Glad you wrote about this issue of division. It can occur through ideology and also beliefs. The virus/no virus issue has become a divisive topic as well. I just wish people could try to work together to stop people who are truly evil and want to exploit others for personal and political gain. For me it is about freedom from tyranny and exploitation. I wish people could live their lives unencumbered by tyrants who want pit people against each other so they can exploit them.
To focus on the concluding paragraphs, my argument is that some of the fine appeals you have posted should be seen as expressions of goodwill and suggestions rather than soberly reasoned and universally applicable principles.
First, Roger Scruton: “we must speak peaceably even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ when they are heaped on us. Confess to our true faults, and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly, we should venerate Truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them”
When Scruton was accused of trying to create immoral ties with the tobacco industry, he did not “robustly deny” his fault. Years later, he would say that the distortion of truth in the attacks on him created such a complex situation, that he realized that any attempt at clarifying the matter in public would have been futile.
Nor did Scruton “robustly deny” the invention that he’s 'a racist' in 2019.
(Which, to my mind that was perfectly reasonable of him, for reasons that are fairly obvious.)
You write: “Looking for scapegoats, replacing justice with ‘social justice’, rioting, looting and cheering on said destruction, and trying to shut people up for their difference in opinion, isn’t a recipe for social cohesiveness and long-term success.”
Nationalities and societies developed under conditions of many natural obstacles to flow of information, and specific environmental conditions that were only mildly moderated by human technology. Now, as the information obstacles are becoming virtually extinct, and ways of life become increasingly similar everywhere, it is reasonable to consider that social cohesion may vitally depend on artificial limits to technology and flows of information, including possibly limits to sharing opinions. Social ties are primarily a matter of instinct, emotions, rather than reasoning, which has important implications for the role of opinions and their sharing, too complex to divulge here. Simply, people navigate their ways in life on the basis of their worlds of feelings.
Conclusions like these are easy to draw from the 'world news', as well as from from personal experiences.
I suppose it depends on what you understand 'robustly deny' to mean. But in any case, I don't think that particular suggestion is worth fixating on. I also don't really use Telegram so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.
Brilliant article and WoW have you packed a lot in! I have one tiny point to make re the reference to the CEO of Tesco and his comments re food shortages. For greater context, I would like to have seen the point made there about the effects of negative media propaganda in general, not just those individuals seeking to make everyone believe the elite are trying to starve everyone. Thank you. Really enjoyed reading this. ❤
Thank you Helen – glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for reading it right the way through, appreciate there's a lot in there.
Regarding your point on propaganda – yes, this is a very interesting and complex question, and perhaps I should have included it in the body of the article. I will attempt to do so here instead.
It is often said that fear is a powerful motivator. And indeed, it may well be the most powerful motivator. So it is no surprise to find that it is an emotion that is often played on, and this in virtually every aspect of our lives. But like so many other things, it is a double edged sword; it can be used either in 'good' ways, or in nefarious ways. For example, it could be argued that telling a child not to put their hand in the fire, for if they will, they will get burnt, is using fear to 'coerce' them into not taking actions that will cause them harm. The intent here is clearly good. Telling people to take out travel insurance so they are covered in the event they break their leg whilst travelling could be seen as a form of fear mongering. The intent here isn't necessarily good or bad; the company promoting the product / service wants to make money, however the product / service is arguably a useful one.
Let's now take the example of mask-wearing. Suppose that the observations we've made to date are correct, widespread poisoning has been going on, and the masks are actually there to help. On the one hand, we have a group of people telling us that these measures are being taken in order to turn us into a faceless nation of slaves and what have you. On the other, we have a group telling us that failing to use them will result in harm to our person and that of others. Both 'sides' are playing on the same emotion.
As the above examples hopefully demonstrate, it somewhat all boils down to the question of; what is the intent? If the observation RE: poisoning are correct, then arguably, the intent is good. For me, it has become increasingly clear that much of the information the 'truth movement' spreads is entirely consistent with the approach of trying to turn people against their institutions discussed in this article. So as much as I would like to say that fear-based propaganda is a black and white issue, I think in reality, it isn't, and that when one is dealing with an adversary that is using irregular tactics, such as those described in this article, it is very difficult / impossible to tackle the problem in a way that doesn't involve taking a similar approach. Fight fire with fire, as the saying goes.
Hopefully that makes sense, and I didn't misinterpret your point. Have a nice evening, and thank you again for the kind comments.
