In patient resignation, most of us accept that the web of life is of a mingled yarn, (1) that good and ill go together, that our virtues may shine were it not for our faults – and that our sinfulness would induce despair, were it not redeemed by our virtues or, at least, by some atoning acts of charity or goodness.
Yet there are times when the surrounding prevailing powers of evil unite to reach the bottom of a barrel of perfidy, treason, debasement and viciousness – equally filled with the nauseous and abhorrent distillate of the seven capital sins.
Listing the products of evil would imply a priority among degradations, whereas I weigh the acts equally, and equally their performers.
One such time is now, and I would challenge the historical skeptic, among my twenty-five readers, to prove that it isn’t. For he may say that WW2, or the Vietnam war, or the Iraq war etc. were worse. And that emotion drives our perceptions, that man is but a quintessence of dust, (2) and that a personal internal revolt is sometimes essential to spiritual health, and can create a particular form of relief.
All this may be true, but irrelevant. For the history of man is but the history of time, and each age, epoch or era has distinct characteristics and sometime comparable features, such as commensurable levels of treachery, deceit and mass deception.
Commensurable and in this instance worse. For I rate as treasonous the treason of Julian Assange, the war on Venezuela and the ‘recognition’ of the ‘sovereignty’ of Israel on the Golan Heights by the Trump Cartel.
Hell is empty and all the devils seem to have gathered at the headquarters of the Cartel, along with the train of mental eunuchs, (domestic but also especially notable the English parliament,) ever ready to kiss the devil’s ass – and to gather by repugnant deceit the rewards they could never collect by honest labor.
Its indifference to openly criminal acts shows that the Cartel apparatus is corrupted beyond the common degree of wickedness. And by seemingly unquestioning condescendence, Trump must listen with pride, pleasure and shamelessness to the commands of his masters, mixed with flattering suggestions by the peacocks of the palace.
For whether we call them masters or “deep state” or use any other euphemism, the still uninformed or unaware will find, with a brief search, who owns, directs and controls the banks, the main avenues of communications and censorship, the tools of social media, the educational curricula, and that manufacturer-promoter of vice, referred to as “Hollywood” – whose machinery of persuasion is ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless, by promoting, as patterns for imitation, the behavior and values of the dregs of humanity.
For there is a coincidence of interests between and among the deep state, economy, finance, entertainment, official and criminal enterprises, mobs, crime, gangs, cliques, politicians, marauders and plunderers in the global cupola. Where ‘cupola’, a metaphor mediated from architecture, meaning ‘dome’, perfectly conveys the sense of a comprehensive protective environment. An environment that erases the very notion of crime and makes it a property indistinguishable and consubstantial with the business of living.
Somewhere inside the cupola sits the current Trump Cartel, with its mischief and malignity, applied with the utmost acrimony even on people and states that do not hurt the US national interest. Thanks to Julian Assange, for instance, the world learned, or at least had undeniable confirmation, of the crimes committed by the recent US cartels to bring to the world ‘democracy’ and exceptionalism.
Him who commits an odious crime, and tries to hide it, we call a psychopath or a pervert. With the Cartel, claiming that perversion is in the national interest causes an epistemological problem of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.
As for the Golan Heights, Trump and that minister of Hell, whose sole name blisters my tongue (3), and whom even the devil should be ashamed to call him a colleague – are a seeming pair of turtle-doves, that cannot live asunder day or night (4). So much for the so-called “America First” electoral program, which, for logical coherence and intent of adherence, Trump should have printed on toilet paper.
For in the end, the only obvious shared and choral property of the Cartel is a pathetic, disagreeable, ignorant and unjustified arrogance (assuming, but not given, that arrogance can ever be an asset rather than a liability).
The bullying state awes the timorous with violence and the credulous mistake the state’s injustice for law. As if each member of the Cartel were saying, “I am Sir Oracle, and when I open my lips, let no dog bark!” – preaching the imperious doctrine of the necessity of submission, to nations and peoples as old or older than the United States, such as Venezuela in the latest instance.
