and Limbaugh's traditional approach to race relations means the very opposite. Non-discrimination means discarding melanine content altogether and judging a person by his actions, be he white, black, or purple, precisely as Dr King prescribed. And that is exactly what Beck and Limbaugh have been doing: criticising Barack Obama's radical policies and race baiting. (Shockingly, in an early interview we can hear Barry Obama throwing his own grandmother under the bus in quite overtly racist terms!)

The Left continue to practice reverse racism, declaring - whatever the 'messiah' does - is sacrosanct precisely because of the color of his skin. The entire evil edifice of multiculturalism is based on this racist notion. (Remember Sotomayor and the wisdom that is inherent in Latinas? Or was that attained through a specific experience of the group to which she belongs?).

What enables racism is group thought, or the logic of collectives. This is why it is next to impossible to maintain for believers in indiividualism, with its corollaries free market capitalism, limited Government and democratic values. Racism is nothing but a very primitive form of collectivism.

We now have a President holding the highest office, who has been elevated above critique and the normal control mechanisms of the democratic governmental system. The opposition is nudged into silence by hurling projections of racism at them, or by other politically correct means at the Democrats' disposal.

One work in progress is the Left's new, deconstructed role of the press in an open, democratic society. In the traditional approach the media's raison d'être was scrutinizing and bringing to attention the actions of those in power, as Limbaugh and Beck are engaged in. As far as the MSM is concerned, that role has now shifted to cheerleading.

We have already seen during the campaign that the Obama cronies are not above going after critics either on legalistic or moralistic grounds. This situation is not just a democracy unworthy, it is downright dangerous!

Related:

- ABC News/Political Punch: "The Significance of President Obama Praising Lula's "Good Looks""
- Politeia: "Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil"
- Breitbart TV/The B Cast: "Should Glenn Beck Have Called Obama a Racist?"
- Capitalism Magazine: "The Destruction of Martin Luther King's Dream of a Colorblind Society" by Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Center




- Filed on Articles in "Rabid Racism" - 

Who Will Speak Up for Individual Rights in #IranElection?

As even the political show trial in Iran stands symbol for collectivist injustice, it must be said that the tone of some of the reactions to our withdrawal from actively supporting the Iran uprising, serves to confirm the correctness of this decision. As said, God's speed to the collectivists in establishing regime change in Iran, but we fail to see what good it would do to exchange an Islamofascist regime with a (crypto) Socialist one. 

But should anyone actually be interested in freedom, this film explains the philosophy of liberty in the simplest possible terms. 

Here's the translation of today's Afshin Ellian post in Elsevier:

Images of the Dead Keep Emerging

Over the last thirty years crimes have been committed in the name of religion and belief, so cry out the people of Iran.

Is that true? Is it already thirty years that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated? I have spoken at length about the mass executions of 1988, how the regime within the course of just a few weeks, killed thousands of political prisoners. Even today photos and films of murdered students keep emerging. I've seen photos of Hussein Akhtarzand's body. These images paint a picture of civilians being tortured to death. Akhtarzand was a bachelor from Isfahan, a hard working man of 33 who earned a living for his younger brothers and sisters.

- Caption: Afshin Ellian - 

Neda
Information has emerged that journalist Ali Reza Eftakhari (working for newspaper Abrar Eqtesadi) was also tortured to death. Mir Hussein Mousavi says hundreds so far have been killed. But one victim has become the international face of Iran's green wave: Neda Agha Soltan. The 26 year old philosophy student was shot last month on Karegar Street in Tehran. On that day -  in order to terrorize the people - those in power decided to set a few examples. To date we knew little of Neda.

This week her mother gave a short interview to Voice of America and Radio Farda. In both interviews she emphasized that Neda did not belong to any group in particular. She just wanted Iran to be free. Here follows a short translation of the interview on Radio Farda.

Neda's mother: "We attended rallies together.  Recently she had taken up these activities. She liked going. That Saturday Neda asked me to go with her. I had other urgent matters to attend to. I asked her not to go, because things could turn nasty. But she insisted."

First she attended music lessons. Then, together with her music teacher, she went to the rally. It was a hot and busy day. They got out of the car. 

Teargas
Neda's mother: "She left the music school at 16:00. We spoke on the phone twice. She told me rounds of teargas were being fired. Then she fled into an ally to get back to the car. She was only 26 steps away from it. (Could the mother be confusing the age of her daughter with the number of steps, the distance to the car, the distance between life and death? A.E.). Her uncle had also had contact with Neda just ten minutes before her death. She said they had been lighting cigarettes to diminish the effect of the teargas. That was the last time someone has spoken to her. I was called at around 18:00 by the teacher who told me she was hit by a bullet and was taken to Shariati hospital."

Radio Farda: What did you find at the hospital?

Neda's mother: "I had called Neda's brother and sister. They arrived before I did. Her teacher told me she was hit in the leg. There was blood all over his clothes. I asked them: tell me what happened to Neda.

They told me she was hit in the shoulders. I asked: not the heart? In truth, Neda was long gone. She had died on the way to hospital. She was brought there to finish some paper work. I asked to see her. I begged them to let me see my daughter. No, they said, she's having an operation. But shortly after they told Neda's sister and her husband that Neda had died.

I saw from their faces what had happened. Then I went blank."

Buried
On the orders of the security services Neda was quietly buried the next day at 15:00 on an allocated site on Behshte-Zahra. The YouTube video of her death was available on the Internet since Saturday evening. On Sunday morning many (like myself) checked to see if it wasn't a fake. That morning I posted my article to inform you of Neda's death. Geert Wilders MP immediately demanded an emergency debate in Parliament. In the afternoon CNN, and afterwards also the BBC, started broadcasting the footage. That Sunday afternoon she was reborn as Neda, the voice of freedom. Has Neda's mother seen the film? Did she see how her daughter died?

Neda's mom: "No, I'm not allowed to see it. I heard it is a moving video that has impressed many people. Her brother cries every time he sees it. But I haven't been able to see it yet; I haven't been able to see the last moments my child was alive."

In a conversation with Voice of America she thanks the world's citizens of Europe, America and Asia.  She also thanked those politicians who declared solidarity with her daughter. Your Government is dead, our Neda (voice) is not, many in Tehran  said during the commemorations.

Afshin Ellian (wiki in English)


P.S. Next week I will answer your questions on the intelligence services and the power structure of Iran.




- Filed on Articles in "Ellian Blogs" -