Category Archives: Socialism
At Telegraph UK, “More than half of homes take more than they contribute: Official figures reveal record numbers of people who receive more in benefits and public services than they pay in tax“:
In March the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the tax bill is putting the long term finances at risk.
“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable strategy because the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more could eventually run out, the IFS suggested.
Just 300,000 high earners now pay 30 per cent of all income tax and 7.5 per cent of all tax, official figures show. Households with an average income of £104,000 paid £30,000 more in tax than they received from the state last year, ONS figures show.
The top ten per cent of earners contributed £26,984 in income and council tax, plus £10,303 in indirect taxes such as alcohol duty and VAT – a contribution to the public purse of £37,287. They received £2,284 in state cash benefits, which include child benefit, maternity pay and pensions.
The cost of educating their children came to £1,274, while they used NHS treatment worth £3,410 – meaning their total cost to the Exchequer was £7,264.
By contrast, a family with the national median income of £23,069 received £3,798 more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes last year.
They paid £4,620 in direct tax and £5,029 in indirect taxes, but received £6622 in cash benefits. They received schooling worth £2623 and NHS services worth £4,202. In total, they paid in £9,649 and received £13,477. It means for every £1 they paid in, they got £1.40 back.
The poorest ten per cent of families, with wages of £3,875 a year, paid £4,611 in direct and indirect taxes and received £13,559 in cash benefits and services. It means they received £2.94 in state support for every £1 they paid in tax.
The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.
Also at the Daily Express UK, “Most households in Britain get more in benefits than they pay out in tax, new figures show,” and London’s Daily Mail, “Half of families receive more from the state than they pay in taxes but income equality widens as rich get richer.”
The six contradictions of socialism in the United States of America
- America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.
- Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
- They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
- Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
- The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
- They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
If all these are RIGHTS – then who provides? Is it not more correct to say that we all have a right to Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness i.e. equal opportunity to pursue our endeavors?
If all of these so-called “RIGHTS” of the Second Bill of Rights are indeed ‘Rights’ then they are inviolate – but again; who provides?
And if they ARE inviolate, then where is the motivation to get up, go to work and earn a decent living? If we have the right to these things, why not just kick back and wait until somebody hands them to you? Under the Socialist system, the lazy are rewarded for their sloth and the hard-working have no motivation, as the products of their labors are taken away and re-distributed to those who do not work, or work slowly. There is no motivation to work harder, as there is no reward for your endeavors.
Ergo the fatal flaw of Socialism: it rewards failure and punishes success – this is the reason Socialism has produced nothing but poverty and misery everywhere it’s been tried.
Rep. Renee Ellmers was questioning Kathleen Sebelius when she came out with this instant classic.
Ellmers: You also brought up the issue that when you were in Kansas [as health Commissioner and governor] that you fought against discriminatory issues… As far as [ObamaCare's] essential health benefits, correct me if I’m wrong: do men not have to buy maternity care? Sebelius: Policies will cover maternity coverage. For the young and healthy, uh, under ythirty year-olds will have a choice also of a catastrophic plan that has no maternity coverage. Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?
Every man in Obamacare, regardless of his circumstances, has to pay for maternity care, whether he has a wife or if she’s 70 years old. There are no options out of the “better plan” that you are required to have. Needless to say these required “benefits” you may not want are part of why so many people are paying so much more for Obamacare plans.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
The managerialist zeitgeist: Man, Controller of the Universe by Diego Rivera
Assuming you even know who James Burnham is at all, he probably occupies a footnote at best in your mind. A notable political theorist and activist during the mid-20th century, he began his public life as a Marxist and Trotskyist but later transitioned to conservatism, spending the latter decades of his life as a columnist for National Review. Shortly after the fall of France in World War II, he wrote The Managerial Revolution, a radical tract that deserves to be more widely read.
Burnham’s claim was that capitalism was dead, but that it was being replaced not by socialism, but a new economic system he called “managerialism”; rule by managers.
I can’t understand how this book is so ignored. Getting a hold of a copy was a real bitch for me; it’s been out of print for decades, there’s no Kindle version, and used copies go for around $40 on Amazon. Most of the top Google searches for The Managerial Revolution refer not to the book itself but George Orwell’s moronic response essay, published eight years later. I lucked out and managed to find a cheap copy of the book on Ebay… from a seller in the U.K.
Burnham’s central argument will repulse both leftists—who think that the modern world is suffering an excess of free market capitalism—and conservatives/libertarians, who think that America is one more Obamaphone away from communism. It certainly pissed off his old Marxist buddies, drunk as they were in the 1930′s on their unbelievably arrogant belief in the “historical inevitability of socialism.” Burnham’s view was that the dictatorship of the proletariat would never happen because the pincer of technological advances and increasingly complex societies meant that ruling a nation required a skill set that the proles simply did not possess:
Reality, however, as is so often the case, was rude to the optimistic expectations. Far from showing tendencies toward socialism, the Russian revolutionary society developed in a plainly contrary direction. With respect to the three decisive characteristics of socialist society—classlessness, freedom, and internationalism—Russia is immeasurably further away today than during the first years of the revolution; nor has this direction been episodic but rather a continuous development since those early years. This has occurred in direct contradiction to Marxist theory: in Russia the key conditions, as it was thought, for the advance, if not to socialism at least well into its direction, were present—the assumption of state power by a Marxist party ‘of the workers,’ and above all the supposedly crucial abolition of private property rights in the chief instruments of production.
Burnham observed that Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and the U.S. under Franklin Roosevelt were developing along parallel paths, creating an economic system in which power rested not with capitalists or workers, but managers; administrators, HR ditzes, engineers, bureaucrats, civil servants, CEOs and other figures who exist outside of the capitalist class yet are not of the proletariat. Stalin’s nomenklatura, Hitler’s vast patronage network, and the myriad agencies created by the New Deal represented this shift in power, as they were controlled neither by capitalists or by workers. The trigger for this transition was the mass unemployment sparked by the Great Depression and capitalism’s complete inability to solve it, but the foundations had been laid beforehand in the increasing scale of society and scientific advances that made large-scale organization easier:
In the earlier days of capitalism, the typical capitalist, the ideal of the ideologists before and after Adam Smith, was himself his own manager so far as there were managerial functions other than those assigned to some reliable skilled worker in the shop. He was the individual entrepreneur, who owned the whole or the greater share of a factory or mine or shop or steamship company or whatever it might be, and actively managed his own enterprise; perhaps to retire in old age in favour of management by his heirs. But, as is well known, the growth of large-scale public corporations along with the technological development of modern industry have virtually wiped such types of enterprise out of the important sections of the economy; with a few exceptions, they remain only among the ‘small businesses’ which are trivial in their historical influence.
Additionally, Burnham observes that capitalism arose in a similar fashion; a new class (in this case, the merchants) seizing power from the ruling class (the aristocracy) beginning in the 14th century, when feudalism began to wane. This transition took different forms in different countries: it was gradual in England, where the monarchy slowly lost power to Parliament and became a largely ceremonial position, or violent in the case of France, where the aristocracy was viciously overthrown. In the same way, Burnham predicted that as part of the managerial revolution, the structures of capitalist government would either be eliminated entirely—as they were in the case of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany—or reduced to figureheads.
Can anyone seriously argue that that hasn’t happened in the U.S. and other “democratic” nations?
Power in America no longer rests with the elected government, but with the acronym agencies that exist beyond the voter’s control: the FBI, NSA, CIA, FEMA, the Fed, the Department of Education and so on. Despite the grandstanding of Tea Party Republicans, these agencies run themselves with minimal oversight or input from Congress, who is almost entirely powerless to control them. In fact, whenever elected officials try to exercise even the slightest amount of control over bureaucracies—as Scott Walker tried to do in Wisconsin two years ago—they always find themselves rebuffed with overwhelming force.
Burnham also predicted that the public and private sectors would effectively cease to exist as separate entities in a managerial economy. Again, looking at the comfy relationship between Washington and Wall Street, can you really argue against this? The actual capitalists on Wall Street—the shareholders—have lost big in the bank bailouts, with the stock prices of Citi and other banks cratering and shops like Bear Stearns being driven out of business entirely. It’s the managers—your Lloyd Blankfeins and Jon Corzines and Hank Paulsons—who’ve made out like bandits, giving themselves golden parachutes, stealing money from their customers andflitting back between government and the private sector as it suits them.
Despite the reference to “evident errors” on the back of my copy of The Managerial Revolution, most of Burnham’s predictions have come true, even if he got specific details wrong. For example, he envisioned a future in which the U.S., Germany and Japan would rule much of the Earth as “super-states,” with power gradually moving from sovereign states to supranational entities. Britain and France would wane and become satellite states because they clung to capitalism in the face of rising managerial empires. While Germany and Japan flamed out in World War II, the managerial state that Burnham dismissed in classic wannabe Tory fashion—Russia—became one of the world’s preeminent superpowers, jockeying with the U.S. for proxy control over Europe and the third world. As for “supranational entities,” how about the European Union, a gang of bureaucrats who have the reins on individual national governments? The U.N.? The WTO?
And this book is out of print?
The biggest flaw in Burnham’s analysis is that he’s still constrained to a certain extent by a Marxist frame, failing to take into account human motivations and stupidity. For example, he argues that Hitler’s desire for an alliance with Britain was driven solely by rational motives, as allying with Britain would allow Germany to more easily take control of Britain’s empire, which was being chipped away by America and other entities (Canada, by that point, was fully an American satrapy). He doesn’t account for Hitler’s retarded racial ideology that led him to believe he’d be leading a pan-Aryan brotherhood against those filthy evil Slavs.
But even with these mistakes, The Managerial Revolution is one of the most prescient and accurate portraits of the modern West. It’s also useful for analyzing what will happen in the future. Burnham notes that entrenched mass unemployment is one of the signs of imminent social revolution, going back to ancient Greece. If that’s the case, our managerial regime may well be in its death throes, with the massive unemployment rates in places like Spain and Greece, along with exploding underemployment in the U.S.
