Western elites have mastered the Soviet arsenal of repressions perfectly
The report stating that Tommy Robinson was transferred to a special closed prison, Belmarsh in the South of London, which was described as “jihadi training camp,” has brought an ominous deja-vu to me.
…In the 1990s, we learned a gloomy story about N. In the USSR, he was a dedicated Zionist, and together with other Zionists and religious Jews, he was trying to immigrate to Israel. However, unlike many others who were pressured into cooperation with KGB (in no way we can blame them for that), N. stood steadfastly and uncompromisingly. And as a result, the KGB sent him not to a solitary cell in which N. was detained, but to a common one – together with criminals. Day by day he was subject to violence – physical, verbal and sexual. He survived unprecedented humiliation and even many years after that in Israel, he could not recover completely from the horror he had experienced. “The System” knew how to break a man.
Modern pseudo-democratic regimes have learned the post-Stalinist Soviet arsenal of repressions perfectly. The first and foremost of these lessons is simple: it is not necessary to murder a person, especially in the name of the law. Murder would give him or her a halo of martyrdom. One should only deprive them of their will and instill fear in the hearts of their followers. This practice has been widely used against dissidents, nationalists, etc.
The second fundamental lesson is that the regime itself should not be implicated. The “dirty work,” wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, should be done by “socially allied elements.” In the USSR, these were criminals who collaborated with the authorities and got privileged positions as a result of this. In case of Tommy Robinson, such a role was assigned to “jihadists” in prisons. Thus, the authorities are not only relieved of any responsibility, but they can assert that any violence against “an enemy of the democracy” (“fascist,” “racist” etc.) is a spontaneous manifestation of indignation. Even if the person is not subject to violence, the very fact of being involved in such an environment is an unambiguous hint to him and his supporters.
Anyway, nobody knows or will ever know… As we remember, the “far-right extremist” 35-year-old Kevin Crehan, who made a joke by having left uncooked bacon on the threshold of the mosque of Bristol in 2016, died in prison under suspicious circumstances from a so-called “drug overdose” in 2018. These “mysterious deaths” are very well known to everybody who lived in the USSR.
Prison may have different functions. It can be a repressive apparatus in relation to some people, and a place of training of “future cadres” in relation to others. And as Stalin liked to say, “Cadres decide everything.”
Modern “socially allied elements” are detained in privileged conditions — not only in England, but throughout the Western world, including Israel, where Palestinian terrorists live in the luxury of a four-star hotel, with plenty of food, libraries and television, surrounded by their comrades, having the right to study through distance learning, entitled to regular visits of their relatives, etc. They can study the Quran, preach jihad sermons, and maintain contact with the outside world. For “enemies of the nation” (once again, the term was widely used by Stalin), there are completely different conditions: obscurity, lack of any comfort, and life in perpetual fear.
Use of prisons as a means of intimidating dissidents is not the only thing that the Western establishment has adopted from the Soviet repressive apparatus. Another powerful lever are the informal social groups used to fight against “enemies of the nation” (today’s “fascists,” “racists,” “supremacists,” and so on).
In my youth, in the mid-1980s, the so-called “Lyubertsy Squads” (named after the city of Lyubertsy from which they originated, near Moscow) appeared in Moscow. These were well-organized groups of young men going in for hand-to-hand combat, boxing and martial arts. Well-coordinated and disciplined like wolf packs, they scoured the streets and public transport, tracking down representatives of the informal youth culture — hippies, heavy metal music fans, punks, etc. Having found them, they beat them brutally. They had their own anthem, songs and uniform — wide plaid pants and leather jackets. In a short time, they reached far beyond the boundaries of Lyubertsy and Moscow in general. Everybody knew that they were supervised by KGB, which used them to fight against “aliens to Soviet cultural elements.”
Today, in almost all Western countries you can discover militant “informal” groups that systematically engage in intimidation of opponents. In the USA these are, first of all, Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The mass violence at Berkeley was just a beginning. This was followed by a series of actions of intimidation. During the events in Charlottesville, even a reporter for the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, admitted that she saw “club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”
In August last year, they even beat a supporter of Bernie Sanders, who came out to demonstrate against fascism with an American flag. The reason? “The US flag is a symbol of fascism.”
In October 2018, their victim was John David Rice-Cameron — the conservative son of Susan Rice. The incident happened at a Brett Kavanaugh rally in Stanford University.
