About Me

My photo
The Author Erik’s family emigrated from Britain to the island State of Tasmania then lived in the woods. The family home schooled, helping to pioneer the home education movement in Australia. The Blog …explores ways to create a sustainable and just community. Explores how that community can be best protected at all levels including social policy/economics/ military. The Book Erik’s autobiography is a humorous read about serious things. It concerns living in the bush, wilderness, home education, spirituality, and activism. Finding Home is available from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and all good e-book sellers.

Monday, 19 February 2018

Three Cheers for Poland

Hhhmm, so according to Australia’s state broadcaster the EU is concerned about the rule of law. Someone better explain that to Julian Assagne who spent years asking prosecutors to interview him on a spurious rape charge but claims the right not to be kidnapped and shipped to a concentration camp. Oh, and apparently the EU is a democratic project – it’s just that France has been in a ‘state of emergency’ for how long? and EUcrats are fine with Islamists marching under ISIS flags and calling for the destruction of the Western civilisation but in the UK street corner preachers are arrested and in France opposing gay marriage can land you in jail for five years.  53 million abortions in the US since Roe v Wade and perhaps a seventh of the population of the UK killed in the womb since legalisation but that’s a win for human rights apparently. Oh, and then there was that little ‘regime change’ that handed Libya to the terrorists, and everyone was OK with genocide of Christians and Yazidis in Syria and butchery on Donbass because that’s all a proxy war with Russia….because, like, war with Russia is a good idea (always worked out well in the past - not). Gosh, imagine people in Poland being upset about that! How dare Poland depart from the secular humanist script for humanity… Oh the horror…
 
The EU should only ever have been a Northern European currency and customs union with cooperation around consumer and safety standards. It has become a dysfunctional monster that is facilitating the destruction of traditional Europe. If perverts in Brussels begin dictating the social policies and judicial norms of sovereign nations it is time for those nations to leave. Eastern Europe should form its own union starting with free trade agreements with both Russia and the EU. Anything else is just war by other means. Britain's future lies with the Commonwealth. After all, what has continental Europe ever done for Britain apart from provide killing fields for our young men and a playground for the Rich?


...and what would be so terrible about Poland getting along with Russia for a change? Are Russian's inherently evil? Is it because Vlad killed 'our' terrorists in Syria, didn't hand over Crimea to NATO, and defended the territorial integrity of his nation? Is it because Putin is the authoritarian leader of a country that was a lawless basket case 15 years ago and is relatively stable and prosperous now? Is it because he has an 80 per cent approval rating whereas Western 'leaders' struggle to get approval ratings in the high 30's?

Technically Australia is also at war with Russia. The Unites States told us we had to do sanctions so we did. That is technically an act of war. For a country with three operational submarines and less than 60 operational battle tanks and an air force that is not combat capable we are very brave. In foreign policy terms viz the US Australia is like a prostitute who offers her services free of charge.  Let’s hope the Polish revolution heads South. We need it.

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Indigenous Reconciliation - Barriers and Opportunities



 
Photo credit: Wayne Quilliam, Courtesy of Manningham Gallery

 
So what is ‘reconciliation’ and what does it look like? After decades of talking, advocating, and taking concrete steps towards ‘reconciliation’ between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, the question has to be asked, ‘what is the goal or end point we are striving for?’
 
The unspeakable answer to that questions is that reconciliation has been achieved. We know that because:
  • There are no legal or institutional discriminations against Indigenous people but there are a raft of positive discrimination measures in all States, Territories and the Commonwealth.
  • Indigenous people have privileged standing before the law. They have, collectively, more rights than white people. That includes land rights, cultural rights, resource rights, and a certain status among opinion leaders.
  • Indigenous people have access to the riches of two ancient cultures – their own, and the Judeo Christian Western culture.
  • Australia has a land rights legal regime that would be the envy of any other nation.
  • Australians have apologised in many and varied ways over a number of years both generally for the wrongs done to Indigenous people, and for specific actions such as abducing children (note that white children were also abducted for similar reasons and this nation was founded on white slavery).
  • Uniquely among all the countries on earth, the Australian government has issued a formal and specific apology.
 
These are unique national achievements that should be widely acknowledged and celebrated. While racism will always exist (you may as well try and stop prostitution) Australia as a whole is one of the most accepting places on earth; it’s one of the reasons I live here….and yes, when I arrived here as a child I was called a ‘pommy bastard’ and told to go back to my own country, but I got over it.
 
