The partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international socialism

From WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION, By Antony C. Sutton

...Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.

On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.1 Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.

Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?

Apart from Gabriel Kolko, Murray Rothbard, and the revisionists, historians have not been alert for such a combination of events. Historical reporting, with rare exceptions, has been forced into a dichotomy of capitalists versus socialists...

In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.

This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chilling: Watch interview with the author of this book, Anthony C. Sutton, as he discusses how international monopoly capital based in America entered into profitable financial arrangements with Bolsheviks, Nazis and Communists even as Americans were in hot war death struggles against those totalitarian ideologies...LINK

The buried role of Zionists in Soviet mass murder and genocide has returned to haunt the world today

(By Chris Moore) -- In his 2004 book The Jewish Century about the Jewish rise to power and predominance in many areas across society of Russian and Western civilization in the 20th Century, historian Yuri Slezkine, himself partially of Jewish heritage, wrote conclusively about the organized Jewish role in the advent and rise of Communism, and how it was utilized to serve the interests of the cohesive network of Jewish Bolsheviks at its center.

The book was reviewed by Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University–Long Beach, with special emphasis on the Jewish role in Communism.

Yuri Slezkine's book The Jewish Century, which appeared last year to rapturous reviews, is an intellectual tour de force, alternately muddled and brilliant, courageous and apologetic. Slezkine's greatest accomplishment is to set the historical record straight on the importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. He summarizes previously available data and extends our understanding of the Jewish role in revolutionary movements before 1917 and of Soviet society thereafter. His book provides a fascinating chronicle of the Jewish rise to elite status in all areas of Soviet society—culture, the universities, professional occupations, the media, and government. Indeed, the book is also probably the best, most up-to-date account of Jewish economic and cultural pre-eminence in Europe (and America) that we have.

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography...

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine's book is to document that Communism was, indeed, "good for the Jews." After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from "antibourgeois" quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude...

Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro's comment that "anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator."

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, "was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions", with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine's remarkable phrase, "Stalin's willing executioners"...

And "Stalin's willing executioners" were in large part responsible for the deaths of millions at the hands of the Communist police state, which many Jews seemed to view as "payback" for pogroms and other acts of anti-Semitism that have followed certain elements of Jewry around for centuries across continents and time.

Here's Wikipedia's summary from The Black Book of Communism of the millions persecuted and murdered by Leninism, Stalinism, and Jewish Bolshevism starting in the immediate wake of the 1917 Communist coup in Russia:

-the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
-the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
-the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
-the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
-the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
-the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
-the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
-the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
-the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
-the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
-the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
-the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.[7] (see also Population transfer in the Soviet Union)

Of course, reports of the mass murder and genocide being carried out in the Soviet Union sent shockwaves of fear and loathing radiating across Europe -- particularly fear and loathing of the Trotskyite brand of International Communism and "permanent revolution" advocated by early Soviet and Jewish Bolshevik hero Leon Trotsky, commissar of the Red Army who had butchered millions across Russia. (Trotksy, who eventually broke with Stalin and would later openly embrace Zionism, remains to this day not only a metaphor for international Jewish Bolshevism and Marxist Zionism, but for Trotskyite neoconservatism as well, given that the founding fathers of neoconservatism were Trotskyite Jews who themselves became (or always were) hard-core Zionists, and who simply switched out Communist economic models for State Capitalist ones).

The anti-Nazi website Nazism.net summarizes how the fear and loathing of mass murderous Communism played a huge role in the rise of fascist movements across Europe:

Nazism and Communism emerged as two serious contenders for power in Germany after the First World War, particularly as the Weimar Republic became increasingly unstable.

What became the Nazi movement arose out of resistance to the Bolshevik-inspired insurgencies that occurred in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. The Russian Revolution of 1917 caused a great deal of excitement and interest in the Leninist version of Marxism and caused many socialists to adopt revolutionary principles. The 1918-1919 Munich Soviet and the 1919 Spartacist uprising in Berlin were both manifestations of this. The Freikorps, a loosely organised paramilitary group (essentially a militia of former World War I soldiers) were used to crush both these uprising and many leaders of the Freikorps, including Ernst Röhm, later became leaders in the Nazi party.

Capitalists and conservatives in Germany feared that a takeover by the Communists was inevitable and did not trust the democratic parties of the Weimar Republic to be able to resist a communist revolution. Increasing numbers of capitalists began looking to the nationalist movements as a bulwark against Bolshevism. After Mussolini's fascists took power in Italy in 1922, fascism presented itself as a realistic option for opposing "Communism", particularly given Mussolini's success in crushing the Communist and anarchist movements which had destabilised Italy with a wave of strikes and factory occupations after the First World War. Fascist parties formed in numerous European countries.

Many historians such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant National Socialism became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France. A Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (LVF) and other anti-Soviet fighting formations, were formed.

Given the huge role that Jewish Bolshevism played in Soviet mass murder, it is little surprise, then, that Jewish leftists and agitators, and later, Jewry in general, became targets in Europe in the decades between World War One and World War Two, particularly given that Jews played such a decisive role in the financing and leadership of Communist mass movements there, just as they did in Russia -- likely with the same murderous designs for the European masses that were afflicted by the Jewish and Communist Party elites upon the Russian people.

As Benjamin Ginsberg wrote in his 1993 book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State:

In pre-World War I Germany, for example, Jews were extremely important in the Socialist party. The SPD was founded by a Jew, Ferdinand Lasalle, and Jews, including such individuals as Eduard Bernstein and Otto Landsberg, were among the party's most prominent parliamentary leaders. In addition, the party's leading journalists were Jews as were its most notable theorists - Bernstein, Adolf Braun, and Simon Katzenstein; its leading expert on municipal administration was a Jew, as was its expert on electoral law and its chief youth organizer, Ludwig Frank.

Socialists dominated the provisional government established in Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Two of this government's six cabinet members, Otto Landsberg and Hugo Haase, were Jews. Other Jewish Socialists also played important roles during this period. Kurt Eisner was prime minister of Bavaria in 1918-1919. Georg Gradnauer was prime minister of Saxony from 1919 to 1921. In Prussia, Paul Hirsch served as prime minister from 1918 to 1920 and Kurt Rosenfeld as minister of justice in 1918. As noted earlier, Hugo Preuss formulated the Weimar constitution and served as minister of the interior. After the creation of the Weimar Republic, Jews continued to play important roles in the leadership of the SPD. About 10% of the party's Reichstag deputies were Jews, including Rudolph Hilferding, who was minister of finance in 1923 and from 1928 to 1930.

Among the most vehement opponents of the Socialist provisional government was the German Communist party, whose leadership also included a number of Jews. In 1919, under the direction of party chief Paul Levi, the KPD staged a revolt against the Socialist provisional government. One of the most prominent leaders of this revolt was Rosa Luxemburg, who was later captured and murdered by rightist paramilitary forces. Jews were also among the leaders of the Communist government that the KPD briefly established in Bavaria after the murder of Kurt Eisner. Eugen Levine was head of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic, Gustav Landauer was its commissar for propaganda and cultural affairs, and Ernst Toller commanded its "red army." This regime was crushed in May 1919 by free corps forces.

