ТВ клуб Континент от 5 февраля 2021: Леонид Ильич Байден

Time travel across Washington Swamp

It looks like leftist forces, without question, represent a much more advanced civilization than the unwashed Trump supporters.  Apparently, nowadays, intellectual superiority lies with the knights of social justice, commissars of post-Marxism, and neo-Maoist intelligentsia.  We were all not fair-minded when we said that Americans’ new generation didn’t contribute anything to human, huwoman, and huit civilizations.  We complained about the Soros-Jugend folks using cell phones, computers, and the Internet invented by previous generations. 

However, the well-educated anti-Trumpist intelligentsia has, beyond any reasonable doubt, demonstrated a remarkable ability for time travel.  Ladies and gentlemen, we were wrong, period. 

Firstly, the 2020 presidential election results in some Democrat-controlled states violated previously-fundamental (and now debunked by coterie fact-checkers) laws of physics.  Thousands of snail-mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent out.  Thus, the 2020 election not only instantly cured America of the Trump-is-Putin’s-marionette psychosis but also showed first confirmed evidence of the possibility of time travel.

Secondly, Democrats also revealed that they are gracious, generous people.  Without hesitation, they shared their extraordinary discovery with Republicans – what noble a gesture!

Equipped with this new technology, Republicans were able to pull off a previously unheard-of trick.  On or around New Year’s Eve, they traveled into the future and got excited by Trumps’ speech on January 6th, 2021, to an unbelievable degree.  Then, they came back to 2020, and returning the favor, Republicans informed Democrats about the coming riots. 

In response, the grateful and euphoric Democrats began planning for the Capitol riot about a whole week before the speech in question.  They declined all requests for increased security for the January 6th event to not bend the cause-and-effect relationship. 

As a result, brawl at the Capitol commenced even before Trump began his speech.  Who needs to wait until the end of the exhortatory speech if its content has been known in advance? Of course, the events of January 6th, 2021, would not have happened if the dim-witted masses did not get foreknowledge of it by utilizing the Democrats-supplied time machine.  After a quick initial assault by veritable far-left activists was suitably filmed and pedantically documented, Capitol Police, far from quivering in terror, warmly invited the attackers inside and showed them the way.  In the end, it was practically non-destructive mayhem, unlike all the previous Democrat-organized “mostly peaceful protests.”

It’s not clear how the FBI got word – via informants or thru time travel too.  Still, several law enforcement units dressed in full riot gear were spotted in the morning around the Capitol, long before Trump’s speech; the units were quickly removed thou when the Capitol building’s perimeter was breached.

Lastly, security cameras around the Capitol building detected a guy who planted pipe bombs one day before Trump’s speech.

In conclusion, Democrats did everything possible to succeed; they even supplied a group of adequately equipped, riot-tested agents-provocateurs.  However, shortly after the disturbing events, when Congress was forced, albeit briefly and unintentionally, into the position envisioned by the Founding Fathers – the position of being afraid of American citizens – the time machine apparently broke.

No longer backed by the time machine, Democrats immediately shifted into a clueless mode.  Without the hindsight of the future and foresight of the past provided by time travel, the narrow-minded Democratic gerontocracy swiftly impeached Donald Trump for a second time, incriminating him with something concocted by their own paramilitary wings.  Nobody was brave enough to warn them that freshly created precedent will require a mere couple of hours to impeach any future president without any hearings and witness testimonies.  Effectively, they paved the road to all previous, present, and future Democratic presidents’ impeachment by the very first coming Republican-controlled House.

Without a time machine, nobody can say for sure what exactly we are witnessing here.  Have both the Democrat and Republican parties depleted their systemic resource? Either the Democrat-induced reductio ad absurdum was the ultimate goal, or, more probably, daunted commissars simply overplayed their hand, as usual.

[Originally published at NOQ Report]

Godwin’s Law in The Third-and-a-half Reich

One of the most invoked pearls of wisdom of the Internet era, Godwin’s Law, states that in any discussion, regardless of topic, the probability of introducing a Nazi argument or counterargument approaches 100%.  As a rule, it marks the end of a discussion.  Of course, the Nazi theme used in the original Godwin adage is just a particular case of a more general principle: whoever of whatever at present personifies evil the best could be used as a discussion-stopper.  Whoever or whatever is perceived now as the ultimate bogeyman will do.

There are numerous examples of such phenomena.  Reductio ad Hitlerum, or playing the Nazi card, is just another name.  Reductio ad Stalinum (red-baiting) has a similar effect, as well as playing the “race card” or “me too” card.  In the Soviet Union, the “you lynch blacks” argument against Americans was used very often.

When somebody invokes the “ultimate bogeyman” argument, emotional issues, always present in a somewhat dormant form in any discussion, suddenly outweigh any rational ones, emphasizing an argument’s decay.  Eventually, the discussion is morphing into a hysterical phase and predictably self-destructs.

Obviously, Godwin’s Law does not apply when a dialogue is explicitly about National Socialism, the Third Reich, concentration camps, or whatever the epithet of the current ultimate bogeyman is.  In all such cases, the discussion, of course, should not and does not stop.  Moreover, the self-fulfilling properties of an ultimate bogeyman at hand (or, in the politically correct world, bogeywoman) prevent discussions from stopping.  Who can demonstrate the instances when left-wingers suddenly stopped a discussion about “evil capitalists” or right-wingers swiftly abandoned a conversation about “evil attacks on states’ rights?”

However, one aspect of Godwin’s Law is still not adequately resolved. 

What if one or both discussing parties have no idea what Nazism (or an ultimate bogeyman for that matter) is? What if one of the parties, in fact, promotes Nazi ideology, albeit renamed and repackaged? Should conversation in these cases stop, as Godwin’s Law prescribes? In other words, what will happen if parties do not know what the current bogeyman actually is? They might know the name, know how to spell it, and even know what the Politbureau thinks about it, but they have no idea what it is.  They might think they know precisely what they are talking about.  Still, the simple idea that all their knowledge about the subject may result from sophisticated indoctrination never occurs to them.

A typical example is Antifa.  The original Antifa – Antifaschistische Aktion – was created by Ernst Thalmann, German Communists leader, in 1932.  At that time, three major left-wing political parties in Germany represented the working class:  Communists, Social Democrats, and National Socialists.  Contemporaries had little or no understanding of what the difference between them was.  All three advocated for a workers’ paradise; only the Nazis had specific reservations about what races/nationalities shall be allowed or prohibited to enter the Utopian paradise. 