Furthermore, along with the fetor, the stink and the stench produced by the actors of the Cartel, there has been a concurrent, noticeable and remarkable increase in the power and externations of the already referred-to ‘deep-state,’ a still uncensored term, used to name what cannot be openly said.
And the sharpening of censorship is worldwide. For example, a French judge has just condemned the intellectual Alain Soral to one year in prison for having referred to the “Holocaust” without the expected, mandatory tone of religious guilt and plea for atonement.
Here, by relinquishing her foreign affairs to the Talmudists, rather than being considered an exceptional nation, the United States has turned into an abyss of profound littleness. Which is unfair, because the Zionist Cartel are not, nor they represent, the American people.
In this context, and considering Trump’s pronouncement about the Golan Heights, it is relevant to quote verbatim a public declaration by the leader of the US Senate Democrats. A declaration thunderously applauded by an ecstatic audience, and demonstrating to still potential skeptics, what America stands for, for whom certain “Americans” in the Cartel work, and to whom they pledge their allegiance.
“Schumer comes from the Hebrew word “schowmer”, which means guardian, watchman. My ancestors were guardian of the ghetto-ward of “Jordcoast” in Galicia, and when they came to Ellis Island, they said their name in Yiddish, “Schoimer” and it got written down as “Schumer”
To you I say this. That name was given to me for a reason. For as long as I live, for as long as I have the privilege of serving in the senate from New York , I will unflinchingly, unstintingly, and with all of my strength be “shoumer Israel, a guardian of Israel. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am your “throwel kai (yiddish)” in Israel and America. The Jewish nation lives, now and forever.”
Maybe it’s a coincidence, but after the recent elections, Ukraine has now a Jewish prime minister and a Jewish president. And the oligarch who made this possible, is another Ukrainian Jew (Kolomoisky), with Israeli nationality. Given that speech is one index of a person, the interested reader may get an idea of Kolomoisky’s character by reading the article https://bit.ly/2WklObG – posted in 2015.
And in the next US presidential elections Biden is now an official Democratic contender, who declares to be “proud of being a Zionist”, who wholeheartedly supported all recent wars (for Israel), and who advocates yet another war against Iran.
Furthermore, given that Bernie Sanders is also a presidential contender, Americans may have to choose between the Trump Cartel, the most Zionist among recent administrations, and a presidential ticket made up of an actual Jew with a questionable ideological background, and an extreme Zionist, barely short of conversion.
That the mythical majority of ‘people,’ in whose name the government governs, are demonstrably helpless in changing the political course of events, requires no demonstration. It is already a kind of miracle that the same majority can – at least so far – share ideas among themselves.
Clearly, the stupendous expectations of positive social changes by earlier prophets did not materialize. But no tenderness for disappointed prophecies ought to induce us to disconnect effect and causes.
On the other hand, it is possible to ascribe effects that cannot be disputed, to causes which may be arguably denied. For many are the springs whose waters feed into the river of time. Focusing on some implies disregarding others.
Therefore, unless he only gives history the cold regard of idle curiosity, I suggest to the interested but disagreeing reader to seek alternative interpretations and to remember that a point of view is unavoidably relative.
And to keep in mind that a dogmatic history is neither true nor reliable. Unfortunately, current historical thought has drifted towards dogmatism. How else can we explain that, even in European, self-described ‘democratic’ societies, rational disagreement with the oligarchically-endorsed historical line can bring the disagreer to jail, and/or subject him to harmful penalties. And this, in deference to supreme hypocrisy, to prevent ‘hate’.
Hypocrisy is often but a vice concealed, hence we can easily verify that there is no vice so simple but assumes some mark of virtue on its outward parts.
In selecting the factors that shape an age, including ours, one major influence is its inspiring ideology. In turn, an ideology involves a three-fold dispensation: intellectual, practical and moral.
The intellectual dispensation consists of retaining only facts favorable to the thesis that the ideologue(s) support – often by inventing them, by denying them, and by forgetting or omitting others to prevent them from being known.
