Collectivist Apocalypse News from the Gulag

Thursday, December 18, 2003 :::

::: posted by "#56-12" at 10:04 AM

Saturday, June 07, 2003 :::
It is important for us in order to fight collectivism to alert the interntional community about the true situation in France. The administration being chiefly an auxilliary to the collectivists, the press and the justice being largely controlled by them, it is pointless to try and change the state of public opinion in France. Just like you can't fight the Gulag by sending a letter to the Pravda. We must follow the steps of Havel, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, and have the courage to constantly inform the rest of the world about the daily oppression that we live. People have to stop waking up every morning with the (implicit) idea that France is "OK". They have to keep in mind that France is a "problem", just like North Korea or Cuba are a problem.

Are there concentration camps in France? There aren't any formal concentration camps but life in certain areas increasingly resemble life in concentration camps. People are victimized (robbed, assaulted, raped, tortured) by mobs of (typically) ethnic youth under the complete passivity of the "police". Their crimes? It varies. Resisting racket. Not being a drug addict. Not being a drug dealer. Not being a muslim. Being a muslim girl who does not wear a veil. Working at school. Being an easy prey (elderly). Having refused to give a cigarette. Having filed a complaint with the police following an act of vandalism. People can't escape these neighborhood for economic reasons and they are totally let down by the police. So, what's the difference between that and a concentration camp?

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with collectivism? Well, a basic premise of collectivism is that, in a free society, it is impossible for individuals to improve their lot by hard work and voluntary exchange. Once this premise is gone, so is collectivism. Therefore, when the collectivists get in power, they make it impossible for poor people to escape poverty by their own individual effort. Hence the importance of letting violent predators victimize these people. If law and order were maintained in these neighborhoods, some people would make it, and the whole theory that they are helpless and that the state should take care of them would entirely collapse. Let's put them in a nightmarish concentration camp in order to make sure they won't succeed. A incorrect theory should never be put to empirical test. The Gulag is the secret place where those who jeopardize the theory end up.

Collectivism has produced a new kind of human being. In my French Blog I call him Homo Collectivus Gallus. What is he? A frustrated, impotent loser who blames others for his own failures. A guy who only knows how to deploy energy in order to destroy. A guy whose main feeling, by far, is envy. Who only shows "courage" when in a crowd against a weaker party. A lot of such people have invaded the ministry of education. They penalize brilliant children by imposing on them a feeling of guilt. They block any conceivable evolution. They lobby for further funding which eventually funds their lazy absenteeism. They don't mind to spoil the future of children by sabotaging an entire trimester with a strike. For these people, the ministry of education is meant to provide services to them. And the children are just hostages; to make sure they can grab enough from society. Their most important choice in life was made not on the basis of positive considerations (what am I going to do for a living?), but on the basis of negative ones (when shall I retire? When is the next vacation? How about sickness benefits?). The job is of interest to them not because of what you do in the job but because of what you don't do. And in the process, they train more Homines
Collectivi Galli

Among the traditional values that the collectivists virtually abolished, one is individual responsibility. A prerequisite for individual responsibility is freedom. If you are not free to act, why should you be liable for your actions? But, conversely, a prerequisite for freedom is responsibility. If you are not held responsible for your acts, why should you abstain from infringing on other's freedom? So if we manage to convince people that people should not be accountable for the consequences of their acts upon others because it is "too tough", then you have won. Especially if at the same time, building on feelings of anger, you maintain that somebody is responsible. You're going to substitute prevention for punishment. You're going to transfer responsibility from the individual to other connected individuals or to society as a whole. I'm not going to sell you a knife because you could use it as a weapon -- but trust me, I won't do it -- I can't trust you, if you kill somebody with it, people say you aren't really responsible and they might even say I'm responsible. We don't want such bad social outcomes, do we? We want a nice and peaceful society. How do we get it when we are so nice we can't punish criminals. Well, let's be precautionary. Let's avoid trouble. Let's prohibit the sale of knives altogether.

So let's reduce the freedom of non-criminals to avoid crime caused by criminals.
Let's reduce the freedom of good drivers to avoid accidents caused by bad drivers.
Let's prohibit bathing in that river because careless people might hurt themselves.

