Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.
At the bottom of a post in Gates of Vienna, I found a number of comments. One reply in particular struck me .
I have often noted that the there are many factors that contribute to the decline of our culture and virtues that, if we did not follow them ourselves, at least existed as constant reminders of what made Western Civilization great. This roots of this unique brand of culture comes generally from five sources. Ancient Greece and Rome were followed by the Northern Germanic tradition. These provided the secular foundations of Western culture. Christianity and Judaism (Here I specify that which came to us unfiltered by Christianity) also contributed to the Western mindset.
It was not a perfect society, but its accomplishments far outshine those of the rest of the world.
Slavery had been virtually completely excised in Christian Europe by the Middle Ages. After we in the West got back on the slavery train, Christian Europe again took the lead in forcefully moving to put and end to the slave trade. The US ultimately even fought a war in which the protection of slavery as an institution was a major factor. The Islamic world at no point has given up its love of slavery. It is still in existence today in nations such as Mauritania. In fact, the Mediterranean was a stalking ground for the predation of Muslim pirates well into the 19th century. These reapers of human harvest ranged as far as the British Isles well into the modern era. It can be strongly argued that, if Muslims had not been so active in the slave trade, Black slavery in the New World may never have occurred. The infant American Republic, shorn of the protection of the British Navy, was reduced to paying enormous sums of tribute to the Barbary States in order to stop the seizing of her shipping and enslaving of her merchant sailors. "...to the shores of Tripoli", from the Marine Corps hymn, refers to a battle fought against those of the Islamic world for the same purpose.
The artwork of the West is unsurpassed for its realism (Thanks to the Greeks for priming the pump), use of perspective, and other factors on which I am nowhere near qualified to comment. The Renaissance saw an explosion of works of incredible beauty and depth. This tradition was to continue until the rise of Cultural Marxism.
The West was an extremely curious culture. People were constantly looking for answers and explanations. Where else could a man like Socrates find so many people not only willing, but clamoring, to hear him speak and engage them is a series of logical questions that tore huge holes in their preconceived notions - all by asking a few quetions? Socrates too exemplified the virtue to which most of us can only dream to aspire. His sham trial and his consequent execution by poison could have been avoided by flight, but he knew that Athens would learn more by his death than his escape. Many Greeks and Romans honorably accepted exile from an ungrateful people rather than give in to prideful temptation and seize power for themselves.
Western Philosophers also have few competitors. The Stoics, for one example, influenced even Christian writers who were to follow them
The West saw the rise of some extraordinary well thought-out and stable (Yes they were at times quite tumultuous but for their time they were exceptional) governments. The memories of these were to prove to be long-lived and gave rise to the republics and democracies of our modern era. An important point to note is that in none of these was the individual forgotten or lost in the mix. In Eastern societies in which despotism (Not all of these were inherently bad) only a few favored elites were able to make names for themselves. In our history, the role call of individuals can go on forever. From the Greek and Roman orator, military commander or statesman, to the free man of the Witan or Thing of the Saxons and Scandinavians, the individual knew that he could speak, play an active part in the governing of his city or village, (Usually) have a reasonable protection of his property, and that he could hold his head high and be a slave to no one. Those societies that devolved into or fell under despotic or monarchical governments, such as Rome after the Republic, Greece under Macedon and later Byzantium and Islam, or the monarchies of Medieval Europe could not remain in these states forever - the people of the West remember all too well where they came from.
Families in the West experience far more freedom than those of other societies. Parental authority was paramount. If a man's peers thought that he was too hard on his son, they had ways of bringing this to his attention without calling in the State to take custody. The Roman may walk up to the rostrum and pull his adult son down as he was speaking, but the Father risked losing the respect of his peers for doing so. The free family was a source of strength for a society, not a drawback. The State can never be a Father.
In no place on earth was curiosity so widespread or motivated as in Western Europe. One invention and discovery on optics, medicine, physics lead to another. The rapidity of the changes in these fields stood in stark contrast with other developed but incurious societies like that of China. There, once something pretty good or useful was developed, it remained as it was for centuries thereafter. The West was also well on its way, especially in England, to industrialization before the maligned era of colonialism began. After a blink of an eye of dabbling in Medicine, Greek thought, and Algebra (From India), Islam shrank back into stagnation in these fields as fast as the armies of Islam came out of Arabia.
Even in Christian Europe, often denigrated an an example of intolerance, there was far more room for insightful and spiritual works than anywhere else in the world. Once could spend his whole life reading Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, and others without running out of reading material.
(9/8/12) Among other things that I surely missed, I guess that I should add that the literature of the West stands alone for is variety, style, clarity, and provocation of thought. It tends to be marked by a balance of emphasis on religious, civic, and individual responsibilities and liberties. Printing was invented in the East, but movable type, the big step, was invented in the West. Impressive collections of books, whether they are in libraries, schools, churches, or single-family homes, are a phenomena of the West. Private libraries are almost non-existent in the Islamic world. Easterners tend to limit their choice of books to technical works and generally do not delve into those of the great authors.
* It is strange that I missed this subject last night as I have often (Probably rightly) been referred to as a compulsive reader.
Anyway, I wanted to list the comments from the reply to the post in Gates of Vienna. The contributor goes by the screen name "Anonymous". He provides a very brief but clear summary of what has gone wrong in the West.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/smarty-pants.html
"Anonymous said...5
Intelligence matters a lot and you certainly don't import hordes of lower IQ types with highly regressive cultures. 3rd world people can't build a Sweden or Great Britain.
