del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
I can’t think of a more insidious phenomenon in our times than the manipulation of the moral sensibilities of Europeans to bring about their own destruction, and it is the Left that’s in charge of this manipulation, which should be designated as a form of psychological warfare.
The most successful instance of the Left’s psychological operations was the use of the picture of the Syrian child’s lifeless body [2] washed ashore on a Turkish beach in September, 2015. It was this picture that led to an outpouring of European charity and solidarity with thousands of refugees and migrants. But this is only one instance of the immensely successful and many-sided psychological operations the Left has invented and used over the last few years to break the European will to fight even as their countries face a full scale migrant invasion costing them billions and bringing social chaos and thousands of rapes.
It is imperative to learn more about the psychological operations of the Left in its war against European identity.
The Left Knows
It is the Left in our current Western world that has claimed for itself the highest moral principles in the course of advancing its political and economic programs. Diversity came from the start wrapped up with high sounding moral principles about the equal dignity and good will of all peoples on earth, with exhortations directed at their Europeans to show compassion for the suffering of others, overcome their greed and racist impulses in the name of a more harmonious world wherein humans would finally create a world in which their angelic side would flourish.
The Left could have been excused as naively utopian when it started advocating these ideals. But no longer. People preoccupied with their own private lives, not politically in the front lines, can be excused for holding these beliefs. But not the leading propagandists, writers, teachers, government employees who work daily to instil these beliefs on the public.
It has now become evident that immigrant multiculturalism has not worked in the way it was anticipated. The Left has had enough time to learn about the raping of girls on “industrial scale” across Europe [4] by Muslim gangs, to ascertain the racial character of riots in Paris [5], Sweden [6], London [7], to think about the costs of illegal immigration [8], to realize that the majority of “refugees” are economic migrants [9], to witness entire towns and cities transformed into homogeneously Asian [10], Muslim, or Mestizo places. The list of failures is long, and the evidence is readily available in the internet.
Yet the Left not only continuous to press forward but has doubled up and tripled down in its efforts to promote mass immigration and accuse as “Islamophobic” anyone who questions the raping of girls in Europe. The Left is still, to this day, more than ever, calling for an end to “White supremacy” even in cities that are no longer majority White, for an end to “White privilege” even in workplaces that are totally dedicated to minority hiring, for an end “to everyday racism” even in campuses totally controlled by diversity politics.
We can no longer simply say that the Left is naive, pathological, trapped inside an ideology that does not allow it to see reality for what it is, that many of them are suffering from personality disorders. The Left knows, or at least refuses to know, that many of its ideals have not worked as they had said they would, and they know that many of its arguments are flawed [11] and the evidence does not support their beliefs. They know that race and gender are not mere social constructs, that there is scientific evidence, fully researched papers and books showing that human behaviour is deeply influenced by genetic factors, but they are either wilfully ignoring the evidence or attacking it by simply repeating the same ideas they learned five decades ago. Feminists know that something is amiss in their excessive preoccupation with micro aggressions and their refusal to speak out against Muslim macro aggression against girls in Europe [12].
Break Their Moral Will
This is what the Left is doing: it is promoting diversity by employing techniques of persuasion which target the value system of their own people, their moral sensibilities, in order to get them to accept their own ethnic displacement and celebrate the cultures of others. There are three readily available entries on the meaning of psychological warfare in the internet, providing varying insights, though none captures the unique techniques of psywar developed by the Left in recent years. But it only takes a bit of reordering of the wording of these definitions to bring out what is novel about Leftist techniques. The Encyclopaedia Britannica‘s [13] definition is a good start.
Psychological warfare, also called psywar, the use of propaganda against an enemy, supported by such military, economic, or political measures as may be required. Such propaganda is generally intended to demoralize the enemy, to break his will to fight or resist, and sometimes to render him favourably disposed to one’s position. Propaganda is also used to strengthen the resolve of allies or resistance fighters. The twisting of personality and the manipulation of beliefs in prisoners of war by brainwashing and related techniques can also be regarded as a form of psychological warfare.
The use of psychological warfare is of ancient origin, but this quoted passage captures well its current understanding as a form of warfare that presupposes the use of modern mass media to demoralize the enemy and to strengthen the resolve of friends. In order to make use of this definition all we need to do is understand that the Left does not believe in the age-old enemy-friend distinction. The Left is against the use of this distinction as a marker of collective identity and difference, as a way of contrasting in-groups and out-groups. The Left believes that it can abolish this distinction by promoting an ideology that is “inclusive” and that brings all races together in a culture that celebrates “unity-in-diversity.”
