Where Have All the Radicals Gone?

A Dutch paper recently posted an article, investigating the whereabouts of anti globalist radicals. They seem to be missing. One wouldn't have thought it since the violence at the September G20 meeting in Boston and the Leftist media having the gall to compare it to the Tea Party.

The Left is fuming and frothing at the mouth that their convenient crisis is passing by without anarcho-communism, or at least world socialism having been declared at the UN. Left, right and center countries are voting in rightist governments and the Left has failed to associate the opponents with the economic downturn.

In The Netherlands the Senate last week adopted a revolutionary Bill which actually reaffirms the right to property. Traditionally the non existent "right to housing" was deemed more important than basic property rights. And so an entire industry has sprung up to avert squatting. Buildings that were taken over became strongholds of the counter capitalist movement and could only be liberated by laying them under siege.

Since the banking crisis broke in 2008 the movement has tried to call a convention on at least two occasions. They invited all the usual suspects, but returns were meager, to say the least. Of willingness to take action there was none. One is not to count the World Social Forum of the new Leftist mainstay, Brazil which in 2009 in Belem, was attended by some 113.000 radicals for social justice. A spokesperson for the squatter group has the following interesting analysis of the situation.

The resistance has become "happy", practical, and not as much Leftist as "green" and "sustainable". Since in his view that encompasses "just about everybody" radicalism has become mainstream. "Look at the NGOs", he says pointing to Fair Food and Globalicious. They think the Left vs Right dichotomy is outdated.  They have no problem working within the capitalist system.

The intelligence agency confirms the only ones radicalizing at this point are animal rights activists, the "delete-the-borders" brigades and the weapons-are-evil crowd. Neither has radicalism moved to the Internet. Students have started ... studying. The shrinking welfare state compels them to concentrate on their careers. Anarchist bookshops have largely disappeared.

A German squatter agrees: there are a few small networks, and there's Indymedia, but most have been absorbed by the system. Radical activists are more visible in France and Germany, and radicalism certainly isn't dead. It has been written off before after the fall of communism in 1989, but it bounced back ten years ago. He's hoping the anti squatting Bill will trigger a response shaking them out of hibernation.

Which is bearing out my hypothesis to the contrary. Radicals haven't become less Left or less radical at all. They've become part of the mainstream where they're infecting entire swathes of society with memes of greenism, sustainability and socially responsible entrepreneurship. Radicals haven't disappeared! They're simply everywhere!

Related

- "Mayday, May Day, They're Deleting the Borders"
- "The Ugly Face of the New Global Paradigm"

The Left and Their Unique Selling Point

The new Dutch Labour leader, Job Cohen (Nohen) who just sustained a disastrous mock Obama (Nobama) launch, showed us yesterday how desperately out of touch the Left really is.

Enjoying a public holiday every five years on May 5, the commemoration of liberation in World War II, Cohen just proposed to turn it into an annual affair. Just what we need, another public holiday! With the economy tanking, talk of raising the state pension age to 67, the European Union on the brink, and a Euro that just plummeted to a staggering 1,04% against the dollar, the lowest mark in over a year, the Left is calling for an extra day off the job!

- Caption: protesting Greece's austerity measures in a country with little welfare fat on the bones - 

The desperate situation in Greece is entirely on the plate of the unions and their limitless appetites, and the weak back Governments that were unwilling or unable to perform 'a Maggy'. Today it's make or break, and even now they do not seem to get it. But apparently, neither do we.

Needless to say, the unions and other socialistic parties were soon aboard Cohen's proposal. So this sad piece of ill concealed bribery is how Labour proposes to win the general elections next month! Desperate indeed ... and completely out of touch with reality. This just proves they're too irresponsible to govern and too out of touch to drag the country out of the economic quagmire.

Even more infuriating is, that Cohen is said to launch this idea out of 'respect' for liberty and the freedom of expression. As the former mayor of Amsterdam, Cohen enjoyed quite a few afternoons having 'tea summits' with Moroccan hooligans and other n'ver-do-wells, wont to terrorize entire neighbourhoods out of its indigenous populations.

This is how Cohen, the multiculturalist, proposes to 'keep the country together". As for the freedom of expression, don't provoke him! - before you know it he's triggered his own version of Brown's 'bigotgate'.

