Month: January 2024

Denationizing the United States

The Rio Grande border conflict is not an isolated incident. It is part of the World Economic Forum program of “denationization” of the United States.

In the same way that a “state” is a form of self-organization of human society, a “nation” can also be treated as a form of self-organization.  These terms are different in nuance, and Russian conservative philosopher Nicolai Berdyaev was the first to devise a formula to discern between them a century ago.  His analysis proceeds from the application of the eschatological way of thinking.  Berdyaev stated that humans are mortal; therefore, a state or government, as an example of human creation, is also mortal.  “Nation” emerged when our ancestors realized the need to self-organize along transcendental lines rather than administrative ones.

The newly created self-organized form was intended to achieve what was radically unachievable — immortality.  Unlike all other animals, humans have always sought to transcend ordinary biological existence.  Our predecessors figured that life is a process while death is an event and focused on life.

Berdyaev wrote in 1923 that “[t]he manner of life of a nation is not to be defined nor explained, be it by race, nor by language, nor by religion, nor by territory, nor by state sovereignty, although all these signs more or less are extant for the national manner of life.  And most correct are those who define the nation as an oneness of historical destiny.  The awareness of this unity is also what comprises the national consciousness.”  

Finally, “[t]he nation is not merely the generation alive today, nor is it the sum of all the generations.  A nation is not a mere composite accumulation; it is something primordial, an eternally alive subject within the historical process, it is there live and dwell all the past generations, no less so than the contemporary generations.  Nation possesses an ontological core.  The national manner of life conquers time.  The spirit of the nation forestalls the devouring of the past by the present and the future.  The nation is always striving towards imperishability, toward a victory over death, it cannot allow the exclusive triumph of the future over the past.”

A country is created when its boundaries are drawn and its administration is set up.  A nation is created when a communication link is up and running, connecting the past, present, and future.

Compare Berdyaev’s proposition with Edmund Burke, who, in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” described society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

Berdyaev’s nationalism concept casts the issue of mass illegal immigration in a very unusual light.  Illegal aliens directly threaten the immortality facet of social self-organization because they alter and disturb — sometimes beyond repair — the communication mechanism connecting past, present, and future generations.

Berdyaev’s theological argument is one of those rare contributions of divine inspiration to the field of realpolitik.  The illustrated proposal clearly distinguishes between two items.  The first is objective, material, measurable, and mortal — a country, its citizens, and its government.  The second one is subjective, immeasurable, and immortal — a nation.

As a corollary, the terms “National Conservatism,” “National Socialism,” or “National Bolshevism” have no meaning as they attempt to unite ununitable mortal and immortal terms.  However, as we know, these contradictory terms exist; therefore, we must use them with a strong reasoning that they can be applied only to a particular historical period and place.  That also applies to another commonly reputable term: “nation-state.” The term “Christian Nationalism” is also an oxymoron as it unites ununitable items — relationship with God and relationship with time.

The modern leftists are fighting so fiercely for the “rights of immigrants,” not because the fate of illegal aliens worries them in any way.  It is because globalists anticipate illegal immigrants as the main “engine of the revolution,” which must bring about socialist transformations and catapult the globalists to power.  Consequently, the greater the number of “engines” in a country, the happier the elite of the globalist party will be.  So, naturally, they call (irrationally and contrary to common sense) for opening the United States borders, dissolving the Border Patrol, and granting the right to vote to non-citizens.

In essence, the World Economic Forum coterie runs the program of denationization of the United States.  The position of globalists on this issue is ultra-uncompromising because, for them, illegal immigration is not a legal issue but a political and close to existential one.

Following globalists, this is not a matter of violating the country’s sovereign rights but a matter of political survival.  In the opinion of globalists, illegal immigration encapsulates precisely that army of mere mortals stupefied by the propaganda of the masses.  These mere mortals will be required to stand on the barricades to gain political power over every area of the planet.

