Race and cultural politics

April 3, 2020

Source

Western progressives and scientists, when asserting that most present-day anthropologists and geneticists don’t believe in the notion of human races, almost never mention the fact that most of those scientists in China and Russia still do?

Western progressives and scientists do not get to dictate the definitions of the words people use to communicate with every day.

“Race” is the word we use to describe physical characteristics that are typical for people from a certain geographic area or cultural group. There have always been, and still are, problems with relations between people from different geographical areas and/or culture groups, so the term “race” is used to describe the differences.

Some well-minded but clueless busybodies are trying to promote the concept that if the word “race” were not used to describe these differences, the problems would go away. Nothing could be further from the truth. The “others” are “different”, in directly observational ways.

Using the “expert fallacy” as this questioner does, claiming that the “experts” (progressives and scientists) have dismissed the word “race” in relation to these differences so we should drop the whole discussion does not do a thing to cure the problems various groups are experiencing with each other – but it makes the fools promoting this concept feel like they are doing something useful.

You can tell someone’s race and even with is background with DNA. Skeletal differences can be used to identify the race of a deceased person (skeletons can also tell gender). All non African people’s posses non homo sapiens DNA, albeit very small.

There can be complications when it comes to marrow or organ transplants from one race to another. Different races all have different fertility issues. These and many more differences can be found with a simple Google search and peer reviewed articles.

Race exists. This doesn’t mean blacks are less intelligent nor that all Asians are great at math. It just means there are differences and we shouldn’t shy away from this. To do so isn’t scientific… it’s propaganda and stupid thinking.

There are several reasons why socialism couldn’t be built in the former Soviet Union (fSU) given the conditions that faced Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

[In what follows I am using “socialist” and “communist” (and their cognates) interchangeably and, in most cases, in conformity with Marx’s understanding of those terms]

1) As Marx saw things, communism could only be built in countries capable of producing a massive abundance (i.e., a very highly developed economy coupled with high levels of productivity — even if they actually failed to do that because of ‘market forces’). This wasn’t the case in the fSU — or, indeed, China, Cuba, much of E Europe, Vietnam, N Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and now in Venezuela. They were all backward economies or were recovering from war. Socialism can’t exist where there is scarcity. It can only be built on abundance. [Why that is so will be answered on request.]

So Lenin and the Bolsheviks looked to the massive productive capacity of the German economy to come to the aid of their revolution — on that, see below.

(2) Equally, if not more important: a communist society can only be built by the working class organised for and by themselves, acting democratically on their own behalf, not relying on anyone else to do it for them. The Russian revolution was initially led by the urban working class (in alliance with the peasantry), but that class was cut to ribbons by WW1 — and then all but destroyed as an effective political and economic force by the Russian Civil War and the famine that followed. Socialism can’t be built if there is no powerful and politically engaged proletariat (i.e., the urban working class under capitalism).

Why that is so has been explained here:

Why-did-Karl-Marx-believe-that-industrial-workers-would-be-the-ones-leading-the-revolution-not-peasants/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

So, Lenin and the Bolsheviks (but not the clique that later emerged around Stalin) argued that their revolution was doomed unless the revolutions spreading across Europe at that time succeeded (in Hungary and Italy — but more importantly in Germany). However, those revolutions failed for various reasons, and with that the prospects for the fSU nose-dived.

The revolutions in China and Cuba many decades later weren’t even proletarian revolutions (howsoever popular they might have been at the time), but were prosecuted by guerrilla armies comprised largely of peasants, students, and ‘intellectuals’, etc. Whatever emerged as a result — and independently of the aims of those taking part, howsoever well-intentioned they might have been — could in no way be Marxist (except in name alone). Marx’s version of communism can’t be created by by-passing the proletariat (again, follow the above link for the reasons why).

More-or-less the same can be said about Vietnam (which, despite the rhetoric, was a nationalist, not a communist, revolutionary war, first against the French, and then against the USA), as well as Laos and Cambodia. North Korea was set up as a puppet regime which only existed and survived because of the backing of the red army (Russian and Chinese). The ‘revolutions’ in E Europe in the years following WW2 were the result of invading red army tanks, and so could only be called Marxist by someone with a twisted sense of humour.

Related to the above there are a few additional considerations, which are a little more theoretical, that differentiate Lenin’s approach to socialism from Stalin’s and Mao’s, the most important of which are the following factors:

(3) There are in fact two forms of socialism:

a) ‘Socialism from above’,

and

b) ‘Socialism from below’.

The first form seeks to bring ‘socialism’ to the mass of the population, whether they want it or not. It is imposed from above (by a centralised, or even a democratically elected, state), as its name suggests.

This approach has been adopted and tried out by various political movements and ideologies, including Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, Chavezism (as we have seen in Venezuela), Social Democracy [SD]. Democratic Socialism [DS], and conspiratorial Blanquism, which many confuse with Leninism.

Blanquism

Quite often, the population acquiesce to this form of socialism, and they might even welcome it at first — until they discover it doesn’t work. That is because it leaves the mass of the population passive and unchanged (except where they are allowed, in some cases, to vote every now and then, or they are required to provide cannon fodder in defence of this new form of the state). Left like that they are always going to be a threat to the new ruling class that has been formed as a result of imposing socialism from above — as we saw in Russia, E Europe, and, indeed, much of the rest of the planet over the last hundred years. On that, follow this link:

Revolution

That is because ‘Socialism from above’ either:

(i) Leaves the class structure of society unchanged (as is the case with SD and DS), or

(ii) It introduces a new ruling elite (as was the case with all forms of ‘Communism’) — but, in both cases, the mass of the population remains exploited and/or oppressed for their pains.

[Many confuse the above statist/corporatist forms of socialism with Marxism. They will struggle long and hard and to no avail to find anything in Marx’s writings that supports such a gross distortion of his ideas. It is also worth adding that ‘Communism’ and Marxism parted company in the fSU in the mid-1920s after Lenin died, and the Stalinists seized power.]

Every time this form of socialism has been tried it has failed, or is now failing. That because:

(iii) In the case of SD and DS, the rich and powerful will always fight these lukewarm forms of socialism, try to strangle them to death (as we are now witnessing in relation to Venezuela), or manoeuvre/force them to compromise what few principles they retain so that they gradually become a pale reflection of those parties that genuinely and openly represent the interests of the ruling elite — that is, so that they begin to resemble to some extent Conservative and other right-wing parties — as we have repeatedly seen in the USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, S America, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, etc., etc. So, SD/DS doesn’t change society in any fundamental way, and leaves class division — and hence the rich and powerful — in place at the top.

