The Convergence of Ideologies: The End of Liberty
by Troy Hoeft
Decline of moral and scientific law...
In America today there is a pervasive emotionalism dominating our thinking. Rationalization lords it over reason, and everything is subjective, impressionistic and non-judgmental. Everyone has an opinion, and no one's opinion is better than anyone else's. But advanced industrial societies require legal and ethical laws that are enforceable, and this in turn requires citizens who can preserve equanimity, even in the face of injustice. Ultimately, it is the legal system's responsibility for meting out punishment. Rules and logic should prevail in the process, not emotion and political gerrymandering. Until recent times the legal system in the West was based on moral (i.e. God-given rights) and rational (i.e. scientific/logical) foundations. Since the '60s the rule of moral and scientific law has all but disappeared.
A case in point regarding this decline in moral and scientific law is the media's assault on anonymity. In 1996 the media industry and the FBI conspired to scapegoat Richard Jewel for the Olympic bombings in Atlanta. Day in and day out the cameras were at his home and assaulting him every time he ventured outside. The FBI led the way by providing lists of items confiscated from his home, namely lots of nails (an item used in the bomb).
In the end it turned out that the FBI made a statement to Mr. Jewel's lawyers indicating that Mr. Jewel was no longer a suspect. However the statement never went public. This was after several weeks of constant libel by the press. Neither the FBI nor the media made any public apologies. In fact, the media argue it is their "right" to report on events. It is their "right" to present the facts as they unfold. While freedom of the press is clearly a hallmark of liberty, does this freedom give the media the "right" to slander someone? Does this give the media the "right" to invade a person's private life? Does this freedom give the media the "right" to authoritatively make statements of supposition? The FBI argues that it is not its place to "censor" the press. It would be "censorship" if the FBI told the media not to make false accusations. It would be "censorship" to tell the media to respect individual liberties. Ironically, the FBI has more restraints on investigating someone than the media do.
I personally found the media's assault on Mr. Jewel disgusting and immoral. It is my belief that this sort of harassment should be illegal. In fact, it is harassment by any definition except the media's. And harassment amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. If I followed a pretty girl around, filming her day in and day out, I would end up in jail or at least with a restraining order. End of story.
Many Americans don't see it the way I do. They tend to hold one of two views: 1) if he's guilty then the scrutiny's ok; 2) if he's not guilty, it's a crying shame what happened to him, but this is a free country and freedom of the press is one of the pillars of that freedom.
Now it is my understanding that the notion of a jury system and the legal position of 'innocent before proven guilty' is a rather new concept; a concept that has taken millennia to come to fruition. Yet Joe Six-pack does not stop to think about such matters. In fact, Joe Six-pack thinks only in subjective terms and rationalizations. Unintentionally, he thus becomes an unconscious supporter of 'cruel and unusual punishment.' And if innocent bystanders get caught in the middle, then so be it. After all, no system is perfect.
I am not an advocate of being soft on crime. I am not an advocate of slap-on-the-wrist punishments for criminals. In fact, I support the chain gang, death penalty, sterilization and a host of other sanctions for convicted felons. However, Joe Six-pack can't wait for due process to run its course. He needs to see it on the news, immediately. He needs to see someone, anyone, suffer -- immediately. Again, he unintentionally disregards due process of the law and subconsciously supports 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Joe Six-pack is willing to wash away millennia of struggle for justice so that he can get his immediate fix. Joe Six-pack no longer understands the interdependent relation between the demands of justice against the secured liberties of individual rights.
The media prey on Joe's feeble-minded weakness. They provide him with all sorts of immediate gratification. They feed him "beliefs" and "positions" on issues, but rarely do they feed him facts. Joe Six-pack's principles are dependent on the situation. So much so that the political Left and Right today conform to Joe Six-pack's thinking. In fact, their agendas are ideologically and emotionally driven, and they are willing to compromise fact when it doesn't conform to their ideology.
The convergence of ideologies...
Take the Left and Right positions on homosexuals -- perfect examples of subjective thinking and rationalization. In every other context the Left says environment is the cause - but homosexuality is called innate and unchangeable. Reversed for the Right. Logic goes by the boards.
Modern geneticists and sociobiologists understand that our behavior is largely the result of our genes, but that environment has a significant impact on development. However, this environmental impact is only within the constraints of an individual's genes. In other words, this means that without the requisite genes for a certain attribute the affect of environment is nil.
The interesting thing about the issue of homosexuality is that within that subset of the population there is an enormous amount of variability in behaviors. It is claimed as scientific fact that homosexuality is genetic, but is there a gene for cross-dressing, fecal-philia, or a host of other bizarre behaviors common to homosexuals?