The man has no concept of the word Liberty! To the Left, liberty means freedom not to live under the collectivist Right's jackboot (as opposed to the collectivist Left's jackboot). To them, negative rights, the essence of true liberty, mean "neglection by the state". After all, it's now apparently the duty of politicians to offer the population "hope and consolation". Government has now in actual fact usurped the role of the God head: statism is no longer an abstraction, but a real state of mind.

Even more desperate is the British Labour Party, starting with Gordon Brown. The entire Left has abandoned them and jumped on to Nick Clegg's LibDem bandwaggon. The Labour Party doesn't stand a chance. Of course the state-run media would never, ever paint the Conservatives as a genuine alternative.

Current cohort of media workers do not even know anymore what Conservatism stands for. It's quite some time since I've heard a practicing journalist explain the details of the political philosophy, let alone provide a level playing field. The sole meme emanating from the lamestreamers is, "this is public enemy number one".

Labour has been in power in Britain for the last thirteen years; how it is then, that "the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer"? Chatter has it, that the gap has become ever wider so that it's quite necessary to vote in ... more Labour.

As an explanation it is implied that somehow this feature is inherent in British class society. But the truth is, this is happening in every country, city and borough that is ruled by Leftists.

When are people going to catch on to this racket?

The Left is it's own unique selling point. Obama conveyed the notion correctly ... we are the people we've been waiting for ... vote Labour so as to mitigate our own policies!

Related articles

Washington Times: "Greek lawmakers pass austerity bill"

Related dossiers

- "Doing a Maggy"
- "Money & Economy"
- "London Calling"
- "Socialist Causes Explained"

The Leftist Tactic of Infiltration and Agitation Exposed (updated)

Enjoy your Alinsky Rules for Radicals 101

HTTP://CrashTheTeaParty.ORG

This provides a rare insight into the mindset of the Left and their 'aim justifies the means' mentality. Unfair, unethical? The idea doesn't even enter the minds. The terminally self-righteous have no morality to speak of.

Update

Pajamas Media: "Who’s Behind the ‘Crash the Tea Party’ Website?", by Bob Owens

(...) Out of momentum, out of sorts, and out of ideas, progressives were left with one alternative: framing tea party activists as a group of unpalatable racists and bigots that any reasonable person would shy away from.
Such is the mission of www.crashtheteaparty.org, a newly incorporated website seemingly dedicated to widespread and organized fraud to discredit the tea party movement (...) Meet Jason Levin: he digs Olbermann, ObamaCare, and 9/11 truther websites. Oddly enough, he really, really doesn't like the idea of tea parties. (...) As you may suspect, crashtheteaparty.org was not created by a Republican or an independent, but instead by someone with a red-tinted sickle to grind. (...) >>>

Related

- The Clarion Ledger: "Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies", by Valerie Bauman (Associated Press Writer)
- Conservative Examiner: "Liberals caught posing as Tea Partiers", by Robert Moon
- Thaindian News: "Crash The Tea Party Movement Spies On Tea Partiers"

This Shabby Asshat is Al Gore's 'Hero of the Planet'

Who thinks this is grilling, doesn't know Andrew Neil! Here he is, pussy footing around the issue, treating Watson with velvet gloves. "Oh, please don't bully the b*strd!"

Turns out Al Gore's hero's a bit entrenched in his dogmatic settled science looking more like Baghdad Bob by the day.

What's more, 'climate change' is a tautology! It's called climate for a good reason: it changes. You might not think it amongst postmoderns, but words actually do have a meaning!



more about "This Shabby Asshat is Gore's "Hero of...", posted with vodpod

The Guardian is proposing to save the narrative of climate change by launching a new narrative! That Jones, Mann and the CRU have a bunker and a siege mentality, because they were viciously attacked by evil deniers, who are waging a war against them paid for by ruthless, dirty energy corporations.

This illustrates the mindset of the Left to a t: my goal it so ethical (saving the planet), that it justifies any unethical means. Yes, peer reviews should have been done and yes, information under the Freedom of Information Act should have been supplied (reframed as "a PR disaster"), but hey, their job's so critical that it's no wonder such niceties were dispensed with for the moment!

Help out The Guardian saving climate change! It's important, 'cause a lot of money and ideology is caught up in this scam ... Granted, Climategate should never have happened! But not to worry, you too can now become a peer (granted you would wish to do so), helping The Guardian reviewing the leaked CRU documents. That at least creates the perception of belated orthodoxy.