Then on June 30, 2019, the conservative journalist and editor of Quillette Andy Ngo and three civilians were assaulted with weapons by Antifa’s activists in Portland. It is not surprising that Ted Cruz requested that Antifa be added to the list of terrorist organizations.
In Germany, local militants of Antifa organize periodic pogroms of the “enemies of progress.” Their last object was the Drei Kastanien restaurant in Leipzig in January of this year, where AfD (“Alternative For Germany”) activists liked to gather.
There are Muslim “Sharia patrols” in almost every Western country. They detain, search and demean everybody of whom they don’t approve, as did the Lyubertsy. And also like the Lyubertsy, they receive poorly disguised support from the authorities and the establishment.
The streets of German cities are patrolled by Muslim bikers led by Marcel Kunst (now Mahmud Saddam), who converted to Islam. Practically everywhere you can learn and hear about “Sharia police”: in Germany, Great Britain, New York City, France, Sweden. They are presented by the media as an innocent and even praiseworthy initiative aimed at, firstly, strengthening people’s sense of security (oh my God!) and secondly, promoting cultural enrichment. In the Soviet ideology, this is called the “strengthening of the ideals of communist society.” Socially allied elements have become an integral part of the “Apparatus.”
Can the people of the West change the situation? Yes, they can. There is still a window of opportunity. They can vote for the truly right-wing parties, go to demonstrations, as courageous people in Eastern Europe and the USSR did (and continue do it today in Russia); they can publish open letters, like dissidents did. But first of all, one should understand and recognize the main thing: the current political system in the West is not democracy in general, and of course, not “liberal democracy” in Alexis de Tocqueville’s terms. This is a perverted cultural totalitarianism of a new type, wrapped in beautiful slogans, using pseudo-Soviet rhetoric and Soviet repression tools to intimidate anyone who dissents and doubts, in order to turn them into “consumer plankton.” The ideas of freedom, liberal values and democracy are entrusted to the militants of Antifa, BLM, “Sharia patrols” and the “jihadists” of Belmarsh prison. Welcome to anti-utopia.
Alexander Maistrovoy is the author of Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger), available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
FYI says
Antifa is a FASCIST organisation.
They are leftard fascists{aka bolsheviks}
They are not fooling anyone!
They need to be proscribed as the fascist terrorists they really are.
Peter says
Antifa = Animal Farm Fascists. Classic hypocrites and decievers. If they were honest, they’d have committed group suicide.
FYI says
I prefer to call them the antifarts..
Laura says
I’m sure they will feel very hurt if they ever get to know what you call them.
J D S says
As to converts of non Muslims to the hate filled so called religion, Islam..They’re either mentally ill, brainwashed or as stupid as dirt or a of there.
CRUSADER says
“Had it not been for the police lines and a wide margin of space, it would’ve come to blows….”
“Is this America?”
Such were the statements being overheard!
Being party to the Marches Against Shariah in 2017 across the USA , I witnessed first hand how the groups standing under the American flags were the true patriots — Boy Scouts, ex-muslimas, pro-democracy and pro-republic, Constitution advocates, Christian ministers, and many law abiding gals with guns all gathered peaceably and reverently.
While the lame-brained leftards and aggressive black-masked thugs blowing whistles and displaying ugly signage and disrupting the overall peace with sound amplification (so high we’re the decibels that the point of a freedom of speech rally was nearly made mute and moot) were the patsies — ignorant stooges of a controlling pattern of evil, stemming from Soviet style oppression, and Marxist/globalist agendae.
mortimer says
They are Trotskyists.
CogitoErgoSum says
These people are insane. The video speaks for itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o
CogitoErgoSum says
The more I think about the way these people are acting the more it seems like a convention of bubble people — people who can’t interact with the real world outside their own little bubble. Maybe it’s because most of them grew up using the internet where they can have imaginary friends with whom they can interact — but on their own terms. If someone talks too loudly, they can adjust the volume; they can see an image on a screen of a person but they don’t have to smell the person’s perfume or cologne or body odor. As the old Outer Limits tv show intro would say; We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. “….if we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly, and we will control all that you see and hear”
These people are from the outer limits. They call themselves Socialists but they cannot adapt to the norms of society so must they feel they must force society to adapt to them and their needs.
CRUSADER says
Imagine how much more intensified this will all become!
Prepare!
