Free Form Friday III

I think the near future will be what Orwell described in 1984: totalitarian socialism. Any “privatization” will be enslavement no less agonizing than life in Soviet Russia, where everyone was supposedly equalized. In the USSR, the joke went, “they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.” Everyone was equally miserable, in a pretend marketplace where you couldn’t afford anything, but since there was nothing in the shops to buy (except vodka), you might as well relax and drink yourself into an early grave.

The socialism dreamed up in Europe after WWII produced the “freedom” of a modern zoo, where all the animals’ needs are taken care of by the zookeepers. The people can pretend that they are free, and enjoy life in the artificial landscape, and visitors can remark about how “real” are the fake landscapes the specimens spend their lives within. But that was always only intended to be a temporary phase; once socialism drained away the spirit of fierce loyalty to a cherished, shared, tradition, and all semblance of personal responsibility was finally abdicated (Europeans aren’t even allowed to defend themselves with firearms any more, and most have been so brainwashed that they are actually PROUD of their emasculation, for example), Europeans became ripe for the hellish form of enslavement we are witnessing unfolding, where the zoo is gradually transformed into a hellish prison. (Henrik’s remarks about the horrible buildings our masters build for us to live in in this era give an idea of what they think of our true needs.)

In 1984 the “revolution” was far enough in the past that few could remember what it was like before the trap was sprung. I suppose it’s like that now. How many French really remember life before socialism? How many supporters of Enoch Powell are still alive? Americans held off some of the worst of socialism’s depredations for long enough that plenty can remember what freedom looked and felt like–which is why Europe’s devotion to the zoos they live in so mystifies many of us.

Say one thing about the internal enemies of the West, they are patient. John D. Rockefeller Jr. knew he would not live to see the fulfillment of his dream, and David, who was handed the torch and carried it lo these many decades, knows he won’t see it completed, either. It is an intergenerational conspiracy, and they are content to observe the gradual progress they are implementing. They are the true “progressives.”

Funny. The West used to be that way, when it still existed: the great cathedrals took more than a century to build. Everyone who started the project, and most of the people who worked on it, knew they would not live to see it completed–but they were building a civilization, and were proud of the wonderful thing they were participating in, adding their small part.

The devil is a great counterfeiter.

I’d trade life in the year 1200 (in Europe) for this one any day of the week. And I dread the prison the monsters of the New World Order have planned for us, when all memories of Western civilization are finally erased. This demographic social engineering terrifies me.

My ideal society looks a lot like Gary North’s: God spells it out in the Law he gave at Mt. Sinai, plus the insights He gave the prophets–and, of course, what He preached and the way He modeled perfection when He became a man and lived among us for 33 years.

The problem with North is that he’s an ultra-calvinist, which means forcing everyone to follow Biblical Law, even if (in the calvinist view) they will spend the afterlife in Hell. And as a postmillennialist, he believes Jesus can only return AFTER the Christians create the millennial kingdom the ultra-calvinists envision.

I, of course, think this is malarky. I am a premillennialist, and take Matthew 24:22 at face value. It is going to get unendurably worse, until we are on the edge of “all life” being destroyed. The New World Order decrees it.

When Jesus returns, and sets up His Earthly kingdom, it will be modeled on the Law He gave Moses at Mt. Sinai. There is no state in that system, in the sense we are used to it. No prisons, either–death or restitution (for the most part) are the two ways of dealing with guilty criminals (jails are only holding places where the accused awaits judgement).

Obviously, this can only work in a world where everyone is on the same page, when it comes to opinions about morality, and that’s not going to be remotely possible prior to the Lawmaker Himself being present in human form–which will only happen after those who pierced Him repent, and ask for Him to return. There won’t be much opposition, either, considering the complete destruction man-doing-it-his-own-way caused, necessitating His rescue mission. People will eagerly get with the new program.

As a practical matter, then, what is the best we can do in the here and now? Holiness can’t be legislated, but all legislation is a pronouncement of morality. And to end the corruption, the best approach is to adopt the shame-based technique of the Japanese: ritual suicide. If the corrupt businessman or government official refuses, swift execution.

The great thing about the swiftly-applied death penalty is the chilling effect it has on the mind. If pederasty, for instance, is punished by certain, swift, execution if you’re caught, it doesn’t take may examples carried out to make a pervert think it’s not worth the risk. As Gordon Liddy likes to say, of COURSE crime pays–or there’d be no crime.

Likewise with corruption: if you know that getting caught means no substantial punishment (why on Earth are Jon Corzine and Eric Holder walking the streets?), there’s no incentive to NOT act corruptly. But if you know for a certainty that you will be hanged in the public square within a few days of conviction–to universal cheers–you simply won’t do it.

The Romans forced the architects of bridges and aqueducts to stand beneath the structures when they were completed, while the scaffolding was removed. Call it the death penalty for corrupt engineering work. This expression of moral judgement by Roman society might explain why so many of those structures endured for thousands of years.

In the mean time, since it’s a sure bet that my prescription will not be implemented, the best we can do is listen to Thomas Jefferson: the government is best which governs least, and the best size for it is a mile square. That is, libertarianism. Radical decentralization. Secession. Break up the biggest political entities, and the monopolistic corporations will have no one to turn to for political protection and sweetheart arrangements. The only way Monsanto and Big Pharma can get away with what they’re doing is because there is an Department of Agriculture and an FDA, and mandatory medical licensing, and an AMA. Government causes these problems; shrink government by breaking it up and eliminating the bureaucracies, and those corporations lose their power. The only reason economics is so corrupt, for instance, is the government-sanctioned cartel of the biggest banks. That cartel operates via a central bank (the Fed), which enables it to completely control all aspects of the economy. Take away that government-created monopoly, the Fed goes bankrupt, as do its owners (the largest banks), and the world of money returns to something like normalcy.

America, in other words, should be allowed to devolve into at least a dozen small countries. At the least, states like California should be broken up into three or more smaller entities. When it comes to political entities, small is good, and relentlessly starving them of tax money (to keep the bureaucracies from being formed and growing) is best. Whatever we can do to wrest control away from them over education and medicine and food, we should do. Strip government of any powers we can, and let free people figure out the best way to do these things, through the marketplace.

Of course, none of what I advocate is going to be done: we are going to get a world government, and be stripped of all freedom. The Bible tells me so, and I can witness it all around me, every day, and read about the march to slavery in its various forms, right here, at MHB.

Oh, and one question, Peter: what do you mean when you say “usury”? Are you implying that there should be no recognition of the time value of money? If so, do you think anyone would lend their savings to strangers, ever, thus relinquishing the ability to use it for the life of the loan, without compensation? Jesus Himself, after all, the guy who created the moral fabric of the universe, in the parable of the talents, insisted, in the strongest terms, that money that is lent be returned with a profit.

That’s not cake, it’s bread. That’s the daily ration for his entire family, with whom he is fleeing Syria where we are currently fomenting war.

But people like to take facts and fit them to their preconceptions, instead of thinking critically.

They’ve made up their minds and they’re sticking to it!

Rich, I believe that the citizens of sovereign nations should control immigration into their own countries, too. Of course, they should.

My criticism is that people who are made refugees should not be ridiculed because they are not part of some approved group.

My criticism is that the part played by our foreign policy in driving people from their homes should not be ignored.

My criticism is that in locating the guilt for these circumstances in the refugees themselves, personal responsibility, and certainly compassion, are abdicated.

Refugees are not party to Cloward/Piven strategies. They don’t sign up to gleefully “overwhelm the infrastructure to the point of collapse.” They do not profit by their status. They are pawns in a game.

You say you have revolutionary blood and that you will do your best to right the wrongs. I wish you Godspeed in that.

But first, please, study up.

“Please prove your speculations, if you’re going to persist in them.”

Speculations can’t, by definition, be proven. I built a very good case. You are not required to be persuaded by my reasoning, Toni, but you do me an injustice when you say “Locating the responsibility in the refugees themselves abdicates personal responsibility and compassion because it denies their status,”–because that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying that the Daily Mail is presenting a fake refugee camp in these stories, for propaganda, to bend the mind of the true victims of the invasion: the people of Europe. Certainly, I deny the collection of actors pretending to sleep in brand new tents in the middle of the day, on a stage set, the status of “refugees.” Because they are not. That’s my whole point, after all.

I’m not saying there are no displaced persons in the Middle East. And I’m not saying hundreds of thousands of them are not being dumped in European countries where they do not belong, and will never assimilate but only cause terrible trouble. That’s the reason I embedded the Henrik video, after all. What I AM saying is that we are not seeing such people when we look at the pictures in the DM.

“Of course Western Civilization is being erased. But what do you think is happening to traditional societies in the rest of the world?”

I think China and Mexico and India and most of Africa, and almost all non-Western countries for that matter, are not being subject to a relentless invasion of white people (or any civilization alien to the native one), to dilute their traditional society out of existence. I see them being encouraged to strengthen their traditional homogeneity, pretty much across the board.

As for Moslem hell-holes, Islam is a toxic ideology that ruins any country infected by it (the only time these places experience stability is when a cruel dictator forces stability by active suppression of the natural tendencies of jihad). Sure, the New World Order crafters are exploiting that reality, but that does not mean it is natural for the Moslems thus displaced to be ushered into Sweden, or Wales. Swedes and Welshmen are starting to notice that their leaders are intentionally importing Moslems, and giving them preferential status, as a way of destroying the Swedish and Welsh way of life. So the Daily Mail is employed to make Swedes and Welshmen feel guilty about feeling outraged at what their leaders are doing.

If you want to help Moslems, print a billion Bibles and send an army of missionaries to all those horrible countries, and convert them all to Christianity. But of course, the New World Order guys want those places to be even more horrible than they already are, so there’s no chance of that. It’s going to get worse, not better, in those benighted lands, and the ruined lives of the wretched refuse will be used to completely eliminate what remains of what once was Western civilization.

You say: “You may experience “paranoia” because I originally made the same argument before when I noticed the discrepancy between your derision of the refugees in these articles and your defense of the Jewish refugees in WWII. I asked you to address the subject then, but you avoided it.”

I’m not deriding them. As I say, I ADMIRE the people in the pictures: they have acting jobs. That’s great. I’ve heard that 90% of actors are out of work.

And I don’t recall ever defending Jewish refugees in WWII in these pages, but I certainly WOULD, if the topic ever came up. I believe what we were discussing was the systematic identification of each and every Jew in every corner of whatever lands the Germans invaded, and their abduction and removal. These people, of course, were not “refugees” when they were abducted–they were abductees. And after the war, since the vast majority of them were no longer alive, their bodies having been deposed of, they did not become displaced persons, either. Those who did by some miracle survive Hitler’s death camps cannot be called “refugees,” either, in my opinion, because they could have been allowed to go back to that remote hamlet in Belorussia, or Greece, our any of the countries the Germans conquered, and reinstalled in to the houses they were kidnapped from, for the sole crime of being Jewish.

So these abductees, stolen very selectively from their homes because Hitler’s Thule Society had a maniacal obsession with race (kind of like our folkiefriend, Mark, although he himself is a Jew), and an ideological/spiritual imperative to “cleanse” the world of Jews,” cannot be compared to the wretches that war normally drives before it indiscriminately. The identification and removal of each and every Jew was a theological imperative for the Nazis. It was VERY discriminating. Nazism was, after all, largely a spiritual philosophy. ‘Arianism” was an obsession with them. It was to do with the source of ultimate spiritual power. This is why, after all, the Nazis sought the Spear of Longinus, and why their top occultists were dispatched to Tibet, seeking the secrets to be found there, where the roots of the Arian race lay. An excellent book, if you are interested in understanding this strange corner of history, is The Occult and the Third Reich, by Jean-Michel Angebert. (A blurb on the back cover calls it “the first work to demonstrate that the Nazi cosmology was an intricate synthesis of the…occult, nurtured by an ancient neo-Paganism… The ability of neo-Paganism to militantly reaffirm itself and contest with Christianity for men’s minds and bodies tells us that the Nazi nightmare is only the last, but not the final act in a larger human tragedy still being played out.)

So yes, I “avoided” discussing your false equivalency between the mass of hapless victims of the New World Order’s machinations in the Middle East and an occult society’s very selective culling of a bloodline that it identified as an impediment to gaining ultimate spiritual power. The two things are so different they cannot be compared. Now that I have told you why, I hope you will consider the subject satisfactorily addressed.

I applaud your goals for the quality of discussion and wish I could live up to them.  I try but I only have a B.A. and the last any only logic class I had was by a precious little old nun half a century ago. I try not to read Patrick’s comments as they seem to set me off, or put me in the near occasion of sin.  However he is a valuable asset to this forum, especially his relating of literature and theater to issues we discuss. Both of you write well, but I, in my pitiful state of not really being qualified to judge any of this, see that you, Toni, have set a fine new standard for our discussions, one that Dr. James Fetzer would also probably admire.   “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

“feelings”? “emotional responses”? “it is uncomfortable and feels like an attack”?

Moi? THAT’S a hot one.

No. I dealt with your screed in an orderly fashion, and put it to bed conclusively. Completely unemotionally. You lost. Face it.

No that is not how I perceive you. No, the characterization IS NOT just the detritus of an ad hominem response. Discussion in any forum is only fruitful if it has the possibility of bringing to light new and good insights and information whereby we can change our minds in light of that information so presented. There are many ways to issue “ad hominems” so that they do not meet the strict definition of an ad hominem.

  “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

No, I do not think you have gone too far in that regard. Just beware because Free Form Friday discussions can of so easily get on the subject of religion. That seems inevitable and natural to me if the thread is truly free and open. But Dr. Tracy does not want us to touch the “Holocaust” and Jews issue with a ten foot pole. So when things start heading in that direction, a dispute with Patrick will happen.

He is quite a wordsmith and it is easy to see where he’s coming from regarding his Dispensationalist views, and that is why he always hints that “our elder brothers” can do no harm. I can see it coming and I know we will be cut off by moderation if we get in to that subject fully freely.

On top of all of this, I believe the USA is fully in the grasp of the neocons and our foreign policy makes no sense at all to me. I am ashamed of my country and what it has done around the world. It has lied to us for centuries. And the Novus Order Catholic Church has gone down the wrong road too because of Judeo-Masonic infiltration that has been going on for about two hundred years.

I basically believe that there is a giant conspiracy that has been around for millennia. Dr. Stan Monteith used to call it the Brotherhood of Darkness. He got that so right. The bible calls it the mystery of iniquity.

Dachsie says:
-But Dr. Tracy does not want us to touch the “Holocaust” and Jews issue with a ten foot pole. So when things start heading in that direction, a dispute with Patrick will happen.-

Are you insinuating that Dr. Tracy employs Patrick as a troll to curb debate on Israel, the Holocaust, and Jews in general?

Thank you, Toni. I stand corrected about my Holocaust comment. However, I do recall a religion discussion involving Jews or Judaism and Dr. Tracy, I believe, actually posted and, as I recall, expressed some displeasure with the discussion. I suppose I should look that up but I will not. I think my basis for believing that he does not want arguments or discussions about religion, and that religion usually means religion of Judaism and Jews, is correct and well founded.

I have never had much of a problem with moderation. I also understand that this is Dr. Tracy’s blog. He owns it and he has a right to set whatever limits he wishes. If he does not like the way a discussion is playing out, even if it does not specifically break any rules, it is his prerogative to end the discussion in whatever way he feels is best.

The whole subject of Talmudism, the Kabal, Cabbalism, Judaism, and Jews is deep-state, Sunstein-type of layers of deception and manipulation and I really kind of think it best, at least for me personally, to stay away from it when I can. I am not smart enough to deal with it properly and am often just too naive. I know many Jewish people that I admire and respect and I know that some of them as a group are being used and manipulated just as certain groups of other ethnic or religious groups. Here is how this phenomenon is expressed in the book by E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Sprit…

“The triumph of Bolshevism in the revolution of 1917 increased the fear and
the animus against the Jews once again. And once again it was the most
visible Jews, which is to say the ethnic, religious Jews who bore the brunt of
that animus when the reaction came. “The Trotskys make the revolution, but
the Bronsteins pay for it,” is how one Jew formulated the phenomenon.”

Yet, I find it difficult to completely avoid the subject. There is something artificial about that when open and free discussion or study is desired. I think the whole phenomena of “control of the dialog” and what is politically correct to say and not say is a huge problem.

There was an interesting discussion on Dr. Fetzer’s show last night with someone named Major William Fox who has a site, I think, called AmericaFirstBooks.com regarding Michael Collins Piper’s books and Gordon Duff’s comments about MCP being taken out versus Mark Glenn’s comments that MCP died of “natural causes” related to his many medical maladies. It alluded to the fact that there are actually “Jews” who appear to be Jew bashers and “anti-semites” who are actually working for the side they seem to be promoting animus against.

Toni, you said “Regarding the above post, Patrick, I don’t know where to begin with the weaknesses in your argument.” And then you didn’t even bother. That is called “throwing in the towel,” AKA admitting you can’t counter what just was said.

I can’t state my case more clearly, and you can’t counter it. You just fell back to analyzing ME, which is an unwitting acknowledgement that you can’t carry on on the level of logic.

You asked me to address a false equivalency, and I did so, by pointing out its falseness. It was concise. As you did not even mention my argument, I took that as an acknowledgement that I am correct (and as it would be nigh on impossible to refute, I can’t blame you). Hence, your ignoring all my points is a declaration of defeat. That’s what I said. For some reason, in your most recent reply, you don’t indicate you understood the dynamic, at all. And your saying “You may proclaim your “win” but that doesn’t make it so. Refusing to engage in debate,” makes the situation almost ridiculous. It is YOU, in the refusal to address my specific points, who demonstrated a refusal to engage in debate.

Sheesh.