The reason the West is imploding demographically has to do with several large scale social trends that appeared over the last 60 years.
1) The creation of the Welfare State which reduces men to sperm donors and is anti-family. Look at Northern Europe 50% of kids are born into single parent homes. The State is the Father.
2)Introduction of various Marxist inspired movements that have permeated through White society:
Feminism - the radical sort which teaches women to hate men, look down on stay at home mom's and worship the corporate life. Think Sandra Fluke or Gloria Steinem.
Post-modern art and architecture movements that have made a obscenity out of art(Piss Christ) and architecture - look at the difference at buildings built prior to WWI and now. Which is more humane and warm in appearance?
See Thomas Wolfe's two books for more on these subjects.
Modern art doesn't inspire, it degrades and makes a mockery of life, it's junk promoted by wealthy people. Think about it. That's how we went from Michaelangelo to Serrano.
Intellectual movements like Liberalism and secularism are utterly toxic for people who adhere to it. They don't have kids period. Hedonism and self-centeredness is the name of the game for those who embrace it and kids get in the way.
Loss of religion. The more secular a people become the less chance of them having a positive or neutral replacement rate. For example the Red States have more kids than Blue states. Religious families are bigger. It's also manifests with charity work. The more Liberal people are the less inclined they are to engage in charity."
The Hot Gates - 480BC. An event that was to determine what path much of the Western World would follow occurred as the Persian army threatened to overwhelm Greece in 480BC. The West today again faces both external and internal threats to its identity and existence.
Showing posts with label western civilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label western civilization. Show all posts
Friday, September 7, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Fascism OK for the Left as Long as it is Islamic Fascism
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.
In yesterday's post I reasserted my position that Islamic culture is not compatible with a Western society. As long as a Muslim population is statistically insignificant or is otherwise too small to result in any real manifestation of political power or influence, things tend to be OK. Once that changes, Muslims begin to demand more and more concessions, violence increases, and fundamentalistic thought becomes more predominant.
Until today I was not aware of a particular political movement among Turks of many different nations. The Grey Wolves appears to be the self-applied name used by the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Its goal is to create a Turkish nation that stretches from the former Ottoman-ruled areas of the Balkans (Which was the entire Balkans and then some) to the regions of Western China, which is peopled by ethnic Turks was near to the point of origin of the original Turkish tribes.
As I have noted earlier, Turks never existed anywhere near Asia Minor/Anatolia/Modern Turkey until later Medieval times. So when you hear that St. Nicholas lived in Myra, which is in Turkey, you can correct anyone who claims that Santa Claus was a Turk.
This party has an outlook that is Fascist in that it is strongly associated with radical nationalistic/ethnic thought. Due to the historical origins of Fascism, I along with many others classify it as a doctrine of the Left. It was designed with some of the same intentions of early Leftists; strong central control of industry, political organization of the working classes, etc. The main difference with the traditional Left is that Fascism is not international in its outlook. The former seeks to eliminate all national borders and sovereignty. Some early proponents of fascism actually viewed it as a stepping stone to true Marxism.
Another point on which I have written is the Year Zero concept. This is the idea that, to create the society of the future, which to a leftist is full-bore international Communism, all cultural influences of the past must be eradicated. The most well known examples of this were seen in the purges of the Khmer Rouge and Mao's Cultural Revolution. In the West, we are experiencing the exact same thing. The only difference is that here no one is as of yet being sent to labor camps or being executed.
The means by which the Left seeks to realize Year Zero in the West is to denigrate or otherwise strategically ignore all the historical works of Western Civilization and to consign them to the dustbins of history. It is a fairly effective measure; ensure that people are either completely ignorant of their past or detest it so much that it is consequently ignored by the sheep-like masses, and the plan if at least halfway accomplished. Once that obstacle is out of the way, Western Culture is poised to be swept aside by the tide of Marxism.
Hillaire Belloc noted in How the Reformation Happened that the Great Schism of the West went a long way towards excising from Western Europe the idea that a unified Church had any importance. In the Church were two individuals who claimed to be the legitimate Pope. At one point a Church council muddied the waters further and named another claimant, thus resulting in three claimants. I will go no father on this other than to note that at no point was their any more than one legitimate Pope at any time, but the conflict nevertheless resulted in various groups/nations supporting one claimant vs. the other(s) and that this confusion created a sort of disillusion and possibly apathy in Western Europe in regards to the concept of a unified Church. Belloc noted that an entire generation had grown up and aged while witnessing this period of confusion and competing loyalties. The first act of the play that ended in the Balkanization of the Western Church was completed.
The following essay posted in Gates of Vienna describes the paradox that exists today in Leftist-influenced societies in how they respond to nationalistic movements. Those that support nationalism of European nations or the protection of a people's (In this case those of Western Europe) sense of identity are attacked without mercy by the Left. Those that advocate the same thing for other peoples, such as the Grey Turks, are left to themselves and are not bothered in any way. In applying the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Left is fine with a Fascist group that would help in undermining Western Societies and rid the West once and for all of Christianity, Judaism, and the sense of historical/ethnic identity of its peoples.