Walter Sieruk says
As about those violent men who compose Antifa with their Red /Islamic alliance which is also known as the Marxist /Islamic alliance . The Antifa ruffians are blind to the reality that it’s only a matter of time before the jihadists turn violently against them after using the Antifa people as their “useful idiots” Meaning their stooges and tools to further and fulfill their Islamic agenda. What fools those Antifa members are!
CRUSADER says
“The Emerging Red-Green Alliance: Where Political Islam Meets the Radical Left”
Abstract:
No matter how unlikely it may seem, radical Leftists and Islamists have come closer in recent years. Drawing on substantial ideological interchange, and operating at both state and non-state levels, the two movements are building a Common Front against the United States and its allies. In this article, we use framing theory to examine the contemporary convergence of political Islam and the radical Left. Both radical Leftists and Islamists have utilized the master frame of anti-globalization/anti-capitalism and the master frame of anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism to elicit support from the widest possible range of people. The emerging Red-Green alliance presents a complex challenge that will require careful attention from U.S. and European policymakers.
Full Citation:
Karagiannis, M,. & McCauley, C. 2013. “The emerging Red-Green Alliance: Where political Islam meets the radical left.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 25, 167-182.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2012.755815#.UuZ8-_so5QI
Walter Sieruk says
In this “cultural war” between the conservatives, of the Right , and the vicious enemies of the far- left , Antifa which is the Marxist /Islamic alliance also called the Red /Green alliance . Those Antifa hooligans do poses a danger. Hooligans they actually, for the have proven this, many over by their actions violence and mayhem. Those violent, criminal and lawless characters who compose Antifa are have also proven by their own behavior that they are people of a very low intelligence level. For intelligent people are don’t carry on in awful violent ways .People of intelligence use reason and logic by lobbying wit petitions Therefore people of intelligence , reason and logic the Antifa hooligans are not with their vicious assaults chaos , mayhem ,vandalism and other forms heinous violence
In sum , in this Cultural War the brutal ruffians of Aftifa are , somewhat of ,a reminder of the 1979 movie which is entitled TIME AFTER TIME .In which the hero in that movie said “The first man to raise his fist is the man who has run out of idea’s” So those of Antifa and other of the radical left are those in this cultural war are those men who “have run of Idea’s”
CRUSADER says
Do you know about the Redoubt?
https://survivalblog.com/redoubt/
GreekEmpress says
CRUSADER,
Awesome! Thanks for posting the link. So many great ideas and resources. I have one of his books. Time to get it out and re-read it!
Thanks again.
Walter Sieruk says
Regarding the Antiifa thugs and that many of them resist with and even fight with the police .Those Antiia hooligans who are ,no doubt , godless men are too ignorant to know that the Bible teaches “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers .For there is no power but God : the powers that be ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power , resisteth the ordnance of God : and they that resist shall receive to themselves a damnation.” Romans 13:1-2. [K.J.V.]
Therefore those Antifa ruffians with all their resisting the police as well as all their lawless violence and mayhem will only receive severe punishment for their evil actions
CRUSADER says
Soviets tried to erase memories that anti censorship scientists ever existed!
*********
At one point in HBO’s hit miniseries Chernobyl, the (fictitious) scientist Ulana Khomyuk, played by Emily Watson, goes to a scientific archive labeled for “official use”—a term Soviet censors used for technical material only accessible to specialists—to attempt to understand how the RBMK reactor could have melted down, even with the safety measures supposedly embedded in the design. In a scene familiar to anyone who has worked in a post-Soviet archive, Khomyuk fills out a call slip by hand and gives it to an attendant who, in turn, verifies the access to the files and retrieves them—or, at least, the ones Khomyuk is allowed to see. She deduces from the files that the design was flawed from the beginning and problems were kept from not only the public but the scientific community at large.
That’s a telling moment in a series that goes out of its way to capture the Soviet Union of 1986 accurately. Khomyuk is a scientist in a country that prides itself on being a technocracy and that exalts Marxism as scientific truth. The writer Craig Mazin created her as a place holder for the army of Soviet scientists that worked to understand and contain the Chernobyl disaster. She also represents what sociological parlance has called the “scientific-technical intelligentsia”—the vast army of highly trained experts, technocrats, and scientists generally born between the late 1930s and the mid-1950s and shaped by the rapidly expanding system of higher education into a supposed elite whose role was to serve the state.