The Guardian: "'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review", by Fred Pierce

Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access. In a unique experiment, The Guardian has published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

As well as including new information about the emails, we will allow web users to annotate the manuscript to help us in our aim of creating the definitive account of the controversy. This is an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth. (...) The annotations - and the real name of the commenter - will be added to the manuscript, initially in private. The most insightful comments will then be added to a public version of the manuscript. We hope the process will be a form of peer review. If you have a contribution to make, please email climate.emails@guardian.co.uk. The anonymous commenting facility under each article will also be switched on so that anyone can contribute to the debate. (...) >>>

In the Netherlands meanwhile the issue is starting to make waves. The right-wing liberal party VVD in opposition is demanding a clarification from the Prime Minister. It turns out the delegation for COP15 (Hopenhagen) consisted of 110 persons: 109 climate loyalists and 1 sceptic. Among the loyalists, members of Greenpeace and other environmental activists. And Shock! Since the arbiter of postmodern politics is consensus, these activists were allowed to contribute to the drafts of the political agreement (yes, we've seen these drafts drifting by at the time, since sanitized from cyberspace (belated New Year's resolution: improve screenshot awareness)).

Just in:

• Telegraph: "India forms new climate change body"

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. >>>

• NRC: "IPCC takes heat in climate controversy" (includes history of IPCC)

Related dossier:

- "Greenism"

Related articles by Zemanta

• Part 12: Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible (guardian.co.uk)
• 'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal' (telegraph.co.uk)

Of Demons and Angels, and the Left's Brutal Contradictions

Afshin Ellian has a touching post up on Elsevier. He has the latest from Iran, and it isn't good. He also tells an anecdotal story about the Left and the apparent contradictions besetting their relationship with liberty and power.

I've found it very helpful in such cases to ask myself the question: which course of action would hurt the West most (and I mean West in the sense of "the free world"). Because that - when all justifications have been said and done - is the ultimate target.

Since Ellian's post is as lengthy as it is illustratieve, I'd narrate it rather than make a verbatim translation, allowing a few annotations in the process.

We're on the eve of the ten day period in Iran, that marks the beginning of the Islamofascist revolution. The Shah was deemed a demon, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in exile in Paris at the time, was considered an angel.

The latter flew back to Tehran, accompanied by a planeload of Western journalists. They were there to protect Khomeini, reasoning in their hubris that the Shah's military would think twice before shooting all of them down.

Western and Iranian intellectuals supported Khomeini. Those in Iran paid the price with their lifes, but the Western Left's support was completely gratuitous. Until the mass executions started the French Postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) used to refer to Islamists as "the regime of truth" (in fact, he wouldn't have recognized truth if he were to fall over it!). Then he changed his mind, but it was too late for many.

Western intellectuals had an enormous influence on the Iranian intelligentsia. Many would not have supported the regime, if it wasn't for their Western counterparts' seal of approval.Yet there are many in Europe and the US who still support political Islam.

Ellian brings up his own case and that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands. They find only a few intellectuals in their corner. He and Hirsi Ali are "traumatized", "Islam as such does not exist", poverty breeds angry Muslims", "a moderate Islam does exist", are only a few of their justifications. Ellian: "Political Islam isn't the problem, it's us!"

In the same way the existence of Iron Curtain was ignored. To this day the Left is ever prepared to criticize Eastern Europe, because it cheered freedom when it finally came. The democratically elected government in Baghdad will probably be detested forever.

Back on the plane from Paris to Tehran, Khomeini assured the assembled journalists he wanted freedom - indeed even for liberals and communists! And he wanted a French style Republic for the people. But he secretly carried with him the draft for an Islamic Constitution based on Sharia Law.

His heirs are now scared to death, because in the coming days lots of resistance protesters are expected to hit the streets again. They are supported by ordinary Western folk, but not by our intellectuals.

To intimidate the people the Islamofascists have executed a number of prisoners. Mohmad Reza Alizamani en Arash Rahmanipour (19) were hanged for participating in protest rallies.

Ellian concludes: "Islamists lie and cheat. They represent death. This is why death will remove them. The aggressor's fate is tragic. But every game has it's end game."