What will come next? I can’t say, only to say that the current system can’t last.
The only thing more expensive than the price is the cost. Passive lives are presently sponsored by high earners who aren’t allowed to choose which woefully inefficient federally-sponsored charities receive their endowments. Settling for crumbs breeds jealousy of those who have whole loaves. The great shame is that it could be fun to learn baking.
The ideas of the progressive ruling class are so swell that you must endure them by force of law in case you are not as smart as the president and don’t realize how you’d benefit from him guiding you with his benevolent palm. Most obviously, fans of unlimited free anything think making everyone get insurance is honorable and not a ticket to care that’s only healthy in name.
Those convinced that people can find care while caring for themselves must cut off the gangrenous bit before poor quality treatment is accepted as a tradeoff. Otherwise, we’ll soon rue the day when someone else decided we all deserved the same awful treatment and ensuing frightening equality of result.
It’s easy to convince people to just take what’s handed. It’s also easy for a brain enjoying the hazy effects of nine beers to convince the mouth and drinking hand it needs to reach double digits, but that doesn’t make it healthy. Billing the next table is of course the humane approach, especially if those patrons can afford appetizers and alcohol. Those rich jerks probably don’t even have to share a dessert. Creating circumstances where people can flourish could lead to the satisfaction of buying one’s own things, which leads to the dangerous vagaries of motivation.
But please take more pilfered dry goods and worthless promises from people who claim they entered politics and not business as a choice. The expectation that the government will do the planning for you rots economies and souls. Instead, you can settle for having the conditions preserved that allow you to make your own glorious choices. At least Depression-era people were assigned federally-issued busy work that created no value and ended nothing. Now, you don’t even have to pretend to work to really get paid.
Sure, the government buying you things is totally the best way to learn independence in the real world. But perhaps it’s better to know money’s going to be there because you put it there. Weighing down one hip with a wallet is a great asymmetrical feeling if you’re the reason the leather compartment is so far apart. It’s satisfying to simply achieve self-sufficiency, with maybe a little left over from labor to patronize soda jerks and sock hops. But there will be no Atomic Age if we remain as passive as the Reds.
The ruling class wants to remove autonomy right down to its subjects being able to stuff their mouths. Even humans residing in caves demonstrated the capability to acquire their own personal energy. But now the government rations just enough calories to get you to vote it more power.
Thank the congressional dolts who inadvertently made us giggle by pimping poverty through the ostentation of the SNAP Challenge. Through their amusingly telling lack of budgeting skills, the self-righteous compassion bullies proved that you’ll starve if you only consume sanctimony. A program to help those in distress stretch the food budget for a bit turned into encouraging people to get on board and have entire grocery bills comped. If you’re still hungry, it’s Paul Ryan’s fault.
Like Arrested Development fans demanding more episodes, the aid will never be enough. The government could double or triple entitlement spending, and progressives will claim that devilish conservatives slap the poor by standing in opposition to a quadrupling. They’ve shown more than enough times that they don’t know their maths.
Politicians who never think that it’s humane to decrease the number of people who receive benefits are ironically and cruelly creating victims by draining the economy to purportedly help them. The only thing worse than them unintentionally exacerbating despair is the possibility that they’re doing so purposefully. Their one successful calculation sadly involves them keeping control. If they make life difficult, they will blessedly swoop in with USDA-authorized nourishment. Flavor would just distract from the nourishment provided by protein sticks.
A political party whose leaders are Münchausens by proxy will never accept that you’re well enough to walk out of the emergency room on your own power. They can cure you, but first they have to make you sick.
A weak outlook leads to weak people who have no choice but to turn to a strong federal apparatus. Or, citizens could tire of living like sponges and take a more active approach in lieu of a government stocked with putzes doing so. Breaking spirits is just another thing at which government sucks.
There is nothing compassionate about thinking the poor are incapable of meeting life’s challenges. The ruling house says to not worry that they’ve made life too hard, as you’ll get your mush and game shows. Just don’t think there is anything more to life than conservatives wanting you to have opportunity. The price of not having to work is being bossed around constantly.
Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. Follow him athttp://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.
From Necropolitan Sentinel: http://www.conservativecommune.com/
Found at Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
In other words a lot of deaths. Not that management didn’t know. The NHS spent 15 million pounds in taxpayer money to prosecute and gag 600 whistleblowers who thought things had gone too far. The man at the center of the scandal was Sir David Nicholson, the Chief Executive of the NHS.
One of the biggest concentrations of deaths was at an “elite” hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire hospital which triggered an investigation by the “apparently high mortality rates in patients admitted as emergencies”. Too many people were turning up dead. A study subsequently showed that up to 1,200 patients may have died due to negligence in the “elite” hospital, which has since become so notorious it may now be placed under new management.
The Independent says that five more hospitals “with persistently high death rates are facing investigation tonight after a damning report into Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust raised fears that basic clinical failings could be putting patients at risk across the NHS.” So the saga is by no means over.
Read the rest at: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/03/06/the-hospital-of-death/
To study the results of the latest census is to stare at one unalterable conclusion: mass immigration has altered our country completely. It has become a radically different place, and London has become a foreign country. In 23 of London’s 33 boroughs “white Britons” are now in a minority. A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) hailed this as “diversity”.
Of course there are numerous claims as to how it all occurred. One — made in 2009 by the former Labour adviser Andrew Neather — is that Tony Blair’s government wilfully aimed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” and create what it unwisely took to be a new client class. Another theory, not running entirely counter to this, is that the whole thing was a bureaucratic cock-up which ran out of control under successive governments, only doing so spectacularly under New Labour.
Whatever the cause, the public response has been surprisingly uniform. There have been no significant or sustained outbreaks of racism or violence. Most of us feel absolutely no personal animosity towards immigrants. But — as poll after poll has shown — a majority do worry very much about what all this means for our country and its future. And they are right to worry. For nobody has any idea of where are we heading next.
RELATED: Video: “Gordon Brown ‘Bigot’ insult to Gillian Duffy.”
Found at 90 miles:http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Härjedalen is reducing all non-essential food deliveries to senior citizens in its home care program. From now on, there will be no more bread, butter, or dessert provided to the elderly shut-ins, but they must still pay the same fee as always for their food deliveries.
Swedish Radio via The Muslim Issue (h/t Susan K) The municipality has recently been ordered to receive the ever increasing flood of Muslim parasites, many from Somalia, and recently Syria.
In Sveg. an existing accommodation for young immigrant, which since its inception has been characterized by fights and turmoil, has been supplemented with additional accommodation at a cost of 5.5 million Swedish Kroner. The accommodation served the men around the clock by a staff that is as large as the number of immigrants. In Hede it was recently decided to provide free housing to all Syrian invaders granted residence permits.
Video shows outraged Somali Muslims in Sweden demanding bigger houses with more rooms, at taxpayer expense, of course.
From Bare Naked Islam:
The essay below is the tenth in a series by Takuan Seiyo. See the list at the bottom of this post for links to the previous installments.
Left: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette, 1876
Right: George Grosz, Metropolis, 1916/17
The Bee and the Lamb
By Takuan Seiyo
In the bog of Demonic Mendacity
The undead zombies of the academy
The academic creators of postmodernism, most of them PhDs in philosophy of the German kind, were all far-left socialists around the time that their creed showed its decisive failure as theory and as morality. The booming prosperity and relative freedom of the West and of its working class, particularly in super-capitalist America of the 50’s, belied Karl Marx’s dialectics. The Western proletariat, instead of rising against its capitalist masters, was busy buying homes, cars and TVs, and enjoying the good life. Meanwhile, the communist Valhalla, the Soviet Union, revealed itself after Stalin’s death to have been a machine of mass murder of the malnourished, run by a megalomaniac monster.
“Postmodernism,” wrote the philosopher Stephen Hicks in Explaining Postmodernism, “is the academic far Left’s epistemological strategy for responding to the crisis caused by the failures of socialism in theory and in practice. Confronted by harsh evidence and ruthless logic the far Left had a reply: That is only logic and evidence; logic and evidence are subjective; you cannot really prove anything; feelings are deeper than logic; and our feelings say socialism.” 
Conveniently, by the middle of the twentieth century, epistemology and linguistics had already turned into gibberish, not the least due to earlier efforts by illustrious names such as Russell and Wittgenstein. Hicks quotes the German philosopher-scientist Moritz Schlick whose prolific output in the 1920’s revolved around issues such as the meaninglessness of the proposition: “Does the external world exist?” and the corollary issue of the null connection between cause and effect, belabored by Wittgenstein.
Of course any Zen adept would react to the question “Does the external world exist?” by whacking the questioner with a staff, thereby proving the existence and, later, when the blue-red welts formed on the budding philosopher’s backside, the causality as well. But the peculiar perversions of 19th century German philosophy and the great catastrophe of World War I have somehow leeched the vital sap of life from European culture. Instead of climbing or hewing or just classifying rocks, the philosophes preferred being chained to them in Plato’s cave, arguing endlessly about the flickering images.
While Reality’s thorough thrashing of socialism sent many Left intellectuals into terminal despair, for others the crisis meant only that a more radical assault on capitalism was needed. Instead of accepting that Reality had proved them wrong, determined academic socialists declared Reality itself null and void, along with reason and even the possibility of telling true from false and right from wrong. Consequently, as Hicks puts it, postmodernism has recast the nature of rhetoric into “persuasion in the absence of cognition” — a sheer political weapon with which to swat aside and overpower any opposition to socialism in any form.