Basically, the globalists’ idea might be expressed as follows: “If our citizens do not vote for us, we will import hordes that will.” The Texas National Guard on the banks of the Rio Grande protects not only the state and not only the country.  They secure the immortality of the American nation.

Image: Marco Verch Professional Photographer

[Originally published at American Thinker. This piece is adapted from Gary’s forthcoming book, “Left Imperialism” (Paragon House, 2024)]

Anti-Semitism of Anti-Humans

Anti-Semitism manifests animosity toward the superposition of Jewish achievements of the past, present, and future.

Islam has experienced a global decline since the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Instead of waning completely, it underwent two significant advancements in the 20th century: due to the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 and Islam’s coupling with Leftist philosophies, including both Marxist and non-Marxist, which were sparked by the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917.

The profusion of hydrocarbons had a detrimental impact on Muslims, similar to how an excess of any resource can lead to widespread corruption in the community. The tremendous reaches under the sandy dunes have not resulted in happiness, though; they have led to a well-observed retrograde movement. Islamic fundamentalists envision their future as a return to 7th-century societal norms and values.

Put simply, our world is home to two observable groups of humans: one that undergoes evolutionary changes and another that has willingly opted for a road of degeneration. Given the opposing movements of these two notable groups of individuals, it is probable that they will eventually collide and annihilate.

The widely known “clash of civilizations” is not the primary occurrence. This phenomenon merely indicates a more profound underlying process: the complex coexistence of two distinct subspecies of humans, one advancing socially and another regressing socially. To elucidate, while biological evolution (a directionless and brainless endeavor) continues to impact all individuals, societal evolution does not have the same influence. Indeed, certain individuals forge ahead while others march backward.

For example, radical Islam has regressed some societies back to the pre-modern era. Just as positrons (particles of anti-matter) could be interpreted as electrons flowing back in time, as suggested by Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman, fundamentalist Muslims can be perceived as being anti-human.

Thus, the time has come to identify yet another strain of anti-Semitism. In addition to well-known branches, like Left anti-Semitism, Right anti-Semitism, religious anti-Semitism, and racial anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism of anti-humans occupies a special place. However, if we are talking about anti-Semitism, it is necessary to define this strangeness clearly.

Anti-Semitism manifests animosity toward the superposition of Jewish achievements of the past, present, and future.

Perhaps this hatred is based on envy, but the essence in this definition is not that, but the word “superposition.” That means that anti-Semites, as a rule, do not envy the success of any particular Jew—they resent an aggregate, a collective image of successful abstract Jews of the past, present, and future.

The irrationality of anti-Semitism stems directly from the fact that anti-Semitism projects the timeless global success of Jews—all past, all present, and all future—onto one concrete Jew at a given time, on the Jew whom the pogromists have chosen as their next victim. Furthermore, since among Jews, as among all people, there is a percentage of bitter losers, the above definition of anti-Semitism applies to them as well (Natan Sharansky aptly names these Jewish anti-Semites “un-Jews”).

Note that anti-Semitism is a self-sufficient system of views that no longer require the existence of Jews. For example, the Aztecs are long extinct from the face of the Earth. Any enmity toward them (anti-Aztecism) is over too. Spartans are no longer with us. Animosity toward them, if any, is gone, too. However, if tomorrow the last Jew dies, anti-Semitism will continue. The proof comes from widespread anti-Semitism in countries where practically nobody has ever met a Jew, like China or Pakistan.

Consider another extreme case: a world where everyone is a Jew. Will anti-Semitism fade? The answer is no, unfortunately. The reason behind it is straightforward: anti-Semitism is not a rational anomaly; it is a glaring, irrational idea. It is the most pathetic, absurd, ignorant, and bigoted conception ever concocted.

Jews’ extermination will not eliminate anti-Semitism. Israel’s annihilation will not get rid of anti-Semitism. After dealing with Jews, anti-humans and their avant-garde—the Tunnel Tribe—will proceed with all other “non-believers.” Even after establishing the Notre Dame Mosque in Paris and the Capitol Mosque in Washington, DC, anti-humans will never stop. Do not forget: they are moving back in time, which positions them on a permanent collision course with the rest of humanity. The pattern of anti-humanization will never cease until the obliteration of most—if not all—carriers of anti-humanism.

The range of potential approaches to address the problem is restricted due to its foundation in the metaphysical realm. Taking into account the nonsensical nature of the anti-Semitic ideological universe, logical arguments will not be compelling. Therefore, there are few feasible methods.

In the transcendental domain, an attempt could be made to move Islam away from fundamentalism. In essence, it is a program that cultivates “bad Muslims,” where “bad” is from the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam’s holy books, by convincing them that being “bad Muslim” actually means “good Muslim” for the rest of the planet. It would be Islam’s reformation of sorts, prepared by non-Muslims for Muslims, constructed upon the argument that the rest of the world is already populated by mostly “bad Christians,” “bad Jews,” and “bad Whatever,” where “bad” is bad only from a specific dogma. Being a little “bad” from one’s tribe’s point of view benefits everybody.

The second method involves physically eliminating individuals who propagate backsliding ideologies. The state of Israel does just that. Israelis, including non-Jews, are on the front lines of the planet-wide annihilation of matter and anti-matter, humans and anti-humans. The annihilation parade causes severe damage, complete ruin, and mass murder. The time ahead remains uncertain; however, the coming decades will provide evidence regarding the feasibility of the two commonsensical approaches discussed above.

However, the most promising, long-term approach would be the alternative initiative of geoconservatism.

Anti-Semitism (in its original sense of anti-Jewishness) is not a disease of society; instead, it is a symptom of the unhealthiness of society at large. By refusing to acknowledge anti-Semitism, society denies a sober diagnosis. It guarantees the failure of all attempts to eradicate anti-Semitism because society will concentrate on treating symptoms, not the core problem.

Rather than being a detached episode, anti-Semitism must be considered a coercion tool used by governments. Recall that anti-Jewish pogroms were never spontaneous; instead, they were carefully planned and executed by coercive governments and government-associated institutions. Some institutions that play a crucial role in coercive government coalitions are transcendental in nature, like institutionalized religions. To illustrate, present-day, institutionalized Islam is a government agency with a deity marginally attached.

Contrarily, governance by consent does not need anti-Semitism. The overall evolution of freedom shifts the balance of governance types from coercion to consent. As a result, the number of conservative governments will grow over time, and consequently, anti-Semitism will wither away.

The geoconservatism thesis would render all governments too weak to even think about aggressive or unfriendly moves against their citizens or neighbors. That is utopian, of course, but only to a degree because such a power structure worldwide would constitute a desired stability mechanism. The existence of sufficiently small-scale governments that barely deal with garbage, crime, and highways guarantees freedom. In a genuinely free society, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, anti-Israel, and anti-Judaism (these are distinguishable marketing campaigns, different avenues in pursuit of the same goal: the physical eradication of Jews) are obsolete anachronisms.

In other words, the means to defeating anti-Semitism is not the physical elimination of people who fall for it. It is not defeating anti-Semitic countries militarily per se. The key to the ultimate elimination of anti-Semitism is to make this sentiment unprofitable, unneeded, and uncool, which is the direct byproduct of a truly conservative government by consent.

[Originally published at Jihad Watch. This piece is adapted from Gary’s forthcoming book, “Left Imperialism” (Paragon House, 2024)]

Davos: From Proto-Fascism to Post-Fascism

The Davos gatherings are a microcosm of what the Left has in mind for the rest of the world

The political adage “If you cannot beat them, join them” has been well-known for centuries. So, the Left made one extra step and arrived at the “if you cannot beat them, lead them.” The Left has been trying (unsuccessfully) various methods to eliminate capitalists and private property.

