On Hegel, Commies, Fascists, Terror, Liberty, Bigotry, The Left-Right Paradigm, Globalists, Populists, And TPTB* Who Brought It All To Us In Order To Take Over The World

It’s working, and why wouldn’t it? It always has.

I often wonder how it is that liberty-minded people end up supporting fascists. It’s not so hard to see, really; when presented with two choices, people have to pick, even if neither choice is optimal. This notion is the key to understanding the world as it is.

This notion is not foreign to many of us. Many governments and their elections are based on this system. It is often said that a bird needs both its wings to fly, both the left-wing, and the right-wing. Divide and conquer is the applicable clich√© here. If you dislike both the liberal and the conservative candidate, what is there left for you to do but stay home? Doing that, while symbolically relevant, will not change the outcome – an outcome which will determine the course of your life despite your lack of participation in it. After all, even if only ten percent of eligible voters vote, winning six percent of the nation’s voices is enough to rule them all. That’s democracy; well not really, but that’s what democracy has come to represent to most of us these days.

Taken to another level, this dichotomy can be implemented towards much more nefarious objectives.

Take the Bolsheviks, for example. They overthrew the ruling elite, killed the Czar and his family, and decided they would share the wealth. (In reality, it didn’t have the desired effect, but I’m trying to keep this article under a million words.) What’s important here is the spirit in which the revolution was undertaken: taking the power out of the hands of the elite, and dropping it into the laps of the people. They did not know what to do with this power, and so were subverted, but we are more sophisticated than they were; or at least, we have a chance to be.

World War II and the construct of Nazism, which was almost entirely an Anglo-American creation, had at their roots many causes, but had only one aim, to stem the tide of Communism. The ruling elite did not want to see the revolutionary mind-set grow and spill over into their own countries, lest they receive the same treatment as the Czar.

[More specifically, there was open support and admiration for Hitler himself (despite the fact that National Socialist party was a party for the workers, and one which promised revolution – most knew this to be a political ploy) from such notable individuals and families as: Lord Randolph Hearst; Prescott Bush (son of the original merchant of death, Remington’s Samuel Bush, and father of George HW Bush #41, and grandfather to George W Bush #43;) the Harrimans; the Dulles’; JP Morgan; JD Rockefeller; WA Harriman; the Carnegies; the Rothschilds; the entire British royal family; and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

coke-nazis-640x657

The list of large American businesses which dealt openly with Nazi Germany is long and staggering and includes: MGM; Coca-Cola; GM; IBM; AT&T; Nestle; Ford; Pratt and Whitney; Douglas; Bendix Corp.; Woolworth; Dow; Du Pont; Union Carbide; Westinghouse; General Electric; Gilette; Goodrich; Alcoa; Singer; Eastman Kodak; ITT; Standard Oil; Sullivan & Cromwell; Dillon Read & Co.; Chase Bank; Union Bank of New York… etc – more details here. Not to mention the large number of British, Swedish, and Swiss companies and banks which did the same.]

Therein, we have the foundation of the dichotomy which is still in play to this day, namely communism vs. fascism.

Now, one would be hard-pressed to find very many people in America (or in most of the Anglo-world) who would openly claim to be either communists or fascists, but that has not always been the case. Both movements, at certain times, had found large numbers of Americans in support. (Ironically, both the left and right movements accuse each other of fascism.)

Given the choice, and knowing what you now know about the roots of communism (don’t forget that Karl Marx was German,) would you choose to be a fascist or a commie?

There is currently a movement in the United States for the protection of constitutional rights which have been whittled down by both the Bush and Obama administrations since 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. The right of free speech, the right to bear arms and many other tenets of the constitution are seemingly under attack by proponents of the security state and the far-left. The people fighting to keep these rights have been labelled as the alt-right movement, or extreme conservatives. For the most part, they believe that the US is and should remain a republic instead of being a representational democracy. Many take offense at the term ‘democracy’ as it is applied to their country, as I myself learned the hard way. These people are certainly not commies in the true or the traditional sense, and they consider that an offensive term as well. Neither do they consider themselves fascists, even if others tend to label them as such, for some strange and incomprehensible reason.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, one would be hard-pressed, outside of China, to find very many communists left. There are certainly a great deal of fascists, and Europe is considered by most to be socialistic, but the communist bogey-man has faded into the night, as it were. New terminology had to be devised, since people cannot be expected to contribute tax money to a military industry if there is nothing to defend against. Hence was the threat of terrorism born. But terrorists were not a big threat to the western world, despite demonstrations like 9/11, as lightning and five-year olds were statistically both responsible for more death and mayhem than were terrorists. More terror was needed to fuel the consumption of military-grade weapons systems by local governments to be used against their own citizens in order to keep them safe. Borders needed loosening and immigration needed to be accelerated, but not because people fleeing war zones such as Syria and Libya are terrorists, but because terrorists needed to be inserted into this population of migrants. Hence terrorism by Muslims and Sharia law could be the reason behind all the surveillance state’s new toys. [Cyber warfare is also closely related and should be quickly mentioned, but it deserves its own separate article.]

wOp1Nn1

In come the squirrels. Many issues have been raised which further divide the globs from the pops, and it seems that the most prevalent is that of religious bigotry and racism. Nothing seems to divide as well as do race and religion. Nothing seems to distract as well, either. If TPTB could use race and religion as effectively as they have used communism and fascism in the past, this globalism thing would be a cake-walk. Bush #41 started to set this up in a speech he gave on March 6th, 2001, a speech largely dedicated to promoting the success of Operation Desert Storm.

But there was inevitably going to be resistance, resistance to the influx of immigrants in these difficult economic times, to the build-up of civilian police force armaments, and to modern surveillance tactics. This resistance had to be countered, and so a new Hegelian concept needed to be introduced.

The new terms-du-jour which have emerged are globalists and populists. It is the populists who have taken up the ancient role of the communists, as the new threat to global stability, and are seen as ‘the last great problem,’ at least as far as the globalists are concerned. The globalists, of course, are the new fascists. They deny this association of course, but as we say, “If the shoe fits…” Populists fight for national sovereignty while globalists fight for a global UN parliament and a new world order (a term first used by Bush #41 ten years to the day before 9/11,) which Barack Obama referred to as an international order. Obama, Bush #43, Clinton, Bush #41, Reagan, and Carter are all globalists, and Trump is a populist. The UNPA (about which I have written much) is pushing for a global parliament to be run by non-elected political representatives and NGOs in order to better represent the voice of the people at the UN. This is disingenuous, at best. The claim is that since ordinary people have no voice at the UN in its present configuration, the people should be represented by lobbyists and corporations. This claim, despite already having been implemented in the European parliament,¬† is both laughable and transparent.

So where am I going with this? Well, considering that the world has, since WWII at least, been mostly split between communists and fascists (democracies being a weak compromise between the two,) and given that the new paradigm is Christianity vs. Islam, we need to take a step back and gain some perspective on this. Muslims are not the enemy, Iran or North Korea are not the enemy, Russia is most certainly not the enemy, nor is China, the left and the right are not enemies, and populists are not only not the enemy, but are the only ones who have even a slight chance of standing against the true enemy. The enemy is the same as it ever was. The enemy of liberty, the enemy of sovereignty, the enemy of financial independence is and has always been TPTB. Tyranny, plain and simple. And as long as they have us fighting each other, they can quietly go about their business, as they always have, to take it all for themselves.

When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order; an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peace-keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.

-George H.W. Bush #41

n.b. The founders of the UN just happened to be those who ‘rid’ the world of fascism: FDR, Winston Churchill, and Stalin. Fascism did not go away. The fascists won WWII, and went underground. Fascism took over Europe from Brussels. Fascism is more rampant now than it has ever been.


*TPTB = The Powers That Be

Advertisements

Trump: The Most Misunderstood Man in ‘Merca

Donald Sterling, of ‘Los Angeles Clippers Owner’ fame, was branded a racist. He had been recorded making racist remarks; he admitted to them and apologized. His English grammar skills are mediocre, at best. After his explanation, he came out looking very bad.

Some people, whose family smoked in the house while they were children, became addicted to nicotine before they ever started smoking. It was just ‘in the air.’ Do you see where I’m going with this?

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment (as was everybody else back then) and even if it was a passively racist environment, his father would have been raised in a much stricter one. He knew it was wrong, and he hid it publicly, he tried to suppress his urge to smoke. He never explained himself in this way. If he had, he might still own the Clippers.

I’m not defending Donald Sterling, but he was an old man, and his talk would have been normal at the country club. ‘I don’t mind them, per se, just don’t bring them home.’

However, when refering to how tough HRC’s father was, phrases like, “…but it was a different time back then…” and, “…he was old-fashioned…” sprung up apologetically.

Trump finds himself in very much the same position, only, it relates to sexual harassment against women, which is now a very touchy subject. The problem is that it wasn’t considered sexual harassment at the time, it was tolerated and even encouraged to a large extent, so why should he be held to that standard? Some of the women who allowed it, in order to further their careers in a male-dominated world, benefited greatly and ‘played the game.’ That should not need to happen in a civilized society, but then again, sex sells… it always has.

And a paid escort suing him for kissing her?!?

It’s hard to blame a billionaire for indulging; you just know that their tastes for exotic things and experiences often lead them to debauch. Even a sixteen year old with a Ferrari will be tired of ‘just’ banging super-models by his mid-twenties. When one can afford anything, what won’t they be tempted to try? How far will they go?