Update:

Get this great post by NASA psychiatrist Dr Sanity: "WHEN DOES DENIAL BECOME SOCIOPATHY? WE WITNESSED THE PROCESS LAST NIGHT"

For some obscure reason (not really), after watching the State of the Union address last night delivered by our President, I feel I must repost some material previously written about the relationship between denial, narcissism, and sociopathy. (...) What happens when psychological denial ceases to be unconscious and becomes a deliberate, willful, and consciously evil behavior-- in spite of all the accumulated evidence of its malignant impact on real people in the real world? At that point we can safely assume that we are no longer dealing with a purely defensive structure in the psyche; we are dealing with aggressive, unadulterated sociopathy. (...) Read it all >>>

Related:

- "Ellian Blogs"
- "Socialist Causes Explained"

Latest: 

- The Leftist Propaganda Machine: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11"

The 'Right' Not To Be Offended ...

Related:

Faultline USA: "The Chronically Offended. A Malady, Perhaps?", a Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It makes no difference what you do or what you say, these days, you can bet that someone will be offended.

Oh, yeah, I know people were offended back in the day. Truly they were, but… there was one major difference. Back in the day, we understood that for an offended person to protest was a sign of weakness on the offended’s part. And frankly, they were too embarrassed to protest because they knew society would see them for what they were, weak.

Things changed. In the mid to late 20th century, and early 21st century, American society began to celebrate weakness in individuals. Whole organizations sprang up to serve the chronically offended. (And while they were doing that…. milk them of all their ready cash, as well!)

How could this have happened? (...) >>>

The New New Left: the Return of Authority

In the American Democratic party liberalism is as dead as a doornail. The party has been taken over by the postmodern, radical Left. In Europe they're not yet aware of the fact: they're still laboring under the impression that Obama is the next best thing to JFK. Little do they know. Denial is rife. 

In Europe another sort of Change is in the air. Perhaps because they've stumbled upon the obverse side of relativist thought, or maybe because they've stretched the abuse of liberalism to its outer limits, who's to say.

Philosophical twists in Leftist doctrine usually end up as justifying the awful means to an Utopian end. In the best tradition of Hegel's dialectic they're veering from one extreme (relativism) to its antithesis (absolutism), all in the good cause, that goes without say!

Proponents of the relativist approach spent years deconstructing authority and absolutes which they deemed the cause of religious zealots foisting fundamentalism, and bourgeois bigots passing moral judgment. They've done so in a very thorough way over the years. To be fair, there's very little in authority left to deconstruct, and absolutely nothing is left that's absolute (except higher taxes and their relentless hatred).

The problem with relativist thought - as is true for all its derivatives (for example multiculturalism) is that it holds that every idea/culture/nation/class/people/religion/gender/species is equally valid (with the exception of the West's). This ideal of value neutrality makes it impossible for them to criticize their own, or to do some foisting themselves. Not that it ever kept them from savaging their opponents! If it suits their agenda contradiction becomes part of the theory, but it does cause significant levels of cognitive dissonance in the more rational followers. 

Just when the Western world had been brought mentally to its knees, the Left make a turn and start the reintroduction of authority. The irony is that it comes from the same crowd that acquainted us to anti authoritarianism 3-4 decades ago. You can bet your bottom nickle that they'll use it against the Right, but for the moment they're making the case that liberalism, well, has it's downside and that the beneficiaries of their concerns are the lumpenproletariat. You know, those who they've kept on the fringes of society for donkeys years to make up their voting base and act as cannon fodder should the occasion arise.

Perceptive observers may have noticed lately a habit in the Left of displaying elitist tendencies. They themselves have also suddenly woken up to their own nobility. The pulpit strategy has alerted some in academe to hitherto untapped possibilities: passing moral judgment on cut-throat capitalism, the noble aim of elevating the unwashed masses (really!), bashing individualism in favor of the safety and coziness of collectivist society, preaching about the necessity of the nanny state, paternalistically telling others what to do and how to live, what to think, and how to behave - all under the usual cover of deontological ethics, that their intent is of the highest moral standard and that it's all for our own good - upper crust knows best. 

The disasters of their previous ideas and policies will be offloaded on to liberalism (the pejorative of which is neoliberalism); it will be blamed for malignant Narcissism, out of control  individualism, the nefariously greedy bankers and corporate magnets, the autistic obsession with selfexpression, the atomization of egocentrist capitalist societies. Reds, greens and confessionals are endlessly pounding the cozy togetherness drum against personal achievement, the fruit of labor and the pursuit of happiness.