“The regular deployments of ad hominem, the setting up of straw men, and the regular attempts to silence opposing voices are all logical consequences of the postmodern epistemology of language. Stanley Fish [snip] calls all opponents of racial preferences bigots and lumps them in with the Ku Klux Klan. Andrea Dworkin calls all heterosexual males rapists and repeatedly labels ‘Amerika’ a fascist state. With such rhetoric, truth or falsity is not the issue: what matters primarily is the language’s effectiveness.” 
Postmodern (“PoMo”) ideology explicitly rejects truth and logic. In such a framework, it’s easier to understand the curious mixture of presentism and relativism we visited earlier. Hicks summarizes this perverse phenomenon as: “On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.” He adduces enduring examples of postmodernist theory blatantly at odds with historical facts:
Postmodernists: The West is deeply racist.
Fact: The West ended slavery for the first time ever, and racist ideas are on the defensive only in places where Western ideas have made inroads.
Postmodernists: The West is deeply sexist.
Fact: Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.
Postmodernists: Western capitalist countries are cruel and exploitive of their poorer citizens.
Fact: The poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.
The place of honor in the postmodernist Pantheon belongs probably to Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). Derrida’s main task in life was to help advance Marxism by deconstruction of the rational foundations of the West. An academic superstar, the list of universities where he coughed the infecting mist into the brains of adoring tens of thousands included, among others, France’s three most prestigious universities: Sorbonne, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and École Normale Supérieure (ENS), Johns Hopkins, Yale, New York University, The New School for Social Research, Stony Brook University and the University of California at Irvine.
The Australian mathematician and architectural critic Nikos Salingaros summed up Derrida’s “contribution” to Western Civilization as a lethal virus absolutizing subjectivity, motivated by the will to destroy :
“Deconstruction asserts that texts have no ultimate meaning, and that their interpretation is up to readers. Deconstruction [snip] erases associations that form coherent thoughts. It acts like a computer virus that erases information in a hard disk. The Derrida virus seeks to undermine any original meaning via a complex and entirely self-referential play of words.
Deconstruction devalues common sense and rejects customary wisdom. [snip] As a virus, it has invaded civilization, erasing collective common sense while spreading with astonishing rapidity.
Deconstruction is not simply a worldview among others. A method to erase knowledge, masquerading as a new philosophical movement, cannot be quarantined within academia. Indoctrinated students eventually enter the real world threatening to create havoc. [snip]
Deconstruction has been remarkably successful in dismantling traditional literature, art, and architecture. Like a biological virus [snip], it only partially destroys its host, because total destruction would stop further transmission. It breaks up coherent sets of ideas by separating natural modules into submodules. Some of these submodules are then selectively destroyed in order to subsequently reattach their components randomly into an incoherent construct.[snip]
Once formed, worldviews are unlikely to change and are trusted more than any direct sensory evidence. These internal worldviews become so much a part of oneself that they are unlikely to undergo any modification, unless one is forced to do so. For this reason, those who have adopted a cult philosophy deny all evidence that threatens the cult’s vision of reality. Rational arguments make no difference.”
Salingaros quotes Derrida himself:
“All I have done … is dominated by the thought of a virus, what could be called a parasitology, a virology, the virus being many things … The virus is in part a parasite that destroys, that introduces disorder into communication. [snip] This is what happens with a virus; it derails a mechanism of the communicational type, its coding and decoding … is neither alive nor dead … [this is] all that I have done since I began writing.” 
If Derrida infected the culture with an intellectual virus, Michel Foucault (1926-1984) carried this one step further by sparing no efforts to infect himself, eventually dying of AIDS after a promiscuous sweep of the homo bathhouses of San Francisco.
A graduate of the two aforementioned citadels of French learning, Foucault is acknowledge as perhaps the preeminent social theorist and historian of ideas of mid-20th century, though he was, to be blunt, simply a malevolent intellectual masturbator in the solipsistic German tradition (e.g. Hegel, Heidegger). A prolific one, though, with a recondite vocabulary and soporifically impenetrable style, which, along with his membership in the French Communist Party, later supplanted by Maoist idolatry, qualified him for admission to France’s most august intellectual body, Collège de France, as — this bears reflection — Professor of the History of Systems of Thought.
Like Derrida, Foucault spread his intellectual HIV over much of the world in person. In addition to his teaching positions in several French universities, he held academic posts in Sweden, Germany, Poland, Tunisia and, in the United States, at the University of Buffalo and at UC Berkeley.
We will not waste time perusing his books, though various dystopian afflictions plaguing the West now are the result of eager university students absorbing their postmodernist teaching and then inflicting it upon their lessers after assuming responsible positions in society.
Among others, we owe the pervasive odor of urine and the pitiful shrieking hobos in our center cities, and not a few small genocides by obvious madmen left to live among the sane, to Foucault’s 1961 book, Madness and Civilization and its critique of domineering Reason suppressing the truth of madness. Those who wonder how Europe could have possibly committed the prima facie insanity of importing millions of sharia pollinators might peruse Foucault’s panegyrics to the new form of “political spirituality” he perceived in Muslim turmoil during the 1979 Iranian mullahs’ revolution .
How vast and demented Foucault’s influence has been might be inferred from a peek into Journal of Research in Nursing that, one might assume, exists in order to publish learned articles about the swabbing of wounds and intravenous nutrition. The abstract of “On the constitution and status of ‘evidence’ in the health sciences” reads:
“Drawing on the philosophy of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, this paper interrogates the constitution of ‘evidence’ that defines the evidence-based movement in the health sciences. What are the current social and political conditions under which scientific knowledge appears to be ‘true’? Foucault describes these conditions as state ‘science’, a regime that privileges economic modes of governance and efficiency. Today, the Cochrane taxonomy and research database is increasingly endorsed by government and public health policy makers. Although this ‘evidence-based’ paradigm ostensibly promotes the noble ideal of ‘true knowledge’ free from political bias, in reality, this apparent neutrality is dangerous because it masks the methods by which power silently operates to inscribe rigid norms and to ensure political dominance. Through the practice of critique, this paper begins to expose and to politicise the workings of this power, ultimately suggesting that scholars are in a privileged position to oppose such regimes and foremost have the duty to politicize what hides behind the distortion and misrepresentation of ‘evidence’.” 
Professor Hicks summarizes Foucault in these words:
“In his ‘Introduction’ to The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault [snip] speaks of his desire to erase himself. [snip] Foucault extends his desire for effacement to the entire human species. At the end of The Order of Things, for example, he speaks almost longingly about the coming erasure of mankind: Man is ‘an invention of recent date that will soon be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.’”
What civilization, then, could possibly enshrine a death-craving, babble-spouting sodomite nymphomaniac, but one that has been similarly infected? Except it’s not the civilization that has been infected but just its official custodians and their acolytes whom another Frenchman, Julien Benda, accused of treason already in 1927. The simpler folks had just been seduced to turn away. They inhaled in increasing doses and came to like a compound of dumb digital diversions, sex, porn and pop, uppers and downers, slavery to credit and status shopping, and news and entertainment programs programmed by programmers with hidden agendas and degrees conferred by the same loci of treason and insanity as had enshrined Messrs. Derrida and Foucault. And Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) too, the guru of the 60’s and the most influential peddler of the Frankfurt School’s tainted goods in the United States.
The Institut für Sozialforschung had been established at the University of Frankfurt in 1923 by an endowment from German expat Felix Weil and his father, a prominent grain merchant in Argentina. It was a particularly German concoction, heavily influenced by Hegel and Heidegger, and imbued with the notion that Western Civilization, having mortally injured itself in Word War I, was fit for the trash heap and had to be replaced. Mutating a new form of Marxism, the Frankfurt School taught that power lay with the institutions of culture, rather than with those who controlled the means of production. Thus was “Critical Theory” born, by which all Western cultural precepts and institutions could be taken down one by one, so that Revolution might finally succeed.
The raison d’être for this work being to plow through where there is too much beating around the bush, let us redefine “German” as “German-Jewish.” Practically all the big names of the Frankfurt School were Jews: Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Leo Lowenthal, Kurt Lewin, Adolph Lowe, Erich Fromm, David Riazanov (Russian) . The gentiles were a small and less distinguished minority: Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, the fabled Soviet spy Richard Sorge.
Why would the wealthiest (and Jewish ) grain merchant in the world want to fund a Marxist institute is as much an enigma as why the wealthy (and non-Jewish) industrialist Friedrich Engels would finance Karl Marx or why hundreds of the wealthiest Americans, many from old American families and, again, with a disproportionate Jewish participation, would actively, passionately, devote so much energy and money toward the destruction of their own country and their own ethny. The American evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald who reconstructed the previously semi-taboo Jewish components of major Leftist calamities like the Bolshevik Revolution, Communism, and the Frankfurt School, has built a theory around that. Alas, the theory he laid out in his The Culture of Critique trilogy and other writings is little more than a medieval blood libel: the Joos have a genetic evolutionary strategy to dominate and feed off their “white” host .
A credible theory, instead of sieving out all the contradictory data and making unwarranted generalizations based on the hand-picked remainder, would account for and integrate the counter-indicators; for instance, that the Jews were among the most patriotic segments of the German population: from a community of under 600,000, an estimated 90,000 Jews served in the German Army during World War 1 and 12,000 lost their lives. Likewise, whereas the most consequential proponents of Marxism in all its forms have been Jews, the most consequential proponents of libertarian freedom were also Jews: the important ones include Mises, Hayek (1/4 Jewish), Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Friedman.
In logic and social phenomena, the proposition “Many X are Y” or even “Most X are Y” does not allow for reversibility into “Most Y are X.” Moreover, much has already been written to explain Jewish Leftism (e.g. in the Jewish neoconservative monthly Commentary), and the issue is of current relevance only with respect to the United States and, arguably, Great Britain. Europeans should rather ask themselves what propels the rabid German and French Leftism.