Jews were also important in Socialist and Communist movements in a number of other nations including Britain, France, the United States, and most of the nations of East Central Europe. In Hungary, for example, Jews were prominent in the prewar Socialist movement and in the "Galileo Circle," the center of Budapest student radicalism. The Hungarian Communist government established by Bela Kun in 1919 was dominated by Jews. Twenty of the regime's twenty-six ministers and vice-ministers were of Jewish origin. This government was overthrown after one hundred days by French-backed Rumanian forces.

And again, as MacDonald noted in his review of Slezkine's book:

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography.

And so has the huge Jewish presence in the European Communism and radical socialist movements that paralleled Communist and Jewish Bolshevik atrocities in Soviet Russia.

This Orwellian, memory hole-like scrubbing of history has been systematically accomplished by leftists, Zionists, State Capitalists and neocons in order to wash the blood off of their own hands, preserve their moral authority, and to scapegoat Christianity, conservatism, and the "intolerance" for Jewry of traditional Western civilization for the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust, and deflect attention from the far more relevant and resonant facts of political Judaism's role in Communist mass murder, genocide and theft that led to the fear and loathing that facilitated the rise of fascism.

In short, leftist, Zionist and neocon elements whitewashed their own history and then exploited the Holocaust to discredit the entire old Western order and replace it with their own ideologies.

And of course, ignoring the fact that there likely never would have been a Holocaust but for the Soviet genocides perpetrated by Communists and Jewish Bolsheviks who set state-organized mass murder and terror precedents, the Holocaust has been repeatedly used by left-liberals, Zionists and neocons as a rationale for the creation, maintenance and one-sided, nearly blank-check U.S. support of Israel, and as a sub-text rationale for the current U.S. wars in the Middle East, which not coincidentally have been largely instigated and engineered by the Israel lobby and Jewish Zionist neocons and neoliberals.

American liberal internationalists, neoliberals, and neocons have run rampant with this new Zionist order coalition concept, that they're all supposedly representative of "tolerance," and are righteous "victims" entitled by historical crucible and suffering to rule the West -- concepts that they have additionally exploited to justify their wars of aggression against Islamic civilization.

The entire sordid history and the current militaristic, warmongering state of affairs perfectly illustrates the dangers of sweeping inconvenient historical truths and realities under the carpet in favor of opportunistic political maneuvering, and out of deference to self-serving, cynical political operatives, racketeering syndicalists, and authoritarian and totalitarian centralizers.

The narrative that the Jewish Bolshevik/Stalinist-perpetrated Communist holocaust in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the Nazi-perpetrated holocaust in Germany and occupied territory is a dangerous lie that must be corrected and set straight not only in the name of historical truth, but to prevent the poisonous elements that created it from digging America deeper and deeper into the Mideast bog, and who ultimately seek yet another world war in order to ratchet their anti-Western, totalitarian Big Brother/Leviathan racket ever tighter.

Never forget: There were two holocausts in the 20th Century, not one, and the first one led to the second.

And Zionist machinations, intrigue and Trojan horse ideologies, fueled by ambition, greed, lust for power, and messianic delusions of grandeur and supremacy, led to both.

Gang rape, breast-slicing and heel-skinning: Violent, anti-white racism in South Africa also being engineered for U.S.?

Anti-White Violence in South Africa
(Occidental Observer Blog) -- By Kevin MacDonald --

A constant theme on this website is that Whites living in societies run by non-Whites are in physical danger. From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges.

Right now racial tensions are escalating in South Africa following the death of Eugene Terreblanche, leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB). The mainstream media in the US has generally failed to even mention the violence directed against Whites, but today’s LA Times in an exception. An earlier report in the Times stated that Terreblanche’s killing was merely a dispute about wages. But today’s story notes that “police also say the killers stripped and humiliated the 69-year-old in a way that suggested extreme racial hatred.”

White people are not merely being murdered, but they are being horribly and gruesomely tortured by people that can only be described as psychopaths:

Chris Van Zyl of the Transvaal Agricultural Union said in a phone interview that in one recent case, a man’s soles were stripped from his feet while alive. An elderly woman’s breasts were sliced off; another was gang-raped. Another was raped with a broken bottle.

The police and government have no statistics on farm killings. Van Zyl’s group has recorded 1,266 slayings and 2,070 attacks since 2001. Other groups say more than 3,000 farmers have been killed in the last 16 years.

Van Zyl said that 78 farmers were killed in 2008, 55 last year and 19 this year, and that nonfatal attacks had increased dramatically. Most victims were elderly people on isolated farms.

Julius Malema, the powerful youth leader of the African National Congress, has been at the center of the storm. Malema revived the “Shoot the Boer” song from the war against apartheid, and recently he “threw a white BBC journalist out of a news conference after calling him a ‘bloody agent’ and ‘bastard’ with a ‘white tendency.’”...MORE...LINK

Who’s Worse: Anti-Whites, or Race-Denying Confederate Sympathizers?
(By Christopher Dovovan) -- Occidental Observer Blog

It’s a question in my mind. It’s a well-established kabuki dance: anti-whites call conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Confederate sympathizers “racists” who are hiding their true feelings. The conservatives respond with indignation, insisting that “Southern heritage” and the free market are their real concerns.

In the New York Times this morning, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham denounces the Virginia governor’s declaration of Confederate heritage month. It’s a typical yawner about how bad Whites are, and I’m sure someone will complain that “we’re not racists, we just want to honor the South” or some such.

There is a third position, however: White advocacy. It admits the anti-White critique that Confederate flags mask more direct racial concerns, but rejects the anti-White conclusion that the concerns aren’t legitimate. Why can’t this position get a hearing in the New York Times? Believe me, I’ve tried. But the New York Times is like a thick, high gray wall, allowing only the perspectives that advance its anti-white agenda. Its gatekeepers are always liberal and often Jewish, and they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they’ve constructed it would start to crumble...LINK
-----------------------

MacDonald: "From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges."

Chris Moore comments:

We all know these “deep historical grudges” are primarily cultivated and propagated by Jewish sociopaths whose entire cultural ethic and means of controlling their tribe is prescribed upon polarization. Even when they are treated with the highest honor and deepest respect, as they have been in America for decades by air-head Judeophile liberals and brain-dead Judeo-Christian Zionist dispensationalists, they will cultivate the most vile and festering of grudges in the psychology of both their adherents, and the useful idiots they seek to use, in order to perpetuate and manipulate both society and the tribe. This festering rage then convinces the tribe that all of its destructive pursuits (like its engineering of anti-white racism) is utterly justified; indeed, that it’s crucial to the tribe’s survival and even beneficial to humanity as a whole.

Because this engineered polarization is their systematic modus operandi, no matter how much they are given or how well they are treated by gentiles, they will find grudges to cultivate and harbor, even when they have to invent them out of thin air and then exaggerate the “offense” to murderous proportions.

There is literally no appeasing or even reasoning with this kind of psychoses-driven bad will. The best that can be accomplished is its extreme isolation, and containment...

We’ve seen this kind of behavior by the US Military Industrial and War Profiteering Complex, as well, particularly since it has entered into partnership with the Zionists. It works like this: The US gives unconditional military, financial and diplomatic aid to Israel; Israel blatantly attacks and murders Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims with that aid; Arabs and Muslims see the US/Israeli relationship and retaliate against America and American interests; the Complex and its “national security” politicians then point to those attacks as rationales for massive wars.

Once again, agitating Jewish ideologues are the linchpin of yet another malevolent and warmongering evil enterprise.

