Saturday, February 25, 2017

Why whites are NOT the most racist people on earth

From here:


In light of recent events, let’s have an honest conversation about racism in the western world--something that I think the mainstream media and modern academia has failed to provide. 
Let’s begin by pointing out something that should be obvious but is difficult for the liberal media and academics to swallow. The most racist and bigoted people on earth are not whites. In fact, the most racist and bigoted countries on earth are in the Middle East and South-East Asia.
A metadata analysis of worldwide surveys asked people simple questions like, “Would you be okay living next to someone of a different race and culture?” According to the surveys, the most racist and bigoted country on earth isn’t America or England or Germany. It was India. More so, not a single western european country made the top twenty-five list of most racist and bigoted countries. The only white majority country to make the list was Russia, at #20.
The top ten most racist and bigoted countries, in descending order, are the following: India, Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, Philippines, Kuwait, Palestine, South Africa, and South Korea. You can see the survey by clicking here.
The left needs to understand when they make the argument that white people are somehow more racist than other people, they’re wrong.
White people are the most tolerant and accepting.
That is confirmed again in a picture provided by the Washington Post. It gives a great visual representation of how tolerant and accepting the Western World is compared to the rest of the planet.
It shows the English speaking world, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Nordic countries and Iberian peninsula are the least racist and bigoted people, yet, if you turn on the television, if you crack open a college sociology textbook, they’ll tell you the exact opposite.
They’ll brainwash you into thinking that whites are racist to demonize and race-bait when facts point the other way.
In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the attorney general to collect data “about crimes which manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” Ever since the act, the FBI and Criminal Justice Departments have had reliable records on the number of hate crimes and who the offenders are. Reports like THIS show, blacks, on average, disproportionately commit hate crimes.
The liberal media and academia tell us whites are racist--- only whites can commit hate crimes. But when you look at the data, it’s clear that only one group of people have a tendency to commit hate crimes. One group of people are disproportionately, factually, more racist and bigoted in America. Blacks.
I’m not doing this to defend white people. I’m doing this to defend objective reality.
I’m looking at stats, crunching the numbers, and forming an opinion based on the evidence which is clear: Whites and white countries are the least racist and bigoted.
Whites commit less hate crimes, on average. Whites are far more tolerant and accepting than other races, besides maybe latin americans.
Therefore, the liberal media and academia should report the facts, honestly, instead of lying to the world by saying whites are somehow more racist than others. They’re not. They are in fact, less racist.
What breeds hatred, genuine hatred, for a people is misconception. A misunderstanding of reality. If you’re black, and all you get is the information from the mainstream media and academia, you’re most likely going to start hating white people.
Don’t be part of the problem. Arm yourself with knowledge, empirical truth, and expose the truth to people who want to push their agenda of needless hatred and bigotry against whites.
Follow Jay on Twitter at @JayFayza

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Behold The Censorship Machine!

From here:

In an effort to make websites more “advertiser friendly” some media outlets have taken to eliminating comment sections where, without considerable effort from moderators, they are unable to control the direction of reader conversations. But a Google-funded algorithm could change that via censorship.
The technology, called Perspective, uses machine-learning to ferret out “toxic” comments. Its designers reportedly based the technology’s moderation standards on those used by the team of human moderators tasked with keeping discourse civil on The New York Times website. The Times is also reportedly now using Perspective to expand the number of articles it allows comments to appear on without overtaxing its moderation team.
Developers explain how the tool works thusly:
Perspective is an API that makes it easier to host better conversations. The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation. Developers and publishers can use this score to give realtime feedback to commenters or help moderators do their job, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information, as illustrated in two experiments below. We’ll be releasing more machine learning models later in the year, but our first model identifies whether a comment could be perceived as “toxic” to a discussion.
The level of potential “toxicity” appears largely based on the use of vulgarity or insulting language in comments.
Here are a few examples of comments the technology would deem highly “toxic” in comments:
  • If they voted for Hilary they are idiots
  • Screw you trump supporters
  • Liberals are idiots. Why in the hell would u vote for a person like Hillary Clinton. She believes in stealing, she’s dishonest and believes it’s okay for an abortion to be done at 9 months. She’s awful.
  • Anyone who voted for Trump is a moron.
  • It is a shame that Donald Trump was elected. You can never underestimate the stupidity of middle America.
And here are a few that are considered the least “toxic”:
  • Did you vote for what you truly believe is right and why?
  • I would love to hear their reasons for voting for the candidate they chose and participate in insightful, open dialogue with them
  • Hopefully you made an informed decision based on your own thoughts and principles
  • I hope you gave it some real thought, and thank you for participating.
Personal insults and name calling cheapen any point—and there’s certainly no shortage of uncomfortable language on the internet. But is the top-down sanitation of comment sections really the answer?