Here's what's happening on the philosophical level:

- The Platonic mind/body dichotomy is deemed no longer tenable. The new paradigm is entirely biochemical Materialism. The mind resides in the physical brain and man is urged on by hormonal triggers (and society).

The model of man is a computer, with the hard drive in the role of the brain. The elemental question, what in this analogy is feeding this computer, has not yet arisen. It looks like another fallacy of the type that blames the spoon for one getting fat.

In short, the Naturalist and Darwinian perspective that man is the sum total of cells, synapses and the endocrine system carries the day (you will be hardpressed not to get cynical).

Also out are ...

• Empiricism (don't ask - I haven't been able to find out yet, but I have an inkling what's meant is objective knowledge; but that would mean retaining that element from relativist thought - it will be hard to maintain absolutism if you've got no way of knowing anything for certain [note to self: mark as future trouble spot if they embark on pushing the subjective as an absolute, which they will].
  
  
• Individual autonomy (very important! it is essential to all Leftist thought that man has no free will to speak of (imperative for a functional moral compass), and absolutely no personal autonomy whatsoever (this never sat well with liberalism). This enables blamelessness and victimhood, so central to the progressive narrative!
  

It will be a sight to behold what Leftist thinkers will come up with to explain the U turn and how to gell authority and absolutes with standing doctrine! But it does facilitate in a great way the compartmentalization of society in minority groups and social classes, enabling the Left to set them against each other so that progress may reign - somewhat like what's happening in the States right now where any opposition to President Obama's anti American policies warrent shrieks of "Racism!"

Proponents of the authority strategy claim the primary aim is to promote universal self-esteem, but not on the basis of talent (which is no achievement) or of personal achievement (which is competative and capitalist). So this self-esteem presumably is on the sole basis of being a member of the collective (this comes perilously close to mob ethics). 

Altruism remains the highest trait in a drone: the willingness to sacrifice self to the hive. Dissenters are traitors to the cause and are out ... out! The Leftist elite, like the Soviet nomenklatura, form the uppercrust of an ostensibly classless and egalitarian society in which every cog knows his place in society and is valued on the basis that he's one of theirs.

They will put paid to the neoliberal horrors of hereditory meritocracy. This piece of lingering eugenics follows from the logic that intelligent parents breed even more clever children, while their grandkids in turn will outsmart their parents. These neoliberal meritocrats - in order to get one up on their neighbors have rat races amongst themselves, the root cause of all ills in Western society, to wit:

• loss of sense of safety and shelter;

• rewarding of talent (which is unfair because unevenly spread in populations);

• Rousseau's clarion call: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (a cliche and a lie which refuses to wear thin over its 250 year old history);

• the lack of self-esteem in those "left behind" (the disenfranchised lumpenproletariat).
  

- Caption: Engraving "The Emancipator of Labor and the Honest Working People (Communists)", Harper's Weekly, February 7, 1874 - 

At this point it's getting really fascistic, eh progressive. Try to follow the logic, as it is very instructive!

The neoliberal meritocracy is also detrimental to the autonomy of the family (as if the Left care!) because - in order to meet the progressive standard of equal opportunity, "poor" (equals dumb) families need to be broken up and their children placed in institutions so as to ensure equal starting positions ... 

There's no way of knowing at this point if this strand of thought will catch on with the Left. Postmodern relativism initially also made a slow start, but eventually spread like wildfire to the point of debilitating the entire West. We are keeping our fingers on the pulse of the progressive heartbeat and are keeping you abreast of what's brewing.

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 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!

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" - 

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" - 

The Left Torn by an Irreconcilable Rift (since 1750)

It took me three hours to write an analysis here, only to find it removed by some technical glitch. I am not going to do it again. I've jotted it down many times in these pages. It comes down to this.

Freethinkers, like Condell clearly is, never had any business being Leftist in the first place. They are the custodians of Classical Liberalism.

Through their own moral relativism and distance from Natural Law they have been taken for a rather prolongued ride by collectivist subjectivists - now known as Postmodernists - who have no problem forging a close alliance with Islamists, with whom they share all the important traits.

Freethinkers like Condell, need to wake up, make a proper analysis of the contents of their minds, and finally see that their Liberal (capital L) brothers have now taken up root on the political Right.

That's it!

What They Don't Teach in School and the Media Won't Tell

On Labor Day 2009, when discerning Leftists are removing themselves as far as possible from the original red folklore dating back to 1889, it is perhaps a good opportunity to expunge a few political fairy tales.