"Let's now take the example of mask-wearing. Suppose that the observations we've made to date are correct, widespread poisoning has been going on, and the masks are actually there to help. On the one hand, we have a group of people telling us that these measures are being taken in order to turn us into a faceless nation of slaves and what have you. On the other, we have a group telling us that failing to use them will result in harm to our person and that of others. Both 'sides' are playing on the same emotion."
Facemasks have pores too wide to protect from particles the size of viruses, so how can they help protect from molecules of gas? Even granted an initial panic, how can any authoritative body insist on mask-wearing for weeks or months?
Let alone the cases where the authorities break their own mask-wearing rules.
I see it as the history of insanity. Politics is a symptom not the cure .
Yip the State has always used divide and conquer, this is what the identity politics boom is for( race/sexual preference/gender/victim ID ) .
Getting people to FEAR(think attack thoughts )about other people, then they feel guilty which leads to more feelings of being separate and fear of retribution (more attacks).
Democracy dogma is one big entrenched ideological treasure that tells people (in a central banking nation that chooses and appoints Presidents)that they choose (to obey a false authority , be corporate debt slaves).
"Peace and guilt are both conditions of the mind, to be attained"
For me this sums up all reasons why conservatives are just as duped as liberals. It's only communism when leftists are in charge, it's only welfare when poor people get the money, more cops and feds and prisons is somehow increasing freedom, and if the Chinese do it it's bad but if "Americans" do it it's good. Blind faith hypocrisy.
I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to when you talk about 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. The purpose of this article is among other things to try and bridge that divide - not claim that one group is right and the other is wrong. And I have no idea who is saying that "more cops and feds" is increasing freedom - I'm certainly not. In fact, this article on the whole, is pointing out how important individual responsibility is, which in theory is the antidote to " more prisons and feds". The article further discusses how the 'system', if it can be called that, is global and therefore it isn't making the claim that US = good, China = bad, which really is quite a grotesque mischaracterisation.
It has to be said however, that on the whole the US and more broadly, the so-called anglosphere affords people greater 'freedoms' than countries like China or Venezuela. If that wasn't the case, net immigration to those places would be on par with, for example, the US - but as far as I'm aware, no one is queuing up to get into Venezuela or North Korea, and that's quite telling - people vote with their feet. And as someone who has lived in what is arguably a socialist country - at least, much more so than the UK - I can unequivocally say that the UK is a better system that allows people to express themselves as individuals, on their own terms, without being burdened by overzealous regulations and government bureaucracy. It is not perfect by any means, nowhere is. But I did just what I mentioned before - I voted with my feet, and I have no intention of ever going back to a country like the one I left.
I'm glad you are trying bridge the divide. For me it's all a setup and a racket: present the US as better than some other state that's worse. The real choice is no state, tribe/village/community is the answer. The US had to murder the Indians and destroy their culture so we would have no escape, nowhere to go where they can't rob and control us. The sooner we abandon and abolish states the better.
Could you please elaborate on why you think setting up tribes and abolishing nation states is a solution to anything? Tribal warfare existed long before the conquistadors arrived in America (and at the time, there were no nation states), but you appear to be suggesting that the creation of these states was some sort of mistake and a source of conflict, that once dismantled, will take us back to a golden era of sorts.
Do you kill people and take their stuff? Know any family, friends, neighbors who kill people and take their stuff? I don't know anyone who behaves like this. Every single nation with a police force and military kills people and takes their stuff. Every nation colludes with big business to poison the air, water, and land. Millions of people are killed by government policies every year. Health gets worse year after year, while people get dumbed down.
There used to be millions of indigenous peoples in America living a sustainable and renewable life way. Now they are mostly dead, the air water and land are full of toxic chemicals. The fish are overfished and full of toxic chemicals, the wild game is mostly gone, and our produce and drinking water have toxic chemicals in them.
And for what, gadgets? Cell phones and the internet?
It took me decades of traveling and listening to indigenous people to comes to this belief. Also working in a business that is regulated by the usda showed me how insane government policies are.
These are all issues worth digging into, but you have not answered my question. You charge 'governments' with a number of crimes, yet some of these crimes are nothing new and predate the formation of these entities. But you've completely glossed over this. Why?
Comparing modern warfare to tribal conflicts is like comparing sticks to missiles.