How come the “Frankfurt School” is still strong and thriving in Frankfurt, its old Jewish pillars now feted as German intellectual giants, and its newer all-German issue Jürgen Habermas the country’s No. 1 public intellectual? Why is there a party in Germany that proposes to tax income above €500,000 at 100%, and a party is actually ruling in France that passed a 75% income tax? Why are French icons Bardot and Depardieu seeking freedom in Russia, and Germany is a fiscal and religious police state searching cars on the Swiss border more rigorously than the Nazis did and jailing resistors to Islamization? Why is the money confiscated from German and French citizens used to subsidize Muslim minorities that in turn beat up, rape and burn  the people whose money was so confiscated, with the people severely punished by the state when they draw the logical conclusions? Not nearly enough Europeans have been asking those questions.
When the Nazis came to power, the Frankfurt School was disbanded and its denizens had to flee Germany. Between 1933 and 1939, the most important of those neue-Marxisten, including Marcuse, found their way to the United States and obtained academic posts there, mainly in New York (Columbia, New School of Social Research) and California. And so the infection spread, under the commie-friendly Franklin Roosevelt government.
Marcuse’s unique genius in adapting Marxism to the self-regenerating resilience of American capitalism was in marrying the old concepts to Freudian psychology — oppression plus repression. Since the proletariat was content in acquiring wealth and the comforts that go with it, wealth per se had to be demonized as the purveyor of goods and comforts that were “enslaving” the working class.
Productive work diverted one from pleasure — hence the call for “polymorphous perversity,” “Make love not war,” and other Marcusean mottoes plastered all over the West’s 1960s — in Europe as “Marx, Marcuse, and Mao,” and in the United States as Timothy Leary’s “Turn on, tune in, drop out.” Marcuse even managed to transform laziness and rejection of personal hygiene into positive cultural values, thereby spiking, as far the 60s generation was concerned, the Protestant work ethic and body deodorant.
To demonize capitalism and its wealth creation further, it was necessary to link it in a zero sum formula to the destruction of nature, as an inevitable consequence. Thus was modern environmental socialism born, with the farce of “environmental justice” serving now as a bludgeon with which to take from those who have the ability (Whitey), and transfer it to those who do not (i.e. not-Whitey). Seeing the importance of this new New Marxist ju-jitsu throw, Marcuse played a pivotal part in the “Ecology and Revolution” symposium in Paris in 1972, and devoted his last essay to it: “Ecology and the Critique of Modern Society” (1979). 
Marcuse’s famous essays “Repressive Tolerance” (1965) and “An Essay on Liberation” (1969) even recast the West’s tolerance as repression. In his book Intellectual Morons Daniel Flynn laid bare Marcuse’s trick as converting reality into its opposite, i.e. “freedom is totalitarianism, democracy is dictatorship, education is indoctrination, violence is nonviolence, and fiction is truth.” To this could be added Marcuse’s other fraudulent memes transplanted straight from the Frankfurt School, i.e. that Nazism was a consequence of capitalism, Communist Parties are the sole anti-fascist power in the world, fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology, and God-Family-Country conservatives are fascists who are not just wrong but mentally deranged.
From that, directly, was born the political culture of bold lying, smearing political opponents, oppressive political correctness and the persecution of political dissent by Marcuse’s children at the helm of all power in the West today. But Marcuse raised not just one but the two most noxious plagues decimating the West today. He proposed “Archimedean points for a larger emancipation” through which a revolutionary minority could apply leverage in order to topple the large edifice of capitalist society.
These points would be the “marginalized and outcast elements” deemed irrational, immoral, or criminal by capitalist definition: women, teens, sexual deviants, psychos, felons, immigrants, the black and the brown and the handicapped. It’s their activism, Marcuse prophesied, that would topple capitalist society where workers’ activism had failed. Moreover, only such minority groups legitimately deserved tolerance, relabeled as “liberating tolerance”. The erstwhile stakeholders, i.e. the autochthon, the male, the Christian, the sane, the family-oriented, the patriotic and the striving (i.e. “capitalist”) ought to be restrained in their liberty so that the balance of power could shift to the Left. This would be, and is today, nothing but redistribution of political, social and cultural capital, on top of the redistribution of financial capital which is already one of the primary activities of the modern Western-Socialist (they are all Socialist) state.
The notion of “liberating tolerance” that is in fact oppressive intolerance is now played out daily in the life of the West. The view of numerous Black “intellectuals” that no Black can be a racist is now the accepted view in America’s Progressive circles, and the American Muslim provocateur, Zaid Shakir, says that no Muslim can be a terrorist. What’s worse, quite a few once-normal Whites believe all that. Thus is the Inversion of Reality, attained.
The pre-eminent historian of Marxism, Leszek Kolakowski, named Chapter 11 in his seminal Main Currents of Marxism: “Herbert Marcuse: Marxism as a Totalitarian Utopia of the New Left.” You who are reading this are already living in the completed rough design of that construction, a couple of years before the painted Styrofoam beams give way.
Marcuse’s superstar status allowed him to spread the infecting spores throughout the West, just as Derrida and Foucault were able to do. He taught at the University of Frankfurt, at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brandeis, UC San Diego, and in hundreds of speaking engagements around the world. It’s remarkable that the résumé of the fourth major pillar of postmodernism, Jean-François Lyotard, includes teaching high school in Algeria, then University of Paris, Derrida’s American beachheads at UC Irvine, Johns Hopkins and Yale, Foucault’s nest UC Berkeley, Marcuse’s UC San Diego, and then Emory University in Atlanta, University of Montreal and University of São Paulo in Brazil.
From those hubs of viral transmission, the plague spread. First, thousands of Western academics and intellectual opinion makers and, by now, tens of millions of university graduates who run all government and all cultural and educational institutions in every country of the Euro-peoples between Berlin and Brisbane.
The two most salient of the intermediary disseminators were celebrated American academics Edward Said (1933-2003) and Howard Zinn (1922-2010). Both excelled at the obsessive picking at the West’s motes, and suffered from major blindness relative to all the Eastern and Southern beams-in-the-eye — i.e. the classic case of what we defined earlier as double cognitive exotropia.
According to his 26 September 2003 obituary in The Guardian, Edward Said was “widely regarded as the outstanding representative of the post-structuralist left in America. Above all, he was the most articulate and visible advocate of the Palestinian cause in the United States.” Said is also revered in the cultural establishment as one of the leading literary critics of the second half of the 20th century, a revolutionary reformist of the field of Oriental Studies, a sage, a philosopher, and what is known among French sophisticates as homme d’action culturelle — though those bumpkin Anglos may use an easier French term, saboteur.
All this and Said’s professorship of English and comparative literature at Columbia University could not have been attained had he not produced his celebrated books by perverting the history he knew and inventing the history he didn’t know — particularly the history of Western Civilization and the Middle East, his major subject. He also tampered with quotations, falsified translations, constructed incoherent arguments based on faulty methodology, ignored anthropology, sociology and psychology, ignored the bulk of Orientalism’s important literature because he didn’t know German, misrepresented the work of many scholars, and flung willy-nilly pejoratives, hyperbole, hysterical exaggerations and false imputations of racism and other guilt  — all in the holy cause of postmodernism’s jihad against whitey and his civilization, bolstered by his personal bile as a torch-bearing Arab living in an Israel-supporting Anglo country.
Said credited his politics to his reading of Antonio Gramsci, Adorno, Foucault and Raymond Williams. Gramsci had been the inventor of the Cultural Marxism idea later perfected by the Frankfurt School; Adorno was a main pillar of the Frankfurt School alongside Marcuse; Foucault has been our subject here, and Williams was a Welsh New-Leftist communist. Said’s Orientalism (1978) was an application of the Gramscian concept of controlling hegemony in combination with the Foucauldian bla-bla of discourse and knowledge in the service of power.
Said used that mélange to deconstruct and malign the West’s attitudes and interactions with the Arab or otherwise Muslim East. His particularly bizarre charge was that the academic study of Islam in the West has served as a tool of imperialist domination
One of the most influential books of the last 50 years, ever since its publication Orientalism has been obligatory reading in every field of the arts and humanities where the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory has any sway — which means all of them. Above all, it has fueled the field of postcolonial studies — one of those academic disciplines that grow in a society of spiritless capitalist surplus like mold does on leftovers from a sumptuous picnic. But the book is just an exercise of a misshapen pot calling a big, sturdy kettle black, though the pot be the blacker one by a factor of three .
One could hardly deconstruct the Palestinian deconstructor’s famous book better than the erudite Ibn Warraq has done in his Defending the West :
“What makes self-examination for Arabs and Muslims , and particularly criticism of Islam in the West very difficult is the totally pernicious influence of Edward Said’s Orientalism. The latter work taught an entire generation of Arabs the art of self-pity — “were it not for the wicked imperialists, racists and Zionists, we would be great once more”- encouraged the Islamic fundamentalist generation of the 1980s, and bludgeoned into silence any criticism of Islam. [snip] The aggressive tone of Orientalism is what I have called ‘intellectual terrorism’, since it does not seek to convince by arguments or historical analysis but by spraying charges of racism, imperialism, Eurocentrism [snip]; anyone who disagrees with Said has insult heaped upon him.”
A longtime contributor to the communist magazine The Nation, in 2001 Said published there an attack on old-school Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, whose “Clash of Civilizations” we reviewed earlier. Said titled it, “Clash of Ignorance”. What he writes there is beside the point; it’s a waste of time like anything this and other poststructuralists have written. More cogent and closer to the core of Reality is what Ross Douthat wrote about Said writing about Huntington:
“There is something sad, truth be told, and a little desperate about Said’s essay: It reads like the flailings of an intellectual who realizes, too late, that history is passing him by. He lashes out indecorously, calling Huntington “a clumsy writer and inelegant thinker” — an odd accusation from a essayist [sic] whose prose often reads like something badly translated from an obscure Eastern European tongue.”
