Side of Jihad with that pastrami on rye?

James Howard Kunstler | kunstler.com

 

"Socialism is a wonderful idea. It's only as a reality that it has been disastrous."
— Thomas Sowell

Does Zohran's radiant smile put you in mind of a labradoodle puppy? The guy was just that soft and fluffy during the mayoral election campaign, beaming remorselessly for the cameras, summoning a cushy nirvana of give-aways that would deliver an "affordable" life to the moiling masses of under-employed latte-clutchers doomed by their unpayable college loans and the gender-study diplomas they innocently bought with all that money. Under Zohran, New York City will soon be one colossal student lounge, and even the baristas serving the lattes will get nice one-bedroom river-view apartments, ride to work on free buses, and buy their take-out chili-crisp fried tofu for cheap at the city-run food store.

Look (above): there is Zohran with his billionaire friend and patron Alex Soros. Alex does not seem to realize that Zohran wants to eat him for lunch. Fluffy as they might be, labradoodles are actually carnivores. And Zohran has declared that billionaires should not exist. He says the billionaires of New York are going to pay for those lattes, free buses, river-view apartments, and all the rest of the package. Is he planning to hold them hostage? Staple their John Lobb bespoke alligator leather loafers to the parqueted floor of the penthouse at 15 Central Park West while he loots their accounts?

No! They are going to make like Snake Plisskin and escape from New York with all their assets and chattels. Florida, Nashville, Boise! It's a big country and, let's face it, your laptop is your office. Then what? Maybe it will be like the old glory days of Soviet Russia in New York. The people will pretend to work and Zohran will pretend to pay them and everybody will be all happy and equal. That city-run food store will become the city-run free food store, just like the hippies dreamed about in 1967, the summer of love! Jews and Jihadis will march together, arm-in-arm, into a gleaming future. . . ! 

 

Read more

As America Soul Searches, The Rest Of The West Is Falling Apart

Brandon Smith | Alt.market.us

In terms of geopolitics one could argue that allies don’t have to like each other, they just have to provide a mutual benefit that serves the greater purposes of peace. One could also argue that through cultural exchange the good habits of one country could easily influence the bad habits of another, but that kind of influence can also happen in reverse.

Though we might think of American culture as the content driver of the planet, the reality is that our ideals are an exceedingly rare dynamic found in no other society. We provide sanctuary to a fragile ember of free thought in an otherwise gloomy world of globalist oppression. It is something that must be protected at all costs.

Over the years I’ve heard many arguments from ignorant liberals about the grand progressive accomplishments of the European experiment and its centralized system. I’ve been told many times about how much safer Canada and Australia are. How the UK has near zero gun crime and how socialism works so well in Norway and Sweden.

Leftists in the US have long embraced this messaging as gospel and for generations they have told us that we MUST join the rest of western civilization by sacrificing certain liberties for the sake of future generations. We must become more like our allies in “more civilized” and liberal nations, or be left behind and labeled an “embarrassment”.

In reality, progressive leaders have abandoned western civilization, forsaking it in exchange for the elitist “Great Reset”. The political landscape in the UK, Canada and Australia has turned decidedly sour. They are speed running into technocracy and communism and abandoning any semblance of “democratic” governance. The mask is coming off to reveal Orwell’s “Big Brother”. 

Read more

SOYCIALISTS OF AMERICA

Paul Joseph Watson

Why Social Democracy Is Failing Europe

Alasdair Macleod 
The Mises Institute

There is a certain tension in the phrase, “social democracy,” and the description of someone as a social democrat. Social in this context is socialism by the state. A democrat supports the freedom for individual electors to express and defend personal interests in regular plebiscites. The two positions are incompatible.

At this point we should note that in economic terms there is little philosophical difference between European socialism and communism. Both seek to relieve capitalists of the means of production in favor of the state, either by ownership or control. Marx himself saw socialism as a temporary phase on the way to full communism. However, we all know from experience that communism fails by impoverishing everyone except a coterie of leaders. The same problem of the state’s inability to calculate prices, other than with reference to labor costs, and to foresee what consumers require on the morrow bedevils both socialism and communism. The principal difference between the two is the speed at which economic disintegration takes place, tied to the rate at which the socializing state removes personal freedoms and destroys wealth.

Social democrats assume that moderate socialism does not lead to those outcomes, which is a mistake1. They are deceived.