As a side note, recall that the Nazis’ antisemitism was not religious or grassroots antisemitism.  They practiced pure ideological antisemitism, based on the idea that natural resources are limited, so they need to restrict the number of people entering the workers’ paradise one way or another.  They decided to allow only one (non-existent) race – the Aryan race – to enter the “thousand-year” Socialist Reich; all other mischling must be exterminated or expelled from Eden.  (The process was known as Vernichtungsschlachten – Battles of Extermination.)

Anyway, to a man on the street, the only visible difference between Communists, Socialists, and National Socialists in the 1930s was the size of their red flags.  (After the war, Marcuse et al.  had to invent something to alter that perception.) The bloody infighting between those three cousins was not just commonplace – it became a fixture of that time.  Being parties of the left, all three rival factions attacked each other mostly from left-wing ideological positions. 

The intraspecific competition was fierce and brutal, for these parties were fighting for the same electoral base.  From this perspective, Antifa was, in fact, anti-fascist, but with the negligible ideological difference between them – one followed International Socialism and another National Socialism.  They were the same peoples separated by a common ideology.

All three pre-1933 parties in Germany represented three sister strains of the same ideology.  Fast forward to the 21st century, where bloodthirsty Nazi thugs are gone, but bloodthirsty communist Antifa thugs become a respectful militant arm of American leftists, albeit with a superficial knowledge of who they are.  Modern Antifa is not the same organization as before, but they inherited many inscrutable attributes, tactics, and zeal of the original Antifa.  It is doubtful that rank-and-file Antifa adherents remember their roots.  People who exhumed and revived Antifa to use them as cannon fodder certainly do know, but they never participate in any public discussions.

Regardless of who the current bogeyman is, his/her/its real aficionado and nincompoop will show up in a discussion sooner or later.  Ultimately, we will witness a polemic where some daft Antifa folks will unload on the other side with a justifiable criticism of the Nazis.  What should Godwin’s Law look like if Antifa has no understanding that they, unbeknownst to them, represent essentially the same ideology as Nazis?

The resulting logical controversy is not easy to resolve.  According to Godwin’s Law, the invocation of a Nazi-based argument would eventually stop the discussion.  However, based on the Godwin’s Law exception, when the discussion is explicitly about the Nazis, polemics should continue – but it assumes that both sides have a clear understanding that they are talking about Nazis.  If only one side – opposite of Antifa – knows that they are dealing with the primordial Nazi’s sister ideology, we hit a wall.

The irony of the situation is that Hollywood blacklists of the 1950s were designed to root out “reds” while canceling blacklists of the 2020s aim at … “reds” again.  (I must confess I have no idea what the politically correct equivalent of “blacklist” is.) However, the present “reds” are not the 20th-century “reds.” The color, previously associated exclusively with left-wing ideologies, has been redefined and currently carries the diametrically opposed meaning – it means those who oppose left-wing policies. 

Navigating the waters of never-ending transmogrifications of Newspeak is not easy and having a logical debate in such an atmosphere is almost impossible.  Repeating, rephrasing, or otherwise repackaging a dogma repeatedly could serve as a new definition of insanity.  However, that is how alarmingly many discussions are proceeding.

Is our Republic transforming itself into the Reich? The answer to this question depends not only on what the meaning of the word “is” is but on precise knowledge of what the Reich is.  Even in a fog of Newspeak, even for low-information citizens, and even for knuckle draggers who promote the Reich-like ideology (but have no clue about it), the Reich is a bona fide bogeyman.  People who did not study history are condemned to repeat it alright, but are people who, in fact, study history condemned to helplessly observe how all others repeat it?

If America slowly and painfully evolves into a Reich, it cannot be the Third Reich – the name is already taken by American leftists’ ideological predecessors.  It cannot be a viable Fourth Reich either because there is no network of re-educational concentration camps, and digital prisons and digital executions are not an adequate substitute for planned Pan-American deprogramming.  Let us settle on a halved, semi-Reich: The Third-and-a-half Reich.  The Reich, which, like everything else in history, repeats, but this time as a farce.

[Originally published at NoQ Report]

To Brin, or Not to Brin

That is the question. To be precise, that is the $50,000 question, or whatever amount Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, is making per hour.

To brin: a verb meaning to break under the torture of censorship and/or cancellation, or, as Hamlet put it, “to take arms against a sea of troubles /And by opposing end them.” Should we struggle against dorseynization and zuckerberging? Or should we comply with the ruling party orders and brin into submission?

We all know that “net neutrality” has nothing to do with the internet or neutrality. “LGBT” has nothing to do with sexual preferences. “Black Lives Matter” has nothing to do with Black people. “Climate change” has nothing to do with the climate whatsoever. “Saving the planet,” like any other environmental extremism, has nothing to do with the planet. “Political correctness” has nothing to do with correctness, and “social justice” has never assumed any justice.

To continue, “microaggressions” have nothing to do with any aggression. “Critical Race Theory” has nothing to do with race. “Safe space” has nothing to do with safety. “Feminism” has nothing to do with women, and “toxic masculinity” has nothing to do with men. “Minimum wage” has nothing to do with wages. “Antifa” has nothing to do with anti-fascism – the list goes on and on.

These terms could be easily substituted by just one simple word: control.

For political power, control is paramount. The Marxist dogmas of abolishing private ownership and the inevitable establishment of collective ownership did not age well beyond the 19th century. The original idea was realized in the Soviet Union and its satellites only by the use of unheard-of-before terror. Many Western Marxists and leftists rightly argued that forced wealth redistribution would lead to bloody civil war, citing the Soviet Union’s experiment as an obvious example.

That left leftists in search of some novel ideas to revitalize Marxism.  They did so by (temporarily) dropping the involuntary wealth redistribution requirement. While possessing the same strategic goal as classical Marxists, they decided to introduce quite different tactics designed to smooth society’s transition to a Utopian worker’s paradise.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the leftists’ thought process looked like this: business owners controls all their businesses’ aspects. Why? Because they own it fair and square, de-jure and de-facto, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact.