The author of the essay holds that Fascism is a far-right ideology, but I would agree with him that, if it were so, it is certainly (as he notes) a "mirror image" of Leftist ideology.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-fight-against-right.html#more
-From the Gates of Vienna translator:
"The Grey Wolves (Graue Wölfe) is the designation for members of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) founded in 1961. They also call themselves the “Idealists” (Turkish, Ülkücüler). The goal of the Grey Wolves is to unite all Turks by the establishment of a Turkish nation stretching from the Balkans through Central Asia into Xinjiang in China. German Intelligence (der Verfassungsschutz) of North Rhine-Westphalia, which monitors the Grey Wolves, alleges that the organisation is contributing” to the emergence of a parallel society in Europe” and sees it as “a hindrance to the integration of the Turkish population” (Source: Metapedia). Enemies of the Grey Wolves are made up largely of the Kurds, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and the Americans. The Turkish ethno-nationalist movement can “howl their fascistic slogans”, as Sattler puts it, because “those responsible can file suit with reference to the anti-discrimination law” [Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ)]
In yesterday's post I reasserted my position that Islamic culture is not compatible with a Western society. As long as a Muslim population is statistically insignificant or is otherwise too small to result in any real manifestation of political power or influence, things tend to be OK. Once that changes, Muslims begin to demand more and more concessions, violence increases, and fundamentalistic thought becomes more predominant.
Until today I was not aware of a particular political movement among Turks of many different nations. The Grey Wolves appears to be the self-applied name used by the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Its goal is to create a Turkish nation that stretches from the former Ottoman-ruled areas of the Balkans (Which was the entire Balkans and then some) to the regions of Western China, which is peopled by ethnic Turks was near to the point of origin of the original Turkish tribes.
As I have noted earlier, Turks never existed anywhere near Asia Minor/Anatolia/Modern Turkey until later Medieval times. So when you hear that St. Nicholas lived in Myra, which is in Turkey, you can correct anyone who claims that Santa Claus was a Turk.
This party has an outlook that is Fascist in that it is strongly associated with radical nationalistic/ethnic thought. Due to the historical origins of Fascism, I along with many others classify it as a doctrine of the Left. It was designed with some of the same intentions of early Leftists; strong central control of industry, political organization of the working classes, etc. The main difference with the traditional Left is that Fascism is not international in its outlook. The former seeks to eliminate all national borders and sovereignty. Some early proponents of fascism actually viewed it as a stepping stone to true Marxism.
Another point on which I have written is the Year Zero concept. This is the idea that, to create the society of the future, which to a leftist is full-bore international Communism, all cultural influences of the past must be eradicated. The most well known examples of this were seen in the purges of the Khmer Rouge and Mao's Cultural Revolution. In the West, we are experiencing the exact same thing. The only difference is that here no one is as of yet being sent to labor camps or being executed.
The means by which the Left seeks to realize Year Zero in the West is to denigrate or otherwise strategically ignore all the historical works of Western Civilization and to consign them to the dustbins of history. It is a fairly effective measure; ensure that people are either completely ignorant of their past or detest it so much that it is consequently ignored by the sheep-like masses, and the plan if at least halfway accomplished. Once that obstacle is out of the way, Western Culture is poised to be swept aside by the tide of Marxism.
Hillaire Belloc noted in How the Reformation Happened that the Great Schism of the West went a long way towards excising from Western Europe the idea that a unified Church had any importance. In the Church were two individuals who claimed to be the legitimate Pope. At one point a Church council muddied the waters further and named another claimant, thus resulting in three claimants. I will go no father on this other than to note that at no point was their any more than one legitimate Pope at any time, but the conflict nevertheless resulted in various groups/nations supporting one claimant vs. the other(s) and that this confusion created a sort of disillusion and possibly apathy in Western Europe in regards to the concept of a unified Church. Belloc noted that an entire generation had grown up and aged while witnessing this period of confusion and competing loyalties. The first act of the play that ended in the Balkanization of the Western Church was completed.
The following essay posted in Gates of Vienna describes the paradox that exists today in Leftist-influenced societies in how they respond to nationalistic movements. Those that support nationalism of European nations or the protection of a people's (In this case those of Western Europe) sense of identity are attacked without mercy by the Left. Those that advocate the same thing for other peoples, such as the Grey Turks, are left to themselves and are not bothered in any way. In applying the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Left is fine with a Fascist group that would help in undermining Western Societies and rid the West once and for all of Christianity, Judaism, and the sense of historical/ethnic identity of its peoples.
The author of the essay holds that Fascism is a far-right ideology, but I would agree with him that, if it were so, it is certainly (as he notes) a "mirror image" of Leftist ideology.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-fight-against-right.html#more
-From the Gates of Vienna translator:
"The Grey Wolves (Graue Wölfe) is the designation for members of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) founded in 1961. They also call themselves the “Idealists” (Turkish, Ülkücüler). The goal of the Grey Wolves is to unite all Turks by the establishment of a Turkish nation stretching from the Balkans through Central Asia into Xinjiang in China. German Intelligence (der Verfassungsschutz) of North Rhine-Westphalia, which monitors the Grey Wolves, alleges that the organisation is contributing” to the emergence of a parallel society in Europe” and sees it as “a hindrance to the integration of the Turkish population” (Source: Metapedia). Enemies of the Grey Wolves are made up largely of the Kurds, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and the Americans. The Turkish ethno-nationalist movement can “howl their fascistic slogans”, as Sattler puts it, because “those responsible can file suit with reference to the anti-discrimination law” [Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ)]
The Bunte Republik (The Multicoloured Republic of Germany) is a political expression in Germany. M. Sattler uses it repeatedly in place of the official name for Germany,Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), hence ‘The Multicultural Republic of Germany’. The word play is on Bund (Federal) and Bunt (multicoloured, coloured, mottled, spotted). .............."
The aforementioned essay in Gates of Vienna:
The aforementioned essay in Gates of Vienna:
Bolding is added.