So why are we still talking about reconciliation and made to feel guilty? Ostensibly it is because Indigenous people as a whole score very low on all the socio-economic indicators and this is assumed to be the fault of ‘white Australia’. Since it is presumed to be the fault of ‘white Australia’ it is assumed to be something the government can fix. This is a shockingly shallow analysis that owes a great deal to white cultural assumptions about the ‘noble savage’ who enjoys some kind of inherent moral superiority having enjoyed an Eden like state of blessedness before 1788. This is of course just latent racism dressed up in PC garb, but it is the reason why we are told to genuflect before one of the world’s most primitive cultures – one that spent 40 thousand years not inventing the wheel, written language, buildings, sail, the paint brush, and whose contribution to music consists of a hollow log. This view has now reached absurd proportions demonstrated by obligatory ‘welcome to country’ statements at government conferences where Aboriginal ownership and custodianship are acknowledged. That would make sense in, for example, Arnhem land. It is laughable in Melbourne. Sorry, but Indigenous people don’t actually own Melbourne. We stole it and we are not going to give it back. Move on.
 
Very little of this comes from Indigenous people themselves. It is a white middle class fantasy projected onto them (which fact is also insipidly racist).  However, as natural opportunists Indigenous people are not above milking our stupidity. I have a colleague who has worked extensively in Aboriginal communities who assured me that there exists a whole class and strata of ‘leaders’ who are not truly community leaders but who get good salaries from various government agencies for perpetuating Indigenous welfare.
 
Which brings us to the real issue: the lousy living conditions of many Aboriginal Australians, which brings us to the next unspeakable truth: if you matched one for one every disadvantaged Aboriginal with a Dutch or Jewish person and put them in exactly the same circumstances, the Dutch or Jews would be fully employed and prosperous within a decade. Disadvantage would be negligible. Why?
 
We are all basically the same. What make some individuals, communities, societies, and cultures successful and others lousy, are cultural values and moral norms. These developed in Indigenous societies to adapt to circumstances completely different to today. Any improvement in the Indigenous situation therefore requires the abandonment of some beliefs and values in order to adapt to the new reality. Concrete examples:
  • Indigenous people insist on living in communities so remote that they will never have jobs, services, health care or opportunity. By living in these communities they choose to condemn their children to a future with no hope. Any other cultural group would pack up and move. Indigenous elders choose to ruin their children’s lives because their belief in ancestor worship prevents them from leaving their ‘country’.
  • Indigenous (some groups) tradition that elders can choose brides, and girls can marry at 14 is ..um… shall was say ‘not helpful?’
  • Collective ownership of resources makes perfect sense in a nomadic tribal society. In a sedentary capitalist society it makes saving and investment impossible, rewards sloth and punishes productivity and enterprise. The practical outworking is that working Indigenous people often cannot save enough to buy property or start businesses because they are being bled by their unproductive ‘relatives’.
  • Tribal obligations trump work obligations. Would you employ someone who turns up to work regularly and on-time or someone who has to disappear from time to time for indeterminate lengths of time to attend a cousin’s funeral ‘up country’ or do ceremony?
 
Those unwilling to acknowledge reality cannot adapt to it. Parks Australia for example employs Indigenous rangers and pays them on the same day as everyone else. That is hugely problematic because having that amount of money on one day obliges the Indigenous rangers to share it with their ‘relatives’ leaving them broke by next pay day and hence unable to buy a house and struggling to make rent. The obvious answer is to pay smaller amounts more often but that would be discriminatory so Parks Australia won’t do it. The Indigenous rangers refuse to tell their useless relies to get lost. Consequently they experience lifetime financial disadvantage. According to the social left this is all the fault of white Australia (who actually gave them the job in the first place).
 
Ditto with welfare cards and grog. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that alcohol is devastating Indigenous communities. This problem can be largely solved through a welfare card system which allows purchases of anything except alcohol, drugs, and gambling. This has demonstrably worked and would save the lives of many children, but it is discriminatory and therefore racist so we have to let the children suffer. Actually, having grown-up in the rougher end of town a similar scheme for white people would be a good thing but the Left will never allow it.
 
It is this kind of insipiently racist non-thinking that is the real problem; and if we really care we need to leave PC politics in the bin where it belongs and have the kind on authentic conversation that Noel Pearson is talking about.
 