Again, that desperate flailing of failed Marxism, in Said’s case channeled to power the threshing of a failed culture, Islam.
Edward Said was Barry-Barack’s professor at Columbia and later, a pal. Dinesh D’Souza credits him as one of now-President Obama’s three “Founding Fathers,” the other two being the black America-haters Frank Marshall Davis and Jeremiah Wright. Nor is his impact confined to America alone. The Saidian brain-disabling mutation is now manifest in the daily life of all the subject peoples of the West’s Progressive Ruling Oligarchy. To apprehend Said’s ghost conducting The Fools’ Symphytic Orchestra of Norway , one need only read “Spreading a Romantic View of Islam” at Gates of Vienna.
The historian Richard Landes has argued that Said had deliberately misconstrued Islamic culture by ignoring its unique honor-and-shame aspects, demonizing studies of that culture that showed its “otherness” and cowing the entire Oriental Studies field into a position of academic fraud and politically correct disconnect from Reality. I would rephrase that as weaving a massive net of deception — indeed taqiyyah — that has undone not merely the field of Oriental Studies but the entire standing of the West in the Muslim Orient, with incalculable consequences with respect to the aiding and abetting of the most fanatical strains of Islamic activism everywhere, and sharia-importing at home. All this due to a Saidesque projection of Western rationality and humanistic values onto a tribal, emotions-driven, savagely sanguinary, intensely ethnocentric and religiously fanatical Muslim culture that can buy and deploy the West’s technology, but not its 2500 years of cultural, moral and intellectual development.
The affairs of the West are now managed by people who had their brains exchanged in school and now believe that given the voting ballot and a daily bowl of Western foreign aid rice, Mahmoud from Aswan will soon sit with Larry from Sheboygan to discuss over a non-alcoholic beer how jointly to contribute to world Peace, Justice and Equity. Incidentally, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, is a small city (pop. 49,000) founded in 1846 by German immigrants. It is now home to an estimated 6000 Hmong, 100+ imported Muslim families that have now graced the community with a mosque, and an indeterminable further number of decidedly non-Germanic refugees whose origin may only be guessed from info releases of Wisconsin welfare and church refugee aid programs. According to those, Sheboygan will be further enriched in 2013 with hundreds more arrivals from East Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma and Nepal. As they say in the American vernacular, Sheboygan rocks; its Strength-in-Diversity will grow by leaps and bounds onto a glorious future.
Wikipedia has an 11,164 word hagiographic article on Edward Said; in comparison, Aristotle gets 10,795 words of much more lukewarm prose. Let that fact sink.
As there are so many Said/ Zinn parallels in output and impact, let us get started with Howard Zinn as we did with his dear friend, Edward Said: in a eulogy — by another dear friend, Noam Chomsky. It was published, significantly, in Al Jazeera.
“Zinn was an award-winning social activist, writer and historian,” reads the editorial intro. “His best-selling A People’s History of the United States spawned a new field of historical study: People’s Histories”. The link to Zinn’s most famous book leads to a website named “History Is a Weapon.” Much to think about, right there.
The Chomsky text that follows defines the message of A People’s History as “the crucial role of the people who remain unknown in carrying forward the endless struggle for peace and justice, and about the victims of the systems of power that create their own versions of history and seek to impose it.” Of course, had Zinn and his ilk been really interested in giving a voice to the oppressed, they would have given it to the non-brainwashed white autochthon, the white ethnocentric, the generic white male, the traditional Christian, the American constitutionalist, the European traditionalist, the patriot, the heteronormative, the successful small entrepreneur and the middle class as a whole — the “bourgeoisie” that has been the backbone of the West and is now squeezed out of existence by a pincer envelopment of the rich globalists and the poor tribalists: a Davos-Detroit-Damascus triple tap.
Howard Zinn was indeed the most influential American historian of the last 100 years, though he was a lifelong Communist propagandist and perhaps the most successful saboteur America has ever experienced. By the time he died, A People’s History had sold over 2 million copies. Though published in 1980, it still sells over 100,000 copies a year. The book is required reading in thousands of American high schools and colleges, and not only in history studies but in fields ranging from economics to literature.
A People’s History strings together the black spots from American history, omitting the rest. It’s Columbus from the point of view of Caribbean Indians, then the American Indian tribes’ ‘Trail of Tears,’ the slave trade, the indentured poor exported from the British Isles, the paternalistic “tyranny” of the American Revolution, oppression of women and of “people of color,” American conquest of Mexican territory in 1848, the class struggles of the 19th century, the slaves’ emancipation that was no emancipation, the robber barons etc,.—and that’s before we get to the 20th century . The effect is as though a psychopath has taken a walk in a mountain meadow and brought back home not the wildflowers, wild strawberries and shapely leaves but all the cow pies, poison mushrooms and broken twigs he could find.
A celebrated example of postmodernism’s Critical Pedagogy, A People’s History is a Marxist Trojan virus whose RNA consisting of “class, race, and gender discourses” dribbles in school and via mass media at home into the brain cells of the young, stupid and impressionable. When they have grown up and now teach, judge, “inform” or “entertain” others, the virus does what it’s programmed to do: multiply itself and jam the host society’s immune system.
Tellingly, Zinn penned a “Progressive Manifesto,” clearly echoing the lineage of the Communist one in a May 2009 column that he wrote for The Progressive:
“Yes, we’re dreamers. We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don’t want war. We don’t want capitalism. We want a decent society.”
One could find no better substantiation of Leszek Kolakowski’s “Marxism as a Totalitarian Utopia.” Why such mendacity is demonic we will see later through the prism of the originator of this term, Eric Voegelin. But to assess the scope of the damage that Zinn’s and Said’s postmodernist rewriting of history and cultural anthropology has wrought, we have to turn again to that part of the world where, under a Marxist jackboot, truth could grow in hard crevices that it has not found under the Marxist velvet slipper in the soft West.
Upon receiving the Kluge Prize in 2003, Professor Kolakowski gave a speech entitled What the Past Is For. He said:
“We must defend and support traditional research methods, elaborated over centuries, to establish the factual course of history and separate it from fantasies, however nourishing those fantasies might be. [snip] And we must preserve our traditional belief that the history of mankind, the history of things that really happened, woven of innumerable unique accidents, is the history of each of us, human subjects; whereas the belief in historical laws is a figment of the imagination. Historical knowledge is crucial to each of us: to schoolchildren and students, to young and old. We must absorb history as our own, with all its horrors and monstrosities, as well as its beauty and splendor, its cruelties and persecutions as well as all the magnificent works of the human mind and hand; we must do this if we are to know our proper place in the universe, to know who we are and how we should act. [snip] It is important to keep on repeating [these points] again and again, because [snip] if we forget them, and they fall into oblivion, we will be condemning our culture, that is to say ourselves, to ultimate and irrevocable ruin.”
To which must be added a phrase from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz’s 1980 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “Those who are alive receive a mandate from those who are silent forever.”
We have been spectacularly derelict with respect to fulfilling this mandate. Remembering those who are silent forever, truthfully, is perhaps the most vital emergency rescue a tottering civilization needs. But “remembering truthfully” is as Kolakowski defined it: it does not consist of advancing a bleached out version to counter the selective Communist blackening. To find a path out of the bog of Demonic Mendacity, we have to remember the path that brought us into it, with no convenient memory blackouts.
Those who blame the Reformation or the Enlightenment for the waning of Christianity, must open to perceive the rot in the Catholic Church that caused the Reformation, and the obscurantist rigidities in Christianity that called inexorably for a beam of light . Returning to the cause of failure, obscurantist rigidity, cannot produce a different effect the second time.
Those who invent racist theories to explain the involvement of Jews in socialist movements, or who deny the Holocaust, are offending history too. In the first case, socialist parties since the 1870s were an innovation in Europe partly on account of their welcoming of Jews. But all Nationalist parties were strongly Antisemitic . And the Holocaust is among the best documented event in history; those who deny it are not helping their cause but engaging in what Rudyard Kipling called “the Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.” If there are new roads to chart for the Western peoples, it’s better to avoid those that can only result in more bandage.
Those who want to defeat the current swelling of socialism must first reckon with the precedent outrage of global financial capitalism. Those who rage at Obama must first rage at Bush. Those who decry Muslim depredations in the West must praise Muslim immunity to the West’s diseases. Those who rail at feminists must remember that when the world was last run entirely by males, the males-in-charge cooked up World War I and World War II.
Conservatives who want to conserve must first know what to conserve, and why. Trying to reform the present by restoring a bleached past that never was seeds the inevitable failure of the future. The false and the wrong have to be accounted for; only then an endurable alternative to the Left’s malfeasant cures of past diseases may take hold.
History is where the DNA code of the West is to be found, and from which a therapeutic salve may be distilled. But history as relayed by its mendacious Left or Right manipulators is useless, for it obscures the causality of things. America’s history as relayed by Zinn can no more explain America than MacDonald’s history can explain the Jews or Said’s the Arabs. But honest history reveals the Yin-become-Yang-become-Yin eternal wheel of polar delusion and mendacity. Only when that arc is perceived in our time will it be possible to get out of the PoMo drowning bog onto solid ground.
Or else, it’s back to Sisyphus’s fate, with one variation: each time the boulder of history rolls downhill, it rolls over us.