Classical Marxism aims at dumping both de-jure and de-facto ownership, eliminating both the legality and tangible ownership components. However, what if we temporarily and reluctantly drop just one of them? If the de-facto ownership requirement is dropped, but de-jure stays? The resulting non-Marxist leftist ideology gets assigned a new term – Fascism. Fascism was designed as a significantly less bloodthirsty alternative to Communism. (By the way, if, on the contrary, the de-jure requirement is dropped, but the de-facto ownership stays, the resulting non-Marxist, leftist society would resemble a mafia enterprise on a state level, also known as a plutocracy.) 

Practical implementation of the Fascist idea took many forms. It was implemented in Italy by a group of prominent Socialists with Mussolini, orthodox Marxist, at the helm. Mussolini’s mantra was “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In the 1930s, he managed to get all Italian industries and all Italian finances under state control while leaving the private ownership mostly intact. He called this state-run capitalism “true socialism.” The second, predetermined step – national government taking over all private ownership – was announced in due time but did not materialize thanks to the Allies’ invasion.

Another obvious example is the National Socialism of the Third Reich. However, from a purist’s point of view, real National Socialism was established not in Germany but in Italy. Mussolini, who was a famous statesman already when Hitler was just a nameless community organizer, was furious when he learned that Hitler “borrowed” – read “embezzled” – the term. “National Socialism” redefined “Fascism” by incorporating anti-Semitism and racism into it; the Third Reich’s real ideology could be described as Aryan Socialism.

Reforms along the lines of eliminating de-facto ownership while keeping de-jure ownership sprung in many counties on both sides of the Atlantic. The simplest version of the idea assumes near-total control of an enterprise by the government, while legal ownership still lies with the rightful owners and their heirs.

Did owners revolt? Did they protest? Anywhere? Anyone? Nope. Stripping owners from any control of their enterprises was mostly met with jubilation. Hitler never hid the eventual goal when he confronted German industry with the ultimatum: “Private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.” The Third Reich never ran a nationalization program, with just a few notable exceptions (like the expropriation of Junkers airplane factory with more or less fair compensation to the owners.)

In return, captains of the German economy poured millions into Nazi party coffers. Why? Because the transfer of control to the government removes owners’ perpetual headaches.  Owners no longer need to worry about competition, management, environment, labor law, strikes, profits, unions, taxes, and any other burden. Everything has been taken care of – just go to Davos, or Miami Beach, or Courchevel and enjoy your life while the government, thru its ideologically-purified agents, does the hard work.

China’s current state of affairs scrupulously follows the Fascist template. They do it under a different name, of course (Fascism got a bad reputation, you know). Their followers in the United States and other Western countries are trying to foist it under separate banners, too (and for the same reason). 

In the United States, we have not reached a total control phase, but today we see suspensions, demonetizations, terminations, and other forms of cancellation methods and digital executions practiced by para-government agents. For the time being, these agents still own all these famous tech giants de-jure. However, de-facto, they carry a baton from 20th-century book burners into the 21st, enthusiastically enforcing the nomenklatura demands of the Post-Marxists.

The dirty little secret among the Post-Marxists is that they temporarily, at least during this transitional phase from capitalism to a leftist Utopia, ignore economic components entirely and care only about unrestricted political power and total societal control. Until the workers’ revolution is successful on a global scale and worldwide wealth redistribution is a done deal (this idea is known as globalism), comprehensive control – the de-facto part of ownership – is all that drives the would-be-revolutionaries.

The international cocktail of various leftist -isms genuinely believes that political censorship on a global scale is within reach. To achieve this goal, leftists outsourced the dirty task of censorship enforcement to private companies, an army of courtier journalists, and Academia.

During the previous millennium, universities were free speech oases and have suddenly turned into free speech arbiters and suppressors that coerce people to brin.  Beginning with the present millennium, many colleges set the template for this dreadful and arrogant dismissal of opposing views. Cancel Culture and Comprehensive Control are two sides of the same coin, for if they cannot control you, they must cancel you. That’s why we are witnessing a pitiless pogrom of statues – leftists cannot assert control over the past, so the only course of action for them (following the example of their predecessor, Joseph Stalin) is to simply cancel and erase the past.

The Soviets had a program nicknamed “expulsion to the 101st kilometer,” referring to the forcible eviction of dissenting or otherwise “undesirable” citizens beyond Moscow’s 100 kilometers. Google manipulates internet search results analogously. It shows links to leftist political and news sites at the top of the search results, and links to sites with “undesirable” views are artificially moved beyond the first hundred links. Google knows that people, as a rule, glance at the first dozen or so links. Consequently, Google creates the impression that the whole world is full of leftist ideas only. Many people still don’t realize they are inside of a digital Gulag.

Let us emphasize that this is done by para-government agents at Big Tech legally, without brute violation of the law. With diabolical ingenuity, these post-Marxist leftists assumed the role of digital gods and utilize the existing laws that protect private ownership de-jure for asserting control de-facto over all aspects of social life to establish a post-American America. As Soviet communist Nikolay Bukharin put it, “We asked for freedom of the press…and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties.”

Should we comply with their demands to follow the letter of the law while they deliberately violate the spirit of the law to pave the road for Pan-American serfdom? Per Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Not to act is to act.” It would be so un-American to comply with demands from, let’s say, YuanTube, even if it will result in adding one’s name into the government blacklist of dangerous subversives. It would be so un-American to submissively stay in a solitary compartment of a digital reeducation camp. It would be so un-American to go quietly into the night.

It would be so un-American to brin.

[Originally Published at Chronicle of Current Events]

P.S. The recently established in the United States Chronicle of Current Events takes its name from the journal Soviet dissidents compiled and circulated in typescript on human rights violations in their country in the mid-20th century. Many of those brave Russians, who risked more than social ostracism for exercising freedom of speech, were humanists and scientists, as their current American successors. Original Chronicle was more than a list: it became a platform for discussing and analyzing the workings and strategies of totalitarianism.

Political Desperation and Conservatives’ Dunkirk Moment

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the presidential election of 2020 was a colossal political disaster, a catastrophe on the level of Dunkirk.  However, the Dunkirk 1940 fiasco quickly turned out to be a Dunkirk miracle.  Do conservatives, whose “root and core and brain” are currently in disarray, have a chance of performing a similar marvel?

When the Dunkirk saga concluded, Prime Minister Churchill had occupied 10 Downing Street for a little less than four weeks.  When the fiendishly clever (and practically undetectable for the untrained eye) 2020 election steal happened, President Trump was occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a little less than four years.

Leftists tried to destroy Donald Trump these past four years by attacking him from various ideological directions.  Recall unsuccessful attempts by the Bolsheviks (Bernie Sanders) and Mensheviks (Hillary Clinton).  The third attempt, under the banner of the rulers of the Middle Kingdom — a strain of socialism practically unknown to the general population — succeeded, and now Chairman Joe Biden is currently at the helm.

One of the reasons it has happened is clear: Americans do not have immunity to the current Chinese version of socialism.  In contrast, other socialism strains (including, but not limited to, Communism, National Socialism, International Socialism, and Fascism) have been known to American citizens for over a century.  As a result, our society had developed a decent immunity to them. 

China’s socialism occupies a distinct position in the cesspool of leftism, but it is not that unique.  It shares with its sister ideologies — National Socialism and Fascism — an idea referred to as “anathema” to all other leftists: they allow private businesses to coexist with collective and government enterprises but under strict ruling party control. 

The crucial word here is “control.”  No wonder Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Brin are precisely implementing just that — a 21st-century version of total ruling party control.  The merciless, preordained purge of dissidents is a well known tradition of all leftist ideologies.  If they burned books and exterminated about 100 million innocent souls in the 20th century, we should not expect their ideological successors in the 21st to do anything different from what they are doing now.  Moreover, leftists even borrowed some of their ideas from Leon Trotsky and, incapable of implementing permanent revolution, organized, quite predictably, a permanent impeachment farce.

However, the main reason for conservatives’ Dunkirk’s existence lies with a strategic, decades-long blunder of exploiting the Republican Party for conservative objectives.  Conservatives were trying to pull the same trick leftists have done with the Democrat Party.  The originally pro-American Democrat Party has been successfully hijacked and repurposed by leftist anti-American forces.  In return, the hijacked party had acquired a reasonably coherent, consistent ideology — Democrats had become a Big Government and Big Taxes party.

From the very beginning, the Republican Party had an internally conflicting ideology.  The two Republican Party pillars — Low Taxes and Big Government — are not compatible with each other.  Republicans, like Democrats before them, are an extraordinary bundle of contradictions.  Since World War II, conservatives were attempting to bend the Republican Party into a more coherent movement, advocating Low Taxes and Small Government.  They only partially succeeded — inside Washington, there is a small (and outcast) conservative Republican fraction.  This fraction has never betrayed and will never betray its own — Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.

In other words, the loss in 2020 was not a failure of Conservatism per se.  It was a failure of the apriori self-defeating myopia of incorporating Republicans into the conservative movement.  

On the surface, it looks like the Republican Party bosses betrayed President Trump, but that is not true — they were not backing Trump to begin with.  They tolerated (and many even supported) Trump as long as he promoted low taxes, but everything beyond that was too alien to them.  As a result, the Maoist revolution’s violent reality is upon us, and ebullient, perfectionist, and workaholic Trump has been replaced by someone who displayed remarkable ineptitude.

There are all signs that the Republican Party nomenklatura are ready to put themselves into a groveling position and allow rabid socialists to run the show.  As with many leftist revolutions before, we should expect massive human jetsam to be seated in the front row, especially at the incoming Ministry of Truth’s helm.  Imagine the unimaginable fandango: Chinese attaché for American affairs Joe Biden plans to transform the United States into China’s economic and political fiefdom.  Chinese communists are proficient in Stalin-like massive purges, so expect the “cancel culture” and vast blacklists to reach a pan-American, industrial scale pretty soon.

What should immaculate conservatives do while subservient Republicans prepare to join forces with the (D)eranged for expelling dissidents and non-conformists who dare to protect the “archaic” Constitution of the United States?

We should follow Winston Churchill’s magnificent oration during the horror of Dunkirk “to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary, for years, if necessary, alone.  At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do.”

As Winston Churchill would proclaim, reminiscent of his famous “we shall fight on the beaches” speech, even though large tracts of America and many states have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Demshevik party-controlled thought police and all the odious apparatus of Maoist rule, we shall not flag or fail. 

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in America, we shall fight for the Republic for which it stands, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength, we shall defend our beacon of freedom, whatever the cost may be.  We shall fight on the internet, we shall fight on the TV grounds, fight in the fields of science and education, and fight on the airwaves. 

We shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Republic or a large part of it were subjugated and lost its freedom to the immature left-wing bohemians, then our people beyond the Washington swamp, armed and guarded by the Constitution, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World patriots, with all their power and might, step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the entire World.

[Originally published at American Thinker]

Socialist Plymouth 400 Years Later

Precisely 400 years ago, on December 16, 1620 (according to the Gregorian calendar, December 26), the ship Mayflower anchored in Plymouth Bay in the New World, and on December 18 (28), daredevils landed on a deserted, cold coast, which is now in the state of Massachusetts. The Plymouth Rock now symbolizes the approximate landing site. The city of the same name still exists, as, in fact, does the country founded by the Puritans: the United States of America.

One hundred and two people set off by ship from Plymouth in the Old World, but on the way, one man died and one boy was born. One of the team members also died. Among the travelers were the Puritans, religious dissidents, adventurers, and merchants. All the passengers of the Mayflower were daring and brave people. They can be safely referred to as the pioneers – but not only in the geographical sense.

They were the first to establish socialism in North America.

The word “socialism” had not yet been invented, but we know all the details of the Puritans’ socialist epic from the diaries of William Bradford, one of the Plymouth colony leaders for a third of a century. By the time the pilgrims landed, Thomas More’s Utopia had already gone through dozens of editions (the English translation of Utopia was published in 1551), and ersatz-socialist ideas were widespread in Europe. As it is known, Utopia’s hypothetical state was based on the primitive idea of the monastic community. While still in exile in Holland before sailing to the New World, the Puritans had already begun introducing commune elements. They arrived in the New World with a clear plan for a collective community.

The Spaniards, who established colonies In the New World long before the British, also made several attempts to extend communal monastic rules to their territories in South and Central America. The Spaniards viewed the discovery of America as Divine Providence, and it was America that was to become the place for the creation of the ideal, utopian-like state-community. All such communities they established have sunk into oblivion, but the idea itself persists. That may perhaps explain why South America still has a disproportionate number of leftist regimes.

The Puritans had signed an agreement on what the community would be like before landing. The Plymouth colony’s beginning was traditionally socialist – anyone who refused to sign the document was prohibited from landing. There is nothing extraordinary in this one-page document by modern standards, but it was the first document establishing democratic self-government in the New World. The Puritans agreed that the power in the community should belong to the Law. However, the problem was which laws were adopted in this utterly democratic way.

Understanding why the colonists chose the socialist way of organizing the commune is pretty straightforward; it should be noted that after Thomas More, the ideas of the commune spread so widely in Europe that many of his followers and many other utopian models were born. For example, in 1619, even before the Puritans’ landing, Johann André’s Reipublicae Christianopolitanae (known as Protestant Utopia) was published, and in 1623 – The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella.

These utopias bore all the features that were fully manifested when the wave of socialist upheavals swept the planet in the 20th century – total control, brutal social engineering, political power that belongs to the intellectual elite, and forceful egalitarianism (which, of course, did not extend to the elite).

Like the Spaniards, the Puritans viewed America as the second Promised Land. From a religious point of view – from the Anglican and Catholic churches’ perspective – they were dissidents. Still, their initial beliefs on society’s economic structure did not go beyond the commune with its primitive collectivism.

In the Plymouth Colony, collective ownership of everything except women was established, and the concept of private property did not exist at all. The harvest and prey of the hunters were distributed equally among the colonists. Women were required to cook for all men and wash all their clothes, and men had to work to provide for other people’s wives and children.

For the next two years, each colonist worked for everyone else and not for himself. Labor productivity was disastrously low, and the result was not long in coming – by the summer of 1621, about half of the colonists had died of hunger and disease.

It should be noted that this experience is not unusual in human history; it has been endlessly and unsuccessfully repeated, and with the same devastating results – for example, collective farms in Russia and the first kibbutzim in Israel. The statistics here are unambiguous – all egalitarian communes have collapsed sooner or later. Nevertheless, the Plymouth collective farm differs from all the others in that the Puritans realized and corrected their mistake rather quickly, in a few years, unlike other social experiments that lasted for decades.

In the spring of 1623, after two and a half years of hunger, poverty, and despair, the colonists’ wives rebelled. They did not want to cook food for the husbands of other women anymore. They regarded the forced service of other men as de facto slavery. As a result, after a lengthy debate, the colonists made a decision that laid the foundation for modern American society – each family received its piece of land. Furthermore, only 70 years after these events, John Locke intellectually substantiated the right to private property.

As soon as the colonists abandoned collectivism and allowed private property, prosperity came. The first harvest in 1623 was a celebration of abundance. The colony became so thriving that it even welcomed a new wave of emigrants. Contrary to the myth, it was not the Indians who fed the colonists in 1623, but the colonists saved the Indians from starvation. Thanksgiving, which America now celebrates every year, is, in fact, the 1623 harvest festival of the Plymouth Colony based on private property.

As a religious people, the Puritans believed Divine Providence showed them the right way out of a difficult situation. Therefore, Thanksgiving Day is not as much gratitude for a bountiful harvest as gratitude for the pointing out from Heaven the correct economic solution to the problem.

If the Plymouth Colony’s rejection of socialism was almost instantaneous on a historical scale, then the reverse transformation – from capitalism to socialism – has been brewing in America for precisely 400 years. If Donald Trump loses his quest for the second term, then the transition to a socialist America seems inevitable.

The commune planned for America is by no means as primitive as the Plymouth Plantation. The commune in America is intended as an American version of Maoism, which allows for the temporary coexistence of private, collective, and government enterprises. However, all of them will have to be under the control of the “intellectual elite” – the Communist Party in China — that operates in America under a completely different name.

In America, of course, there are communists, but they prefer Marxist-Leninist, not Maoist, positions. Therefore, the road to power in openly pro-Chinese Washington is closed to them, but for the so-called “Democrats” (like Joe Biden), doors are wide open. The second serious attempt in the past 400 years to introduce the religion of collectivism in America is the exclusively the work of “Democrats.”.

Has Donald Trump stopped America’s slide into oblivion, or has he barely slowed it down? The answer to this question depends on who will reside in the White House for the next four years. The phrase many attributed to Churchill best describes the current moment: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they have tried everything else.”

[Originally published at American Thinker]

Социалистический Плимут 400 лет спустя

Ровно 400 лет назад, 16 декабря 1620 года (по грегорианскому календарю – 26 декабря) корабль «Майский Цветок» стал на якорь в бухте Плимута в Новом Свете, а 18 (28) декабря смельчаки высадились на безлюдном, холодном берегу, который сейчас находится в штате Массачусетс. Примерное место высадки сейчас символизирует Плимутский Камень. Это место и одноименный город существуют до сих пор, как, собственно, и страна, начало которой положили пуритане – Соединенные Штаты Америки.

В путь на корабле из Плимута в Старом Свете отправилось 102 человека, но в пути один мужчина умер, а один мальчик родился. Умер также один из членов команды. Среди путешественников были и пуритане – религиозные диссиденты, и искатели приключений, и торговцы. Все пассажиры «Майского Цветка» были людьми дерзкими и смелыми. Они были теми, которых можно смело назвать первопроходцами – но не только в географическом смысле.

Они были первыми, кто начал строить социализм в Северной Америке.

Слово «социализм» тогда еще не было придумано, но все подробности социалистической эпопеи пуритан мы знаем из дневников Уильяма Бредфорда, который треть века был одним из руководителей плимутской колонии. К моменту высадки пилигримов «Утопия» Томаса Мора выдержала уже десятки изданий (английский перевод «Утопии» вышел в свет в 1551 году), и идеи эрзац-социализма получили в Европе широкое распространение. Как известно, в основе гипотетического государства Утопия лежала примитивная идея монастырского сообщества. Пуритане, находясь еще в изгнании в Голландии перед отплытием в Новый Свет, уже начали внедрение у себя элементов коммуны, и прибыли в Новый Свет с четким планом коллективной общины.

Испанцы, которые организовали колонии на Американском континенте задолго до англичан, тоже сделали несколько попыток распространить общинные монастырские правила на свои территории в Южной и Центральной Америке. Открытие Америки рассматривалось испанцами как Божественное Провидение, и именно Америка должна была стать местом для создания идеального, утопического государства-общины. Все эти общины канули в лету, но сама идея осталась. Возможно, именно поэтому в Южной Америке до сих пор наблюдается непропорционально большое количество левацких режимов.

Пуритане еще до высадки на берег подписали соглашение о том, каково будет устройство общины. Начало плимутской колонии было традиционно социалистическим – всем, кто откажется подписать документ, высадка на землю была запрещена. По современным меркам ничего экстраординарного в этом одностраничном документе нет, но это был первый документ, устанавливающий в Новом Свете демократическое самоуправление. Пуритане договорились о том, что власть в общине будет принадлежать Закону. Однако проблема заключалась в том, какие именно законы были приняты этим вполне демократическим путем.

Чтобы понять, почему колонисты выбрали именно социалистический путь организации коммуны, необходимо отметить, что после Томаса Мора идеи коммуны распространились в Европе настолько широко, что на свет появились и множество его последователей, и множество других утопических моделей. Например, в 1619 году, еще до высадки пуритан, вышло «Описание республики христианополитанской» Иоганна Андре, а в 1623 году – «Город Солнца» Томмазо Кампанеллы.

Эти утопии носили все те черты, которые в полной мере проявились, когда волна социалистических переворотов прокатилась по планете в ХХ столетии – тотальный контроль, интенсивная социальная инженерия, политическая власть, которая принадлежит интеллектуальной элите, и насильственный эгалитаризм (который, разумеется, не распространялся на элиту).

Как и испанцы, пуритане рассматривали Америку как вторую Землю Обетованную. С религиозной точки зрения – с точки зрения англиканской и католических церквей – они были диссидентами, но их первоначальные взгляды на экономическое устройство общества не выходили за рамки коммуны с ее примитивным коллективизмом.

В Плимутской колонии была установлена коллективная собственность на все, кроме женщин, а понятие частной собственности не существовало вообще. Урожай и добыча охотников распределялись поровну среди колонистов. Женщины обязаны были готовить еду для всех мужчин и всех их обстирывать, а мужчины должны были работать, чтобы обеспечивать чужих жен и детей.

В течение последующих двух лет каждый колонист работал на всех остальных, а не на себя. Производительность труда была катастрофически низкой, и результат не заставил себя ждать – к лету 1621 года около половины колонистов умерло от голода и болезней.

Отметим, что этот опыт, возможно, единственный в человеческой истории, который неоднократно и безуспешно повторялся, причем с теми же плачевными результатами – например, колхозы в России и первые кибуцы в Израиле. Статистика здесь однозначная – все коммуны рано или поздно ждет крах. Но Плимутский колхоз отличается от всех остальных тем, что пуритане поняли и исправили свою ошибку буквально через несколько лет – в отличие от других социальных экспериментов, которые длились десятилетиями.

Весной 1623 года, после двух с половиной лет голода, нищеты и безысходности, жены колонистов взбунтовались. Они не желали больше готовить еду для мужей других женщин. Насильственное обслуживание других мужчин расценивалось ими как фактическое рабство. В результате после долгих дебатов колонисты приняли решение, которое заложило фундамент современного американского общества – каждая семья получила свой участок земли. И только через 70 лет после этих событий Джон Локк научно обосновал право на частную собственность.

Как только колонисты отказались от коллективизма и разрешили частную собственность, пришло благоденствие. Первый же сбор урожая в 1623 году стал праздником изобилия. Колония стала настолько процветающей, что приняла новую волну эмигрантов. Вопреки мифу это не индейцы в 1623 году накормили колонистов, а колонисты спасли от голодной смерти индейцев. День Благодарения, который Америка теперь празднует каждый год, фактически является праздником сбора урожая 1623 года плимутской колонией, основанной на частной собственности.

Пуритане, как люди религиозные, считали, что именно Божественное провидение указало им правильный путь выхода из тяжелой ситуации. Поэтому День Благодарения – это не столько благодарность за обильный урожай, сколько благодарность за указание свыше правильного экономического решения проблемы.

Если отказ плимутской колонии от социализма был, по историческим масштабам, практически мгновенным, то обратная трансформация – от капитализма к социализму – готовилась в Америке ровно 400 лет. Маловероятно, что Трамп проиграет выборы, но если все-таки проиграет, то переход к социалистической коммуне в Америке неизбежен.

Коммуна в Америке планируется отнюдь не такая примитивная, как Плимутская.  Коммуна в Америке планируется как американская версия маоизма, который допускает временное параллельное сосуществование частных, коллективных, и государственных предприятий. Но все они должны будут находиться под контролем «интеллектуальной элиты» – коммунистической партии, которая, однако, оперирует в Америке под совершенно другим именем.

В Америке коммунисты, разумеется, существуют, но они занимают марксистко-ленинские, а не маоистские позиции. Поэтому дорога во власть в открыто прокитайском Вашингтоне им закрыта, а так называемым «демократам» вполне открыта. Вторая за последние 400 лет серьезная попытка внедрения религии коллективизма в Америке является заслугой исключительно «демократов». Именно «демократы» (такие, как Джо «Юань» Байден) являются теми, кто делает возможным сползание Америки в социалистическое болото нищеты и разрухи.

Остановил ли Дональд Трамп процесс сползания Америки в небытие, или он лишь замедлил его? Ответ на этот вопрос зависит от того, кто будет жить в Белом Доме следующие 4 года. Фраза, которую многие приписывают Черчиллю, лучше всего описывает текущий момент: «Американцы всегда находят единственно правильное решение. После того, как перепробуют все остальные».

Will America Become China’s Vassal?

On election day, Fox News betrayed President Trump, and this has puzzled many patriots.  The confusion vanishes if one assumes that this episode could be just a small part of the process of China’s colonization of America.  China has already colonized some countries in the Pacific region, South America, and Africa for all practical purposes.  Add to this list the de facto colonization of northern Italy and a large part of Russia in Eastern Siberia.  Also, communist China greedily devours real estate and businesses in the United States.

Therefore, the 2020 presidential election should be seen as an integral part of this process.

From this perspective, Trump and Biden symbolize two diametrically opposed approaches to America’s future.  If Biden made it clear that he was ready to swear allegiance to the new master, Trump is fighting for America’s economic and political independence.  Biden is helped not only by the so-called “Democrats” and numerous anti-Trump Republicans but also by the world socialist movement.

The current leading force of palace intrigues in China is Xi Jinping’s group of supporters of Soviet methods: “Xi Jinping belongs to the faction long forgotten in China, which at one time was aligned with the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.” When this group came to power, a wave of repressions swept across China, like two drops of water similar to Stalin’s repressions of the 30s and 40s.  China’s economic policy is generally reminiscent of the Soviet one.  For example, foreign companies’ penetration into Chinese markets is only possible if joint ventures with China are established, and all the know-how is transferred to the Chinese side.

Donald Trump, of course, is fighting for the presidency.  Nevertheless, for Trump, the presidency is only part of a more significant challenge.  Trump seeks not only to win these elections but to destroy once and for all the leftist movements in general. Obviously, it includes China and the so-called “Democrats.”  That is a much more important goal, and it looks like Trump would prevail.  What if Trump loses? In this case, all his actions will be aimed at ensuring that by the next electoral cycle – in 2022 – no one in their right mind would even think to vote for (D)ecadence.

Trump must win Americans’ sympathy to achieve his goal.  There is no doubt that the Trump team is acting in this direction.  Numerous hearings in state legislatures, sensational statements by witnesses, mathematical and computer experts, and court hearings, of course, show a horrid picture of election fraud by “Democrats.”

Election Day has been transformed into Election Months; however, more and more Americans are convinced of the “Democrats” fraud every day.  More and more Americans switch to alternative sources of information every day and thus deprive propaganda outlets of their material base.  Every day more and more Americans are beginning to understand which Republican is an anti-Trumpist rooting for China and which one is a Conservative.  Finally, more and more Americans are beginning to guess where the command center that issued an order to stop counting votes simultaneously in six battleground states at 2 am on November 4, 2020, was located.

Trump understands that America, unfortunately, has been dozing for the past hundred years.  While we were sleeping, our Constitution was undermined.  We have lost control of the Washington swamp dwellers because they prefer to be controlled by Chinese interests rather than American citizens.  We just lived our lives and watched football until the international leftist movement attempted to steal our America out from under our noses.

Trump’s strategic goal is America, which is not sleeping at the wheel.

There is now every sign that America’s sleeping giant is awake.  Thanks to China – the elections they most likely helped to steal could be the Chinese equivalent of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Thanks to the “Democratic” fraudsters and their leader Joe “Yuan” Biden  – the 2020 elections were the last straw.

In 1776 we did not want to be vassals to the British king, and in 2020 we do not want to be vassals of the communists.

China communists and their distant ideological cousins on the Left – the American “Democrats,” of course, went for broke.  They have in their arsenal not only economic and political methods.  A very extraordinary direction of China’s expansion is that the communists began to transfer their enterprises to the United States, considering our country as one of the offshore destinations for money laundering.  Based on our knowledge of communists’ methods, the most probable course of action by the Politburo of the Communist Party of China would be outright buying of politicians. It seems they calculated (quite correctly) that they need to buy a limited number – no more than a few thousand – key politicians worldwide to carry out their expansion plans.  This path seems to them to be quicker and economically more feasible.

The massive importation of drugs into the United States was one of the main activities of the Soviet KGB, for which numerous drug cartels were created (have you ever wondered why most drug cartels are in countries with strong left-wing traditions?) It was the Chinese comrades who did what the Soviet comrades could not achieve – flood America with fentanyl.

China’s espionage has reached a level that the Soviet KGB could only dream of.  Under Bush and Obama, China’s cyberattacks, like Operation Titan Rain, were incredibly successful.  Consider the 2013 attack, when China took over the personal files of 21 million US government employees.  China uses widespread blackmail and bribes to lobby her interests in Washington.

In 2020, communist China used artificial intelligence algorithms to identify Americans who could participate in the Antifa & Black Lives Matter pogroms (of course, the Chinese communists favor only left-wing organizations).  Once identified, these Americans were sent instructions (including well-crafted videos) on organizing riots via social media.  As we now know, American “Democrats” enthusiastically participated in this orgy.  Finally, everybody has noticed that numerous concentration camps sprung up worldwide as a precursor to CoronaGulag.

Trump has swung not only at the Chinese communists, not only at the “Democrats” as traditional rivals of the American conservatives, and not only at the Washington swamp.  All the above suggests that Donald Trump is a historical figure on a much larger scale than it seems at first glance.

Trump is fighting a global communist Utopia, also known as the “Global Gulag.”

The “Democrats,” if they do win this battle with China’s help, will find themselves in a completely new, redefined reality – the majority of the country’s population will regard them as usurpers, deceitful and dishonest people.  If an infirm old marionette settles in the White House, it will be a classic Pyrrhic victory, where winning a battle leads to losing the war.

Donald Trump has been compared with Winston Churchill more than once, and these comparisons, of course, have a good reason.  They are based on the similarity of the circumstances these leaders had to face.  Churchill, too, found himself in a situation where he and his country were single-handedly fighting both German Socialists’ horde and the numerous National Socialism and International Socialism supporters among the British establishment.

If the socialists come to power despite Trump’s actual landslide victory, then the political suicide of the “Democrats” will enter the final phase.  Moreover, the American patriots who feel down in the dumps should remember one of the quotes commonly attributed to Churchill: “Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”

[Originally published in Frontpage Magazine]

Picture: Diego Rivera, detail from Man, Controller of the Universe, 1933, Fresco. Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City

Станет ли Америка вассалом Китая?

В день выборов компания Фокс Ньюс предала президента Трампа, и это вызвало недоумение у многих патриотов. Вместе с тем этот эпизод – лишь небольшая часть процесса колонизации Америки Китаем. Китай уже колонизировал некоторые страны тихоокеанского региона (например, Австралию), часть Южной Америки и Африки. К этому списку необходимо добавить де-факто колонизацию северной Италии и значительной части России в Восточной Сибири. Кроме того, коммунистический Китай жадно поглощает недвижимость и предприятия в США.

Поэтому президентские выборы 2020 года следует рассматривать как неотъемлемую часть этого процесса.

С этой точки зрения Трамп и Байден символизируют два диаметрально противоположных подхода к будущему Америки. Если Байден недвусмысленно дал понять, что готов присягнуть на верность новому господину, то Трамп борется за экономическую и политическую независимость страны. Байдену помогают не только так называемые «демократы» и многочисленные республиканцы-антитрамписты, но и мировое социалистическое движение.