So is there hope? I believe there is but only if well-meaning white people get out of the way. It is high time we stopped thinking of Indigenous people as possessing a superior culture and high time we held unhelpful beliefs up to scrutiny. In that context it is highly ironic that the Left are now beating up on Indigenous elders for voting against same sex marriage because it contradicts their traditional cultural values. Apparently they now have to be cultural Marxists as well as noble savages, but we digress….
 
As noted above, Indigenous Australians are uniquely advantaged and many of them are doing just fine. They are uniquely placed to pick and choose those values that will be most helpful to them from two extraordinary cultures. First their own culture which enabled them to adapt and survive in a very challenging environment, to navigate a vast continent without compass, and to remember ancient hunting grounds that have been flooded since the last ice age ended. Secondly, they can adopt values from the Western culture which developed written language and mathematics, explored the whole world, came up with the concept of human rights and democracy, created industrial civilisation, and put man on the moon.
 
Those best positioned to make the cultural translation are probably those who worked with the original translators. Those translators were not pastoralists or archaeologists but missionaries who lived with Indigenous people, taught them to read and write, translated the Bible into their tongue, and taught them the white man’s ways without booze and violence. While the Left find this an embarrassment, it is remembered with gratitude by many elders. It is from this legacy that, I suspect, lasting change will come.

ADDENDUM
Not content with having their own TV channel (NITV which is very good BTW) and more rights than anyone else, some Indigenous people have now sided with the unions to push for a treaty because apparently that will give them more rights. What rights exactly? With whom would this treaty be made? In a democracy we elect national leaders based on proportional electorates. How will Indigenous leaders be chosen to treaty with? Under common law all that is not forbidden is permitted, so rights cannot actually be given by the government they can only be taken away. How then will a Treaty enshrine rights? If we want to protect rights, such as freedom of speech, we need to change the constitution, and that requires a constitutional convention. If you though the postal vote on SSM was expensive try one of those.
If Unions Australia are to be believed, a treaty will in some magical way reduce the child/infant death rate in Indigenous communities. ...um....how exactly?  Its a timely reminder of why I am not a union member. Oh, and apparently working for the dole is racist. OMG. No, its about changing the psychology of entitlement and victimhood and teaching life skills like showing up for work.
Its all emotional psychobabble but it can be used as a cover for extorting money from the community which I assume is the real agenda . See below the email I just received from Unions Australia:

Dear Erik,

Last year, Indigenous people from across Australia met in Uluru, where they developed the “Uluru Statement from the Heart”.

The statement was hugely significant. Our first people came together, and agreed that we need a treaty. This treaty would ensure that their people would be properly recognised in Australia. They declared to trek across our vast country, to demand to be heard.

And they invited us to walk with them.

The Turnbull government ignored these historic calls. In a stunningly disrespectful gesture, the government just rejected calls for proper rights.

Indigenous people die younger of preventable illnesses, are more likely to be locked up, are less likely to finish school, and most recently, the Turnbull government is forcing people into a racist work-for-the-dole program.

Now Australia’s first people are
coming together to plan the next phase of the campaign. They have not given up. They are demanding basic rights.

The next stage of the plan is hold a meeting in Sydney next week, and they need some assistance in getting there, flying and bussing in hundreds of people from across the country for this three day event is hugely important, and quite expensive.
Can you chip in $20 to help people make it to Sydney to take part in this important meeting? If you do, you will be helping indigenous people come together and fight back, you will be demanding that they be heard and given their rights.

It’s important that everyone who needs to be there, can get there, and you can make all the difference.
Chip in $20 to stand in solidarity with our comrades whose ancestors have lived on this land for millennia, to help them fight for their rights. Thanks for your support,
 I rest my case your honor.
 

Monday, 1 January 2018

Bring Back the Sith! - sexual poltics in Star Wars




Watched Star Wars episode 8. Visually stunning - yes. Action packed - yes. And yeah I do like Rey. But there is more here than meets the eye.

 

The first Star Wars (whatever episode that was) was about two young lads who save a princess from a castle (OK Death Star). Then she gets dressed up in a revealing golden bikini to be enslaved to a really big …um slug..um… and has to get rescued again. It’s basically a 'boys own' adventure with some messaging about the Cold War. Communists and feminists were predictably pissed off while everyone else went to the movies and had a good time.