How long before the machine decides whole topics are too uncomfortable for discussion and are likely to cause readers to leave?

And if the problem is online harassment, are we really going to pretend that simply silencing the true assholes among us will make them disappear? They’ll still be out there… Ever been in a big city traffic jam?

Civility is important. But pretending that life isn’t uncomfortable, and partially so because of the personalities of people we have to deal with, isn’t the answer.

Besides, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade… or a fucking moron.

Sunday, February 19, 2017


"Communists" are really only SLAVERS.
They know they can't (or won't) control their own urges to take your stuff while pretending to be your victim, so they pretend to justify their initial attacks and thefts by presuming you would have done it to them too, if you could have.
As slanderously paranoid masochists, they will always try to pretend to be able to control their own fears, BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems (as in antagonizing and attacking their innocent victims first) which cause the pains they fear the most! Hence their self-justifying endless accusations are victim-blaming "projection."
It's a choice to use the lying excuse that "I didn't do it! Only my brain did it!" to justify one's criminal actions.
And it often works out for them, too. Because being always adversarial and on the offensive, their perpetual slanders serve to put their victims always on the defensive, replying and responding to their crimes long after the fact. In trying to defend them selves, their victims are put in a position of explaining and justifying being victims, and as such find them selves in a besieged, onus-reversed state of always being presumed guilty until never proven innocent, always trying to prove a negative: "Prove your actions DIDN'T offend me and hurt my precious feelings, you haters!"
And inducing such a condition of perpetual extortion is to create a state of perpetual slavery in one's victims. Such nasty people tend to "fail upwards" as their criminally-negligent motto of course is "There's No Money In Solutions - so Please, Give Generously, AGAIN!" Their victim credentials make them into much-needed expert authorities who of course are entitled to have rights without responsibilities in all venues: business to government to academia to media.
That's what you get when you endorse idolatrous group or gang 'rights' over all real live human individual citizens' rights - while taking away said citizens' rights to own and defend property, including their own lives and those of their families. Even "socialism" is really only gangster extortion leading to slavery. Despite it's fluffy label, there's nothing "sociable" about slavery at all, ever!
These group-might-makes-right gangsters are slavers, because that's what you get from perpetual extortion. Criminal takers force makers to work to produce for them for free - the very definition of slavery. And like all criminals, they want to "progress" to having ever-more rights, and ever-less responsibility and to do so by offloading their own responsibility onto their victims, by taking away their victims' rights to self-defense. And the best way for any criminals to pre-emptively remove their victims' rightful ability to defend them selves, is to convince them in advance that there are no real "crimes" nor "criminals" at all, ever, because we're all really ever only helpless victims anyway! Since the definition of criminal depends on free-will choice or intent, criminals must tell lies all the time, making up excuses for their crimes and why they are more entitled to your stuff than you are. Thus their endless victimology "narratives" where they proudly claim to be non-compus-mentis in that "Since life is too complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect, all so-called "facts" are really ever only opinions! And therefore my entirely subjective, fact-free opinions are the "diversely opposite equals" to your silly objective facts! Whee!" And also, therefore, "since" we're all really ever only helpless victims - of mysterious magical and most importantly, predestined, predetermined "inevitable," forces beyond our control - like (Marx's "Historical Predeterminism") as in being merely helpless victims of "society" and mere products of our environments, and of course proudly helpless salves of allah - the only cause which doesn't exist is free-will choice, so the only real crime should be to accuse any "other victims" of being "criminals" simply because they got caught committing their "crimes" against you! In fact, suicidal masochism (aka perpetual "tolerance" of criminals and their crimes) should also be the highest moral virtue (for you, not for us) - CAPISCE?! So they chide and shame their victims to always try "TO GO ALONG" (with these criminal lies) ""TO GET ALONG" (with all the other lying criminals). Endorsing such Submission to extortion and slavery is a crime - it IS extortion.
Doesn't this "political correctness" look familiar? Kinda exactly like ... islam?