No Fight against the Right
By M. Sattler
The anti-fascism of the Bunten Republik [Multicoloured Republic] makes distinctions according to criteria of nationality: German right-wing extremism is opposed, Turkish right-wing extremism is tolerated. By contrast, the anti-fascism of East Germany was a universal anti-fascism: right-wing extremism was a generalised enemy, independent of a particular nation. The reasons for these entirely divergent stances are to be sought in the ideological backgrounds of these two left-doctrinaire states.
1. The Anti-fascism of East Germany
The anti-fascism of East Germany arose from its Marxist-Leninist tradition and its self-conception as part of the communist world revolution: The goal of the Marxist-Leninist worker’s struggle is in fact the worldwide overcoming of national identities through the construction of a social identity defined by class struggle. The Fascism founded by Mussolini formed the direct counter-thesis to that: in response to Lenin’s October Revolution, Mussolini called for overcoming of the class-antagonisms, not by struggle, but by national solidarity within the great totality. Both ideologies, Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, therefore deal with the same themes of “class” and “nation”. They form a typical pair of opposites providing divergent answers to the same question. Marxist-Leninist communism means necessarily rejection of its laterally reversed mirror image; that is, uncompromising anti-fascism, and vice versa [“laterally reversed mirror image”, des seitenverkehrten Spiegelbilds, can also mean a mirror image reversed left to right].
Since Marxism-Leninism strives to overcome the idea of nation and for the internationalism of the working class, it can combat Fascism consistently only in an anti-nationalistic way; that is, it does not differentiate Fascism by the criterion of nationality, into a “good” and a “bad” Fascism. It attacks the enemy, right-wing nationalistic fascistic thinking, on a worldwide basis: in Italy under Mussolini; in Poland after the military putsch of 1926; in Germany of the late 1920s; in the 1930s in Thailand and Japan and in Spain under Franco; in the 1950s and ‘60s in Turkey and in the 1970s in Chile. The anti-fascism of the Marxist-Leninist East Germany also stood in this tradition of a universal, worldwide oriented anti-fascism until 1989.
2. The Anti-Fascism of the Bunten Republik
In contrast to East Germany the foundation of our present-day “Bunten Republik” is to be sure unmistakably left-wing doctrinaire, but not Marxist-Leninist. The left-doctrinaire ideology of theBunten Republik rests on the strongly Maoist-created Cultural Revolution of the ’68ers — a left-wing revolution which never took place in the Marxist-Leninist sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. As distinct from Marxism-Leninism, however, Maoism is not only a movement oriented toward class struggle, but is first and foremost a culture-war movement inimical to civilisation. The new communist man can only emerge insofar as he annihilates the “old” culture altogether. The core questions of Marxism-Leninism and its fascistic antithesis therefore play only a marginal role for Maoism. The Maoist does not struggle either against other classes or other nations; his fight is introverted and auto-aggressive; his image of the enemy is his own culture as part of the human civilisation.
These auto-aggressive Maoist influences also gained a foothold in West Germany after Mao’s 1966 Cultural Revolution, where they influenced the revolt of the 1968ers quite substantially. They also explain the different perspectives on Fascism between East Germany and the Bunten Republik. In the Marxist-Leninist East Germany a fascist was a fascist, no matter which country he came from. In the more vigorously Maoist cultural-revolutionaryBunten Republik on the other hand, Fascism counted as an enemy only in the auto-aggressive context. When 6,000 Turkish right-wing extremists [Grey Wolves] gather in the Grugahalle [an indoor sports arena on 19 Nov. 2011] in Essen and howl their fascistic slogans, this is no issue for the Bunten Republik. In Germany, to oppose Turkish Fascists would be counterproductive for the cultural revolution. Very definitely it is an issue however, when five German right-wing extremists gather in front of a drink-kiosk.
Unlike East Germany, therefore, the Bunte Republik by no means fights “against the Right” universally, it fights selectively. Out if its budget of millions for the “war against the Right”, it will never allocate even a single penny for the fight against the Turkish Grey Wolves. This apparent “double standard” is not, however, a consequence of a naïve misjudgement of the real situational danger stemming from right-wing extremism in Germany. It is a deliberate and entirely consistent course of political action which is immediately derived from the auto-aggressive character of the multicoloured ideology [bunten Ideologie], itself influenced by Maoism from the outset, and directed against its own culture and civilisation. To characterise the Bunte Republik as “anti-fascistic” or indeed to see it in the tradition of the universalised anti-fascism of East Germany is not only to misjudge the East German context taken by itself. Such an evaluation also misconstrues the historically evolved variations internal to the left-doctrinaire world of ideas, and hence the entire ideological foundation of our present-day Bunten Republik.
No Fight against the Right
By M. Sattler
The anti-fascism of the Bunten Republik [Multicoloured Republic] makes distinctions according to criteria of nationality: German right-wing extremism is opposed, Turkish right-wing extremism is tolerated. By contrast, the anti-fascism of East Germany was a universal anti-fascism: right-wing extremism was a generalised enemy, independent of a particular nation. The reasons for these entirely divergent stances are to be sought in the ideological backgrounds of these two left-doctrinaire states.