Time moved on and Rogue One had a lot more nuance with strong male and female characters struggling together, between and within themselves to overcome emergent evil. I found it compelling, gritty and real (apart from the obligatory cheesy speeches). Star Wars episode 8 in contrast was basically a feminist tract in which all the male characters were evil or deeply flawed who need rescuing by stronger and wiser women. All the female characters on the other hand were flawless. The Empire is run entirely by men except for one token female warrior in deliberate contrast to the Rebels who are now gender equitable in the ranks but run by women generals. Taken together the episodes neatly chart the progress from patriarchy to equality, then to anti-masculinity and female domination.

 

Having killed off or neutered all the strong male characters the rebel alliance is now run by Democrat voting feminists, a brow beaten X-wing Pilot, a Wookie, and a confused young woman who is seeking to resolve her family issues by having a teenage relationship with a Sith Lord. That actually makes sense because he is the only male character left with his balls intact who isn’t a Wookie. My guess is they will get together around episode 10 after she has rescued him emotionally and psychologically. Once they have, you know…’brought balance to the force’ she will go off to save the Galaxy while he will be a stay at home Dad. By then the Rebel alliance will include cross dressing men and gender fluid non-conforming trans-species weirdos. Watch at own risk. Either that or the Empire will die of vitamin D deficiency and just give up….seriously those guys look like vegans do at the end of a long winter.

For the record I have no problem with stay at home Dads or career women. I do have a problem with portraying men as all deeply flawed and women as perfect. Its sexism and its wrong.

 

Oh, and today I got a circular email from my work boss. In a chronically short staffed organisation which employs 746 women and 619 men they are finding money to employ a “Diversity and Inclusion Business lead”. So much for bringing balance to the force. Where are the Sith when we need them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Christmas Contradictions in Capitalism


If you are struggling with the contradictions in capitalism this Christmas spare a thought for those of us on the left. We hate colonialism but subsidise immigration. We hate Australia day but can’t cope without running water. We believe in human rights except for the unborn. We hate racism and the Russians. We believe that ‘love is love’ but we reserve the right to bully and abuse anyone who dares to contradict us. We care about children, we just don’t think they have a right to a father. We hate Christianity because it is patriarchal and heteronormative, but we celebrate Islam. We believe that marriage is an oppressive patriarchal institution but we think homosexuals should have it. We stand up for minority rights, except for Christians. We think all races are equal but we don’t think white people should have children. We want gender diversity, but not thought diversity. We want gender equality but not for men. We oppose domestic violence and the objectification of women, but we think pornography is liberating. We think homosexuality is fixed but gender is fluid. We don’t believe gender or race is real but we define our politics around it. We believe in free sexual expression but not free verbal expression. We cannot cope with being offended, but we reserve the right to libel, mock and ridicule those who differ from us. We are violent but we are victims.  We hate capitalism but we despise the working class. We oppose discrimination, but believe that everything bad in the world is somehow the fault of a white man somewhere. We think that to make things fair for everyone we have to control everything.  Because we have the truth we have the right to impose it. Our love is conditional on your obedience.  Now shut up and get in line.  

Thursday, 23 November 2017

Cultural Marxism and the Future of the West




 

Introduction


Cultural Marxism represents a concerted and sustained attempted to subvert and destroy Judeo Christianity and the Western civilisation that is in large part a product of Judeo Christianity. Its ultimate objective is cultural genocide and the marginalisation of indigenous European races. These are not my conclusions. Rather they are the stated aims of the founders, intellectual fathers, and key proponents of cultural Marxism.[1]

In quotes:

The revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism. – Mark Horkheimer

The Western world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 yearsany country grounded in Judaeo-Christian values cannot therefore be overthrown until those roots are cut…but to cut the roots, to change the culture – a Long March through the institutions is necessary. Only then will power fall into our laps like ripened fruit! – Antonio Gramsci

…to organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose a dictatorship of the proletariat. – Willi Munzenberg

What Cultural Marxists Believe


Cultural Marxists believe that, congruent with Darwin’s theory of evolution, order arises spontaneously out of chaos. The destruction of the current organism, Western civilisation, is necessary for the future organism to emerge. The all powerful, all good, and all knowing State will arise from the ashes of our civilisation to shepherd humanity to the next stage of human social evolution – one which transcends and leaves behind outdated concepts such as gender, marriage, family, race, nation, faith, individuality, and capitalism. This belief has continued with minor variation from the early 20th century until now. It is represented in quotations in appendices one.

Importantly, cultural Marxism is not an odd historical relic but a very active political movement with many names operating on multiple fronts. At the time of writing the 10th International Critical Theory [aka cultural Marxism] Conference was taking place in Rome[2].

Cultural Marxism is the underlying force behind:

  • parenting philosophies that remove the authority of parents
  • various strands of radical feminism
  • the radical abortion agenda
  • the promotion of pornography
  • transgenderism ideology
  • the campaign to normalise aberrant lifestyles
  • legalisation of drugs
  • gay marriage
  • Islamisation
  • extreme immigration/open border policies
  • creation of politically motivated crimes such as ‘hate speech’ for expressing normal opinions
  • academic censorship
  • government censorship
  • the anti-Russian agenda[3]
  • anti-male sexism
  • anti-white racism
  • the intrusion of the State into every aspect of life

‘Political Correctness’ is the shorthand term for different aspects of cultural Marxism. The purpose of these agendas is not the agendas themselves, but the tearing down of the existing order to make way for the new order. What the new order will look like is not entirely clear, but our best historical reference would be Mao’s cultural revolution in China which sought to destroy traditional Chinese culture and replace it with the infallible State. In that revolution an estimated 40 million people died as a result of State policies. Innumerable others were tortured, imprisoned, or exiled for simply being who they were.

Origins of Cultural Marxism


Cultural Marxism arose because of the evident falsehood of Marx’ prediction that the workers would rise up in a violent rebellion against the capitalist class in Europe and America. It was this cognitive dissonance that led thinkers such as Antonia Gramsci to re-think the Marxist dialectic. Rather than seeing the struggle in economic terms, Gramsci re-framed the struggle in social terms. In this mode of thinking, capitalism could not be overthrown until all the social relations which were considered beneficial towards capitalism, were overthrown. This demanded a complete tearing down of the existing social order; specifically gender relations, sexual norms, faith, trust in authority, and national sentiment.  Gramsci was imprisoned by Mussolini and died in jail. His baton was taken up by philosophers of the ‘Frankfurt school’ at Frankfurt University in Germany in the 1930’s. Key thinkers included Theadore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Mercuse. Their collective efforts are known today as ‘Critical Theory’. As atheist Jews, their continued existence at Frankfurt University became untenable and they moved to the United States. There they laid the groundwork for the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s in fulfilment of Gramisci’s original vision.

The significance of this short history is that the social unravelling that took shape as the post war generation was entering college was not coincidental; rather it was planned.

Strategies of Cultural Marxism


 

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left… it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as word. – Herbert Marcuse – from is essay Repressive Tolerance.

Based on communist writings of the 1920s and 1930s cultural Marxists adopted the following 13 specific strategies to demoralise and tear down the host society:

  1. Mass immigration and one-sided race offences to destroy identity and social cohesion
  2. Attacking love of nation or race as pathological and criminal
  3. Encouraging rebellion against any form of authority (except their own)
  4. Removal of parental authority
  5. Destruction of the family as being mother, father and children
  6. Encouraging promiscuity and aberrant lifestyles
  7. Teaching homosexuality and promiscuity to children
  8. Promoting drug and alcohol addiction
  9. Promoting militant atheism to marginalise faith
  10. Dumbing down state education
  11. Mass censorship
  12. Economic dependency on the State
  13. Dividing society along as many lines as possible – worker against employee, women against men, queer against straight, black against white, etc.[4]

‘Political Correctness’ is a short hand term for these strategies. For an insight into tactical organisation and strategy see Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals 1971. 

Had this agenda been announced publicly to the world at large it would have been rejected in the 1950’s. Marxists therefore adopted an intergenerational strategy of cultural subversion focussed on capturing the minds of the post war generation. They presented their agenda as progressive academic theory. This is known as ‘critical theory’ because it relentlessly ‘criticises’ or deconstructs the existing order. Once the theory became accepted in Western academia it made its way rapidly into the liberal arts curriculum and into state schools. Once established in the minds of thought leaders of the post war generation it could then inform and animate a raft of social change movements.  The ‘Safe Schools (sic) Program’ is the latest manifestation of cultural Marxism in public schools.[5]

Why these Strategies have been Effective


It would be easy to list reams of statistics from male suicide rates, to rates of STDs, to fatherlessness, that bear stark witness to the effectiveness of these strategies. However, this should already be well known since even a cursory examination of Western societies in 1950 compared to 2000 is sufficient.  How could a small number of depressive atheist philosophers from Germany have so effectively damaged our civilisation in one lifetime?