Whoever is in office under this form of ‘socialism’, the top 1% and their political representatives are always in power (they control the army, the police, the courts, the media, etc.), which means that SD/DS politicians, no matter how well meaning they are, will either have to accommodate to the 1% and their ideologues in the media, or they will be out on their ears.

These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies

The barrage of abuse and lies Jeremy Corbyn faced from the vast bulk of the UK media is only the most recent example of this:

Anti-Semitism. Orchestrated Offensive against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK

They are now trying to do the same with Bernie Sanders:

Campaign against Sanders on ‘antisemitism’ for his criticism of Israel begins in earnest

The pusillanimous and compromised nature of SD/DS is part of the reason for the rise in ‘populism’ across the globe right now, as the mass of the population reacts to the long-term failure of this form of socialism from above and the apparent failure of ‘liberal democracy’, which political currents have in general looked after the interests of the rich and powerful, not the working majority they claim to represent.

Some have claimed that Scandinavian forms of social democracy have worked, but as with the rest of the capitalist world, that too is now beginning to fail — I have explained more here:

Do-you-hate-capitalism-if-so-then-why-is-that/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

(iv) On the other hand, Communist regimes leave the capitalist world largely intact, isolating themselves from the international division of labour, which in the long run renders their economies inefficient and totally incapable of competing with the rest of the world. Hence, they are doomed to fail; the moment of their birth is the moment they begin to die (to paraphrase Hegel). They either (a) slowly strangle themselves to death (as we saw in E Europe and the fSU), (b) they adopt ‘market reforms’ and emulate ‘free market capitalism’ (as we are now seeing in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Cuba), or (c) they are smothered by the imperialist powers (as happened in Nicaragua, and might be about to happen in Venezuela, in relation to which dozens of countries supposedly committed to democracy seem quite happy to recognise an unelected no-mark, Guido, as President).

What-is-happening-in-Venezuela/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

As Engels, Lenin and Trotsky argued, islands of socialism can’t be created in a sea of capitalism, and any attempt to do so will always fail. Post-1925 ‘communism’ disagreed, but history has shown that Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were right. That form of ‘communism’ has been refuted by history, many times over.

(v) The second form of socialism, ‘Socialism from below’, represents Marx, Lenin and Trotsky’s view. It involves the great mass of the population creating a socialist society for themselves, not waiting for anyone, or any party, to do it for them.

Marx was quite clear about this in the Communist Manifesto:

========================

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

========================

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Indeed, several years later he added:

“The emancipation of the working class will be won by the workers themselves.”

Self-Emancipation of the working class in Marx and Engels

Lenin agreed, insisting “All power to the soviets!” in October 1917 (the soviets were factory and army councils set up by the workers after the popular February 1917 revolution — indeed, Lenin argued that their insurrection should only take place when the Bolsheviks had won a majority in those soviets):

In Defence of Lenin and the October Revolution

This form of socialism is internationalist (“Workers of the world unite!”) — it has to spread and take over the core economies of capitalism so that it can’t be strangled in the above manner, as the proletariat of each country rebel. Follow this link for more details:

Revolution

We aren’t talking about invasion here; an invasion by an external or foreign socialist country won’t change the working class of the country invaded in the required manner — they have to change themselves, in their own way, by their own revolution. Each strike, for example, is a mini-rehearsal for this (whether the strikers appreciate this or not), whereby workers have to learn to organise in their own communities, sharing ideas, money, clothing, food, shelter, etc. In effect they have to run a mini-socialist society for a few weeks or months. These are, in effect, mini-dress rehearsals for a working class revolution.

This is a basic fact about Marx’s form of socialism that SD-ers, Stalin, Mao, Castro and all the rest who advocate socialism from above, fail to comprehend, so determined are they to impose ‘socialism’ on other countries, or, indeed, on their own people.

(4) Again, connected with the above, and primarily in the case of the fSU, when Stalin and his henchmen seized power in the mid-1920s, they knew full well that the capitalist states would either strangle them to death or they would invade and destroy them.

This they would do in order to quarantine the Bolshevik revolution, guarantee it failed, or physically destroy it to prevent the idea spreading that ordinary working people are capable of re-making society for themselves and in their own interests, expropriating the productive capacity of society by taking it out of the hands of the ruling elite.

But, the fSU in the mid-1920s was still economically backward, its industry and working population all but destroyed by WW1 and the Civil War that followed. As Stalin argued, they would have to make up the yawning gap between their economy and the rest of the capitalist world in a generation or they would be crushed.

[That is indeed what was attempted by Nazis in 1941, originally regarded by many in the UK and the USA, for example, as ‘good anti-communists’ — hence, we had appeasement (in the UK) and isolationism (in the US).]

This meant that the Stalinist regime would have to impose an anti-democratic, autocratic and oppressive regime on the mass of the working population of the fSU. That is because, in order to catch up, the state would have to subject the working population to super-exploitation — whereby, the proportion of wealth going to that section of society would be reduced almost to subsistence levels, and often even below that (hence the massive famines — for example in the Ukraine) — so that investment in heavy industry could be maximised. This in turn meant that the state had to be totalitarian, executing and terrorising hundreds of thousands, including nearly every one of the leading revolutionaries of 1917, since working people would resist, as they always have done, such extreme economic deprivation and anti-democratic imposition. Only absolute terror would intimidate them enough.

‘Communism’ destroyed itself by such moves — moves forced on it by trying to create ‘socialism in one country’. Attempting to catch up with ‘the west’ forced the Stalinist regime to trample on every socialist principle it had once proclaimed. In order to compete with capitalism, it had to emulate it. It thus became its own opposite.

Tyrannies ruling in the name of socialism

To a greater or lesser extent, the same considerations applied right across the former ‘communist’ block.

Who made China’s revolution?

Cuba, Castro and Socialism

Hence, these regimes were never popular; quite the reverse, in fact — and when they fell nearly 30 years ago, as they were always doomed to do, not one single proletarian hand was raised in their defence. Indeed, workers were glad to see the back of them, and many joined in their demolition.

A supporter of the old regime in Russia has questioned the above allegation, that the Russian and E European working classes sat on their hands when the system collapsed between 1989 and the end of 1991. I have responded to his criticisms here:

Russian Workers Raised Not One Finger

So, Marxist socialism itself hasn’t failed; it just hasn’t been road-tested yet. No one knows if it will work, but there are good reasons to suppose it will.