In the instance, Assange’s videos showed conclusively the patent, inherent, criminal and undeniable evil of the political-military-ideological machine, at work during the Iraq war and beyond. And later, that the Cartel was, directly and indirectly, arming and supporting the ISIS terrorists it pretended to fight. In this context, Trump’s assertion that “we have declared victory over ISIS” rings like the comic relief inserted into the classical tragedies.
The practical dispensation eliminates the function of debate, disregarding the value of any confutation, however factual and logical. By removing argument, ideology also fabricates its own self-absolving explanations. For example, Venezuela is ‘bad’ because is ‘socialist.’ The Washington Cartel cannot possibly imagine that a nation or people may prefer a more equitable socio-political system to the degraded life of the South-American favelas and the sordid affluence of a tiny minority.
Assange endangered American security, etc. The inadmissibility of confutation prevents any related questions, such as which Americans Assange actually made insecure and why.
The moral dispensation abolishes any notion of good and evil for the ideological players; or rather, ideology becomes the substitute of morals. With Venezuela, the moral waiver enables the pretense that an etero-appointed puppet is the actual ‘president’. And it justifies the carrying out of large-scale criminal and genocidal acts, such as the terrorist cyber and electromagnetic attacks on the electrical and water system of Venezuela and the nefarious economic war on the country.
Ideology finds assistance and fertile ground in the general incuriosity for the facts – leaving free range to sundry pundits, goons and ruffians to popularize the version of the reality they are paid to peddle – or the reality that suits their soul and fills their wallet.
Considering the history of the Western world during the last few hundred years, we may observe that it takes between 30 and 50 years before the effects of a new ideology show themselves in full in the country or regions that produced it.
Examples are: the intervals between the ideology of the Enlightenment and its expression in the French Revolution, – between the European nationalist movements, arisen after the Council of Vienna in 1815, and the actual independence of the new affected countries after 1850, – between the brewing of a communist ideology in Russia in the latter 1800 and the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.
At the cost of objectionable over-simplification, here is an outline of the plot and the play on the development of our current prevailing ideology. The world being a stage, and all men and women (5) merely actors, the play includes a prelude, a rising action, a climax and a denouement.
The prelude involves three characters, Freud, his nephew Edward Bernays, and Wilhelm Reich. Freud and Reich, hiding behind their phony pseudo-scientific lingo, were perverts, unable to deal with their own perversion. As a remedy, they tried to prove that everyone else was a pervert too, thereby making their own perversion acceptable. Hence anyone who was not a sex addict or a sodomite, or did not find incest repugnant, was ‘repressed’ and needing ‘liberation’.
Bernays and his associates capitalized on the idea that desires other than actual necessity influence consumption, that sex is an easily manipulated passion, and that attaching a product to the consumer’s sexual passion would induce him to purchase the product.
Reich was the true inspiration, along with Cultural Marxism, of the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s. Students facing policemen on campus threw copies of Reich’s books at them. He was born in 1897 into a wealthy family from Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He had a private tutor, as was the case with the offspring of the rich, and discovered that the tutor was having an affair with his mother.
In an early article on psychiatry, pretending to write about one of his patients, Reich described himself as torn between two choices. An impulse to use this knowledge to blackmail his mother into having intercourse with him, or to tell his father about her affair with the tutor. Eventually he chose to inform his father and as a consequence of the upheaval in the family, Reich’s mother committed suicide.
Reich then married a patient whom he had seduced, after her parents discovered the relationship. But to justify his own subsequent behavior, he discovered a yet unknown principle of human nature. Namely that sexual morality was a far-reaching historical conspiracy to cripple the psyche of otherwise healthy people.
He also discovered and profitably adopted the idea of using sex as an attention getter for crowds variously indifferent to philosophy. For Freudian-Reichian inspired psychiatry, stripped of its academic gilding and scientific mimicking, is but a narrowed-down branch or pretense of philosophy. And practically a substitute for Catholic confession – where instead of a priest absolving a sinner with a recommendation to repent, a “psychiatrist” absolves a (usually wealthy) patient from any guilt about his sexual mores or perversions, in exchange for big bucks. Freud familiarly called his wealthy patients as “my negroes.”