Of course Leftism has not ceased to exist: it has taken distance from the “Cuban jackboot” as some Dutch Social Democrat just expressed it - epitomizing duplicity, and the use of terror against its own people as part of 'Socialist theory' - it has reinvented itself and taken on the Postmodernism mask, a guise few as yet are able to recognize for what it is.
But the time of the classical Left versus Right alignment in politics is well and truly over! In fact, it never existed in the way most observers understood it.

Ever since Europe at the beginning of the last century was confronted with a false dilemma, the choice between either Fascism or Socialism, people have been misled by Rightist and Leftist ideologies that are together responsible for the loss of over 110 million souls - and counting.

What was cleverly and purposely left out of that equation was Liberty. Then - as today - the “capitalist system” is said to have failed. But Liberty is unlike any other political and social system: not only has it lifted humanity out of poverty and enslavement, it is also our birth right! As such to speak of a mere 'system', hardly defines the width and depth of the underlying philosophical principles.

To explode yet another myth, the political domain of Liberty is not situated roughly somewhere between the extremes of the Left and the Right. Both Left and Right deal in collectives: either social or economic class, or ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Liberty - the home of individual rights - is situated at the opposing end of that spectrum, standing firm for true universal equality of all individuals, irrespective to which group one 'belongs'.

Liberty is a corollary of the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by God or by nature. Rights are not generously shared out (or forfeited) by the State for good or bad behavior, but are inherent in the nature of humans as rational beings (this is why collectivists like to deny the existence of reason itself (“just a Western social construct,” or hold that man on the contrary, is a creature of passion).

Collectivists may spun fairy-tales of their hives having a 'living group soul', assuredly a collective - the modern equivalent of the totalitarian tribe - has neither a mind nor a brain, let alone a soul. That is the prerogative of creatures with self consciousness.

Rather than being on the Left or Right side of the political spectrum, the relevant question politicians ought to answer is, do you unconditionally uphold the freedoms of the individual, or should they submit to the will of the collective? In other words, do you swear to uphold the negative rights that represent the narrow boundaries within which the State may act? President Obama would beg to differ, but it's the positive rights of the 'nanny state' that are the velvet chains by which Governments secretly re-shackle the citizens to their collective.

The current Government interventions in the financial systems might well represent a coup toward a new, Pragmatist form of transnational collectivism, and whether it is Left, Right or center, is frankly immaterial. The difference between Hitler and Marx is the collective of choice: ethnic Socialism versus world Socialism.

Most politicians these days subscribe to Pragmatism. It is a basically amoral, relativist philosophy in that it does not recognize any 'right' or 'wrong' way per se of taking care of business: what counts is the expedient in relation to a specific case, in this particular moment in time. To whose and what end we can only guess: this type of politician seldom specifies anything beyond vacuous sound waves like “Change” and “Yes, we can,” the precise meaning of which is in the eye of the beholder.

The result is a cacophony of cognitive dissonance and an ideological hotchpotch in which we find the unpalatable, putrefied remains of the Communist command economy, as well as elements of free market capitalism, all held together by ligaments that have more in common with corporate Fascism than anything else.

The financial sector especially finds itself in a Fascist limbo: not altogether nationalized, but up for commandeering whenever the State sees fit - on behalf of the tax payer, of course, who wasn't asked for his opinion to begin with. It's back to the future once again: the financial sector may well end up like one of these obsolete utilities we just got rid of.

Related, recently diagnosed by Dr Sanity:

- "Capitalism and the Culture War Being Waged Against It"
- "The Nub of the Crux of the Gist of the Problem"
- "Liberal Amnesia = Hysterical Amnesia"

- Filed on Articles in “The Case for Neo Communism” -

The Roots of the Unholy Alliance (redux)

From an article up on Pajamas by its CEO, Roger Simon entitled "Israel Alone", it transpires that the alliance between the broad Western Left and Islamism, is as yet mystery.

Although no Leftist, Simon labors under the purposely disseminated meme that Leftism is morally superior to any other political ideology because of its altruistic ideals for One Happy Egalitarian World in which all of humanity is to participate, voluntarily or otherwise.

I named that process the dystopia of paradise, in reference to the secularization of its religious roots and the catastrophic effects, whenever the lofty ideals are put into practice.