Further, from here:

Here are the 10 planks of communism:
  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Private property rights are almost nonexistent today. You don’t own your property if it can be confiscated for non-payment of tribute to the king, or if a government agency  like the Environmental Protection Agency can arbitrarily tell you what you can and can’t do with it.)
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Accomplished via the American tax system. Enforced via the Gestapo-like Internal Revenue Service.)
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Accomplished via the estate tax.)
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Accomplished via rendition and drug laws and civil forfeiture laws allowing law enforcement to confiscate property if it is suspected of being used in the trade or manufacture of drugs — often without evidence.)
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Accomplished via the Federal Reserve, which is not Federal and doesn’t hold “reserves.”)
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Accomplished via the Federal Communications Commission and the regulated airline industry, Amtrak, public transportation and the regulated auto industry. Further attempts being made to seize more power through control of the Internet.)
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil, generally in accordance with a common plan. (Accomplished through price controls on the utilities via their government-supported monopolies and subsidies for favored industries.)
  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Industrial armies accomplished through regulations favoring/subsidizing unions.)
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (In progress via Agenda 21, “sustainable development” communities, etc.)
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Accomplished via the public indoctrination system called public education under the control of the Federal government.)
These planks are supported by both major political parties.
Russian communism anyone? What a joke. Focus on American communism.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Leftists Are SLAVERS!

Like most criminals, delinquent libertine "liberals" are SLAVERS. That's the end result when you expect to have rights (like, to other peoples' stuff) without any responsibility (like, to earn or otherwise pay for it!) especially by offloading one's own responsibilities onto one's victims, by taking away their self-defense rights.

Hypocrisy - the double-standards of do as I say, not as I do - is what all criminals, whether libertine "liberal" ones, or holy-mobster "muslims" are all about!

All criminals want to "progress" to having ever-more rights, and ever-less responsibilities all the time. They want a right to your stuff, without any responsibility to have to earn or otherwise pay for it.

And the best way for criminals to disarm their victims is to convince them that there are no real crimes nor criminals, but only helpless victims all the time.

Thus the only crime, they pretend, would be to accuse "another" helpless victim of being a "criminal," simply because they tried to commit a "crime" against you!

Perpetual victimology is perpetual slander, because it implies a permanent oppressor.

That way they can cast them selves as victims, and their victims as criminals.

Victimology is thus no more or less than perpetual extortion, aka SLAVERY.

By forcing their victims to produce without remuneration, criminals are slavers.

As masochists, libertine "liberal" criminals always try to control their own fears BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems (like, in antagonizing and attacking innocent others first) which cause the pains they fear the most.

So, what's the leftopaths' final solution, aim and end goal? SLAVERY. The enslavement of everyone not-them; i.e: of YOU.

Since they know they can't (or won't) trust them selves to control their own criminal urges, they 'know' they must PERMANENTLY CONTROL YOU! Their main slanderously paranoid point of view is "SINCE you COULD commit a crime, SO you WILL commit it, so they MUST stop you by ("pre-emptively, defensively") attacking you first! Seeing fears AS pains is just shrewd common sense realpolitik!

"Communism" endorses the largest gang over all individuals. It IS "globalization," where trade is so free and borders so open that governments have no control over them at all. In socialism (extortive gangster slavery) individuals have no rights to own or defend property or their own bodies.

(Sound familiar, Canadians who aren't allowed to own guns for self-defense?).

