From Utøya to Christchurch to Galle and Hanau: Experimenting with the body of society in the name of creating utopia produces monsters.
By Alexander Maistrovoy
A century ago, in 1918-20, Europe sunk into the “red terror”. Inspired by the Russian revolution, people with red armbands, red flags and red stars were determined to celebrate the “new bright future”. At factories, the power was transferred to factory committees, banks were nationalized, churches were turned into food and military warehouses, monuments were demolished, people were forcibly mobilized into the Red Army.
Extraordinary commissions murdered the “enemies of the people” and their families and deprived them of land and property. The Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Slovak Soviet Republic, Alsace-Lorraine Soviet Republic, Bremen Soviet Republic, Red Finland – the creators of the great Utopia destroyed everything that was associated with traditional values, ideals and virtues.
Nowadays no one seems to remember it. The Left will not benefit from those memories; the Right dreads accusations of whitewashing Nazism.
The outcome was dramatic. The consequences of the attempted social experiment on a living body of society were brutal – at first spontaneous, then organized: Furious nationalism, revived racial phobias and unrestrained thirst for revenge. Even enlightened intellectuals such as Thomas Mann were caught up in the wave of hatred. Utopia choked on blood in Russia.
In Europe, the nationalists won: Moderate and prudent, like Mannerheim; cruel but predictable, like Admiral Horthy; and monstrous like Hitler.
A lot has changed in the last hundred years. The Soviet empire collapsed, Eastern Europe resurrected and gained solid immunity from “universalistic theories”; the “World Revolution” of the Third World failed, a good many Jews directed their unrestrained temperament to create their own state.
The reaction has already begun. Terror of loners, attacks on mosques and synagogues, atrocities in Utøya, Christchurch, Galle and now Hanau are its first signs.
It was predictable, explainable and logical. The globalist quasi-Marxist ideology has turned the inhabitants of the Third World and, especially, Muslims into “people of the highest sort”. They became the ‘proletariat’ of modern times and in sharp contrast, ‘white straight males’ became the symbol of repression, racism and violence, ‘the new world enemy’.
But the people refuse to agree with the destruction of the thousand-year-old foundations, family, faith and traditions. They refuse to be marginal in their own countries. Forcefully implanted alien culture is rejected by the society and in such an atmosphere psychopaths take up arms and kill those they think are the operatives of a new pseudo-religious sect and their allies.
You can turn a blind eye to it, ignore the causal relationships, yell about the racism of the white society, but it does not change the essence.
This is a reaction to violent fanatical implantation of Utopia, regardless of how it’s labeled: Marxism, Globalism, Progressivism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Intersectionality, Political Identity, Cultural Diversity or Tikkun Olam. They are all the same. It is reaction to Antifa, BLM, Islamic terror, Muslim culture of raping and bullying.
Loner psychosis is a precursor of mass psychosis. “Red Plague” generates a “Brown Plague.”
In Germany, a country so prone, alas, to outbursts of psychopathy, the number of neo-Nazis is growing. These are not the moderate nationalists from AfD or Pegida. They are the real Nazis, the direct followers of the Fuhrer. According to BfV, their number over the past two years (i.e., after a wave of refugees) increased by 50%. They are engaged in martial arts. They draw the Werewolf, a symbol of the SS, they wear “Adolgf was the best” and “I [heart] HTLR” T-shirts, arrange “Kampf der Nibelungen” (“Battle of Nibelung”) and prepare for “D-Day”.
We see how the ideas of the Third Reich gain power in Western culture again from the USA and Canada to France. They no longer try to conceal it. Their time is approaching, because the soil has already been fertilized for them by the progressives.
Because of the globalists and progressives the Western world is plunging into chaos and hatred. Only a small group of lucky people will get the next Mannerheim. However, and almost certainly, most of them will get new Fuhrers.
The carriers of New Utopias are by far more guilty for wronging their people and history than their predecessors with red flags in Bavaria and Hungary.
First, Russia with its despotism of Tsars, the Pale of Settlement and the Okhrana (secret police) as well militaristic Prussian Germany were seriously ill. The horrors of the Great War and the cloaca of the Industrial Revolution devastated the soul of the West. But the current progressives have inherited healthy, stable, and prosperous communities. Essentially all the flaws and shortcomings of the past were eliminated or nearly eliminated: discrimination of national and sexual minorities and women, social ulcers, industrial lumpen and mass poverty.
