Things fall apart

When it comes to teaching the art of music, any good teacher would tell a student that focusing too much on the notes would result in a rigid and wooden performance, but focusing too much on the music’s feeling would cause a loss of rhythm. Both the notes as well as the feelings should be balanced to gain harmony and make the piece come alive.

Strange how we could easily identify with the abovementioned example when it comes to music, but when it comes to governing policies and political ideals, we fail dismally to see the same dynamic. It is either the strict law of the letter or a cacophony of disharmonious chords. The difference being that nowadays both have been elevated to levels of supreme aesthetics. Ugliness has become the new beauty and harmony is caricatured.

This has become the condition of politics and idealism in Europe today. No doubt, other parts of the world could also attest to this. However, Europe – being the cradle of Western mankind – this tendency reveals how the West has become old, sick and ready to implode. The Western satellite countries such as North-America, Australasia, and what’s left of South Africa, still try to radiate the once bright beam of enlightenment. For how long still is anyone’s guess.

Just as the Roman Empire of old, Europe has run out of steam. Where tolerance and apathy were the vices of old, they are the virtues of today. This cultural vacuum that it has left in its wake is now being filled with everything considered dysfunctional and pathological, yet dangerously filled with unbridled youthful vigour.

Wise words were once written by William Butler Yeats:

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

In this bastardised Fourth German Reich, aka the European Union, paedophilia is soon to be legalised. What first started off with gay rights has now opened the gates of hell to other deviant practices with paedophilia and polygamy being the next in line. Peculiarly enough, the EU has motioned to ban bestiality. Animals thus have achieved more legal protection against sexual predators than children.

In general, Yeats has reminded us that it is not the first time in history that we are dealing with such abominations. In fact, hardly a generation goes by without these tendencies occasionally crawling up through the crags. The difference being that European civilisation seems to have lost the will to fight this off. The European has lost his fighting spirit. Whereas crimes against children would become legal in Germany, crimes against children in the UK such as grooming gangs who kidnap and prostitute hundreds of underage white girls get away with impunity. Gone are the days when mob justice took care of these problems.

More emancipation for women appears to give rise to more emasculation for men. Whereas feminists, paedophiles and gays are fighting their way to the top, Western man has been forced to introspect on his historical wrongdoings and has lost his ability to fend for his family, his sense of honour and duty both confined to history.

The plot sickens though.

Sociologist Doug McAdam mentions in this clip how he once attended a revolutionary gathering where the killing of newborn white babies was discussed, and how a fellow attendee was ‘booed down’ after he apologetically dared to utter that killing white babies seemed to be pushing matters a bit too far. The one-dimensional revolutionary mindset is reaching star status in the West, and one wonders if the Russian artist Marat Guelman’s depiction of Christ and Lenin holding hands with Mickey Mouse is not blasphemy after all, but an omen of what’s to come. In revolution, confusion reigns supreme, with everything being right and wrong at the same time. In Guelman’s sculpture we see Christ (love and humility), Lenin (hate and arrogance) and Mickey Mouse, the figurehead of Disneyland, the world’s most successful paedophile child grooming facility.

The spirit of destroying the Western world has clearly reached a turning point and the auto-destruct timer has been set. Our cultural elites have turned the West into a virtual suicide cult, not unlike Jim Jones’ People’s Temple Movement, where the handful of deviants who refused to be poisoned were dragged into the fray and killed nonetheless. Only by identifying these ills could we be made aware of the tactics that are used and how to counteract them.

However, for a more closer study of these tactics, it would be a good idea to start with the spiritual father of the US democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wrote her Master’s thesis on the works of Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972). His twelve rules for radicals are undoubtedly part of the whole package designed to destroy the West. These rules are:

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

It would take quite a sick but committed individual to come up with this, yet this indicates how the enemies of the West are at pains to destroy it. Dare we not mention the worrisome fact that the contender for the White House has this as an ideological backbone, perhaps more so than the US Constitution.

It’s fairly obvious that these tactics are working in full swing. Add a dash of Marcusian repressive tolerance – that tolerates only opinions from the left – and we can conclude that there are elites at work in destroying the Western way of life very thoroughly. Not to mention how the once hallowed corridors of academia have been filled with tenured radicals who are writing and lecturing on topics that are quintessentially unsavoury for Western posterity, dumbing the youth down and hardening them under the guise of enlightenment.

The West today is culturally rich but spiritually weak, and cannot see the trees from the forest anymore, their stunted spiritual development possibly preparing them for the next generation of fascism, brought on by computer games, narrow-minded conformity and an inability to see beyond the facade of feigned public opinion.

Let’s hope it’s not too late then, so we can once again rejuvenate in the sounds of great composers and poets who have an understanding how harmony and spirituality could be reunited again, advancing our sense of humanity to the next level.

To quote Yeats once more:

And what rough beast, it hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Paltrow of politics (minus looks & ethics)

Hillary Rodham Clinton has done some “conscious uncoupling” from reality. The term was disgorged by a celebrity, Gwyneth Paltrow, to announce a separation from her spouse. In the same breath, the actress bemoaned her gilded, glamorous life, and offended America’s military sacred cow by comparing the cyber-attacks she endures to the experience of war.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has done some “conscious uncoupling” from reality. The term was disgorged by a celebrity, Gwyneth Paltrow, to announce a separation from her spouse. In the same breath, the actress bemoaned her gilded, glamorous life, and offended America’s military sacred cow by comparing the cyber-attacks she endures to the experience of war.

