Tag Archives: Frederick Engels

No, Virginia, Obama is NOT a Fascist like Hitler; he’s a Communist, just like he says he is…..so are the Bushes….so don’t go around insulting the memory of Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley…..and Senator Huey Pierce Long of Louisiana….

In my writing on this blog, and even in my personal correspondence, I often refer to the current system in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe as “Corporate Communism”.  I realize this sounds oxymoronic to some people—an inherent contradiction in terms, kind of like “Jumbo Shrimp” or “Microsoft Works”—so I thought I should make a clarifying statement.  May people realize that the United States is neither what it used to be in the past nor what it pretends to be at present, although most people would admit that we have gone a long way down the road to socialism, at the very least.  In February of 2009, right after Obama was sworn in as President for his first term, Newsweek Magazine trumpted on its cover “We are all Socialists Now”—-well, let me just clarify that Newsweek was not speaking for me, directly or indirectly, because I never authorized it to do so, and I certainly didn’t vote for Obama….
As for defining “corporate communism”, some people like to call it “Fascism” but I object to the use of that term as historically inaccurate and non-descriptive.  (Compare Aaron Russo’s Movie, “From Freedom to Fascism”). Many people who use this term intend to criticize the current status quo in America, but neither America nor any of the other Western powers are in any sense “Fascist” in the early 20th century sense of that term as used by Mussolini, Franco, Moseley, or even the followers of Huey Long of Louisiana.
Communism was a system envisioned by many 19th Century Philosophers and Economists but made especially famous by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in a pamphlet published in London in February 1848 called “The Communist Manifesto”—  and, up to a point, Fascism was a reaction against Communism and other forms of modern socialism.
The universal features of Communism, as crystalised in the writings of Karl Marx, are the abolition of the family, private property, and the Democratic Republican “Bourgeois” State (“Bourgeois”) basically referring to the “Middle Class” of productive tradesmen and women who live in cities.
“Corporate Communism” is what we have in the United States today: the government imposes an economic system based on consumer credit debt that effectively makes all citizens and residents of the United States slaves.
I call it “communism”, and it seems to me that this is the only appropriate label, because *(for all intents and purposes) individual property ownership has been abolished in the United States by a combination of predatory (high interest, inflationary), government sponsored financing FIRST ENVISIONED IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO OF 1848 as a means of abolishing or absorbing all private property by and through Central Banking.
The government has taken a stand against Religion and all the institutions and sacraments of Christianity in particular so that the family can be abolished.  And the judicial and financial attack on and the sociological and psychological subversion of the family and private property, and the destruction of the middle class, guarantee the collapse of all Constitutional and Democratic-Republican forms of limited government, in favor of the kind of Police State Despotism that Americans are slowly but surely becoming all to familiar with and accustomed to and accepting of.
This is actually the opposite of “Fascism” which protected individual and family ownership of real estate and other property above all other civil rights, favored the bourgeois middle class and its “family values”, protected traditional religious faith and traditions against atheism and psychology, and in general was “conservative” and “traditional” in its socio-cultural orientation.  Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, it’s NOT what we have in Modern Europe, America, Australia, China, or Japan (and its seeping all through Latin America and the rest of the world with lightening-like speed, so that “Corporate Communism” based on non-Capitalized Credit, can accurately be described as the current, modern “World System”.
I call the modern European-America-Japanese-Chinese system “Corporate” Communism because the government acts through Corporate Agents to accomplish specialized goals, but all these corporations are effectively part of and one-in-the same with the Federal Government.
In other words, the through a pretense that all property is held privately, just in the name of corporations (or because of, as a derivation or derivative of, corporate financing).
But these corporations (including all banks, all dependent on ONE SINGLE CENTRALIZED SYSTEM known as the Federal Reserve System, which produces the vast majority of “notes” used in every day commerce as “legal tender”) could not possibly exist without the government regulations which shape, organize, and in breathe life into their very CORPORATE being.
Without government contracts and financing and programs of economic stimulus (including the planned distributional and utility infrastructure) these corporations could not exist….
So the American “Corporate System” is in fact neither private and nor capitalistic at all.  It is merely a sophisticated implementation of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 which operates by and through so many veils smoke seen through two way and reflective mirrors that nobody even realizes what is really going on…..

And the Ten Steps we must take to Communism? All done, Sir! Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Reporting for Final Duty Commanding Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Sir!

The United States Communist Manifesto

(Reblogged from unifiedserenity; Reblogged from REALITY BLOG:)

10 Votes

The Communist Manifesto is a desired description of the government (corporate) control of a society, and for that mater the world, written in German by Messrs. Karl Marx and F. Engels but published first in London in February 1848, and continually in print, ever since.

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto…

Karl Marx designed these planks as a test to determine whether a society has become communist or not.

As if to give credence to these 10 pillars of a society completely controlled by the State (communism), past and present presidents of the United States Corporation have and continue to pass presidential directives, which bring these planks of communist doctrine to reality… in the state of a declared emergency. While these “directives” scared me before, the realization that they coincide so perfectly with the communist/fascist doctrine of Marx brings this to a whole new level.