When you have no right to own property, you have no right to defend it (your own property or borders). It's why they insist there are no real crimes or criminals because there is no free-will choice and we're all really only ever helpless victims - of magical mysterious inevitable predestined and predetermined economic forces (which outright Marxists call "Historical Predeterminism") and as of course proud slaves of allah.

Since your enslavement is what they're after, it's plain why they feel the need to LIE about it to us all the time, why they feel compelled to always shame & chide us to always try to "GO ALONG" (with criminal lies) "TO GET ALONG" (with all the other lying criminals)!

So suicidal masochism (of course for only you to embrace, not them) is pimped out to you as the highest virtue, and accusing "other victims" of being "criminals" just because they got caught trying to commit their "crimes" against you is derided as the worst possible sin!

And since victimology is extortion (because enabling perpetual victimhood implies perpetual oppressors) leftards, despite being small-minded fear-focused weasels, tend to "fail upwards!"

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

RINO Warning!

From here:

The Silence of the Lambs Congress
Ann Coulter: Republicans who voted for refugee ban months ago now tsk-tsk Trump

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets!)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time – and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president, and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare … in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”


What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations – as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order – but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats.

Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” – which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to the Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen – spokesmen! – for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were – wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with the Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

Monday, February 13, 2017

Steve Bannon, Closet MARXIST!?