The author's reasoning follows from one specific definition of ethics, posited by philosophy's Mr Magoo, Emmanuel Kant. It is an approach to morality in which only the duty - the intention - to 'do good' counts. Intent is an end itself. In the Magoo book of ethics the effect - the result of a particular action - is entirely excluded from the equation; indeed it renders the action invalid as far as the field of ethics is concerned.

It is known as deontology and gives birth to immoral no-brainers as "it is wrong to lie to a murderer, even if it saves someone's life".

Following Kant's definition of ethics we have a variety of Leftists historically giving evidence of lofty ideals and the construction of Utopias, thereby going literally over dead bodies. But no Leftist has ever, ever apologized, conceded defeat, declared moral bankruptcy, or shown signs of remorse over the piled up human sacrifices. Instead they get posthumous tributes from the socialights in Hollywood.

Following such cataclysms they point to the lofty ideals - invoking Kant's built-in get-out-of-jail card - and blame not the principle of the thing but the brother-operators who have obviously made mistakes in implementation and execution.

Roger Simon and some of his commentators seem unaware not just of the ethics, but prove also ignorant of the root of Leftism. The last few years, the keen observer could have watched the Left shedding the thin layer of democratic principles, that were never part of the ideology to begin with.

The late adoption of democracy was part of the reconstruction efforts that are regularly exerted to prolong the life of the morally bankrupt beast. Social Democracy should have died when the experiment in the German Weimar Republic collapsed into full blown National Socialism.

Simon et al. express their surprise at the ease with which the Left have thrown all their traditional minority proteges under the bus in favor of the apparent antipod, Islamofascism: women, blacks, gays, transexuals, the entire laundry list of victim groups was declared irrelevant practically overnight.

It's not just simply a matter of the greater numbers of the masses (the loyalty of feminists and gays is simply taken for granted); it is also a case of reverting back-to-basics.

- Caption: "The Evolution of Socialist Strategies to Rescue it from Failure" (click to enlarge) -- Hat Tip: Dr Sanity -

Venture a guess to whom the following edifying words can be ascribed:

"A society properly founded on natural passion and religion will override the self-centered individualism that reason leads to, making it possible for individuals to form a new, collectivized, social organism. When individuals come together to form the new society ... "the individual particularly of each contracting party is surrendered to a new moral and collective body which has its own self, life, body and will." "The individual (...) puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of society's leaders," and those that do not summit to the state "should be put to death."

What the éminence grise of Leftism has to say about compulsory participation in religion, puts the combined efforts of the Ayatolla Khomeini, Oliver Cromwell, and the Inquisition to shame.

Swiss-French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the Left's ground zero: a paying job to him was slavery and an indignity no human being should ever have to endure. The education of his kids he entrusted to the care of the Paris orphanage.

More pernicious than anything else, he outfitted the collectivist state with a persona, an animus, and a 'common will' to remind individuals of their duty to self-sacrifice to the whole.

Rousseau laid the groundwork in which the proud, rustic tree of collectivist Socialism would grow, roots since soaked in the blood of millions of individuals and reduced to a putrefied, amorphic mass, a monument to Nothing, that is Postmodernism.

A comparison of the roots of Socialism and the secular characteristics of political Islam, renders the following illuminative chart:



The fundamental principles underlying both Socialism and Islamism explain the mutual appreciation and attraction and clarify why scores of Leftists hit the streets this weekend in support of a set of pathological murderers in Gaza who claim to act in the name of victimhood.

Surprised why the Left descends into fascism? On a philosophical level there's not much difference between the twin ideologies of Socialism and ... well, National Socialism. The cosmetic rifts lie in the choice of the totem and the field of implementation: the one variety seeks out ethnic roots as a religious surrogate (nationalism), the other limits that to the Germanic tribes (National Socialism), in the Italian Social Republic fascism was a amalgam of Socialism and corporatism, while in Communism the means of production were nationalized. All outlawed independent thought and action.

The principles as detailed in the chart are deeper and much more fundamental than that. They remain the same for The Unholy Alliance as a whole, made up by both Left and Right Socialism, as well as Islamism.

The Postmodern strategy of confusing the enemy has been successful enough as it is; very few people today can distinguish between fact and opinion, cause and effect, equality and identicalness, public opinion and truth, intolerance and diversity. The cacophony in the field of ideas is sheer endless.

Given the circumstances it would be a relief to know that the thinking part of civilization at least has done its homework.

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" and "The Unholy Alliance" -