Yet, with very rare exceptions, these elites had very little impact on state policy and were alienated from power. In Mazin’s metaphor for this, despite being a member of an official committee and a highly respected scientist, Khomyuk cannot even see the technical documentation for the RBMK reactor. Party politicians, not scientists, held the reins of power in the Soviet Union.
Unlike the Cold War-era fears in the West of a hyperrational Soviet bureaucracy able to coordinate vast amounts of resources with scientific accuracy, the reality of Soviet rule was governmental inefficiency, mass mobilization, and, most importantly, the selective ignoring of expert advice. This system, in turn, created massive class divides. Khomyuk’s conversation with an unnamed party official in Minsk features her being dismissed by a curt reply that her scientific credentials mean nothing compared with his proletarian background.
However, the reality of working-class life in the Soviet Union looked more like that of the miners who were pressed to desperately dig a tunnel into the reactor, whose foreman was masterfully portrayed by Jay Simpson in the TV series. The alienation of those miners is shown in their confrontation with Mikhail Shchadov, the Soviet coal minister, who had received an engineering education in the 1930s and had spent his entire career as a Communist Party bureaucrat with the goal of increasing production by any means necessary.
This generation of men represented by Shchadov formed a gerontocracy of political operators who understood how to use the state machinery to throw massive amounts of resources into an emergency, as they did in the aftermath of Chernobyl. But they were also deeply arrogant and inflexible and consequently dismissive of expertise and scientific caution.
For Soviet leaders of this generation, there was barely any distinction between wartime and peacetime governance. Every five-year plan was a battle and the clean-up effort described as a military campaign. This same militarized mentality meant that no matter the flaws during its construction, the reactor at Chernobyl had to work, warnings from experts be damned. Ironically, it took the emergency of Adolf Hitler’s invasion for Joseph Stalin to stop interfering in the judgments of Soviet generals and thus prevent a disaster, just as it took the tragedy of Chernobyl for Soviet scientists to coalesce as an autonomous political group. The Leninist party-state inverted the classic trope of the state breaking routine governance in a state of emergency and instead allowed its experts and technocrats full rein only during actual crisis.
….
CRUSADER says
….
It would be easy to put the onus of this type of governance onto Russia’s long history of authoritarian culture. But it’s much more closely connected with the ideas of Leninism and the “democratic centralist” model of decision-making by a leadership of a single ruling party, whose decisions would be executed by members who staffed state and industry institutions. The practices developed by Soviet Communist Party replicated across states far removed from Russia and even from ideological Leninism.
In his classic work on the history of economic development, Alexander Gerschenkron described the state of “backwardness” as a modern condition created by the perception of an intellectual group that others are advancing while their “state” is stuck in an economically stagnant, “traditional” state. The ideology becomes the solution, and institutions are shaped to mobilize—and forcibly modernize—the population. For the industrial technocrats of 19th-century France, who dreamed of a rational society run by engineers, these institutions were development banks such as the Crédit Mobilier meant to finance new French industrial infrastructure. In Russia, the Bolshevik belief in the urgency of rapid industrial development shaped their belief in a strictly centrally controlled, professional revolutionary party whose organizers would mobilize “immature” workers toward revolutionary consciousness. The political scientist Ken Jowitt has argued that the Leninist model of a single party-state with its combat goal became an effective ideal type for governing largely agricultural societies whose intellectual elites wanted to push the population toward industrial modernity.
Leninist democratic centralism, born in the initial design of the Bolsheviks, was driven by working underground: a small, conspiratorial setup in which information was closely guarded and paranoia encouraged. In designing their governing institutions, the Bolsheviks created a new model based on their experiences as an underground party—the single-party state in which the cadres of the party would both staff and supervise the state. This model, fully perfected under Stalin, established a set of institutions that were designed to govern via mass mobilization of people and resources toward particular tasks rather than bureaucratic administration and routine regulation. These governing practices remained mostly unchanged up to the reforms of the perestroika-era that the Chernobyl disaster helped launch.
There was one more element to the genius of the Leninist party-state that made it so effective and transferrable elsewhere—the role of the party and of the servants it created. It would take the children of farmers and train them to be industrial workers who followed so-called cultured ways of life, including reading, hygiene, and even enjoying opera and other high culture.
This core of vydvizhentsy (“promoted workers”), deeply grateful to the party for their transformation, led the transformation of the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. The approaches they pioneered, which focused on bootstrapping an industrial economy regardless of waste or safety, helped drive the Soviet Union’s transformation from an agricultural society into an industrial one—even as it left a trail of maimed workers and poisoned lakes behind it.