These “10 Planks” written in the Communist Manifesto are listed in blue below. Underneath each “plank” is the Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, congressional acts, constitutional amendment, etc. that has made each plank of the Communist Manifesto into law. This is not good.

– Executive Order 12919 – The president would put the United States under total martial law and military dictatorship, in case of a declared emergency.

 ≈–1–≈

1) Abolition of private property. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

– The Patriot Act – Allows law enforcement to conduct warrentless searches of your records and place of residence, and to confiscate your personal property without your knowledge or consent.

 ≈–2–≈

2) The income tax. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

– The Emergency Banking Act – President Roosevelt declared the United States Federal Government dissolved by being bankrupt and insolvent.

– House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress –  Suspended The Gold Standard and Abrogated The Gold Clause. Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments.

– Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) – Allows the Congress to unconstitutionally levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on census results. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

 ≈–3–≈

3) Abolition of estate. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

– Probate Laws and Taxes – The application of estate tax, property tax, and the limiting of and reassigning of property values, as well as other state and federal taxes are all aspects of this. Also, you do not own the property in which you live nor the land it sits upon. You are permitted through contract (title/deed) with the State to occupy said dwelling. It can be taken away at any time through eminent domain, or through bank contract if a loan is defaulted upon. Read your title and deed and these facts will become apparent. 

≈–4–≈

4) Confiscation of property. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

– Executive Order 10998 – Allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks, and vehicles of any kind.

– Executive Order 11310 – Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

– Eminent Domain – The inherent power of the State to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen’s rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties (corporations) who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn (exercise power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government) personal property, such as supplies for the military in wartime or franchises. Governments can even condemn intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.

 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – A UNITED STATES Federal Law allowing U.S. presidents  to identify any unusual extraordinary threat that originates outside the UNITED STATES and to confiscate property and prohibit transactions in response. In the UNITED STATES CODE  the IEEPA is TITLE 50, SECTIONs 1701-1707.Enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

– National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51 – Allows the president to control and coordinate all three brances of government (to become king) in the event of a “catastrophic emergency”. Thus, no judicial review or jury trial will be available, thus property disputes will be squashed by the king or his minions.

– The Military Commissions Act – Strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals of anyone held in U.S. Custody as an “unlawful enemy combatant” or “rebels”. Also prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in a U.S. court. 

≈–5–≈

5) A central bank. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

– Executive Order 11921 – Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to take control of all financial institutions in the United States, and allows government to control the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources.

– Federal Reserve Act – Act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, which was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

≈–6–≈

6) Government control of communications and transportation.Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

– Executive Order 10990 – Allows government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

– Executive Order 10995 – Allows government to seize and control all communications media (telecommunications, internet, radio, television, etc…)

– Executive Order 10997 – allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

– Executive Order 11002 – Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

– Act of August 29, 1916 – Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

≈–7–≈

7) Government ownership of factories, land, and agriculture. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

– Executive Order 10999 – Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

– Executive Order 11005 – Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities… public or private.

– 1950 Defense Production Act – Gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

≈–8–≈

8) Government control of labor – creation of government labor armies.Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

– Executive Order 11000 – Allows the government to mobilize citizens into work brigades under government supervision.

– H.R. 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama-Care), page 1312, SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS, and SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS –Establishment of a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions. The Ready Reserve Corps shall participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel, be available for back-filling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically under-served communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. So those “Commissioned Officers  personally appointed by Barack Obama without advice and consent of the Senate automatically become a part of the Regular Corps.Translation: a presidential army, which will most likely not be bound by any oath to the constitution, but may be bound by an oath to the president.

≈–9–≈

9) Corporate farms and regional planning. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.Note: This is a part of Agenda 21…

– Executive Order 11002 – Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

– Executive Order 11004 – Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, to designate public lands and areas to be abandoned, and to establish new locations for populations.

– National Security Act of 1947 – Allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

≈–10–≈

10) Government control of education. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

– Executive Order 11001 – Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

– Mandatory Government Education – Public education is schooling mandated for or offered to all children by the government, whether national, regional, or local, provided by an institution of civil government, and paid for, in whole or in part, by taxes. The State of Massachusetts enacted mandatory government sponsored education in 1852. Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law In 1918. Public education involves compulsory student attendance until a certain age or standard is achieved, government certification of teachers and curricula to ensure learning structure and materials are State approved, and government testing and standards for citizens, to ensure indoctrination-like education into the system of debt-enslavement and ignorance of corporate government and actual history is achieved. Homeschooling is now demonized, and has even been made illegal in some states.

One “event” is all it will take, real or false-flag.

And a national emergency will be declared.

Obama will become king, overseen and controled by an oligarchy of elites.

Be afraid… be very afraid!

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Like this:

by REALITYBLOGER on APRIL 25, 2010  •  PERMALINK

Is America More a “Communist” or “Fascist” State Today? In terms of understanding and historical analysis, it DOES matter…

An ongoing conversation, of several years in duration, with Malcolm Doney of “Hanging Together for Justice” Florida and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster of Santa Barbara, California…

Malcolm Doney wrote on the evening of Friday, April 19, 2013: “Some of us mistakenly identify Obama as a Communist (this is Corporate Fascism).”