Socialist_Economy

More details here:

Two souls of socialism – socialism from above vs socialism from below

State Capitalism in Russia

How Marxism Works

Finally, I have responded to several tired old criticisms of Marxism, including the ‘No True Scotsman’ canard, the ‘Socialism has killed 100 million’ slur, and the ‘You can’t change human nature’ ruse, here:

Why-didn’t-Marx-offer-a-better-form-of-government-than-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-given-the-fallibility-of-human-nature/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

============================

Whenever I post anything about Marx, Marxism or socialism, right-wing Quorans pile into me about the ‘evils of communism’, as if I haven’t heard this a thousand times already, or as if they were the very first to make that point. In order to forestall the seemingly inevitable, and to save me having to make the same points over and over again in response, such irate individuals are encouraged to follow the above links for my pre-emptive answer.

Abusive Quorans, ‘point-scorers’, and time wasters will have their posts deleted and will be blocked. I am tired of being patient with such individuals and with having to be all sweetness and light in return.

Some complain that this is censorship; it isn’t. It is to remind such individuals that if they are abusive, want merely to ‘score points’, or can’t be bothered to read and then reply to my actual arguments, they can’t expect me to listen to them in return.

Those who want to be civil and argue like grown-ups will, of course, be listened to.

If you have something else you want to say — write your own answer!

I don’t issue second warnings.

Anantha Ananda
Anantha Ananda, Engineer at Private Startup (2013-present)

 

What does Google Know About Us?

February 28, 2020

Unlike searching on DuckDuckGo, when you search on Google, they keep your search history forever. That means they know every search you’ve ever done on Google. That alone is pretty scary, but it’s just the shallow end of the very deep pool of data

that they try to collect on people.

What most people don’t realize is that even if you don’t use any Google products directly, they’re still trying to discover as much as they can about you. Google trackers have been found on 75% of the top million websites. This means they’re also trying to track most everywhere you go on the internet, trying to slurp up your browsing history!

Most people also don’t know that Google runs most of the ads you see across the internet and in apps – you know those ones that follow you around everywhere? Yup, that’s Google, too. They aren’t really a search company anymore – they’re a tracking company. They are tracking as much as they can for these annoying and intrusive ads, including recording every time you see them, where you saw them, if you clicked on them, etc.

But even that’s not all…

If You Use Google Products

If you do use Google products, they track you even more. In addition to tracking everything you’ve ever searched for on Google (e.g. “weird rash”), Google also tracks every video you’ve ever watched on YouTube. Many people actually don’t know that Google owns YouTube

; now you know.

And if you use Android (yeah, Google owns that too), then Google is also usually tracking:

  • Every place you’ve been via Google Location Services.
  • How often you use your apps, when you use them, where you use them, and who you use them to interact with. (This is just excessive by any measure.)
  • All of your text messages, which unlike on iOS, are not encrypted by default

 

 

 

  • .

If you use Gmail, they of course also have all your emails and contacts. If you use Google Calendar, they know schedule. There’s a pattern here: For all Google products (Hangouts, Music, Drive, etc.), you can expect the same level of tracking; that is, pretty much anything they can track, they will.

Oh, and if you use Google Home, they also store a live recording of every command you (or anyone else) has ever said to your device! Yes, you heard that right (err… they heard it) – you can check out all the recordings on your Google activity page

.

Essentially, if you don’t tell them not to, they’ll track pretty close to, well, everything you do on the internet. In fact, even if you tell them to stop tracking you, Google has been known to not really listen, for example with location history

.

You Become the Product

Why does Google want all of your information anyway? Simple: as stated, Google isn’t a search company anymore, they’re a tracking company. All of these data points allow Google to build a pretty robust profile about you. In some ways, by keeping such close tabs on everything you do, they may know you better than you know yourself!

The result of all that tracking is that Google uses your personal profile to sell ads, not only on their search engine, but also on over three million other websites and apps. Every time you visit one of these sites or apps, Google is following you around with hyper-targeted ads, trying to influence your behavior.

It’s exploitative. By allowing Google to collect all this info, you are allowing hundreds of thousands of advertisers to bid on serving you ads based on your sensitive personal data. Everyone involved is profiting from your information, except you. You are the product.

It doesn’t have to be this way. It is entirely possible for a web-based business to be profitable without making you the product – since 2014, DuckDuckGo

has been profitable without storing or sharing any personal information on people at all. You can read more about our business model here.

The Myth of “Nothing to Hide”

Some may argue that they have “nothing to hide,” so they are not concerned with the amount of information Google has collected and stored on them, but that argument is fundamentally flawed for many reasons

.

Everyone has information they want to keep private: Do you close the door when you go to the bathroom, or cover your windows when it gets dark? Privacy is about control over our personal information. We don’t want it in the hands of everyone, and certainly don’t want people profiting on it without our consent or participation.

In addition, privacy is essential to democratic institutions like voting and everyday situations such as getting medical care and performing financial transactions. Without it, there can be significant harms.

On an individual level, lack of privacy leads to putting people into a filter bubble

, getting manipulated by ads, discrimination

, fraud, and identity theft. On a societal level, it can lead to deepened polarization and societal manipulation as we’ve unfortunately been seeing multiply in recent years.

You Can Live Google Free

Basically, Google tries to track too much. It’s creepy and simply just more information than one company should have on anyone.

Thankfully, there are many good ways to reduce your Google footprint, even close to zero! If you are ready to live without Google, we have recommendations

for services to replace their suite of products, as well as instructions for clearing your Google search history

. It might feel like you are trapped in the Google-verse, but it is possible to break free.

For starters, just switching the search engine for all your searches goes a long way. After all, you share your most intimate questions with your search engine; at the very least, shouldn’t those be kept private? If you switch to the

DuckDuckGo app and extension

you will not only make your searches anonymous, but also block Google’s most widespread and invasive trackers as you navigate the web.

If you’re unfamiliar with DuckDuckGo, we’re the leading provider of privacy protection tools to help you seamlessly take back control of your personal information online. We’ve been providing a private alternative to Google Search at https://duckduckgo.com

for over a decade, and also offer a mobile private browser for iOS and Android (DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser) as well as browser extensions for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari

(DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials) to protect your desktop browsing.

We’re also trying to educate users through our blog

, social media, and newsletters, so more people can get the privacy protection they deserve.

MORE on Technology & Authoritarianism

The Source of Wisdom

February 26, 2020

Tesla-wisdom-quote

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

 

More ‘Asian’ Grooming Gang Abusers Sentenced in Oxford, England

February 15, 2020

groomingPicture: Oxford Mail

Three more members of Asian grooming and ausers have been sentenced for multiple rapes, indecent assaults, pimping and drug dealing offences in Oxford, the ~University city that has been the site of some of the worst examples of systematic grooming and abouse of young, often vulnerable, British girls by Muslim men of predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds.