Still frame from the 1974 animated short Sisyphus, by Marcell Jankovics
|1.||Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Ockham’s Razor, August 2011. My references and quotes come from an earlier 2004 edition by Scholarly Publishing, available online. This quote, p. 90|
|3.||Nikos Salingaros, “The Derrida Virus,” Telos, No.126, Winter 2003, pp. 66-82; reprinted in Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction, Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, Germany, 2008.|
|4.||Jacques Derrida, Positions, Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 95—6.|
|5.||Foucaultiana being one of the best naturally composted fields of Western academia, the interested reader may find a whole book devoted to just one narrow angle of this issue: Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism, University of Chicago Press, 2005.|
|6.||Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 13 no. 4 July 2008 pp. 272-280, abstract.|
|7.||In addition to Marcuse, two more major postmodernists of the five discussed in this chapter were Jewish: Jacques Derrida and Howard Zinn. It’s regrettable that this ethnic angle has received attention only from Nazis and ideological Antisemites, but not from traditionalist conservatives trying to rebuild the West. It ensures that the subject won’t be discussed truthfully, and without identifying the truth a true antidote cannot be devised either.|
|8.||The Jewish ethnicity of Weil is practically undiscoverable in any encyclopedic source in English. It’s easy to get a fuller background from Argentine sources, e.g. here.|
|9.||Full disclosure: I have criticized Dr. MacDonald’s work before. His response to my critique was that I was attempting “to draw boundaries of acceptable political discourse in a way that is acceptable to Jewish interests.” Mark Steyn once addressed such infantilisms in a column for National Review entitled “Espying the Jew”.|
|10.||The same principle of logic applies to Muslims as applies to other minority groups: “Most X are Y” does not convert into “Most Y are X.” However, when the X is such a big subset of Y — i.e. Western Muslims’ terrorism, violence, rape, “grooming,” massive welfare mooching, racial hatred, religious fanaticism, subversive agendas etc. — and when the whole group Y has been imported to the West only in the past 50 years, and without the people’s consent at that, it’s legitimate to weigh the aggregate value of the entire set Y, i.e. the Muslim community, including those who are peaceful and self-supporting, in light of the terrible and growing damage wrought by the X subset.|
|11.||To realize how many dragon teeth Marcuse has sown, see this essay by UCLA Professor of Philosophy Douglas Kellner, “Marcuse, Liberation, and Radical Ecology”. What’s important now is not what Marcuse wrote in 1979 but how destructive solipsists like Kellner get to occupy in 2013 endowed chairs of philosophy at major American universities.|
|12.||All these statements are either direct quotes or synthesis of quotes from two books about Said, Daniel Varisco’s Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid and Ibn Warraq’s Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism — both reviewed in Robert Irwin’s “Edward Said’s Shadowy Legacy”.|
|13.||This is in some ways a poetic exaggeration and, in others, an understatement. It’s difficult to allege Occidentalism bias to Muslims’ study of Western civilization, because Muslim societies have no Occidentalism studies. Indeed, they have no fields of study at all, except those in which Western knowledge is recycled in areas Muslim states deem useful. On the other hand, the infidel dog Islam-domination concepts and the anti-crusader, anti-colonialist, anti-Zionist and Arab-supremacist concepts have been strong and ubiquitous, and supported by nothing more than hot emotion-driven, shame-honor impulses with not even a notion that they have to correlate somehow to an objective reality.|
|14.||Ibn Warraq, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism, Prometheus Books, 2007, p.18. This quote served the Norwegian “Orientalist” Fjordman well in his “The Failure of Western Universities”.|
|15.||Symphytic, in pathology, indicates an abnormal adhesion of two or more parts of a structure. In the case of Norway and the rest of Eurabia, a forced imposition of one of the parts, and a forced and spectacularly failing adhesion.|
|16.||A good resource for more Zinnology is in Discover-the-Networks.|
|17.||Stephen Hicks calls Postmodernism the Counter-Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was all about reason, individualism and liberalism (i.e. what I call freedomianism). Postmodernism is all about raging negative emotions, collectivism and restraints of freedom, e.g. Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance.”|
|18.||For example, in France, the leftist Human Rights League, founded in 1898 to defend Capt. Alfred Dreyfus against the Antisemitic plot that had destroyed him, was open to and friendly to Jews. The French Mouvement Fasciste, on the other hand, was little different from the Nazis’ Brown Shirts.|
Takuan Seiyo is a European-born American writer living in exile in Japan. For his previous essays, see the Takuan Seiyo Archives.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/the-bee-and-the-lamb-part-10/#more-27052
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Britain gives us another preview of life in a country where government has seized control of the healthcare sector:
GPs [general practitioners] are to be forced to hand over confidential records on all their patients’ drinking habits, waist sizes and illnesses.
The files will be stored in a giant information bank that privacy campaigners say represents the ‘biggest data grab in NHS history’.
They warned the move would end patient confidentiality and hand personal information to third parties.
The data includes weight, cholesterol levels, body mass index, pulse rate, family health history, alcohol consumption and smoking status.
Healthcare is a limited commodity. If it is not to be allocated by price in the free market, but rather be provided by the government, it must be rationed. Knowing who has been smoking, drinking, eating too much, et cetera will be helpful to bureauweenies in deciding who gets healthcare and who does not.
GPs will be required to send monthly updates on their patients to a central database run by the NHS’s Health and Social Care Information Centre.
Doctors are now agents of the state.
Patients will not be able to opt out of the system.
But as money gets ever tighter, government will opt out of providing medical care to those who don’t comply with current health fads.
On tips from Dean D, Wiggins, and Bob Roberts.
On the One Hand…
These should not be foreboding years. The U.S. is in the midst of a veritable energy revolution. There is a godsend of new gas and oil discoveries that will help to curtail our fiscal and foreign policy vulnerabilities – an energy bonanza despite, not because of, the present administration.
In terms of farming, the United States is exporting more produce than ever before at record prices. Americans eat the safest and cheapest food on the planet.
As far as high-tech gadgetry, the global companies that have most changed the world in recent years – Amazon’s online buying, Google search engines, Apple iPhones, iPads, and Mac laptops – are mostly American. There is a reason why Mexican nationals are not crossing their border into Guatemala – and it is not because they prefer English speakers to Spanish speakers.
Militarily, the United States is light years ahead of its rivals. And so on…
The New Poverty Is the Old Middle Class
We have redefined poverty itself through government entitlements, modes of mass production and consumerism, and technological breakthroughs. The poor man is not hungry; more likely he suffers from obesity, now endemic among the less affluent. He is not deprived of a big-screen TV, a Kia, warm water, or an air conditioner. (My dad got our first color television during my first year in college in 1972, a small 19 inch portable; I bought my first new car at 39, and quit changing my own oil at 44.)
In classical terms, today’s poor man is poor not in relative global terms (e.g. compared to a Russian, Bolivian, or Yemeni), but in the sense that there are those in America who have more things and choices than does he: a BMW instead of a Hyundai, ribeye instead of ground beef, Pellegrino rather than regular Coke, Tuscany in the summer rather than Anaheim at Disneyland, and L.L. Bean tasteful footwear rather than Payless shoes. I was in Manhattan not long ago, and noticed that my cheap, discount-store sportcoat and Target tie did not raise eyebrows among the wealthy people I spoke to, suggesting that the veneer of aristocracy is now within all our reach. When I returned to Selma, I noted that those ahead of me at Super Wal-Mart were clothed no differently than was I. Their EBD cards bought about the same foods.
Put all the above developments together, and an alignment of the planets is favoring America as never before – as long as we do not do something stupid to nullify what fate, our ancestors, and our own ingenuity have given us. But unfortunately that is precisely what is now happening.
The New Hubris
These are the most foreboding times in my 59 years. The reelection of Barack Obama has released a surge of rare honesty among the Left about its intentions, coupled with a sense of triumphalism that the country is now on board for still greater redistributionist change.
There is no historical appreciation among the new progressive technocracy that central state planning, whether the toxic communist brand or supposedly benevolent socialism, has only left millions of corpses in its wake, or abject poverty and misery. Add up the Soviet Union and Mao’s China and the sum is 80 million murdered or starved to death. Add up North Korea, Cuba, and the former Eastern Europe, and the tally is egalitarian poverty and hopelessness. The EU sacrificed democratic institutions for coerced utopianism and still failed, leaving its Mediterranean shore bankrupt and despondent.
Nor is there much philosophical worry that giving people massive subsidies destroys individualism, the work ethic, and the personal sense of accomplishment. There is rarely worry expressed that a profligate nation that borrows from others abroad and those not born has no moral compass. There is scant political appreciation that the materialist Marxist argument – that justice is found only through making sure that everyone has the same slice of stuff from the zero-sum pie – was supposed to end up on the ash heap of history.
Read the News and Weep
That is not conspiracy talk, but simply a distillation of what I read today. On the last day of the year when I am writing this, I offer you just three sample op-eds.
A journalist, Donald Kaul, in the Des Moines Register offers us a three-step, presto! plan to stop school shootings:
Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. …Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. …Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
Note the new ease with which the liberal mind calls for trashing the Constitution, outlawing those whom they don’t like (reminiscent of “punish our enemies“?), and killing those politicians with whom they don’t agree (we are back to Bush Derangement Syndrome, when novels, movies, and op-eds dreamed of the president’s assassination.)
What would be the Register’s reaction should a conservative opponent of abortion dare write, “Repeal the First Amendment; ban Planned Parenthood as a terrorist organization; and drag Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from a truck”? If an idiot were to write that trash, I doubt the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal would print such sick calls for overturning the Constitution and committing violence against public officials.
Ah Yes, Still More Redistribution
Turning to a column in The New Republic, John Judis, in honest fashion, more or less puts all the progressive cards on the table in a column titled “Obama’s Tax Hikes Won’t Be Nearly Big Enough” – a candor about what the vast $5 trillion deficits of Obama’s first term were all about in the first place.
Here is the summation quote: “But to fund these programs, governments will have to extract a share of income from those who are able to afford them and use the revenues to make the services available for everyone.”
Note that Judas was not talking about the projected new taxes in the fiscal cliff talks, but something far greater to come. He understands well that the “gorge the beast” philosophy that resulted in these astronomical debts will require enormous new sources of revenue, funds “to extract” from “those who are able to afford them” in order to “make services available for everyone.”