So by carrying out the program of ethnic substitution by mass migration from Third (especially, Muslim) world and by destroying cultural and religious values of their people, the globalists don’t demolish dying, rotten regimes, instead they bulldoze successful democratic states.
Secondly, Lenin, Trotsky, Bela Kun, Dzerzhinsky were sincere idealists, they had not yet had the sinister experience of the 20th century. They could still indulge themselves in the probable success of their social experiment. But Corbyn, Sanders, Obama, Trudeau, Elizabeth Warren, Mélenchon, Kamala Harris, Juncker or Macron are not idealists. These are hypocritical plutocrats and manipulators of consciousness, craving for power and glory. Thus, by this becoming more ignominious.
And finally, third and most important. Marxism grew out of Utopian communism, rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition: from Jewish prophets, Essenes and early Christians to Thomas Müntzer and the Anabaptists, the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt, Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella, Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.
Their views (no matter how we evaluate them) were based solely on Western culture itself. They had nothing to do with the archaic, primitive and cruel cults of backward peoples and surely had nothing in common with gloomy dogmatic and aggressive Islam with female circumcision for girls, intimidated women, rituals of stoning unfaithful wives and homosexuals, bloody vendetta, the slave trade and the division of humanity into faithful and infidel. Islam was a symbol of anti-utopia for them. They would have turned in their graves, had they learned that their heirs represented by new Western elite open their gates for crowds of primitive savages.
Man is a part of nature and obeys its laws. According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Transgression of human nature yields violence and monsters – three monsters in our case: Red, Brown and Green ones. Prosperous, stable and tolerant communities have been replaced by Red-Green Hydra, on the one hand, and a Werewolf, on the other.
However, who is Newton to dictate the laws to a progressive-minded person? No more than a Dead White European Male…
Author of “Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger)”, Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
@ Michael S:
The Europeans tried the same “friendship and cooperation” bit when they freaked out after the 6-day War in 1967 – look where they are now. “Whoever blesses you…, etc.”
However, I wish the American Jews would come to their senses a bit, also. It gets crazier every day, I think.
Are you sure about “the plagues of Egypt”? I don’t think it is THAT bad yet.
Thanks for your insight, Reader. Yes, the Reagan administrationdefinitely started turning the wrong way concerning Israel, along with many of his Christian supporters. It’s ironic, because those were the years that Christian Charismatics were starting to flex political muscle. I guess God wasn’t as impressed with their muscle as they were. At any rate, both the US and Israel have been on the skids since then: We’ve kept winning “victories”, like “tearing down the Berlin Wall”, bringing Arafat to “sue for peace” (ha ha), etc. but all the while, we’ve all slowly been crumbling into anarchy.
Now the plagues of Egypt seem to be descending upon us…
@ Michael S:
The attempt at “friendship and cooperation” with Arab countries and undermining Israel hasn’t worked out, I guess.
@ Michael S:
The day after I posted my 1st reply to you, I remembered that as the Soviet Union started crumbling or right after it fell, the US stopped viewing Israel as a bulwark and the only ally against the Soviet influence in the region. Israel simply lost this kind of value to the US who started hoping for (using the old Soviet terms) “friendship and cooperation” with the heavily populated and numerous Arab countries.
So, I think it’s not that ” the US lost its dominant influence in the UN in terms of influencing policy toward Israel”, rather, it was no longer that much interested in Israel and in nfluencing the UN policies to protect Israel.
@ Michael S:
Essentially, Hizbullah beat us in Lebanon, demonstrated by Reagan ordering us to cut and run after the suicide bombing on the Marine bases. Around the same time, the USSR was effectively defeated in Afghanistan — again, by the Muslims. Reagan tried to save face in Grenada and Nicaragua, followed by both Bushes in Iraq and Bush 43 in Afghanistan; but both those enterprises are proving to be failures. Israel has also retreated steadily since the 1980s, then accepted the terrorist Arafat into Israel in the 1990s, then pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza altogether.