1. The Anti-fascism of East Germany
The anti-fascism of East Germany arose from its Marxist-Leninist tradition and its self-conception as part of the communist world revolution: The goal of the Marxist-Leninist worker’s struggle is in fact the worldwide overcoming of national identities through the construction of a social identity defined by class struggle. The Fascism founded by Mussolini formed the direct counter-thesis to that: in response to Lenin’s October Revolution, Mussolini called for overcoming of the class-antagonisms, not by struggle, but by national solidarity within the great totality. Both ideologies, Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, therefore deal with the same themes of “class” and “nation”. They form a typical pair of opposites providing divergent answers to the same question. Marxist-Leninist communism means necessarily rejection of its laterally reversed mirror image; that is, uncompromising anti-fascism, and vice versa [“laterally reversed mirror image”, des seitenverkehrten Spiegelbilds, can also mean a mirror image reversed left to right].
Since Marxism-Leninism strives to overcome the idea of nation and for the internationalism of the working class, it can combat Fascism consistently only in an anti-nationalistic way; that is, it does not differentiate Fascism by the criterion of nationality, into a “good” and a “bad” Fascism. It attacks the enemy, right-wing nationalistic fascistic thinking, on a worldwide basis: in Italy under Mussolini; in Poland after the military putsch of 1926; in Germany of the late 1920s; in the 1930s in Thailand and Japan and in Spain under Franco; in the 1950s and ‘60s in Turkey and in the 1970s in Chile. The anti-fascism of the Marxist-Leninist East Germany also stood in this tradition of a universal, worldwide oriented anti-fascism until 1989.
2. The Anti-Fascism of the Bunten Republik
In contrast to East Germany the foundation of our present-day “Bunten Republik” is to be sure unmistakably left-wing doctrinaire, but not Marxist-Leninist. The left-doctrinaire ideology of theBunten Republik rests on the strongly Maoist-created Cultural Revolution of the ’68ers — a left-wing revolution which never took place in the Marxist-Leninist sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. As distinct from Marxism-Leninism, however, Maoism is not only a movement oriented toward class struggle, but is first and foremost a culture-war movement inimical to civilisation. The new communist man can only emerge insofar as he annihilates the “old” culture altogether. The core questions of Marxism-Leninism and its fascistic antithesis therefore play only a marginal role for Maoism. The Maoist does not struggle either against other classes or other nations; his fight is introverted and auto-aggressive; his image of the enemy is his own culture as part of the human civilisation.
These auto-aggressive Maoist influences also gained a foothold in West Germany after Mao’s 1966 Cultural Revolution, where they influenced the revolt of the 1968ers quite substantially. They also explain the different perspectives on Fascism between East Germany and the Bunten Republik. In the Marxist-Leninist East Germany a fascist was a fascist, no matter which country he came from. In the more vigorously Maoist cultural-revolutionaryBunten Republik on the other hand, Fascism counted as an enemy only in the auto-aggressive context. When 6,000 Turkish right-wing extremists [Grey Wolves] gather in the Grugahalle [an indoor sports arena on 19 Nov. 2011] in Essen and howl their fascistic slogans, this is no issue for the Bunten Republik. In Germany, to oppose Turkish Fascists would be counterproductive for the cultural revolution. Very definitely it is an issue however, when five German right-wing extremists gather in front of a drink-kiosk.
Unlike East Germany, therefore, the Bunte Republik by no means fights “against the Right” universally, it fights selectively. Out if its budget of millions for the “war against the Right”, it will never allocate even a single penny for the fight against the Turkish Grey Wolves. This apparent “double standard” is not, however, a consequence of a naïve misjudgement of the real situational danger stemming from right-wing extremism in Germany. It is a deliberate and entirely consistent course of political action which is immediately derived from the auto-aggressive character of the multicoloured ideology [bunten Ideologie], itself influenced by Maoism from the outset, and directed against its own culture and civilisation. To characterise the Bunte Republik as “anti-fascistic” or indeed to see it in the tradition of the universalised anti-fascism of East Germany is not only to misjudge the East German context taken by itself. Such an evaluation also misconstrues the historically evolved variations internal to the left-doctrinaire world of ideas, and hence the entire ideological foundation of our present-day Bunten Republik.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Revised: Occupy - No Shame for Stupidity Let Alone For Being Leftist
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hannity-rips-apart-occupy-organizer-in-tense-segment-get-your-ass-out-of-bed-and-get-to-work/
Added 5/4/12-
There are two videos on this link. The bottom one is the longer version. An Occupy dolt/lunatic/Joseph Goebbels type got Sean Hannity more than riled up. Among other things, the Occupy rapists were said to have been sent to Zuccoti Park by the NYPD to discredit their operation. Later, Sean lit into the guy after finding out that, according to Mr.. Occupy, certain jobs were beneath him.
The Left has got these people in a state where they convince themselves that life after the establishment of the worker's paradise will be pretty much the same as it has been for the last 20-30 years, if not better.
Original post below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupy gave up trying to veil themselves in legitimate gripes such as Bailouts long ago. The cliche must be annoying, but a leopard can't hide its spots.
The movement unfurled the red banners a few weeks into their program last year. On May 1st, they came in with colors flying.
The videos, along with the posts, in the following links must be seen to be believed. Communism, Marxism, Unions taking over the means of production- it's all there. Patently absent is any acknowledgement that, once the factories and farms are taken over, progress grinds to a halt. Bureaucrats are in business to maintain what is under their supervision. Unlike demonic Capitalists, civil servants will not go out on a limb and risk substantial capital to invest in an entirely new infrastructure of fabrication (Unless the purpose is for war or other propaganda victories such as space travel). Nations such as Cuba and North Korea stand in testimony to the consequences of government-controlled economies; factories are inefficient, farms do not produce at anything hear their capacities, and those in charge just keep issuing orders to work harder and to tighten one's belt. Cuba of course has made some changes, but the damage runs deeply there; their water pipes, for one example, are crumbling to pieces underground and massive amounts of water are being lost daily.