That is about as neat a definition of coerced socialism as one can find. Implicit in Judas’s formulation is that only a very well-educated (and well-compensated) technocratic class will possess the wisdom, the proper schooling, and the morality to adjudicate who are to be the extracted ones and who the new “everyone.”
The Constitution – Who the Hell Needs It?
The third item in my year-end reading was the most disturbing. A law professor (could it be otherwise?) named Louis Michael Seidman enlightens us with “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” – yet another vision of what the now triumphant liberal mind envisions for us all:
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Did Madison force Obama to borrow a half-billion dollars to fund Solyndra and its multimillionaire con artists?
Note Seidman’s use of “evil,” which tips his hand that our great moralist is on an ethical crusade to change the lives of lesser folk, who had the misfortune of growing up in America – a place so much less prosperous, fair, and secure than, say, Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Spain, Greece, Italy, or Japan and Germany (in the earlier 20th century history). When I lived in Greece, traveled to Libya, and went into Mexico, I forgot to sigh, “My God, these utopias are possible for us too, if we just junked that evil Constitution.”
White Guys Did It
The non-archaic, un-idiosyncratic, and anti-downright evil Professor Seidman presses his argument against his inferiors who wrote the “evil” document: “Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.”
Ah yes, old white male Madison, who lacked the insight, character, and morality of our new liberal technocrats in our successful law schools, such as, well, Mr. Seidman himself:
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official – say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress – reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
I suppose human nature changes every decade or so, so why shouldn’t constitutions as well?
I can see Seidman’s vision now: Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi decides that semi-automatic handguns, not cheap Hollywood violence or sick video games, empower the insane to kill, and, presto, their “considered judgment” and favored “particular course of action” trump the archaic and evil wisdom of “white propertied men.” But if we wish to avoid the baleful influence of white guys, can Seidman point to indigenous Aztec texts for liberal guidance, or perhaps the contemporary constitution of liberated Zimbabwe, or the sagacity of the Chinese court system?
The Law Is What We Say It Is
Note the fox-in-the-henhouse notion that a constitutional law professor essentially hates the Constitution he is supposed to teach, sort of like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warning the Egyptians not to follow our own constitutional example, when South Africa has offered so much more to humanity than did Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.” Ginsburg obviously vacations in Johannesburg, goes to Cape Town for her medical treatment, and has a vacation home and bank account in the scenic South African countryside.
Seidman looks fondly on Roosevelt’s war against the Constitution (especially the notion that law is essentially what an elected president who has proper “aspirations” says it is):
In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation.
Free at Last from Constitutional Chains
In the age of Obama, the constitutional law lecturer who once lamented that the Supreme Court had not gone far enough by failing to take up questions of forced redistribution, Seidman writes:
In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.
But I thought it was the Constitution, not the anti-Constitution or egalitarian good will, that separated us from Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Tojo’s Japan, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and most of the miserable places that one sees abroad today, from Cuba to North Korea, which all had and have one thing in common – the embrace of some sort of national, republican, or democratic “socialism” guiding their efforts and plastered about in their sick mottoes.
The progressive mind, given that is it more enlightened and moral, alone can determine which parts of the “evil” Constitution should be summarily ignored (e.g., the Second Amendment) and which should not be: “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.”
Give Real Freedom a Chance
I am sure that history offers all sorts of examples where people without evil documents like our Constitution protected free speech and religious worship – out of “respect.” Ask Socrates, Jesus, six million Jews, 20 million Russians, or those with eyeglasses during the days of the Khmer Rouge. Apparently, what stops such carnage is not the rule of constitutional law, but good progressive minds who care for others and show respect. I’ll try that rhetoric on the next thief who for the fourth time will steal the copper wire conduit from my pump.
So just dream with Professor Seidman:
The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity… What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit… before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
I have seen their future and it is almost here right now. Scary times, indeed.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
You know things are bad when even the socialists are fed up with having to support the Muslim freeloaders. It seems that immigration policies of France, are seriously changing. The country is no longer able to hold back the crowd of Muslim invaders, many of whom do not want to integrate into the social and economic life of their new home country, and are content to live off the state and breed like rabbits.
It’s interesting that the original source for this story came from Russia’s Pravda. Apparently the MSM in the EU are trying to cover it up.
EU Times (h/t Maria J) The upcoming radical changes for migrants were announced by French Interior Minister Manuel Valls.
After a meeting on the National Immigration and Integration, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced significant changes in the country’s migration policy. The government will reduce financial assistance to immigrants, and this reduction will be substantial. Starting March 1 of next year, French immigrant benefits will be reduced by 83 percent. The amount of compensation to immigrants who voluntarily want to return home will be also reduced. If earlier the government paid 300 euros for every adult and 100 euros for every minor, in March of 2013 these amounts will be reduced to 50 and 30 euros, respectively. (The photos below are of Muslims rioting in France just for the sake of rioting. Imagine what it will look like now that they have a reason)
One of the main provisions of the new immigration rules in France is the reduction of unemployment benefits. New rules will directly affect many of the immigrants who do not want to be of real assistance to the country and whose main goal is the existence at the expense of French taxpayers. Now immigrants who are EU citizens receive an allowance of 2,000 euros per adult and 1,000 euros per child.
Under the new policy, according to Valls, the payments will be reduced to 500 and 200 euros, respectively. Manuel Valls said that the previous immigration policy did not lead to the desired effect, and the existing outreach programs for immigrants do not work as they were expected to, therefore, the rules must be changed. If this is not done, the costs for the maintenance of migrants now paid by the French Treasury will continue to devastate the economy of France that is already suffering from the crisis caused by international factors.
Earlier this year, during the election campaign in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the then President, strongly advocated for the changes in migration policies in France. He stated that the delays could adversely affect the entire domestic policy of France. Francois Hollande, the current President of France and at that time the main opponent of Sarkozy, spoke on the subject more softly, avoiding naming any specific measures. Does this mean that life itself supports the statements of the eccentric ex-president of France?
According to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, in the second half of 2010, France was home to over five million migrant workers, or about 8 percent of the total population. The largest number of migrants arriving in France, according to the data for 2007, was from Algeria, Morocco and Portugal. In 2011, French citizenship was granted to 66,000 people. It is getting increasingly more difficult for the government to providefinancial assistance to migrants, given that many of them do not work or study. In fact, this is not surprising given the amount of aid that the government was ready to provide to its new citizens.
With a growing number of migrants, mainly from Muslim countries, France is experiencing many internal problems. They include rising unemployment and crime, and increasingly greater sums of money from the state treasury spent on support of migrants and their families, which has a detrimental effect on the economy. Finally, France is simply awash with the migrant population with an alien ideology, reluctant to accept European values and often hostile.
Sooner or later, the government had to take measures. It seems that the time has come. On the wave of changes in French policy towards migrants, in 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy won presidential elections. Since his arrival to power, the government began to pursue a policy of the so-called selective migration, whose aim was to attract to France mainly skilled personnel. Under Sarkozy a quota system was introduced in the country that determined the number of required workers.
In March of 2012, during the presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated the importance of addressing domestic problems of migrants. Sarkozy, a son of an immigrant from Hungary, suggested cutting the amount of social assistance provided to migrants and reducing the number of issued residence permits by 50%. In addition, he threatened that France would leave the Schengen Treaty in order to prevent infiltration of unwanted migrants into the country.
Francois Hollande, the current president of France, was not that radical in his vision of the issues associated with migrants. He was not ready to control all categories of migrants, but in March of 2012 called for limiting migration for economic reasons. It looks like it is the economic conditions that are forcing the French authorities to toughen the policy towards migrants. This is indicated, in particular, by the disappointing data in the Global Competitiveness Report on the state of competitiveness of France, which the government discussed in November. According to the report, the competitiveness of the French industry is falling.
In 2000, the share of industry in the economy of the country accounted for 18 percent, and now – 12.5 percent as companies are going bankrupt. In part, it is due to the heavy burden of social security contributions that businesses are required to make. French business payroll taxes are among the highest in the world at approximately 50 percent. It could not have been different because the country had to feed a large number of migrants.
The French Media refuse to report on the anti-Islamization protests in the streets of Paris.
In March of 2012 Sarkozy suggested reducing the number of migrants from 180 thousand to 100 thousand. A significant decrease in the number of migrants could be expected in five years. It seems that the government of Hollande has adopted such measures and is moving towards action.
A significant decrease in the amounts allocated for subsidies for migrants might be somewhat effective. The treasury will have more resources that can be allocated to job creation and overall economic recovery. There is a likelihood that the reduction in benefits will be an incentive for some workers to step up their job search.
There is another side to the coin. Many migrants, especially those from Arab countries-former colonies of France, are used to living on government subsidies. They have been doing it for years, and have been teaching their childrenthis model of social behavior. According to the National Institute of Statistical Studies, children from immigrant families tend to be weaker students than their peers who are not immigrants. This is especially true for migrants from Turkey. In the labor market, only 14 percent of children of immigrants attain high social positions.
Reduction of benefits would hurt many migrant families. Will this provoke antisocial behavior where migrants would outpour their anger in the streets of French cities, destroying everything around them? Will the migrant riots of 2007 be repeated? There is an obvious need in new approaches towards migration policy. However, in their implementation the government should take into account various possible consequences. Only a balanced approach will lead to positive results.
Generation Identitaire is a group of young people protesting rising Islamization and the expansion of mosques in France.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
German pensioners are being sent to care homes in Eastern Europe and Asia in what has been described as an ‘inhumane deportation.’ Rising numbers of the elderly and sick are moved overseas for long-term care because of sky-high costs at home.
UK DAILY MAIL Some private healthcare providers are even building homes overseas, while state insurers are also investigating whether they can care for their clients abroad. Experts describe a time bomb’ of increasing numbers unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes. (Of course not, all the money goes into welfare payments for Muslim parasites)
And they say the situation should be a warning to Britain, where rising numbers of pensioners are forced to sell their homes to pay for care. The Sozialverband Deutschland (VdK), a socio-political advisory group, said the fact that many Germans were unable to afford the costs of a retirement home in their own country was a huge ‘alarm signal’.