Permanent revolution-Lefty scheme to destroy public schools: Obama federal policy says capable and incapable students must all be sealed together

From:
Obama’s Race to the Bottom: Punish Schoolchildren by Racial Quota
(The New American) -- by Selwyn Duke --

Last year I wrote about a Tucson Unified School District social engineering plan that had the effect of meting out punishment based on racial quota. The school board had insisted, reported Arizona Republic’s Doug MacEachern, “that its schools reduce its suspensions and/or expulsions of minority students to the point that the data reflect ‘no ethnic/racial disparities.’” (It wasn’t reported whether the students cooperated and started committing infractions based on racial quota.)

It’s the kind of thing that, though outrageous, you might expect from a fairly large city with a leftist government.

But now, with a big Windy City leftist in the White House, this plan is going nationwide. As University of Illinois-Urbana Professor of Political Science-Emeritus Robert Weissberg writes:

[Department of Miseducation bureaucrats’] latest education-destroying innovation is eliminating the disproportionate suspension and expulsions of African-American students. This is not empty rhetoric; it is included in the Obama administration's $4.3-billion Race to the Top initiative, and schools that fail to mend their ways will lose federal funds and face expensive litigation at a time of shrinking education budgets. In fact, the future is already here, as schools are increasingly being targeted in resource-draining civil rights complaints about disciplinary unevenness (see here).

…How is this seemingly alluring "racial fairness" to be accomplished? The answer is not on a case-by-case basis by scrutinizing millions of outcomes to detect bias. Instead, bureaucrats will use the "disparate impact" approach — i.e., it will be assumed that racially disproportional punishment inherently equals racial discrimination. Thus, if African-Americans constitute 30% of the student body but half of all expulsions, racial discrimination is demonstrated.

… [And] [a]ctually, racial disparities are just the beginning. Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has also called for proportionality for disabled students (see here), and while "disabled" might conjure up images of wheelchair-bound students, this category also includes those with below-average intelligence, often compounded with psychological problems inclining them to disruption, if not violence (see Tomsho and Golden, "Educating Eric: A Troubled Student Was Put Into Regular Classes. Then He Killed the Principal." Wall Street Journal, 2007, May 12-13).

Professor Weissberg then delves into many of the problems this scheme presents, such as the removal of teachers’ discretion and the cataloguing of racial identities (think: a half-white man who becomes an all-black candidate for political benefit). He asks if schools will have to hire a “Racial Identity Officer.” Weissberg also points out that the quota system victimizes the very group it is ostensibly meant to liberate, as undermining discipline in racially mixed schools hurts the education of all — including blacks.

Obama’s scheme is also a disaster for race relations. After all, what kind of emotions will be evoked in white and Asian students when they receive punishment while blacks get a special dispensation?Like the Black Panther fiasco, Joseph Lowery’s anti-white statements at Obama’s inauguration, and The One’s handling of the Henry Louis Gates affair, it’s yet another example of our “post-racial” President’s �ber-racial passions.

But since modern America is so intent upon ensuring fairness, I wonder, since boys are disciplined far more than girls, will proportionality be applied to the sexes, too? Well, doing so when a reality redounds negatively upon males would be something new. Quotas and proportionality, however, are anything but...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Why would left wing-crafted federal policy assume that racial minorities being expelled from public schools at a disproportionate rate in and of itself is "discriminatory" or "racist"? Because the administrators are incompetent? But then that would mean they need to receive better training, or be fired, which the Obama administration doesn't propose. Instead, the Obama administration tacitly posits that because it is mostly White administrators performing the expulsions, there should be a presumption of racist motives based on the (White) color of their skin. That means left-wing policy itself is anti-White racist.

But again, the Obama administration doesn't subsequently call for racial sensitivity training for these "racist" administrators, nor call for their firing. Instead, it essentially issues a blanket declarative federal policy that all students must be retained at the exact same rate regardless of their ability to perform or behave, all apparently because it believes administrators are secret racists and bigots, hell bent on picking on certain categories of students.

But of course, it doesn't truly believe any of this; what it actually is pursuing here is a larger left-wing agenda based on the theory of "permanent revolution" in which settled and structured "bourgeois" society (which in the Bolshevik-origins of Communism/leftism was code for "Christian") is considered stifling, static, oppressive and bigoted, and thus must be constantly harassed, harangued, destroyed and burned down for history to progress. And part of that process of destruction is destroying the public schools and utilizing the young as agents of chaos and revolution by keeping them maladjusted, ignorant, primitive, frustrated, and rebellious.

Leftists and other infantile narcissists so readily intellectually embrace this theory of "permanent revolution" because they themselves suffer from arrested development, and the theory dovetails nicely with their own innate proclivity towards infantile tantrum-throwing and violence born of selfishness, mental immaturity, and narcissism. In short, they are mentally stunted, hence immature intellectual theories and their manifestations carry for them tremendous appeal.

There can be no intellectual reasoning with such an ideology or those who embrace it, because there is no good will in their intentions. The only response to such a people is extreme social marginalization and isolation until they mature and see the light, or don't, in which case they will go to the grave mentally and spiritually undeveloped, but at least having been restrained from perpetrating massive and possibly fatal destruction upon society as a whole, and possibly the entirety of Western Civilization itself.
-----
The Obammunist-Trotskyite theory of "permanent revolution" is designed to destroy the public schools and enslave the children in ignorance in order to "save" them

Conservative religious groups that help masses of poor will reign if tyrant Mubarak falls

From:
Muslim Brotherhood as the only force capable of replacing Mubarak
(Canada Free Press) -- by Daniel Greenfield --

After Tunisia, the disturbances have moved on to Egypt, Yemen and Jordan. Despite what is being predicted, I wouldn’t count on any of these countries undergoing the same kind of turnover.

Mubarak is a canny old goat and his secret police forces are extensive and effective. And given a choice between complying with Obama’s demands and giving in, on cracking down, he will crack down. All that is being accomplished by the calls for Mubarak to democratize and resign is to show how irrelevant America is and how worthless it is as an ally.

Probably the dumbest piece so far comes from Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post

the Obama administration’s embrace of Mubarak, even as the octogenarian strongman refused to allow the emergence of a moderate, middle-class-based, pro-democracy opposition, has helped bring the United States’ most important Arab ally to the brink of revolution. Mass popular demonstrations have rocked the country since Tuesday; Friday, when millions of Egyptians will assemble in mosques, could be fateful.

Key word here, mosques. Read Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak will not be replaced by Diehl’s imaginary moderate middle class democracy opposition. It will be a tyranny of one kind or another. And the odds are still on the Muslim Brotherhood as the only force capable of replacing Mubarak.

Second, the Obama administration’s Middle East experts concluded that there was no chance of serious reform - much less revolution - under Mubarak. So they plotted at playing a “long game” of slowly nurturing grass-roots movements and promoting civil society, in preparation for the day when Egypt might be ready for real reform. In this they badly underestimated the secular opposition that was rapidly growing in the blogosphere and that months ago began rallying behind former U.N. nuclear director Mohamed ElBaradei.

This is so much crap that it could be shoveled to make strawberries. Only a Beltway journalist would take the Egyptian blogsphere seriously as an opposition force. The Egyptian blogsphere consists of mostly middle and upper class privileged Egyptian kiddies. They will be absolutely irrelevant once the shooting starts and they have no role whatsoever in determining who takes over the country.

Mohamed El Baradei’s “popularity” is an even bigger myth. El Baradei is mostly popular with Western journalists. No one in Egypt gives two shakes of a donkey’s tail about him.

