Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
A PRAYER FOR WAR (REDUX)
Inevitably there are those who say war never solved anything (not quite true) and that what is needed is a political solution. But, then, this is countered with the idea that talk is cheap and that there is only one language certain people [fill in blank] understand.
NO WAR IN SYRIA....IT'S OFFICIAL (MAYBE)
Unfairly banned from his YouTube page but still mind-jamming the internet from his back-up page, Andy Nowicki considers the (im)possibility of real war in Syria from the bottom of an extremely deep well of public cynicism.
A FEW LESSONS FROM "1984"
by Dota
I recently finished reading Orwell’s 1984. This is a project that I’ve put off for years, and in hindsight, it was probably for the best, as many of Orwell’s predictions have manifested themselves in recent times. Let’s go over some of Orwell’s warnings. There are spoilers up ahead.
Why did Orwell select the title 1984?
The conventional view states that he merely reversed the last 2 digits of 1948, however, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Orwell was a member of the socialist Fabian Society from whom he later broke away. Contrary to popular belief, 1984 wasn’t aimed solely at the Soviets, but rather at the ideals of the Fabian Society. The emblem of the Fabians is the tortoise, which symbolizes the Fabian’s stratagem of wearing down the enemy. They believed that they could bring socialism to a society through gradual imperceptible increments even if it took them a 100 years. The Fabian society was formed in 1884, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, Orwell titled his dystopia 1984.
Women are some of the biggest supporters of The Party
Women are the shock troops of today’s Inner Party. Feminists owe their success largely to the generous financial contributions made by the very Capitalists that they instruct their unthinking acolytes to despise. The State plays its own role in buttressing feminism via social welfare programs and affirmative action paid for by male taxpayers. The nanny state allows women to make false rape accusations without any fear of legal reprisals, retroactively withdraw consent and move the goal posts on rape, and in general create a consequence free society for women."It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
Orwell also mentioned that women were the "nosers-out of unorthodoxy." This is easily observed today as young women routinely initiate social media witch hunts against individuals that hold views contrary to those espoused by the Inner Party (anti Homosexuality/anti-Feminism/anti-immigration). These witch hunts are intended to kill an individual’s livelihood by smearing their reputations and rendering them unemployable. Orwell stated that women were the most fanatical supporters of the Inner Party and we see numerous examples of their mindless zealotry on social media.
Women possess a key characteristic that endears them to the Inner Party, and that is their propensity towards doublethink. Orwell defined doublethink as a form of mental gymnastics where an individual could simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs. We are surrounded by examples too numerous to list here. We’ve noticed how women defiantly state that they don’t need men while simultaneously living on a man’s charity (alimony, child support, etc.). We’ve noticed how some women have consensual sex and then and then genuinely believe that they were raped. We’ve noticed how ‘strong’ women often rely on boyfriends, cops, bouncers, etc., to solve their problems. Doublethink is the enzyme that facilitates the digestion and assimilation of Inner Party propaganda. Female solipsism is the catalyst which aides this process naturally.
The destruction of gender
Orwell was obviously not familiar with the cancer that would eventually become feminism. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the nature of communism and rightly surmised that the nature of communist “equality” was essentially a bland sameness. The Party did not tolerate the pillars of identity as they rightly believed that the latter would allow individuals to define reality on their own terms. Thus race, religion, and gender must be neutralized. Our Inner Party today uses Cultural Marxism to assault Western ethnicity (Critical race theory) and gender (Feminism). The classification of transvestites as women is another blow against gender. Ultimately, I believe most women want to be feminine, but feminists (the Outer Party) have other plans for them."I’m going to get hold of a real woman’s frock from somewhere and wear it instead of these bloody trousers. I’ll wear silk stockings and high-heeled shoes! In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade."
The destruction of language as a means of controlling thought
This is arguably Orwell’s most stunningly brilliant observation. Vocabularies seem to be shrinking at an astonishing rate every year. Bay Area Guy once told me about an acquaintance of his who did not know the meaning of the word ‘amoral.’ How could anybody discuss politics without being familiar with the word ‘amoral’? Popular culture has played a decisive role in the erosion of the average individual’s vocabulary where shows like the Simpsons openly glorify ignorance. There is not much else for me to add."You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
Perpetual Warfare
War is an industry and a large chunk of the US economy. The reason for perpetual war is not so much as to keep this industry going, but to instill a psychological dependence within the minds of the sheeple towards the Inner Party that governs them. The World Wars were old fashioned wars that were brutal and fought to the finish. What Orwell is referring to is continuous war, a war that does not threaten total destruction (and is technically less dangerous) and is perpetual. Oceania and Eurasia (or Eastasia) are evenly matched and are incapable of utterly destroying one and another. Elites on both sides understand that neither side can totally triumph against the other and thus the charade of perpetual war is maintained indefinitely to strip the sheeple of their liberties. The deluded masses fail to understand that the outside war is a prerequisite for the war that is perpetually waged against them.
"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.
The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist."
 |
| Orwell's Quad |
The Cold War was the first prototype of the continuous war model followed by the newly perfected war on (Islamic) terror. Combating Islamic terrorism is like playing whack a mole: Whack Hamas, and then Islamic Jihad shows up. Whack Al Qaeda, and then ISIS pops out. Whack Harkatul Mujahideen and watch the Deccan Mujahideen spawn out of another hole. The US government does its part in indirectly supporting Islamic terrorism so that the continuous war may go on. By attempting to oust Bashar Al Assad in Syria, the US hopes that ISIS will be strengthened. Bashar has repeatedly warned that his Syrian Arab Army is the only force that stands between ISIS and the genocide of Arab Christians. The US would rather support the Christ hating nation of Israel than prevent the genocide of Christian Arabs at the hands of radical Islamic savages. A US official was quoted as saying:
"This is in perpetuity what we’re dealing with. It’s like the war on drugs. This isn’t going to stop."
2 + 2 = 5
It would be an act of unparalleled stupidity to think that Liberals are the modern inheritors of the Enlightenment’s rational tradition. Today’s Liberals are the inheritors of Marxism and are just as averse to science as their religious counterparts on the Right. If reality contradicts ideology, reality is to be disposed off. The UCLA Women’s studies department had this to say about the works of Kevin MacDonald:"Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
and this:“Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary psychology and, by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.”
The highlighted part is crucial because what it is really saying is this:“Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study. As such, we wish to raise some broader questions about any research that promotes bigotry, intolerance and racial superiority.”
Since we can’t challenge Professor MacDonald’s research on empirical grounds (i.e. 2+2=4), lets shift the matter into the realm of theory by questioning the value of his research as opposed to its findings and methodology.
The reason why Science (Biology and Mathematics in particular) upsets leftists so much is because these disciplines directly challenge the ideology of our Inner Party. Evolutionary Psychology and Biology alone are capable of demolishing the foundational myth of Feminism which states that gender roles are socially constructed. These fields demonstrate that gender and sex are irrevocably linked and cannot be changed as easily as one changes clothes. In order to control people’s minds, it is essential to first control their eyes. It is to this end that college professors (Outer Party) hammer into their students the pernicious message that reality is “socially constructed.” By internalizing this message the student effectively mistrusts his eyes and allows the Party to construct and re-define his reality for him.
From the Occidental Observer article linked above:
Nobel Prize winner James Watson (Molecular Biologist) was similarly attacked by our Inner Party for violating the sanctity of leftist/Marxist ideology by insinuating the genetic basis for the IQ of racial groups. I am not interested in HBD or Biology and have no vested interests in those fields. The matter that agitates me is that the Cultural Marxist left, in Orwellian fashion, wants to censor science for the preservation of ideology and not academic integrity. Two plus two must equal five. This is ultimately why the Left despises Positivism and preaches Anti-foundationalism in University classrooms across the West."John Horgan, the scientist who wants to ban research on race and intelligence, is not quite fit for the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four. But he is getting there, because he thinks like O’Brien and puts ideology before science. Unlike O’Brien, he wants to stop science, rather than pervert it, but his predecessor Gould imitated O’Brien and perverted science in the cause of ideology. Gould’s award-winning best-seller The Mismeasure of Man (1981) was a polemic against “racist” brain-science and the concept of g, or a general factor of intelligence that underlies human cognition."
Orwell’s 1984 is required reading for anybody that wishes to penetrate the structure of the world we live in. It serves as map and compass in a world where language and reality are bent to serve the interests of a Party whose interests can never converge with out own.
The ever popular "two minutes hate."
IS IRAN PLANNING TO STRIKE THE U.S. IN SYRIA?
 |
| The best way to end U.S. intervention is to increase the body count. |
@cbliddell
On Sunday, Iran launched a long-range missile strike on ISIS forces in Al Mayadin, now believed to be the Islamist group’s new capital. Iran claimed the attack was in retaliation for the ISIS terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month, attacks that it also indirectly blames on the U.S.
DEMOCRACY'S VIOLENT BEGINNINGS (AND ENDS)
What, exactly is democracy?
I've been asking myself this question more and more as I grew up in a world which declares the concept of democracy to be such an obvious moral imperative, to the point that there seems no longer to be any other legitimate alternative.
Of course, you will still find here and there resistances (like in North Korea or in some African or Muslim countries), but even these regimes are most often hiding behind some sort of democratic-sounding rhetoric; even they seem anxious to meet the standards of this predominant paradigm.
Yet, ask around and most of the time you will find completely different answers on the central question of what properly constitutes a democracy. You will have some consensus around ideas like the "right to vote," "freedom," and all those other empty words and phrases with which we have all become familiar.
But when one goes beyond this specious rhetoric, one sees that "democracy" is like any other concept: a matter of making people live together in relative peace as long as they all share some similar beliefs.
Another way to look at it would be to say that democracy is nothing more than a form of ambivalent coercion for the good of a few, meaning those who get to enjoy the full benefits of such a regime.
Don't get me wrong: I am not trying to say that democracy is worse or better than any other form of society. What I am saying is that we have now gone so far of understanding the true meaning of such a regime that its collapse is simply a matter of where and when the limits of the paradigm will become so insufferable that it will no longer be able to sustain itself.
An easy point of reference, of course, would be to compare democracy to the last decade of Communism, when everybody knew this was no longer sustainable and 1989 was then the spark that lead to its end.
I would like, however, to go beyond this concept only for the reason that democracy hasn't been challenged of late in the West because no tenable alternative has yet manifested itself.
Historically speaking, the two biggest jewels of modern democracy, America and France, were both based on a concept that couldn't be further away from what supposedly inspired them both.
Let us first address the obvious, but important questions of semantics. "Democracy" is composed of two combined words, which are Demos (the people) and Kratos (strength). It is therefore predicated upon the idea that the people - whomever that may be - hold, as a group, some sort of strength.
One must ask then, what is this strength and what it is meant for?
There is also another fundamental idea behind democracy, which is an inherent, perpetual struggle against those who don't belong to the Demos in question. In other words, there is the idea of a dialectic between the Demos and another body of representation, and strength is in a way the instrument will create this dialectic.
I will even dare to go further and say that pretty rapidly in the history of Democracy, strength will be associated with violence. And this is indeed this violence - whether is it physical, intellectual, political, or cultural - which will shape the very definition of Democracy.
Indeed, the very concept of democracy has always been not only ambivalent but also deceptive, because it is made up of inherent contradictions. And this is when the strength of the people is then used to not only shape the idea of democracy but to defend and reenact it with the use of violence.
One of the first examples in which democracy had to use violence to defend but also to (re)define itself was during the confrontation between the Greek world and the Orient, hereby incarnated by the Persians. I don’t want to dwell too much on the narrative, but one can summarize these first conflicts - chiefly the battles of Marathon, the Thermopiles, Artemisium, and Salamis - as democracy put to a sort of test.
Indeed, what was then put to a test in these battles was the idea that people could live together in a way that would, in theory, give every single member of this body of people the right to decide for their own life. (I admittedly employ some degree of simplification here, as my point is to show that violence was used in the very beginning of democracy.)
Even before this confrontation with a world so different than the Greeks was experiencing, violence was at the heart of the democratic way of life. I only have to quote the philosopher Heraklitus, who is known to have said “Polemos (i.e. war) is father of all things”. And this very concept was applied from the very start of democracy through the idea of the hoplite.
The hoplites (estimated to comprise a third to a half of its able-bodied adult male population) were primarily represented by free citizens—propertied farmers and artisans—who were able to afford the bronze armour suit and weapons. Among this crucial demographic, the use of violence was indeed a way of life, one which proved to be crucial to Greek democracy.
At this time, there was another concept, intrinsically linked to the one of democracy, which was the City-State. In the fifth century BC, Greece had seen many city-states flourish, but as they developed and became more powerful, they also started to enter into conflict with one another, to the point where killing one's fellow Greek neighbors came to be seen as not only normal but even healthy.
At some point, however, the Greeks came to acknowledge the necessity of uniting against the Persians, their common enemy. We only have to read Herodotus or Thucydides to understand that it is because of this major conflict against such a different world that the Greeks have been able to define further their way of life, by the simple fact that they realised that they were sharing the same beliefs.
The first concept one must think about is who belongs to this Demos - and by extension who is excluded - A good idea of such a reflection is given by Aristotle in his Politics. Here what he has to say about the members of a democracy, the citizen:
This sets up another question: What is to be done with the ones that live among the citizenry but don’t possess the "citizen" title?
We are chiefly talking about women, children, as slaves, and foreigners. In some cases, this non-citizen population greatly outnumbered the actual citizenry. In Sparta, for example, citizens represented about 1% of the total population of Sparta and its surroundings.
During what we call the Peloponnesian Wars, fought between Sparta, Athens and their allies, two very different concepts of democracy were at stake. I believe the understanding of this conflict is utterly essential if one wants to comprehend the rhetoric used by our modern society, whereby democracy is mandated to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
This fundamental dialectic, which defines who belongs to the body of citizens and who doesn’t, has followed democracy from its very beginning until now.
And this dialectic has to do with another embedded idea in democracy: equality.
In the French Constitution, for instance, it is clearly said that all French people are equals, at least in the regard of the law. This, therefore, means that any person living in France at a certain time is equal to its peers when it comes to the law.
As normal and trivial as it may sound, one has to question this notion of equality in order to understand the idea of democracy itself.
Indeed, there seems to be a contradiction between the idea of exclusivity - only a few are able to enjoy the benefits of democracy - and the one of including more and more people within the core body of citizens. This fundamental contradiction will become the burden that democracy will have to bear and violence will be the manifestation with which this contradiction will express itself.
This contradiction will be at stake for instance from Pericles to the Gracques or even at the end of the Roman Republic, when the optimates lead by Pompeus will oppose the populares lead by Julius Caesar.
Indeed, it seems almost impossible to reconcile the fundamental elitism of the democratic regime - after all, it’s all about acknowledging that someone or a group of people are a better fit not only to lead but very much to grasp and define an idea of reality - with the idea that everybody is equal.
To understand this contradiction, one need to realise that the idea of equality is expressed in its core by the right of the citizen to vote. Thus, the idea of democracy implies that we are all equal in the right we have to express some sort of opinion by electing a representative of the citizens.
One can rapidly understand the limits of such concept, as the idea of equality is here merely used to obtain an ascendency upon your fellow citizen, which by definition would go against the idea of equality.
Polybius had understood this contradiction very well, and his praise of the Roman Constitution really pinpoints the limits of such a regime. The concept of equality is therefore used only to enlarge the body of the electorate - the people able to vote - in order for some to reach more power. One can easily draw a parallel with the ideas of enlarging our electorate, by for instance plant the idea of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Indeed, by welcoming all these people in the body of citizens - or at least voters - it then becomes very clear that the goal is for some to play the populares card in order to consolidate an ascendency more and more challenged by the true citizen - those who didn’t have to migrate in order to be integrated in this new body of voters.
To conclude, I would say that it is through the use of violence that democracy has been able to sustain itself against, this time, the excluded members of the society. We have seen it time and time again, from the partisan of democracy, being ready to use any mean necessary for this idea of democracy to prevail.
Democracy can then only exist by the constant re-enactment of its core values, violence but maybe first and foremost its power to convince through the Logos.
I've been asking myself this question more and more as I grew up in a world which declares the concept of democracy to be such an obvious moral imperative, to the point that there seems no longer to be any other legitimate alternative.
Of course, you will still find here and there resistances (like in North Korea or in some African or Muslim countries), but even these regimes are most often hiding behind some sort of democratic-sounding rhetoric; even they seem anxious to meet the standards of this predominant paradigm.
Yet, ask around and most of the time you will find completely different answers on the central question of what properly constitutes a democracy. You will have some consensus around ideas like the "right to vote," "freedom," and all those other empty words and phrases with which we have all become familiar.
But when one goes beyond this specious rhetoric, one sees that "democracy" is like any other concept: a matter of making people live together in relative peace as long as they all share some similar beliefs.
Another way to look at it would be to say that democracy is nothing more than a form of ambivalent coercion for the good of a few, meaning those who get to enjoy the full benefits of such a regime.
Don't get me wrong: I am not trying to say that democracy is worse or better than any other form of society. What I am saying is that we have now gone so far of understanding the true meaning of such a regime that its collapse is simply a matter of where and when the limits of the paradigm will become so insufferable that it will no longer be able to sustain itself.
An easy point of reference, of course, would be to compare democracy to the last decade of Communism, when everybody knew this was no longer sustainable and 1989 was then the spark that lead to its end.
 |
| Berlin, 1989: the "end of history," or so it seemed at the time..@ |
I would like, however, to go beyond this concept only for the reason that democracy hasn't been challenged of late in the West because no tenable alternative has yet manifested itself.
*************
Let us first address the obvious, but important questions of semantics. "Democracy" is composed of two combined words, which are Demos (the people) and Kratos (strength). It is therefore predicated upon the idea that the people - whomever that may be - hold, as a group, some sort of strength.
One must ask then, what is this strength and what it is meant for?
There is also another fundamental idea behind democracy, which is an inherent, perpetual struggle against those who don't belong to the Demos in question. In other words, there is the idea of a dialectic between the Demos and another body of representation, and strength is in a way the instrument will create this dialectic.
I will even dare to go further and say that pretty rapidly in the history of Democracy, strength will be associated with violence. And this is indeed this violence - whether is it physical, intellectual, political, or cultural - which will shape the very definition of Democracy.
Indeed, the very concept of democracy has always been not only ambivalent but also deceptive, because it is made up of inherent contradictions. And this is when the strength of the people is then used to not only shape the idea of democracy but to defend and reenact it with the use of violence.
*************
Indeed, what was then put to a test in these battles was the idea that people could live together in a way that would, in theory, give every single member of this body of people the right to decide for their own life. (I admittedly employ some degree of simplification here, as my point is to show that violence was used in the very beginning of democracy.)
Even before this confrontation with a world so different than the Greeks was experiencing, violence was at the heart of the democratic way of life. I only have to quote the philosopher Heraklitus, who is known to have said “Polemos (i.e. war) is father of all things”. And this very concept was applied from the very start of democracy through the idea of the hoplite.
 |
| Hoplites: the shock troops of early forms of democracy |
The hoplites (estimated to comprise a third to a half of its able-bodied adult male population) were primarily represented by free citizens—propertied farmers and artisans—who were able to afford the bronze armour suit and weapons. Among this crucial demographic, the use of violence was indeed a way of life, one which proved to be crucial to Greek democracy.
At this time, there was another concept, intrinsically linked to the one of democracy, which was the City-State. In the fifth century BC, Greece had seen many city-states flourish, but as they developed and became more powerful, they also started to enter into conflict with one another, to the point where killing one's fellow Greek neighbors came to be seen as not only normal but even healthy.
At some point, however, the Greeks came to acknowledge the necessity of uniting against the Persians, their common enemy. We only have to read Herodotus or Thucydides to understand that it is because of this major conflict against such a different world that the Greeks have been able to define further their way of life, by the simple fact that they realised that they were sharing the same beliefs.
*************
“A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the right to participate in judicial functions and in office […] Hence the citizen corresponding to each form of a constitution will also necessarily be different. Therefore the definition of a citizen that we have given applies especially to citizenship in a democracy; under other forms of government it may hold good, but will not necessarily do so.”I find this definition to be central, as it sets the base for all reflexion around the idea of democracy but also around the body which creates and define democracy. One realises quickly that there were several different definitions of a citizen, whether you belong to one political entity or the other. But the idea which still strikes me the most is the one of exclusivity. Indeed, from the words of the philosopher himself citizenship and therefore full enjoyment of the benefit of democracy is not meant - by any means - to be shared by everybody.
This sets up another question: What is to be done with the ones that live among the citizenry but don’t possess the "citizen" title?
We are chiefly talking about women, children, as slaves, and foreigners. In some cases, this non-citizen population greatly outnumbered the actual citizenry. In Sparta, for example, citizens represented about 1% of the total population of Sparta and its surroundings.
During what we call the Peloponnesian Wars, fought between Sparta, Athens and their allies, two very different concepts of democracy were at stake. I believe the understanding of this conflict is utterly essential if one wants to comprehend the rhetoric used by our modern society, whereby democracy is mandated to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
This fundamental dialectic, which defines who belongs to the body of citizens and who doesn’t, has followed democracy from its very beginning until now.
And this dialectic has to do with another embedded idea in democracy: equality.
In the French Constitution, for instance, it is clearly said that all French people are equals, at least in the regard of the law. This, therefore, means that any person living in France at a certain time is equal to its peers when it comes to the law.
As normal and trivial as it may sound, one has to question this notion of equality in order to understand the idea of democracy itself.
Indeed, there seems to be a contradiction between the idea of exclusivity - only a few are able to enjoy the benefits of democracy - and the one of including more and more people within the core body of citizens. This fundamental contradiction will become the burden that democracy will have to bear and violence will be the manifestation with which this contradiction will express itself.
This contradiction will be at stake for instance from Pericles to the Gracques or even at the end of the Roman Republic, when the optimates lead by Pompeus will oppose the populares lead by Julius Caesar.
Indeed, it seems almost impossible to reconcile the fundamental elitism of the democratic regime - after all, it’s all about acknowledging that someone or a group of people are a better fit not only to lead but very much to grasp and define an idea of reality - with the idea that everybody is equal.
To understand this contradiction, one need to realise that the idea of equality is expressed in its core by the right of the citizen to vote. Thus, the idea of democracy implies that we are all equal in the right we have to express some sort of opinion by electing a representative of the citizens.
One can rapidly understand the limits of such concept, as the idea of equality is here merely used to obtain an ascendency upon your fellow citizen, which by definition would go against the idea of equality.
Polybius had understood this contradiction very well, and his praise of the Roman Constitution really pinpoints the limits of such a regime. The concept of equality is therefore used only to enlarge the body of the electorate - the people able to vote - in order for some to reach more power. One can easily draw a parallel with the ideas of enlarging our electorate, by for instance plant the idea of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Indeed, by welcoming all these people in the body of citizens - or at least voters - it then becomes very clear that the goal is for some to play the populares card in order to consolidate an ascendency more and more challenged by the true citizen - those who didn’t have to migrate in order to be integrated in this new body of voters.
To conclude, I would say that it is through the use of violence that democracy has been able to sustain itself against, this time, the excluded members of the society. We have seen it time and time again, from the partisan of democracy, being ready to use any mean necessary for this idea of democracy to prevail.
Democracy can then only exist by the constant re-enactment of its core values, violence but maybe first and foremost its power to convince through the Logos.
TEN WARS WE NEVER BOTHERED WITH
With Neocons apparently calling the shots in the White House, and a President looking for "foreign adventures" to compensate for domestic frustrations, a "Trump war" somewhere/ anywhere now seems a real possibility. But war is never inevitable. Here are ten examples of times when America pulled back from the brink.
by Gilbert Cavanaugh
(1) Ever heard the phrase, "Fifty-Four
Forty or Fight" and wonder what on earth it means? Find a map and go to
where the fifty-fourth latitude line hits the New World's west coast and then
go forty minutes north. In the 1840s, that was where many wanted the border
between the Oregon Territory and British Canada to be - and they really
wanted it. In the end Polk decided that a war with Mexico would be
easier than one with the enormous British Empire.
NO FOLLOW UP STRIKES AGAINST ASSAD: NORTH KOREA MAIN FOCUS FOR TRUMP
 |
| Korearing to war? |
It's been a week now since Trump launched 59 cruise missiles against a Syrian air base in supposed retaliation for an alleged and unproven chemical attack on a town well behind the front line.
So, what exactly is going on?
It seems, at present, that this was a one-off strike and that Trump is in fact continuing the status quo that existed before the attack, whereby Russia supported the Assad government in fighting against Islamist rebels, while the US supported the SDF in its efforts against ISIS.
So, what exactly is going on?
It seems, at present, that this was a one-off strike and that Trump is in fact continuing the status quo that existed before the attack, whereby Russia supported the Assad government in fighting against Islamist rebels, while the US supported the SDF in its efforts against ISIS.
HOW SYRIA CAN WIN ITS WAR WITH AMERICA
 |
| Assad points to where the war is heading. |
It's happened. Trump has done the unforgivable and gone to war with Syria. There seems to be a lot of anger and sheer disappointment in the Alt-Right about this. But the Alt-Right is nothing if not "dialectical," i.e. able to step back, appreciate the multifaceted ironies of the situation, and look at the bigger picture, and the bigger picture here would be the chance this incident opens up to inflict a defeat not on Trump or America—although that might also be involved—but on the whole mythic apparatus of American interventionism and thus globalism.
The first irony that stands out is that Trump/ America/ the Cult of Interventionism is using this action to "look strong," when in fact it was the act of a weakling and coward.
The first irony that stands out is that Trump/ America/ the Cult of Interventionism is using this action to "look strong," when in fact it was the act of a weakling and coward.
"DOOMSDAY CLOCK" REVEALED AS FAKE NEWS
 |
| Autistic screeching (cardboard clock version) |
by Trad News
There was a time when the people behind the "Doomsday Clock" had a certain credibility, but that was back in Cold War days, when the World was threatened by an entirely amoral and power-mad Communist Superpower bent on World conquest or mutually assured destruction.
Although even then the Chicago-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which "runs" the big cardboard clock diagram, could be said to be serving as an dupe for the Soviet Union. Their constant reminders to people on the free world side that we were all going to die in a nuclear holocaust greatly bolstered the unilateral disarmament movement in the West, and could have helped give the Commies an easy victory.
WHY THE GLOBALIST ELITE SHOULD DROP HILLARY AND SUPPORT TRUMP
In his recent speech in Florida, Donald Trump just called out the globalist elite, order, and agenda, so what better time to address the theme of this essay, “Switching Sides.”
My previous piece on Donald Trump "GET Trump" proved spot on. The accusations of mainstream anti-Trump media bias have only increased ten-fold since I wrote the article. So, I thought I’d address some of the core issues head on. As the Globalist Elite is nefariously mercurial as a topic, the essay may venture into metaphor and metaphysics, speculation and conspiracy theory, and suggest some radical solutions and Gordian-Knot-cutting-style solutions.
While obviously targeted at the Alt Right Audience, it is also aimed, with all due respect, at our Globalist Overlords, who could perhaps take a few tips from the Alt Right about possible ways forward.
My previous piece on Donald Trump "GET Trump" proved spot on. The accusations of mainstream anti-Trump media bias have only increased ten-fold since I wrote the article. So, I thought I’d address some of the core issues head on. As the Globalist Elite is nefariously mercurial as a topic, the essay may venture into metaphor and metaphysics, speculation and conspiracy theory, and suggest some radical solutions and Gordian-Knot-cutting-style solutions.
While obviously targeted at the Alt Right Audience, it is also aimed, with all due respect, at our Globalist Overlords, who could perhaps take a few tips from the Alt Right about possible ways forward.
VIDEO: ELECTORAL AFTERMATH
Right now, with all eyes focused on the electoral dogfight between Trump and Hillary, less thought is being given to the likely outcomes of each candidate's victories. Alternative Right Chief Editor Colin Liddell considers how each scenario could play out, and which candidate would move things most in the direction of the Alt-Right and the more fundamental changes we believe in.
THE DONALD VS. KILLARY: WAR OR PEACE?
 |
| "We came, we saw, we died" |
Although history does not exactly repeat itself, it does provide parallels and sometimes quite ominous ones. Such is the case with the current U.S. Presidential election and the one which occurred one hundred years earlier.
The dominating question which hung over the 1916 campaign was whether the country would remain neutral in regard to the horrific slaughter which was taking place on the European battlefields in probably the greatest act of mass insanity ever recorded, World War I.
The dominating question which hung over the 1916 campaign was whether the country would remain neutral in regard to the horrific slaughter which was taking place on the European battlefields in probably the greatest act of mass insanity ever recorded, World War I.
ISIS JUMP THE SHARK
 |
| Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh about to be burnt alive. |
We get it!
We already know that ISIS are a bunch of c**nts.
We even suspect that when they were born, they weren’t actually born. Instead they stayed between their mother’s legs, being continuously banged by their goat-faced fathers, while their hair-lipped mothers’ gangrenous c**ts dropped to the ground, grew legs, donned turbans, and walked the Earth as their avatars.
We already know that ISIS are a bunch of c**nts.
AMERICAN SNIPER: SHEEP, WOLVES, & SHEEPDOGS
 |
| The great Neo-Con Wars of the early 21st century. |
by Greg Allmain
A lot of hype has surrounded Clint Eastwood’s cinematic version of American Sniper, the story of the most prolific sniper in American military history, Chris Kyle, accredited with 160 confirmed kills out of 255 probable kills, clocked up over four tours of duty in Iraq.
Much of the hype surrounding the movie has centered around Bradley Cooper’s performance, and Cooper certainly deserves the credit. While watching the movie, it’s difficult to remember that Cooper largely made his big time breakthrough with the buddy comedy The Hangover, and at least from a cinematic point of view, one can certainly say Cooper carries the film, which is, in some respects, a bit disjointed. Regardless, Eastwood and Cooper combine to give an accurate portrayal of the West’s modern day warriors, something that, not surprisingly, the professional Left throughout the world has found deeply troubling.
Much of the hype surrounding the movie has centered around Bradley Cooper’s performance, and Cooper certainly deserves the credit. While watching the movie, it’s difficult to remember that Cooper largely made his big time breakthrough with the buddy comedy The Hangover, and at least from a cinematic point of view, one can certainly say Cooper carries the film, which is, in some respects, a bit disjointed. Regardless, Eastwood and Cooper combine to give an accurate portrayal of the West’s modern day warriors, something that, not surprisingly, the professional Left throughout the world has found deeply troubling.
A PRAYER FOR WAR
It's often said that war brings out the best and worst in people. But just supposing there's more worst than best, what can we expect to happen?
Now, as the Crimean crisis moves through its second week, there is tough talk aplenty and with the talk come the gestures – troops moved around like pieces on a Risk board, ships sailing nearer.
Can any of this mean anything?
Now, as the Crimean crisis moves through its second week, there is tough talk aplenty and with the talk come the gestures – troops moved around like pieces on a Risk board, ships sailing nearer.
Can any of this mean anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Fields is a synonym for soil; blood and soil, anyone? by Daniel Barge The problem with the trial of Alex Fields for the supposed mu... -
Tabloid headlines are the highest form of historical evidence, apparently. by Colin Liddell Due to the obsessive grip that antisemi... -
by Colin Liddell The French have a term for it, L’esprit de l’escalier , or “staircase wit.” It means bright and witty sayings though... -
Affirmative Right chief editor Colin Liddell wishes listeners a happy "St. Andrews Day" and explains why the Scots picked a J... -
by Colin Liddell @AffirmativRight When the Alt-Right was founded in 2010— in as much as a loose umbrella term can be 'founde...