41-year-old Naim Khan ( 24/8/1978), 44-year-old Mohammed Nazir (20/3/1975), and 42-year-old Raheem Ahmed (22/2/1977) had all been convicted of the sex related crimes and held on remand awaiting sentencing, according to a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announcement. Their offences included:

  • Seven counts of rape (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 12 occasions); four counts of indecent assault (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 15 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; two counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim; one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 12 occasions (Victim 1)
    one count of indecent assault (Victim 2)
  • Six counts of rape (four counts were multiple incidents covering at least 14 occasions); five counts of indecent assault (all counts were multiple incidents covering at least 27 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; three counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim (one count was a multiple incident covering at least three occasions); one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)
  • Two counts of indecent assault, and one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)

A fourth gang member, 42-year-old Afzal Mohammed of Randolph Street, Oxford, was acquitted of one count of rape.

The convicted trio have been “jailed for a total of 49 years”, with Khan, Nazir, and Ahmed receiving terms of 24 years, 20 years, and five years — but this may be misleading. Criminals handed multiple sentences are generally told they will serve them concurrently — i.e. all at the same time, rendering all but the longest effectively meaningless. So in spite of the public outcry over previous cases in Oxford and elsewhere around the country, most notoriously in Rotherham and Rochdale, the authorities are still intent on giving the kid – glove treatment to criminals of migrant backgrounds.

They are also usually eligible for automatic early release on licence halfway through non-“life” terms, or else at the two-thirds point with Parole Board approval if handed special “extended” sentences.

While the CPS did not spell out the full details of the Oxford gang’s sentencing immediately clear in their announcement, probably to avoid triggering the kind of outcry that has previously resulted from black and Asian rapists being given much lighter sentences than a European man convicted of multiple rapes of migrant women could expect to receive. A prime example of uch discriminatory treatment of convicted offenders was the case for Telford rape gang ringleader Mubarek Ali, who became eligible for release on licence — which he received — less than five years into a supposed 22-year sentence.

A particularly nasty aspect of the abuse carried out by the Oxford gangs was the sadistic nature of the abuse and the casual disregard for the humanity of their victims. In Britain and other civilised cultures we would not tolerate animals being treated so badly yet the far – left scumbags who control our politicised police forces and judiciary are dertermined that we be forced to accept it from foreigners who have been welcomed into our nations.

“The abuse to which [the victims] were subjected to by these men was horrendous and sadistic,” said Principal Investigator Mark Glover in comments reported by the Oxford Mail.

“They have had to live with the actions of these predatory offenders for the majority of their livthey have all been impacted in different ways,” he added.

“They will never be able to forget what happened to them all those years ago.”

Senior prosecutor Clare Tucker said the “depraved” groomers had “told the teenagers [their abuse] was normal in relationships between men and women and threatened the victims if they resisted or complained.”

One of the victims, who told the jury Naim Khan “began to pimp her out to other Asian males, made her sexually available to other men in return for payment”, revealed the consequences of her abuse in an impact statement: “My life has been destroyed. I cannot form loving or lasting relationships with men. I have not been able to care for my children as a mother should be able to.”

She says she did not report the abuse she suffered for some time, at first because of threats by the abusers, and then because she “felt disgusted by what those men did to me” when she was aged between 14 and 15 — “I just didn’t want it to come out and for anyone to know.”

Such cases have become an all to familar story in Britain since the story of the Rotherham case broke in 2012. The Abuse gangs had already been operating for years and worried parent and citizens who were aware of what whas happ[ening and tried to report it to police or social care authorities were dismissed as racilaly prejudiced cranks. It has since emerged that the order to soft pedal on investigations into the gangs came from the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions who at the was Kier Starmer, who is currently a contender for leadership of the Labour Party.

Back to contents table

Activists confront traitor march

December 6, 2019

from Nordic Resistance Movement

On November 30, activists from Nest 2 paid a visit to an anti-Nordic demonstration which was subsequently called off. After the Resistance Movement’s activity was covered extensively in the Swedish lying press, Nordfront contacted one of the activists to find out what really happened.

“Stop the Population Replacement”

The torchlight demonstration was organised by Helsjön Folk High School and local churches in the town of Horred, western Sweden, who claimed it was in support of “human compassion” and against “racism” and “Nazism”.

The demonstration took place in the wake of the murder of a local 17-year-old girl, Wilma Andersson, as well as several explosions in the nearby city of Borås.

Wilma had been missing since 13 November, with her 22-year-old boyfriend Ahmed Tishko having been taken into custody, suspected of her murder. After an extensive search for the teenager by hundreds of volunteers, police have now declared her deceased after discovering “a body part” belonging to her.

One of the Nordic Resistance Movement activists who took part in the action said of the demonstrators: “Their message is not something we tolerate, especially not when considering recent events in the area.”

During the demonstration, the torchlit march was met at its starting point by Resistance men who stood in the middle of the road with a banner reading “Stop the Population Replacement”. There was a minor confrontation when the demonstrators tried to push the activists and swipe at them with their torches, but they quickly calmed down and instead started going around the Resistance men.

The procession then deviated from its planned route and went onto a narrow road where the activists again succeeded in positioning themselves ahead of the demonstrators. The activists didn’t stop the march, but instead walked in front of it with their banner and communicated their message peacefully.

This bewildered and demoralised the demonstrators and caused their march to stop. The police were called to the scene, and many demonstrators grew tired and went home. From a total of approximately 200 attendees at the beginning, only 50 or so eventually reached the destination where speeches were to be held by people such as Lisa Dahlberg, a Social Democrat and government commissioner in the local Mark Municipality.

The police informed the Resistance Movement activists that they were suspected of harassment for protecting themselves against the demonstrators who pushed them and waved their torches at them. No one was suspected of a serious crime. One activist was arrested, but only because he refused to identify himself when the police wanted to charge him on suspicion of harassment.

Extremism breeds extremism and the Swedish government’s determination to replace ethnic Swedes with migrants was inevitably going to lead to the emergence of nationalist groups that are prepared to respond to acts of violence by immigrant groups with violence of their own. The Swedes now seem to have had enough of their virtue signalling, politically correct government’s kow-towing to Islamic extremists. What will happen? To paraphrase Enoch Powell, Like the Viking I seem to see the Baltic flowing with much blood.”

RELATED POSTS:
Sweden dystopia

Who Would Want To Destroy The World? More People Than You Might Think

October 27, 2019

As well as megalomaniac tyrants woth access to weapons of mass destruction, mad scientists busy genetically modifying viruses and bacteria in order to weaponise the air we breathe and the water we drink, the corporate greed that drives companies to fill our food and environment with toxic shite in their quest for bigger profits, we have social justice warriors calling for the genocide of ethnic Europeans (having completely failed to notice that they, themselves, are mostly of European extraction, and eco – warriors claiming that the only way ro “save the planet” is through the extinction of humanity. Obviously these somewhat less than bright sparks have never heard that old riddle that goes, 2if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it does it make a sound. Here’s one p-o-v on that, which suggests that vibrations in the air as would be caused by a tree hitting the ground cannot be called a sound unless they collide with the eardrum of a creature that knows what a sound is.

So who wants to destry humanity and do they have a supportable argument?

Who Wants To Destroy The World

More people than you might expect — and new technologies might give them the power to do it

Authored by Phil Torres, Originally published at Medium.com

Photo: NurPhoto/Getty

FFor most of human history, the question of who would want to destroy the world didn’t much matter. The reason, of course, was that that no individual or group of humans could demolish civilization or cause our extinction. Our ancestors just didn’t have the tools: no amount of spears, arrows, swords, or catapults would have enabled them — even the most bloodthirsty and misanthropic — to have inflicted harm in every corner of the world.

This changed with the invention of the atomic bomb. While scholars often identify 1945 as the year that human self-annihilation became possible, a more accurate date is 1948 or 1949, since this is when the United States stockpiled enough nuclear weapons (about 100) to have initiated a hemisphere-spanning “nuclear winter.” (See this work in progress for why I’m focusing on 100 nuclear weapons as a threshold.) A nuclear winter occurs when soot from burning cities significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface for a period of months or years, thereby causing temperatures to plummet and famines to ensue. Quite unsettlingly, it wasn’t until the 1980s — decades after we had enough nukes to blot out the sun — that the nuclear winter phenomenon was first identified, although lingering questions remain even today.

Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and might be more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

The U.S. monopoly on world-ending power didn’t last long: by 1953, the Soviet Union had likewise expanded to 100 weapons. Now there were two nations on Earth that could obliterate civilization. But again, this didn’t last very long. The United Kingdom joined the club of potential world-enders around 1962, China around 1971, and France around 1973, with Israel, Pakistan, and India becoming members of this club in the 2010s. Hence, in less than a century, the world went from containing zero actors capable of unilaterally destroying the world to eight.

This is a scary situation. Unfortunately, it’s getting worse — much worse. The reason is that states are no longer the only players in the game. Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and they might be a lot more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. Consider the following answers, taken from different online sources, to the question of whether one would destroy the world if one could (quoting typos and all):

“Yes. It is obvious that we gain nothing from living and there is a huge amount of human suffering that I find quite unjustifiable. The complete annihilation of the human race would be the greatest act of compassion ever.” Reddit.com

“Yes, we suck as a human race.” Reddit.com

“Yes. Because you all are assholes. And this is not a joke I would love to push something that ends humanity. I always thought about it and now there is the question about that topic and I am happy to say I want you all dead everyone single one of you fuckers. Please give me the chance to wipe out humanity.” Reddit.com

“My view is that Mankind is a plague… I vote to destroy mankind and let nature start over.” Debate.org

“The human animal is the only evil animal in the animal kingdom. We destroy everything… I email the president weekly and beg him to push the button and stop the madness already.” Debate.org

“In the short time we’ve been on this planet, humans have already destroyed so much. We destroy ecosystems, and kill off entire species of animals… The world would be better off without humans as a whole.” Debate.org

Of course, saying something definitely isn’t the same as doing it. Even so, can we be fully certain that not a single person in the world would attempt to follow through on his or her annihilatory fantasies? One way to approach this question is to look for historical examples of groups or people who both expressed a desire to kill everyone and committed some terrible act or acts of violence. The combination of these two phenomena implies that such people would be willing to act on their omnicidal (meaning killing everyone) impulses and willingly, perhaps even eagerly, push a doomsday button. So are there such examples?

Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. And they seem to fall into a handful of basic categories.

Eric Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

Consider the disturbing case of Eric Harris, the psychopathic mastermind behind the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. His journal is full of all sorts of genuinely horrifying, ghoulish fantasies. On several occasions, he explicitly mentions his burning desire to extinguish humanity. At one point. he writes: “If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Kill them all. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive.”

Elsewhere, Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

When Harris and Dylan Klebold, his partner in crime, perpetrated their massacre in Columbine, they were equipped with garden-variety weapons. Dangerous to be sure, but hardly capable of “burning the world.” Can there be any doubt, though, that if Harris — who was relatively intelligent and liked math and science — had had access to some of the advanced technologies of tomorrow, he would have, when committing suicide, tried to go out with a much bigger bang?

The Columbine massacre had a huge influence on later rampage shooters, some of whom also dreamt of omnicide. For example, in 2007, an 18-year-old Finnish student named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot several people at his school, which he also tried to burn down. Like Harris, he wrote about “a final solution” as “the death of the entire human race,” and described his massacre as “an operation against humanity with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.” Yet another rampage shooter from Finland, Matti Saari, wrote in his suicide note, “I hate the human race, I hate mankind, I hate the whole world, and I want to kill as many people as possible.”

Then, of course, there was Elliot Rodger, the incel psychopath who killed seven people and injured 14 in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. In a video shot one day before the rampage, he said in no uncertain terms: “I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. And rightfully so. You deserve to be annihilated. And I’ll give that to you.”

School shooters and other lone wolves have idiosyncratic motives, such as a misanthropic hatred of humanity, or a desire to retaliate against women for perceived romantic and sexual slights. Together, though, they comprise a relatively cohesive category of omnicidal actors, and a relatively unpredictable one at that.

Another type of omnicidal actor comes in the form of apocalyptic terrorists who believe that to save the world, it must first be destroyed. ISIS, arguably the largest and richest terrorist group in history, is a paradigm case. While some members of ISIS probably didn’t hold apocalyptic beliefs, the leadership most certainly did — and they made strategic decisions based on these beliefs. The man who essentially founded ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed that Islam’s version of Armageddon was about to unfold around the small Syrian town of Dabiq. Hence, the name of the group’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq. After the U.S. military killed al-Zarqawi in 2006, leadership of ISIS transferred to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a fevered apocalypticist who insisted that the Islamic end-of-days messianic figure, the “Mahdi,” was about to appear in Iraq. Like al-Zarqawi, he based his strategy on his apocalyptic belief — and it backfired. He soon met his end at the hands of Western forces.

Both of these individuals really believed that the end was nigh, and that it was their duty to use violence — catastrophic violence, to be more specific — to bring about the apocalypse. ISIS members talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, releasing deadly pathogens, and building dirty bombs. I personally haven’t spoken to a single terrorism scholar who doesn’t think that ISIS would have gleefully pushed a “destroy-the-world” button, especially if Western forces were marching toward Dabiq.

But ISIS is far from the only apocalyptic group. Famously, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to trigger Armageddon by releasing sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995. Here in the U.S., more than a dozen hate groups subscribe to Christian Identity, an apocalyptic worldview that endorses the use of catastrophic violence as a means of triggering a “race war” that will initiate the end of the world. And one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, the Taiping Rebellion, involved an apocalyptic movement called the “Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.” This was led by a man named Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, “commissioned by the Lord of Heaven to slay the devil-demons (Manchus) whose rule had brought ruin to China.”

A final type of omnicidal actor lingers within the outermost fringe of radical environmentalist, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite ideologies. Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, provides an example par excellence. Beginning in 1978, Kaczynski perpetrated numerous domestic terrorist attacks, killing three people and injuring 23 others. A former UC Berkeley mathematics professor and Harvard alumnus, Kaczynski didn’t wish for humanity to go extinct. Rather, he wanted to trigger a global revolution against industrial society, with the ultimate goal of causing its collapse. Kaczynski ultimately didn’t care whether his revolution would cause people to die, since in his utilitarian calculus the ends would justify the means. As Kaczynski wrote in 1995: “This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.”

In contrast, other actors in this category have explicitly embraced pro-extinction convictions. For example, the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, holds as their mission “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

How might they accomplish their omnicidal aims? GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

This parallels an anonymous article in the Earth First! Journal, published in 1989, meaning that this idea has been around for a while: “Contributions are urgently solicited for scientific research on a species specific virus that will eliminate Homo shiticus from the planet. Only an absolutely species specific virus should be set loose. Otherwise it will be just another technological fix. Remember, Equal Rights for All Other Species.”

While the most radical fringe of the environmentalist movement has avoided the limelight in recent years, some experts, such as the terrorism scholar Frances Flannery, expect a resurgence as climate and biodiversity crises worsen. This poses an obvious danger in a world replete with bullets and bombs; but it poses an existential threat in a world of cheap and easy gene editing. Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

Are there any solutions to the problems posed by virus-toting omnicidal maniacs? One hard-to-avoid — and completely terrifying — answer is mass surveillance. This could take the form of what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called a “panopticon,” whereby the state (perhaps run by computer programs designed specifically to govern — a form of government called “algocracy”) monitors every action of its citizens. The obvious danger is that this could collapse into tyrannical totalitarianism, which itself constitutes an existential risk.

Another possibility involves what the science fiction writer, David Brin, dubs the “transparent society.” This would make surveillance egalitarian, so to speak: everyone would be able to see what everyone else is doing all the time, thereby enabling those watched to watch the watchers. Brin doesn’t argue that this is an ideal situation, only that it’s a better situation than one in which the state has all the power. Perhaps a total loss of privacy is the cost of existential security.

Alternatively, I have previously claimed that, in order to reduce the risks posed by malicious agents like those mentioned above, society should prioritize mitigating climate change and ecological destruction. Both phenomena are threat multipliers and threat intensifiers, which means that they’ll introduce new problems while making old problems even worse. Better environmental policies would lower the threat posed by ecoterrorists, whose fundamental complaint — “Humans are stupidly destroying the biosphere” — is scientifically accurate. Such policies would also decrease the number and severity of natural disasters, which could fertilize apocalyptic fervor among religious extremists. As the terrorism scholar Mark Juergensmeyer has remarked, “radical times will breed radical religion,” a hypothesis apparently supported by the rise of ISIS during the Syrian civil war.

Moving forward, people who care about human survival need to think hard not just about the various technologies that will become available, but about the types of actors who might try to use these technologies for catastrophic ill. The future of the human race could quite literally depend on it.

OneZero

 

Liberals Scream Everything Is ‘Racist’. Maybe It’s Liberals That Are Racist

September 23, 2019

This occasional blog, like the rest of the Greenetth Digital Publishing organisation, considers its stance to be ‘classical liberal’, that is really liberal in its support of fairness, free speech and personal liberty and above all diversity of opinion and ideas and oppose such political sacred cows of the politically correct left as mass immigration and affirmative action. Strange then, perhaps, that we are often called fascists, far right extremists, and racists by the authoritarian, illiberal, hypocritical far left extremists who are more concerned with virtue signalling than with true equality, diversity and personal liberty.

A recent question on Quora, a Q & A site that has unfortunately turned into a liberal echo chamber asked, ”

This answer stuck me as something that needed saying. It is republished here because we believe the site moderators at Quora will not let it stand for long, their usual approach to moderation being to respond unthinkingly to complaints about posts that do not conform to the politically correct narrative. So with full acknowledgement to Mr. Brown and Ms. McQuillan and a raised finger to Quora here is a very revealing description of why uncontrolled mass immigration is to compatible with the values of European and American civilisation.
Published under Fair Use terms in the public interest.
Charlie Brown
Charlie Brown, former Airline Pilot (1968-2000)

RELATED POSTS:
Africa’s problems
Afrophilia
Liberal bigots
Liberal hate driver
Racism truth
Politically correct
“I’m, Nationalist Not Racist,” Voter Says As Sweden Faces A Historic Election Upset
Racism truth
‘Lord’ Sugar Sugar called ‘racist’ for Senegal World Cup team tweet (but it was funny)
Fascist Left Latest: Diversity Of Thought Is Racist!

 

 

The road to ruin

July 13, 2019

This is, I believe, an important piece and should be read by all who value liberty and free speech. The argument relates to the organised attack by Social Justice Warriors on any content posted online that does not conform to their world view and to the cowardice and political bias of platform providers who tamely cave in to the bullying of that noisy minority and remove content expressing truly diverse points of view.

The Road To Ruin was orininally posted by Aragmar on Minds.com on 29 May, 2019

The Road To Ruin

Many of you might not agree with what I am about to say, but I have to say it once and for all. There are some people who calmly stand by and continue buying Politically Correct(TM) content created by hardcore SJW ideologues while accidentally mentioning “Why/How is this happening to my favorite IP?” There is the vain hope deep inside, that some of those polished turds that you buy might still “be as good as it once was”, while new, original content creators, who go out of their way to actually stand up against this degeneracy are barely scraping by. Do you see anything wrong in this picture?

No, it isn’t the SJW’s who are ruining your hobbies and favorite game/movie franchises, or at least not entirely their fault – it is you, who continuously spend your hard earned cash and feed those intellectual parasites. There are plenty of people who complain about our horrendous current state of affairs concerning the entertainment industry. Films, books, comics, and games are constantly under attack, by an unrelenting mob of angry and underachieving people, who hate themselves, others and want to destroy everything that is even remotely fun, making all of us equally miserable.

Let us examine this “hypothetical” situation:

– A person surfs the web, notices new author/s who had created something original, be it a game, book or a comic and it is plain as daylight that this new creation goes against the PC religion. The person then admires that new creation, maybe even comments on how brave the author/s were to stand up against the status quo… and then casually walks by. A week, or month passes and the new polished turd comes out of the bowels of Hollywood/EA etc. The person starts protesting as loudly as they possibly can, but the damage is done and none of the SJW cultists care about them complaining about it. They did their job – another day, another franchise “corrected”. Onwards they go bravely in search of more words to be triggered by, offended, claim higher victim status all the while snorting pixie dust and chasing unicorns.

The person suddenly remembers, oh wait, there was something very similar and maybe even better than this shit I spend my money on. They scour the net for days, yet to no avail – that new and original content that they had passed by is nowhere to be found. Weeks later they luckily found a copy and hungrily devour it, instantly realizing that despite its somewhat lackluster wrapping, it is a good product. Best of all – there is not a shred of the dreaded PC religion in it! Quickly they feverishly continue searching, asking friends and others for the next chapter/book or part of the game, only to find out there won’t be one. Never… The author/s were either pushed out of the platform, silenced, censored or bullied out of existence, yet had they received some support, any support, things might have been different. The person laments for a while the tragic loss, of what could’ve been perhaps an alternative to their long-lost, destroyed by the SJW cultists favorite IP. Probably vows to change their ways and support the next new original content that they stumble upon, realizing that those author/s who are willing to fight the uphill battle against the establishment are few. Fewer even are the individuals, who actually manage to pull their scarce resources, and against all odds actually, put a product out.

And now let me ask you a question – do you know such a person? If yes, please, for the love of all that is geeky, nerdy and FUN, do not be like that person!

The more of us who vote with their wallets, the more will that massive, angry mob of fun-hating SJW cultists will lose their backing. Next time when you stumble upon something new and exciting book, game or comic – Share it! Share, with as many people you can, and if not buy one for yourself giving the creator/s the life-sustaining support that they desperately need, others might. Remember, the cancer of Political Correctness(TM) and its ideologues the SJW cultists are only strong because of OUR inaction, or actions.

And if you, continue backing products/creators who are known to be heavily influenced or outright sullied by their incessant push for mass indoctrination – don’t cream afterwards “They are destroying my beloved franchise!”

RELATED POSTS:
The inevitable outcome of politically correct thinking in politics

Thousands March to Save the Internet from EU Censorship Regulations

Leaked Documents Reveal Facebook’s Biased, Convoluted Censorship Policies

Is Google Becoming Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth?

Project Veritas Releases Email Leaked By Google Mole Approving Censorship Of Conservative Writers

Facebook Steps Up Censorship, Bans Populist News Sites

Digital Gangsters

The Jackboots Are Coming: Police State Democracy and the Politics of Fear

June 20, 2019

We have seen it in Britain, in the way the elected members of our parliament have tried to block our leaving the EU and overturn the democratically expressed will of the people who voted to disassociate the country from the undemoctatic and increasingly authoritatian European Union, in the way voices of campaigners against the appeasement of Islamic extremists by national and local government, such as Tommy Robinson, have been suppressed, in the way laws are applied differently to certain ethinic and religious groups than it is to the European and Christian / Jewish / Hindu / Secular groups, we have seen it in the EU, in the way the Brussels bureaucracy tried to prevent the democratically elected coalition of League and Five Star forming a government and the way anti – EU governments elected in Greece and Portugal have been disrupted by EU actions, the the way the results of referenda in France and Netherlands on the European Constitution and in Ireland,  on the Lisbon Treaty have been overturned.

We have had plenty of warnings, now people are writing content like the article below will enough people wake up to what is going on in our world?

The Jackboots Are Coming: Mass Arrests, Power Grabs and The Politics Of Fear
By John W Whitehead – The Rutherford Institute

Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-loving people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

It works the same way every time.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have been convenient ruses used to terrorized the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: on June 17, the same day President Trump announced that the government would be making mass arrests in order to round up and forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants—including families and children—from the country, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Gamble v. United States that placed the sovereignty (i.e., the supreme power or authority) of federal and state governments over that of the citizenry, specifically as it relates to the government’s ability to disregard the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

At first glance, the two incidents—one relating to illegal immigration and the other to the government’s prosecutorial powers—don’t have much to do with each other, and yet there is a common thread that binds them together.

That common thread speaks to the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”

Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore.

Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.

So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”

So you see, the two incidents on June 17 were not hugely significant in and of themselves.

Trump’s plan to carry out mass arrests of anyone the government suspects might be an illegal immigrant, and the Supreme Court’s recognition that the government can sidestep the Constitution for the sake of expediency are merely more of the same abuses that have been heaped upon us in recent years.

Yet these incidents speak volumes about how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of our government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?

They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.

We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what she has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps weren’t kept secret from the German people. They were well-publicized. As The Guardian reports:

The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust… They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand. They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters… The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of “desensitisation” which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews….

Likewise, the mass of ordinary Americans are fully aware of the Trump Administration’s efforts to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

These mass arrests of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant may well be the shot across the bow.

You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to lock large swaths of the population up in detention centers unless or until they can prove that they are not only legally in the country to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to similar treatment unless or until they can prove that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not guilty of having committed some crime or other.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect, and anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, once the government has been given the power to do whatever it wants—the Constitution be damned—it will not matter whether you’re an illegal immigrant or a citizen by birth, a law-breaker or someone who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates. Government jails will detain you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And government agents will treat you like a suspect, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

Eventually, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

As commentator Shaun Kenney observed:

What civil liberties are you willing to surrender in the apprehension of 12 million people? Knock and drags? Detention centers? Checkpoints? House-to-house searches? Papers, please? Will we be racially profiling folks to look for or are we talking about people of Chinese… Indian… Irish… Polish… Italian… people-who-might-look-like-you descent as well? If the federal government makes a 1% rounding error and accidentally deports an American citizen, that’s 120,000 Americans… what means will be used to restore their rights? Who will remunerate them for their financial loss? Restore their lost homes? Personal property? Families? … What happens when these means are turned against some other group of undesirables in America by a president who does not share your political persuasion, but can now justify the act based on previous justifications?

We are all at risk.

The law of reciprocity applies here. The flip side of that Golden Rule, which calls for us to treat others as we would have them treat us, is that we shouldn’t inflict on others what we wouldn’t want to suffer ourselves.

In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to be forcibly separated from you, caged and lost—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how compelling a case the government makes for it or how fervently you believe in the cause.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

Indeed, when the government is allowed to operate as a law unto itself, the rule of law itself becomes illegitimate. As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

In other words, there comes a time when law and order are in direct opposition to justice.

Isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about?

Finally, if anyone suggests that the government’s mass immigration roundups and arrests are just the government doing its job to fight illegal immigration, don’t buy it.

This is not about illegal immigration. It’s about power and control.

It’s about testing the waters to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.

It’s about the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government misconduct and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.

It’s about how much tyranny “we the people” will tolerate before we find our conscience and our voice.

It’s about how far we will allow the government to go in its efforts to distract and divide us and turn us into a fearful, easily controlled populace.

Ultimately, it’s about whether we believe—as the Founders did—that our freedoms are inherently ours and that the government is only as powerful as we allow it to be. Freedom does not flow from the government. It was not given to us, to be taken away at the will of the State. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

We must get back to this way of thinking if we are to ever stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s time to draw that line in the sand.

The treatment being meted out to anyone that looks like an illegal immigrant is only the beginning. Eventually we will all be in the government’s crosshairs for one reason or another.

This is the start of the slippery slope.

Martin Niemöller understood this. A Lutheran minister who was imprisoned and executed for opposing Hitler’s regime, Niemoller warned:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

RELATED POSTS:

Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral

Donald Trump is portrayed as a clown by mainstream media and his combover is the silliest I have ever seen. Still, he’s a billionaie so I don’t suppose he gives a flying fuck what The Daily Stirrer thinks of him. Not that we think he is all bad, anyone who attacks Obama’s global naziism trade deals, TTIP and TPP mush have some good points.

Prepare For The Worst Case Scenario
An article on the cashless society our political and corporate overlords are pushing for proposes that as far as privacy and individual liberty are concerned, what is being planned right now in the political capitals and financial centres of the world is the worst case scenarion. An all digital financial system would mean the end of privacy, nothing you bought or traded would be your own business any more …

How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics’ Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.

US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government.
By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government’s policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works

The American Political System Is “Not A Democracy Or Constitutional Republic” – Thiel
The state of democracy in the USA has become a hot topic of conversation in American business circles in recent years. While President Barack Hussein Obama, not so much a man as an ego on long skinny legs, has increasingly been inclined to rule by executive order in the manner of a despot or tyrant, even Obama’s fiercest critics have to admit the American electoral system seems increasingly capable of delivering only political paralysis …

The New World order Pope Wants You To Pray For One World Religion
The Marxist, globalist, Soros apparatchik currently posing as head of the Catholic faith wants to scrap the Catholic Church. He didn’t say that in so many words but he has called on Catholics to pray for the creation of a world religion (because love and peace) which would embrace

Who Runs America, The White House Or The Shadow Government?
Reports of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit over the weekend do not look right in the context of yet another blitz of provocative rhetoric from The Pentagon and the Department of Defence towards Moscow. In view of the USA’s constant push towards all out war with Russia, one has to ask who is in control: Obama or the generals?

The New World Order
New World Order omnibus
The Daily Stirrer

Theresa May’s great Brexit mistake

May 31, 2019

British Prime Minister Theresa May has set her resignation date, a long-overdue result of her failure to deliver on Brexit. She leaves quite a mess for whoever fills the spot of Conservative Party leader in her wake. The party is facing potential political obliteration if it cannot patch itself back together and offer a united vision — including a realistic and executable plan for the U.K.’s divorce from the European Union.

May’s difficulties with Brexit were, mind you, just one of her shortfalls; general incompetence seemed to follow her like a cartoon black cloud, and she harbored a lack of fealty to free-market principles which left her with not much to offer Britons aside from not being Jeremy Corbyn, which could only take her party so far. But there is no question that it was her fumbling of Brexit which did her in.

Her main problem concerning Brexit came down to more than simply her choice of approach or stylistic ubiquities. It was more philosophical than that: In her heart, she didn’t really believe in it, putting her in closer communion with the Continental establishment from whom she was allegedly trying to negotiate a severance than with the majority of her own party, and indeed her own people.

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

Among the political Left (this is particularly true in Europe and gaining traction in the U.S.), the desire for leveling extends beyond local economic and social conditions to include the world stage. The utopian pursuit of homogeneity is difficult to reconcile with the concept of national sovereignty, explaining the disdain for patriotism as an antiquated relic of a brutal past. Borders are just so, well, bourgeois.

Modern technology has, of course, helped accelerate the erosion of those borders. The internet, air travel, satellite communications, and even the automobile have breached most of the obstacles to trade and travel, smoothing out the sharp edges of distinction between peoples.

But those distinctions have not been erased altogether, and the modernist dilution of the concept of the nation has not eliminated the basic conditions which created it. Nations are more than simply arrangements hammered out by, say, the Congress of Vienna, but are natural outgrowths of peoples tied by common geographic, linguistic, cultural, historic, political, and other bonds.

Conservatism of the kind May was supposed to be representing recognizes this basic reality, that patriotism and national identity are indispensable to the maintenance of a social order. Roger Scruton, Britain’s greatest living political philosopher, writes that “it is allegiance which defines the condition of a society, and which constitutes society as something greater than the ‘aggregate of individuals’ that the liberal mind perceives,” and elsewhere that “territorial loyalty … is at the root of all forms of government where law and liberty reign supreme.”

This is something that seems to still be widely understood, almost subconsciously, inherently, and in a visceral sense. Brits voted for Brexit precisely because they are Brits, as distinguished from French, or Germans, or what have you, united by those same ties of land, language, history, culture, and so much more. The ideal of self-government — a concept which, after all, has its genesis on the British Isles — is incompatible with submission to foreign entities, even ones as relatively benign (if economically and bureaucratically constricting) as the EU.

The rise and increasing success of nationalist parties throughout Continental Europe, witnessed again in last weekend’s EU elections, can be partly explained as a perverse reaction to this forced dissolution of borders and national identity. If patriotism is officially discarded and derided as anachronistic, it should not be unexpected that an ideologized overcorrection could take its place. Disregarding human nature and history bears consequences.

May suffered the consequences of discarding the principles her own party has defended for decades, and if it’s not careful, that party may suffer them with her. It appears likely that Boris Johnson or someone of similar mind will inherit the wreckage. They will face the predictable and ubiquitous challenge: how to maximize the benefits of free trade without giving up too large a degree of political sovereignty. If the next U.K. leader pursues a more direct and realistic exit from the EU, America should be available to help: partly because it is the right thing to do for our greatest ally and partly because further denials of reality could result in decidedly worse consequences.

Kelly Sloan (@KVSloan25) is a Denver-based public affairs consultant, columnist, and the energy and environmental policy fellow at the Centennial Institute.