Those demands are coherent and eminently reasonable: Mubarak should step down and be replaced by a transitional government, headed by ElBaradei and including representatives of all pro-democracy forces.

How is this reasonable? ElBaradei hasn’t won an actual election. Why should it be assumed that he should take power? Because he’s a favorite of the WaPo columnists? Get real.

That government could then spend six months to a year rewriting the constitution, allowing political parties to freely organize and preparing for genuinely democratic elections. Given time to establish themselves, secular forces backed by Egypt’s growing middle class are likely to rise to the top in those elections - not the Islamists that Mubarak portrays as the only alternative.

And then happy bunnies will fly out of their ears and sing magical songs about something or other.

Really? Open elections. That are going to be won by the secular middle-class? What secular middle-class? Most of Egypt is poor. The vast majority of it is religious and fanatical. If this had happened in the 1950’s, it still probably wouldn’t have worked, but there might have been a shot. But now. A secular middle-class government in Egypt?

I don’t have the proper words to express how insane and delusional this is. The only secular governments in the Muslim world are run by dictators. And that is how it is going to stay.

A democratic election will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood. No ifs ands or buts. They may temporarily enlist secular allies, but they will ultimately rule alone. They are happy to use ElBaradei as a front, but the end result will be an Islamist regime...MORE...LINK
------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Greenfield writes:

A secular middle-class government in Egypt? I don’t have the proper words to express how insane and delusional this is. The only secular governments in the Muslim world are run by dictators. And that is how it is going to stay. A democratic election will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These neocons and statist-liberal cretins are unbelievable. They back every "secular" tyrant between America and Iran to the hilt with billions in U.S. taxpayer funds, finance the oppression and impoverishment of the Arab masses for decades on end, launch wars of aggression for Israel and to oust formerly U.S.-backed secular tyrant sock puppets like Saddam Hussein who get out of hand, and then they profess indignation that Islamists -- apparently some of the only Arabs with balls enough to take on these corrupt, murderous, dictatorial statist-authoritarian regimes and make some kind of effort to alleviate the suffering of the masses of poor -- become heir to any kind of democratic efforts.

I've got to hand it to Greenfield though: at least he's honest enough to admit that so called "secularism" is a liberal code word for statist-authoritarianism designed to oppress and genocide religious folk.

I have no love for Islamists, nor do I think totalitarian religiosity is any kind of moral answer. On the other hand, these "secular" statist-liberal-capitalist murderers, degenerates, and Zionist "elites" that have taken control of so much of the West aren't much better than Islamists, and in the long run might even be worse. And, as Greenfield admits, they're willing to engage in devil's bargains with murderous dictators who kill their own people by the tens of thousands all to play "the great game" which at root is a means to maintain the post-Christian, increasingly sick, morally hollow, hyper-materialistic, cushy liberal-capitalist lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

It all reminds me of how liberals in the 20's told Americans that the Bolshevik revolution had "liberated" Russian Christian peasantry even as it was murdering them by the millions, and reminds me how FDR allied with "secular" dictator Joseph Stalin in World War II -- a man that already had the blood of millions of Soviet-murdered Christians on his hands -- and declared him to be lovable old "Uncle Joe."

Liberal hypocrisy and moral rot is unbelievable. That level of cynicism is truly a sickness.

Big Government and Big Greed, where Left-Right authoritarianism unites

IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse?
(Big Government) -- by Andrew Mellon

At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.

It is a drama that no longer surprises us, unfortunately. Wealthy investors use their access to elected officials and their checkbook to advocacy groups for private profit. But this story has a twist; a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department, heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right.

This is that story...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Related:
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

The Longest Manipulation: How statists, authoritarians and profit-seekers all play the "anti-Semitism" card

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The world is eminently familiar with the holocaust of some six million Jews and other designated "enemies" of National Socialism (Nazism) that took place in Germany and Europe during World War II. Thousands of articles and hundreds of books and movies have been produced on the subject, and grieving over the Holocaust has become an annual, State-encouraged ritual as pundits, politicians and celebrities from around the world gather on Holocaust Memorial Day to pay homage to those who lost their lives. According to author Norman Finkelstein, an entire Holocaust Industry (the title of a book he wrote on the subject) has even sprung up around the phenomenon

But less familiar is another holocaust that took place prior the Nazi Holocaust, one that murdered at least four times as many. Perpetrated in the Soviet Union by Communists largely against Christians and other "enemies of the State" over a span of some fifty years starting with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the first holocaust has yet to fully enter the consciousness of much of the world. And fewer still are aware that the first holocaust triggered the second.

In part, this ignorance is due to special interests with their own agendas working to scapegoat Christianity for World War II crimes instead of laying the blame where it truly belongs. In fact, just as some have made memorializing the Nazi Holocaust their life’s work, others have made establishing and maintaining the alleged link between Christians and Nazism their specialty.

For example, in the book Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil, author Ron Rosenbaum cites Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, best "known in America through his combative polemics in Commentary [the influential magazine of the American Jewish Committee] which challenge Jews to cut through the warm fog of ecumenical hopes and cast a cold eye on the responsibility of Christian culture and Christian belief for the Holocaust."

Rosenbaum quotes Maccoby as follows: "Christians say the Holocaust is part of the evil of humanity. It isn’t the evil of humanity. It’s the evil of Christendom."

Author Daniel Goldhagen apparently took Maccoby’s remonstrations to heart and produced two volumes, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, notorious for implicating huge swaths of Europeans and Christians in Hitler’s atrocities.

But the connection between Jews and Communism has been mostly ignored or, when addressed, explained away as a persecuted people’s natural reaction to historical bigotry and anti-Semitism. Even though the Soviet holocaust predates the Nazi holocaust, the reverse argument—that anti-Semitism may be a persecuted people’s reaction to historical genocide committed by Jewish authoritarians—is out of bounds. In fact, mentioning the Jewish ethnicity of many of the commissars, apparatchiks and Party members responsible for assembling and maintaining the Communist super-structure used to perpetrate atrocities against Christians and others deemed as threats to the State has been declared anti-Semitic in and of itself.

The only exceptions to this seems to be when the observation is made by someone of Jewish heritage. A recent example is Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century, wherein he describes Communist Jews as "Stalin’s willing executioners."

Another example is an article by syndicated writer and radio talk show host Chuck Morse (also Jewish) who wrote a column that concisely summarized the relationship between Jewish authoritarians and Communism:

"Communism introduced unprecedented levels of atrocity and totalitarianism to Europe in the years before Hitler, starting with the 1917 Bolshevik coup itself, Stalin's collectivization of farms, wars against the Kulaks, the engineered famines of 1931-32 which killed upwards of 5 million Ukrainians, the communist inspired atrocities of the Spanish civil war and other examples. Jewish Bolsheviks played prominent roles in the Russian coup including, among others, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev, Radek, and Uritzky…"

"It is an unpleasant fact that many of the worst Communists, those associated with many of the worst atrocities, were of Jewish background. Lavrenti Beria brought about the infamous Katyn massacre and other atrocities. Lazar Kaganovich, who personally claimed to be responsible for 20 million killed, stood atop the rubble of a Christian church proclaiming, 'Mother Russia has been cast down, we have torn away her skirts!' Genrikh Yagoda sent hundreds of thousands to work on the Baltic Sea canal project where countless numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Baltic's perished. Natalfy Frenkel and Mathias Berman founded the infamous Gulag system, with camps commanded by figures such as Rappoport, Solz, and Spiegelglas, all of whom are mentioned at length in the work of [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]. Ilya Ehrenburg, the World War II communist counterpart to Goebbels, incited Soviet troops to rape and maim German, Polish, and Czech women as a form of punishment…"

Of course, Stalin eventually turned on his Jewish henchmen, and later on all Jews, but not before the connection between Jewish authoritarians and Communist atrocities committed against Christians was firmly established in the minds of many Europeans.