Reich also got involved in politics but he found that his audience at large was not (yet) ready to accept his view that the problems of the world were due to sexual inhibition. Therefore he had to choose between conforming his drives to the tenets of the current moral order, or attempting to change the world to suit his perversion. He chose to change the world, with foreseeable consequences. He ended his life in a federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania in 1957.
The rising action in the play is Cultural Marxism, which essentially rejected any kind of moral authority, to be exchanged for a complete abandonment of what were/are usually referred-to as social norms. In some ways Cultural Marxism is/was – with minor adaptation to local circumstances – the implementation of Reich’s idea of a brave new world.
The climax occurs in 1968, in the shape of what has been indifferently called the students’ revolution and/or the sexual revolution. Hence the rise of feminism, abortion on demand, the idea that gender is a “construct”, the same for race, the fierce (and successful) battle for no limits to public pornography, presented as “free speech” etc.
In time a country embodies the ideology it accepted. Our times reflect the ideology that bloomed in the 1960s and 1970s, and its manifest political archetype is/was Bill Clinton, a Wilhelm Reich’s dream come true, and the denouement of the ideological play.
It began when the biography of this future president was ignored or deemed irrelevant. The name of Jennifer Flowers has now probably sunk into the swallowing gulf of oblivion (6). But in those pre-election times, it came out that Flowers was Clinton’s lover and that he had paid for her abortion. Clinton strenuously denied everything, but Flowers had been sagacious enough to record the call in which Clinton proposed the abortion and made the offer. The call became public and not even Clinton could deny his own voice.
What I think ideologically relevant is not the event, but the implications. Namely, the media, and consequently the public, sanctioned that broad lying by a presidential candidate is irrelevant. Or better, that sexual “liberation” trumps elementary veracity in the highest office of the state. A fact later confirmed in the Lewinsky business, when the senate decided that Clinton’s lying to the nation under oath (“I never had sex with that woman”) was not an impeachable offense. It follows that if sexual liberation is liberation from repression, freedom to lie is liberation from the repression of telling the truth.
Hence – to name but few truths – bomb Serbia and kill thousands because suddenly Albanians had a right to Kosovo, 19 drunkards and drug addicts did 9/11, Saddam had weapons of mass distraction, Libya was a dictatorship to be destroyed, so was Syria, and Guaido’ is the legitimate president of Venezuela.
It has not yet sunk into the consciousness of the White House Cartel that, as of now, absurd lies or lying beyond the absurd can be easily unmasked through alternative non-censored media.
During the latest on-site performance by the US appointed president of Venezuela, Mike Pompeo announced that Maduro was on the point of leaving Venezuela on a plane bound for Cuba, when some unidentified Russians forced him to remain in Caracas – while the US puppet was marching in triumph towards the presidential palace.
The Russian Foreign Minister did not even waste time to respond directly but did so through the new spokeperson of the Kremlin, the attractive Maria Zacharova, who said that Pompeo’s news was the fruit of his imagination. And Maduro, calling on Pompeo via public television said, “Pompeo, come on!” – a diplomatic rendering of “You are a twit”.
John Bolton and Narco Rubio announced that masses of Venezuelan would soon install the puppet in office. The coup had succeeded. But a few hours later, when the coup was proven but a botched attempt at creating chaos and death, Bolton declared that it was not a coup but a demonstration.
In such hands rests the credibility of the American Republic, where all the women are strong, all men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
Incidentally, the recent Mueller Report on alleged ‘Russian Collusion’ in the presidential elections of 2016, concluded that there were none. But it contains extended redacted sections, among which, some are said to be transcriptions of the phone-sex that Clinton had with Lewinsky, as recorded by the Russians. Here, unlike with Assange, we can easily envision the possibility of blackmail and the actual real implications for national security.
If this attitude is/was permissible for a head of state, why not for all others? After all, self-control, especially in matters sexual, is a “repression,” an emotional disorder (a la Freud and Reich,) from which the public – and even school children – must be “liberated,” via “sex-education” and transgressive imagery.
