Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Going from 'America vs. Europe' to 'America and Europe'.

As predicted some time ago, America is going Socialist.

by StFerdIII

Six years ago I predicted that the fate of what is still the greatest civilization in man's history, will hinge on how socialist America actually becomes. This was written in the days of that supposed 'conservative' and free-marketer G.W. Bush, the man who increased government spending by 40% and doubled the US debt and stagnated military spending even whilst fighting two necessary wars. GW was too busy expanding the welfare and nanny state, to act like a 'conservative' – whatever that word means exactly. In any event I never viewed Bush as a conservative and wrote these words 6 years ago: “The key question that American's have to ask themselves and their leaders is if they are willing to defend and expand their more liberal form of Statism – or fall into the trap of European socialism.” [p. 408, America and Europe]. Well that question was answered in 2008 and reconfirmed in 2010.

Six years later after the election of the MIMH, or the Most Important Man in History, the Great Obamed, Marxism is the answer to that question. The Prophet Obamed and his radical Marxist plans to neuter US exceptionalism, only confirms the direction that was obvious way back in the dark ages of Bush's reign. America will now follow a well worn trail used by most states in history namely despotic, elitist-managed, statism. This outcome also affirms the deconstruction of the basic tenets of Western civilization. As America falls into the traps of cultural, economic, and social Marxism, so too will all Western nation states undergo further negative transformations distancing themselves from the core principles and ideals which created the modern world. The Marxist might rejoice at the clear path to self-immolation now being pursued in all Western states and vigorously inflicted upon the US Republic. The rest of us have to fight back and resurrect what is now quickly being destroyed and lost. If not, then the implosion of much of what 2000 years of struggle have attained will be inevitable.

Socialism has many variants which cover all aspects of society, the political-economy and even metaphysical reflection. As a concept or cadre of 'thinking' or believing, socialism is not static. It is a mutable and quite active ideological framework, prone to rework by those interested in communalism, 'social justice', 'fairness', 'equality', or who hate whites, white civilization, European progress, or Christianity. The negative components of socialism are at least as virile as the positivist aspects of well-meaning people who might desire social change for humanitarian reasons. In most aspects the implementation of socialism leads of course to coercion, denial of the individual, an abrogation of freedom, and the management of outcomes, which denies the individual, effort, wealth creation and even spiritual pluralism. Negativism is the main core tenet of socialism. As I wrote in 'America and Europe':

“Socialism has mutated over time from utopianism and economic dialecticism to a new formulation that embodies major tenets of liberal and realist conceptions. Utopian socialists such as Rousseau, Proudhon, Owen or Saint Simon believed in a moral revolution, which would transform people and how they acted. Marx and Engels proposed a more extensive socialistic variant that was 'scientific' (though the data upon which Marx based his theories was almost entirely incorrect).....Both versions of socialism were predicated upon the supposition that all humans are fundamentally equal in spirit, aspiration and ability.....Dialectical socialism has mutated from a focus on the control of production to the ownership and direction of consumption and private wealth. Modern socialism thus concerns itself with economic possibilities and not with their effects.” [p. 67]

Socialism in other words will simply steal, borrow, or use what is necessary to achieve its aims. Broadly speaking socialism is concerned about four major ideas:

  1. Equality of outcomes

  2. Social 'Justice' and redressing wrongs including historical 'wrongs'

  3. Redistribution of wealth and the management of society's wealth

  4. State clientism, or crudely, a belief that the state is the only theological, and emotional necessity in a person's life, superseding attachments to family, business, organisation, or religion.

We see the above in operation today in every state, in many forms. Any philosophy opposed to the cult of the state, or which denies any of these four major tenets, is demonized. Heterosexual families; Businesses; 'Conservatives'; Military 'hawks'; Christians and Jews; Free-Traders; Low Tax enthusiasts; Anti-abortionists; and even now 'Whites'; are being identified as 'enemies' of the socialist ideal of justice, the redressment of historical criminality and wrongs [as redefined and invented by Marxists], equality, and of course 'love, hope and change' for a better 'One-World' community.

Thus has 19th and early 20th century socialism now transmogrified into what I would call 'Statism'. This word hides the Socialist-Marxist program of the new socialism. It also appropriates some forms of liberal economics and even realism to increase its wealth [some open trade, private ownership, state direction of the economy] and coercive power [police, human rights commissions, law and order].

Socialism's attitude towards 'wealth' illustrates the veracity that is a flexible and adaptable framework and ideology.  At one time the socialist agenda was truly obsessed with destroying private property rights and private wealth creation.  But this mono-focus is no longer necessay.  Socialism no longer has to worry about abolishing property. Instead it can follow the National Socialist and extreme Marxist program of the Nazis and simply take over the normative state and the normative economy through parallel economic and social agencies. Unlike the Soviet Communists [or Fascists], the Nazis did not eradicate the existing economic and political order in Germany. They took it over, in some cases nationalizing firms or industries; in others managing the industry or group of firms very tightly; or as they did with international trade and investment simply stopping it. Today's socialists can follow the same type of concept. They can't stop trade, or forbid cross border investment – but they can certainly manage all of the processes involved in the modern world economy and manage globalization to the state's benefit. Statism is the new socialism:

Statist governance is in large measure a form of socialization that begets a regime that is fundamentally difficult to change, and reduce in size and scope. Such embedded socialization within representative institutional and constitutional frameworks combines traditional socialism with integrational liberalism and realism, creating a form of statist doctrine...Such an ideal is derived from the works of 20th century thinkers such Lukacs, the Frankfurt School and those espousing the 'New Left', the 'Third Way' or 'Welfare Capitalism'. Modern statism is the great compromise between competing ideals of social and economic organisation.” [p. 62]


Redistributive policies designed to limit voter disenchantment, suppress widespread criticism and disillusionment and enforce citizen adherence to rights, equality and assured access are the norm, all of which underpin the socialization of citizens.” [p. 63]

The state is managing inputs and outcomes. With 45% of US GDP soon to be under governmental control; and with Europe at between 45-50% of GDP under the control of unionized bureaucracy, the state can now dictate all major economic, political and cultural flows, processes and patterns. It is simply a lie, to state that for example, 'globalization' which is tepid at best, has destroyed or can impair, state power. The opposite is true. Globalization only exists because the political actors within the state benefit from it. If not, trade would be reduced, along with international investment.

Socialism is now the norm in the West. There are many demerits to socialist programming, including the obvious objection that socialism leads to bankruptcy. The Nazis, who were of course left wing socialists, were bankrupt by 1939. The Soviets were broke probably before 1975. Europe is technically bankrupted now, if we view the entitlements and off the balance sheet programs which must be paid for and for which there is no money. The same is true of the US.

However, the nefarious nature of the 'new Socialism' or statism, is that these states have an almost unlimited amount of power to tax, regulate, print money, and defer bankruptcy. The longer they are able to do so, the greater their ability to brain-wash their populations, distort history, invent fantasy and neuter all opposition to the statist program. This makes it very difficult, if not almost impossible to reduce statists to the fringe, and to deny them political power. The longer it takes the worse things will get. It is indeed a very dangerous age we are now living in. The mutations of socialism – like the 9 headed hydra – it is very hard to kill.