Leftopaths are full of shit, so I take this with a bottle of salt, but then again, facts is facts, as they say:
From the Ottawa Citizen & National Post, Saturday February 11, 2017, P.# NP1 & 2, and from here:
Revolution is not only inevitable, it’s necessary: 
How Steve Bannon’s dark vision could shape the world
Steve Bannon, the former naval officer, investment banker and right-wing media mogul who runs Donald Trump’s White House, has a habit of seeing the future in a single politician.
“This is a tectonic plate shift in American culture,” he once said of a renegade Republican with big hair, who speaks in run-on sentences untethered to facts, and whose bonkers family life is much loved by the tabloids.
That was Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice-presidential candidate once scorned (in Bannon’s words) as “Caribou Barbie meets Bible Spice.” But her “plate shift” never came true, and so with all the blind confidence of a failed fortune teller, Bannon moved on to the next vessel into which red state America could pour its hopes and resentments.
This time it worked out. Bannon’s vision is now a major driver of American policy, domestic and foreign.
To judge by his own writing and film-making (the late Andrew Breitbart, whose website Bannon ran, once called him the Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party), it is an apocalyptic vision of glory born out of chaos, of purifying destruction in which the old order will fall, and a new one rise.
Bannon, who has an unusual seat on the National Security Council, may be a conservative, but he is also a revolutionary. He draws on an intellectual tradition that, like Marxism, sees revolution as inevitable, even morally necessary.
“What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself,” Bannon told the Washington Post recently.
He was writing about Jeff Sessions, the newly confirmed Attorney General, whom he called “the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of (Trump’s) agenda.”
But he was also writing about America’s destiny, and his belief that the 20th century world order that was carved out of the chaos of the Second World War will be swept away, along with the social contract that emerged from the Great Depression.
For these ideas, he draws heavily on the work of Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, political economists who may be to Bannon’s White House what Leo Strauss was to Karl Rove’s — an intellectual inspiration, tinged with menace.
What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself
Their “generational theory” describes a seasonal, cyclical pattern in history, driven by predictable changes in the moods of successive generations, with each four-part cycle lasting an average human lifespan, about 80 years.
The sequence of four “turnings” begins with a “high,” as a new order is established. Then comes an “awakening,” as new values challenge the old order. Then there is an “unravelling,” as the old order decays. Then comes the “Fourth Turning,” the cataclysmic failure of the old order as a new one arrives, leading into the high of a new cycle.
In the current cycle, for example, the years after the Second World War were the high; the upheaval of the 1960s was the awakening; the culture wars of the 1990s were the unravelling; and the Fourth Turning arrived roughly when the economy went bust in 2008.
In America, Fourth Turnings have always turned out to be a crucible of something new and good. The first, the American Revolution, created the world’s first democratic republic. A lifespan later, the Civil War ended with guarantees of liberty and equality. A lifespan after that, the Second World War created the great 20th century American superpower.
But they have always involved war.
“All of our total wars have occurred in Fourth Turnings,” said Howe, who is also a director of an investment risk management firm.
When Bannon made Generation Zero, his 2010 film about the global recession, he consulted Howe, and also David Kaiser, a historian and expert on generational theory.
In an interview, Kaiser said it is unfortunate this theory is being portrayed in coverage of Bannon as a supernatural folly, “a nutty idea,” the wacky obsession of a demented presidential puppetmaster.
“It’s so obvious that their broad prediction is coming true, not only in the United States, but almost all over the world,” Kaiser said. “And now the Republicans want to finish the job. My real fear is we’re going to sink into real anarchy, that our institutions just won’t function at all.”
He said Bannon came across as genuinely curious, but set firmly in his conclusion that the old order will not fall easy. He made clear he anticipates a war.
“If we do get into a big crisis with Iran, or even with China, and there’s a danger of war, I don’t think that’s going to bother Bannon at all,” Kaiser said. “He is ready for it. He would view it with equanimity.”
Another geopolitical actor with pretensions to historical literacy is Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, who shares the Russian dream of re-establishing dominance over all the Slavic lands, with Moscow as a Third Rome (after the “second,” Constantinople).
Russia is about one turning ahead of America, Kaiser said. It had a Fourth Turning with the 1917 Revolution, an awakening in the 1950s, and a Fourth Turning with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Today Russia is still in its “high,” not yet “awakening,” and in the words of Thomas E. Graham, managing director of Kissinger Associates and a former member of the National Security Council, it “exudes a prickly nationalism, born of wounded pride, a deep sense of vulnerability and an unquenched desire for respect.”
He could have been describing Donald Trump, and it is in this new dynamic, between two flawed alpha males, Trump and Putin, that the greatest threat of war may lie, thanks to Bannon’s dark vision.
From Obama to Trump, America’s Russian policy has gone from “feckless” to “reckless,” said Garry Kasparov, the former chess grandmaster and exiled Russian opposition figure. Trump has a “strange affinity” for Putin, he said, and a record of acting without regard for legality, and without calculating political risk.
“Putin knows the prospect of a ‘grand bargain’ would appeal to Trump’s vanity,” Kasparov said. But Russia is on “a crusade against the free world… Aggressive foreign policy is virtually the only tool Putin can use to justify his endless stay in power.”
“Putin had certainty with regard to Obama, and it was unpleasant certainty,” said Neil MacFarlane, an expert in Russian foreign policy at the University of Oxford. “Now he has uncertainty. Putin is no dope. He’ll play along to see how far he can get. We don’t know how far he can get, because the signals from the Trump administration are so ambiguous.”
Putin can meddle in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia or Moldova because they are not in Western institutions, MacFarlane said. But the Baltics, which Putin covets as former Soviet states, are different, protected by NATO’s Article Five, collective defence.
Failure of the West to defend them would send the credibility of NATO “down the toilet,” he said, but there is no evidence that this problem weighs on Trump’s mind. Indeed, Trump has been openly skeptical of this duty.
“Maybe we should ask if it weighs on Steve Bannon’s mind,” MacFarlane said.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Pernicious Ubiquitous Administrative "Law"


From here:

Thierry Baudet, leader of the new Dutch political party Forum for Democracy / Facebook
In his dystopian classic, The Managerial Revolution (1941), the American political scientist James Burnham coined the concept of “controlled democracy“. According to Burnham, the civil democracies of the second half of the 20th century would – more or less gradually – be overgrown (overthrown?) with backroom bureaucratic networks that make the actual decisions, all far away from the electorate and public debate.
While this would slowly but surely erode the democratic mandate of governments, Burnham explicitly didn’t expect that this would lead to the dissolution of the European nation state – in name, that is.
“The many nations that are in fact being absolved (dissolved?) will remain existent in name; they can function as administrative subdivisions, but have no sovereignty.”
Elections will also remain in place; they will provide managers valuable insights into the preferences of the consumer-citizen, while at the same time functioning as an exhaust valve to possible opposition forces. Burnham predicted a form of political theatre in the guise of sham elections between candidates who happen to be like-minded on every fundamental subject, who are paid to debate in front of clueless spectators in mock parliaments, while the results were known in advance – after all, the actual decisions have already been made.
Not only did James Burnham’s work serve as the most important inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984, chances are Burnham also had a decisive influence on Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann – the founding fathers of the present day European Union. For after they tried to openly guide their “United States of Europe” through national parliaments, they chose, after the French parliament (while loudly singing the Marseillaise) voted down their plans in 1954, to use exactly the gradual and stealthy approach described by The Managerial Revolution to achieve their goals.
These Eurocrats label their strategy as “functionalism“, behind which the idea is that due to the so-called “spillover effect“, inevitably, ever more power ends up being centralised. One ‘function’ automatically forces another ‘function’. So: you sell open borders as a nice convenience, and after a while, you act surprised when they force you to adopt a centralised immigration policy. You present a monetary union as a facilitator of trade without having to hand over national sovereignty; and when the (inevitable) credit crisis presents itself, your push through a centralised budgetary system.
In the mendacious words of Monnet himself:
“We wish the community to take shape in a gradual process of change. Attempts to predict its final form are a contradictio in terminis.”
While he previously proclaimed to strive towards a federal European state, now all of a sudden it was an ‘open future’ he was after. He even went as far as to claim that it’s harmful to ask too many critical questions:
“Trying to anticipate the results will only smother ingenuity. Only by persevering, forwards and upwards, will new horizons present itself.”
In an attempt to provide some sort of philosophical justification for the European project, the German-American administrative scientist Ernst Haas wrote at the end of the 60’s that:
“We don’t have an alternative. We must seek refuge in graduality, in detours, in functionalism, if we wish to integrate the region. The functionalist who trusts in graduality and detours to fulfil his goals, must choose a strategy that unites the masses and alienates as few people as possible. Only with small steps and without a clear and logical plan, can he move in the right direction. For if he was to take great leaps, he would lose the support of many.”
Haas explains that walking down this path makes integration seem “almost self-evident” until it morphs “from mere customs union into an economic and political union.
And that’s exactly the way it all went. Behind the seemingly spontaneous cooperation between national democracies resides a continental super-state ― built step by step and hidden in the immeasurable corridors of Brussels’ vast bureaucracy, in Commission meetings and shady administrative backrooms, in guidelines that sometimes come into effect years after they were written and in strategic agreements of the “Committee of Regions”. The wiggle room for member states has practically been reduced to zero.
An example. Last summer the Dutch parliament ratified the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The organisations GeenPeilCivil Committee EU and Forum for Democracy subsequently collected over 300.000 signatures in under six weeks, forcing an advisory, non-binding referendum on the matter. It was held on April 6, 2016, and resulted in an overwhelming 61% against the treaty.
Then something rather odd happened. The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte stated even if The Netherlands revoked its ratification, the treaty would still be implemented. In other words: the entire national ratification process had been one big sham.
All those debates about the usefulness and necessity of the treaty had been little more than window dressing. Of course, the member states still use national parliaments and national ratification procedures; of course, they won’t fully abolish the institutions that deliver the democratic bread and circuses, but they have been reduced to mere symbols. It is, exactly as Burnham coined it, a form of  “controlled democracy“.