With social democracy we observe committed socialists and communists using democracy as the pathway towards increasing socialism and eventual communism. But there’s a problem, which in time becomes increasingly obvious to the electorate. Electors become poorer over time, and the more progressive among them seek to escape in order to participate in more capitalistic economies. Lenin and Mao Zedong dealt with this tendency by suppressing all freedom of expression and they redefined democracy to permit only the election of communist officials. Intellectuals, always the first to express discontent, were liquidated or sent to the Soviet gulags and China’s penal labor camps. 

In Western Europe a different, more patient approach was needed for the communist revolution. And this is where the concept of the social democrat springs from. 

Read more

Doug Casey On Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "Evil On A Basic Level"

"I’m afraid Alexandria is evil on a basic level. I know that sounds silly. How can that be true of a cute young girl who says she wants just sunshine and unicorns for everybody? It’s too bad the word “evil” has been so compromised, so discredited, by the people who use it all the time – bible-thumpers, hysterics, and religious fanatics. Evil shouldn’t be associated with horned demons and eternal perdition. It just means something destructive, or recklessly injurious."

---------------------------------------

Zero Hedge via
CaseyResearch.com
 
Justin’s note: America can’t stop talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).

AOC, if you haven’t heard, is a 29-year-old democratic socialist. Earlier this month, she became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

And that concerns me. I say this because her platform is every socialist’s dream. She wants Medicare to be free. She wants college education to be free. She wants to cancel student debt. She wants to hike the minimum wage to $15. And she wants to replace oil and gas with green energy by 2030.

Now, I realize these ideas might sound good to some people. But none of this would come free. It would require massive tax hikes and a lot more national debt. 

In short, she’s advocating for policies that often destroy entire economies.

Yet, she’s one of today’s most popular political figures.

I wanted to see what Casey Research founder Doug Casey thinks of AOC and her policies. So I got him on the phone to discuss his thoughts for this week’s Conversations With Casey...

Justin: Doug, AOC has been getting a lot of press lately. What are your thoughts on her? 

Specifically, what do you think of her platform and her idea for a Green New Deal?

Doug: Most likely she’s the future of the Democratic Party – and of the U.S. Why? She’s cute, vivacious, charming, different, outspoken, and has a plan to Make America Great Again. And she’s shrewd. She realized she could win by ringing doorbells in her district, where voter turnout was very low, and about 70% are non-white. There was zero motivation for residents to turn out for the tired, corrupt, old hack of a white man she ran against.

She’s certainly politically astute – but doesn’t seem very intelligent. In fact, she’s probably quite stupid. But let’s define the word stupid, otherwise, it’s just a meaningless pejorative – name-calling.

But in fact it doesn’t seem like she has a very high IQ. I suspect that if she took a standardized IQ test, she’d be someplace in the low end of the normal range. But that’s just conjecture on my part, entirely apart from the fact a high IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate with success. Besides, there are many kinds of intelligence – athletic, aesthetic, emotional, situational…

A high IQ can actually be a disadvantage in getting elected. Remember it’s a bell-shaped curve; the “average” person isn’t terribly smart, compounded by the fact half the population has an IQ of less than 100. And they’re suspicious of anyone who’s more than, say, 15 points smarter than they are.

However, there are better ways to define stupid than “a low score on an IQ test,” that apply to Alexandria. Stupid is the inability to not just predict the immediate and direct consequences of actions, but especially the indirect and delayed consequences of your actions.

She’s clearly unable to do that. She can predict the immediate and direct consequences of the policies she’s promoting – everybody getting excited about liberating all other people’s wealth that just seems to be sitting around. Power to the People, and Alexandria! But she’s unable to see the indirect and delayed consequences of her policies – which I hope I don’t have to explain to anyone now reading this.

If you promise people unicorns, lollipops, and free everything, they’re going to say, “Gee, I like that, let’s do it.” She’s clever on about a third grade level.

But there’s an even better definition of stupid. Namely, “an unwitting tendency to self-destruction.” All the economic ideas that she’s proposing are going to wind up absolutely destroying the country.

Read more

Brexit, Globalization and the Bankruptcy of the Globalist “Left”

Takis Fotopoulos
Global Research

(First published by global Research in April 2016)

The June referendum on whether Britain will remain a member of the EU or not is in fact the second referendum on the issue. The British people was asked again to vote on the same issue some 40 years ago, in 1975, when they had to decide on whether to stay in the “Common Market” (the precursor of the present EU) or not. At that time, the Left was not yet integrated into the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization expressing the interests of multinational corporations, which were just emerging en masse.