But the vydvizhentsy didn’t disappear after the war, and the second generation of socialist scientists had a much more ambiguous relationship with the state. They were supposed to be the elites who were to create the new technologies necessary to “build the material basis for communism,” as the official rhetoric went, but the Soviet hierarchy remained dominated by the aging vydvizhentsy.
This was not just a matter of gerontocracy—the institutions of the Soviet state that had been extremely good at industrializing an agricultural country were no longer sufficient to build the kind of bureaucratic, professionally staffed polity needed to tackle the demands of a complex, industrial society.This was not just a matter of gerontocracy—the institutions of the Soviet state that had been extremely good at industrializing an agricultural country were no longer sufficient to build the kind of bureaucratic, professionally staffed polity needed to tackle the demands of a complex, industrial society. Even as some of the vydvizhentsy aged out of office, the institutions they had built continued to behave the same way, and younger officials—and some scientists—found themselves co-opted by them and repeating the patterns of their elders. Thus, while the Soviet government could bootstrap a nuclear reactor, it could not find effective ways to enforce safety regulations or stop itself from making rash decisions about design.
The fall of the Soviet Union has not eliminated the problems of the Leninist state. The Boris Yeltsin years, during which his base of support was originally the scientific-technical intelligentsia, saw the collapse of the Russian economy and the further marginalization of the Russian scientific elites who did not or could not cash in as oligarchs or immigrate to provide the cheap labor that helped spur the IT boom of the 1990s.
When the high price of oil helped pull post-Soviet Russia out of its cataclysmic economic collapse, the children of the scientific-technical intelligentsia, the Moscow middle class, became known for their conspicuous consumption. But the new wealth did not come with better institutions. Instead of bureaucratic politics and technocratic regulatory bodies, the Russian state became increasingly authoritarian.
Since Vladimir Putin’s third term, a “deinstitutionalization” has made the governance of Russia increasingly resemble the politics of the Soviet system in the 1970s. Just like at the height of the Leonid Brezhnev era, decisions are made, ad hoc, either by a small group around Putin or more commonly by functionaries at lower levels with little coordination, forward planning, or expert input. The major difference is that power isn’t embedded in party privileges but in the often informally enforced access to ownership of major economic assets and corrupt cash flows that are then banked and legally protected in the Western financial system. If Lenin once quipped that communism is “Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country,” then the world of political capitalism in Russia and other states with democratic-centralist political legacies is “Soviet political practices plus the financialization of the whole country.”
This is not a uniquely Communist problem. As the writers of Chernobyl have pointed out, ignoring expertise as disaster looms is hardly unknown today. In the United States, attacks on government agencies and the professional bureaucracy have often been justified by citing the example of the Soviet Union’s bloated, inefficient governance. However, it was not the size of the Soviet technocracy that made the USSR what it was but the disregard for technical and scientific expertise, coupled with the dead weight of institutions protecting their own members’ privilege—a lesson that shouldn’t be forgotten in our own age of climate disaster and public corruption.
(Foreign Policy .com)
Yakov Feygin is associate director of the Future of Capitalism program at the Berggruen Institute. Prior to joining the Berggruen Institute, Yakov was a fellow in History and Policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government and managing editor of The Private Debt Project.
jarmanray says
Mr. Maistrovoy points out Stalin’s way of dealing with those who did not follow the party line but Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag pointed out that the rounding up of citizens in the middle of the night was about intimidating the masses. It seems that in Europe the masses are being intimidated by the use of a different kind of fear: that of free and intellectual thought where no one has the right to criticize the elite. Instead of a knock on the door in the darkness of night, the police come for you in broad day and even proclaim the arrest in the local rag sheet; it is pure use of psychological to abrade the masses. Lenin’s use of the Gulag can be equated to what is happening to the likes of Tommy Robinson who attempt to standup against state tyranny where he stated:
“Arrest! Need it be said that it is a breaking point in your life, a bolt of lightning which has scored a direct hit on you? That it is an unassimilable spiritual earthquake not every person can cope with, as a result of which people often slip into insanity?”
I pray for Tommy and that he might emerge back into the light of dawn and like Solzhenitsyn, enlighten his countrymen and the world of the cancer being brought on by the coalition of the evil forces of Communism/Islamism alliance. It seems that even the once proud purveyors of freedom like Boris Johnson have been cowed into following the crowd and has renounced his previous words where he exalted freedom of thought and expression.