I did answer the question, civilization is destroying our world and literally killing us. Tribal life even with whatever "wars" they had was planet friendly, nature friendly, and hardly killed anyone. How much damage can people do with spears and arrows? WW1 tens of millions dead, WW2 millions more dead. Treasure Island still has radioactive contamination from ww2 and the cold war, alameda is still contaminated from the navy, Albany bulb is still contaminated from the battery factory. Where are the toxic dumps and contamination sites from the Lakota, Sioux, Miwok, Hawaiians or any tribe?
I can't name one single thing that's better about civilization then pre civilization.
I couldn't get much further than this JFK quote in the opening paragraphs of this article:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match”
The author then goes on to fill out how "Marxism" is the problem that crops up under various disguises around the world, including here in the USA. The problem is, JFK could just as easily been referring to the system OF the USA in his remarks. The systems label themselves differently, but operate much the same. This may be more true of the USA today, especially during the "covid crisis," than back in the 1960s, but if so, then the "West" has learned well from that "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" that he described.
What is to say that the USA has not been subverted for some time and the result is what we are seeing and have seen for some decades? The endeavour to undermine non communist societies has been going since 1917. They already did it, and western governments and institutions are fully infiltrated.
To me the error is in thinking that the USA is somehow different from the countries that call themselves "communist" or "socialist." It's no different from the phenomenon you criticize, of people blaming someone else for their problems.
No need to "subvert" the system in the USA; it's basis has always been profit for the few, divide and conquer for the many. From the very start it's been pit the poor whites against the Indians and the black slaves; don't let any of those "rif-raf" join forces. Even many of the most prominent abolitionists against slavery were at the same time avid fans of removing the Indian communities from their ancestral homes and sending them west, and then to reservations. That was way before 1917, or even 1848 when the Communist Manifesto was written.
There is a strong internal struggle going on in most western countries for precisely the reasons Seb lays out. Certain nations/ideological systems have not stopped in their efforts to undermine the morale and stability of these nations and their people, and have done so by various means mostly from the inside. Your reaction to the comment shows quite how successful they have been in their task. The end is nigh when a country’s people have zero remaining hope in anything their country has to offer and would rather welcome anything other than that. This is how they win.
That isn't what the article is saying though, at all - and you would know this if you'd actually read it, instead of making comments based on assumptions. If anything is unclear a better approach might be to ask questions rather than make assertions on what content you haven't even read is saying. So-called Marxism is obviously older than Marx himself, given that it's nothing more than a very thin veneer over a condition that has plagued humanity since the dawn of time. Again, this is made, I believe, abundantly clear in the article.
The article's main thesis about the existence and spread of ideological subversion, is welcome.
My first encounter with Bezmenov's message was about 2011. During that time, my observation has been that it is often difficult to distinguish it from effects of a spontaneous decay of a society. Also, that it is difficult to pinpoint the deliberately subversive agents. And that promoting warning messages and making a wide influence isn't my forte.
Given all of that, it looked, and still looks wiser to concentrate myself on developing such habits and such a mental attitude that would present a fitting response to whatever version of external events is right.
Others, like you, may choose other strategies, and have success with them due to a natural variation in aptitudes.
Your article concludes that, among other things, looking for scapegoats isn't a recipe for success. That happens after you make a long series of references to subversive agents coming from Marxists, and from communitarianism, and exclusively from Marxism and communitarianism.
That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians.
Communitarianism is recommendable for our times, — says none other than John Milbank
The community, rather than the rugged individual, was the center of the famed American freedoms of the 19th century, argues the (staunchly anti-communist) Tanner Greer :
A Marxist regime was superior to the current West in protecting property rights, argues a Croatian Monaco-based businessman Alex Krainer. https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/property-rights-the-reality-vs-the . Krainer, rather than being a sympathiser of the Yugoslav regime, once left his business in the West to volunteer in the war for Croatian sovereignty.
Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great." That, he specified, means having enjoyed 'great freedoms' — greater than those of the Western youth of today: https://odysee.com/@johnwaters:7/AHC5%281%29:2
By this point, you may feel disoriented.
So here is the point:
Krainer's point is that "we should focus on issues on their merit and disregard labels and ideology."
That's my point as well. My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life.
Again, our minds may work so differently that you, by focusing on ideological differences, can better achieve your aims of 'social cohesiveness and long-term success.'
"That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians."
Not at all. This entire article was very much focused on ideas as opposed to individuals. And at no point have I put the blame on any individual, or group of individuals, in fact it's the complete opposite. In my view, so-called Marxism can only really take root in a society that has lost it's moral compass (https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate-sub/solzhenitsyn-acceptance-speech/), and it is incumbent on every individual within that society to ensure that doesn't happen.