This is where the egalitarian's and conservative's ideology converge. Central to both ideologies is the notion that one set of behaviors cannot be set outside the others. Each ideology operates on a simplistic model where everything fits neatly into a right/wrong paradigm, which uses a "belief" system as opposed to a "rational/scientific" system. The Right relies on a codification of behavior. The Left relies on a pseudo-scientific/subjective approach to behavior that can adjust its standards to whatever supports the ultimate goal.
As mentioned previously, with respect to the homosexual position each group violates one of its main ideological tenets. The Left thus concedes that some behavior is genetic. The Right concedes that some behavior is environmental. This sort of "cross-fertilization" of ideologies is so pervasive it is disgusting. It is, in fact, a centrist trick. Neither group truly examines its ideologies and principles and makes overall adjustments. Something other than fact and logic drives the two seemingly opposed sides.
For example the Left is for the "people" and the Right is for "big business." Yet the Left today fights for free trade (a former "right wing" pro-capitalist position) and the Right fights for protectionism (a former "left wing" form of social subsidy). Neither side has changed its overall ideological structure. Through crafty language they make the issue seem to conform to their central ideology -- "free trade is good for consumer" or "Tariffs help save jobs and American industry." Joe Six-pack doesn't have a clue that each group trades elements of its platform with the other party to push "centrist" policies.
The end of liberty...
The core ideology of the Left is based on idolatry and pseudo-science -- unwavering support for its leaders in the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor, the benevolence of common man against the malevolence of the elite. The core ideology on the Right is religious mysticism and a codification of all behaviors based on the "Good Book."
So, as you can see, the Left and Right change their "position" on issues when they don't exactly fit with their core ideology or political alliances. But the shift is so imperceptible that Joe Six-pack doesn't see it. In fact, their ideologies are so simple that almost nothing with respect to human behavior fits within their respective molds. Both ideologies are, in fact, socialist/left-wing ideologies that oppose Liberty.
The one-party system...
Among the biggest censors of the day are the so-called neo-conservatives, the movers and shakers of the modern Republican Party. The neo-cons support the fundamentalist Zionists in their campaign against "hate" as well as the call for the social engineering of society -- prayer in school, censorship of the Internet, etc. Irving Kristol, a former extreme left-wing Bolshevik activist, constructed the neo-con revolution in the '80s. Kristol, like many U.S. based Jewish-Bolsheviks, became an ardent Zionist after Stalin's purges of "old-line Bolsheviks" became known in the West. Interestingly, Zionism was supported by Britain in the early '20s primarily as a counterweight to Jewish-Bolshevism.
A strange alignment -- the necessity of propaganda...
The CIA began covertly funding Kristol in the '80s to write neo-conservative articles in such influential (and Jewish) publications as Commentary. This covert funding by the CIA and alignment with Zionists was to counterbalance the extreme Jewish activism in the U.S. In exchange, the Zionists would align with the Right in their fight against the "anti-Semitic" USSR.
During the period, the U.S. saw the emergence of the most aggressive propaganda in modern history - a constant non-stop assault against the Evil Empire: the USSR. This propaganda rationalized our need for further militant interventionism in world affairs. During this period Holocaust propaganda became an important strategy for invoking the passions of Americans for fighting any evil regime in the world. Thus, we fought evil -- not for the survival of capitalism, democracy, or Western standards. As expected, the Left rallied to the international movement against tyranny and oppression. Yet no one seemed to recall that previously she fought for totalitarian communism!
Thus, the military-industrial establishment created a behind-the-scenes agreement to fight for Zionism in the Middle East if the Zionists would support neo-conservative policies that would shift the extreme left and the extreme right to a mixed-economy centralism, while also supporting American colonialism via "anti-communist" puppet regimes. This included intervention in Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Lebanon, and other countries. The Zionists would tone down or eliminate their revolutionary activism in the U.S. and their media bosses would become openly hostile to the USSR in exchange for "Little Israel's" security. Containment policy would become the policy of the editorial pages. This was a monumental change in the press's standpoint, considering its recent anti-Vietnam War advocacy. Vietnam, after all, was part of our containment policy.
Wave your flags, patriots...
Today we stand on the verge of collapse in the Middle East and in Eurasia because of this small group of people that doesn't even represent 1% of the world population. Terrorism has been brought to our shores due to our alliance with Israel. We bomb and starve innocent civilians to defend our "Little Ally." Meanwhile, Israel's agencies of terror extort billions of dollars of taxpayer money each year. They attack our society and culture in the academy and on film. They lobby for open borders to push their "divide and conquer" policies that are dispossessing the White race. We consistently engage in detente agreements with the radical Jews -- now communists, now conservatives -- but as history proves, they renege on the agreements. This has been official Jewish political policy toward the Palestinians. Each step of the way the Zionists push the center of the agreement further and further to the Zionist position, their religion telling them gentiles are no better than cattle and that the Chosen People are meant to rule the earth.
So wave your flags Americans and support Israel's little puppets in our great "One-Party System."