Posts Tagged Socialism

CONNECTING THE DOTS: ISLAMISM…SOCIALISM… GLOBALISM

The globalist elite play chess while the Islamists and Leftists/Socialists play checkers


The word ‘globalism’ is often used in its narrowest context to mean global trade, which obscures its broader political intention to internationalize nation states and ultimately impose one-world government.

Similarly the word ‘Islamism’ is often used in its narrowest context to mean a religion like any other which obscures its broader political intention to reestablish the caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Supremacist, expansionist socio-political movements intent on world dominion

Both are supremacist, expansionist socio-political movements intent on world dominion.

Islamists like Globalists believe themselves and their supremacist tenets to be morally superior to all others. The Islamist cloaks his supremacy in religious fervor and the disingenuous conviction that Islam is a “peaceful” religion because peace to an Islamist means when all the world is Muslim.

The Globalist cloaks his supremacy in a parallel and equally disingenuous conviction that Globalism is “tolerant” because tolerance to a globalist means tolerating those who LOOK different, not those who THINK differently.

Both systems are tyrannical in their demand for absolute conformity to their proscribed rules of behavior – for Islamists it is religious sharia law and for globalists it is secular political correctness.

The Islamist and the Globalist are both soldiers in their parallel wars seeking totalitarian rule of the world. The difference between Islamists and Globalists is the difference between communism and socialism described by Ayn Rand:

“THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM, EXCEPT IN THE MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE SAME ULTIMATE END: COMMUNISM PROPOSES TO ENSLAVE MEN BY FORCE, SOCIALISM — BY VOTE. IT IS MERELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND SUICIDE.”

Islamism and Globalism appear to exist on opposite sides of the political spectrum but they share a common enemy – the nation state

Islamism and Globalism appear to exist on opposite sides of the political spectrum but they share a common enemy – the nation state. Nationalism is the single greatest obstacle to the religious caliphate of Islamism and to the secular one-world government of Globalism. The ancient proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” explains the counter-intuitive common cause and intersectional alliance between Islamists and Globalists today.

Disinformation is a deliberate tactic of war. The Islamist fiction that the annihilation of Israel will bring peace to the middle east is a unifying tactic of war designed to demonize Israel, manipulate public opinion, and garner intersectional support from left-wing liberal lemmings against Israel. Islamist disinformation has a name – TAQIYYA – lying in the service of Islam. It is a deceitful strategy that deflects attention from the Islamist end game of eliminating the left-wing liberal infidels who support them. Similarly, the disinformation campaign supporting the fiction that Socialism will bring justice to the United States also has a name – ALINSKIYYA –lying in the service of Socialism. The hippies and anarchists of the 60s did not go quietly into the night. They have reconstituted themselves as the professors, administrators, politicians, activist judges, and policy-makers adhering to well-defined Tavistock Institute principles of social engineering and mass indoctrination designed to disinform, destabilize, and destroy America from within. Whoever controls the information controls society – and whoever controls the educational curriculum controls the future.

Islamists and Globalists follow the same expansionist playbook codified by Saul Alinsky in his book Rules for Radicals, Rule #12:

“PICK THE TARGET, FREEZE IT, PERSONALIZE IT, POLARIZE IT. DON’T TRY TO ATTACK ABSTRACT CORPORATIONS OR BUREAUCRACIES. IDENTIFY A RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL. IGNORE ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT OR SPREAD THE BLAME.”

Israel and America have been demonized, targeted, personalized, and polarized because both are unapologetic and unwavering in their commitments to their national sovereignty

Israel and America have been demonized, targeted, personalized, and polarized because both are unapologetic and unwavering in their commitments to their national sovereignty. The war against Israel and America is a war against nationalism. Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state is actually being debated as is America’s right to exist as a sovereign democratic nation. The left-wing liberal narrative courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama has reformatted American education and American entertainment to reflect the dreams from his father – a Kenyan radical socialist who considered America an evil colonial power. The information war waged by the colluding mainstream media, academia, and the entertainment industry foments American self-loathing, demonizes President Donald Trump the symbol of America-first nationalism, and glorifies socialism, anti-semitism, and presents internationalism as the panacea that will bring social justice to the masses. Socialism has never worked in the long-run in any country in the world because as Margaret Thatcher pointed out “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Socialism has only had limited success in the short-run in very small homogenous populations because socialism and pluralism are antithetical to each other. Socialism’s greatest success is in destroying a nation’s prosperity and in sacrificing individual citizen’s rights to government control. Ayn Rand explains that socialism even robs an individual of his right to exist:

SOCIALISM IS THE DOCTRINE THAT MAN HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST FOR HIS OWN SAKE, THAT HIS LIFE AND HIS WORK DO NOT BELONG TO HIM, BUT BELONG TO SOCIETY, THAT THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION OF HIS EXISTENCE IS HIS SERVICE TO SOCIETY, AND THAT SOCIETY MAY DISPOSE OF HIM IN ANY WAY IT PLEASES FOR THE SAKE OF WHATEVER IT DEEMS TO BE ITS OWN TRIBAL, COLLECTIVE GOOD.

The essential question is WHY the Left is promoting communist values. The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and transform it into a dependent socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy the traditional American institutions of family, religion,, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – all the qualities that made America great. The entire narrative of the Left is designed to induce regression through educational indoctrination and the media – as Hillary Clinton famously remarked they need “an unaware compliant public.” Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. The sales pitch might sound good to a childish mind who is seduced by candy from a stranger but the adult mind understands the sinister end-game. Once the public is entirely dependent on the government they lose all individual rights and national sovereignty and the newly socialized state is poised to become part of an internationalized one-world government. That is the end-game of the globalist elite and the motivation for indoctrinating America toward socialism.

The problem is that the left-wing liberal lemmings are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction – they are just the useful idiots. The Left has been indoctrinated to believe they are fighting for “social justice” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and absolutely no individual freedoms. There is only the master ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them. The left-wing liberal lemmings should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of their own one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves. The globalist elite’s New World Order was their personal self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth.

Tavistock Institute was exported to America after WWII with the specific purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media – particularly television – the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order – they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed. The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters anymore than Hitler had with exterminating Jews, Islamists with exterminating infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist – there is no egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy America from within – but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist one-world government. For the globalist elite the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots. The globalist elite play chess while the Islamists and Leftists/Socialists play checkers.

Tags: , , ,

The Failed Communist Experiment With ‘Free Love’

 

Thinking of “free love” may invoke Woodstock imagery rather than early 20th century Soviet Russia, but it was the early communist regime that undertook perhaps the most ambitious attempt at unleashing human sexuality—with predictable results.

As soon as Communists took power in 1917 in Russia, they began systematically to enact policies following the doctrines of Karl Marx. Their dream of materialistic utopia could be attained “only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto.

That not only included confiscating “means of production,” like factories and land, but also disintegrating the institution of the family. Communists saw commitment to family as an obstacle to people’s devotion to the pursuit of their utopia. Instead, people were to live in “free unions,” mating at will.

Masses of Russians, especially urbanites, were sold on the party line that moral restraint on sexual desire, rooted in family ethics, had no benefits and was instead harmful.

The Communists convinced women they were “slaves” in their own homes, cooking for their own families, and raising their own children. Women would have been much more “free,” they said, working in state-owned factories.

What about the children left behind? They were to be taken away from mothers as early as possible—herded into preschools, daycare centers, and later schools—to be raised by the state as the next generation of “liberated” cogs in the socialist machine.

Based on Russian law and tradition, wives were materially dependent on their husbands, while husbands had an obligation to care and provide for their wives and the whole family. At the time, Russia enjoyed a certain degree of religious freedom, and individual religions were left to govern the rules of marriage. Divorce was limited to resolving situations like infidelity, abandonment, or impotence.

Communists scrapped and denounced the laws and traditions wholesale, just as Marx dictated, and put in place the 1918 Family Code. The law was “nothing less than the most progressive family legislation the world had ever seen,” wrote Wendy Goldman, history professor at Carnegie Mellon University and expert on Russian history, in her book “Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936.”

Religious weddings were no longer considered valid. Instead, registry offices were set up, where people could come and simply register as married. Just as easily, at a request of either partner, they could request a divorce.