Well, as you know, I suppose I am one of those who “identifies Obama as a Communist” (for one thing, Obama’s late parents, both his father and his mother would be so pleased, so would his grandparents and “Godfather” Frank Marshall).  What’s more I think that the difference between calling Obama a Communist and a Fascist is the difference between really understanding what’s going on and NOT understanding it at all…

The Mortgage Crisis is what brings us together in this discussion: the question is—is the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis a Failure of Corporate Fascism or a Triumph of Communism?  I maintain that the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis still ongoing around the world today is the TRIUMPH of a century and a half of careful communist positioning and planning to abolish private property in real estate once and for all.

The historical threads that connect Obama to his Communist roots are very clear.  “Fascism” evolved in the 20th century ONLY as a reaction to Communism, and never had any real intellectual coherence or “platform” to stand on, Hitler’s wildly contradictory policies and behavior during his 12 year Reich being pretty much the key example of just what a “non-program” Fascism really was.  Mussolini “made the trains run on time”; here beginneth and endeth the lessons of Italian Fascism.  

But Malcolm Doney: you are without any doubt at all one of the smartest people I know and respect very highly in everything you do, but I have this argument repeatedly with you and (strange to say) another one of the smartest people I know whom I respect in everything she does, and that’s Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. Your command of finance, like hers of 20th century political and social history, is unparalleled.  But I think it is a non-trivial mistake you both make.  Barack Hussein Obama IS in every real sense of the word a Stalinist communist, and we live in a Stalinist Communist State today (or something close enough to a communist state that it is very, very scary).  

I think I have challenged both you and Melinda to this before, but I will challenge you again:  Attached here is a copy of the Communist Manifesto Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx & Frederick Engels 1848-1888, whose first programmatic platform plank is the abolition of private property in land by the means of leveraged lending and confiscation through central banking and easy credit.

I want you to tell me what parts of the Communist Manifesto HAVE NOT been implemented so far in America.  I can find almost nothing.  

There are some confusing semantic variants, to be sure: the Manifesto uses the phrase “Industrial Armies, especially in Agriculture.”  Since no such thing as an Industrial or Agricultural Army (NAMED as such) has ever existed in the history of the world, anywhere, you might think that this is one place where the Communist Manifesto has failed.

But I propose to you that precisely YOUR WORD “Corporate” is exactly what is meant by “Industrial Armies.”  “Corporate” is merely a Latin-derived word for a group of people acting with one general mind and one general purpose.  Modern Mega-Corporations are the very Industrial Armies that Marx proposed, they have just chosen a more traditional label than Marx’ because “Armies” rarely create anything—they normally specialize in destruction.

“Fascism” by contrast, is a bogeyman, a non-existent chimera.  There are neither any “Fascist Constitutions” nor “Fascist Manifestos” which have the coherence or comprehensive coverage and organizational application either of the U.S. written Constitution, the unwritten Constitution of (pre-1930s) Great Britain, or the Communist Manifesto.  

The so-called Fascists of history were pretty much improvisers—not great thinkers or theoreticians at all—they mostly made it up as they went along.  That is part of the reason why they were all such catastrophic failures—the most amazing feature of Hitler’s regime was its capacity to make alliances and treaties and to immediately break them in a manner that doubly and triply made the world hate him.  Even Hitler’s anti-Semitism, at the very beginning of his Chancellorship, was aimed primarily at the formation of the State of Israel—how ironic is that?  

Little is remembered of those early days when Hitler was effectively a Zionist….. but the whole world remembers the Stalin-Hitler/Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact which treacherously, fiendishly, split Poland in 1939, which only lasted two years before Hitler broke it and invaded Russia, which he never would have done if he had ever read the history of Napoleon, who was a much greater military strategist than Hitler, to put it mildly.  And that is how Fascism was—it was opportunistic and “reactionary” in the most fundamental sense: “Fascism” came into existence ONLY as a pro-Elite alternative to Communism, and therein is the only consistent difference: whereas Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all wiped out not only the Elites but the Middle Class of their countries, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco in Spain, Petain in France, and Admiral Horthy in Hungary all sought to preserve the Elite and Middle Class.  And that is also, in my opinion, the only real similarity between Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, and the British Prime Ministers from Lloyd George Forward—they implemented socialist programs while keeping the elite and (for the most part) the middle class in place, although the middle class was always easily dispensable.  

Other than this feature of Elite preservation, nothing unifies the West with the Fascist movements, but by Contrast the Communist Manifesto does explain it all….

So, seriously—read and study the Communist Manifesto attached and tell me how this is not the DE FACTO Constitution of the United States of America at the Present Time…

I will anxiously await your commentary..