If you have time for only one video, you have got to watch the one in which the two sad dopes talk about getting rid of currency. In the same segment, they profess their attachment for such staples as big-screen TVs. When asked to explain how this type of item will still be around after the money economy s history, they provide some wonderfully insightful answers.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/funny-vid-d-c-occupiers-want-to-banish-monetary-system-but-still-buy-big-screen-tvs/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-answers-what-is-the-best-alternative-to-capitalism-hilarity-ensues/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-on-display-when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-a-professional-protester/
The excising of any education on Western Civilization has, in my opinion, been far and away the most effective means of producing blank-minded young people. I hold that, even taking in to account all of the damage done by the constant attacks on Christianity and Judaism, along with our own acquiescence to the marginalization of our faith, the loss of the knowledge of Western Civilization has had far worse effect. Even if most people do not follow the path of regular devotion as did their ancestors, the memory of it remains and will continue to have an effect on one's decisions. What causes the complete dearth of understanding is the ignorance of how the society in which one is standing at the moment came to be. Without being aware of the fusion of Greek, Roman, Northern European, and Christian and Jewish elements that made us what we are, one can actually convince himself that we could have reached the point that we have by any means. I could go on at length on this subject but will leave that for another time.
Suffice to say for now that the advent of a money economy was the means by which the world was able to create the living standards, achievements of science, the arts, architecture, engineering, literature, and others that we take for granted. Even those who contributed to medicine, which has lengthened our life expectancy far beyond that what we had in the past, could not have accomplished a fraction of what we now have had we not had the means for people to earn a living while learning, researching, and applying themselves to their chosen profession. Running to and fro with bartered food and handmade products leaves a society in a primitive state, period.
Money allows for specialization of work in a manner that even the advanced Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mayan, Mohenjo Daro, and other societies could not approach. Sure, the grain surplus (The Left wants us eating mostly grains too) allowed for a few people to be set aside to think of things and apply what they learned, but an abundance of food is not enough to convince people to venture far away to trade, to make better products to sell, etc.
In his Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, Colin McEvedy notes how the world changed with money economies. Primitive societies utilized wealth for display and to show rank. After apparently learning to use coin money from the Lydians, who used the gold/silver allow electrum, the Greeks applied this to their society. The author states "With a fistful of coins and an eye for the main chance, the individual had arrived in history". As the Left detests the very concept of the individual, I am not surprised that they too want to do away with the means by which a civilized society can actually have free individuals.
Decades of welfare and Leftist-dominated college courses have created a dangerous voting bloc. According to a Gallup poll, 36% of all Americans view Socialism favorably. Even taking into account the 4% margin of error given on the site, we are looking at almost a full third of Americans who look at property, financial risk, and success with either a jaundiced eye or outright hostility. As we have no reason to hope that colleges will begin giving their Leftist professors the boot, we can expect the 36% to creep ever closer to half of our body politic.
Even a win for a Romney who hypothetically turns out to be a real conservative in November, we are looking at a brief four-year respite from a potential Marxist overhaul of the nation. If we do not take into consideration what steps may need to be taken in the event that our rights and freedoms are being completely stripped from us, or what we can do to prevent the establishment of a Marxist regime by our current electoral system, we may be too late.
Excerpts from previous posts are below:
For those accustomed to Universal Suffrage as an institution, and we have taken it as a given for a long time, it is a difficult thing to give any thought to the possibility that there may be certain individuals who cannot be considered part of the Body Politic. We have not given any thought to whether or not a person who reaches his majority (Archaic term), upon reaching the age of 18, should automatically be allowed to exercise the same political power as does an individual who pays income and/or property tax, receives no government benefits such as welfare, has served in the military or other institution that would constitute a sacrifice of one's liberties for service to the nation, or taken any step that would recognize that he or she has entered into the Social Compact as described by John Locke. Note that voter requirements were a part of our nation from the beginning and that these do not need to single out anyone due to race, religion, etc.
Most are aware that Locke, particularly in his First and Second Treatises on Government, was a tremendous influence on the thought processes of our Founding Fathers. Our Declaration of Independence could not have been written in the form that we know had ideas promulgated by Locke not been around. I will not go into detail but on Locke's ideas but stick to his idea of the Social Contract. Note that his Treatises can be purchased for around $3.99 on E-readers.
Locke described the manner in which a person leaves the sphere of parental authority and joins society. I doing so, he, by choosing to in fact remain in the nation of his birth, accepts and engages in the Social Compact. This entails, among other things, an acceptance of the basic framework of that society. It does not mean that he cannot work to excise natural wrongs such as slavery, but it does mean that he should refrain from working to remove things that are part of the basic framework of that society. In the case of the US, one would, upon leaving the authority of one's parents and entering society, implicitly have to accept rights such as private property, the right to be free of oppressive taxation, to live where one chooses and can afford to live, to be free of governmental regulation that reaches into the minutiae of one's life, the right of that Nation itself to remain free and sovereign, etc.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/bill-ayers-wife-was-partly-correct.html
We have for too long held back from admitting to ourselves that there is a significant subset of out population who are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, actually in a State of War with our nation and its society. We have been non-participants in this conflict. We can no longer, though remain idle. Not only are these people, who are at war against us, allowed reside here, they are allowed to constitute a part of the body politic. They can vote, hold office and gradually (Right now they are not gradually doing anything) bring us step-by-step to a point from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves without a catastrophic conflict. The Left pretends to be against all war. This is a complete falsehood. They will eagerly enter into armed conflict with any nation, State, or free people that refuses to be swallowed up by the Leftist tide.
My position is that Leftist doctrine must be legally defined as completely contrary to the structure and fabric of nations such as the US. Those who advocate the end of private property, the very reason why people enter into Social Compacts and institute governments in the first place, (Again, Locke), must be treated as dangerous enemies of the nation and society. This is not an issue of free speech as it does not concern the mere free expression of thought.Those who remain outside our Social Compact declare themselves to be our enemies ipso facto their stated goals of destroying the very concept and right of private property. We don't even have to fight them. They can simply leave. Those who refuse to leave would have to be removed from all but the smallest pockets of the nation's land mass. They must be denied the right to vote, hold office, or teach. Any who decides to jump on the Leftist bandwagon can join their brethren in the enclaves, free of the rights they so despised. Hopefully, those who grow weary of being restricted from their choice of place of residence or voting will apply to live somewhere else. Anyone who gets fed up with the horror show that these enclaves will become may apply to rejoin, or, if he or she is a new adult, voluntarily enter into the Social Compact. In short, those who put themselves in a State of War against us must be treated as full-fledged enemies.
As the primary reason that people create governments for the preservation of property, and those who remain outside of the Social Compact have placed themselves in a State of War with those who desire to retain their property rights, the Left has chosen to place both sides in opposition to each other with no civil body to arbitrate our differences. This is what Locke refers to as the State of Nature, our primordial state in which any injured party to could punish another who wronged him. The State of War is a natural and common occurrence in the State of Nature.
The secondary reason for creating a government was to provide a process by which to parties could seek justice. Our problem is that one of the parties has never had any intention of adhering or entering into the Social Compact, in doing so, they have returned us to a State of Nature. Indeed, they seek to transform the civil power into the very body that they would need to crush any resistance, thus bring the civil power into their camp to prosecute the State of War they wage against us. If that occurs, then the only option of the injured/oppressed is "An appeal to Heaven".(Locke). This refers to the days of the Judges in Israel, when Jephthah, unable to obtain peace with the Ammonites, was left with no other option but to appeal to God for justice and fight. Maybe you can recall the early "An Appeal to Heaven" flag with the tree that was a symbol of our resistance to Great Britain.
Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Added 5/4/12-
There are two videos on this link. The bottom one is the longer version. An Occupy dolt/lunatic/Joseph Goebbels type got Sean Hannity more than riled up. Among other things, the Occupy rapists were said to have been sent to Zuccoti Park by the NYPD to discredit their operation. Later, Sean lit into the guy after finding out that, according to Mr.. Occupy, certain jobs were beneath him.
The Left has got these people in a state where they convince themselves that life after the establishment of the worker's paradise will be pretty much the same as it has been for the last 20-30 years, if not better.
Original post below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupy gave up trying to veil themselves in legitimate gripes such as Bailouts long ago. The cliche must be annoying, but a leopard can't hide its spots.
The movement unfurled the red banners a few weeks into their program last year. On May 1st, they came in with colors flying.
The videos, along with the posts, in the following links must be seen to be believed. Communism, Marxism, Unions taking over the means of production- it's all there. Patently absent is any acknowledgement that, once the factories and farms are taken over, progress grinds to a halt. Bureaucrats are in business to maintain what is under their supervision. Unlike demonic Capitalists, civil servants will not go out on a limb and risk substantial capital to invest in an entirely new infrastructure of fabrication (Unless the purpose is for war or other propaganda victories such as space travel). Nations such as Cuba and North Korea stand in testimony to the consequences of government-controlled economies; factories are inefficient, farms do not produce at anything hear their capacities, and those in charge just keep issuing orders to work harder and to tighten one's belt. Cuba of course has made some changes, but the damage runs deeply there; their water pipes, for one example, are crumbling to pieces underground and massive amounts of water are being lost daily.
If you have time for only one video, you have got to watch the one in which the two sad dopes talk about getting rid of currency. In the same segment, they profess their attachment for such staples as big-screen TVs. When asked to explain how this type of item will still be around after the money economy s history, they provide some wonderfully insightful answers.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/funny-vid-d-c-occupiers-want-to-banish-monetary-system-but-still-buy-big-screen-tvs/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-answers-what-is-the-best-alternative-to-capitalism-hilarity-ensues/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-on-display-when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-a-professional-protester/
The excising of any education on Western Civilization has, in my opinion, been far and away the most effective means of producing blank-minded young people. I hold that, even taking in to account all of the damage done by the constant attacks on Christianity and Judaism, along with our own acquiescence to the marginalization of our faith, the loss of the knowledge of Western Civilization has had far worse effect. Even if most people do not follow the path of regular devotion as did their ancestors, the memory of it remains and will continue to have an effect on one's decisions. What causes the complete dearth of understanding is the ignorance of how the society in which one is standing at the moment came to be. Without being aware of the fusion of Greek, Roman, Northern European, and Christian and Jewish elements that made us what we are, one can actually convince himself that we could have reached the point that we have by any means. I could go on at length on this subject but will leave that for another time.
Suffice to say for now that the advent of a money economy was the means by which the world was able to create the living standards, achievements of science, the arts, architecture, engineering, literature, and others that we take for granted. Even those who contributed to medicine, which has lengthened our life expectancy far beyond that what we had in the past, could not have accomplished a fraction of what we now have had we not had the means for people to earn a living while learning, researching, and applying themselves to their chosen profession. Running to and fro with bartered food and handmade products leaves a society in a primitive state, period.