The extant critical literature on cultural Marxism has failed to answer that question, but an answer is needed. Having spent 10 years working with activists on the social left the answer, to this author, is clear. Cultural Marxism succeeded because:

  1. It promises a messianic form of secular salvation
  2. It attracts fanatics
  3. It attaches itself to legitimate grievances

It gained a ‘foot in the door’ because the establishment church and conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s were disinterested in, or actively opposed to, several key social causes – gay rights, women’s rights, and worker’s rights.[6] The establishment failed to denounce militarism, and could not advance a constructive sexual ethic for the post contraceptive generation. This created ‘space’ for cultural subversives to attach themselves to legitimate social grievances and aspirations and radicalise them. Having found this strategy to be effective, cultural subversives then infiltrated other social movements including the church[7], NGOs, and the civic institutions of society. Once subverted, otherwise legitimate social movements were used to engender social conflict. The outcome of each conflict would be a compromise that moved society further to the left. This is known as a ‘Hegelian dialectic’ because it was first described by the German philosopher Hegel. This strategy was adopted with great effectiveness by the gay liberation movement, which used it with remarkable cynicism. An analysis of their campaign is found here.

Thus for example, campaigns for women’s rights became an attack on fatherhood[8]. The personal and social difficulties experienced by a very small number of genuinely transgender individuals became a reason to teach primary school children that there is no such thing as gender.[9] The desire of some homosexual people to have their relationships recognised became a ‘no-holds barred’ assault on religious freedom. Environmental concerns became a reason to advocate de-industrialisation, one world government and the abolition of private property.[10] In this way, legitimate issues and concerns are subverted as tools to divide and weaken society.

In this, cultural Marxists were greatly assisted by the Soviet Union. It is not widely understood today that 85 per cent of the budget of the KGB was spent, not on traditional espionage, but on cultural subversion. While differing in ideology, cultural Marxists and the KGB shared a common goal of bringing Western societies to a state of ‘demoralisation’ or chaos as a precursor to the creation of a Marxist society. Social ‘progressives’ were (and are) animated by a woolly notion of a fairer and better society in which patriarchy and capitalism would be tamed or extinguished. The KGB regarded ‘progressives’ as “useful idiots” who would be shot once a Marxist-Leninist state was established.[11] Either way, by the time the Russian people finally overthrew the Soviet Union and sacked the KGB, the process of demoralisation in the West had begun in earnest. The students of Marcuse and Adorno and their disciples were now in key positions in government, the media, and academia, with deep roots in the social democratic parties of the West.[12] Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were personally mentored by cultural Marxist activists, and implemented much of their 13 point plan when in office.[13]

Thus, when a normal citizen wakes up and finds that their young children are being taught homosexuality in school, their suburbs have been taken over by another race that is culturally incompatible, political parties are hostile or indifferent to their values, and stating evident truths is illegal, they should not be surprised. This is merely the opening stages of the processes of demoralisation which was described by critical theory and weaponised by the KGB.

The Marx / Muslim Connection


2017 saw the spectacle of white American feminists protesting Trump’s alleged misogyny by wearing ‘pussy hats’ while kneeling in the street to an Islamic recitation in solidarity with legal and illegal Muslim migrants.[14] To the uninitiated this defies all logic. However, logic has nothing to do with social Marxism which deconstructs logic anyway. Let me explain. While Marxists and radical Islamists might appear to be natural enemies, they have three important things in common:

  1. A desire to infiltrate and ultimately overthrow the current society, government and constitution[15]
  2. A pathological hatred of Christians and Jews, and of Judeo Christian culture
  3. A doctrine of deception which considers anything moral that advances the cause

For leftists who believe their own propaganda, all people are innately good, thus all Muslims are innately good, therefore terrorism, mass rape or other criminal conduct must be the fault of the host society. For their part, Muslims are simply using the left as ‘useful idiots’ to provide political and legal cover for mass immigration and Islamisation. How leftists are treaded in Muslim countries today is a clear indication of their future should demographic trends reach a tipping point. While leftists seem unable to make the obvious connections, true Marxists believe that radical Islam can be both weaponised and contained.[16]