::: posted by "#56-12" at 9:31 AM

Wednesday, April 30, 2003 :::
An important traditional value which was successfully inverted by the collectivists was that of justice. The traditional concept of justice holds that all individuals have equal rights (which must therefore be defined consistently so that exerting my rights does not violate yours), and that violation by one individual of other's rights entails reparation. In the case of violation of property or physical integrity, this reparation is in the form of a criminal penalty. The penalty plays three roles.
First, it is a moral compensation to the victim.
Second, it acts as a deterrent against similar actions.
Third, it sometimes allows to insulate criminals from the rest of society, not in the interests of the criminals but in the interest of the victims.

That is the basic point of justice. It is not designed to benefit the criminals, but to benefit the victims. For one can choose not to be a criminal, but one cannot choose not to be a victim.

But the collectivists came, abolished justice, and replaced it by social justice.
Social justice is a cornerstone of collectivist degenerate thinking. By putting these two words together, it holds that there are social outcomes that should be considered as "crimes" -- even though, and especially if, these outcomes are the result of willingful exchanges between individuals equal in rights -- so that the social groups who seemingly benefit from these outcomes should be punished as criminals. Conversely, the social group who seemingly loses should be compensated. Thus you are a criminal or a victim not depending on what you've done, but depending on which group you belong to. You have already understood that "social justice" is the exact negation of justice.

In effect society is arbitrarily divided between "weak" and "strong" and individuals who belong to the "weak" groups have far more rights than those who belong to the "strong" groups. Without exageration, one can say that the basic rights to property, survival, and physical integrity of members of the "strong" groups are simply inexistent every time they are violated by the members of the "weak" group.

It is now customary to see incredibly lenient sentences being imposed on people guilty of the most atrocious crimes, because they are "weak" and the victim is "strong". You can be tortured, beaten to death, kidnapped, blackmailed, your house may be burnt, no matter, depending on your income, or the color of your skin, you are an exploiter and all the compassion of the system will go to the criminal, not to you. In most press reports regarding such crimes a lot is devoted to the "suffering" of the criminal and none to that of the victim. Those who believe that these are unfortunate excesses of a legitimate social concern for "integration" miss the whole point. The whole point is the extermination of the bourgeoisie. The functioning of the French justice is strikingly similar to that of the Soviet justice described by Solzhenytsin. There exists explicit statements from a leader of one of the most powerful judges' unions that recommends that no matter what the facts are the judge shoudl rule in favor of the wife, against the husband, of the employee, against the employer, of the young, against the old, of the poor, against the rich. These principles are applied on a daily basis by a large fraction of French judges, those who have pledged allegiance to the collectivist project of destroying French society and turning it into a totalitarian, arbitrary one.
Thus two female, lower-class teenagers of immigrant ascent have recently been convicted of torture, kidnapping, and attempted murder, and being condemned to 3 and 4 years of jail each. In a previous similar case, and atrocious, where the criminals where of adult age, the sentences were 7 to 10 years. This how much you get for the fielthest, most sadistic and bestial crimes that one can imagine. And a lot of resources are devoted to the taking care of, the psychological support, the nurturing, the special attention, and the reinsertion of these criminals, while the victims and their families are just dumped like garbage.