This was reflected in the fact that not only the antisystemic Left but also the Left of the Labor party under the leadership of Tony Benn was fighting for a British exit. Today, Benn’s son is one of the strongest opponents of Brexit and supporter of all the wars by the Transnational Elite (TE) i.e. the network of economic and political elites based mainly in the G7 countries, which effectively rules the world today. In fact, the entire Labor party and the Trade Unions controlled by it are now against Brexit, apart from a handful of its members in Parliament. So, what has changed since 1975? Has the EU moved to the Left, or is it the other way round, i.e. the Left is today theoretically and politically bankrupt and has been fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalization?

Read more
 

Hitler the Ultra Zionist!

Gilad Atzmon

In a bizarre effort to paper over the historical truth regarding Hitler and the Haavara Agreement, Professor Rainer Schulze of Essex University wrote an article totally lacking intellectual integrity.  Schulze’s piece in the Independent, ‘Hitler and Zionism: Why the Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were Zionists’, demonstrates that fear of Zionists and their extensive power extends beyond the Labour party. It is deeply entrenched within the British psyche and institutionally embedded in academia. 

Schulze article leads him to the conclusion that: “any claim that Nazis and Zionists ever shared a common goal is not only cynical and disingenuous, but a distortion of clearly established historical fact.” The German/British professor’s failure to apply elementary academic analytical skills to the issue results in faulty scholarship.

Schulze accepts that the Havaara Agreement provided that “Jewish emigrants from Germany had to hand over their possessions before they departed, and the proceeds from the sale of such possessions were used by a company specifically set up for this purpose in Tel Aviv to purchase German goods for sale in Palestine.”

But Schulze continues, “The Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were ever Zionists. Instead, it is testament to the fact that Nazi policy towards the Jews was not clear-cut from the beginning, but evolved greatly over the years.” Schulze clearly doesn’t understand what Zionism was and who the Zionists were at the time of the Agreement.   

Schulze defines Zionism as; “a movement based on the right of self-determination.”  This definition of Zionism is profoundly anachronistic and it is wrong.

Read more
 

The Meaning Of Dieudonné

Since the 1968 Student Revolution, the European and American Left, together with a herd of Jewish progressive intellectuals, have invested enormous effort in attempting to break society down into multiple segments of identities. The Left adopted this peculiar approach because it could never cope with its own failure to bond with working people.

The Jewish intellectuals, who led the campaign, realized that fragmented and divided nations are far less dangerous for Jews. As we know, Jews are threatened by cohesive, patriotic nationalism, and for a good reason. After all, they were amongst the prime victims of such an ideology.

Bizarrely enough, dazzled by the emerging false prophecy of post-68 ‘identity politics,’ the Left was quick to drop its universal ethos. While in the past it aimed to cross the divide and unite the working people, the post-68 Left actually split and ghettoized the Western subjects by means of identification.

Instead of being and celebrating who and what we are, we’ve learned to identify with ready-made soundbites. Rather than simply being Jill, Joseph, Abe or Youssef, we are now identified ‘as a woman’, ‘as a gay’, ‘as a Jew’, ‘as a Muslim’, and so on. In practice, the New Left has been erecting walls around us in an attempt to separate us into infinitesimally small, marginal identity groups. Peculiarly, it is the post-68 Left, rather than the capitalists, that drove us into segregation, isolation and political paralysis.

But then, pretty much out of the blue, Dieudonné, a black French comedian, has managed to re-unite the working people: the migrant communities, the Black, the Muslim, the North African as well as the White proletarian and at the same time, to deliver a universal message.

Dieudonné has reminded us what the Left stood for in the first place, before it was conquered by Marcuse and his Frankfurt Yeshiva’s pals.  It is the French entertainer who brings to light the most instinctive Left insight – we are actually united and identified in opposition to our oppressors, namely, the establishment.

The ‘quenelle’ — a salute that was initially introduced by Dieudonné — embodies a modest and graceful openness of true resistance. It is a simple, restrained and poetic take on the crude Anglo-American ‘up yours’. The gesture is obviously universal and an open call — everyone, including Jews, are welcome in, as opposed to the post-68 identity discourses that are largely defined by biology and race. Being an emblem of an ethically driven and universalist standpoint the quenelle also symbolizes an opposition to the primacy of Jewish suffering and the tyranny of political correctness.

Dieudonné is the definitive hero of genuine socialist thinking in the spirit of the Paris Commune, and as such, he indeed poses a great danger to fake New Leftists and their paymasters at CRIF. The kosher Frankfurt graduate sees the French masses gathering momentum and the people marching in the streets of Paris shouting ‘the emperor has no clothes’. In fact, there is not much to be concealed or suppressed anymore. Once again, the bare truth reveals itself and against all odds.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  & Amazon.co.uk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSkUq-3JF3M