While most people see the nexus between the left and Muslim migrants as a case of the naive helping the opportunistic, there is a deeper geopolitical aspect. The relationship between Islamist organisations and the US and British secret services date from the 1950’s. The Bush family has had a close relationship with Islamic terrorists since the 1980’s and the Clinton’s have had a close relationship with Islamic terrorists since at least the 1990’s. Islamisation in Europe is a direct and intentional outcome of Hillary Clinton’s policy in Libya and Syria. When the current President tried to moderate this policy, elements within the security establishment began actively working against him using assets within the media.[17] The entire Western security apparatus has failed to stop the Gulen network, which is legal, public, and seeks to create Islamic governments across the world. The network operates and benefits from hundreds of educational institutions and businesses across 110 countries, and is a major donor to the US Democratic Party.[18] It has enormous power within Turkey, which, as a NATO member, is the open door for the Islamic invasion of Europe. It is likely in the near future, that cultural Marxists will ally with Islamists to physically supress or eliminate patriotic elements within Western societies.

Political Islam and Marxism are both totalitarian creeds and both see their future opportunity for power arising from the ashes of a broken and demoralised West. The current marriage of convenience therefore makes sense on the basis that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, the enemy in this instance being normal patriotic citizens with traditional cultural values.

Following is a quote from Mr Gulen. Note the similarity to the previous quotes from Marxists:

You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions…

It follows that pushing back against cultural Marxism ipso facto weakens the hands of the Islamists.

The flip side of mass Islamic immigration is that many migrants have conservative social values and completely reject cultural Marxism. This reached the state of high farce in Australia where the Islamic community allied with the Christian right and voted against homosexual marriage en mass to such an extent that the ‘no’ vote was 75 per cent in Muslim dominated electorates in Western Sydney. Left leaning journalists (of the ABC) were terminally incapable of admitting that ‘their’ migrants had voted against ‘their’ gay rights policy and tried to blame the result on private schooling.

Since the Islamic community is diverse and complex there will be multiple contradictions, and alliances between both the left and the right.

The Fatal Flaw


The deep flaw in social Marxism is that it attacks a foundational human need – the need for identity, and replaces it with alienation. This is unsurprising since Marx himself was a deeply alienated individual. He wrote about alienation and projected his personal dissonance onto capitalism. Indeed, only a deeply alienated individual could seek to destroy the society that birthed and nurtured them. Social Marxism at best offers a temporary and conditional social belonging that is predicated entirely on group hostility toward ‘the other’. Cultural Marxism both creates and feeds off alienation. The cycle of hatred and alienation is unending, dividing society into ever smaller hostile groups. So for example, when fatherhood is marginalised a generation is alienated. An alienated generation is more easily recruited to the cause. A generation lacking connection is also more easily provoked to political violence. Thus, while cultural Marxism offers liberation, it delivers only conflict and misery. It will ultimately fail. The only issue is whether it will cause the West to fail too.

 

Materials


 


Communism Revisited – Old Ideas in New Heads


 

Editor Comments: Saul Alinsky was a community organiser and life-long friend of and mentor to Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was a social democrat whose book Rules for Radicals is a seminal and amoral technical account of how to get power for the ‘have-nots’. The following are quotes.

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals 1971


 

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.

—SAUL ALINSKY

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people [Ed - ‘demoralisation’ in KGB parlance’]. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system…"

"Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree."

"To attempt to operate on a good-will rather than on a power basis would be to attempt something that the world has not yet experienced."

"The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" [Ed - as with the current attacks on President Trump].

 

 

Editor Comments: Foster, a hard core communist, sets out the stages of revolution from socialist to capitalist, to the gradual destruction of the culture, to the subversion of democracy, and then the creation of a totalitarian State. In the new State, faith is no longer tolerated and “reactionary classes” such as Christians and business owners are “eliminated”. Finally, the State itself is taken-over by a global dictatorship that sees all nations destroyed and humanity as a single polyglot. In Foster’s progression, we are now at the stage of destruction of the culture and subversion of democracy.  Note the approach to education, sex and religion.


William Z Foster Towards a Soviet America 1932


Between capitalist and Communist society there lies a period of revolutionary transformation from the former to the latter.

At this lower stage Communist society only just emerges from capitalist society and bears all the economic, ethical and intellectual birthmarks it has inherited from the society from whose womb it is just emerging… Being the product of a definite level of productive forces, they will disappear as rapidly … the dictatorship of the proletariat will produce a whole series of restrictions of liberty in the case of the oppressors, exploiters and capitalists…Only then will be possible and will be realized a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions. And only then will democracy itself begin to wither away…

In the U.S.S.R., as part of the general cultural revolution, religion is being liquidated. Religion, which Marx called, “the opium of the people,” has been a basic part of every system of exploitation that has afflicted humanity… Religion is the sworn enemy of liberty, education, science.