Как было показано в статье «Пандемия информационного коронавируса», в настоящее время ведущей силой дворцовых интриг в Китае является группировка Си Цзиньпина – группировка сторонников советских методов. «Си Цзиньпин принадлежит к давно забытой в Китае фракции, которая в свое время ориентировалась на Советский Союз и Сталина». С приходом к власти этой группировки по Китаю прокатилась волна репрессий, как две капли воды похожих на сталинские репрессии 30-х и 40-х годов. Экономическая политика Китая во многом напоминает советскую. Например, проникновение иностранных компаний на китайские рынки возможно только при условии создания совместных с Китаем предприятий, причем китайской стороне должно передаваться все ноу-хау.

Поэтому Трамп, конечно, за пост президента борется. Но для Трампа пост президента является лишь частью более важной задачи. Трамп стремится не столько победить на этих выборах, сколько раз и навсегда уничтожить как левое движение в целом, так и так называемых «демократов» в частности. Это гораздо более важная цель, и, если Трампу удастся победить в Верховном Суде, это будет прекрасно. А если Трамп проиграет? В этом случае все его действия будут направлены на то, чтобы к следующему избирательному циклу – в 2022 году – никто в здравом уме даже и не подумал голосовать за (D)екаданс.

Чтобы достичь своей цели, Трамп должен завоевать симпатии американцев. Нет никакого сомнения в том, что команда Трампа действует именно в этом направлении. Многочисленные слушания в законодательных собраниях штатов, убийственные выступления свидетелей и экспертов по статистике и компьютерам, и судебные заседания, разумеется, показывают весьма неприглядную картину фальсификации выборов «демократами».

Тянется все это уже более месяца, и каждый день все большее количество американцев убеждаются в мошенничестве «демократов». Каждый день все больше американцев переключаются на альтернативные источники информации, и тем самым лишают пропагандистские издания своей материальной базы. Каждый день все больше американцев начинают понимать, кто из республиканцев – антитрампист, а кто – консерватор. Наконец, все больше американцев начинают догадываться, что именно по подсказке Китая был остановлен подсчет голосов одновременно в 6 «проблемных» штатах в 2 часа ночи 4 ноября.

Трамп понимает, что Америка, к сожалению, последнюю сотню лет просто дремала. Пока мы спали, произошел подрыв нашей Конституции. Мы потеряли контроль над вашингтонским болотом. Мы просто жили своей жизнью и смотрели футбол, пока леваки не попытались украсть нашу Америку у нас из-под носа.

Стратегической задачей Трампа является такая Америка, которая больше не спит за рулем.

В настоящее время наблюдаются все признаки того, что спящий гигант Америки проснулся. Спасибо Си Цзиньпиню – украденные им выборы явились китайским аналогом японской атаки на Перл-Харбор. Спасибо мошенникам-«демократам» – выборы 2020 года стали последней каплей.

В 1776 году мы не захотели быть вассалами короля Британии, а в 2020 году мы не хотим быть вассалами коммунистов.

Китай и их идеологические союзники – американские «демократы», разумеется, пошли ва-банк. В их арсенале – не только экономические и политические методы. Весьма неординарное направление экспансии Китая состоит в том, что коммунисты стали переводить свои предприятия в…США, рассматривая нашу страну как один из офшоров для отмывания денег. Политбюро Компартии Китая подсчитало (вполне корректно), что им необходимо просто купить ограниченное – не более 10 тысяч – ключевых политиков на планете, чтобы осуществить свои планы экспансии. Этот путь представляется им более быстрым и экономически более выгодным.

Массовый ввоз наркотиков в США являлся одним их основных направлений деятельности советского КГБ, для чего были созданы многочисленные наркокартели. Именно поэтому, кстати, большинство наркокартелей расположены в странах с сильными левыми традициями. Но именно китайские товарищи сделали то, что советским товарищам не удалось – наводнить Америку фентанилом.

Шпионаж Китая достиг уровня, о котором советский КГБ мог только мечтать. При Буше-младшем и Обаме кибератаки Китая были особенно успешными. Вспомним атаку 2014 года, когда Китай получил в свое распоряжение личные дела 21 миллиона американских государственных служащих. Китай использует шантаж и взятки для лоббирования своих интересов в Вашингтоне.

В 2020 году коммунистический Китай использовал алгоритмы искусственного интеллекта для выявления американцев, которые потенциально могли бы участвовать в протестах Antifa & Black Lives Matter (разумеется, коммунисты Китая благоволят только к организациям левого толка). После идентификации этим американцам через социальные сети были отправлены инструкции (включая грамотно сделанные видеоролики) о том, как устраивать погромы и бунты. Как мы теперь знаем, американские «демократы» с энтузиазмом участвовали в этой спецоперации. Наконец, все заметили, что во многих странах под предлогом китайского коронавируса возникли многочисленные прообразы концентрационных лагерей.

Трамп замахнулся не просто на коммунистов Китая, не просто на «демократов» как традиционных соперников американских консерваторов, и не просто на вашингтонское болото. Все вышесказанное говорит о том, что Дональд Трамп является исторической фигурой гораздо большего масштаба, чем представляется на первый взгляд.

Трамп ведет борьбу против всемирной коммунистической утопии.

Перефразируя Томаса Виктора, можно утверждать, что при нынешнем раскладе у всемирного ГУЛАГа шансов практически нет.

«Демократы», если все-таки выиграют это сражение с помощью Китая, окажутся в совершенно новой реальности – большинство населения страны будут рассматривать их как узурпаторов, людей лживых и непорядочных. Если слабоумный старик-марионетка поселится в Белом Доме, это будет классическая пиррова победа, когда выигрыш в сражении приводит к проигрышу в войне.

Сравнения Дональда Трампа с Уинстоном Черчиллем проводилось неоднократно, причем сравнения эти, конечно, имеют основания. Они базируются на сходстве тех обстоятельств, с которыми этим лидерам пришлось столкнуться. Черчилль тоже оказался в ситуации, когда он и его страна в одиночку боролись как с ордой немецких социалистов, так и с многочисленными сторонниками Национал-социализма и Интернационального социализма в британском истеблишменте.

Если социалисты придут к власти вопреки фактической победе Трампа, то политическое самоубийство «демократов» перейдет в заключительную фазу. А американским патриотам, которые повесили нос, следует помнить одну из самых известных цитат, приписываемую Черчиллю: «Успех – это движение от неудачи к неудаче без потери энтузиазма».

[Picture: Diego Rivera, detail from Man, Controller of the Universe, 1933, Fresco. Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City]