CRUSADER says
Let’s all pray for Tommy Robinson.
And may President Trump do for him as his advocacy did for A$AP Rocky held in Sweden.
Tommy deserves far more attention and better treatment than a thuggish rapper, for sure, despite any sense of injustice toward the American vocalist.
Kardashians, are you listening to the holler?
kaboooooooooooooom says
And the Band played Waltzing Matilda.
Søren Ferling says
Karl Polanyi, a Hungarian-Canadian ethnologist and economist, predicted before his death in 1964 that – ‘Capitalism will win, but we will have it with all the control and suppression mechanisms of socialism’.
I read that two or three decades ago and I think more and more that he seems right in his analysis and forecast.
Angemon says
A little hyperbole (the part about being, in almost all Western countries, sharia patrols detaining and receiving government support) but overall, great reading.
mortimer says
Alexander Maistrovoy has written a fine analysis. This terrorist organization would not need masks if they were in fact not terrorists.
First they demand the death of their critics, then they will attack their critics, then they will exterminate their critics.
CRUSADER says
“First they demand the death of their critics, then they will attack their critics, then they will exterminate their critics.”
Ha ! Ha !
Sounds a bit like you, there, mortimer, when you go off your meds !
Lydia Church says
Great analogy!
That is exactly what is going on. That is why they let in all those migrants. To do the globalist’s dirty work. They are the convenient tool at hand. History repeats itself, same scenario, different tyranny, time, and country. Similar structures. Like the patrollers on bikes, just like the nazi’s on every street corner.
Instead of being rounded up, society as a whole has been put in the ‘re-education’ camp. Propaganda floods from every hose, and most are plugged in as addicts. Society is being conditioned to accept the agendas of the globalists and their planned ‘utopia’. This is the time it is important to resist. During nazi Germany, most of the masses were already indoctrinated by the time the real holocaust arrived. The few dissidents that remained were all they had to round up and add to the concentration camps. Those were the resisters that could not be broken. Martin Niemoller is a prime example. Most of the masses are won over in a number of ways, as we are seeing now. Propaganda from the media and all their outlet channels in society (magazines, innocent venues, etc.), leftist brainwashing at universities, pressure to conform or lose your job, etc. Not one blow was necessary to gain compliance. It is chilling to watch old videos of the German masses engaging in the ‘sieg heil’ salute, crowds with their arms raised with militant fervor, like a magnetic field with all filings aligned with the antichrist spirit of the day; unanimously. Yet it was achieved. And history repeats itself.
*** I heard on the news yesterday… they were talking about the mass shootings over the weekend and Trump and all that stuff and yes he denounced ‘white supremacy’ and the media switched the term for ‘white nationalism,’ (the definition turns out to be racist also, only wanting whites in the country, but not the same thing), but the next step is anyone who is nationalistic (a good thing), and happens to be white, will be labeled as a ‘white nationalist,’ and anyone who opposes illegal immigration and supports national sovereignty and national borders and its walls can be labeled a ‘white nationalist’ and of course their favorite new slander word; racist! THEN… they said that they will make ‘white nationalism’ an official terrorist group to be put on the watch list!!! Do you see where this is going? Next you complain about the illegal invasion from Mexico and other points South, mention that anyone is in a gang or doing drug smuggling, and you will be labeled as a racist white nationalist and carted off! Or ostracized and banned, etc.
The fact is that they have their weapons and structures in place to achieve their globalist goals. It is just a matter of time. We will not win the world back by resisting it. We will retain our souls by resisting it.
CRUSADER says
Lydia, brilliant phrasing:
“…militant fervor, like a magnetic field with all filings aligned with the antichrist spirit …”
This is the exact sense I pick up when I witness Muzzies en masse “praying” in unison to their fake fuhrer … prior to them PREYING on those who do not share their horrid convictions!
kaboooooooooooooom says
Arselifters abound.
gravenimage says
“Socially Allied Elements” on the March
…………………
Chilling and spot on. I still can’t believe what is happening in the West.
Darryl Kerney says
“Right Wing”, as it was in 30s Ukraine, is kullak …….whom the leftist socialists sought to “liquidate”.
I have for years been pointing out that for the soviets “socially friendly elements” were the thieves and criminals, and today “liberals” seem to care more about their rights than those of right wing capitalists, the similarities are too much to ignore.