The first and most important phase in the Left’s plan is to promote diversity through mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West. But in seeking to bring about this reality the Left cannot but confront ideological enemies and friends. Therefore, the enemy the Left has in mind when it engages in psywar is purely ideological, and since the central value of the Left is diversity, and diversity is accomplished by bringing non-White out-groups inside White areas, then non-Whites are in essence not enemies of the Left. Whites who agree with the ideology of diversity, the very Whites who make up the Left and its pro-diversity ideology, are not enemies either. But Whites as such, in essence, are ideological enemies of the Left, since their existence violates the principle of diversity. The most hated ideological enemies of the Left are Whites who self-consciously organize as in-groups to protect their identity against diversity.
Using the definition above, we can say that the psywar of the Left consists in using propaganda, the ideology of diversity, to demoralize the enemy, Whites as such, “to break his will to fight or resist.” It also consists in using diversity to strengthen the resolve of out-groups in their diversification of White areas, and the resolve of ideological Whites who believe in diversity.
The Left is engaged in warfare in the sense that it aims to bring about a total end to its perceived enemies, and this warfare is psychological in that it involves the use of propaganda to alter the minds and hearts of Whites as such. Propaganda is “a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas.” The Left knows that it is engaged in propaganda, biased communication; it knows that most refugees are not children, but male adults [14]. It knows that Western nations are not “immigrant nations.” [15] It knows that immigration does not enrich European identity, and it knows that there is much evidence already accumulated, facts and arguments, challenging its beliefs, yet it wilfully ignores or sidesteps the counter-arguments, and presses with its propaganda.
The Left believes it has a mandate to bring diversity at all costs against its central enemy: European identity as such, and European ethno-nationalists. Yet it employs the very sensibilities of Europeans as such to bring about its agenda. It uses the longings of Europeans for cosmopolitan peace, their fair-even minded attitudes towards members of out-groups, in order to persuade them to forego their identity. It uses these ideals and attitudes as if they were consistent with diversification and mass immigration, even though the Left knows that Europeans, and only Europeans, created notions of human rights [16] and fair play vis-a-vis out groups, and that non-Europeans will endorse these ideals only to advance their particular ethnic interests.
The immorality of the corporate Right is easily objectionable; its hedonism and consumerism; its greed-driven policies, lack of loyalty to traditions and national identities, but in the end the capitalistic Right has never pretended to be for anything else other than for free markets, growth, and a legal framework friendly to business. (Mind you, the Right does employ its own version of psychological warfare, besides its use of the old fashion type, about which I will write in the future.)
The Left Knows Its Target
The second definition, from Wikipedia [17], allows us to go further in our understanding of the Left’s warfare against Whites as such and Whites as conscious in-groups.
The term is used “to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people.” Various techniques are used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system,emotions, motives, reasoning, or behaviour. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviours favourable to the originator’s objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. It is also used to destroy the morale of enemies through tactics that aim to depress troops psychological states.
The Left has been in charge of the culture and morality of the West for decades. It knows how to “evoke a planned psychological reaction” in Whites by appealing to their disposition to judge individuals regardless of race and sexual orientation against any semblance of racist behavior. They know how to destroy the morale of any White who shows in-group preference through accusations of racism and charges that they are exhibiting neo-Nazi attitudes. They know that Whites believe in equality and that it works to talk endlessly about discrimination and global inequality. The Left consciously “targets” the value system and emotions of Whites to bring about its political ends.
It is psychological warfare, a conscious manipulation of images and ideals, biased propaganda by a Left that knows they are using deceptive arguments and facts. When Leftists say that “more than half of the global wealth” [18] is owned by the 1 percent residing mainly in the West, they know they are misleading students into thinking that this “global wealth” is somehow a communal pot that belongs to everyone in the world even though Western nations create their own wealth through innovations and efficient institutions. The Left knows, or should know, that non-European nations are “happily racist,” [19] sexist [20], and that diversity increases ethnic nepotism [21].
The Left knows that non-Western cultures are far more collectivist and in-group oriented in their racial and tribal attachments [22], whereas Westerners are individualistic and more tolerant of outsiders, and this is why they willfully target the individualist value system of Europeans with accusations of racism so as to demoralize them and allow their countries to be taken over by collectivist cultures, which the Left celebrates as harbingers of multiculturalism.