But if morality is a form of repression, so is reason. Therefore man is free to become irrational. Once irrational, he is only driven by his appetites, impulses and passions. But when driven by his passions he can’t control his actions –
and, in the end, as Plato predicted, this type of freedom becomes a sort of slavery.
The victim of the ideology does not realize that “sexual freedom” is a form of social control, because his reason, which previously prompted his actions, has been replaced by his passions. Consequently, pornography and the Hollywood-produced sewage, rather than expressions of sexual freedom, are actually tools of social control. For those who profit financially from promoting pornography, will contribute to elect those who will protect them politically. Hence the link between the “liberated” consumer, his financial exploiters and the political system that protects the exploiters and strengthen their exploitation.
Reich thought that sex repression led to totalitarianism – it’s actually the reverse. The sex revolution associated with the Bolshevik Revolution led to Stalin. In fact, the disruption and destruction of the family that followed the Bolshevik-inspired sex revolution created such a social chaos as to threaten the very existence of the state. Lenin himself issued commands to reverse the course and soon Russian political commissars spoke like Catholic priests. In Germany, the sex freedom and excesses of the Weimar Republic led to Hitler.
We could describe the current neo-liberal philosophy – with the accompanying explosion of inequality, the race to the bottom, the loss of political interest in evened-out economic progress and in the general welfare – a form of soft totalitarianism. Soft because iconic representative figures (like Hitler or Stalin), are no longer needed at the end of history.
Many still attribute the phenomenon to the dissolution of the Soviet Union – when grievances in the West, arising from excessive inequality, would have found support among the Soviet enemy, and now no longer could. Maybe, but it could be argued that the ideological upheaval brought about by the “sexual revolution” – epitomized by licensing a president to lie, because it was “only” about sex – shifted the priorities. Which, broadly speaking, are now same-sex marriage, transgenderism, homosexual rights, lowering the age of consent, should pedophilia be still a crime, and debates on whether gender is but a construct, whether races are a fascist invention, and how late should abortion be allowed.
To be fair, there have been efforts at bringing attention to the growing inequality – but they have been weak and uninspiring, at least in America.
In Europe, movements in Greece and Spain have practically suffered the same fate. Or rather, their initial plan, based on passive revolution, has converted into active immobilism.
The French Gilets Jaunes, so far, have proven to be different. They discovered that in a world converted into a fiscal paradise for the rich, it is natural that the fiscal burden be borne by all others. To which is added the cost of feeding, lodging, health-care, policing and administering millions of third-world migrants, pushed into Europe and America as part of the war against Western Culture and against Christian Civilization at large. Of that war we know the generals and the strategists, though we are not supposed to.
The outcome of the Gilets Jaunes movement is unknown. The forces of reaction are waging a hybrid war against them. It consists of violence, maiming, blinding and limbs severance. It includes the injection of (presumably hired) anarchists among the demonstrators, to cause counterproductive damage to property, palpable havoc among the citizenry and natural fear among the timid.
But unlike other reformers that I know of, the Gilets Jaunes have identified a paradox of any potential large-scale reformation. Namely, that appointing and electing a leader narrows or compromises the choices and direction of reform. For this reason, as of now, they still have none.
For they may remember that the pain of the people triggered the French Revolution. And that by the time the Revolution had its most notorious leader, Robespierre, it had turned into terror. Then another leader, Napoleon, put an end to the terror, and to relieve the original pain of the people, he converted them into conscripted soldiers sending them to die throughout Europe.
How the Gilets Jaunes will resolve the paradox is unknown, but the original inspirers of the movement have at least recognized the challenge.
In a similar spirit, I conclude with an unanswered question: does an ideology develop spontaneously, or is it the product of more-or-less occult groups that have a specific self-serving objective? In my view the question suggests a detective story without a clear solution, because reality itself is also a mystery.
*** (1) All’s Well That Ends Well
*** (2) Hamlet
*** (3) Macbeth
*** (4) King Henry VI, part 1
*** (5) As You Like It
*** (6) King Richard III
NOTE. This article has also been published by The Saker website at http://thesaker.is/the-bottom-of-the-barrel/ where the reader can add his comments
Original Image link: https://bit.ly/2PJTAoc