A few months later, another poignant example presented itself. The Dutch parliament was given a few hours (!) to study one hundred pages of EU directives on a centralised pension system. The parliament was asked if it would allow the Dutch Finance minister to approve this grand scheme that would place over 1200 billion euro in Dutch savings under Brussels’ control.
And as was to be expected, the parliament just went with it. An MP highly critical of the plan, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrats), commented that it had simply been impossible to study the consequences of this plan, in such a short amount of time. And as it turned out, hitting the brakes was not longer an option either. The Netherlands no longer had the right to veto in the EU departments where such matters are decided!
One cannot help being reminded of the stringent teacher who assigns a student his homework and says: “This is your task, alright? Do we have an understanding?” The question is merely rhetorical – and is as humiliating to the student who has nothing to offer but his artificial concurrence, as it is to the peoples of this continent.
Meanwhile, national leaders are being co-opted by offering them future EU-positions accompanied by very high (and mostly tax-free) paychecks, a driver and other exquisite working conditions – without the possibility of being relieved by their annoying electorates.
During his national career, the Dutch Finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem was appointed as the head of the Eurogroup ― right at the moment, The Netherlands was about cause trouble by doubting yet another EU bailout package for Greece. A more severe conflict of interest was hard to imagine, since Dijsselbloem had now become both prosecutor and judge. But anything is possible in Eurotopia; and even before the ink of his signature had dried, he abolished the parliamentary work group tasked with exploring exit strategies in case of a next euro crisis.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Universities and civil society
Civil society too has been gripped by the EU. Oxfam, World Wide Fund for Nature, One World Action and hundreds, if not thousands of other ‘charities’ receive annual EU subsidies – and who will bite the hand that feeds him? And to make matters worse, there’s the ‘professional associations’ like the ‘European Union of Journalists’, the ‘European Women’s Lobby’, the ‘European Cyclists’ Federation, and so on – all an integral part of Brussels’ management system, and of course they propagate the virtues of EU expansion almost round the clock.
In universities in the meantime, the EU project is being propagated by professors in the Jean Monnet chairs, creating a pensée unique so visceral that employees at economy faculties frequently whisper my way that it’s categorically impossible to publicly criticise the euro. It would rule out promotions or future appointments, not to speak of research grants.
Does anyone truly expect a critical sound from the European ‘Horizon network‘ (which is allowed to spend billions in previously national research grants)? No, they would rather have one study the perils of ‘nationalism’ and ‘xenophobia’, as criticism of open borders is called in today’s Orwellian newspeak.
The EU has also revealed itself as the big corporations’ best friend. Even though it presents itself as an anti-cartel institution, it actually facilitates the formation of cartels by sitting corporate lobbyists right next to the so-called ‘expert groups’ of the European Commission who draft guidelines and regulations that enable multinationals to expand their operations throughout the EU, while at the same time excluding competition from smaller businesses by making entry conditions next to impossible. The prohibition of the slaughtering of animals on farms, with the official goal of “the protection of public health”, for example. The bio-industry thrives on it, while it kills smaller bio-friendly entrepreneurs. Think of strict regulations for bed&breakfasts regarding sanitary facilities and pets, making it harder for them to compete with large hotel chains.
Think of regulations for window-cleaners and condoms, vegetables and fruits, raw milk cheeses, white and yellow car headlights, vacuum cleaners above 1800 watt, coffee machines and vitamins. If you look closely it’s always a small club of large multinational companies pushing out the middle and small level companies with regulations seem to serve some kind of abstract purpose. Animal welfare, women’s emancipation, or something vaguely environmental.
Big business and big government thus go hand in hand and form a conglomerate of managers who pass each other the ball. This is also why Goldman Sachs executive Draghi’s transfer to the European Central Bank (ECB) went so smoothly, while the ex-president of the European Commission seamlessly transferred to Goldman Sachs. It’s why ALDE’s party leader Guy Verhofstadt cashes 190.000 euro a year as an advisor to investment funds with interests in shale gas (in Ukraine among other places) and why European Parliament member is also a commissioner at Mercedes-Benz.
Can one still be surprised that the automobile industry ‘together with the European Commission’ succeeded in creating legislation that was very advantageous to… diesel engines? While Japan was experimenting with electric cars, during the 90’s Volkswagen had a whole arsenal of TDI diesel engines for sale. A whole body of regulations was drafted to ‘protect the environment’ since diesel engines emit less CO2 than gasoline engines. But in the meantime, diesel does pollute more than twenty times as much as gasoline. The consequence of this EU stimulus package: the market share of diesel engines grew from 10% in 1995 to over 50% in 2012.