Money allows for specialization of work in a manner that even the advanced Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mayan, Mohenjo Daro, and other societies could not approach. Sure, the grain surplus (The Left wants us eating mostly grains too) allowed for a few people to be set aside to think of things and apply what they learned, but an abundance of food is not enough to convince people to venture far away to trade, to make better products to sell, etc.
In his Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, Colin McEvedy notes how the world changed with money economies. Primitive societies utilized wealth for display and to show rank. After apparently learning to use coin money from the Lydians, who used the gold/silver allow electrum, the Greeks applied this to their society. The author states "With a fistful of coins and an eye for the main chance, the individual had arrived in history". As the Left detests the very concept of the individual, I am not surprised that they too want to do away with the means by which a civilized society can actually have free individuals.
Decades of welfare and Leftist-dominated college courses have created a dangerous voting bloc. According to a Gallup poll, 36% of all Americans view Socialism favorably. Even taking into account the 4% margin of error given on the site, we are looking at almost a full third of Americans who look at property, financial risk, and success with either a jaundiced eye or outright hostility. As we have no reason to hope that colleges will begin giving their Leftist professors the boot, we can expect the 36% to creep ever closer to half of our body politic.
Even a win for a Romney who hypothetically turns out to be a real conservative in November, we are looking at a brief four-year respite from a potential Marxist overhaul of the nation. If we do not take into consideration what steps may need to be taken in the event that our rights and freedoms are being completely stripped from us, or what we can do to prevent the establishment of a Marxist regime by our current electoral system, we may be too late.
Excerpts from previous posts are below:
Most are aware that Locke, particularly in his First and Second Treatises on Government, was a tremendous influence on the thought processes of our Founding Fathers. Our Declaration of Independence could not have been written in the form that we know had ideas promulgated by Locke not been around. I will not go into detail but on Locke's ideas but stick to his idea of the Social Contract. Note that his Treatises can be purchased for around $3.99 on E-readers.
Locke described the manner in which a person leaves the sphere of parental authority and joins society. I doing so, he, by choosing to in fact remain in the nation of his birth, accepts and engages in the Social Compact. This entails, among other things, an acceptance of the basic framework of that society. It does not mean that he cannot work to excise natural wrongs such as slavery, but it does mean that he should refrain from working to remove things that are part of the basic framework of that society. In the case of the US, one would, upon leaving the authority of one's parents and entering society, implicitly have to accept rights such as private property, the right to be free of oppressive taxation, to live where one chooses and can afford to live, to be free of governmental regulation that reaches into the minutiae of one's life, the right of that Nation itself to remain free and sovereign, etc.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/bill-ayers-wife-was-partly-correct.html
We have for too long held back from admitting to ourselves that there is a significant subset of out population who are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, actually in a State of War with our nation and its society. We have been non-participants in this conflict. We can no longer, though remain idle. Not only are these people, who are at war against us, allowed reside here, they are allowed to constitute a part of the body politic. They can vote, hold office and gradually (Right now they are not gradually doing anything) bring us step-by-step to a point from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves without a catastrophic conflict. The Left pretends to be against all war. This is a complete falsehood. They will eagerly enter into armed conflict with any nation, State, or free people that refuses to be swallowed up by the Leftist tide.
My position is that Leftist doctrine must be legally defined as completely contrary to the structure and fabric of nations such as the US. Those who advocate the end of private property, the very reason why people enter into Social Compacts and institute governments in the first place, (Again, Locke), must be treated as dangerous enemies of the nation and society. This is not an issue of free speech as it does not concern the mere free expression of thought.Those who remain outside our Social Compact declare themselves to be our enemies ipso facto their stated goals of destroying the very concept and right of private property. We don't even have to fight them. They can simply leave. Those who refuse to leave would have to be removed from all but the smallest pockets of the nation's land mass. They must be denied the right to vote, hold office, or teach. Any who decides to jump on the Leftist bandwagon can join their brethren in the enclaves, free of the rights they so despised. Hopefully, those who grow weary of being restricted from their choice of place of residence or voting will apply to live somewhere else. Anyone who gets fed up with the horror show that these enclaves will become may apply to rejoin, or, if he or she is a new adult, voluntarily enter into the Social Compact. In short, those who put themselves in a State of War against us must be treated as full-fledged enemies.
As the primary reason that people create governments for the preservation of property, and those who remain outside of the Social Compact have placed themselves in a State of War with those who desire to retain their property rights, the Left has chosen to place both sides in opposition to each other with no civil body to arbitrate our differences. This is what Locke refers to as the State of Nature, our primordial state in which any injured party to could punish another who wronged him. The State of War is a natural and common occurrence in the State of Nature.
The secondary reason for creating a government was to provide a process by which to parties could seek justice. Our problem is that one of the parties has never had any intention of adhering or entering into the Social Compact, in doing so, they have returned us to a State of Nature. Indeed, they seek to transform the civil power into the very body that they would need to crush any resistance, thus bring the civil power into their camp to prosecute the State of War they wage against us. If that occurs, then the only option of the injured/oppressed is "An appeal to Heaven".(Locke). This refers to the days of the Judges in Israel, when Jephthah, unable to obtain peace with the Ammonites, was left with no other option but to appeal to God for justice and fight. Maybe you can recall the early "An Appeal to Heaven" flag with the tree that was a symbol of our resistance to Great Britain.
Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)