Eventually, Leftists learned their lesson and decided to preside over private property instead of confiscating and spreading it around. Lenin used it (the so-called “New Economic Policy” in the Soviet Union 1921-1928), Mussolini used it, Hitler used it, and Mao Zedong used it (his campaign is still alive and well in China). It blatantly violates a well-demarcated borderline between the government and the governed. However, by now, it is the cornerstone of Globalism.

Note that the systematic and deliberate infiltration of the state into private economic affairs did not begin with Mussolini. In 17th-century France, for example, Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu established state-sponsored and state-directed cartels. That resulted in public-private entities that were granted monopoly status in their respective fields. Richelieu aimed not to build a proto-fascist state per se; his cravings were more down-to-earth: France had a war to win. (The following definitions are used: “Socialismis a state of society where most wealth, either de jure or de facto, belongs to a government.Fascismis a form of Socialism where most wealth de facto but not de jure belongs to a government.)

Nevertheless, Cardinal Richelieu deployed state power to consolidate state power even more. His offer to the French merchants was one they could not refuse: guaranteed profits under the protection of the state or guaranteed imprisonment at the Bastille.

The resultant economic landscape in France in the middle of the 17th century comprised numerous, stable, privately owned cartels controlled directly or indirectly by the government. Nevertheless, it did strengthen and consolidate French economic power, especially concerning rivals—the Habsburgs and England. However, the other side of the same coin was unavoidable—the government-chartered monopolies, insulated by the state from external competition, pressed the brakes on innovations. In the end, Cardinal Richelieu led the Habsburgs to bankruptcy and France to the dominant power on the European continent.

England and her colonies were provided more economic freedom during the same period. That sealed the fate of two revolutions at the end of the 18th century. The French had no choice but to continue their Left turn. On the other hand, the thirteen overseas British colonies turned Right.

The story of the proto-fascist policies of Richelieu demonstrates the theme observable in all future left-wing economies: a short-term boost in economic activity due to crushing, inescapable state intervention, and then, in the long run, unavoidable decline and stagnation. As it is known, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and the entire Soviet bloc post-World War II followed this course. The demise of Communist China is inevitable for the same reason. A similar fate is awaiting the Davos Oracles of “stakeholder capitalism.” From that outlook, all four of Dumas’s three musketeers were the first proto-anti-fascists.

State-managed “stakeholder capitalism” was known in the 1600s as mercantilism. To use 21st-century terminology, Cardinal Richelieu established a form of stakeholder capitalism in France, where the government served as the only principal stakeholder.

Karl Schwab publicizes “the third way,” “stakeholder capitalism,” as the ultimate solution. His “capitalism” must be quoted because it corresponds to free-market capitalism in only the remotest sense. Note that National Socialists of the Third Reich also run under the banner (or, rather, the smokescreen) of “the third way.” Schwab is painfully aware that “the stakeholder concept competed head-on with Friedman’s notion that ‘the business of business is business’—and it ultimately lost out.”

There are no surprises here. Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” is just a reformulated branch of Leftism, rebranded for the 21st century, commonly known as Fascism. Of course, it is not a replica of 20th-century Fascism; it has been updated and modified to incorporate “climate change,” digital technologies, and the pandemic and has expanded global outreach. “Planet’s health” becomes the central stakeholder in the global economic system.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 provided conclusive evidence of the unsustainable character of the socialist economy. With its fall, progressive intellectuals were forced to find a new source of inspiration and income, with the latter being their primary concern. Therefore, the myths conceived by the previous generation of Leftists had to be revised so that “global cooling” quickly turned into “global warming.” As for the new source of income, the international Left panicked for many years until it realized that its quintessential enemy—capitalism—could be exerted to combat capitalism.

From that account, the WEF’s ascendance as the international Left’s de facto leader directly resulted from the Soviet Union’s crash of 1991. The WEF was founded in 1971 under the name of the European Management Forum when cracks in the Soviet Union became an open secret. Shortly after, a campaign began to rehabilitate Corporatism. By the time of renaming the European Management Forum into the World Economic Forum in 1987, the term “neo-Corporatism” had sufficiently emasculated from any links to old Corporatism/Fascism.

Despite this, the organization went unnoticed for over two decades, remaining in the shadow of more powerful socialist organizations. The tool the WEF used to win the international socialist race was not its invention: they just modernized the old 1930s Leftist “guaranteed profits” thesis of getting political power from the semi-educated by utilizing control mechanisms instead of ownership redistribution. Thus, the evolution of the WEF runs in parallel with the revival of Corporatism.

By the second Obama presidential term, the WEF had decisively won the evolutionary struggle with fellow left-wing peers. Davos became the ecumenical council of the New Left Caliphate, and the race for Assets Under Management was catapulted to the top Leftist strategies. Davos is where the blossoming romance between the rich and the left-wing beau monde happens.

The Davos gatherings are a microcosm of what the Left has in mind for the rest of the world. Davosians cling to one of the strictest caste societies, indicated by the color of their badges. Meritocratic considerations do not solely determine the ranking of these individuals in the WEF hierarchy. The color ranking in Davos is loosely based on a person’s position in the outer world. However, like all other left-wing movements, the actual hierarchy in the WEF strictly adheres to inner-Davos priorities—the distance from the party Führer.

The Alpine resort town of Davos has emerged as a symbol of modern anti-capitalism, but that is only half true. Indisputably, Davos has been propelled to the top of Left Imperialism executives and become the de facto Olympus of left-wing half-men-half-gods. They genuinely believe they have found the cornucopia and met Goddess Abundantia, who has changed her name to State.

[Originally published at American Thinker. This piece is adapted from Gary’s forthcoming book, “Left Imperialism”]

The Stage 4 of Left Plagiarism

The modern Left is transforming the United States into a country headed by plagiarists, for plagiarists, and by plagiarists.

The timeline of what happened to the DEI-intoxicated Harvard president is well-known. However, the question of why it happened somehow eluded the commentariat. To answer the “why” question requires a deep dive into the fundamental issue of private property and its theft.

While Conservatism and Leftism do not touch the subject (it is considered a secondary, not a primary dispute), for the proletarianized strain of Leftism—Marxism—it is a fundamental, existential core belief. Since the Marxists’ takeover of the Ivy League institutions at the end of the last century, detailed analysis is impossible without an excursion into Marxist tenets.

Victorian Marxism postulated that private property would dissipate after the proletarian revolution. Along with that, the government would gradually wither away because it is no longer needed: there is no more private property to protect. Unfortunately, that simplistic thesis managed to brainwash millions.

While compulsory property reshuffle has been condemned since pre-Biblical times, orthodox Marxism offered one notable exception: the confiscation (expropriation, theft, robbery, embezzlement) of property from the “oppressor” and its allocation to the “oppressed.” Thus, Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” motto has a deeply rooted tradition in left-wing circles. He was not acting alone: during the Cold War, intellectual property (IP) theft was, for all practical purposes, legalized and normalized by the International Left.

At the heart of Soviet intelligence activities lay a quest for strategic advantage; thus, IP poaching became a significant aspect of their efforts.

In Soviet hands, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress became a Tupolev Tu-4 bomber. The first Soviet atomic bomb, RDS-1, modeled after the third American nuclear device nicknamed “Fat Man,” was dropped from the Tu-4. (So, one replica launched another.) The German V-2 rocket evolved into the R-1 rocket, a precursor to Soviet ICBMs. At the same time, the Ford Mainline was known in the Soviet Union as the Volga GAZ-21. The passenger car, Moskvich-400, was an exact duplicate of the German Opel Kadett K38. The famous Kalashnikov machine gun, AK-47, is a cheap imitation of Germany’s STG-44. Its designer, Hugo Schmeiser, was brought to the USSR after World War II in a Soviet version of “Operation Paperclip.”