Such a monstrous system of dupery and exploitation is totally foreign to a Socialist society; firstly, because there is no exploited class to be demoralized by religion; secondly, because its childish tissue of superstition is impossible in a society founded upon Marxian materialism; and thirdly, because its slavish moral system is out of place, the new Communist moral code developing naturally upon the basis of the new modes of production and exchange.


Religion is now in deep crisis throughout the capitalist world. The quarrels between “modernists” and “fundamentalists” in American churches are one form of this crisis. Religion, born in a primitive world, finds it extremely difficult to survive in a world of industry and great cities… In the U.S.S.R., as it must be in any Socialist country, religion dies out in the midst of the growing culture. As the factories and schools open the churches close.

Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are the following; the schools, colleges and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its state and local branches. The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society. Present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy.


The churches will remain free to continue their services, but their special tax and other privileges will be liquidated. Their buildings will revert to the State. Religious schools will be abolished and organized religious training for minors prohibited. Freedom will be established for anti-religious propaganda.


The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific; God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.


The future Communist society will be Stateless. With private property in industry and land abolished (but, of course, not in articles of personal use), with exploitation of the toilers ended, and with the capitalist class finally defeated and all classes liquidated, there will then be no further need for the State.

A Communist world will be a unified, organized world. …. In such a society there will be no tariffs or the many other barriers erected by capitalism against a free world interchange of goods. The raw material supplies of the world will be at the disposition of the peoples of the world.


Politically, the world will be organized. There will be no colonies, no “spheres of influence,” no hypocritical “open doors.”


Once the power of the bourgeoisie is broken internationally and its States destroyed, the world Soviet Union will develop towards a scientific administration of things, as Engels describes. There will be no place for the present narrow patriotism, the bigoted nationalist chauvinism that serves so well the capitalist war makers.



[1] For a short and helpful summary of cultural Marxism see here: https://youtu.be/xnqIj8C2Aek
[3] President Putin has publicly rejected cultural Marxism and official Russian policies reflect this. This is one of the key reasons for the current propaganda hate campaign directed towards Russia in general and Mr Putin in particular.
[4] This is my summation. A more comprehensive list is included in appendices one.
[5] A co-founder the program in Australia is Roz Ward who is on record as stated that the program “is not about bullying” (https://youtu.be/egefPQOppl4)  and that gender identity is a product of capitalism (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-marxist-agenda-a-red-flag-for-not-so-safe-schools/news-story/7e1ee74bd8b682f188333828ce5e374e.) Ms Ward received an honourable mention in the 2016 annual report of Equal Opportunity Tasmania.
[6] Note that they were not opposed to environmental causes or to civil rights. Ground breaking reforms such as removal of segregation, the US Wilderness Act, and creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, occurred with bi-partisan support in the three decades after 1950.
[7] See further: Liberation Theology
[8] The ‘Promise Keepers’ movement has been described as ‘The greatest threat to women’s rights in America’
[9] See further the ‘Safe Schools Program’.
[10] See further: ‘Agenda 21’ and the ‘Lima Declaration’
[11] For a detailed and comprehensive explanation see KGB defector Yuri Brezmenov’s 1984 lecture here: https://youtu.be/5gnpCqsXE8g
[12] The current Critical Theory Conference refers to the “third generation” of cultural Marxists.
[13] Saul Alinsky was a lifelong friend and mentor to Hillary Clinton. Alinsky trained activists trained a young Barack Obama. See further: http://www.discovery.org/a/24921 Obama’s personal and family connections included an extensive network of Communists of Communist sympathisers. See further: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/obamas-top-adviser-valerie-jarrett-her-dad-maternal-grandpa-and-father-law
[15] The Gulen network is an example of this. Mr Gulen is an Islamist who operates a global network focussed on Turkey. He resides in the United States and backed Hillary Clinton for President.
[16] They have this in common with the Western security establishment and the Neo Conservative network which engineered the current catastrophe in Syria and Libya and the refugee crisis in Europe.
[17] Notably the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN – also known as the Clinton News Network. See further: http://3ptraining.com.au/infowars/us-psychological-operations-now-and-then/