SUBURBIA & EXURBIA: Creatures of the Communist Manifesto, Targets of Agenda 21 (the Elite Struggle to Perfect its Vision for World Control)

Compare and Contrast Agenda 21 and the Communist Manifesto:

 Manifesto of the Communist Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdmjBAX0E0&feature=player_embedded

Vacillation, 180 degree aboutfaces, and unpredictability, “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making, constitute regular themes in the history of tyranny from time immemorial: the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (Ikhnathon, Khuenaten, Amenhotep IV) may have been the first arbitrary and capricious tyrant interested in social reform.  He not only abolished all the prerogatives of the Ancient Egyptian Priesthood (who largely controlled and administered agricultural production and food storage for the entire Nile Valley—the most fertile stretch of land in the world, until the Aswan High Dam was completed….the construction of this murderous dam was another idiotic “from the top” elite decision made arbitrarily and capriciously without any regard for ecological process or the reality of how Nile River Valley fertility had been maintained at the top of the world food chain for over five thousand years).

Akhenaten also ordered a forced resettlement and demographic redistribution of the Egyptian “power elite” the entire decentralized nobility of Egypt to be concentrated around him (like planets around the sun…) at a brand new city, El Amarna, designed and decorated strictly according to the new king’s desire to make himself, and his “one God, the Sun Disk Aten” the center of a brand new agricultural, biological, cultural, demographic, economic, fiscal, geographical, historical, ideological, knowledge dispensing, legal, moral, normative, official, political, and social world order.   Akhenaten’s tyrannical experiment was so disastrous that he (and his son/heir Tutankhaten/Tutankhamen) were so despised that they were stricken from the already two thousand year old dynastic king lists of Egypt, and their described in later history (e.g. Manetho) as the time of the Leper Kings…. Now writers from Sigmund Freud (Moses & Monotheism) to Jan Assmann have of course been intrigued by the chronological correlation between the reigns of Akhenaten/Nefertiti/Tutankhamen and the “ShashuHapiru” “Exodus” led by Moses, but whether this was the inauspicious start of monotheistic Hebrew Religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam is entirely beyond the scope of the present essay.  

I mention Akhenaten’s first the tyrant decrees only because his was the first recorded episode of forced resettlement and urban redesing or “urban planning” for the sole purpose of ideological purity and to make cities the expression of a supreme ideology.  

In our time, really over the past 165 years since February 1848, we have seen Communist ideologues in the tradition of Akhenaten first decree that cities are bad, then engage in 140 years of continuous “suburbanization” an decreased demographic density, only to suddenly start turning around sometime in the late 1980s-1990s and start decreeing that CITIES are good, the SUBURBS and SUBURBAN LIVING are evil, that all ecological disasters come from DIFFUSE DEMOGRAPHICS with high consumption (i.e. easy, high quality) lifestyles.  Starting with the “urban renewal” under Ronald W. Reagan followed by the accession of King George H.W. Bush in 1989, the ideological trend continued so that urban dwelling now epitomizes sacrifice and limited living in comparison to the grotesque and ecologically flagrant excesses of the high end consumer lifestyle to which the world living in the suburbs has become accustomed.  

IS IT ONLY a coincidence that the final excessive bulge of suburban development under Clinton & King George W. Bush ended in what appears to have been a preplanned, premeditated mortgage foreclosure holocaust with the intended purpose of abolishing the suburbs?

It is hardly news that Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, between the two of them, effectively invented the modern social sciences—ALL OF THEM.  Oh, to be sure, Political Philosophy & Practical Theory had existed since at least the time of Plato and Aristotle, and economics had existed at least since the 18th Century and the writings of Adam Smith.  But Sociology & Anthropology certainly had no pre-Marxist existence at all, and were formed as academic disciplines largely in reaction and response to the Marxist theory of Cultural Evolution.  

The Communist Manifesto of February 1848 was primarily an exhortation to action (in the form of World Revolution and the resultant obliteration of “culturally normative, moral and political reality” as know prior to that date).   But it contained amazing little nuggets which have haunted the world ever since.

It is unclear to me what the origin of the Manifesto’s advocacy of an abolition of the distinction between urban and rural living may have been.  I have no ready explanation for why human populations should NOT have both urban and rural components.  To me it seems quite natural that civilization, among its other “discontents”, involves a division of labor and of interests which align very nicely along the division of society into urban and rural foci.

But for whatever reason, I suppose primarily the abolition of all sources of differentiation between human beings, Marx and Engels proposed a progressive elimination of the distinctions between urban and rural living, and the Social Sciences have been obsessed with this distinction and its significance EVER SINCE.

But not only to the academic mind, but also to the “applied social sciences”—political and social engineers of what has come to be known as “urban planning” or “community development”, the distinction between the city and the countryside has become a major preoccupation.

After 1850, for the very first time in both Great Britain and America, and then in the rest of the world, we witness the conscious development of “less dense” urban peripheral settlement which rapidly became known as “suburbia.”  The decrease of population density BY DESIGN was consistent with the Communist Manifesto and hence with social sciences.

There was an academic movement at the University of Chicago Department of Sociology in the 1920s-1940s under the direction of Dr. Robert Redfield to study and deepen our understanding of what he called “the Folk-Urban Continuum”.  It turned out the definition of this continuum almost always depended on local history and politics rather than direct in situ cultural evolution, but the Marxist plan was that “cultural evolution by design” was meant to shape the future.