“The process of divorce is so simple that there is a loss of neither money nor time. Under the current law, the act of dissolving a marriage can be completed in fifteen minutes,” wrote P. Zagarin, a writer on the family, in 1927.

The idea was to “liberate” women from marriage and thus the family. And the idea caught on.

“Although Soviet citizens were slow to abandon church marriage completely, they availed themselves of the new divorce laws with striking alacrity,” Goldman wrote. “The crush of couples pushing through the doors of [registry offices] in search of divorce easily overwhelmed the first blissful pairs of newlyweds straggling out.”

By the end of 1918, almost 7,000 couples divorced in Moscow alone, while fewer than 6,000 married. In 1926, Moscow saw 6.1 divorces per 1,000 people—almost twice as many as New York City in 2014.

Countrywide, one Soviet couple divorced for every seven marriages in 1926. Three times the rate of Germany, more than 3.5 times that of France, and 26 times that of England and Wales. The only other country, at the time, with a comparable divorce rate was the United States.

Encouraged by the Communists’ teachings of unfettered sexuality, people increasingly stopped bothering with registering marriages altogether.

“The broad mass of people do not regard registration of marriage as the basis of marital relations. De facto voluntary unions are becoming ever more widespread,” wrote A. Stel’makhovich, chairman of the Moscow provincial court, in 1926.

Consequences

Instead of liberating women, the regime gave men the perfect excuse to abandon their families. Many men suddenly found they had “nothing in common” with their wives, while, shortly after a divorce, discovering striking commonalities with younger, unburdened women.

If extracting alimony seems hard in the 21st century, it was more so in 1920s Russia. Courts became overburdened with child support cases and men found many ways to avoid payments, like changing jobs and moving.

Making things worse, after a decade of war, civil war, and Red Terror, men were in short supply, making remarrying easier.

The promise that government would take care of children fell devastatingly short. In 1926-27, preschools served about 150,000 children out of a population of 10 million.

At the time, Vera Lebedeva, the head of the Department for the Protection of Maternity and Infancy, said: “The weakness of the marital tie and divorce create masses of single women who carry the burden of child care alone. Imagine yourself such a woman, without support from your husband, with a child on your hands, laid off due to a reduction in staff, and thrown out of the dormitory … with no possibility to continue supporting yourself.”

Women trying to sell their ornaments and clothes in a street market during a Russian famine in October 1921. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Women trying to sell their ornaments and clothes in a street market during a Russian famine in October 1921. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Oftentimes, the women ended up on the streets.

“The contrast between the socialist ideal of free union and the conditions of the time was nowhere so starkly depicted as in the spectacle of women selling themselves on the streets,” Goldman wrote. “It made a mockery of the idea that women were free, independent individuals who could enter a union on the basis of personal choice.”

The concept of free union failed even more miserably in the countryside. Divorce meant dividing the already small farming plots between the exes, who may have remarried and divorced again and again, quickly leaving everybody with land too scattered to depend on for survival. On the other hand, if policies kept the farms whole, women were left with next to nothing after a divorce.

Some could have blamed the failure of “free love” on a lack of contraception, but natality was already low, not to mention massive war and Red Terror casualties. With a demographic disaster looming, Russia actually needed more children, not fewer.

Some could have argued the Soviets just needed more preschools and daycare centers. But even if the state could accommodate all children, it’s unlikely mothers would have found it desirable to give up their offspring completely to the state.

Some could have said women just needed more jobs, but that would have only made their situation less miserable. “Even if a woman worked, divorce signified a substantial drop in her standard of living,” Goldman wrote.

To reverse a society-wide chaos, by the 1940s the Soviet Union had abandoned the “free love” ideology and returned to pro-family policies, outlawing abortion, making divorce more complicated, imposing higher penalties for abandoning a family, and encouraging women to have as many children as possible.

“The idea that the state would assume the functions of the family was abandoned,” Goldman wrote.

Communism is estimated to have killed around 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been compiled and its ideology still persists. Epoch Times seeks to expose the history and beliefs of this movement, which has been a source of tyranny and destruction since it emerged.

See entire article series here.

Tags: , ,