Sunday 17th of January 2021

the broken glass of civilisation syndrome...

glass   Rod Dreher writes an article warning us that "America Is On The Road To Revolution” and that “we have more in common with pre-Nazi Germany and pre-Soviet Russia than we think.”

So he tells us without laughing :

A Mania for Ideology

Why are people so willing to believe demonstrable lies? The desperation alienated people have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do explains it. For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life itself.

“He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if only his status as a member of the movement is not touched,” Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie.

Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their “privilege.” Some do, eagerly.

One of contemporary progressivism’s commonly used phrases—the personal is political—captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is: the politicization of everything.

“Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty,” wrote Arendt.

Yes Rod, We could not agree more on this total idea and development of points. And which beliefs has got the most mania for totalitarian ideology, loyalty and lack of intellect? Your should know Rod… You swim in it, day and night… Ah yes. You know: RELIGION. And yes, some Christians were (are) prepared to die rather than admit religion is a lie — and that religion has been imbedded with politics to make politics “respectable”… 

Religions, from Islam to Christianity, are full of crackpots called priests and imams. This reminds me of a funny story totally irrelevant to the problem of ideology but very connected to the concept of belief… Apparently the first “vending machine” ever invented in the world was designed to dispense “holy water” for a coin…

The first recorded contraption was created in first century Egypt, when a man called Hero of Alexandria came up with a device for dispensing holy water in temples. 

A coin was inserted in a slot, which pushed down a bar to release a precise quantity of water, so that no one could take more than their fair share
Read more:

In the days of Covidfection, many stores do not let you in, unless you use these machines with a pump that dispense anti-bacterial goo for free — but with most of them you need to press the lever yourself. Some of the machines in bigger shopping centres demand you place your hands under an autotap inside an open box with a sensor to get the goody. And I have noted that “no-one is prepared to take more than their fair share of the obligatory goo”. 

Isn’t this restrained civilisation for you. 

I am sure than in a communist world, many people would abuse their rights to be gooed till the system was bled dried… Yes, once politics loose their right to be divine, the systems bleeds to death. The lies of power cannot be maintained… This is why we have fake believers, “The Donald” versus “Old Joe”, fighting it out to become top dogs, like two decrepit male kangaroos, way passed their useful testosteroned life, fighting and kicking to be the chief copulator to procreate more idiots on this planet.
You’ve learnt something, Rod? You’re welcome.

And should you wonder about the relevance of the cartoon above, it’s easy. Religion, especially Christianity has to break your soul with an “original sin” in order to repair it… It’s a big lie that science has exposed with E-VO-LU-TION… And you still believe in your religious caca? No wonder some people don’t want to use the anti-bacterial pumps and the masks of democracy...

loosing our footing in anarchy...


Mr. Quinn began studying footage of looting from around the country and saw the same black outfits and, in some cases, the same masks. He decided to go to a protest dressed like that himself, to figure out what was really going on. He expected to find white supremacists who wanted to help re-elect President Trump by stoking fear of Black people. What he discovered instead were true believers in “insurrectionary anarchism.”


To better understand them, Mr. Quinn, a 40-something theater student who worked at Univision until the pandemic, has spent the past four months marching with “black bloc” anarchists in half a dozen cities across the country, chronicling the experience on his website, Public Report.

He says he respects the idealistic goal of a hierarchy-free society that anarchists embrace, but grew increasingly uncomfortable with the tactics used by some anarchists, which he feared would set off a backlash that could help get President Trump re-elected. In Portland, Ore., he marched with people who shot fireworks at the federal court building. In Washington, he marched with protesters who harassed diners.

Mr. Quinn discovered a thorny truth about the mayhem that unfolded in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man in Minneapolis. It wasn’t mayhem at all.

While talking heads on television routinely described it as a spontaneous eruption of anger at racial injustice, it was strategically planned, facilitated and advertised on social media by anarchists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial justice. In some cities, they were a fringe element, quickly expelled by peaceful organizers. But in Washington, Portland and Seattle they have attracted a “cultlike energy,” Mr. Quinn told me.

Don’t take just Mr. Quinn’s word for it. Take the word of the anarchists themselves, who lay out the strategy in Crimethinc, an anarchist publication: Black-clad figures break windows, set fires, vandalize police cars, then melt back into the crowd of peaceful protesters. When the police respond by brutalizing innocent demonstrators with tear gas, rubber bullets and rough arrests, the public’s disdain for law enforcement grows. It’s Asymmetric Warfare 101.


An anarchist podcast called “The Ex-Worker” explains that while some anarchists believe in pacifist civil disobedience inspired by Mohandas Gandhi, others advocate using crimes like arson and shoplifting to wear down the capitalist system. According to “The Ex-Worker,” the term “insurrectionary anarchist” dates back at least to the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath, when opponents of the fascist leader Francisco Franco took “direct action” against his regime, including assassinating policemen and robbing banks.





Read more:

when things start to get better...


By Helen Andrews

When the Russian Revolution toppled the czar and put the Bolsheviks into power, the civilized countries of western Europe had good reason to tell themselves it could never happen to them. Russia was a barbaric country with a lopsided social structure, masses of peasants and no middle class to speak of. Their political system was a relic of the past, a time when street revolutions still happened. The rest of Europe was more modern, with constitutions and parliaments and labor unions. Any political conflict could work itself out through those proper channels.

Then came the German revolution of 1918-19, and civilized Europe had to recalibrate its sense of what was possible. Street unrest led to the forced abdication of the kaiser, the proclamation of a republic, a soviet government in Munich, and a near-miss of one in Berlin, only prevented by a timely blow to Rosa Luxemburg’s head. The uprising did not fulfill all its proponents’ hopes, in terms of ushering in a new socialist dawn, but it decisively refuted the idea that modern conditions had made revolution obsolete

The Sixties left Americans feeling equally sure that a revolution could never happen here. An entire generation went into open rebellion, urban unrest exploded, tanks rolled through the streets of Los Angeles and Detroit, periodic bombings made many worry that the counterculture’s Lenin might be out there waiting for his moment—and yet we survived the nightmare unscathed. Americans concluded that our prosperity, or the flexibility of our political system, or maybe just the forward march of civilization, had transformed street rebellion from a genuine threat into a safe pastime for earnest young idealists.

But are we really so safe? In June, the great Russian literature professor Gary Saul Morson told The Wall Street Journal that America was starting to feel eerily familiar. “It’s astonishingly like late 19th-, early 20th-century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you simply had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary,” he said. Even the moderate Kadet Party could not bring itself to condemn terrorism against the czar, any more than a modern Democrat could condemn Black Lives Matter: “A famous line from one of the liberal leaders put it this way: ‘Condemn terrorism? That would be the moral death of the party.’” 

Today, the Resistance is already signaling that they won’t accept a Trump victory in November any more than they accepted one in 2016. After the last election, they attempted a soft coup by means of the Russiagate scandal and impeachment. What kind of coup will come next? By looking at the Russian precedent, we can evaluate the risk that this country might enact our own distinctively American version of 1917—and how close we have come to it already. 

Tocqueville famously said that the most dangerous moment for a regime is not when conditions are worst but just when things start to get better. Actually, the most dangerous moment for a regime is when people are allowed out of their houses after long months of being confined indoors.

The weather made the Russian Revolution as much as any other factor. The winter of 1916-17 was one of the coldest on record, forcing St. Petersburg into semi-lockdown. Spring finally broke on March 7, which happened to be International Women’s Day. People swarmed the streets to enjoy temperatures near 50 degrees and, incidentally, boosted the socialist protest’s numbers. The tsar’s abdication came exactly one week later.

That was the first revolution, when the Romanov dynasty was replaced by the short-lived Provisional Government. The second revolution, which installed the Bolsheviks, was enabled by another problem familiar to modern readers: street crime.The new regime rushed to establish its progressive bona fides by passing the full wish list of liberal demands: amnesty for political prisoners, abolition of flogging, unlimited freedom of the press and assembly. They were less energetic about reestablishing basic law and order. Previously safe neighborhoods of St. Petersburg became lawless, and by July mob lynchings of petty criminals had become an almost daily occurrence. Citizens organized to protect themselves after the Provisional Government proved it wouldn’t or couldn’t. After that, the Cheka’s policy of shooting criminals on sight came almost as a relief.

An ordinary Petersburger might feel himself very far from the front lines of the war most of the time, even in 1917, but he could not feel far from its effects. Interruptions in the coal supply had caused more than 500 factories to shut down by 1917 and thrown more than 100,000 employees out of work in the capital city alone. Layoffs mounted every month as the summer and autumn wore on, leaving a lot of men on the streets with nothing to do.

These were some of the incidental factors, the kindling that captured the sparks. To launch a real revolution, however, more than kindling is needed. The fire must have fuel. In that sense, the deeper cause of the revolution was not the men with nothing to do but the men who had important things to do but failed to do them: the liberal elite.Russia could have been saved by means of reform short of revolution, but the people who should have tried to accomplish that balancing act lacked any investment in the existing order. Instead they gave their moral support to violent terrorists. It was this moral error that brought Lenin to power—and it is the error that Professor Morson finds so familiar today.

*  *  *

During the Cold War, the joke used to be that the Soviet Union had just as much free speech as America, since it, too, guaranteed its citizens the right to stand in the middle of the town square and shout, “Down with Ronald Reagan!” The joke, of course, is that the real test of a regime’s level of freedom is usually whether you are allowed to criticize your country’s leader. However, in certain pathological conditions, the test becomes: can you praise him?

You could not praise the tsar in turn-of-the-century Russia, not if you were part of the literate elite. The question for them was not whether they wanted the regime to fall but what degree of extreme measures they would condone to bring that fall about. The left side of the political spectrum stretched off into infinity; the right side stopped somewhere around the center left. The robust tradition of intellectual conservatism that had existed in Russia since the time of Catherine the Great had been slowly eroded until it no longer existed.

This was much more extreme than the usual rebelliousness that characterizes an intelligentsia in any era. Under previous czars, a man of letters like Dostoevsky could still carry on a lively correspondence with a reactionary bureaucrat like Konstantin Pobedonostsev, even asking his input on The Brothers Karamazov. Writers and poets might bristle at interference from the censorship bureau, but they did not want to abolish it, much less abolish the monarchy. Had not the autocracy allowed Russia to liberate the serfs without a civil war, as in democratic America? Better to work within the system, even if your goals were progressive.

That all changed around the time of Nicholas II’s coronation in 1896. Suddenly the terrorists had the moral high ground, and it seemed as if nothing they could do would forfeit it, even cold-blooded murder of women and children. “It was common talk in the best families, in the homes of generals et al., that the Empress should be killed and gotten out of the way,” one St. Petersburg professor wrote to an American friend. Wealthy merchants and industrialists like Savva Morozov and Mikhail Gotz—men you might expect to be grateful to the existing order for making their prosperity possible—gave fringe groups like the Bolsheviks the money to publish their newspapers and support their leaders in exile. Every time Nicholas lost a minister to assassination, his security bureau would show him private letters between prominent people applauding the assassins.

Even the tsar’s own family was not immune. Russia’s brief experiment with jury trials (introduced in 1864) had revealed that Russian juries were abnormally reluctant to convict. Even a defendant who confessed to the crime could frequently get an acquittal if his lawyer gave a convincing speech about good intentions and a difficult upbringing—something about the Orthodox approach to sin and redemption, in contrast to Western legalism. But it was still a shock when Grand Duke Andrei, the tsar’s cousin, was overheard to comment at the end of Grigory Gershuni’s terrorism trial, “I realize that they are not villains and believe sincerely in their actions.” This was a cell that had assassinated the minister of the interior.

When even members of the royal family shrug off terrorism, it is a sign that something is deeply wrong. It indicates that the instincts of self-preservation that keep a regime alive are no longer operating. When members of an elite agree entirely with revolutionaries’ aims and object only to their tactics, all it takes is a crisis to show just how flimsy those procedural objections are. At that point, the only question is when the crisis will arrive.

In 1904, Kadet Party co-founder Pavel Miliukov visited 61-year-old Prince Peter Kropotkin in London. Kropotkin was the father of Russian anarchism, so Miliukov was astonished to see the old man fly into a rage when he heard of the Japanese attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur. “How could the enemy of Russian politics and state-sponsored war in general be such a flag-waver?” Miliukov wondered. He was then 45. By the time he was in his 60s himself, he would be equally astonished to learn how deep the hate ran in the younger generation. The loyalty to the constitutional order that seemed so basic to him, they found contemptible. This progression, from Kropotkin to Miliukov to the Bolsheviks, shows how these changes build up generation by generation until no loyalty to the existing order remains, and the regime’s position becomes fatal.

*  *  *

This summer, in the first week of June, about 6,000 law enforcement officers and National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, D.C., to keep order during protests there, and another 1,700 troops from Fort Bragg were held in waiting just outside the district. When President Trump appeared in Lafayette Park that Monday, police had to clear the square using pepper balls and smoke canisters because protesters were throwing projectiles and the president’s safety could not be assured. At several points during the week, the only thing preventing the White House from being overrun was a line of armed men from the Secret Service and the Park Police, 51 of whom were injured and 11 hospitalized by the rioters

This would not necessarily have been reason for alarm—there are protests in Lafayette Park literally every day—except that it came the same week that former defense secretary Jim Mattis published a long interview in The Atlantic denouncing the president and saying, ominously, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff also made a statement that week condemning the president’s Lafayette Park appearance and expressing his support for the protesters’ goals.

These murmurings from prominent generals raised the question: what if the president gave an order to clear Lafayette Park and military officers didn’t follow it? What if they decided the order was, as Mattis said, a threat to the Constitution? Mayor Muriel Bowser evicted some National Guard troops from D.C. hotels on June 5 because she did not approve of their mission, and there was nothing the National Guard could do except try to find another hotel. Less than a week after the Mattis interview, The Atlantic ran a piece by Franklin Foer suggesting that the color revolution model might be a good one to follow if more American officials could be persuaded to treat President Trump the way Ukrainians treated their corrupt President Yanukovych in the days before he hopped a plane to Moscow. The house magazine of the Resistance, which had done so much to drive the Russiagate soft coup, was apparently preparing the ground for something harder.

In August, word was leaked that a group of government officials and political operatives calling itself the Transition Integrity Project had gathered a few weeks earlier to game out possible election scenarios. In one, John Podesta, playing candidate Joe Biden, refused to concede after winning the popular vote but losing narrowly in the Electoral College, citing alleged voter suppression. Congress split, blue states threatened to secede, and the hypothetical outcome was determined by the military. Evidently, serious people on the Democratic side are thinking in very broad terms about what the coming months will bring. Republicans should, too, because scenarios like the ones Podesta and Foer are imagining may be unprecedented in the United States, but they are certainly not unprecedented in modern history.


Read more:


Read from top.


Helen Andrews is a senior editor at The American Conservative, and the author of a forthcoming book about the Baby Boomers to be published by Sentinel this fall. She has worked at the Washington Examiner and National Review, and as a think tank researcher at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from Yale University. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, First Things, The Claremont Review of Books, Hedgehog Review, and many others. You can follow her on Twitter at @herandrews.


See also:

as assange rots in a UK jail....