Jacques Ellul is cited in the Wikipedia entry saying that a common form of psychological warfare between nations involves “dealing with a foreign adversary whose morale he seeks to destroy by psychological means so that the opponent begins to doubt the validity of his beliefs and actions.” The foremost adversary of the Left is European in-group identity, and this is why the Left has been teaching for decades to impressionable children and young students that emotional attachments to in-groups are not only backward and illiberal, but “a personality disorder, a public health pathogen.” [23] Yet the same Left welcomes the far more collectivist and racist cultures of immigrants [24] and passes laws protecting this collectivist heritage [25]. They know this is a flagrant double standard.
The third definition comes from “Major Ed Rouse (Ret)” [26]:
Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations…The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia…Your primary weapons are sight and sound. PSYOP can be disseminated by face-to-face communication, audio visual means (television), audio media (radio or loudspeaker), visual media (leaflets, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters). The weapon is not how its sent, but the message it carries and how that message affects the recipient.
There is no other way to describe the Left’s use of the three-year-old Syrian child washed ashore on a beach than as a most successful form of psychological operation relying simply on an image. This picture played a critical role in energizing Europeans to stage mass rallies “welcoming refugees” across Europe [27]. Leftists know that in Germany alone migrants committed over 400,000 crimes in 2015 [28], including 1,688 reported sexual assaults against women and children. Yet their reaction was to cover up these facts, defend the perpetrators as victims of “Western imperialism,” or simply try to spread false information [29] so as to take blame away from refugees and direct it to German males.
No other conclusion can be reached but that the Left is willfully carrying out a form of psychological warfare based on deception, manipulation, and false accusations, with the intention of destroying European identity, while pretending to be the representatives of the highest ideals of Western civilization.
Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/02/leftist-psychological-... [30]
INNENPOLITISCHES / GESELLSCHAFT / VERGANGENHEITSPOLITIK
LINKE / KAMPF GEGEN RECHTS / ANTIFASCHISMUS / RECHTE
For a long time, Morris was considered the unofficial leader of the "Movement of Arts and Crafts". His main aim was the convergence of aesthetics and work, overcoming the industrialized impersonal production of the industrial age, that leads to the depersonalization of producer as well as the consumer of such goods, the transformation of work in the aesthetic and even (as it was in pre-Modern age) sacralized process. Morris was familiar with the works of Karl Marx, but he offered to solve problem of alienation, identified by socialist philosopher, by returning to manual labor and re-sacralization of production.
Les éditions Auda Isarn viennent de publier un récit de Bruno Favrit intitulé Fort à faire. Amateur de sommets, et pratiquant donc la course en montagne et la lecture de Nietzsche, Bruno Favrit est l'auteur de nouvelles comme Nouvelles des Dieux et des montagnes (Les Amis de la Culture Européenne, 2004) ou Ceux d'en haut (Auda Isarn, 2007), de deux romans, Criminel de guerre (Les Amis de la Culture Européenne, 2005) et 
Minerva aveva la sua festa nel giorno delle Quinquatrus, giorno che cadeva, come dice il nome, il quinto giorno oscuro dopo le Eidus: il giorno era in origine sicuramente dedicato a Mars, dato che in esso i Saliari celebravano uno dei loro riti, ma venne in seguito “usurpato” da Minerva, certo in coincidenza con la sovrapposizione della Triade etrusca Juppiter-Juno-Minerva all’arcaica Triade Juppiter -Mars-Quirinus.
Dans ce livre (Des Putes et des Hommes. Vers un ordre moral androphobe), je m'interroge d'abord sur les prostituées et leurs clients, en ce que ceux-ci sont érigés en coupables tandis que celles-là tendent à être réduites à des victimes, après avoir longtemps été traitées comme des délinquantes. Au moment où les prostituées tendent à être décriminalisées, les clients font l'objet d'une criminalisation croissante. D'où la banalisation dans l'imaginaire social de ces deux représentations : la prostituée traitée comme une victime plus ou moins infantilisée, objet d'une compassion n'allant pas sans mépris, et le client dénoncé comme un détestable "prostitueur" ou un méprisable "viandard", premier complice du proxénète exploiteur, voire esclavagiste. Il y a là deux stéréotypes négatifs couplés qui orientent les controverses idéologiques sur la question prostitutionnelle, récemment recentrée sur la pénalisation du client. (...)