"My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life"
I don't believe this article says anything that suggests we should be thinking in terms of 'isms', quite the opposite. In fact, it points out that many so-called ideologies are subsets of 'Marxism', which itself can be further distilled down to basic human traits and emotions, such as scapegoating, resentment etc.
"Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great."
Bezmenov also enjoyed the fruits of 'communism', but that didn't stop him from (allegedly) defecting. There are many other such examples. Having lived in a country that is more 'socialist' than the one I am currently living in, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that on the whole, the latter is better (which is why I moved).
But the proof really is in the pudding; I know plenty of people who have or wish to move to, for example, the US. But for some weird reason, I don't know any who want to move to Cuba, Venezuela or Iran (even those who have been to those places).
First, let me apologise for misinterpreting some of your positions. I did the best I could.
Let's get to the meat, the said proof in the pudding:
You don't know of any who want to move to Cuba : Just recently the former CIA agent John Kiriakou visited Cuba and wrote a series of articles about it. There, he says :
"The Cuban government allows students from all over the world to attend medical school in Cuba completely for free, so long as the students promise to serve poor communities in their countries when they graduate."
In his final thoughts on Cuba, Kiriakou says: ""I’ve been to 70 countries around the world. But rarely have I had my eyes opened, rarely have I been so enlightened, like I did on this trip to Cuba. Go to Cuba. Experience the culture, the music, the poetry, and the history. Learn how the Cuban people live and see how resilient they are. Our government is simply wrong on Cuba."
A few weeks later, this article appeared, informing us that according to World Bank data, “American life expectancy is lower than that of Cuba, Lebanon, and Chechnya.”
Relatedly, "At least 1,400 US-based ethnic Chinese scientists switched their affiliation in 2021 from American to Chinese institutions, according to a joint report by academics from Harvard and Princeton universities and MIT."
The criterion of people wanting to go live somewhere is less than foolproof:
- Many may want to join a death cult
- Many may want to stay inside a death cult.
- Many men choose to spend time on battlefields, though it is by no means a good place to be in general
- People can be attracted to live at some place for one set of reasons, but are apprehensive because that somewhere is under severe attacks, e.g. economic sanctions.
So much from me on that matter.
Now, to the more peripheral stuff:
"That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians."
"Not at all. This entire article was very much focused on ideas as opposed to individuals. And at no point have I put the blame on any individual, or group of individuals, in fact it's the complete opposite. "
Glad to hear it. To my mind, your insisting on finding "who" , expressed by you every now and then on Twitter, contributed to my confusion.
" [The above article, The Art of War] points out that many so-called ideologies are subsets of 'Marxism', which itself can be further distilled down to basic human traits and emotions, such as scapegoating, resentment etc."
This is delightful to read. One reason for why it can be so frustrating to discuss this matter, is the difficulty to communicate. Let me illustrate it with a story. During the first decade of the 2000's we spent a good deal of time on the Guardian Talk, where a Berkeley and Notre Dame historian of ideas used to tell us how in his discipline, his colleagues do not refer to Galileo or Newton as scientists. Why? That would be an anachronism. It would mean attributing to them a notion that just wasn't in their minds. The 'sciencia' of their time was a completely different kind of fish than what notion of science of modern times. As you can expect, to us, the other discussion members, that appeared so absurdly clinical and self-defeating. We often retorted negatively. And, perhaps his best line of defense was that academic historians used to express themselves more freely, but that regularly led to misunderstandings and controversies what was it that the author actually said, and also to a counterproductive lack of clarity of thinking. (Hopefully I'm retelling this with an adequate degree of precision, DHarley. Sorry if I'm not.)
As with the term science, so with the term Marxist. It stands as an exemplary case for something, but ...
Glad you wrote about this issue of division. It can occur through ideology and also beliefs. The virus/no virus issue has become a divisive topic as well. I just wish people could try to work together to stop people who are truly evil and want to exploit others for personal and political gain. For me it is about freedom from tyranny and exploitation. I wish people could live their lives unencumbered by tyrants who want pit people against each other so they can exploit them.
To focus on the concluding paragraphs, my argument is that some of the fine appeals you have posted should be seen as expressions of goodwill and suggestions rather than soberly reasoned and universally applicable principles.
First, Roger Scruton: “we must speak peaceably even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ when they are heaped on us. Confess to our true faults, and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly, we should venerate Truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them”
When Scruton was accused of trying to create immoral ties with the tobacco industry, he did not “robustly deny” his fault. Years later, he would say that the distortion of truth in the attacks on him created such a complex situation, that he realized that any attempt at clarifying the matter in public would have been futile.
Nor did Scruton “robustly deny” the invention that he’s 'a racist' in 2019.
(Which, to my mind that was perfectly reasonable of him, for reasons that are fairly obvious.)
You write: “Looking for scapegoats, replacing justice with ‘social justice’, rioting, looting and cheering on said destruction, and trying to shut people up for their difference in opinion, isn’t a recipe for social cohesiveness and long-term success.”
Nationalities and societies developed under conditions of many natural obstacles to flow of information, and specific environmental conditions that were only mildly moderated by human technology. Now, as the information obstacles are becoming virtually extinct, and ways of life become increasingly similar everywhere, it is reasonable to consider that social cohesion may vitally depend on artificial limits to technology and flows of information, including possibly limits to sharing opinions. Social ties are primarily a matter of instinct, emotions, rather than reasoning, which has important implications for the role of opinions and their sharing, too complex to divulge here. Simply, people navigate their ways in life on the basis of their worlds of feelings.
Conclusions like these are easy to draw from the 'world news', as well as from from personal experiences.
The other week one of you blocked me on Telegram after my posting this (frankly mediocre) post https://t.me/c/1351840148/94111 which, by the way, expresses a viewpoint shared by Michael Anton, the high-profile supporter of president Trump: https://compactmag.com/article/why-the-great-reset-is-not-socialism
If that wasn’t shutting up for difference of opinion, and how it affected your feelings, it’s hard to imagine what was it for.
I suppose it depends on what you understand 'robustly deny' to mean. But in any case, I don't think that particular suggestion is worth fixating on. I also don't really use Telegram so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.
Sorry, hate to have been more or less misleading about Scruton.
I decided to rely on personal memory, because searching online has become easier for me than facing my imperfections.
The Telegram link should work without actually using Telegram.
Brilliant article and WoW have you packed a lot in! I have one tiny point to make re the reference to the CEO of Tesco and his comments re food shortages. For greater context, I would like to have seen the point made there about the effects of negative media propaganda in general, not just those individuals seeking to make everyone believe the elite are trying to starve everyone. Thank you. Really enjoyed reading this. ❤
Thank you Helen – glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for reading it right the way through, appreciate there's a lot in there.
Regarding your point on propaganda – yes, this is a very interesting and complex question, and perhaps I should have included it in the body of the article. I will attempt to do so here instead.
It is often said that fear is a powerful motivator. And indeed, it may well be the most powerful motivator. So it is no surprise to find that it is an emotion that is often played on, and this in virtually every aspect of our lives. But like so many other things, it is a double edged sword; it can be used either in 'good' ways, or in nefarious ways. For example, it could be argued that telling a child not to put their hand in the fire, for if they will, they will get burnt, is using fear to 'coerce' them into not taking actions that will cause them harm. The intent here is clearly good. Telling people to take out travel insurance so they are covered in the event they break their leg whilst travelling could be seen as a form of fear mongering. The intent here isn't necessarily good or bad; the company promoting the product / service wants to make money, however the product / service is arguably a useful one.
Let's now take the example of mask-wearing. Suppose that the observations we've made to date are correct, widespread poisoning has been going on, and the masks are actually there to help. On the one hand, we have a group of people telling us that these measures are being taken in order to turn us into a faceless nation of slaves and what have you. On the other, we have a group telling us that failing to use them will result in harm to our person and that of others. Both 'sides' are playing on the same emotion.
As the above examples hopefully demonstrate, it somewhat all boils down to the question of; what is the intent? If the observation RE: poisoning are correct, then arguably, the intent is good. For me, it has become increasingly clear that much of the information the 'truth movement' spreads is entirely consistent with the approach of trying to turn people against their institutions discussed in this article. So as much as I would like to say that fear-based propaganda is a black and white issue, I think in reality, it isn't, and that when one is dealing with an adversary that is using irregular tactics, such as those described in this article, it is very difficult / impossible to tackle the problem in a way that doesn't involve taking a similar approach. Fight fire with fire, as the saying goes.
Hopefully that makes sense, and I didn't misinterpret your point. Have a nice evening, and thank you again for the kind comments.
"Let's now take the example of mask-wearing. Suppose that the observations we've made to date are correct, widespread poisoning has been going on, and the masks are actually there to help. On the one hand, we have a group of people telling us that these measures are being taken in order to turn us into a faceless nation of slaves and what have you. On the other, we have a group telling us that failing to use them will result in harm to our person and that of others. Both 'sides' are playing on the same emotion."
Facemasks have pores too wide to protect from particles the size of viruses, so how can they help protect from molecules of gas? Even granted an initial panic, how can any authoritative body insist on mask-wearing for weeks or months?
Let alone the cases where the authorities break their own mask-wearing rules.
"Alpha articles are easily shielded against and can be stopped by a single sheet of paper".
https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/localprograms/nucleargauge/story_content/external_files/DOH_Ionizing%20Radiation.pdf
I see it as the history of insanity. Politics is a symptom not the cure .
Yip the State has always used divide and conquer, this is what the identity politics boom is for( race/sexual preference/gender/victim ID ) .
Getting people to FEAR(think attack thoughts )about other people, then they feel guilty which leads to more feelings of being separate and fear of retribution (more attacks).
Democracy dogma is one big entrenched ideological treasure that tells people (in a central banking nation that chooses and appoints Presidents)that they choose (to obey a false authority , be corporate debt slaves).
"Peace and guilt are both conditions of the mind, to be attained"
Essentially we choose fear or love.
War or peace.
For me this sums up all reasons why conservatives are just as duped as liberals. It's only communism when leftists are in charge, it's only welfare when poor people get the money, more cops and feds and prisons is somehow increasing freedom, and if the Chinese do it it's bad but if "Americans" do it it's good. Blind faith hypocrisy.
I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to when you talk about 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. The purpose of this article is among other things to try and bridge that divide - not claim that one group is right and the other is wrong. And I have no idea who is saying that "more cops and feds" is increasing freedom - I'm certainly not. In fact, this article on the whole, is pointing out how important individual responsibility is, which in theory is the antidote to " more prisons and feds". The article further discusses how the 'system', if it can be called that, is global and therefore it isn't making the claim that US = good, China = bad, which really is quite a grotesque mischaracterisation.
It has to be said however, that on the whole the US and more broadly, the so-called anglosphere affords people greater 'freedoms' than countries like China or Venezuela. If that wasn't the case, net immigration to those places would be on par with, for example, the US - but as far as I'm aware, no one is queuing up to get into Venezuela or North Korea, and that's quite telling - people vote with their feet. And as someone who has lived in what is arguably a socialist country - at least, much more so than the UK - I can unequivocally say that the UK is a better system that allows people to express themselves as individuals, on their own terms, without being burdened by overzealous regulations and government bureaucracy. It is not perfect by any means, nowhere is. But I did just what I mentioned before - I voted with my feet, and I have no intention of ever going back to a country like the one I left.
I'm glad you are trying bridge the divide. For me it's all a setup and a racket: present the US as better than some other state that's worse. The real choice is no state, tribe/village/community is the answer. The US had to murder the Indians and destroy their culture so we would have no escape, nowhere to go where they can't rob and control us. The sooner we abandon and abolish states the better.
Could you please elaborate on why you think setting up tribes and abolishing nation states is a solution to anything? Tribal warfare existed long before the conquistadors arrived in America (and at the time, there were no nation states), but you appear to be suggesting that the creation of these states was some sort of mistake and a source of conflict, that once dismantled, will take us back to a golden era of sorts.
Do you kill people and take their stuff? Know any family, friends, neighbors who kill people and take their stuff? I don't know anyone who behaves like this. Every single nation with a police force and military kills people and takes their stuff. Every nation colludes with big business to poison the air, water, and land. Millions of people are killed by government policies every year. Health gets worse year after year, while people get dumbed down.
There used to be millions of indigenous peoples in America living a sustainable and renewable life way. Now they are mostly dead, the air water and land are full of toxic chemicals. The fish are overfished and full of toxic chemicals, the wild game is mostly gone, and our produce and drinking water have toxic chemicals in them.
And for what, gadgets? Cell phones and the internet?
It took me decades of traveling and listening to indigenous people to comes to this belief. Also working in a business that is regulated by the usda showed me how insane government policies are.
These are all issues worth digging into, but you have not answered my question. You charge 'governments' with a number of crimes, yet some of these crimes are nothing new and predate the formation of these entities. But you've completely glossed over this. Why?
Comparing modern warfare to tribal conflicts is like comparing sticks to missiles.
I did answer the question, civilization is destroying our world and literally killing us. Tribal life even with whatever "wars" they had was planet friendly, nature friendly, and hardly killed anyone. How much damage can people do with spears and arrows? WW1 tens of millions dead, WW2 millions more dead. Treasure Island still has radioactive contamination from ww2 and the cold war, alameda is still contaminated from the navy, Albany bulb is still contaminated from the battery factory. Where are the toxic dumps and contamination sites from the Lakota, Sioux, Miwok, Hawaiians or any tribe?
I can't name one single thing that's better about civilization then pre civilization.
I couldn't get much further than this JFK quote in the opening paragraphs of this article:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match”
The author then goes on to fill out how "Marxism" is the problem that crops up under various disguises around the world, including here in the USA. The problem is, JFK could just as easily been referring to the system OF the USA in his remarks. The systems label themselves differently, but operate much the same. This may be more true of the USA today, especially during the "covid crisis," than back in the 1960s, but if so, then the "West" has learned well from that "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" that he described.
What is to say that the USA has not been subverted for some time and the result is what we are seeing and have seen for some decades? The endeavour to undermine non communist societies has been going since 1917. They already did it, and western governments and institutions are fully infiltrated.
To me the error is in thinking that the USA is somehow different from the countries that call themselves "communist" or "socialist." It's no different from the phenomenon you criticize, of people blaming someone else for their problems.
No need to "subvert" the system in the USA; it's basis has always been profit for the few, divide and conquer for the many. From the very start it's been pit the poor whites against the Indians and the black slaves; don't let any of those "rif-raf" join forces. Even many of the most prominent abolitionists against slavery were at the same time avid fans of removing the Indian communities from their ancestral homes and sending them west, and then to reservations. That was way before 1917, or even 1848 when the Communist Manifesto was written.
There is a strong internal struggle going on in most western countries for precisely the reasons Seb lays out. Certain nations/ideological systems have not stopped in their efforts to undermine the morale and stability of these nations and their people, and have done so by various means mostly from the inside. Your reaction to the comment shows quite how successful they have been in their task. The end is nigh when a country’s people have zero remaining hope in anything their country has to offer and would rather welcome anything other than that. This is how they win.
That isn't what the article is saying though, at all - and you would know this if you'd actually read it, instead of making comments based on assumptions. If anything is unclear a better approach might be to ask questions rather than make assertions on what content you haven't even read is saying. So-called Marxism is obviously older than Marx himself, given that it's nothing more than a very thin veneer over a condition that has plagued humanity since the dawn of time. Again, this is made, I believe, abundantly clear in the article.
The article's main thesis about the existence and spread of ideological subversion, is welcome.
My first encounter with Bezmenov's message was about 2011. During that time, my observation has been that it is often difficult to distinguish it from effects of a spontaneous decay of a society. Also, that it is difficult to pinpoint the deliberately subversive agents. And that promoting warning messages and making a wide influence isn't my forte.
Given all of that, it looked, and still looks wiser to concentrate myself on developing such habits and such a mental attitude that would present a fitting response to whatever version of external events is right.
Others, like you, may choose other strategies, and have success with them due to a natural variation in aptitudes.
Your article concludes that, among other things, looking for scapegoats isn't a recipe for success. That happens after you make a long series of references to subversive agents coming from Marxists, and from communitarianism, and exclusively from Marxism and communitarianism.
That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians.
Communitarianism is recommendable for our times, — says none other than John Milbank
https://twitter.com/johnmilbank3/status/1653061595302338562
The community, rather than the rugged individual, was the center of the famed American freedoms of the 19th century, argues the (staunchly anti-communist) Tanner Greer :
https://scholars-stage.org/lessons-from-and-limitations-of-the-19th-century-experience/
As for Marxism :
A Marxist regime was superior to the current West in protecting property rights, argues a Croatian Monaco-based businessman Alex Krainer. https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/property-rights-the-reality-vs-the . Krainer, rather than being a sympathiser of the Yugoslav regime, once left his business in the West to volunteer in the war for Croatian sovereignty.
Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great." That, he specified, means having enjoyed 'great freedoms' — greater than those of the Western youth of today: https://odysee.com/@johnwaters:7/AHC5%281%29:2
By this point, you may feel disoriented.
So here is the point:
Krainer's point is that "we should focus on issues on their merit and disregard labels and ideology."
That's my point as well. My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life.
Again, our minds may work so differently that you, by focusing on ideological differences, can better achieve your aims of 'social cohesiveness and long-term success.'
"That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians."
Not at all. This entire article was very much focused on ideas as opposed to individuals. And at no point have I put the blame on any individual, or group of individuals, in fact it's the complete opposite. In my view, so-called Marxism can only really take root in a society that has lost it's moral compass (https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate-sub/solzhenitsyn-acceptance-speech/), and it is incumbent on every individual within that society to ensure that doesn't happen.
"My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life"
I don't believe this article says anything that suggests we should be thinking in terms of 'isms', quite the opposite. In fact, it points out that many so-called ideologies are subsets of 'Marxism', which itself can be further distilled down to basic human traits and emotions, such as scapegoating, resentment etc.
"Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great."
Bezmenov also enjoyed the fruits of 'communism', but that didn't stop him from (allegedly) defecting. There are many other such examples. Having lived in a country that is more 'socialist' than the one I am currently living in, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that on the whole, the latter is better (which is why I moved).
But the proof really is in the pudding; I know plenty of people who have or wish to move to, for example, the US. But for some weird reason, I don't know any who want to move to Cuba, Venezuela or Iran (even those who have been to those places).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ybQWwLl4s
First, let me apologise for misinterpreting some of your positions. I did the best I could.
Let's get to the meat, the said proof in the pudding:
You don't know of any who want to move to Cuba : Just recently the former CIA agent John Kiriakou visited Cuba and wrote a series of articles about it. There, he says :
"The Cuban government allows students from all over the world to attend medical school in Cuba completely for free, so long as the students promise to serve poor communities in their countries when they graduate."
(https://johnkiriakou.substack.com/p/more-from-havana)
and many accept the offer.
In his final thoughts on Cuba, Kiriakou says: ""I’ve been to 70 countries around the world. But rarely have I had my eyes opened, rarely have I been so enlightened, like I did on this trip to Cuba. Go to Cuba. Experience the culture, the music, the poetry, and the history. Learn how the Cuban people live and see how resilient they are. Our government is simply wrong on Cuba."
(https://johnkiriakou.substack.com/p/final-thoughts-on-cuba)
A few weeks later, this article appeared, informing us that according to World Bank data, “American life expectancy is lower than that of Cuba, Lebanon, and Chechnya.”
(https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy)
Relatedly, "At least 1,400 US-based ethnic Chinese scientists switched their affiliation in 2021 from American to Chinese institutions, according to a joint report by academics from Harvard and Princeton universities and MIT."
https://t.co/Vy5suAJdXF
The criterion of people wanting to go live somewhere is less than foolproof:
- Many may want to join a death cult
- Many may want to stay inside a death cult.
- Many men choose to spend time on battlefields, though it is by no means a good place to be in general
- People can be attracted to live at some place for one set of reasons, but are apprehensive because that somewhere is under severe attacks, e.g. economic sanctions.
So much from me on that matter.
Now, to the more peripheral stuff:
"That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians."
"Not at all. This entire article was very much focused on ideas as opposed to individuals. And at no point have I put the blame on any individual, or group of individuals, in fact it's the complete opposite. "
Glad to hear it. To my mind, your insisting on finding "who" , expressed by you every now and then on Twitter, contributed to my confusion.
" [The above article, The Art of War] points out that many so-called ideologies are subsets of 'Marxism', which itself can be further distilled down to basic human traits and emotions, such as scapegoating, resentment etc."
This is delightful to read. One reason for why it can be so frustrating to discuss this matter, is the difficulty to communicate. Let me illustrate it with a story. During the first decade of the 2000's we spent a good deal of time on the Guardian Talk, where a Berkeley and Notre Dame historian of ideas used to tell us how in his discipline, his colleagues do not refer to Galileo or Newton as scientists. Why? That would be an anachronism. It would mean attributing to them a notion that just wasn't in their minds. The 'sciencia' of their time was a completely different kind of fish than what notion of science of modern times. As you can expect, to us, the other discussion members, that appeared so absurdly clinical and self-defeating. We often retorted negatively. And, perhaps his best line of defense was that academic historians used to express themselves more freely, but that regularly led to misunderstandings and controversies what was it that the author actually said, and also to a counterproductive lack of clarity of thinking. (Hopefully I'm retelling this with an adequate degree of precision, DHarley. Sorry if I'm not.)
As with the term science, so with the term Marxist. It stands as an exemplary case for something, but ...
Hopefully this helps.