That “spread the IP around” was not bound to technologies. There are numerous examples, like “Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree” by Disney, which has its corresponding rip-off version in Russian. “Doctor Dolittle” has its Soviet, politically correct equivalent. Pinocchio got his own name in the USSR and acquired a class warfare background. “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” has a one-to-one equivalent in Russian, too. Add Three Stooges to the list of Soviet plagiarism, all without attribution to the original authors. The list continues: popular tunes, movie plots, cartoons, art, and even fairy tales were meticulously copied by Soviet communists.

Soviet borrowings are especially remarkable for their enormous scale and astounding cynicism. The vast majority of items were replicated: from huge factories, cars, tanks, planes, and missiles to cameras, household appliances, and children’s toys. It is understood that the lion’s share of the former Soviet Union might be an industrial-scale IP steal.

According to the Soviets, “public property” already belonged to the people, so it was not necessary to pay for it. It was not uncommon for Soviet left-wingers to print Western bestsellers in millions without getting formal permission from copyright holders.

Plagiarism on the International Left was a state-sponsored enterprise; it flourished in the Soviet Union. After its dissolution, China took over. Communist China catapulted ideology-induced IP thievery to an unprecedented level. They added computer hacks to their arsenal. One of the Chinese cyber operations is “Operation CuckooBees.” It siphoned a wide range of proprietary data and cutting-edge technologies, estimated in trillions of dollars.

Traditionally, plagiarism is viewed as a phenomenon limited to academia. However, it is a form of IP plundering in the grand scheme of things. Moreover, note that IP is one of several types of private property, like real estate or possessions. Most intangible properties are classified as IP. The coercive restructuring of tangible property has many names: theft, fraud, confiscation, larceny, etc. Involuntary redistribution of intangible properties also has many names: copyright or patent infringement, plagiarism, etc.

Plagiarism is simply an IP heist when the monetary value of the stolen goods is not immediately apparent or challenging to estimate. The term “plagiarism” is sufficiently vague to include “errors in attribution,” “omission of quotations,” and other linguistic tricks. However, there is a clear difference between an honest mistake occasionally committed by an overwhelmed researcher under the gun of a strict deadline and a government-sponsored, ideology-approved seizure of technologies and ideas on an industrial scale. Ideology-encouraged IP piracy is in an entirely different category from mere clerical oversight.

A combination of Soviet plagiarism and Chinese cyber espionage instigated the most sizable transfer of private property from “oppressors” to “oppressed” in the history of mankind. Without a doubt, left-wing societies are the domains of widespread, unpunished plagiarism. Cultivated by decades-long Soviet “active measures,” Western left-wingers have adopted Soviet slogans, ideological cliches, and various methods of redistributing the properties of the “oppressors” with impunity. It is well-known that then-senator Biden acknowledged his serial plagiarism.

The International Left demonstrates time and again that plagiarism and anti-Semitism belong to core left-wing ideological beliefs. After Harvard’s president’s plagiarism became widely known, there was not even a proper, PR-dictated “damage control” stage.

The Woke Left genuinely did not understand the uproar, for everything they do conforms to the official party line. In Harvard, for instance, the “oppressed” person expropriated some stuff from the “oppressors,” so what is the buzz? Suppose Barack Obama—a prominent socialist and serial plagiarizer—makes it to lead Harvard. In that case, he will be an excellent fit: he plagiarized Eisenhower, Wilson, Thatcher, and Kennedy.

It certainly looks like the modern Left is transforming the United States into a country headed by plagiarists, for plagiarists, and by plagiarists. What happened at Harvard should not be considered primitive IP theft. It was an occurrence of the Left’s ideology-mandated modus operandi colliding with non-Woke reality.

[Originally published at American Thinker. This piece is adapted from Gary’s forthcoming book, “Left Imperialism” (Paragon House, 2024)]