‘We simply cannot let those people, who built Germany up to be what it is, be deported,’ VdK’s president Ulrike Mascher told The Guardian. ‘It is inhumane.’
Researchers found an estimated 7,146 German pensioners living in retirement homes in Hungary in 2011. More than 3,000 were in the Czech Republic and more than 600 in Slovakia. There were also unknown numbers in Spain, Greece and the Ukraine, as well as Thailand and the Philippines.
According to Germany’s federal bureau of statistics, more than 400,000 senior citizens cannot afford a German retirement home, a figure growing by around 5 per cent a year. This is because many are living for longer while their pensions are stagnating. (Yet welfare benefits for Muslims are growing)
Gatestone The controversial book titled “Germany Does Away With Itself,” a best-seller, authored by 65-year-old Thilo Sarrazin, a prominent German banker who is also a long-time member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), has outraged the German political elite, who abhor Sarrazin’s audacity to question the status quo of German multiculturalism.
Excerpts from the book, which is written in a highly confrontational style, include the following:
“In every European country, due to their low participation in the labor market and high claim on state welfare benefits, Muslim migrants cost the state more than they generate in added economic value. In terms of culture and civilization, their notions of society and values are a step backwards.”
“No other religion in Europe is so demanding and no other migration group depends so much on the social welfare state and is so much connected to criminality.”
“Most of the cultural and economic problems [in Germany] are concentrated in a group of the five to six million immigrants from Muslim countries.”
“I do not want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live in a mostly Muslim country where Turkish and Arabic are widely spoken, women wear headscarves and the day’s rhythm is determined by the call of the muezzin.”
“If the birthrate of migrants remains higher than that of the indigenous population, within a few generations, the migrants will take over the state and society.”
BRAVO TO LT COL AL WEST!!! Called Obama What He Is: “Marxist, Socialist, Class Warfarer!” BRAVO!
11 Tuesday Dec 2012
Posted by The MAD Jewess in Obama fails
Video By jim hoft
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) went after Barack Obama again tonight on Hannity. The Florida conservative says Marxist Obama has every right to feel arrogant and that he will not be held responsible for this disastrous policies.
I love watching the unions squirm. Their days are numbered and they know it.
(CNSNews.com) – Bob King, president of the United Auto Workers Union, says Michigan’s new right-to-work law is “bad for working families,” because it will lower wages and reduce benefits for both union and nonunion workers.
During an appearance on MSNBC, King was asked about the new law’s effects on the auto workers’ union.
“You know, I’m not worried about the immediate effect on the UAW. I’m worried about the impact on society. This has got to be seen as part of a right-wing agenda. And this lame-duck, they’re not only attacking labor, they’re attacking women’s reproductive rights, they’re attacking teachers and schools. They’re attacking everything that’s good for working families.
“This right-wing agenda has got to be stopped,” King continued:
“Labor, civil rights, faith community, LGBT, environmentalists — all of us got to come together and stand up for an America that has prosperity for everybody. Not just for CEOs and the greedy few at the top.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
There is Not Enough Money in Britain to Support all Of The Parasites Sucking Blood Out of The Government
Even as once great Britain’s eyes go dim, life is still good for the welfare parasites who are bleeding it to death:
While many families are worrying about how to afford Christmas this year, one jobless single mother has revealed she receives so much in benefits she has £2,000 to spend on designer gifts, clothes and partying.
Mother-of-two Leanna Broderick plans to buy 20 presents for each of her children, including Burberry and Ralph Lauren outfits, iPads and gold jewellery.
The 20-year-old, who has never worked, claims nearly £15,500 a year in state handouts.
Why would she work?
She claims she is better off on benefits and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one. …
She said there was ‘no point’ earning less in a minimum wage job and having to pay for childcare on top.
Leanna qualified for her cushy position by dropping out of school at 16 and becoming pregnant at 17, while taking advantage of government incentives to shun employment and marriage. Her plans for the future:
“I’ll stay on benefits and get as much as I can out of it.”
What other outcome could anyone possibly expect of liberal welfare policies?
If you pay taxes in Britain, you are this woman’s slave.
On tips from Dean D and Artfldgr.
Have You Ever Wondered How Hitler Came to Power? Watch This Video and Your Question Will Be Answered.
December 10, 2012
In college I read a novel called The Last of the Just by André Schwarz-Bart inspired by a legend/theory from the Talmud – that there are thirty-six righteous souls (the Lamed Vav) in every generation whose existence justifies “the purpose of mankind” to God. From Wikipedia:
As a mystical concept, the number 36 is even more intriguing. It is said that at all times there are 36 special people in the world, and that were it not for them, all of them, if even one of them was missing, the world would come to an end. The two Hebrew letters for 36 are the lamed, which is 30, and the vav, which is 6. Therefore, these 36 are referred to as the Lamed-Vav Tzadikim. This widely-held belief, this most unusual Jewish concept is based on a Talmudic statement to the effect that in every generation 36 righteous “greet the Shechinah,” the Divine Presence (Tractate Sanhedrin 97b; Tractate Sukkah 45b).
I hadn’t thought of the Lamed Vav or Schwarz-Bart’s book for a while until the other day when my friend Banfsheh Zand, an Iranian activist, sent her email list a YouTube video from Belgium.
A man – seemingly by himself – had stood up at a town hall meeting in that country and denounced the installation of two Islamists who had just won positions in a municipal election. He said their election was illegal because the men were avowed adherents of Shariah law, which is in direct contradiction with Belgian civil law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The man was right, of course, but no one rose to his defense. When he left, the formal installation of the Islamists was completed as if nothing happened.
Was this lone man one of the Lamed Vav?
If so, I hope his thirty-five compatriots are paying attention. (And that the man himself has the good sense to watch his back from here on in. He doesn’t need to be the next Theo Van Gogh.)
When you look at the faces of the others in the room visible on the video, you don’t exactly see “profiles in courage.” I would wager, however, that if you asked each of them individually whether they favored equal rights for women and homosexuals, as well as separation of church and state and liberal democracy and Enlightenment principles in general (all anathema to Shariah), they would uniformly say yes. Further I would imagine they would all be appalled at the idea of a global caliphate under Islam, and therefore the end of Belgium as a sovereign nation, the very intention of Shariah.
Still, political correctness – leavened, to be sure, with a modicum of cowardice – overwhelmed their good sense and allowed the decent and courageous man to leave by himself.
If you ever wondered how Hitler happened, you have part of your answer on this video.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
by 1389 on December 5, 2012
Socialized medicine is no medicine at all – not even for the socialists themselves.
These stories about the NHS failures in the UK really push my buttons. The people pushing to nationalize our healthcare admire the NHS. I like how the hospital offered to investigate after the patient died. It sounds to me like the disingenuous calls by comrade zero and klinton after Benghazi.
Investigations don’t bring back the dead.
My husband died like a battery hen, frightened, cold and ignored by hospital staff: MP’s tearful attack on NHS care
A senior MP broke down in tears yesterday as she condemned the ‘coldness, indifference and contempt’ of nurses she blames for her husband’s death.
Ann Clwyd said her beloved Owen Roberts died ‘like a battery hen’ after her repeated pleas for NHS nurses to help him were ‘brushed aside’.
Miss Clwyd, a Labour MP for 28 years, sobbed as she revealed she has nightmares over the way Mr Roberts died six weeks ago ‘from the cold and from people who didn’t care’.
At one stage, she said, her 6ft 2in husband was ‘squashed up against the iron bars of the bed’ and nurses cried ‘anybody for breakfast’ at the very moment that he passed away.
Her excoriating verdict on the NHS came as the chief nursing officer for England called for more compassion in hospitals. Jane Cummings said such values should be ‘embedded’ in public health care.
Miss Clwyd’s husband, a former head of news and current affairs at BBC Wales and an ITV executive, had multiple sclerosis and died, aged 73, on October 23 this year at University Hospital of Wales, in Cardiff.
She said he had hospital-induced pneumonia and nurses did not keep him warm or care for him.
The day before he died, she visited him from 2.30pm to 10.30pm, and wrote in a text message to a friend at 10.59pm: ‘No doctor has been to see him since this morning. Very few nurses around either. Not very happy with the set up.’ At 5am the next day she was called in and found her husband wearing an oxygen mask.
In an emotional interview on Radio 4’s The World at One, Miss Clwyd said: ‘He didn’t have any clothes over him, he was half-covered by two, very thin, inadequate sheets, his feet were sticking out of the bed at an angle, and he was extremely cold. I tried to cover him with a towel.
‘He was very distressed and totally aware of his situation and, although unable to speak because of the oxygen mask, he made it clear he was cold and wanted to come home. Well, a few hours later, he died.’
The 75-year-old MP for Cynon Valley claimed she had seen a nurses’ round only ‘once’ during her entire eight-hour visit the day before his death.
She said: ‘I kept asking people. I would go into the corridor and there were just no nurses around. I stopped one nurse in the corridor and asked her why he wasn’t in intensive care. She said, “There are lots of people worse than him”, and she walked on. I previously stopped another nurse and asked when a doctor had last seen him, and I was just brushed aside, and told a doctor had been to the floor but had not seen my husband, but she said, “We know what to do.”
‘Well I feel that “we know what to do” meant “do nothing”.’
Last night the hospital’s executive director of nursing, Ruth Walker, said staff had offered to meet Miss Clwyd so that a formal investigation could begin. ‘We take such matters extremely seriously,’ she said.
‘We will not tolerate poor care which is why it is so important that each incident is fully investigated so that we can drive up standards and provide patients and their families with the quality of care they need and deserve.’
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/