And so it was that first London and then Boston and New York and New Orleans developed “suburbs” whose houses and land tenure regimes were somewhere between “high density urban” living (characteristic of the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens, for example) and true rural areas.  Cambridge and Somerville Massachusetts and the “Boston Back Bay” were 19th century examples of suburban developments in the United States, but even the City of Jefferson and Faubourg Livoudais in New Orleans (aka “the Garden District”) had this characteristic of low density suburbs gradually added on to the city.

By the 1960s, everything was up to date, even in Kansas City, and “suburban development” had gone about as far as it could go in Overland Park and Leawood, and in North Dallas and all around the Houston Beltway, and all along the western edge of Chicago, never mind throughout the San Fernando Valley and Orange County in the great metropolitan agglomeration of suburbs that grew up around the originally tiny railroad terminus city Los Angeles and became monstrously unified as a single political entity in the County of that same name, along with a few stubborn smaller cities like Pasadena, San Marino, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and Santa Monica.

After some stagnation and malaise during the 1970s, under Ronald W. Reagan, American EXURBIA was born to continue the Communist Manifesto’s plan to break down the distinctions between urban and rural.  For the past 33 years, people have been putting “suburban” houses on mega-lots of 2-10 acres all around the country, eating up valuable farm and orchard and ranch land while producing nothing, and it seems that the barrier between urban and rural had finally really and truly been abolished.  Nobody knew where they lived any more: in a city or suburb or exurb, and it just didn’t matter because everybody had CARS, Fords fulfillment of Freud’s advocacy of instant gratification without much effort.

And then, even in the ashes of Ronald W. Reagan’s promise to restore capitalism and sound government and economy to America, starting with the most deceitful and dishonest of all politicians, namely George H.W. Bush, his sons, the Clintons, and their-jointly anointed Kenyan-born heir and preserver Barack Hussein Obama, Agenda 21 was born: the first major totalitarian ideal since the Communist Manifesto (namely global world-movement ENVIRONMENTALISM).

Now, oddly enough, the primary target of Agenda 21 is the SUBURBAN and EXURBAN lifestyle born in, created-developed-and-elaborated by Communism.  Even more ironic is how the primary opponents of Agenda 21 are those who value and treasure the suburban and exurban lifestyles and decry the One World Government and Wealth transfers implied by Agenda 21.  

The Social Sciences have now all magically turned against the suburbs and back in favor of the cities and promoting DENSE, TIGHTLY PACKED URBAN LIFESTYLE—basically going back to living the way Abraham and his family lived in Ur before they decided to seek an less densely populated “promised land” deeded them by covenant some days west of Ur in what must have seemed (at that time) much like the empty California of the 1850s—a land of milk and honey….

The arrogance of elite social engineers is staggering to me.  I personally hold Harvard Ph.D. in Anthropology & History so I think I know something about elitist Social Science arrogance, especially since I took this over to the University of Chicago somewhere in the late interim between the socialists of Robert Redfield’s & Barack Obama’s eras when the U of C was pretending to be a “conservative” and “free market oriented” island in Academia…. under the leadership of such nominally anti-Marxist non-Keynsian monetarist fence-sitters as Milton Friedman and the members of the “Chicago School of Law & Economics”….

Knowledge is freedom—this I have always believed in the spirit of He who taught us, “Know the Truth and the Truth will Set You Free.”   I suggest that the true-anti-Marxist, anti-Collectivist, anti-Agenda 21 counterrevolution should focus on returning each family to autonomous food production and the genuine self-sufficiency that only such production can provide.  The great modern technological innovations of Solar Power and Wind Power as sources of electricity should be harnessed on the individual, family, and at largest multi-family neighborhood level so that “freedom from the grid” will again become a reality.

I look to my Southern Agrarian ancestors and the Southern Literary movement known as “the Fugitives” which saw virtue and autonomy in the truly rural world of the Old South as an inspiration.  The Southern Agrarian Tradition has its roots in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who looked to truly rural production as the primary source of wealth and power in society.  Agenda 21 advocates, through the mechanisms of communist totalitarianism, the world of elitist power control over people which can ONLY exist in cities, densely packed cities….which have always been the grounds most inimical to freedom….. America’s freedom has diminished directly and proportionally to the increase of its cities, and this is a pattern to be reversed.  How ironic that the world planning elite has now gone back on itself, against one of the original tenets of the communist manifesto from which it derives all of its inspiration and “academic” authority as creator/masters of the social sciences…..

 OH FOR A REBIRTH OF THAT RED-ROOSTER CROWING WORLD!

Note: I acknowledge and look back to my freshman year at Tulane (1975-1976) with great nostalgia for my introduction to the literature of the Fugitives and Southern Agrarians in a course called “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature” that I took from Cleanth Brooks, one of the last survivors of the Southern Agrarian Movement.

Can the Family be Saved as the Core Institution of Society? As the family goes, so go private property and the State. Friedrich Engels saw this at the birth of Communism when he wrote “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State.” AmRen Review of a recent French critique of the Sexual Revolution—into which I was born and in which I grew up, along with most other Americans…

Sex and Derailment

 Michael O’Meara, American Renaissance, June 29, 2012

SexAndDerailment
How the sexual revolution is destroying the West.