Losing grip by watering down
In addition, it’s critical to understand that all these processes and systems are not controlled from one central place – the trick is that European sovereignty is very hard to pin down. To the contrary even, one could say that European sovereignty has been watered down and diluted so much that it spread and branched out like vapour. Almost everyone has lost its grip on it.
The European Commission initiates legislation, the European Council debates (records are classified). The EU Council of Ministers has its say, and don’t forget the EU Court of Justice, counselling bodies of national politicians, formalised lobbies and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Oh, and of course, there’s the European Parliament with its 751 members ― who can hardly communicate amongst one another due to language barriers ― claiming to represent 600 million Europeans. Enfin, the result of it all is a nightmare that no one actually controls and that no one can reform.
But now for the astonishing part: even the greatest europhile would admit to all this. In an exceptionally cynical manifestation of Orwellian newspeak – again – this is called the “democratic deficit“. They look very serious and serene and repeat: ‘yes, you’re right, there’s a democratic deficit‘.
Brilliant! As if it’s some sort of temporary flaw that can easily be overcome. A cash flow problem that just needs a small credit injection. A lack of vitamins. A mild form of sleep deprivation. Something, that in any case, will soon recover. A disbalance that will soon balance itself out.
But as Burnham’s analysis of the managerial revolution illustrates: the EU’s abolishment of democracy is neither temporary nor overcomeable.The EU is not so much undemocratic as it is anti-democratic. A democratic EU is impossible. The plans by Monnet and Schumann that were voted down when presented honestly in 1954, would suffer a similar fate in 2017. Nobody wants to live in a United States of Europe. Europe is not a country. We don’t speak the same languages. A population of 600 million is too large for a functioning and transparent democracy.
Politicians lie
Government leaders, parliaments and politicians are pretending. They have to pretend the EU isn’t a super state and never will be; they must pretend they have a grip on EU decision-making; that EU officials are democratically elected and owe accountability to an electorate that can remove them – in Copernican terms; they must pretend as if they orbit the common voter. But that’s no longer the case. Mainstream politicians have been incorporated into the continental system. The EUdoesn’t orbit nation states – the nation state has become a satellite in the blue yellow galaxy of the EU.
In 1964 George Orwell wrote an elaborate critique of Burnham’s thinking. Eventually, he proposed, the reign of the managers cannot sustain itself because 1) it’s a closed circuit which will produce minds too weak to uphold the system, and 2) the human inclination toward liberty is too strong, and, due to modern communication, won’t let itself be chained.
While Orwell would expand on Burnham’s dystopian vision in his novel 1984, which is situated in a world where the power of the manager is complete and eternal, his political philosophy is a starting point of hope. The practical translation of which is: the referendum.
All over Europe, we see the call for a plebiscite, for direct participation in public affairs. The people are signing petitions by the masses. It’s become impossible for politicians to ignore, so they reluctantly promise their electorates a direct say. Despite the EU still claiming to be a force of democracy by and for the people, referenda are the management system’s Achilles heel. A public uprising can be put down; a new political movement can be incorporated, but referenda are beyond the grasp of bureaucratic rulers.
One referendum, of course, doesn’t win the war. In 2005, the French and the Dutch both overwhelmingly rejected a European constitution. A few years later, that same constitution was still pushed through, albeit under a different name; the treaty of Lissabon. What followed was a ten-year silence until in 2015 the Greeks had a referendum in which they rejected proposed new austerity measures.  The EU decided to dethrone prime minister Papandreou and replace him with the unelected former vice-president of the ECB, Papademos.
How much longer do Eurocrats hope to maintain this state of affairs? The second Dutch referendum – on the treaty with Ukraine – cannot be ignored completely. The British choice to leave the EU will have severe consequences. Hungary held a decisive referendum on EU immigration quota. The Italian referendum was a victory for anti-EU forces. Finland is considering a referendum on the euro and the Czech president last year considered a referendum on leaving the EU altogether – the so-called Czexit.
The coalition of free nations has thus far been led by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. With Great Britain as a fourth member, it’s starting to look like a winning team. Through British negotiations, the alternatives to a continental super-state will start to take shape; a vastly more attractive form of cooperation based on freedom, sovereignty and democracy.
Now is the time to pull through and bring down this managers’ empire. Now is the time to replace this controlled democracy by governments who are accountable to its citizens, and act in our interests.