"Because Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish, Hitler's absurd claim that communism was a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization became widely believed across a fearful Europe," writes The Toronto Sun’s Eric Margolis.

Hitler thus deftly and demonically exploited the Jewish association with Communism to implicate all Jews as a threat to the very survival of the German people. But it should be remembered that he did not originate the concept of scapegoating a religion as an existential threat to a people and their culture, and then murdering its practitioners in an act of "justifiable preemption". That had been done previously by the Communists. Hitler was merely following suit.

Was it fair for Hitler to scapegoat and murder millions of Jews for the heinous acts of a few fanatical Jewish authoritarians? The overwhelming contemporary consensus is a resounding "no!" Was it fair for Jewish authoritarians and their Stalinists partners to murder millions of Christians for the historical sins committed by a few fanatical "Christian" authoritarians? Unfortunately, the contemporary zeitgeist often either ignores the question completely or offers up a less resounding "no, but...". The caveat is deliberate.

At first glance, it seems odd that the Jewish-authoritarian/Communist connection, as a primary motive for the Nazi Holocaust, has been ignored and downplayed for so long. After all, if the Holocaust truly was singularly evil, as so many scholars maintain, wouldn’t it be important to shed light on all of its causes?

Some would argue the silence is mainly the result of Jewish groups steadfastly working to shape history to their own best interests to save themselves from another horrible backlash. However, the artifice of arguing that the deaths of tens of millions of Christians must be suppressed in order to protect the reputation of Jewish authoritarianism only makes sense to Jewish authoritarians, Christian-haters, and those with a parallel agenda. Unfortunately, those with a parallel agenda are legion—and many of the legion reside on the political Left.

In a recent exchange with the New Republic, Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, indirectly put his finger on the Left’s motives for framing 20th Century history as a cautionary tale against unbridled Christianity instead of a cautionary tale against unbridled statism.

In a defense of historian Ernst Nolte who "painstakingly analyze(d) the ‘rationality’ of those who made an automatic connection between Jews and communists in explaining the rise of anti-Communist anti-Semitism in the epoch that gave birth to National Socialism," Gottfried notes that it is common for Leftists to suppress comparisons between Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism. The Soviet holocaust is minimized by the Left not to prevent the Nazi Holocaust from being minimized—as some historians absurdly attempt to maintain. It is minimized to discredit anti-Communism, says Gottfried.

It seems the statist Left, which still draws much of its inspiration and world view from Marxism, wants to keep anti-Communism off balance—even today—to protect its own moral legitimacy and preserve the myth of its moral virtue. It accomplishes this by downplaying the Soviet holocaust, scapegoating Christianity for the Nazi holocaust and inferring that rigorous anti-Communism (historically a Christian enterprise) is akin to anti-Semitism.

An example of this came in 2003, when Martin Hohmann, a conservative member of the German parliament, compared the actions of Jewish Communists in the Russian Revolution with those of the Nazis. He was roundly condemned by the Left and even threatened with a criminal complaint for "incitement" under German laws outlawing "far-right" statements in public.

Hohmann defended himself by noting that the point of his comparison was not to blame the Germans for Nazi crimes or Jews for those of the Bolsheviks, but rather to blame "the godless with their godless ideologies."

This, of course, does not sit well with the Left. So rather than own up to its own historic (and current) hostility towards organized religion and the role that that hostility played in the Soviet holocaust (including the part enthusiastically embraced by FDR), the statist Left has painstakingly gone about constructing a false consciousness wherein Christianity and right-wing fanaticism are solely responsible for World War II and the Nazi holocaust; and Communism, secular Jewish authoritarianism and statism played little or no role whatsoever. Fixate on the evil of Nazism, say the Leftists. Anything less detracts from Jewish suffering and is thus anti-Semitic—and possibly illegal as well.

Perhaps cognoscente of the Jewish role in Communism, organized Jewish interest groups in America and elsewhere have gladly played along with the Left’s elaborate scapegoating of Christianity. In fact, over time, the false consciousness constructed by the Left has become the mainstream Jewish reality—and the American reality.

And the Left has taken the concept to new heights by silencing all of its critics by inferring a Nazi-like bigotry lies at the heart of their motives. For example, the entire phenomenon of political correctness—wherein generally recognized "victim" groups are completely insulated from legitimate criticism of their behavior for fear by their would-be critics of being charged with a "hate crime" or with "inciting hatred"—is one of its manifestations.

And Jewish authoritarians, as members of the ultimate victim group in what is construed as the ultimate hate crime, have leveraged their specially recognized status to the hilt. Over the years, it has been leveraged in defense of hostility towards Christian customs and culture; leveraged to render comparisons between the genocide of the Jews with the genocide of any other religious group or people worthy of contempt; leveraged in defense of a convicted traitor and spy like Jonathan Pollard and on behalf of ongoing Israeli spying on America; even leveraged to harass and intimidate American Christians seeking a more balanced approach to the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jewish political capital has been leveraged to such an extent, in fact, that even The New York Times has taken note—and is concerned: "Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised," Ami Eden wrote in the Times recently. "Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying."

Of course, the Times itself has long been close to the seats of power and long played a role in encouraging Jewish authoritarians towards the belligerence they exhibit today—by advancing their delusions of self-righteousness. For example, it was a Times correspondent, Walter Duranty, who helped cover-up State crimes in the Soviet Union for years by celebrating Stalinism and downplaying the atrocities being committed by the Communist regime—reporting for which Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.

Was this allowed by the Ochs-Sulzbergers —the family that has controlled the Times since 1896—out of loyalty to Judaism, or out of loyalty to the Left’s false construct of right-wing Christian Nazism as the apex of evil? Probably both.

But it’s not just Leftists who have encouraged the Jewish victim mentality. There are those on the Right who have encouraged it as well.

One is well-known Washington Post columnist George Will, who can best be described as the Court conservative to statist Washington.

In 2001, Will wrote an essay in Newsweek magazine about a brutal 1941 massacre that took place in the village of Jedwabne, Poland of that town’s Jewish population by local Christians immediately following Nazi occupation—brutality apparently bereft of motive. After delving in significant detail into the savage nature of the townspeople’s attacks ("hooks and wooden clubs were used. A head was hacked off and kicked around") Will posed the question: "Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors?" His startling conclusion: "Because it was permitted. Because they could."

Not once did Will mention previous atrocities committed by Jewish Communists against Christians; not once did Will mention the tens of millions of Christians previously murdered—many at the hands or behest of secular Jewish authoritarians.

Would that have justified the vicious behavior? Of course not. Would it have provided some historical context that pointed to something other than the conclusion that even modern humanity is disposed towards barbarian-like savagery without a strong authoritarian hand to guide it through global multi-culturalism (or the latest version of whatever the statist elite decides multi-culturalism should be)? Yes it would have, but that wasn’t the conclusion that George Will wanted drawn.

Why not? Because the supposed imperative to save historical "victims" is a useful pretense employed by globalists in pursuit of their primary goals: money, power and Empire.

Will’s manipulativeness betrays the extent to which the interests of the statist Right overlap the interests of the statist Left when it comes to maintaining the official State narrative.

But with the war in Iraq, the statist Right and the Left (at least those on the Left willing to second guess the Church of Statism) have had an irreconcilable parting of ways—and the anti-Semitic accusation has been leveraged yet again, this time by the Right.

Because so many neocons are of Jewish background with personal and political ties to Israel and its Likud Party (some have business ties as well); and because neocons played a key role in laying the propaganda groundwork and manufacturing the false evidence necessary to take the nation to war (from both inside and outside of government), support for the war in Iraq has been construed as a litmus test on support for Judaism and Israel.

In fact, the neocons and President Bush have deliberately encouraged this interpretation by emulating Israeli tactics and policies and by tapping into the Jewish establishment to support their cause. Doing so has allowed them to hide behind the smokescreen long utilized by the Left: those opposed to their initiatives must have something against "the Jews."

Europe is mostly opposed to the Iraq war? Suddenly reports of "Europe sees a rise in anti-Semitism" start appearing in the press. Elements within the American left are increasingly opposed to the war? Look at new reports of "The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem." This sudden media emphasis is designed to paint the people opposed to unnecessary intervention around the globe as the ones with the problem; the people opposed to another statist war as evil anti-Semites.

The Christian Right, for whom Israel and "the Jews" play a key role in what Christian Zionists believe to be the pending End Times Rapture, has entered into the bargain as well, and some Evangelicals have become willing partners in the grand manipulation.

As Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com notes: "…the neocons are happy to applaud their Christian cohorts, egging them on to more militant acts of defiance against an increasingly pagan culture, while privately despising Christianity in all its manifestations and publicly celebrating the "pagan virtues."

"But the Christian fundamentalists don't mind being patronized and treated with ill-disguised contempt by their secular neocon allies, just as long as certain theological and political goals are met: a theocracy on the home front and Armageddon in the Holy Land…"

It is the Jewish lobby, the End Times Evangelicals, and the politicians that cater to all of them, that have played up the myth that America and Israel are somehow irrevocably intertwined; that we share the same values and same fate; that opposition to the policies of one is the equivalent of a declaration of war on both.

"…Israel is our ally – and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel – we will support Israel if her security is threatened," says President Bush.

And if the Israeli lobby has its way, that support will come at the expense of America’s ties to Europe.

"Anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked," says Natan Sharansky, the acknowledged right-wing Zionist who is Israel's minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and, reportedly, Bush’s Middle East muse. "Both bear an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism."

And so with helpful prodding from the Jewish lobby, the Right has picked up a variation of the false construct relied upon by the Left for so long: irrational anti-Semitism lurks in the heart of anyone who questions their motives and behind any inquiry into their agenda. The demagogue "anti-Semite" smear is used as a blunt instrument to silence critics yet again.

But playing the "anti-Semite" card has reached its limits, as have all trumped up "victim" justifications for putting the interests of Americans second to the interests of a few special interests run amok. The internet is aflame in recrimination against conspiratorial Jewish authoritarianism, neoconservatism and End Times Evangelicalism, which is why the New York Times—infamous for its powers of selective denial—has been forced to finally address the issue.

The Old Media have lost control of the dialogue and can no longer sustain the fantasy narrative built upon a foundation of half truths and lies. A younger generation is asking questions and wants answers. Real answers—not the politically correct pap served up through the faux pas filter of The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. And not the State-sanctioned conservatism that decries State-designated "Islamofascist" bogeymen in order to manipulate Americans into backing wars carried out primarily at the behest of a small minority of militant Jewish and Evangelical authoritarians and the Empire-builders and profiteers that constantly manipulate and cater to them.

Saying America has to invade the Middle East and construct a totalitarian super structure to prevent another Holocaust or 9/11 just won’t cut it much longer with an internet generation in America and around the world that is increasingly aware of, for example, what the first totalitarian super structure accomplished in the Soviet Union.

Latest Polish tragedy opens old wounds mindful of Western collaboration with mass-murderous Communism

Katyn and “The Good War”
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

The decapitation of the Polish government last weekend, including President Lech Kaczynski and the military leadership, on that flight to Smolensk to commemorate the Katyn Massacre, brings to mind the terrible and tragic days and deeds of what many yet call the Good War.

From Russian reports, the Polish pilot waved off four commands from air traffic control to divert to Moscow or Minsk. The airfield at Smolensk was fogged in. There is speculation that Kaczynski, fiercely nationalistic and distrustful of Russians, may have defiantly ordered his pilot to land, rather than delay the 70th anniversary of Katyn. The symbolism is inescapable.

For it was Polish defiance of Adolf Hitler’s demand to negotiate the return of Danzig, a German town put under Polish control after World War I, that gave birth to the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which led to Katyn.

After the German invasion on Sept. 1, 1939, ignited the war, Joseph Stalin attacked Poland from the east on Sept. 17, capturing much of the Polish officer corps.

In April 1940, on Stalin’s order, the Soviet Secret Police, the NKVD, murdered virtually the entire leadership of the nation, including 8,000 officers and near twice that number of intellectuals and civilian leaders. Some 4,000 were shot with their hands tied behind their backs in Katyn Forest.

The Germans unearthed the bodies in 1943 and invited the Red Cross in to examine the site. Through newspapers found on the corpses, the date of the atrocity was fixed as more than a year before the German Army invaded the Soviet Union.

When Polish patriots, whose sons had flown with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, went to Winston Churchill to demand that he get answers from Stalin about the atrocity, he brushed them off.
“There is no sense prowling around the three-year-old graves of Smolensk,” said the Great Man.

At Stalin’s request, Churchill bullied the Poles into acceding to Soviet annexation of all the Polish land Stalin had been awarded for signing his pact with Hitler.

At the Nuremberg trials, the Russian delegation, led by Andrei Vishinsky, the prosecutor who did Stalin’s dirty work in the purge trials, charged the Germans with the massacre.

This presented a problem for the Americans and British who knew the truth. They finessed the issue by leaving the charge unresolved.

Before, during and after the Nuremberg trials that would convict the Nazis of “crimes against humanity,” one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history was being committed. Fifteen million Germans — old men, women, children — were driven like cattle out of ancestral homes in Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg, Silesia and the Sudetenland.

As human rights champion Alfred de Zayas wrote in his courageous “Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East,” perhaps 2 million died in the exodus. Few German women in Eastern Europe escaped rape.

The Allies turned a blind eye to the monstrous atrocity, as ancient names vanished. Memel became Klaipeda. Prussia disappeared. Koenigsberg, the city of Immanuel Kant, became Kaliningrad. Danzig became Gdansk. Breslau became Wroclaw.

“The Germans deserved it, for what they did,” comes the retort.

Undeniably, the Nazi atrocities were numerous and horrible — against Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews.

Yet, it was innocent Germans who paid for the crimes of the guilty Germans.

What happened in Eastern and Central Europe from 1939 to 1948 provided proof, if any more were really needed, of the truth of W.H. Auden’s insight in his poem “September 1, 1939″: “Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.”

At war’s end, Churchill and Harry Truman agreed to repatriate 2 million Soviet prisoners of war to Stalin, none of whom wished to go back. For return to Russia meant death at the railhead or a short brutal life at slave labor in the Gulag Archipelago.

Operation Keelhaul was the name given the Allied collusion with the Red Army in transferring these terrified POWs back to their deaths at the hands of the same Soviet butchers who had done the murdering at Katyn.

On Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany to restore the integrity and independence of Poland. For this great goal they converted a German-Polish clash that lasted three weeks — into a world war lasting six years.

And was Poland saved? No. Poland was crucified...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Buchanan: ‘“The Germans deserved it, for what they did,” comes the retort. Undeniably, the Nazi atrocities were numerous and horrible — against Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews. Yet, it was innocent Germans who paid for the crimes of the guilty Germans.’

Chris Moore comments:

The other context that needs to be pointed out is the precedent-setting State-organized and implemented mass murder of Christians and dissidents that took place in the Soviet Union prior to the rise of the Nazis -- mass murder that killed millions more of its own citizens than even Hitler did, and put Europe on a trajectory of fear and loathing that culminated in the Holocaust.

And like so much of the sickening, hidden-hand mischief of today, Wall Street was key to the rise of Communism in the first place (see WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION, By Antony C. Sutton).
--------
UPDATE: Apologists for Stalin and Communism who believe he was on the side of the angels for helping defeat Hitler can’t see the forest for the trees. He and his henchmen were WORSE than Hitler, and it was their actions that were largely responsible for Nazism’s rise in the first place. None of this excuses the Nazis, but let’s be realistic about the evils of Communism.

In terms of a plan to take over and enslave Europe, Hitler simply beat the Communists to the punch.

Eberhard Jackel’s ‘Hitler’s World View’ makes clear that Hitler always intended to either partner with either Russia or England in his plans for growing German living space and colonial domination — and indeed, he ended up partnering with Russia in the take down of Poland.

Hitler and the Germans became the all purpose whipping boy in the history as written by the Western victors, who didn’t want to admit that they themselves partnered with forces probably even more evil in Stalin and Communism. Exaggerating Hitler’s evil helped justify partnering with Stalin, and build the heroic, politically useful, mythological legend of the unqualified “Good War.”

BTW, Patton wanted to take out Stalin after defeating Hitler, but was sabotaged by the FDR Dems and the Wall Street money powers, probably for both ideological purposes and profit.

Judeofascist Bloomberg orders police raid, sweep and arrest of Occupy protesters under cover of early morning darkness

From:
Occupy Wall Street: New York police clear Zuccotti Park
(BBC News) --

New York police have dismantled the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park and arrested about 200 people following a raid in the early hours.

Protesters were ordered to leave at about 01:00 (06:00 GMT), before police began removing tents and property.

The New York camp was set up in September to protest against economic inequality - it inspired similar demonstrations around the world.

It was the latest camp to be cleared by police in US cities in recent days.

Legal challenge

Following Tuesday's eviction, a New York state judge issued an order ruling protesters could return to the park, pending a hearing at 11:30 (16:30 GMT).

But the city's Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the park would remain closed while officials reviewed the legal situation.

In a news conference, Mr Bloomberg said there was a conflict between protecting public health and safety and protesters' First Amendment rights.

"Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others," Mr Bloomberg said...

"The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out - but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others."

Police in New York gave an announcement as their operation began, telling protesters: "The city has determined that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard."

Leaflets were handed out telling occupants to "immediately remove all private property" and warning they would be arrested if they interfered with the operation...

The area around the park was sealed off and journalists were prevented from entering. Some of the activists accused police of using excessive force and pepper spray.

Police spokesman Paul Browne said most people left the park when ordered, but that a small group of people had refused.

The 200 or so people arrested included some who had chained themselves together...

The city authorities and Mayor Bloomberg had come under pressure from residents and businesses to shut down the camp, which had about 200 occupants as it neared its two-month anniversary.

There had been plans for a street carnival to descend on Wall Street on Thursday in an attempt to shut it down, to mark the camp's two-month anniversary.

By daylight the camp had been entirely cleared, a step welcomed by some local businesses.

"I support them but we have to work, not do revolution," a juice stall vendor told the AFP news agency. "I don't support revolution or idleness. Idleness is not good for our country."

But activists released a statement saying that while they may have been physically removed, "you can't evict an idea whose time has come"...MORE...LINK
-----------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Michael Bloomberg, what a disgusting commissar coward, ordering the police crackdown in the middle of the night to catch protesters by surprise and prevent the media from covering the brutality.

In an earlier life, he must have been a Jewish Bolshevik commissar. Now, like his neocon brethren, he’s morphed into naked Zionist fascism.

From:
The Solomon of San Francisco
(The American Conservative blog) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.

Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.

With his discovery, Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.

Thus, the Supreme Court purged Christianity from the public schools and public square of a nation whose presidents from Wilson to Truman to Carter declared her to be a Christian country...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Buchanan: ‘Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been “biases” and “moral disapproval,” and “moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.” But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest?…What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not “moral disapproval”?’

Exactly. Unless you’re a casualty of arrested development, a permanent-revolution radical, a Leftist with an anti-organized religion agenda, or a gay marriage-advocating homosexual federal judge that employs the “logic” of all of the above, most people recognize a moral line has to be drawn somewhere. But where should that be? Isn’t a reasonable place where the people themselves draw the line, e.g. the voters who approved Proposition 8?

But this “morality by judicial fiat” is exactly the kind of outcome that is inevitable when a hostile elite takes control of a society, perpetuates itself, makes and enforces its own rules, and imposes its own agenda and values on what it considers to be the lowly rubes — and does all this in the Bolshevik style of heavy-handed government imposition.

It’s ironic that even as these elites claim to want to export democracy around the world, they simultaneously wage war against domestic democratic outcomes that don’t fit with their screwball agenda. It’s their malfunctioning intellects in conjunction with their absolutist power that makes them so dangerous, and ironically, a threat to the very values of Western civilization upon which their authority was built.

***

Whenever authoritarian subversives get the outcome they want in a democratic election, they declare it just. Whenever they don’t, they declare it a “majoritarian dictatorship” bent on the disenfranchisement and persecution of “non-conformists” by employing “the tyranny of the disapproving majority,” and go on to dictate the outcome that they wanted all along by judicial fiat, thus totally disenfranchising the majority in the name of minority rights.

Note that they always use the heavy hand of “secular” government to enforce this, and it’s all done against the will of the People. And they grow and centralize government at every opportunity to make sure it always has the largesse and firepower to dictate the outcome.

These people aren’t interested in protecting a vulnerable minority; that’s just a useful pretense. They’re interested in their own narcissism, intellectual games, and imposing their socially dysfunctional will out of envy, malice and hostility towards the Christian majority. It’s part of their totalitarian agenda, and has been repeated time and again from Russia to SE Asia to China.

Walker is attempting to overthrow 2,000 years of Western common law out of ideology, fun, ego and self-serving narcissim. Like so many of his hate-filled and subversive co-horts, he’s a dictatorial sociopath. The fact that he hides his illness behind robes and pseudo intellectual argument doesn’t change that in the least.

The only solution to all this is radical de-centralization, the stripping of federal police powers down to the bone, and the radical assertion of local and State’s rights over federal tyranny. If that fails, it won’t really matter anyway, because the country inevitably going to rebel, end in civil war due to the fact that federal “leadership” is comprised of tyrannical sociopaths who, in order to gain power, managed to pass themselves off as “liberals.”

Tyrannies never end well.

***

A.C. [in reader comments]: “One finds it impossible to avoid playing armchair psychology with these folks; why are they so desperate to force the traditionalist Judeo-Christian majority to approve of them? Are they so genuinely insecure in the “rightness” or “goodness” of their behavior themselves? By my lights, it seems far more pertinent that they convince themselves of the virtues of sexual relativism than anything else; all the so-called “gay rights” will naturally flow from that. They can’t truly convince themselves until all the rest of American (and Western) society agrees with a childish public (if not private) approval of their unnatural and disordered behavior.”

Well, if the “Christian West” can be watered down to “Judeo-Christian,” why can’t marriage be watered down to include homosexuals?

This society is going through a power struggle of Christian moral authority vs. various other factions (Jews, homosexuals, liberals, government-worshipping leftists, neocons, money-worshipping capitalists, etc) who in many ways have joined together to overthrow it. And they’re succeeding. But I doubt that they are going to like the outcome, which is looking more and more like bankruptcy, social anarchy, and a Hobbesian struggle between the “victors” that will result in final collapse — at which point Christian moral authority will eventually, once again, re-assert itself anyway.

In other words, the infantiles are just wasting everyone’s time with their blind rebellion and tantrums, but they’re simply too self-absorbed, brainwashed, and arrested to see or care.

Vast new powers of NDAA smack of Bolshevik Russia's war against its own citizens

Related: "In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally."
-------------------------
From:
The NDAA and the Militarization of America
(AntiWar.com) -- by Carl Mirra --

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president on New Year’s Eve of 2011. Activists and other critics charge that the NDAA authorizes the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, but supporters counter that the law entails no new powers of detention for the federal government.

In a sense, both sides are right. Insofar as it affirms “existing law” as the basis for federal detention policy, the NDAA does not itself dramatically expand the government’s power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. The bad news, however, is that the government has essentially already claimed this authority, and the NDAA will only provide more legal cover for the executive branch to further undermine habeas corpus.

Citizens Exempted?

Proponents of the NDAA argue that section 1021 (e) exempts U.S. citizens from indefinite detention. The relevant text reads:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

But critics, including former federal judges Abner Mikva, William Sessions, and John Gibbons, are equally vigorous in their disagreement. The NDAA, they write, “codifies methods such as indefinite detention without charge and mandatory military detention and make[s] them applicable to virtually anyone … including U.S. citizens.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is one of the few supporters of the NDAA to plainly admit that “the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Indeed, section 1021 (e) was added after the voting down of an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-N.M.), which would have made it clear that Americans were not subject to detention. As many critics noted, Congress could have stated something to the effect that, “Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.” It did not. That a clear statement to protect U.S. citizens was defeated in favor of a contested one strongly suggests that the NDAA does not offer safeguards for citizens.

There was, in other words, an opportunity to clear up this mess, but instead Congress left the door open for the indefinite detention of citizens.

For this reason, President Obama expressed “serious reservations” regarding the NDAA. He assured Americans in a signing statement that “my administration will interpret section 1021” in a way that “complies with the Constitution.” However, the president did not say that NDAA protects American citizens, but only that he will “interpret” it as such. As the noted law professor Jonathan Turley explains, the president does not deny that he has the authority to detain citizens — only that he will not exercise it.

“Existing Law”

Even the president, then, admits that the “existing law” provision in 1021 (e) is subject to interpretation, rendering it vague to the point of being meaningless. Existing law is, at best, under dispute with respect to the detention of U.S. citizens. The president has, after all, already asserted his authority not only to detain citizens without trial, but to assassinate them as well.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who drafted the NDAA, disclosed in a floor statement that the “existing law” clause in section 1021 (e) fails to insulate citizens from detention without charge. “It makes clear what we have been saying,” he said, that the bill does “not affect existing law relative to the right of the executive branch to capture and detain a citizen. … We think the law is clear in Hamdi that there is no bar to this nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.”

Levin is referring to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that found there is “no bar” to indefinite detention of U.S. citizens as long as they are granted some limited habeas rights. Levin is arguing that it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “existing law,” not the NDAA’s, that permits indefinite detention.

It would be more accurate to say that although the Supreme Court has yet to fully resolve this issue, the NDAA ensures that future detentions will face fewer obstacles in the Court. A Congressional Research Service study into the matter concludes that the “plurality” of Supreme Court decisions “affirm the president’s powers to detain ‘enemy combatants,’ including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress.”...MORE...LINK

The Roots of Political Correctness; (So why a war against Islam?)

(American Conservative Blog) -- In response to the killing of 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood by an Islamic U. S. Army major, a number of senior officials have expressed their fear, not of Islam, but of a possible threat to “diversity.” “Diversity” is one of the many false gods of “Political Correctness.” But what exactly is Political Correctness?

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so “blinded” the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.
Lukacs became a major influence on a Marxist think tank established in 1923 at Frankfurt University in Germany, the Institute for Social Research, commonly known as the Frankfurt School. When Max Horkheimer took over as director of the Frankfurt School in 1930, he set about in earnest to do Lukacs’ bidding by translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Other Frankfurt School members devoted to this intellectually difficult task were Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Theirs was not the Marxism of the Soviet Union - Moscow considered them heretics - but it was Marxism nonetheless.

The Frankfurt School’s key to success was crossing Marx with Freud. They argued that just as under capitalism everyone lived in a state of economic oppression, so under Western culture people lived under psychological repression. From psychology they also drew the technique of psychological conditioning. Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City. There, its products included “critical theory,” which demands constant, destructive criticism of every traditional social institution, starting with the family. It also created a series of “studies in prejudice,” culminating in Adorno’s immensely influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, which argued that anyone who defends traditional culture is a “fascist” and also mentally ill. That is why anyone who now dares defy “PC” gets sent to “sensitivity training,” which is psychological conditioning designed to produce submission.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Herbert Marcuse translated the abstruse work of the other Frankfurt School thinkers into books college students could understand, such as Eros and Civilization, which became the Bible of the New Left in the 1960s. Marcuse injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now that generation’s ideology. We know it as “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or just Political Correctness.

That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism. If the average American knew that, I suspect Political Correctness would be in serious trouble.

The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? After all, if the Islamics took over, they would cut Marxists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Christians and Jews. The answer is that cultural Marxism will ally with any force that helps it to achieve its goals, destroying Western culture and Christianity...--William S. Lind...Cont'd...LINK
---------------------------

Libertarian Today editor Chris Moore responds:

I’ll give Mr. Lind the benefit of the doubt and assume that by “Islamics” he means Islamists, and not Muslims. After all, most pious Christians probably have more in common with pious Muslims than they do with the largely Jewish Frankfurter school intellectuals and their cultural Marxist-pushing acolytes.

I’ve never quite understood why American conservatives aren’t willing to form an alliance with American Muslims in defense of family and traditional values and against “secular” Big Government and its anti-Christian string pullers. After all, Communists have viciously attacked both, and would happily cut both THEIR throats as well, as they did to Christians in the Soviet Union, and in Soviet wars and intrigue against Muslim countries.

Perhaps one reason is that the post-Christian American corporatists stand to make a lot of money in wars against Islam. But then, that’s all the more reason for Christians and Muslims to stand together against these exceptionally depraved people. It’s not like Christians and conservatives in American have been particularly well served by accommodating warmed over Marxists and Wall Street money worshippers. In fact, quite the opposite.