Years ago, whenever I saw a comment saying “liberalism is a mental illness,” I would shake my head, bewildered on what such a statement means. But after hearing more and more liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that some sort of synaptic misfire happens in the brains of these people. I saw a recent material on RT live, sadly, I couldn’t find a link to the particular piece, on gender-neutral uniforms being adopted in some schools in the UK. One of the two guests interviewed on RT, Linda Bellos Obe, confessed to being a lesbian, a feminist, and a grandmother [nothing wrong with these things], said she is in favor of school uniforms [again, nothing wrong with that] and that she supports the ban on skirts in schools – all skirts, not just miniskirts, ALL skirts. Then she stated that girls [in schools] object to boys “fetishizing” them. Come again? And this person is a “equality law specialist.” That’s absolutely frightening… She makes the case for [gender-neutral] school uniforms that children and people in general like to be part of a club; and that the uniform signifies membership to that club. That’s just an argument for mass-conformity, something that the ‘cultural left’ fought against decades ago; but it seems that fight wasn’t about liberalization, or the goal was changed / mutated in the meantime. Hence the label “regressive progressive.”
To quote George Carlin, I wouldn’t want to be part of any group in which you either have to wear a hat, or you can’t wear a hat. In school, I experienced both systems: uniforms in primary school and just a dress code in high school [no obscene or vulgar outfits or offensive messages on outfits]. Obviously, the latter system gives the student a lot more leeway and I prefer it. The liberal feminists of today seem bent on shackling women to their political agenda and political organizations, instead of persuading them via a set of moral principles. The former path takes little brain power expenditures and brings in cash, the latter path requires actual work put into debates – and if we’ve learned anything during the last ten years or so, liberals don’t want debate, because such a forum “allows racist and sexist viewpoints to be heard.” That’s the exact same logic religious fundamentalists would invoke, such a forum “allows heretical and blasphemous viewpoints to be heard.” It’s the same logic the Establishment uses to prevent alternative / reformist POVs to spread among people.
I fully agree with the other person who was interviewed, Chris McGovern from CRE. I believe his position was completely sensible and in the interest of both straight and non-straight students. Whether the school in question has a uniform policy in place or not, girls should be able to wear pants if they want to; girls should be able to wear skirts if they want to. Ditto for boys [ever heard of kilts?]. But Linda Bellos Obe, the so-called “equality law specialist,” labeled dissent on this issue among the left as unwelcome infighting. In other words, we mustn’t work out contradictions, because that diminishes the tribal strength. Promoting ‘gender neutrality’ by opposing the manifestation and expression of the feminine is unjust as it is absurd, and it is unworthy of a so-called free and tolerant society.
Now, to the issue at hand. If the parents are down with gender-neutral uniforms, that’s fine. But don’t tout this particular norm as a great leap in human progress, because, if anything, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a policy that limits free expression.
The communist countries of the 20th century and of the 21st century didn’t ban skirts for girls! Not even the Bolsheviks could come up with such a ridiculous thing as to ban skirts, with the possible exception of China under Mao Zedong. But hey, now we know from whence the contemporary liberal-feminist doctrines stem. The communist regime in Afghanistan [prior to the US-backed Talibans collapsing it] allowed women to wear skirts, including miniskirts! If a liberal feminist from the 21st century would have warned an Afghan woman from the ’80s that a skirt makes men “fetishize” her, she would have said you’re crazy, get out of my way, I need to go to work. Here are some pictures. School girls in the [former] Soviet Union. School girls in Cuba. School girls in North Korea. School girls in Venezuela. Women in the [former] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
Today’s liberal ideology, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is on some issues more oppressive than Bolshevism. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC interview with Noam Chomsky from 1977, in which he accurately explains contemporary liberalism. I don’t know if Chomsky still feels the same today; regardless, his assessment from ’77 was spot on.
US-China talks are back on track, but a second front has opened up. US-Europe trade is heading into a storm. Iran is again at the center of the debate. The Instex payment system, alternative to Swift, was designed explicitly for European companies to do business with Iranian firms. But Washington is none too pleased and reiterated its warnings. Also, the circus has come to town and it’s called the Democratic primary. CrossTalking with Dmitry Babich, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Alex Christoforou.
My comment: I disagree with Marcus Papadopoulos on the question of which side will China take in the US-Iran conflict. He claims that China will pick the United States over Iran, simply due to the large volume and value of trade with it. Marcus invokes Deng Xiaoping’s legacy on Chinese development, stressing the pivotal role the US market had on China’s economic ‘miracle.’ While no doubt that’s true, there was a geopolitical downside. As the Chinese were exporting more net goods to the US in exchange for net US dollars [electronic entries that sit on the Federal Reserve’s ledger], the US was busy encircling China militarily. I don’t believe China will dump Iran to save its trade with the US. Why? It’s good to diversify trade partners, especially oil countries [like Iran] who can fuel your industries with oil, refined oil in particular. At the same time, it’s good to support a partner state who, in turn, ensures a counterweight to US geopolitical influence. Iran and China could help each other tremendously, and again I affirm my belief that Beijing won’t dump the Iranian market and the Iranian state to appease Washington. Instead, China will seek a middle-ground between the two.
Regarding the second half of the show, the clown show of the Democratic primaries… I don’t know who started the label… but I did watch a little bit of Infowars and saw Alex Jones’ sarcastic rendition of the Democrat candidates [Tulsi Gabbard was absent from his list of caricatures]. It was absolutely a clown show! As Christoforou and Lavelle pointed out, the only presidential candidate on the Democratic stage was Tulsi Gabbard. Kamala Harris clearly set herself up to play the victim card against ‘sleepy, creepy Joe,’ invoking an issue that’s been dead for 40 years. Lavelle, Christoforou and Babich noted the very little air time given to Gabbard and to Andrew Yang. Pat Buchanan’s recommendation was invoked and supported, that Trump should trade Pence for Gabbard and it will be a slam dunk. I’m fully behind that idea as well. Here’s why…
As for the Democrats trying to sell Medicare For All, man, they’ve got zero skills in sales… First of all, Medicare For All will never pass in the US if it’s advertised alongside a tax hike. But there’s hope if Democrats would try to sell it alongside a tax cut [a tax cut for labor in particular]. Why a tax cut? Because M4A will trigger redundancies in the [insurance] bureaucracy. One of the best ways to sell a Government reform is by telling people it will lay off busy bodies and reduce bureaucracy – which is what M4A does! M4A is inherently a deflationary policy; it will cause unemployment. And it will cause even more unemployment if it’s paired with a tax hike [a tax hike on the wealth creation side of the economy, not the rent extractive side]. Given its deflationary nature, that’s why M4A should be introduced alongside a tax cut [on the wealth creation side].
Here are the benefits of the program, which, sadly, don’t get air time at all in the mainstream. Doctor-patient time is doubled as doctor-insurance company time is eliminated. Diagnosis, treatment options, and treatment costs are discussed between doctor and patients, instead of with an insurance company. This increases the system’s capacity and the quality of service without increasing real costs. The program’s nominal cost is estimated at around 10 percent of GDP, which is less than being spent today, and even assuming the ugliest outcome, the numbers aren’t financially disruptive and can be easily adjusted. M4A eliminates medical costs for businesses, thus removing price distortions and medical legacy costs. It eliminates problems regarding receivables and bad debt for hospitals and doctors. It wipes out the majority of administrative costs for the nation as a whole; while patients are free to shop around for medical services and prices. M4A is fully compatible with capitalism. Capitalism runs on sales. Sales are fueled by spending, government sector spending, domestic private sector spending, and foreign sector spending. When people don’t have money to buy output, sales decline, and capitalism goes stale [unemployment, poverty, bankruptcies]. M4A puts money into people’s pockets and the people use that money to pay medical service providers [firms that create tangible output, unlike insurance companies].
I’d like to make a very important observation about M4A… so long as the Democrats include abortion coverage irrespective of context, M4A will face strong opposition from pro-life groups and moderates / independents. And they’ll have only themselves to blame. Ditto if they support extending M4A to illegal aliens. Regarding ‘where will the money come from?’ question, the stupid ‘tax & spend liberal’ will never be able to give an honest response. They have to be prepared to say, we’ll deficit spend, the program will get financed and there isn’t going to be inflation. A more elaborate answer than that really isn’t necessary for the audience at large and it’s never given on issues like Defence Budget hikes or bank bailouts – because the source of the funding is the Government sector itself [the Treasury + the Central Bank].
On the matter of medical costs, though, this reform in and of itself is not enough. The Big Pharma cartels have to be smashed, all those markups ranging in the tens of thousands percentage-wise need to be eliminated. But nobody has the guts to fight rent-seeking [patents included], usury, and cartels.
As for Student Debt Cancellation and Free College… Student Debt Cancellation is a sectional policy, and many people will claim it’s unfair that students get debt write offs, but others who are not students, but have debts, don’t get anything. As a principle of fairness, a debt jubilee should cover a large portion of the population, not a minority. As for Free College, it’s a good policy, but only if it has a direction. Not all diplomas are the same. The State should prioritize nurses, medical doctors, engineers, and the like – not professions that are superfluous [so-called Mickey Mouse degrees]. The State should prepare students for the job market of the future. Free College without a clear vector is bound to fail in my opinion.
Former President of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore was very direct last month in an interview with Sputnik. I urge viewers to read it in full and to always be circumspect of any type of activism, no matter how pure it might seem.
“I suppose my main objection is the effective elimination of 80 percent of the world’s energy would likely eliminate 80 percent of the world’s people in the end. I mean, just growing food, for example — how would we grow food for the world’s people without tractors and trucks, and all of the other machinery that is required to deliver food, especially to the inner cities of large centers like Moscow, Shanghai and New York City? How would we get the food to the stores? It’s symptomatic of the fact that people who live in cities just take it for granted that this food appears there for them in supermarkets in great variety, healthy food to keep them alive when they couldn’t possibly grow it for themselves with such dense populations. And if, in fact, fossil fuels were banned, agricultural productivity would fall dramatically and people would starve by the millions. So, that is just a little bit of why I think it’s a ridiculous proposal.”
The so-called Green New Deal calls for a reduction of net CO2 emissions to zero within ten years. Even if renewables were increased up to 100 percent, that wouldn’t even address the majority of the USA’s energy use, which is not electricity. Transport by air, land, and sea is overwhelmingly powered by hydrocarbons. What sacrifices the bottom and middle sections of the population would have to make in order to achieve 100 percent electric surface transportation? Would this even be technologically and commercially viable for water and air transportation?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for global CO2 emissions to shrink to net zero by 2050. The summary for policymakers gives a cost estimate, “annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035, representing about 2.5 percent of World GDP.”
China’s CO2 emissions tripled from 2000 to 2012. During that period, poverty there decreased from 40.5 percent in 1999 to 6.5 percent in 2012, according to the World Bank, and Chinese investments have helped to alleviate poverty in Africa as well. Even under the Paris Agreement, Chinese CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2030, while those from India are expected to triple. Reliable and affordable energy means electricity in schools and hospitals, fuel for agricultural equipment, transportation of crops to markets, value-added manufacturing, state-of-the-art research facilities, efficient transit of people and goods; all of this translating into higher life expectancy, lower disease rates, better nutrition, and education.
As as side note, going green has a health cost too. For instance, solar PV panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants; their average lifespan is 25 years. Without preparation and diversification, the world is heading toward a solar panel waste crisis.
The modern environmentalist movement was never about people at grassroots concerned about environmental decay, and had nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’. It was concocted and promoted by the British Empire to sabotage its geopolitical rivals from developing [particularly in-land development, which threatened British maritime trade dominance]. Combined with eugenics, this trans-national orchestrated effort aimed to continue the International Feudal-Stockholder System after 1945; people on the libertarian right and center right [Hayek, Friedman et al] alongside their counter-parts in the Frankfurt School had this joint aim. For more info on the Capitalist Right & Center’s role in this plot, read this Essay by Wolfgang Streeck. As for the Western Liberal Left and Far Left, I will quote a few passages from one of their ideologies’ architects at the end of this article.
After WW2, some of the most powerful oligarchic families in the West channeled important moneys and political clout into the organization known as the Club of Rome, which held that,
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill […] But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes […] The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
At the same time, the UN sponsored a series of conferences on population control in the mid ’70s to promote the idea that human population growth is cancerous to the planet. I urge regular readers of this website to see this documentary about the legacy of sterilization and abortions in Asia, anti-human policies spearheaded by Western Governments and Western NGOs [in accord with the Chinese Communist leadership and Indira Gandhi’s Government as well]. Despite repeated interview requests, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the IPPF refused to comment.
Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply is linear. Thomas Malthus saw population growth as inevitable whenever conditions improved, thus precluding real progress toward a better society: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Henry George contended that Malthusian theory served as a tool for social control, conveying false justifications to support the landed class and oppose Government policy attempts to improve the lives of the poor.
As in most things, we are limited by our own assumptions – and history definitely proved Thomas Malthus’ assumptions and conclusions wrong. Birthrates stabilize as economic conditions improve. Japan, a highly advanced civilization, doesn’t deal with high birthrates, its problem is population aging – aka. birthrates are too small.
The Neo-Malthusian culture operates on the same flawed assumptions and on a hatred mysticism of Humanity, or, the masses of Humanity. They define ‘natural’ as that which excludes human activity. The rebranding of Global Warming into Climate Change served to imply that any change to the climate would be evil, simply by virtue of its transformative factor – as if Nature is stagnant and only [Evil] humans are going around, causing awful changes to the aforementioned static perfection. Does this hold true? For instance, if we use desalinated ocean water to turn a desert [region with a dreadfully low level of biological activity] into a lush home for plants, insects, animals, and humans – like the folks from the LaRouche Political Action Committee propose – would it be so bad? Are we hurting Nature? Are we hurting ourselves or future generations in the pursuit of a such a task?
Put in place the new technologies, the new infrastructure, the storage, new production facilities before you shut down the old ones. I don’t believe people in the US would want to engage in a 15 year failed attempt at going Green, like Germany, and then fire up new coal plants in order to prevent energy shortages. Germany’s plan is to phase out nuclear power by 2022 and coal power by 2038. Talk about epic facepalms. The Powers That Be and their sycophants across the hierarchical chain desire to ‘fight’ Climate Change on the backs of the poor, when in fact, almost 50 percent of global lifestyle consumption emissions are created by the richest 10 percent of the population; while the poorest 50 percent of the global population only produce about 10 percent of global consumption emissions.
“The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and reorganization of global society requires two essential steps, firstly the destruction of the old established order, secondly, the design and imposition of the new order, the first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy, ethical barriers and social definitions. Only then, the destroyed old system elements can be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.
The first task of our world revolution is destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated. Individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct. Traditional social norms must also be viewed only as a disease to be eradicated. The ruling dictum of the new order is, nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished. Everything that was must be gone.
The forces preserving traditional society are “free market capitalism” in the social economic realm, and “democracy” in the mental political realm. The capitalist free market does not fight against the old economic order, nor does democracy lead a fierce hot battle against the forces of reaction which oppose the new order, therefore our transformative work will be imposed through the unifying principle of the militaristic spirit, the negative task of destroying the old established order will be completely solved and finished only when all the human masses are all forcibly collectivized as uniformed soldiers under imposed mass-conformity of new order culturing.
After destruction of the old order, construction of the new order is a larger and more difficult task…..We will have torn out the old limbs from their ancient roots in deep layers, social norms will be lying disorganized and anarchic so they must be blocked against new cultural forms and social categories naturally re-emerging. The general masses will have been first persuaded to join as equals in the first task of destroying their own traditional society and economic culture, but then the new order must be forcibly established through people again being divided and differentiated only in accordance with the new pyramidal hierarchical system of our imposed global monolithic new world order.” From the book/Manifesto, Der Geist des Militarismus, Stuttgart 1915, by Nahum Goldmann [a leading Zionist and founder of the World Jewish Congress]. From the English translation housed in the collection of the Leo Baeck Institute, p.37 – 38