He is a braggart and pompous and spoiled. He should own it more. So should Sterling have. He tends to talk in hyperbole. He gets picked on a lot for this, but as for Donald Trump’s language skills, I think the man truly has a great deal of trouble translating what’s in his head into words. He didn’t study much English at Wharton. I suspect many politicians and public figures have this same problem. I’m not saying that all his foibles are attributable to his poor communication skills, there are some old vestiges in there, of times long past when you could dry hump a girl on roller-skates while doing a line on the table. Nobody cared what you did. Everybody has done something embarrassing. Billionaires just have more opportunities to, and the spotlight on them when it does. But compared to all the allegations against the Clintons from Whitewater to Pay-to-Play and the implications thereof, he’s just a street-smart buffoon, she’s a diabolical lawyer, and she is very good at what she does. So was Madoff, until he got caught.

[A no-fly zone in Syria (which HRC supports and Trump does not) will undoubtedly lead to WW3 with the Russians.]

Still, when pundits misinterpret an already flawed message, the results can be very far from those intended.

Trump’s a businessman who takes advantage of the laws in place, and has had to compete with others all his life. But now he’s put himself on the other side of that. He knows what needs fixing. I’m not an apologist for any of the stupid things he’s said, I just think that he needed help in framing his very general ideas. It took forty-three minutes to get a minute of locker-talk out of him. He was bragging and I think he probably did grab a lot of women; I’m not condoning that, but it was a far lesser offence forty years ago. And he has always skirted the law, as a rule, always seeking the greatest advantage. Isn’t that sort of thing supposed to be revered, or are people so depressed economically that anyone who gets more than their share is vilified. Is this a struggle over capitalism itself, or rather just our version of capitalism today? Implied socialism ??

I don’t think he’s as radical as they make him out to be, and yes, the media and the establishment show great bias, but it really shines a light on the people on either side. The Hutu knew who the Tutsi were… and vice-versa.

The issue of the American election, and of Brexit before, and the colour revolutions throughout the ME, and even the situation in Ukraine have all led to the inevitable binary showdown: Globalism vs. Populism.

Is this the start of WCW (World Class War?) Or are we avoiding a war with Russia/China/Iran/Kazakhstan? Which way will the Saudis align themselves? Is Syria the tipping point? What the hell is Trump gonna’ do about that? He has to withdraw pressure on Syria immediately, put Erdogan in his place (impossible – the Turks have had their land much longer than ‘Merca’s been a country – it controls all the pipelines and most of the water in the ME,) make nice with the Russians by withdrawing NATO and removing missiles, leave the South China Sea, and withdraw into a protectionist shell, like Iceland, saving the world from globalism.

I don’t pretend to know what’s about to happen to the world, but a lot of people feel like it’s not going to be good; it’s as if all the animals know that the earthquake is coming and start to scatter. But where is there left to go?

Gold is one place left to go. Silver is another.

Why Racism Is Like Smoking

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes per day. The first five years of my life were lived in a smoke-filled environment. I was addicted to smoking before I ever became a smoker. Now I smoke socially – very little.

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment. So were most of the older rich white men in the USA. Because of social pressures (and common sense,) most are now only ‘social racists’ if at all. They probably wouldn’t deny visible minorities a job in their companies, but they would probably laugh at an off-colour joke at the country club. They might think twice if their daughter were to marry a black man.

I was raised in a household and a school and a town in which racism was never an issue. I had childhood friends of all sorts, and all were welcome in our house. Racism is as foreign to me as smoking is to the vast majority of people who don’t. I’ve told jokes, socially, which could be considered beyond the pale. I’m not trying to defend the practice, but nobody who knows me would consider me a biggot on any level.

The prevailing opinion is that one is either racist or not. This duality is rather ironic. There are many shades in between. Labelling people as racists because of an off-the-cuff remark or a bad joke would be akin to saying someone is an alcoholic for simply having had a drink.

We all have biases. We might think and have all said that our country is better, our gender is better, our sports team is better, our religious beliefs are better, or our political choices are better for any number of reasons. I find it disingenuous, from a purely philosophical perspective, to label people so quickly and so decisively, especially considering the long-term effects such a moniker can now have, given the pervasiveness of social media. Sadly, our definition of people as we see them (sometimes based only upon a snapshot in time) can over-ride all the good they have done. We are actually depriving ourselves of another acquaintance with much to teach, even if they have some things to learn.

“But it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”

Rachel Dawes – from Batman Begins

I’m not saying that injustices haven’t been committed, I’m not saying that there isn’t a privelege to being a majority (from which I have undoubtedly benefitted,) and I’m not saying that denigration due to skin tone is acceptable. I simply think we should lighten up (figuratively speaking) just a little bit.