This has been an interesting war: EVERYONE LOST, ON EVERY SIDE. The Twin Towers have fallen, the USSR has been broken up, Israel is about to be divided, and most of the Middle East is devastated and overrun by foreigners and terrorists. Moreover, the EU is on the verge of collapse and China is on her knees. We live in interesting times.
@ Michael S:
Reader,
I figured it out — it was an artifect of the way I was listing the data. In lat 1985, there was definitely a sudden shift in voting patterns, but it was just on the parts of the US and the Soviet Union. The two regimes were actually:
I. The Old Regime: US and most nations would vote FOR a resolution; whereas USSR & allies would abstain.
II. The New Regime (after 1985): USSR and most nations would vote FOR a resolution (now very anti-Israel), and the US would abstain.
The difference is that it was not that all the nations of the world did not suddenly side with the USSR instead of the US; it was that after 1985, the RESOLUTIONS became so offensive that they were acceptable to the Russians but not to the US.
Through 1985, then, the US had been able to influence nearly all UN members to word the UNSC resolutions against Israel in a way that at least exhibited some balance. After 1985, the USSR (and later Russia) became dominant in influencing the wording. Thus, the Russians had been the outsiders through 1985; but afterwards, the US (and Israel, which didn’t vote on SC resolutions) became the outsiders.
It’s still strange to me, in that just when the US was supposedly “defeating” the USSR through a series of summit meetings that ultimately ended with the collapse of the USSR, the US lost its dominant influence in the UN in terms of influencing policy toward Israel.
@ Reader:
Hi, Reader. Yes, I thought of that — which is why I noted that event. What doesn’t make sense to me, though, is how EVERYONE, from Japan to India to France to Canada, suddenly switched positions from abstaining on anti-Israel resolutions to approving of such. Here are the resolutions I considered, which are the ones in which there was a tallied, non-unanimous vote:
I. The New Regime
2334 (2016), 1860 (2009), 1435 (2002), 1397 (2002 – an exception), 1322 (2000), 1073 (1996), 636 (1989), 611 (1988), 608 (1988), 605 (1987), 592 & 587 (1986),
II. The Old Regime:
575 & 561 (1985), 573 (1985 – an exception), 555 & 549 (1984); 558, 536 & 529 (1983), 523 (1982)
That’s as far as I researched. Under the “Old Regime”, the Soviet Union and its close allies (Ukraine, Poland) voted against Israel, while the rest all abstained. Under the “New Regime”), only the US abstained; all the rest voted against Israel.
This isn’t a rhetorical question. I don’t know the answer, but I’m interested in ideas.
@ Michael S:
I am no expert, of course.
Maybe the Reagan-Gorbachev dialogue suddenly made the USSR “kosher” and OK to side with?
This is just a wild guess.
I think Maistrovoy did a good job of re-stating the obvious. At the moment, the lunatic fringe is largely leftist/ Muslim and mainstream. It cold also reflexively jerk rightward. It’s what is to be expected of a society that is furiously at work trying to destroy its rudder (the word of God).
I have a question for our panel of experts, concerning the current mass insanity. It involves UN votes over the years, which are a barometer of world opinion. For several years before late 1985, UNSC resolutions against Israel were generally supported by the Soviet Bloc and abstained from by the rest of the world (including the US, NATO, Japan, Red China, India et al). After around November that year, when Reagan had his first meeting with Gorbachev, Israel was struggling with terrorists and Jonathan Pollard was arrested, the whole world, excepting only the US, suddenly shifted to the Soviet position in such votes; and they have remained shifted to this day.
This was a sudden phenomenon. WHAT HAPPENED?
@ adamdalgliesh:
The author is a friend of mine and sends me his stuff directly.. Please don’t interfer with my choices.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/25237. I always prefer it when you give the original source of the article and its original title. In this instance, INN, and “Grinning Werewolf.” The “Werewolf” was a symbol that the Nazis used for themselves, based on its suprisingly positive image in German folklore.
While I disagree with some of the specifics in Maistrovsky’s article–for example, Mannerheim of Finland was no responsible moderate, but a Nazi collaborator–his basic point that leftist extremism and Islamist extremism beget extremism on the right, which can be equally or even more deadly, is accurate. All Jews, both those leaning to the left and those leaning to the right (both of which are explicitly forbidden by Torah, by the way) should take note.