Guillaume Faye, Sexe et dévoiementÉditions du Lore, 2011, €26.00, 376 pp, (soft cover, in French). 

Four years after Guillaume Faye’s La Nouvelle question juive (The New Jewish Question, 2007) alienated many of his admirers and apparently caused him to retreat from identitarianism and Euro-nationalism, his latest work signals a definite return, reminding us of why he remains one of the most creative thinkers defending the future of the white race.

In this 400-page book, which is an essay and not a work of scholarship, Mr. Faye’s central concern is the family, and the catastrophic impact the rising number of divorces and broken households is having on white demographic renewal. In linking family decline to its demographic and civilizational consequences, he dissects the larger social pathologies associated with the “inverted” sexuality now disfiguring European life. These pathologies include the de-virilization and feminization of white men, the normalization of homosexuality, feminist androgyny, Third-World colonization, miscegenation, the loss of bio-anthropological norms (like the blond Jesus)—and all that comes with the denial of biological reality.

At the core of Mr. Faye’s argument is the contention that sexuality constitutes a people’s fundamental basis; it governs its reproduction and ensures its survival. Thus, it is the key to any analysis of contemporary society.

As the ethologist Konrad Lorenz and the anthropologist/social theorist Arnold Gehlen (both of whom have influenced Mr. Faye) have demonstrated, there is nothing automatic or spontaneous in human sexuality, as it is in other animals. Man’s body may be like those of the higher mammals, but it is also a cultural, plastic one with few governing instincts. Socioeconomic, ideological, and emotional imperatives play a major role in shaping human behavior, especially in the higher civilizations.

Given, moreover, that humanity is no monolith, there can be no universal form of sexual behavior, and thus the sexuality, like everything else, of Europeans differs from that of non-Europeans. In the United States and Brazil, for example, the sexual practices and family forms of blacks are still very unlike those of whites, despite ten generations in these European-founded countries. Every form of sexuality, Mr. Faye argues, stems from a specific bioculture (a historically-defined “stock”), which varies according to time and people. Human behavior is thus for him always the result of a native, inborn ethno-psychology, historically embodied in cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures.

The higher, more creative the culture the more sexuality also tends to depend on fragile, individual factors—such as desire, libido, self-interest—in contrast to less developed cultures, whose reproduction relies more on collective and instinctive factors. High cultures consequently reproduce less and low cultures more, though the latter suffer far greater infant mortality (an equilibrium that was upset only in the 20th century, when high cultures intervened to reduce the infant mortality of lower cultures, thereby setting off today’s explosive Third-World population growth).

Despite these differences and despite the world’s great variety of family forms and sexual customs, the overwhelming majority of peoples and races nevertheless prohibit incest, pedophilia, racially mixed marriages, homosexual unions, and “unparented” children.

By contravening many of these traditional prohibitions in recent decades, Western civilization has embarked on a process that Mr. Faye calls derailment, which is evident in the profound social and mental pathologies that follow the inversion of  “natural” (i.e., historic or ancient) norms—inversions that have been legitimized in the name of morality, freedom, and equality.

Sexe et dévoiement is an essay, then, about the practices and ideologies currently affecting European sexuality and about how these practices and ideologies are leading Europeans into a self-defeating struggle against nature—against their nature, upon which their biocivilization rests.

The Death of the Family

Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, expressions of egalitarianism and a nihilistic individualism have helped undermine the family, bringing it to the critical stage it has reached today. Of these, the most destructive for Mr. Faye has been the ideology of libidinal love (championed by the so-called “sexual liberation” movement of the period), which confused recreational sex with freedom, disconnected sex from reproduction, and treated traditional social/cultural norms as forms of oppression.

The “liberationists” of the 1960s—the first generation raised on TV—were linked to the New Left, which saw all restraint as oppressive and all individuals as interchangeable. They were convinced that all things were possible, as they sought to free desire from the “oppressive” mores of what Mr. Faye calls the “bourgeois family.”

This ‘60s-style sexual liberation, he notes, was “Anglo-Saxon” in origin, motivated by a shift from prudery to the opposite extreme. Originally, this middle-class, Protestant prudery confined sexuality to the monogamous nuclear family, which represented a compromise between individual desire and familial interests. This compromise preserved the family line and reared children to carry it on.

In the 1960s, when the Boomers came of age, the puritans passed to the other extreme, jettisoning their sexual “squeamishness” and joining the movement to liberate the libido. In practice, this meant abolishing conjugal fidelity, heterosexual dominance, “patriarchy,” and whatever taboos opposed the feel-good “philosophy” of the liberationists. As the Sorbonne’s walls proclaimed in ‘68: “It’s prohibited to prohibit.” The “rights” of individual desire and happiness would henceforth come at the expense of all the prohibitions that had formerly made the family viable. Mr. Faye does not mention it, but American-style consumerism was beginning to take hold in Western Europe at the same time, promoting self-indulgent materialism and the pursuit of pleasure.

