Category Archives: Explaining leftism

Interview with James Simpson on his new book, Manufactured Crisis, explaining and exposing communism in the USA

Posted on by

I had the chance to do an interview with author and expert on communism, James Simpson a little while ago. He does a really nice, moderately paced explanation of why we are here in a very practical manner.

Some of his reveals alone make it worth the trip. Obama’s connection to Coward Piven, and the fact, (and this is something I feel embarrassed that I did not work out on the telos of the event alone) the Sub Prime Mortgage catastrophe was engineered like Covid, the Vaxx, and so many other leftist attack strategies.

Please feel free to leave a comment here or at RAIR, which has a summary of the interview here.

Hillel Neuer talk in Montreal, Friday December 6th 2024: Exposing the mass narrative attack against Israel and Jews

Posted on by

On Friday, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch came to speak to a small, but interesting group of academics and students in Montreal about the facts on the ground concerning the UN, Mass line narrative attacks against Israel, and a detailed expose of some of the UN principle people along with organizations who are clearly operating by Marxist beliefs and intentions, as well as in method. They are operating dialectically instead of any kind of procedures Westerners would consider an attempt at truth or understanding.

RAIR Foundation has an excellent write up. And for those who wish to send this talk to their associates, who may not be ready for how this site sees things, I recommend sending the RAIR link to them.

In terms of how we do see things, and how they dovetail with Hillel’s talk, there are two main points he raised which nearly rocked me back out of my chair.

  1. Hillel’s pointing out intersectional lines of action, using Genocide accusations against Israel to negate the value of the Holocaust as a deterrent for antisemitism and specifically to allow it to become mainstream again
  2. That the anti Israel messaging by media and in the streets by Muslims and leftists, is every bit as much of a mass line narrative attack as is global warming and the vaxx and covid, the religion of peace. etc. etc.

First, the presentation:

Here is the bit that caught my attention especially:

Below is one of the slides from Stephen’s presentation with us a few weeks ago. It is one of the most impactful from my particular understanding.

At the simplest level, you have the method of attack, or the ‘oppressed group’ to be used as an attack vector on the bottom half of the wheel, and the thing being attacked, an attribute of Western civilization at the top half. These are called, “Intersectional lines of attack.” And after watching Hillel’s presentation, we could add accuse Israel of Genocide on the bottom of the wheel with a new line to the top which says taboo on antisemitism.

Stephen’s recent interview/briefing below:

So the punch line is that the accusations of an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians is exactly the same tactic derived from the same strategy as: Global Warming, The Vaxx, Covid lockdowns, and every other mass line narrative attack we face all the time now. All meant to be destructive, and all being very effective at it.

Anyone interested in seeing Hillel’s Herculean efforts at the United nations should search YouTube for UN Watch, or Hillel Neuer.

No, it isn’t corruption

Posted on by

Reading social media, or talking to people on the street, now that more and more of them have noticed something is very wrong, we encounter two ideas that are counter to any hope of restoration of a Republic style state. One is “two tier policing” which we wrote up here previously, and the other is the idea that our government is corrupt in some way. as opposed to what it actually has become. And what has happened is a fundamental ideological shift which we may as well call communism unless a better term appears. But communism is a shoe that fits well enough that anyone would buy them.

So let’s get into why it is not corrupt, (although it certainly contains element of corruption in the trivial sense, elites taking vast sums of money under false pretences) but is something much worse and darker.

some 20 or 30 years ago, I had a chance to talk to expat Columbians, as well as frequent tourists to that country when it was at a peak of actual corruption. I was told that when driving, you would often get pulled over by a military officer for no reason, or for a trivial reason, and when the soldier got out of the car, you could tell by the uniform, how much of a bribe you would have to pay to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare.

So if it was a private who pulled you over, maybe you would pay less than a dollar. A general, maybe USD$20.00. Back then that was a lot more than it is now, especially in Columbia.

That is corruption, and like Cancer, over time is fatal to a society. But it can be cured, and often is.

What we see is ideological subversion. Police don’t give a damn about the law, and likely new recruits, lets take the UK as an example, don’t know anything about the law. They are in fact state thugs. They know they are well paid for a job they are not qualified to do, or put another way, much like Trudeau’s cabinet, are people with very limited competence and nearly no accomplishments that justify that much pay, prestige and power.

But they know they like the money, prestige and power. And doubly so if they get to be thugs for it, so long as they are thugging the target population. Again, from the Dystopian future movie, A Clockwork Orange:

As this revolution up to now as been in no small part about the use of language to get us to subjugate ourselves, it is important that we do not trap ourselves in their language, or even language that appears to be in opposition to the revolution, but in fact is a kind of assistance to it, but misdirection.

A short list then.

It is not corruption, it is subversion, capture, communist revolutionary.

It is not two tier policing. It is a different system of policing that is nearly perfectly internally consistent with communist principles, and assists the revolution.

It is not fake news. It is enemy propaganda, or a weapon of the COMINTERN against the people. A delivery system for mass line narrative attacks.

It is not the deep state. It is the anti-state. People embedded in government that are working against the Constitution in the US, or against Republic style principles in other countries. The Deep State normally lubricates and acts on rule of law. The Anti-state dismantles it.

There are many more expressions in common use which work against our ambitions to restore an individualist society. This will have to do for now.

Communism and Satanism, a description of the activist communists as demon possessed

Posted on by

Imagine yourself transported back in time to ancient Greece. Or even a student of ancient Greek culture and you notice an anomalous behaviour by a faction of Greek society in a particular time and place. On investigating, you might find that a certain group believed in say, the Greek Gods of ???? (chaos) or Eris. Or Hades. That this group of people had come to believe in the attributes of these deities and acted on those beliefs. There would be real consequences to Greek society based on the actions as a result of those beliefs. And I think that even Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris would look at the events that way, rather than walk the streets of Athens in 1500 BC demanding people not believe in these Gods.

Politics, as Stephen Coughlin says, is downstream from philosophy. Religion carries a great deal of philosophical baggage. And Karl Marx was a satanist for a decade or more before he got into communism. He wrote a book of poetry to Satan, and dedicated a book to that particular deity.

Some people will watch this, what I feel to be, a very insightful and interesting video and take it quite literally. And that’s great. And others who may read this site may balk at the very Catholic nature of his reasoning. Fair enough although I have to give the good Father and Exorcist that his reasoning is really rather good overall and is grounded in observation. But I would ask that those who find the Catholic nature of this video, awkward, to give it a watch as if you were the historian looking at a culture with a set of Gods that have no direct impact on you emotionally. Although overall it is two hours and fifty minutes long, it is quite interesting and even entertaining at times. And more importantly has insight to offer as to the nature of leftism.

Whether or not there is a Satan, or demons or angels is not the issue. Marx was a Satanist. HIs work was to destroy. All lines of effort by communists are destructive in nature and nothing else. No other purpose. So in the practical, this father has it more accurately than most analysts on the nature of the left, as the left is purely an exorcize (pun intended) in destruction of every aspect of our humanity.

This speaker is not dismissing those who are the architects of our destruction as demon possessed and therefore not culpable. (As an aside, those who find that concept entertaining are well advised to watch the excellent 2023 horror film, Nefarious, which is entirely about that exact issue)

This speaker is describing the attributes of the left, and with a great deal of insight, as well as the attributes of demons along with their motivations.

There I find it tricky. I am uncertain about the motivations of people and dogs I know very well, let alone beings who may or may not exist from another dimensional plane of existence. But the video otherwise may have some interesting insights and offer a way of looking at leftists and their actions with greater clarity and that is always a good thing.

Please leave your thoughts in the comments should you choose to watch some or all of it.

The attack on the family from both sides of the feminist dialectic

Posted on by

A few months ago, Stephen Coughlin did a very interesting half hour on the Marxist attack on the family we all know as Feminism. He makes the case that feminism was always and has always been a weapon against the traditional Western family.

In previous interviews I have done with specialists in Feminism, a woman who’s name escapes me at the moment, once explained that the original suffragette manifesto was just the Communist manifesto by Marx, where proletariat was scratched out and women was written in its place as the oppressed group.

I am not totally sure how literally she meant it, but the point was well made.

Below is Stephen’s talk for those who have not seen it. If it seems dense at the start, stick with it. The point is worth waiting for and is clear as day.

Let’s have a look at what appears to be a reaction to feminism, but in fact is at least an equally effective attack on the family in a way that could be used to define controlled opposition. In fact even totally unwitting controlled opposition:

There are MANY many men who do this exact thing in different flavours. Each explaining the dangers of romantic relationships with women. And they do so to the great satisfaction of men who have been brutalized by a now Marxist legal system. One so lopsided that women would probably have a great deal of difficulty not taking advantage of their enormous power within it.

These videos, (and I don’t mean to pick on this one man below. There are many but it is these two examples that inspired me to set it to paper) why men should never commit to women in a relationship. More on that after the examples.

One might even wonder why something that appears to be so anti-women would be allowed on YouTube. And the hundreds or thousands of other videos that are well monetized which also carry the same messaging.

It all makes sense if you look at the net result. The end of love. Commitment. Perhaps most importantly, having character and the kind and amount of character it takes to sustain a loving relationship with someone through the trials and tribulations of raising children and other occasional hardships.

This along with Feminism’s tripling of what is expected of men and explaining to woman that any constraint whatsoever on anything they wish to do is oppression, In other words, to curtail one’s immensely powerful sexuality in all facets is being oppressed, while with men, any expression of masculinity or heterosexual normalcy is oppression. So the creation of videos such as the one above is a clear and logical consequence of the legal and cultural reality of the deconstruction of heterosexual relationships by a century of a Marxist line of operation.

Whether or not the creators of these videos are aware of what they are doing is irrelevant. None of them are doing anything to try and fix the situation. All of them are trying to make it worse. Destroy any residual trust. Increase the inertia of a system that has turned men and women against each other. Their insight is usually limited to the practical results of feminism and what may be the motive for women to take advantage of the system as it is. The word, “Hypergamy” can be heard often. But usually in a context that is negatively interpreted.

Same guy:

In the clip above, he warns men against women who want a traditional life because of a problem that is very likely true in many cases, without offering a solution to the problem. This is an attack on the family whether he knows that or not. And does the exact kind of damage feminism does, but from the other side of the dialectic. The counter-thesis.

And we do know solutions exist. Until recently, marriages mostly lasted till one person died. The surviving partner was usually torn in half by grief. A good indicator that they were well and properly bonded to their partner. Divorce was rare. Now jokes like, “Next time I feel like getting married I am just going to walk up to a strange woman and buy her a house”. Or: “When I go on a date with a man I ask myself, is this a guy I would want my future kids to spend weekends with?”.

The fact that the jokes work are pretty good indicators of where the culture is.

I want this to be short. So no lengthy explanations of how to solve these problems. But the answer lies in the culture, and willingness on all parties develop character. And this means specifically that one uses one’s freedom to choose a path, and then limit oneself in one’s subsequent choices after that initial decision to walk the path in order to achive success and overall happiness.

From a game theory point of view, one tends to value things proportional to the sacrifices you make for them. In no small part this explains our attachment to our children, along with the emotional attachments of course.

Having character means making sacrifices to make a relationship work, for the greater satisfaction and long term happiness that comes with success in that endeavour. So making the sacrifices for a relationship can make one value it more, with the right attitude. Of course, can also make you resentful with a bad one.

Taking issues with these proposed solutions is fine. I don’t pretend to expertise in this area. But the central point is the thesis-counter thesis, solution of feminism and male anti-relationship culture, who’s presence on YouTube makes a lot more sense if one sees it as the other side of the attack on the family, as opposed to criticism of women as an oppressed ‘minority’.

New: Stephen Coughlin on intersectional lines of attack and the Maoist insurgency model

Posted on by

This is maybe the clearest explanation of the phenomenon destroying the West across multiple lines of attack yet by Maj. Coughlin. There is a summary of the interview at RAIR. But watch the interview. It is well worth the time.

We have charted major increases in violence and kinetic tactics during communist-Islamic anti Western demonstrations, usually under the rubric of “Anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” events.

For the past year however, the mask slips now and again, and we hear coded and sometimes open calls for the destruction of the Nation state. Sometimes, the states with the most famously individual rights and individualist constitutions, such as The United States, Canada and the formerly great Britain are named for destruction.. For example in the video below, there is no hidden language. The intention is now overt.

It is also evident that the State never use even a fraction of the force the authorities have available to it, or has used in many cases, even against peaceful pro-rule of law, and pro-patriotic protests such as Ottawa’s Freedom Convoy in 2022, and peaceful pro-AfD demonstrations in Germany among others.

So we went to Stephen Coughlin, retired US Military Intelligence officer and lawyer to ask for his perspective on the the nature of these protests, understanding their language and motives, and what we can do to deal with the threat effectively.

The following interview is a little under 90 minutes long. And you will not come out the other side unchanged. Understanding the roots of these movements from Karl Marx back to Hegel and ultimately to the classical philosophers of ancient Greece shines a light on the various devices used to trap us into enemy territory and even becoming unwitting accomplices in our own destruction is critical for effective defence.

Five items and the greatest trick the communists ever played: Links post 1 for Nov. 16, 2024

Posted on by

1. Pierre Poilievre tweet makes curious comparison

So I asked the AI that is now part of Brave Browser and is free (Everyone should use Brave Browser for a lot of reasons) about Nelson Mandela and the practice of putting burning tires around the necks of counter-revolutionaries and burning them to death. This is the answer I got:

Nelson Mandela, Necklacing Counter-Revolutionaries

Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa and anti-apartheid revolutionary, did not directly condone or engage in the practice of necklacing, which involved burning people alive by placing tires around their necks and setting them on fire. However, his ex-wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, a prominent figure in the African National Congress (ANC), did endorse the practice.

According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established by Mandela’s government, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela was “politically and morally accountable” for the gross violations of human rights committed by her security detail, the Mandela United Football Club. This included the notorious murder of 14-year-old Stompie Sepei, whom they kidnapped and killed.

Necklacing was primarily used against black police informants and those deemed counter-revolutionaries by the ANC and its allies. The practice was widely condemned by the ANC’s executive body, and Mandela himself never publicly endorsed it.

In fact, Mandela’s leadership and commitment to non-violent resistance, as well as his later efforts to promote reconciliation and healing, were in stark contrast to the violent tactics employed by some ANC members and supporters, including necklacing.

It’s essential to note that Mandela’s own revolutionary activities during the 1960s, as documented in historian Paul Landau’s book “SPEAR: Mandela and the Revolutionaries,” focused on armed resistance against the apartheid regime, but not on targeting civilians or engaging in practices like necklacing.

In summary, while Nelson Mandela’s ex-wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela did endorse necklacing, Mandela himself never condoned or participated in this violent practice, and his leadership and legacy were marked by a commitment to non-violent resistance and reconciliation.

I don’t fully get it. Were Nelson and Winnie married at the time? Did they hang out together and discuss things at all? Either way he was a communist and created the communist revolution in South Africa. The country is now worse off for all people and even the animals for that matter, than it was under the people who founded the state of South Africa.

So I asked why he was in jail initially…

Nelson Mandela’s Initial Incarceration

Based on the provided search results, Nelson Mandela was initially jailed for his involvement in the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), which he co-founded in 1961. The group’s primary goal was to overthrow the apartheid government through sabotage and guerrilla warfare.

Mandela was arrested on August 5, 1962, while attempting to leave the country for military training in Ethiopia. He was charged with illegally leaving the country and incitement to strike, and later, during the Rivonia Trial, he was found guilty of planning and preparing acts of sabotage against the apartheid government.

The sabotage campaign, which included bombings of military and infrastructure targets, was intended to disrupt the government’s ability to maintain its oppressive regime. However, the campaign also resulted in civilian casualties, including the Pretoria bomb, which killed 19 people in 1961.

Mandela’s involvement in the armed struggle and his leadership role in Umkhonto we Sizwe led to his life imprisonment sentence in 1964, along with nine other ANC members, including Walter Sisulu and Denis Goldberg. The sentence was handed down by the Supreme Court of South Africa, and Mandela spent 18 years on Robben Island before being transferred to other prisons.

Getting into the rights and wrongs of his politics is a long and difficult discussion. The narrative is strong on that one. But I do remember articles at the time about black skinned South Africans in the wealthy parts of Soweto, and yes, there were parts of that black area that had black owned mansions with nice cars etc., buying guns legally from white owned gun stores in order to protect themselves from blacks from the poorer parts of Soweto, indicating that this was actually a communist class war disguised as a race war. But … that could never happen… right? … I mean, certainly not in the West… right?  I mean… Not in Canada or anything where there never was slavery and all the blacks in this country came voluntarily for a better life… right? So … Maybe Mme. Mayor is right after all.

2. Been sitting on this for days. Here is what a communist agitpropagandist sounds like

The total and complete lack of truth, to be better understood as an imposed pseudo-reality, can normally be interpreted as stupidity when in fact it isn’t. But with Goldberg, the jury is still out but appears to be heading back into the court with what looks like 2 verdicts.

In this case, we might assume Goldberg didn’t know Biden was not an MD. But stating that “she is a hell of a doctor. She’s an amazing doctor”, is a flat out lie consistent with propaganda, but in this case likely means Goldberg is not that clever, and absolutely a liar.

3. Norway is advancing communism quickly. Those of you with a Twitter account, click through and read the whole thread. There is a lot of substance in it.

One of the comments should seem increasingly familiar to Canadians and Brits and depending on the state, Americans for the moment.

Screenshot

At the moment it is a “wall of shame”. But how long till the people on that wall are changed with “conspiracy against the people” or something similar, and found guilty en absentia. And then how long till the UN passes a compact or resolution to make such a conviction actionable world-wide?

4. One powerful evidence of Canada’s communist nature is how they are treating doctors.

Growing up in Canada, people would say reflexively that whenever someone saw a doctor and a diagnosis and course of action was recommended, that “you must go get a second opinion!”

Now, a Canadian cannot even get a real first opinion if in any way, it is not in line with the state mandated course of action. In other words, if the first doctor you see has a medical opinion and experience that deviates from the state mandated answers, then you don’t even get a first opinion. This applies to nearly everything. A doctor or dentist has little to no latitude to deviate from what the colleges, who are informed by the state, determine what must be done in all conditions.

Full text

BREAKING NEWS: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has applied to have me put in prison for 83 days, in retaliation for my wife filing complaints with the Edmonton Police and RCMP against AHS & the College (for threatening our family)

I was working on the file of a 5 year old girl with cancer (leukemia), trying to find ways to help her and her family, when I received the news from AHS lawyers.

Alberta Premier
@ABDanielleSmith
has just applied to have me put in prison for 83 days, in retaliation for my wife filing complaints with the Edmonton Police and RCMP against AHS & the College (for threatening our family).

I may be the first doctor in Canada to go to prison during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and for trying to defend my family against threats and extortion from Alberta Health Services and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.

This is the only way they have to try and silence me.

Fake Court Applications, fake costs, fake penalties – all issued by
@JustinTrudeau
appointed and bribed Alberta Judges like Justice Avril Inglis (who has been managing this extortion against my family)

This application is being brought by Premier Danielle Smith’s Office, as all the documents behind this application were illegally leaked by staffers in her office directly to AHS lawyers throughout 2023. I’m certain it was with her knowledge.

AHS is now escalating the threats and extortion against my wife and my family and they are collaborating with Premier Danielle Smith’s Office, now that she has secured 91% support from Albertans with cheap trinkets: a fake Alberta Bill of Rights and watered down Parental Protection Legislation. Albertans have been played.

I’m going to continue to fight for my family and I’m going to do it publicly.

Most Albertans may have given up on their province and the future of their children (Danielle Smith has successfully dismantled all conservative grassroots organizations like Take Back Alberta and APP, and scattered them to the winds).

Only 2 weeks after the UCP AGM of Nov.2, and AHS feels more emboldened than ever to continue abusing Albertans. The honeymoon with Danielle Smith sure didn’t last long. Albertans have given their province away.

But I will fight for my family with everything I have. It will take a lot more than 83 days in prison to stop me.

Maybe there are a few decent Albertans left, who will help me in this fight.

I will be giving daily updates on this latest scandal, the “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Prison Scandal”

I will be hiring lawyers and I will reach out to
@ElonMusk
‘s legal team as well, as AHS has repeatedly said they want to silence me due to my Twitter and other social media posts.

Please pray for my family. ?

#cdnpoli #ableg

Personally I have spoken with, interviewed, and am friends with enough Canadian and even some US doctors to believe Dr. Makis’ claims with no vetting. I have watched CPSO hearings online, and other similar hearings like Helen Grus etc. to know how these star chambers actually function. Every possible method is used to arrive at a politically expedient verdict as opposed to a truthful one in the public interest.

This morning I had a minor epiphany.

There is an old expression which is in common use. “The greatest trick the devil played, is convincing the world he doesn’t exist”.

It is just in the last 24 hours I have come to understand, or think I understand this expression’s meaning and value.

The reason communism has made it so far in terms of taking over our countries, and lives and liberties, is because people simply cannot recognize what is taking place or why. Even its victims. I really see that in Twitter comments by people on our side, so to speak, of the issues. They are horrified by events by the various emergent communist polities like England and Germany and so on. And because they can’t see it, they can’t oppose it effectively. And this is by design. The use of what Stephen Coughlin calls, “Initiate Language” is intended to signal to the people in the know on the left, one thing, and to the rest at best be incomprehensible, like listening to Kamala Harris’ ‘word salad’, or deliberately misleading. Calling turning children into monstrous simulacrums under the term, “Gender Affirming Care” for one example. And of course the various terms for numerous laws to criminalize speech which challenges state narratives. Usually under one form or another of the “hate speech” rubric.

“Climate denialism” “Residential schools denialism” and so on are all variations of hate speech laws, named as variations of “Holocaust denialism” which to all our great misfortunes, is a crime in Germany. Unfortunate not because the Holocaust did not happen. The German government around 15 or 20 years ago, declassified 10 miles of filing cabinets with hundreds of thousands of documents by the Nazis themselves detailing what they did. They were proud of it. And the Germans then and now are meticulous record keepers.

No, it is unfortunate because the state should never mandate what you have to believe or think. And no matter how much evidence you ever have for a thing, it will not convince people who do not want to believe it, or feel it should not be believed. Think flat-earthers. But the act of making it illegal to hold and express a particular viewpoint adds fuel to suspicion that the denialists may be right.

But now it seems more sinister.

The purpose of making something like Holocaust denial a crime, is to create a precedent where the state can breaching an absolute fundamental attribute of a republic. Freedom of speech on all things political, and religious  (historical is just a sub category of political)  Once you have that breach in the dyke though, using an issue most people would at least have some sympathy with such as the Holocaust, then you can make it about the real objective. Total control of what people can say or think. And without them even noticing the actual motive or goal.

“The greatest trick the devil played, was convincing the world he doesn’t exist”.

Both Marx and Saul Alinsky dedicated books to Satan. And Marx was a satanist for at least a decade before he started up with communism. He even published a book of poetry to Satan.

(As an aside, that also might explain why communists claim to be atheists yet seem to hate God. One cannot hate a thing they do not believe exists. Communists seem to have no problem with Thor or Zeus.)

And so one might say, ‘The greatest trick the communists ever played, was to convince the world that the horrors they see isn’t communism.’.

You can add to that, the greatest lie of the 20th century. The common belief that the Nazis are somehow ‘right wing’.

5. The Canadian Government is going after the Amish as is the US government. In this case:

The link resolves to: https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/tdf_reopen_additional_quarantine_act_tickets_ontario_amish

Thank you all for checking out this site.

No, it is not “two tier policing”

Posted on by

 

From The Telegraph: My visit from police on Remembrance Sunday is living proof of our two-tier justice system

A knock on the door to be accused of a non-crime hate incident from a year-old tweet is not what people fought and died for in the war

9.40am: All my things were laid out ready for Remembrance Sunday. Black dress, black opaque tights, coat, a new poppy to go with the vintage enamel one that glints in my jewellery box awaiting its annual outing. I was still not dressed when Himself called up to say that there were police at the door for me. I did vaguely wonder what on earth they were doing here – something to do with our road being closed for the parade? But I went downstairs to greet them at the door and apologised to the two young constables standing outside for still being in my dressing gown. I wasn’t sorry for long.

PC S, the one on the left, who did all the talking, told me that they were here to inform me that I had been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI). It was to do with something I had posted on X (formerly Twitter) a year ago. A YEAR ago? Yes. Stirring up racial hatred, apparently.

WHAT? I stood there in my slippered feet trying to take in what the police officer had said; our market town was filled with the sounds of preparation for the forthcoming parade – a distant drummer, the metallic clang of barriers going up. Life going on as normal, but this wasn’t normal; it was far from normal.

“What did this post I wrote that offended someone say?” I asked. The constable said he wasn’t allowed to tell me that.

“So what’s the name of the person who made the complaint against me?”

He wasn’t allowed to tell me that either, he said.

“You can’t give me my accuser’s name?”

“It’s not ‘the accuser’,” the PC said, looking down at his notes. “They’re called ‘the victim’.”

Ah, right. “OK, you’re here to accuse me of causing offence but I’m not allowed to know what it is. Nor can I be told whom I’m being accused by? How am I supposed to defend myself, then?”

In Stephen Coughlin’s recent briefs, he describes bread crumbing the circle. By this he means that those of us with counter revolutionary beliefs are fed allowable opposition narratives by places like FOX News and too many social media accounts to name. Allowable opposition narratives mean the illusion of opposition, but actually allow the main dialectical effort, or by this I mean line of destructive actions against our freedoms and liberties of a specific kind to go forward while we focus on the misleading aspect of it.

The example I like a lot because you see it on Canadian TV nearly every day, is where they get a bureaucrat, politician, or government appointed ‘expert’ who you never heard of before, to come on as an interview, and ask what sound like tough questions, but are really supporting the state narrative.

Reporters would never ask any of the questions which challenge the why of illegal government measures for Covid, or asked what this meant to our freedoms. They never demanded to know why countless measures which directly lay in contradiction of laws and our constitution and individual rights were really necessary at all. Instead, they would ask why they are not locking down harder, pushing vaxx mandates with no reason to reject etc. I do not believe I ever even heard one ask why it made sense to allow COSTCO and liquor stores to remain open when you couldn’t go into so many other places like restaurants, and when you could go to restaurants, why you had to wear a mask to enter and leave but not to sit down and eat. Frankly the list of contradictory absurdities for Covid are too many to name. If it was a movie, everyone would have walked out by the intermission.

ABRACADABRA

I speak it into existence!

They never ask if mass unvetted migration is good for Canada, or the rest of the West upon which it is being imposed, but instead, push the dialectic that any opposition to mass migration of people with fundamentally different values to the host country can only be due to ‘racism’.

In other words, the media did not fail to do its job, and this is the critical thing: They did not fail to do their job, they did their job exactly right, but not the job you thought it was.

The job of the broadcast media for some time now, is to enforce state narrative attacks. They push the racist or transphobic narrative with all issues concerning the push to destroy sexual identity without asking why we need to sterilize children and mutilate them for an idea that never existed till a few years ago. That being the idea that one’s sex, with the dialectically applied language of “gender”, can be changed just by saying so. (One might argue this is Lamarckism V3.0)

Pretend-Right leaning media tends to oppose the policies, but leads people away from the point by using terminology that the public gloms on to, which distract from the greater threat. For example, the numerous ways the 2020 election was stolen from the people in the US without ever looking at the ways in which it actually was. Things about satellites and voting machines and methods which either could never be proved or were known to be flat out wrong when they were introduced in order to keep us all looking the wrong way. I am unaware if any media looked at the sudden appearance of 15 million voters (and subsequent disappearance of the same number in 2024) in 2020. Or the methods pointed out by De’souza’s 2000 Mules documentary. And of course, by that point, the election was stolen and entrenched. There was no changing things no matter how much proof was presented. Those who challenged it faced harsh prison time if they went to the Capitol on Jan 6. Those who merely supported Goldstein Trump are being raided by multiple state agencies even now.

The phrase, Two Tier Policing is wildly viral. It is objectionable because it detracts from the real case.

The UK has become a communist polity. There is a consistent and one tier enforcement policy, which is in effect similar to Canada, the US, certainly Germany and much of the West. And that is:

Anyone who is counter-revolutionary is a criminal. Anyone who notices out loud the methods of the revolution, like mass immigration, Islamic jihad, the lack of evidence for Global Warming, men are not women no matter what they say they are, is to be punished.

Screenshot

Anyone who calls out Islamic jihad as Islamic jihad, and not give it a pass as an oppressed person who is mentally ill, is a thought-criminal in the UK. The purpose of these visits by the police to hundreds or thousands of British people over social media posts is to create an atmosphere, a culture where CRIMESTOP is practiced.

From 1984:

A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites
from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred
of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and
self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents
produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards
and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the
speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude
are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first
and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young
children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty
of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to
perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if
they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train
of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP,
in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the
contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own
mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.
Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The
law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could
float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he
THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him
do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage
breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't
really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought
under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere
or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things
happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of
anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind.
Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger
of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to
have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a
dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic,
instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with
propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that
ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not
understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy.
It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical
problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as 'two and two make
five' were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of
athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate
use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical
errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to
attain.

People already across the West put themselves in mental defence mode when you mention things which are clearly true but defy the party. Just for fun sometime, try explaining to people that the real conspiracy theory is that Western industry and driving cars will cause the planet to heat up creating a catastrophe of some kind. Mind you, if you do it entertainingly enough, it may get through. But if you bluntly state that Global warming from Carbon conversion is not true, that men are not women just by saying so, and a dozen other current and past mass line narrative attacks, you will people go rigid from CRIMESTOP.

The case of “Two Tier policing” is similar in that it prevents people from seeing the true nature of the polity they live in. That it is in fact perfectly consistent policing. It is that what is a crime has changed, but we were not told.

We all take it as given, that if you work for money, and buy something with that money, that thing is ours and we are allowed to buy whatever we want pretty much with that money. If someone takes that thing from you without your permission, or without meeting the terms set out for them to take it, such as paying for it, they are criminals and the state enforcement should deal with it appropriately.

Yesterday I got a communication from someone who works at a regional WALMART. They informed me that as they watched, two thieves entered the store, not once but twice, faces covered except eyes, and stole a bunch of stuff and left with impunity.

I have heard far more horrifying ones. In Ottawa, liquor stores are robbed by people just wandering in, taking stuff, all they can carry, and walking out bragging that there is nothing anyone can do. I wanted to make a film sketch of one of these guys setting up a stand in front of a liquor store, taking orders from people, and walking in and stealing it, and selling it right in front of the store for half price. And then, people down the block would rob that guy and set up another stand. But that wouldn’t work of course. Thieves understand mine and yours. Robbing the guy who stole the booze, that would not go well.

The way in which law is enforced is consistent both in terms of property crimes, and thought crimes. Both categories of central interest to the Communist International. Which is why it is not two tier policing any more than sharia law is two tier policing. It is merely a different system of values and crime than we are either able to accept, willing to accept, and the point of this post, being allowed to understand is the case by articles and media like the one quoted at the top of this post.

Controlled opposition often looks like it is on your side. That is what makes it effective.

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1820552987208765885

I would like to finish with this example of the way all law enforcement should be handled when they come to your home on a thought crime issue:

 

 

 

 

Superb example of how leftist initiate language is used by the CEO of NPR

Posted on by

First, watch this very short clip:

Now please watch this explanatory video on the Frankfurt School creation of the use of Consensus as part of Discourse Theory:

This one is simpler and perhaps more to the point. And less than 6 minutes long. But understanding both offers clarity:

Ok.

Now watch the super short clip again and see if it says something different this time.

 

Orwell’s essay on Newspeak from the end of 1984

Posted on by

One of the purposes of this site all along has been to try and understand the fundamentals of the systems of thought of both leftism and Islam. As we have learned, so we have tried to bring forth evidence and understanding of the significance of these systems of thought in terms of the threat to our civilization at its absolute core that they represent.

That core of our civilization would be its primary belief system as basic to our way of understanding the world, dealing with each other, and organizing our society as zeros and ones are to a CPU.

As an example, Islam has several forms of mandated deception for the purpose of dominance of all things. The most well known is taqiiya, but there is also Kitman and a couple of others. Interestingly the specifics of each form of deception shows a solid grasp of real reasoning in order just to come up with these methods of deceiving those who rely on honesty and cooperation.

But leftism has a deeper and more complete reframing of reality. Yes, it has a name and that is dialectics. And explaining it in any short form is tricky as it is truly a fundamentally different system of thought, (as Is Islam for that matter) So any attempt to understand it through our own forms of reasoning is bound to fail, other than in the simplest and most practical ways. Which is still very useful.
For example, we could say that the purpose of dialectics is to come up with narratives which look like they are in the public interest in some way but really is an attack on a component or components of our society. Components such as basic liberties as a primary example.

A good example of this would be how nearly all Western governments used Covid as a way of removing some of the most fundamental freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all people in nations that had been more or less republics before that. eg: For the public good, we are locking you inside. You must wear a mask to get food or be outdoors. You must take an untested new technology vaccine to save your grandmother etc. etc. ad naseum.

So that short form of the definition of dialectics is true for  many purposes. That one understanding may be enough to resist or fight back here and there in some circumstances.

At the end of the book, 1984 there is an essay on Newspeak. It could be argued to be a lesson on dialectics but without using the word. I would hope many people here would watch it and offer their thoughts in the comments. There is a lot of red meat in this essay.

Examples of how Newspeak is already in use in the West for the purposes of control are legion. Think about every time you have seen the same narrative, usually of just a few words pushed through every TV or mass media outlet in the Western world, and nearly always a lie and nearly always destructive to our liberties. Some examples are above. But they continue steadily. “Trump and his supporters are nazis” etc. etc.

In this essay, Orwell specifies how the word “free” is to be used in the future. Not entirely unlike how Muslims use the term, “freedom”, meaning free to implement the sharia, or “Justice” meaning sharia law. And any other use of those terms eventually will be memory holed in an Islamic state. They may be already for that matter.

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that
when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten,
a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging from the principles of
Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is
dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and
often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could
properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the
possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly
by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable
words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and
so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single
example. The word FREE still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be
used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is
free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of 'politically
free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no
longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.
Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction
of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be
dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend
but to DIMINISH the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly
assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum."

Stephen Coughlin points out how contradictions which we witness daily from leftist leaders and media is not hypocrisy but dialectics. In this context it likely means that the use of certain phrases or words or actions which are justified under a certain rubric are then contradicted by another action or set of words in a similar context but with a different purpose.

The example which is so blatant it’s amusing from Trudeau is his frequent assertions that the Freedom Convoy are misogynists, while he gives CDN $367M to the Taliban. 

The purpose of these phrases is to create an effect. The meaning in the phrases is in part, assumed by the listener, and is meant to be understood by the public in a different way than what those who are initiated into these thought systems would understand them to mean. So when we hear the phrase, “Threat to our democracy” from all Western leaders, usually referring to counter-revolutionary public figures who the people would prefer as political leaders, they know we hear it one way, while they are using the term, “our democracy” in a much more Leninist way. And indeed, people like Trump and Orban and hopefully Poilievre are threats to their democracy as they use the word.

In Newspeak, something to one degree or another or in one way or another is certainly taking place and has been taking place in the Anglosphere for some time now. Anyone who has read Twain’s famous books, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer would know that the word that starts with a letter between M and O did not always mean what we were told it means. But the left decided for us all that there was no possible use for that word except in the most derogatory and humiliating sense and therefore it was never to be used ever under any context, including exposing the racism of someone because they used it.

In other words, it may not even be quoted to try and torpedo someone else who did use it. I believe one CBC reporter found that out and was publicly excoriated although I’m not sure there was any practical consequences to her after the initial flurry as she is a blue-overalls wearer after all.

Most people at this point would agree with banning that word. But the real issue is less the banning of that particular word as it is the state mandated meanings of words, and therefore the control of how we think by the reformatting of language. Although the state should play no role whatsoever in determining what words we may use, or in Canada, what words we must use. The issue which made Jordan Peterson famous.

Have a listen to this post script essay at the end of 1984 on Newspeak and please offer your own thoughts on any connections to today’s destruction and recreation of language as a fundamental tool of state control. Even if you don’t see any, there is a lot of insight in this portion of the audiobook.

Interesting security brief by Stephen Coughlin

Posted on by

This is a fairly straight forward brief by Maj. Coughlin. It gets fascinating at over the half way point when he talks about sorcery and pharmacology. Read the Tweet I put after this video in the context of his explanation of mind control and sorcery.

This appears to be an impromptu interview with Stephen after his brief

 

Another curious form of dialectical project naming by the UN

Posted on by

Those of you who may be old enough might recall a book called “The Limits to Growth,” published in 1972. A clearly leftist org with a mission to cause the west to destroy itself with false predictions about how much stuff was left in the world to mine.

Pierre Trudeau was a member if that tells us anything. And if it doesn’t you’re reading the wrong site.

The fun thing about the Club of Rome report, was that it was entirely predicated on the notion of over population of humans on the Earth. It was for all intents and purposes save entertainment, a distopian future novel where humans are reduced to squalor for having mined out the earth for materials and energy.

Having read it when I was a teenager, I can’t remember a great deal of it. But after literally arguing with Chat GPT for a bit I managed to coax an answer to some of the specifics in terms of what the planet Earth will run out of, and when it will run out of it.

(As an aside one might say that Chat GPT is a genuine intelligence by the purposeful way it lies, all the time, and to a single purpose. Confirming contemporary narratives)

CHAT GPT:

In The Limits to Growth (1972), the authors projected that under the assumption of continued exponential population and economic growth without significant technological advancements, the world would run out of oil by around 1992

Similarly, they predicted that copper could be depleted by around 2000 under the same conditions.

Depopulation became a craze as a result of the Club of Rome and its communist origins and intentions. It became the culture that people in the West would show their moral superiority by having very few children.

China did take this one to the next level, but China’s use of materials and fuels grew a great deal since then, so lack of population growth doesn’t factor in to the whopping pack of lies the Limits to Growth represents, since China’s industrialization represents a significant increase in the use of all of the materials the Limits to Growth concerned itself with.

Next, I asked Chat GPT the question that will bring me to the point of this article:

How did the Limits to Growth effect the UN’s population strategies?

It offered me two answers:

Response 1

The Limits to Growth (1972) had a significant influence on global discussions regarding population growth and sustainable development, including shaping the United Nations’ population strategies. The book highlighted the potential consequences of unchecked population growth, such as resource depletion, environmental degradation, and economic collapse, which resonated strongly with international policymakers.

Key Impacts on UN Population Strategies:

  1. Focus on Sustainability: The Limits to Growth emphasized the idea that continuous population growth in a world of finite resources was unsustainable. This reinforced the UN’s agenda to incorporate sustainability into its population programs. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), created in 1969, increasingly incorporated sustainable development concepts into its policies, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.
  2. 1974 World Population Conference (Bucharest): In response to the growing global concerns about overpopulation and resource scarcity, reflected in The Limits to Growth, the UN organized the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest. The conference debated population control measures and emphasized the need for family planning programs, but also recognized the importance of addressing poverty and economic inequality. The work of the Club of Rome indirectly bolstered the urgency of these discussions.
  3. Integration with Development Policies: Following the publication of The Limits to Growth, the UN and other international organizations began to stress the interconnection between population growth, resource consumption, and environmental sustainability. This led to the promotion of integrated policies focusing on both population control and sustainable economic development, which were further institutionalized in programs like the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994.
  4. Shift Towards Family Planning: One of the tangible results of The Limits to Growth was the emphasis on family planning programs as a tool to manage population growth. The UN worked closely with governments around the world to promote family planning as a way to mitigate the environmental and economic pressures highlighted in the book.
  5. Global Environment and Development Discussions: The book’s emphasis on the environmental consequences of population growth helped influence the UN’s later focus on the intersection of population, environment, and development. This is seen in the Brundtland Commission Report (1987), titled Our Common Future, which called for sustainable development strategies and influenced subsequent UN conferences like the 1992 Earth Summit.

In summary, The Limits to Growth contributed to shaping the UN’s focus on sustainability, resource management, and the integration of population policies with environmental and economic development efforts. It helped popularize the idea that population control and sustainable resource use must go hand-in-hand to avoid global ecological crises?(

I prefer this response
ChatGPT
Response 2

The Limits to Growth significantly influenced global discourse on sustainability and population control, including the strategies and policies of the United Nations (UN). Although the book itself did not directly shape UN policies, its emphasis on the consequences of unchecked population growth and resource depletion contributed to a growing awareness that influenced population strategies within the UN and other international organizations.

Key Impacts on the UN’s Population Strategies:

  1. Sustainable Development Framework: The Limits to Growth underscored the interconnectedness of population growth, resource use, and environmental sustainability. This fed into the broader discussions within the UN about how unchecked population growth could exacerbate environmental degradation and resource scarcity. This thinking contributed to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), where the focus shifted to sustainable development, highlighting the need for controlling population growth in conjunction with promoting environmental sustainability.
  2. Emphasis on Population Control: The UN began integrating population control more actively into its strategies in the 1970s and 1980s, driven by concerns over the limits of Earth’s resources, as pointed out by The Limits to Growth. The UN Fund for Population Activities (now UNFPA) placed increasing emphasis on family planning, reproductive health, and the reduction of fertility rates in developing countries, partly influenced by the data and warnings provided by reports like The Limits to Growth.
  3. Global Collaboration on Population Issues: The message of The Limits to Growth reinforced the need for international collaboration to address population growth’s implications on global resources. This resulted in the UN organizing high-level discussions and conferences, such as the World Population Conferences in 1974 and 1984, to address these issues. These conferences aimed to find balanced solutions that would promote both human welfare and ecological preservation.
  4. Incorporation of Ecological Limits: In subsequent years, particularly with the UN’s Agenda 21 in 1992, the idea of ecological limits (central to The Limits to Growth) was integrated into population strategies, where population dynamics were viewed not just in terms of economic development but also in terms of their environmental impact.

While The Limits to Growth did not directly dictate specific UN population policies, its ideas contributed to a broader shift in international thinking. Population control became a part of a larger strategy to manage global resources responsibly, leading to the development of policies that promote family planning, reproductive rights, and sustainable development.

The book’s long-term influence is visible in how the UN approached population and sustainability from the 1970s onwards, emphasizing the interrelationship between population growth, economic development, and environmental sustainability?.

It almost kinda sorta looks like the Limits to Growth was a book foisted upon the public to justify a depopulation agenda by the UN. The fact that every prediction was wrong, and I mean wrong on the enormous scale of the ‘Global Warming’ line of effort against the West, is secondary to the point but not entirely irrelevant.

The United Nations, headed by a life-long communist in the form of António Guterres, has created a new phrase which is a 180 turn about from its previous position.

Identical in the ways that matter from its reversal of its Nuclear Winter stance pivoting deftly to Global Warming without even acknowledging its previous position, the United Nations has now coined the phrase, “Population Alarmism”.

Do not read further if drinking anything just at this moment. You will get coffee coming out of your nose.

Here is what Chat GPT had to say about the phrase:

Vlad: The UN refers to a phrase it created called Population Alarmism. what does it mean

Population Alarmism is a term used by the United Nations and other organizations to refer to exaggerated or overly pessimistic claims about the impacts of population growth. It often describes concerns or policies that focus on the perceived threats of overpopulation—such as resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and economic collapse—without fully considering other factors like technological advances, resource management, and demographic transitions.

The UN coined this term to caution against alarmist rhetoric, which can sometimes lead to counterproductive or overly aggressive population control policies. Population alarmism typically emerges from predictions or studies (such as those inspired by works like The Limits to Growth or Malthusian theory) that emphasize dire consequences without accounting for potential adaptive measures or changes in human behavior, such as advancements in agriculture, renewable energy, or improvements in family planning and health care.

Key Aspects of Population Alarmism:

  1. Exaggerated Risks: It emphasizes doomsday-like scenarios, where unchecked population growth is portrayed as leading inevitably to environmental and economic collapse.
  2. Oversimplified View: Often, alarmist views neglect complex factors, such as advancements in technology, shifts in birth rates due to education and access to contraception, and changes in resource management.
  3. Policy Consequences: The term is used to warn against policies or actions that stem from fear rather than evidence-based planning. In some historical cases, alarmist views on population growth led to extreme policies, such as forced sterilizations or strict family planning measures, which were later criticized for violating human rights.

The UN promotes a more nuanced approach, focusing on sustainable development, education, and voluntary family planning rather than drastic measures driven by fear of population growth.

For example, the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994 shifted global thinking from population control strategies toward broader goals like women’s empowerment, reproductive health, and sustainable development as solutions to population concerns. This approach directly counters the overly simplistic view associated with population alarmism?

So the UN actually created a phrase to try and dialectically negate its own policies on population via the Limits to Growth, even citing it as a problem.

Making sense of it is easy though.

Communism is about destruction through informational warfare. Nuclear Winter and Limits to Growth were not sufficiently destructive. So the pivot to global warming and “population alarmism” (I still can’t type that without twisting my lips all out of shape) was the next attempt. No contradiction there because the purpose was the same. The destruction of the West primarily.

As a Post Script, it has proven to be impossible for me to find any of the thousands of hours of people warning us about nuclear winter. David Suzuki, one of the people who somehow got a lot of the population to get those God-Awful compact fluorescent bulbs, was the best Canadian example of constant TV appearances about Nuclear Winter and then suddenly it was all Global Warming.

But good news! You can get a copy of Limits to Growth maybe from Amazon.

Screenshot

I should emphasize at this point that the purpose of this post is not to argue population or resource management. We are examining all these things from the point of view of an analysis of information warfare, primarily of the West but against all human modes of organization. To argue the rightness or wrongness of population and resource use is a perfectly legitimate discussion.
But it is our contention that this discussion, like nearly every other subject that matters, has been turned into weapons against the public. And to argue the specifics of what is not the point, is to give the information-warfare attack energy and mass.

This applies to all dialectic lines of operation.

North Carolina citizens are victims of Hanlon’s Razor, or critical economic theory

Posted on by

Occasionally this site has had a critical look at the expression known as Hanlon’s Razor, without knowing it was called Hanlon’s Razor. The expression goes: Never assume malice whne incompetence can explain the results”. We just knew it was bullshit. In fact, it is a classically dialectic approach for negating obvious malice in such a way that we fail to investigate it for what it really is. In fact, we think it is the reverse. Never assume incompetence when malice is more consistent with the results.

Let’s add to that what is becoming increasingly obvious about government spending. It has sweet bugger all to do with taxes. Taxation increasingly appears to be a way to control the middle class as the wealthy really don’t pay much from what we see and the poor pay nothing. In fact, taxes appear to have two purposes, neither of which is funding public works. Punishing the middle class, and enslaving them through never allowing them to retain enough money to be free of the system unless they are leftists. Then of course, well you know the rest.

How these two ideas tie together is easier than it should be.

Governments in North America never have the money to do anything constructive cause tax money ran out, but they have infinite money to do things which are destructive. Let’s see how that applies to the recent victims of the hurricane in NC:

Feds say there’s no money left to respond to hurricanes — after FEMA spent $1.4B on migrants

You know what? I could stop here. The headline says it all. But let’s flesh it out a little as it gets more interesting when yuou see that it appears the federal government is actively criminalizing citizens who try and help the stranded and destitute in NC:

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas set off outrage Wednesday when he told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “does not have the funds” to see Americans through the rest of this Atlantic hurricane season — after the agency spent more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address the migrant crisis.

“We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have,” Mayorkas said during a press gaggle on Air Force One en route to tour damage from Hurricane Helene in South and North Carolina.

“We are expecting another hurricane hitting,” he added. “We do not have the funds. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what — what is imminent.”

Anyone who sits down to do the books on this really doesn’t get it. Money is invented for destructive things. Money is withheld for things that make anything better. There is no better definition of dialectics. Let’s call this Dialectical economics and add it to the post from the other day.

Frankly, there are just too many of these to ignore them altogether:

A list of military aid to foreign nations

A personal account of going in to help the stranded and destitute

Instagram guy makes really serious claims about the state of NC. No way to verify.

Some of his claims I have seen made independently though.

Another Instagram from a gentleman who claims to be a member of the Florida State Guard recovery unit. He explains what is going on quite clearly.

Same video on Twitter:

There is a lot lot more out there. But I think this enough to fortify the theory. Hanlon’s razor is backwards, and the explanation for US government policy over the last years since Obama was first elected, excluding 2016 to 2020 can be explained by Critical economic theory and the proper examination of Hanlon as a dialectic device.

As an aside, this is a constant in Canada and across Western Europe as well.

A short and partial list of common (marxist) terms and a translation to reality

Posted on by

This is a post i have wanted to make for a long time. A Marxist to English dictionary, even if its only half a page. The point of it is to understand how to do it much more than just exposing the specific terms we chose as exemplars. Understanding the principles and methods of Marxist dialectical terminology is critical if you want to have any chance of seeing outside the Matrix.

Communism is not much more if anything at all, than a system for attacking and destroying Western civilization at every level at which Western Civilization operates and exists. More than we are even aware of. Every aspect of our nature from our forms of reasoning and cultures as well as all institutions and professions which support our systems. From medicine to engineers, pilots to teachers etc.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is an excellent manual on how to use orthodox Marxist methods adapted to the early 20th century. And a lot of those methods can be said to be a subset of Critical Theory.

At one level, critical theory is really simple. It is just criticizing everything about the West. Dishonestly, partially honestly, meaning spinning a real thing into something totally other than it really was to make the West, and especially the US look bad, or even honest criticism in an emergency, so to speak. Meaning when a narrative attack isn’t available. But in nearly all cases, Critical Theory is about a fictionalized version of the target and then a critical theory attack on that fiction.

It is because of this that we noticed that the media would sustain a rabid feeding frenzy over any non-white person killed by police either due to no fault of the police, like with George Floyd, or where the person who was shot richly deserved it as they were in the process of committing a violent crime. Even more importantly, that when a person who could be labelled as a black person was killed by police for reasons that were likely genuinely racist, there was little to no media and certainly no major protests or riots.

And this is 100% sensible when one understands that the idea is not to make the system better, but to destroy it altogether. 

When people protest a real problem there is a solution that makes things even better than they were before. But when the problem is synthetic, the solution the rioters want, defund the police etc. is the only option on the table.

Therefore, when we look at the way we are forced to look at race relations now in the West, and particularity the USA, we can see and understand it as a product of :

Critical Race Theory. A critical theory attack on the West by attacking people of European ethnicity, or “white people” as guilty of any number of things for which they have no connection and in many ways no-one ever was guilty as the history is usually partly or fully fictionalized. Certainly the context will be adjusted for the best effect of the Critical Theory attack.

The communists now in control of the schools are becoming more bold now and use the term, Critical Race Theory more openly. But that is what it is. A branch of Hegelian dialectics as interpreted by Marx and refined by the Frankfurt School tactician, Alinsky. This process of abstracting and expanding Marxist methods of attack on the West continue to this day. And the people fighting for the West for the most part do not understand the nature of the attack, and spend all their resources arguing the reality behind the critical theory attack, if they even get that far. In other words, arguing the surface specifics of a given narrative’s claims, while the critical theory attack does its damage.

As we often say, with the left, the point is never the point. The Revolution is always the point.

[I think I first heard that from Diana West but she may have been quoting someone else]

Let’s have a look at a few more terms:

Multiculturalism ~ Critical culture theory.

Like BLM is a marxist expression of critical theory by creating a dialectic confrontation between black and white people with the intention of destroying both ultimately, but ‘white’ people first, Multiculturalism is exactly the same. Bring in people from different cultures. Pretend to the host country that bringing in different cultures really just means interesting new recipes and sophisticated new arts and entertainment. But the reality of Multiculturalism means giving special protection to people from outside the host country to ‘protect their cultures’ while removing basic, even fundamental rights to the citizens of the host country, such that no opposition to what is taking place can happen without the objector being either directly guilty of a crime such as ‘hate speech’, or adjacent to a crime such as ‘racism’ where ‘racism’ while not always and not in all districts is specifically a crime, it can be dealt with by removing additional rights such as social media use, access to banking or even the right to use of a credit card or even accepting credit cards. So while not a crime, it is indeed punishable.

This happened to Robert Spencer for factual and unimpeachable explanations and descriptions of Islam that make Western peoples aware of it as a threat doctrine. Which it is. In case you haven’t noticed. But in all cases, the term, “multiculturalism’ is one deceptive click away from Critical race theory. The use of fictionalized race history and relations, or truthful ones but spun or cherry picked for a political outcome, rather than information. And the outcome is destruction.

Critical Culture Theory is tearing the west apart and down everywhere. And it has moved to pure oppression in the UK.

Climate Change ~ Critical Climate Theory

This one required an extra twist. It required moving from science as a method of understanding the universe, to scientism, where Marxist politicians tell you how the universe works. It is a gnostic cult of the White Coat. Science is never done by consensus. Politics and religion are, and in the case of communism, even that consensus is imposed from above. With Global Warming/Climate Change, we saw experts we never heard of, explain a consensus in the ‘science’ which has ‘already been done’ to explain why the measures being taken to ‘combat climate change’ cannot be questioned. You know, cause so many scientists agree. Real scientists, ones who explain their methods and publish their research get cancelled. Anyone who wants to see an excellent example of this should watch The Cloud Mystery. This is a short documentary by two Danish scientists who actually have a hypothesis on climate and temperature, and then prove it with data going back to Galileo’s first use of the telescope to study the Sun. Then watch the linked video of an explanation on how a Frankfurt School 2nd generation member, Jurgen Habermas, created the framework around which a small minority can impose their will on the majority using ‘consensus’ for political purposes.

Below, a truly amazing example of how Canada’s CBC COMINTERN broadcaster does exactly this. They make any refutation of Critical Climate Theory into hate speech as per Habermas. Have a listen after watching the linked video on Habermas.

But what makes it critical climate theory is its use to destroy Western industry. Communists picked the one marker that all industry in the world produces, CO2, and claimed it is a pollutant and claimed it as an existential threat to the World. Unless it is produced in China, North Korea, or anywhere else already socialist/communist. Then it is not to be mentioned. Like all Critical theory, it is meant to be destructive to Western Civ. And this one is majorly destructive. After all, if it was a real threat the people agitating over it would meet on Zoom and not fly private jets all over the world, and purchasing multi million dollar beach front homes for themselves where they themselves had saiid would be deep under water already from “global Warming”. And we would be building nuclear power plants as fast as we could. Even people who have real or exaggerated concerns about the safety of modern nuclear energy plants, will admit that the risk is not an existential risk to all life on Earth as they claim climate change to be. So in other words, it is a fake problem with real solutions that are avoided, in order to get the solutions they want, which is our destruction.

SOGI (Sexual orientation and Gender Identification) also Gender affirming Care ~ Critical Sex theory.

Destroying how people think of each other in terms of sexuality is a major victory for communists. After all, without reproduction, we go extinct. And yes, that is a victory for communism by some interpretations of communist theory. There are leftist groups across the West now that actively and openly seek human extinction. But as a rule, just for white people. Or more accurately, anyone who supports Western Civilization of any race or colour, as they will be labelled as white people and treated as such or worse by the left. Larry Elder as one clear example.

To the point though, destroying people’s ability to reproduce using drugs and surgical mutilation is a bonus. The main purpose is to destroy how Western people view each other sexually. This one deserves more than its own essay. It deserves a book.

Some point form proofs though, are that China made an official announcement, and passed a law, that no effeminate men can be seen  on TV. In other words, Critical Race Theory is a destructive dialectical weapon against the West and China needs to protect itself from it in case it comes back home. Like Covid.

Below is a truly excellent video on the communist origins of Critical Sex Theory:

DEI ~ Critical institutional theory, or Critical Merit Theory

The whole purpose of DEI is to destroy all the institutions we have. Stephen Coughlin feels it is primarily to destroy our military capability. And it can and it will. But it has already destroyed many other professions. The Merit principle is one of the absolute supporting pillars of Western Civ. The idea that the person best suited for a job and best at it, gets the job, not only enables things to be done well, but advances all of our sciences and arts throughout the history of Western Civ. One can spot quickly the number of positions in leftist governments that use DEI hires, or what we used to call, “Affirmative Action”. An older term used as a disguise for Critical Merit theory. This is not to say that people other than white males are incapable. In fact it has nothing to do with white males. DEI is about making sure the people picked for important and responsible positions are incapable. They would definitely pick a white male for a job requiring training and coordination if the person they picked had advanced Parkinson’s and Alzheimers. In fact they picked one for President of the United States.

The Merit principle also is the best example of actual fairness in human history. Everyone understands when someone who has worked harder, is more dedicated, more talented or simply better at a job gets the job. It was the replacement of nepotism. In fact some historians argue that Lincoln was actually shot by a man who felt that he deserved a well paid and prestigious civil service job by nepotism and was passed over for someone of greater merit. Out of resentment, he shot Lincoln. DEI manufactured the idea that all who are good or accomplished are oppressors, and therefore not deserving. That achievement is cheating. Taking responsibility is privilege and so on. Over the course of the revolution in the West during the past 10 years or so, we see countless examples of Critical merit theory. From Math is Racist to reading to your children is racist.

Harm Reduction:

This is the idea that creating an environment where illegal powerful narcotics can be used with zero legal repercussions and even facilitate its use, resulting in exponentially more addicts, fatalities and resultant crime from the use of these substances, somehow reduces the harm to the users and society as a whole. It is named dialectically as are the others in this list. A case could be made that providing the actual narcotics free could actually reduce harm, as it ends organized crime interest in the purchase and sale, and also guarantees the user a known purity, usually meaning no overdoses. But what the “harm Reduction” policies do is the exact opposite. Harm reduction keeps organized crime at the centre, while eliminating the cost from a legal point of view to the addict. It even removes the shame of it. The results are obvious. EVERYWHERE “Harm Reduction: has been implemented, the number of users has skyrocketed and the real and measurable harm in deaths, serious disease from drug use and prostitution and crime have all risen to the point of destroying entire urban areas.

“Diversity is our Strength” is the dialectic attack on United We Stand, divided we fall. because the intention is to make us fall by division. 

This is only a partial list. Comments are welcome with other phrases used as disguised attacks on us all.