As heir to a political dynasty founded by a powerful man, Hillary has received millions of dollars to write books. Over the years, she and husband Bill Clinton have made hundreds of millions from both book deals and speaking engagements. Yet in a recent ABC interview, the former “First Housewife” complained about emerging from the White House not only “dead broke, but in debt”: “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to … piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

Another reality Hillary has worked to deconstruct is Benghazi. Hillary dare not admit that, by leveling Libya, Americans invited into that country the very lynch-mob that took their lives. The Americans targeted at the U.S. mission in Benghazi had become an irritant to the long-suffering Libyans, who will use any U.S. provocation, real or imagined, to expel those who “came, saw, and conquered.” Still less is the former secretary of state willing to cop to having left the post undefended. This scribe has long subscribed to the view that, at bottom, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom had imagined she would run the Benghazi compound like a community center. How better to signal that the war on Libya, Hillary’s special project, was a smashing success?

In a fit of “estrogen-driven paternalism on steroids,” Hillary and two sisters in the Obama administration—“humanitarian hawks” Samantha Power, then a member of the president’s National Security Council, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then Ambassador to the United Nations—launched a “war of the womb” that left Libya in shambles.

All along, our globetrotting hegemon evinced little respect for regional powers and their right to handle their own affairs, in-house, so to speak. On behalf of the African Union, South African President Jacob Zuma had brokered a deal with Libya. By the Telegraph’s telling, the AU had “outlined a political solution to end the fighting in Libya based on an immediate end to attacks on civilians and a ceasefire which would be monitored by a credible international organization. The ceasefire would lead to a transitional period and culminate in elections.” Col. Muammar Gadhafi agreed. Judging from what befell Libya, Hillary and her harridans would have none of it. They refused to give peace a chance. War it was. The rest is history, as is Libya.

Into the Cannibal's Pot

Who can forget Hillary Clinton’s blood-curdling cackle, “We came, we saw, he died!”, when tidings arrived of the actions of her thugs of choice in that country? Backed by American drones and French fighter jets above, the Libyan rebels to whom the U.S. had taken a shine intercepted Col. Gadhafi as he fled his hometown of Sirte, dragged him from his vehicle, and lynched him then and there. Hillary’s ululations were a perfect complement to the rebels’ harangues of “Allahu Akbar.”

The focus of Hillary’s next blood-inspired hoedown was to be Syria. She had wanted to arm rebel forces there. Obama objected. Or so she tells readers of her latest, I-did-it-my-way memoire. A story broken by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), almost 2 years back, implicated Hillary’s Syrian soul-mates in the massacre of over 90 Alawi and Shia villagers, “predominantly women and children.” “Rebel atrocities,” relayed National Review’s foreign correspondent, were “being repackaged in both Arab and Western media accounts as regime atrocities.” As president, count on Hillary to devise a creative casus belli for the “humanitarian” invasion she hankers for in Syria. For if she has learned anything from Benghazi, it is not that America ought to divest from democratizing the word, but that our country needs more Green-Zone fortresses everywhere.

Whether this strong-as-a-horse politician was concussed or cowering, in the waning days of 2012, we will never know. Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to testify in December “before the House of Representatives and Senate foreign affairs committees on a report on the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.” She was a no-show.

But on CNN, love is in the air. Viewers have expressed a belief that Hillary would restore the country to the Clinton years of peace and prosperity. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, as well as a Sudanese pharmaceutical company that turned out to be the main manufacturer of medicines and vaccinations in Sudan. And he strafed the Serbs in 1999. Stateside, Bill butchered 76 men, women and children in Texas. Alas, so long as Hillary steers clear of another Waco, and confines her murderous sprees to killing far-away people from high above—few boots on the ground—her countrymen will consider her a peacemaker.

While prosperity during the Clinton years was due less to Clinton-economics than to Reaganomics and a Republican Congress not yet completely comatose—in fairness, Bill does grasp something about prosperity. “This is good work,” he famously said about Mitt Romney’s much-maligned work at Bain Capital. Hillary, conversely, has no economic acumen. “There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries,” she grumbled at the Clinton Global Initiative, in 2012. According to economist George Reisman’s cogent analysis—and contra Mrs. Clinton’s crushing ignorance—“a highly productive and provident 1 percent provides the standard of living of a largely ignorant and ungrateful ninety-nine percent.” As for Obama’s putsch for a North-Korean style health care: Instead of aborting it, Hillary will guarantee that Obamacare reaches full-term gestation.

Another wily fox called Bill (O’Reilly) has defended Mrs. Clinton’s riches as capitalism’s reward for hard work. Not quite. Hillary has accrued wealth by using the predatory political process to wield power over others. Although she has pudding for brains, Gwyneth Paltrow, on the other hand, has made a living in the honest, productive, non-predatory and salutary ways of the free market. Paltrow’s affluence, unlike Hillary’s, is a reward for assets she peddles to people who choose to purchase them.

© 2014 by Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page