Americans pioneered the ideology of sexual liberation, along with gay pride and the porn industry, but a significant number of “ordinary” white Americans resist their elites’ anti-traditional sexual ideology. Salt Lake City here prevails over Las Vegas. The Washington Leviathan nevertheless continues to use these ideologies and practices to subvert non-liberal societies, though not always with success: The Russians have rebuffed “international opinion” and refuse to tolerate gay pride parades.

Europeans, by contrast, have been qualitatively more influenced by the “libertine revolutionaries,” and Mr. Faye’s work speaks more to Europeans than to Americans, though it seems likely that the European experience will sooner or later come to the United States.

Against the backdrop of ‘60s-style sexual liberation, personal sexual relations were reconceived as a strictly individualistic and libidinal “love,” based on the belief that this highly inflated emotional state was too important to limit to conjugal monogamy. Marriages based on impulsive sexual attractions and the “hormonal tempests” they set off have since become the tomb not just of stable families, but increasingly of Europe herself.

For with this adolescent cult of sexualized love that elevates the desires of the solitary individual above his communal and familial duties, there comes another kind of short-sighted, feel-good liberal ideology that destroys collective imperatives: the cult of human rights. This flood of discourses and laws promoting brotherhood and anti-racism are synonymous with de-virilizition, ethnomaschoism, and the destruction of Europe’s historic identity.

Romantic love, which is impulsive on principle, and sexual liberation have destroyed stable families. This “casino of pleasure” may be passionate, but it is also ephemeral and compelled by egoism. Indeed, almost all sentiments grouped under the rubric of love, Mr. Faye contends, are egoistic and self-interested. Love in this sense is an investment from which one expects a return—one loves to be loved. A family of this kind is thus one inclined to allow superficial or immediate considerations to prevail over established, time-tested ones. Similarly, the rupture of such conjugal unions seems almost unavoidable, for once the pact of love is broken—and a strictly libidinal love always fades—the union dissolves.

The death of the “oppressive” bourgeois family at the hands of the  emancipation movements of the ‘60s has given rise to unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, homosexual “families,” unisex ideology, new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.

The egoism governing such love-based families produces few children. To the degree that married couples today even want children, it seems to Mr. Faye less for the sake of sons and daughters to continue the line and more for the sake of a baby to pamper, a living toy that is an adjunct to their consumerism. And since the infant is idolized in this way, parents feel little responsibility for disciplining him. They subscribe to the “cult of the child,” which considers children to be “noble savages” rather than beings that need instruction.

The result is that children lack self-control and an ethic of obedience. Their development is compromised and their socialization neglected. These post-‘60s families also tend to be short lived, which means children are frequently traumatized by broken homes, raised by single parents or in stepfamilies, where their intellectual development is stunted and their blood ties confused. Without stable families and a sense of lineage, they lose all sense of ethnic or national consciousness and fail to understand why miscegenation and immigration ought to be opposed. The destruction of stable families, Mr. Faye surmises, bears directly on the present social-sexual chaos and the impending destruction of Europe’s racial stock.

Against the sexual liberationists, Mr. Faye upholds the model of the past. Though perhaps no longer possible, the stable couples of the bourgeois family structure put familial and communal interests over amorous ones, to the long-term welfare of both the couple and the children. Conjugal love came, as a result, to be impressed with friendship, partnership, and habitual attachments, for the couple was not defined as a self-contained amorous symbiosis, but as the pillar of a larger family architecture. This made conjugal love moderate and balanced rather than passionate. It was sustained by habit, tenderness, interest, care of the children, and la douceur du foyer (“the comforts of home”). Sexual desire remained, but in most cases declined in intensity or dissipated in time.

This family structure was extraordinarily stable. It assured the lineage, raised properly-socialized children, respected women, and won the support of law and custom. There were, of course, compromises and even hypocrisies (as men satisfied libidinal urgings in brothels), but in any case the family, the basic cell of society, was protected—even privileged.

The great irony of sexual liberation and its ensuing destruction of the bourgeois family is that it has obviously not brought greater happiness or freedom, but rather greater alienation and misery. In this spirit, the media now routinely (almost obsessively) sexualizes the universe, but sex has become more virtual than real: There is more pornography but fewer children. Once the “rights” of desire were emancipated, sex took on a different meaning, the family collapsed, sexual identity was increasingly confused, and perversions and transgressions became greater and more serious. As everyone set off in pursuit of an illusory libidinal fulfillment, the population became correspondently more atomized, uprooted, and miscegenated. In France today, 30 percent of all adults are single and there are even reports of a new “asexuality” in reaction to the sexualization of everything.

There is a civilization-destroying tragedy here: for, once Europeans are deprived of their family lineage, they cease to transmit their cultural and genetic heritage and thus lose all sense of who they are. This is critical to everything else. As the historians Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: “The family is one of the most archaic forms of social community, and at all times men have used the family as a model for the formation of human societies.” The loss of family stability, and thus the collapse of the family as society’s basic cell, Mr. Faye emphasizes, not only dissolves social relations, it brings disorder and makes all tyrannies possible. Once sexual emancipation helps turn society into a highly individualized, Balkanized mass, totalitarianism—not Soviet or fascist, but US progressive—becomes increasingly likely.