::: posted by "#56-12" at 6:44 AM

Thursday, April 24, 2003 :::
After having conquered the strategic sectors, the collectivists laid out a long-term plan for the establishment of their dictature in France. Contrary to their cousins on the other side of the iron curtain, they could not reach that goal by coercion. Consequently, their long-term plan involved the agreement of the people. They wanted to prevail and convince. In that respect, their control of the state media and their privileged access to the youth via the state educational system was critical. Ultimately, a collectivist society means the disappearance of all autonomous individuals, i.e. the nationalization of thought and the language. The aim of the French collectivists was to reach that situation thanks to the planned gradual elimination of the French bourgeoisie.
How do you eliminate a social class without having the tools of coercion and extermination of a Stalin? You can have a shot at it if you have intellectual power. For decades the bourgoisie has been taught by the intellectual elite to spit on itself and on its own values.
During years people were told about the "successes of the Soviet Union" and about "Communism as a noble ideal". Meanwhile, to be coopted in chich intellectual and academic circles one had to sneer at the viciousness and rididule of "bourgeois society".Hard work, individualism, good and evil, and the family were routinely trashed in books, magazines, plays and movies.
While the French government was pathetically fighting communism in Indochina and Algeria (in the former case with financial help from the U.S.) the country was being ruined from inside by the ideological dominance of collectivism.
Little more than two decades were enough for this strategy to bear its fruits. In May 1968 the collectivists engineered a revolution which did away with bourgeois values and managed to impose their egalitarian, demeaning, and individual-bashing criteria in a lot of areas of decision making. This opened the door, for example, to the degradation of criteria in public education systems, which was so successful that in the late twentieth centuries this system was producing legions of illiterate people, so unable to think by themselves that appalling unanimity levels where reached with respect to issues like the war in Iraq in early 21st century.
Another important cornerstone of the collectivist project of eliminating the French bourgeoisie was the elimination of Bourgeois values using a technique of intoxication called inversion. The 1968 revolutionaries were exceptionally successful at that. Take individual freedom, for example, an important bourgeois value. The 1968 people managed to invert it as follows. Traditional bourgeois liberty can be summarized by Voltaire's sentence: "my freedom stops where others' freedom starts". In 1968, the whole thing changed in France. The exercise of individual freedom was considered as legitimate to the extent that it violated somebody else's right to property, physical integrity, or privacy. Thus, having "fun" now meant making a lot of nise to prevent your neighbors from sleeping; property violations were increasingly condoned by "red" judges; for example it is now impossible to call the police and expel people who have trespassed on your property unless they have broken some protective device. In effect, private property is gone in France. The right to live as a parasite off other people's resources is now part of the French conception of "freedom"; self-proclaimed "artists" occupy public buildings out of their self-defined "right" to be taken care of by the state, and not only they are not expelled but demagogic politicians supply them with water, electricity, etc, with tax payer's money.
Similarly, the French society displays considerable leniency toward vandalism, degradation of public goods, garbage disposal, etc. French taxpayers pay increasing amounts of tax money to clean and repair vandalized public property, while it is widely considered as "inhuman" and "unacceptable" for the people who did this "'for fun" to pay for it financially and in the form of the prison term they deserve. Another quite telling degradation of the notion of individual rights.
Conversely, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of making one's choices, were increasingly restricted by "norms", "anti-defamation laws", "anti-racist laws", and so on.

::: posted by "#56-12" at 8:53 AM

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 :::
The conventional wisdom is that the 'West', i.e. the American Empire, won the cold war by exhausting the Soviet Union in a dreadful arms race. This conventional wisdom ignores the fact that in one country, the communist party or more generally collectivist forces have managed to establish considerable power by means of subversion and infiltration.
When did it start? In 1936, when a coalition containing the communist party was elected. In 1939, that same communist party, following the guidelines from Moscow, sided with Nazi Germany. The head of the communist party, Maurice Thorez, betrayed his country at the start of World War II and deserted to go to Moscow. One might have thought that this episode would have killed any chance for the Communist Party to conquer power. In fact, not. When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, the communists massively entered the resistance. You see, it's so simple. A French member of the communist party is not a citizen of France, he is a citizen of the Soviet Union.
The Americans deeply distrusted De Gaulle, rightly so in retrospect, they were in talks with Vichy for a smooth transition after German defeat, and with Giraud, De Gaulle's competitor. That stance may well have been quite dangerous. Because De Gaulle's outraged nationalism led him to sign a pact with the devil, i.e. the communists.
France's liberation saw an outburst of collectivism, with a wave of nationalisation of major industries, and a range of privileges given to the Communist Party, in sectors as important as the printing industry, where the communist union CGT was allowed to maintain a closed shop on all hirings in the newspaper printing industry. This marked the beginning of a long, painful civilizational decline.

::: posted by "#56-12" at 10:12 AM

Wednesday, April 02, 2003 :::
Good evening.
I am posting from a small collectivist country located in the western peninsula of the Eurasian continent.
During my compulsory sparetime I have decided to post to this blog some informations about what's going on.
Until big brother finds out.

::: posted by "#56-12" at 7:31 AM


E-Mail me

USS Clueless

The Dissident Frogman

Zek's Blog (in French)

Site au hasard
Voir la liste
Powered by