The Idolatry of Homosexuality

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”

Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant. To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities.  Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.

Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

In its public displays as gay pride, homophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.

Schizophrenic Feminism

The reigning egalitarianism is always extending itself, trying to force genuine sexuality, individuality, demography, race, etc., to conform to its tenets. The demand that women have the same legal rights and opportunities as men, Mr. Faye thinks, was entirely just, especially for Europeans—and especially Celtic, Scandinavian, and Germanic Europeans—for their cultures have long respected the humanity of women. Indeed, he considers legal equality the single great accomplishment of feminism. But feminism has since been transformed into another utopian egalitarianism that makes sexes, like races, equivalent and interchangeable. Mr. Faye, though, refuses to equate legal equality with natural equality, for such an ideological muddling denies obvious biological differences, offending both science and common sense.

The dogma that differences between men and women are simply cultural derives from a feminist behaviorism in which women are seen as potential men, and femininity is treated as a social distortion. In Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” Feminists therefore affirm the equality and interchangeability of men and women, yet at the same time they reject femininity, which they consider something inferior and imposed. The feminist model is thus the man, and feminism’s New Woman is simply his “photocopy.” In trying to suppress the specifically feminine in this way, feminism aims to masculinize women and feminize men in the image of its androgynous ideal.

Justin Beiber

This is like the anti-racist ideal of the mixed race or half-caste. This unisex ideology characterizes the mother as a slave and the devoted wife as a fool. In practice, it even rejects the biological functions of the female body, aspiring to a masculinism that imitates men and seeks to emulate them socially, politically, and otherwise. Feminism is anti-feminine—anti-mother and anti-family—and ultimately anti-reproduction.

Anatomical differences, however, have consequences. Male humans, like males of other species, always differ from females and behave differently. Male superiority in achievement—conceptual, mathematical, artistic, political, and otherwise—is often explained away as the result of female oppression. Mr. Faye rejects this, though he acknowledges that in many areas of life, for just or unjust reasons, women do suffer disadvantages; many non-whites practice outright subjugation of women. Male physical strength may also enable men to dominate women. But generally, Mr. Faye sees a rough equality of intelligence between men and women. Their main differences, he contends, are psychological and characterologicalfor men tend to be more outwardly oriented than women. As such, they use their intelligence more in competition, innovation, and discovery. They are usually more aggressive, more competitive, more vain and narcissistic than women who, by contrast, are more inclined to be emotionally loyal, submissive, prudent, temperate, and far-sighted.

Men and women are better viewed as organic complements, rather than as inferior or superior. From Homer to Cervantes to Mme. de Stäel, the image of women, their realms and their work, however diverse and complicated, have differed from that of men. Women may be able to handle most masculine tasks, but at the same time their disposition differs from men, especially in the realm of creativity.

This is vitally important for Mr. Faye. In all sectors of practical intelligence they perform as well as men, but not in their capacity for imaginative projection, which detaches and abstracts one’s self from contingent reality for the sake of imagining another. This is true in practically all areas: epic poetry, science, invention, religion, even cuisine and design. It is not from female brains, he notes, that have emerged submarines, space flight, philosophical systems, great political and economic theories, and the major scientific discoveries (Mme. Curie being the exception). Most of the great breakthroughs have been made by men and it has had nothing to do with women being oppressed. Feminine dreams are simply not the same as masculine ones, which search the impossible, the risky, the unreal.

Mme. Curie, French-Polish physicist and chemist.

Akin, then, in spirit to homophilia, anti-racism, and ‘60s-style sexual liberation, feminism’s rejection of biological realities and its effort to masculinize women end up not just distorting what it supposedly champions—women—it reveals its totally egoistic and present-oriented nature, for it rejects women as mothers and thus rejects the reproduction of the race.

Conclusion

Sexe et dévoiement treats a variety of other issues: Christian and Islamic views of sexuality; immigration and the different sexual practices it brings, some of which are extremely primitive and brutal; the role of prostitution; and the effect new bio-technologies will have on sexuality.

From the above discussion of the family, homophilia, and feminism, the reader should already sense the direction of Mr. Faye’s arguments, as he relates individual sexuality to certain macro-changes now forcing European civilization off its rails. His perspective is especially illuminating in that he is one of very few authors who link the decline of the white race to larger questions of civilization, sex, and demography.

Nevertheless I would make several criticisms. Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing the origins of the maladies he depicts to the secularization of certain Christian notions, such as equality and love. He also places the blame for undesirable social/economic developments on cultural/ideological influences rather than depicting a more realistic dialectical relationship of mutual causation. Likewise, he fails to consider the ethnocidal effects on Europe of America’s imperial supremacy, with its post-European rules of behavior and its anti-Christian policies.

But having said that—and after having written reviews of many of Guillaume Faye’s works over the last 10 years, and reading many other books that have made me more critical of aspects of his thought—I think whatever his “failings,” they pale in comparison to the light he sheds on the ethnocidal forces now bearing down on the white race.

TOPICS: