So You Say You "Don't" Want A Revolution?

Submitted by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

Over the past few months we have been forced to bear witness to a humiliating farce unfolding in Europe. Greece, which was first accepted into the European Monetary Union under false pretenses, then saddled with excessive levels of debt, then crippled through the imposition of austerity, finally did something: the Greeks elected a government that promised to shake things up. The Syriza party platform had the following planks, which were quite revolutionary in spirit.

• Put an end to austerity and put the Greek economy on a path toward recovery
• Raise the income tax to 75% for all incomes over 500,000 euros, adopt a tax on financial transactions and a special tax on luxury goods.
• Drastically cut military expenditures, close all foreign military bases on Greek soil and withdraw from NATO. End military cooperation with Israel and support the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders.
• Nationalize the banks.
• Enact constitutional reforms to guarantee the right to education, health care and the environment.
• Hold referendums on treaties and other accords with the European Union.

Of these, only the last bullet point was acted on: there was a lot made of the referendum which returned a resounding “No!” to EU demands for more austerity and the dismantling and selling off of Greek public assets. But a lot less was made of the fact that the results of this referendum were then ignored.

But the trouble started before then. After being elected, Syriza representatives went to Brussels to negotiate. The negotiations generally went like this: Syriza would make an offer; the EU officials would reject it, and advance their own demands for more austerity; Syriza would make another offer, and the EU officials would reject it too and advance their own demands for even more austerity than in the last round; and so on, all the way until Greek capitulation. All the EU officials had to do to force the Greeks to capitulate was to stop the flow of Euros to Greek banks. Some revolutionaries, these! More like a toy poodle trying to negotiate for a little more kibble to be poured into its dish, if it pleases the master to do so. Stathis Kouvelakis (a Syriza member) summed up the Greek government's stance: “Here’s our program, but if we find that its implementation is incompatible with keeping the euro, then we’ll forget about it.”

It is not as if revolutions don't happen any more. Just one country over from Greece there is a rather successful revolution unfolding as we speak: what used to be Northern Iraq and Syria is controlled by the revolutionary regime variously known as ISIS/ISIL/Daash/Islamic Caliphate. We can tell that it is a real revolution because of its use of terror. All revolutionaries deserving of the name use terror—and what they generally say is that their terror is in response to the terror of the pre-existing order they seek to overthrow, or the terror of their counterrevolutionary enemies. And by terror I mean mass murder, expropriation, exile and the taking of hostages.

Just so that you understand me correctly, let me stress at the outset that I am not a revolutionary. I am an observer and a commentator on all sorts of things, including revolutions, but I choose not to participate. Remaining an observer and a commentator presupposes staying alive, and my personal longevity program calls for not being anywhere near any revolutions—because, as I just mentioned, revolutions involve mass murder.
 

Good old Uncle Joe. The kids loved him.

In the case of the French revolution, it started with liberté-égalité-fraternité and proceeded swiftly to guilliotiné. The Russian revolution of 1917 remains the gold standard for revolutions. There, thanks to Uncle Joe, so-called “red terror” went on and on, eventually claiming millions of victims. Mao and Pol Pot are also part of that revolutionary pantheon. The American revolution wasn't a revolution at all because the slave-owning, genocidal sponsors of international piracy remained in power under the new administration. Nor does the February 2014 putsch in the Ukraine qualify as a revolution; that was an externally imposed violent overthrow of the legitimate government and the installation of a US-managed puppet regime, but, as in the American Colonies, the same gang of thieves—the Ukrainian oligarchs—continue to rob the country blind just as before. But if the Nazi thugs from the “Right Sector” take over and kill the oligarchs, the government officials in Kiev and their US State Dept./CIA/NATO minders, and then proceed with a campaign of “brown terror” throughout the country, then I will start calling it a revolution.
 

* * *

The fact of mass murder does not automatically a revolution make: you have to make note of who is getting killed. So, if the dead consist of lots of volunteers, recruits, mercenaries, plus lots of nondescript civilians, that does not a revolution make. But if the dead include a good number of oligarchs, CEOs of major corporations, bankers, senators, congressmen, public officials, judges, corporate lawyers, high-ranking military officers, then, yes, that's starting to look like a proper revolution.

Other than big huge pools of blood littered with the corpses of high-ranking representatives of the ancien régime, a revolution also requires an ideology—to corrupt and pervert. In general, the ideology you have is the ideology you make revolution with. It stands to reason that if you don't have an ideology, it's not really a revolution. For instance, the American Colonists had no ideology—just some demands. They didn't want to pay taxes to the British crown; they didn't want to maintain British troops; they didn't want limits on the slave trade; and they didn't want restrictions on profiting from piracy on the high seas. That's not an ideology; that's just simple old greed. With the Ukrainian “revolutionaries,” their “ideology” pretty much comes down to the statements “Europe is wonderful” and “Russians suck.” That's not an ideology either; the former is wishful thinking; the latter is simple bigotry.

Taking the example of ISIS/ISIL/Daash/Islamic Caliphate, they are Islamists, and so the ideology they corrupt and pervert is Islam, with its Sharia law. How? Islamist scholars have been most helpful by compiling this top-ten list:

1. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as “People of the Scripture.”
2. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
4. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat Christians or any “People of the Scripture.”
7. Jihad in Islam is a purely defensive struggle. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and the right rules of conduct.
8. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats — hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
9. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a Caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

But, as Lenin famously put it, “If You Want to Make an Omelet, You Must Be Willing to Break a Few Eggs.” And if you want to make a revolution, then you must be willing to pervert your ideology. Those Islamist scholars who eagerly exclaim “That's not Islam! Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance!” are missing the point: the ideology of ISIS/ISIL/Daash/Islamic Caliphate is still Islam—revolutionary Islam.

The example of ISIS/ISIL/Daash/Islamic Caliphate is germane to the topic of Greece, because it is a contemporary example of what is definitely a revolution, and it is taking place just one country over from Greece. But the ideology of Syriza is not Islam—it's socialism, and philosophically they are Marxists. And so a better example for Syriza to follow, were they to suddenly stop being Europe's pathetic poodles and don the mantle of fearless, heroic revolutionaries, is still the good old Russian revolution of 1917.
 

* * *

As I mentioned, one of the most important tools of a revolution is terror. In Russia, revolutionary terror was called “red terror,” which, the revolutionaries claimed, arose in opposition to “white terror” of the Russian imperial regime, with its racist bigotry (Jews weren't allowed in any of the major cities), numerous forms of oppression, some major, some quite petty, and rampant corruption. An interesting feature of the Russian revolution is that the terror started several years prior to the event.

Let us pause for a second to consider why revolutionary terror is necessary. A revolution is a drastic change in the direction of society. Left alone, society tends to worsen its worst tendencies over time: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the police state becomes more oppressive, the justice system becomes more riddled with injustice, the military-industrial complex produces ever less effective military hardware for ever more money, and so on. This is a matter of social inertia: the tendency of objects to travel in a straight line in absence of a force acting at an angle to its direction of motion. The formula for inertia is
 

p=mv

where p is inertia, m is mass and v is velocity.

To make a radical course change, revolutionaries have to apply force, counteracting the social inertia. To make it so that it is within their limited means to do this, they can do two things: reduce v, or reduce m. Reducing v is a bad idea: the revolution must not lose its own momentum. But reducing m is, in fact, a good idea. Now, it turns out that, with regard to social momentum, most of the mass that gives rise to it resides in the heads of certain classes of people: government officials, judges and lawyers, police officers, military officers, rich people, certain types of professionals and so on.

The rest of the population is much less of a problem. Suppose some revolutionaries show up and tell them that

• they don't have to worry about paying taxes (because we are confiscating the property of the rich),
• medicine and education are now free, 
• those with mortgages can stop making payments; they automatically own their real estate free and clear
• renters now automatically own their place of residence,
• employees are automatically majority stockholders in their businesses,
• they should fill out an application if they want a free (newly liberated) parcel of land to farm,
• there is a general amnesty and their loved ones who have been locked up are coming home,
• ration cards are being issued to make sure that nobody ever goes hungry again,
• the homeless are going to be moving in with those whose residences are deemed unduly spacious,
• they are now their own police and are in charge of patrolling their neighborhoods with the revolutionary guards available as back-up, and
• if any non-revolutionary authorities, be they the former police or the former landlords, come around and bother any of them, then these traitors and impostors shall face swift, on-the-spot revolutionary justice.

Most regular people would think that this is a pretty good deal. However, government officials, the police, military officers, judges, prosecutors, rich people whose property is to be confiscated, corporate officers and shareholders, those living on fat corporate or government pensions, etc., would no doubt think otherwise. The revolutionary solution is to take them as hostages, exile them, and, to make an example of the most recalcitrant and obstructive, kill them. This dramatically reduces m, allowing the revolutionaries to effect drastic course changes even as v increases. I compiled this list because it would be such an easy sell—piece of cake, a slam-dunk, a no-brainer. But I lack the uncontrollable desire to smash eggs and the insatiable appetite for omelets. As I mentioned, I am no revolutionary—just an observer.

In the run-up to the Russian revolution, from 1901 through 1911, there were 17,000 such casualties. In 1907, the average toll was 18 people a day. According to police records, between February 1905 and May 1906, there were among those killed:

• 8 governors
• 5 vice-governors and other regional administrators
• 21 chiefs of police, heads of municipalities and wardens
• 8 high-ranking police officers
• 4 generals
• 7 military officers
• 79 bailiffs
• 125 inspectors
• 346 police officers
• 57 constables
• 257 security personnel
• 55 police service personnel
• 18 state security agents
• 85 government employees
• 12 clergy
• 52 rural government agents
• 52 land-owners
• 51 factory owners and managers
• 54 bankers and businessmen

Good old Zinka Schoolteacher, Revolutionary, Assassin

Clearly, these terrorist acts must have had some not inconsiderable effect in softening the target, making the government overthrow easier. This was not an accident but a matter of well-articulated revolutionary policy. The concept of “red terror” was first introduced by Zinaida Konoplyannikova, a rural schoolteacher who first got on the police radar for being an atheist and was later convicted as a terrorist for shooting a notorious general-major at point-blank range. At her trial in 1906, she said this: “The [Socialist-Revolutionary] Party has decided to counter the white, yet bloody, terror of the government with red terror...” She was executed by hanging that same year, aged 26.

After the revolution, red terror became government policy. Here is Lenin's response to being questioned by Communist party members about his “barbaric methods”: “I reason soberly and categorically: what is better—to imprison a few tens or hundreds provocateurs, guilty or innocent, acting consciously or unconsciously, or to lose thousands of soldiers and workers? The former is better. Let them accuse me of any deadly sins and violations of liberty—I plead guilty, but the interests of the workers win.”
 

Grandpa Lenin belting out a tune Grandpa Trotsky going wild on the harmonica

Trotsky produced a particularly crisp definition of “red terror.” He called it “a weapon to be used against a social class that has been condemned to extinction but won't die.”

Estimates of the exact number of victims of “red terror” vary. Robert Conquest claimed that between 1917 and 1922 the revolutionary tribunals executed 140,000 people. But the historian O. B. Mozokhin, after an exhaustive study of the data available from government archives, put the number at no more than 50,000. He also noted that executions were the exception rather than the rule, and that most of those executed were sentenced for criminal rather than political acts.

But this was nothing compared to what Stalin unleashed later on. The ideological foundation of Stalin's terror was “intensification of class struggle at the culmination of the building of socialism,” which he articulated at the plenum of the Central Committee in July of 1928. According to his logic, USSR was economically and culturally underdeveloped, surrounded by hostile capitalist states, and as long as there remained the threat of foreign military intervention with the goal of reestablishing the bourgeois order, only the preventive destruction of the remnants of “bourgeois elements” could guarantee the security and independence of the USSR. These elements included former police officers, government officials, clergy, land-owners and businessmen. The peak of Stalin's repression occurred in 1937 and 1938. During these two years 1,575,259 people were arrested, of which 681,692 were shot.

You may be forgiven for thinking of Stalin as a psychopathic murderer, because he was certainly that, but more importantly he was a competent, and sufficiently ruthless, head of a revolutionary state. For a revolutionary regime, killing too many people is rarely a problem, but killing too few people can easily prove fatal. To play it safe, a revolutionary should always err on the side of murder. This attitude tends to pervade the entire power pyramid: if you give Stalin a memorandum recommending that 500 priests get shot, and Stalin crosses out 500 and pencils in 1000 in red pencil, then you better find 500 more priests to shoot, or the number becomes 1001 and includes you.

This guarantee of security and independence did seem to hold. After all, there was a subsequent invasion by a hostile bourgeois capitalist state (Germany) and bourgeois order was temporarily reestablished on the territories it occupied. But there was nobody left to instigate anti-revolutionary rebellion elsewhere in the USSR because most of the would-be counterrevolutionaries were by then dead.

Of course, this took a terrible toll on society. Here is what Putin had to say on the subject of “red terror”: “Think of the hostages who were shot during the civil war, the destruction of entire social strata—the clergy, the prosperous peasants, the Cossacks. Such tragedies have recurred more than once during the history of mankind. And it always happened when initially attractive but ultimately empty ideals were raised above the main value—the value of human life, above the rights and liberties of man. For our country this is especially tragic, because the scale was colossal. Thousands, millions of people were destroyed, sent to concentration camps, shot, tortured to death. And these were primarily people who had their own opinions, who weren't afraid to voice them. These were the most effective people—the flower of the nation. Even after many years we feel the effect of this tragedy on ourselves. We must do a great deal to make sure that this is never forgotten.”

Given that the price is so high, perhaps it would be better after all if we just sat quietly, allowed the rich get richer as the poor get poorer, watched listlessly as the environment got completely destroyed by capitalist industrialists in blind pursuit of profit, and eventually curled up, kissed our sweet asses good-bye and died? Good luck selling that idea to young radicalized hotheads who have nothing to lose—except maybe you, if you happen to stand in their way as they change the world! No, revolution is here to stay, and one of its main weapons is terror. No matter how well we remember, the annihilation of counterrevolutionary social elements is bound to recur.
 

* * *

Getting back to Greece and Syriza: what if Syriza were not just a particularly fluffy breed of miniature Europoodle but actual honest-to-goodness revolutionaries, ready to do whatever it takes? How would they act differently? And what would be the result?

Well, one thing that comes to mind immediately is that they wouldn't try to stay in the Eurozone—they would seek to destroy it. The solution is simple: no Eurozone—no Euro-debt—no problem. There is a general principle involved: never accept responsibility for that which you cannot control. Speaking from experience, suppose you invite a plumber to fix your toilet, and the plumber finds that the toilet has been Mickey-moused in multiple ways by an incompetent amateur. In this situation, the professional thing for the plumber to do is to completely obliterate that toilet. Now the solution becomes simple: install a new toilet.

Here's a very simple one-two punch which Greece could have delivered instead of futile attempts at negotiation:

1. Immediately announce an open-ended moratorium on all debt repayment, taking the position that Greece has no legitimate creditors within the Eurozone—it's all financial fraud at the highest levels. After a few months, the fake bail-out financial entities that magically convert garbage Eurozone debt into AAA-rated securities (because they are guaranteed by Eurozone governments) are forced to write off Greek debt. In turn, Eurozone governments, being pretty much broke, balk at refinancing them out of their national budgets, showing to the world that their guarantees aren't worth the paper they are written on. There follows a bond implosion. Shortly thereafter, the Euro goes extinct, and along with it all Eurozone debt.

2. Start printing Euros without authorization from the European Central bank. When accused of forgery, make the forgery harder to detect by changing the letter at the front of the serial number from Y (for Greece) to X (for Germany). Flood Greece and the rest of the Eurozone with notionally counterfeit (but technically perfect) Euro notes. As the Euro plummets in value, institute food rationing and issue ration cards. Eventually convert from the now devalued and debased Euro to a newly reintroduced Drachma and reestablish trade links with the now “liberated” former Eurozone countries using trade deals based on barter and local currency swaps with gold reserves used to correct any minor imbalances.

Could this have been done without any “red terror”? I doubt it. Greece is very much oligarch-ridden; even the celebrated former Syriza FM Yanis Varoufakis is the son an industrial magnate. The Greek oligarchs and the rich would have had to be rounded up and held as hostages. Numerous people in the government and in the military have a split allegiance—they work for Europe, not for Greece. They would have had to be sacked immediately and held incommunicado, under house arrest at a minimum. No doubt foreign special services would have run rampant, looking for ways to undermine the revolutionary government. This would have called for drastic preemptive measures to physically eliminate foreign spies and agents before they could have had a chance to act. And so on. This wouldn't have been a job for fluffy mini-poodles. As Stalin famously put it, “Cadres are the key to everything.” You can't make a revolution without revolutionaries.

Comments

[agent default]

So basically Syriza is poised to lead the neo-communist revolution in Greece.  You know what cracks me up?  The same morons here who cheer for Syrza are the same people who protest against statism in the US and out of control government.  They somehow think Greece under Syriza will be a libertarian dream land. Guys, there is a reason siblings shouldn't marry. 

[usednabused]

Viva La Revolution and FU AD

[agent default]

The end result of the revolution you have in mind will look more like 1970's Albania. 

[usednabused]

And whats the end result of the Statism and big gov't? Same fucking thing in slow motion. You can ride your big gov't right to hell.

[eforce]

There will be a global revolution to bring in the NWO, once the debt is high enough and all other measures are prepared, they will collapse the current system...

6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one 

And only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is 

Inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction 

Of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding 

Scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers. 

7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when 

We propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, 

Communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly 

Rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, 

Which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers 

Were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the 

Diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness 

Of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made 

The slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy 

To set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely 

Than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with 

their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. 

If you want an idea of what comes next, read up on Agenda 21 and for a more visual example, watch 1984.

[BuddyEffed]

"Immediately announce an open-ended moratorium on all debt repayment"

Is that likely to cause inputs of energy and other resources to drop to zero which would then likely cause the lights and running water and sewage and garbage removal to drop to zero too?

[Ayreos]

Without debt, they'd have more money to pay for energy. Luckily Greece has a lot of strong energy and "other resources" producers all over the (southern side) of the mediterranean (including an IRAN very eager to get rid of its stocks...), and the truly producing world is just past the Suez Canal. They would need a few sea shipments while that Russian pipeline is being built, but something tells me joining the BRICS and becoming a market and european entry point for their economies would ensure Greece gets all it needs to flourish and then some.

[omniversling]

Orlov must have missed Varoufakis interview to ABC: “We smashed the printing presses — we have no printing presses,” Varoufakis said.

Former Greek finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/peXlDPxRAD?play=true

https://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/we-smashed-the-printing-pres...

[El Vaquero]

Wrong.  I've been hoping that Syrza would start a chain reaction in the global banking sector.  It doesn't mean that I think that socialism  or statism is good. I always figured that Syriza, being socialist, would not succeed at turning Greece around.  But they had a shot at whacking the global banking system, which I really don't like.  

[agent default]

You may hope all you want, you are wrong.  At best you will get Brest-Litovsk with the IMF/EU allover again, as long as they stay in power.  Take it from a guy who can actually read a Greek newspaper.  You are dead wrong.

[El Vaquero]

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote and notice the past tense in the writing.  

[atomicwasted]

Orlov is such a two bit hack that he's almost as bad as Kunstler.  So he tells us that the American Revolution didn't have an ideology - good one, buddy.  Then he tells us all about Communist terror, which is great.  Then he extols, what?  That communist Syriza should have done the same thing"  WTF?  This is a confused mess of an "article" that makes everyone who reads it dumber.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JzbWVDzac

[fleur de lis]

Who is Orlov? How could he claim to know all about revolutions and fail to mention the role of the Fed in funding the Bolshiviks? Or that Trotsky was imported from Russia to live in New York with the wife and two sons? They lived in an apartment and they had a chauffeur all paid for by Jacob Schiff. Why was he so generous? Then they got passage back to Russia to continue with the murder spree, along with a generous donation of misappropriated money, how could Orlov have missed that?

Then there's the matter of Stalin. He was a Rothschild employee in Baku, how did that get past Orlov? How did a firebug and repeat criminal offender get to run the biggest country on Earth unless someone wanted him there? Is is possible Orlov does not know this?

It seems like Orlov is deliberately avoiding Antony Sutton's information, but why? Does he really think that entire nations can be taken down without phenomenal heaps of money? Would somebody please tell me what's going on.

[Fun Facts]

You say you've got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

- John Lennon

[Freddie]

Dimitry Orlov is pretty good but he failed to mention that the non-christian Bolsheviks mission was to murder 25 million Christian Russians. He should read Alexander Solzhenitsyn who was a devout Christian.

The Bolsheviks are the same ilk as PNAC, Nudelman, Porky and Yats.  Same people pitting Christians Ukrianians to kill each other for their genocide.

Solzhenitsyn admired Putin.

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-putin-solzhenitsyn-1990-essay/265612...

[Bluntly Put]

I would put most of the author's examples as regime changes or coups. Real revolutions change thinking, paradigms. The last such great revolution in thought occurred during the enlightenment in Europe leading to the development of the rational philosophers and natural rights.

I don't include collectivist ideologies in with revolutionary thought as they are perversions of the rationalist thinking led by ideologues such as Hegel.

.

[i_call_you_my_base]

The problem is that the people don't want to leave the eurozone. How do you start a revolution when 80% of the population doesn't want your revolution? And in that case, this article pushes for a form of a minority-led militant coup.

[StateofFraud]

80%vof those interviewed by NPR...

[falconflight]

Maybe the author advocates for a good ole fashioned Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  You know the Proles need leadership ;O

[Kaiser Sousa]

please....

no more Greek articles....

for fucks sake man.

[Superdave532]

I'm all for changing the status quo, but it's not coming from the likes of Syriza. Just another bunch of far-leftist promising something for nothing.

[rsnoble]

We just need a complete change of the entire system and its leaders in the US.  I don't want revolution.  Unfort it would take one to obtain that.  And a nasty one it would be, drones complete with mini-nukes.  There would be nothing left and people like McCain would still be clawing there way back in the state building.

[Flying Wombat]

Interesting stuff:

Varoufakis Explains Resignation; Discloses It Was Clear Syriza Was Going To Say “Yes” As Troika Forced Choice Between ‘Suicide Or Execution’

TND Guest Contributor:  Lauren McCauley |

In his first international television interview since stepping down from his post as Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis told CNN‘s Christiane Amanpour on Monday that European lenders had forced his government to make a choice between “suicide or execution.”

Full story and video, click below:
http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=485407

[Fluorideinthewater]

Actually wasn't it reality that forced the choice between suicide and execution? The fact that one cannot force another to willingly participate in your own delusion does not give moral authority to claim you have been victimized. Thanks for the link.

[MagicMoney]

Yes indeed. Greeks don't have much of choice that is going to be painless. Either go with austerity, increase the retirement age from 58 to over 60 years old, cut spending in general, promote economic growth by liberalizing investments, and employment. or leave the Euro, print Drachmas. If Greeks leave the Euro, their purchasing power will be diminished from that of having a euro including the chaos of leaving the EU. They really have no choice that is pain free. Varoufakis saying is no choice. Well... shit happens. That's why you better off managing finances better.

[ISEEIT]

Nope.

Any 'revolution' at this point is already baked in as false flag......FAKE.

The time for genuine 'revolution' has already passed.

Evolution though...

Will be a bitch for the few running this shitshow.

In time.

[Radical Marijuana]

I like the view that real revolution is a re-evolution, which is primarily a creative convergence of previous adaptive radiants, which then become the basis for a renewal of adaptive radiants.

The ONLY thing that compares to the current human affairs is the development of photosynthesis a long, long time ago. That provides the best example of the kinds of revolutions that we are going to need to adapt to the progress in our physical science and technology, IF we are going to survive having done that.

One book that I would recommend to gain perspective upon the intellectual history of those notions regarding how real "revolutions" work within the context of the overall evolution is Darwin's Blind Spot. That includes a chapter on Lynn Margulis, who was one of the lucky few to personally live through all of the typical stages of a scientific revolution, regarding how life on Earth was profoundly revolutionized by the development of photosynthesis.

[Latitude25]

And then there's that Cuban paradise.

[Stormtrooper]

Definitions! Definitions! So, if the states use the nuclear option of an Article V state run Constitutional Convention to terminate their agent, the federal government and return all powers of governance to the states, is that the result of ideology or just some demands? I am so confused!

[Miggy]

Your quote "the American Colonists had no ideology—just some demands."

Surely you jest. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? I will quote one line for you:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Now that is the ideology that produced the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

John 3:16

[falconflight]

It was literally the 'shot heard around the world.'  Revolutions of the People broke out all over the world; from France to Haiti and beyond.  

[quasi_verbatim]

Yes, but if you read on beyond the first para. the whole thing is just a long gripe against the old Hanoverian reprobate. Some revolution.

[Miggy]

Yes, but we can't change the subject. The quote was they had no ideology and my point was not only did they have an ideology but it spawned a most powerful nation. It gave freedom back to the people where it belongs, at least for a long period of time irrespective of where we find ourselves right now.

People chased their dreams and grew the country to an economic powerhouse in a very short period of time, surpassing nations that have been around for much longer. Innovation boomed and the machine tools and technology invented in America have been used worldwide either legally or illegally.

There is genius in brevity. The statement they made is spot on.

[WTFUD]

In today's technological age it is 100 fold easier to start up mini-revolutions across cities/counties that would crescendo into one big bang.

Just a small matter of the lack of balls.

[Radical Marijuana]

After the development of weapons of mass destruction and mass communication that are trillions of times more powerful and capable than ever before in human history, discussions about traditional wars, as well as revolutions, have become mostly nostalgic nonsense.

The only "revolutions" that could make sense would have to first and foremost be intellectual scientific revolutions. While those would have to admit and address the central issues are the death control systems, it would have to be profound transformations in the perceptual paradigms regarding politics in general, and especially the death control systems in particular, which would have to attempt to come to terms with the problems having become globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed up by the threat of apes with atomic bombs.

In my view, while insightful in an old-fashioned way, Orlov's analysis continues to take for granted a world which actually no longer exists. Furthermore, it is impossible for that world to ever exist again. Even if the current kind of technological civilization destroyed itself, due to its own madness, those kinds of crazy collapses into chaos would continue to cascade through extreme disequilibria, where some participants would still, at least temporarily, continue to have some access to weapons of mass destruction and mass communication.

Theoretically speaking, the ONLY thing that has changed is the progress in physical science, while political science has gone nowhere, since the real situation is based on being able to back up lies with violence, with the dominate, established systems being operated by the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, and I have never, so far encountered any publicly significant groups which were not similarly so.

As far as I can tell, practically NOBODY has actually adapted their ways of thinking about political problems to become more consistent with progress in physical science. Rather, the ONLY things which have happened are the application of advanced technologies to become orders of magnitude more able to be dishonest, and back those lies up with violence. E.g., globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs.

Orolov is describing atavistic reversions to ridiculously old-fashioned notions about how it is possible to have some kind of successful violent revolutions. However, those have become just as utterly insane as beliefs that it is possible to win wars, after the development of weapons of mass destruction. While I am not doubting that such regressive events are possible, given enough stress places upon society, the outcomes could NEVER possibly become anything like what used to be possible during previous eras of human history.

I REPEAT these observations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCEOSgLRt4

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It Is Infinitely Easier to Kill a Million People than it is to Control a Million People

The first generation that grew up while that became a social fact is still alive today. NOBODY has adapted their ways of thinking about those facts. Rather, as Albert Einstein stated:

The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

Of course, it is practically a waste of time to bother to point that out, because we ARE drifting towards unparalleled catastrophe! It is politically impossible at the present time for enough people to change enough to adapt to the progress in physical science. I believe it is theoretically possible to change our political science in ways which could be better reconciled with physical science, however, that is clearly a Fringe Cubed Position, while guys like Orlov promote merely versions of the various old-fashioned fringe positions, which are not even at the fringe of the fringe, but rather, actually are thinking in ways which are nothing more than reactionary revolutions.

I totally agree that real revolutions would have to change the death control systems. However, we would have to much more profoundly revolutionize the ways that we think about those death control systems, before that could begin to make any theoretical sense. Of course, at the present time, both the threats of violent wars, as well as violent revolutions, have to continue to PRETEND to be contained inside of a world view that does NOT include considerations of weapons of mass destruction, such as not only atomic bombs, but also biological weapons, and so on and so forth, all of which are many orders of magnitude greater than anything that has ever happened before in known human history, and which, so far, have barely ever been significantly demonstrated to exist in the real world of politics, except through the on-going precariousness of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction policies ...

The human species has barely done anything to transform its death control systems in ways which are consistent with progress in physical science. Rather, we ARE drifting towards unparalleled catastrophe! So far, there has been nothing else than MAD policies to cope with that. Human beings have not changed their politics in any seriously significant ways that would admit and address the issues of how to operate the human murder systems after the development of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, revolutions & wars continue to actually follow the basic situations that: As Above, So Below, & As Within, So Without.

Orlov, as far as I can tell, is merely another superficial observer, who ends up applying old-fashioned ideas to interpret what he is observing. While I find his actual observations to be interesting to consider, I find the theoretical framework that he uses to interpret those observations to be pathetic. However, of course, that is generally the case with almost everyone. There EXIST globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, while pretty well nobody thinks about those FACTS in more serious ways, other than to focus on the details of developing technically better electronic frauds, and/or atomic bombs, etc. ...

Since the real world now is actually based upon globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, theories regarding revolutions, and/or wars, that do not admit and address those issues, are not even in the same ball park of the order of magnitude of those problems. In that context, Orlov provides interesting observations, however, his political perspectives that he uses to interpret those observations continues to be ridiculously nostalgic nonsense! 

Of course, the GREAT IRONY of politics today is that the vast majority of people do not think any better than Orlov, but rather, usually even worse. Our entire political economy is based upon enforced frauds, which have become globalized electronics, backed by weapons of mass destruction, and yet, pretty well everybody manages to not admit and address those FACTS, and to not think any deeper about how and why those are the FACTS, other than to the degree that they may propose impossible ideals of stopping that from being the case, or propose minor technical advances to develop even more capable electronic frauds, or even more powerful weapons of mass destruction.

In my opinion, the more intelligent of the "young radicalized hotheads who have nothing to lose" are somewhat intuitively aware of what I have been discussing above, while those who are not even intuitively aware of that are probably pawns setting themselves up to be mass murdered by the millions. (That is the direction towards which what used to be Northern Iraq and Syria is NOW controlled, by the revolutionary regime variously known as ISIS/ISIL/Daash/Islamic Caliphate, is most probably headed.) However, it will take a fair while still for conditions to deteriorate to that point, (although faster than I might believe, since I still find exponential growth to be surprising, despite intellectually knowing better.)

For the vast majority of the Greeks,
conditions continue to deteriorate...

Of course, it is not so much the case for
the still wealthy Greeks, nor for tourists,
that can bring their own money, nor for
those with outside money to buy stuff.

BUT, for most of the Greek people,
things are going from bad to worse.

Looking at Greek government debt numbers
they would have to have at least 100 billion
of their debt be written off, to make it be
possible to then maybe handle the rest.

However, that would set a serious precedent, which is why that does not appear to happen, while the SAME political powers continue to pump money into the Ukraine, in worse ways. Anyway, on-going deterioration of the Quality of Life for Greeks provoke some to speculate that:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-21/something-revolutionary-air-grexit-insurrection-most-probable-outcome

"Something Revolutionary Is In The Air": Grexit By "Insurrection" Is The "Most Probable" Outcome

My opinion is that Greece will continue muddling through the MADNESS of its situation for quite a few more years. I do not believe that Greece will see any really significant violence in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, IF there is, nothing will be resolved to become any better, but rather, things will continue to overall get worse. Indeed, that is the BASIC PROBLEM, there is no way that Greece could ever get any "better" without radical changes in what "better" meant! In my view, the only ways that things could get better is over the longer term developing better death control systems, which would enable better combined human, industrial and natural ecologies.

However, all of those things are politically impossible at the present time. Therefore, the debt slavery, driving debt insanities, which finally provoke death insanities, seems the practically guaranteed default result. But nevertheless, I do not expect death insanities to get much more dramatically significant in Greece, enough to be called a "revolution" ... at least for several more years ... While I believe that the hidden real reason for that is what I outlined above, that any kinds of old-fashioned violent revolutions would have to be irrational regressions under stress, because no sane people could believe that such violent revolutions would actually end up making things eventually get better, rather than simply speed up how fast they got worse, and how much more worse they would become.

[teslaberry]

slaves cannot achieve meaningful revolution.

haiti had a revolution and the educated slaves who started and 'finished' it reinstated slavery after it was done. literally reinstated it. to this day you have house labor slavery in haiti called by another name.

educated slaves can hope to achieve revolution but they cannot recreate the culture . only free men can.

the question fo the modern peasantry is whether or not they are more capable of being free or more like slaves whose world view is so steeped in the natural rythems of authoritarianism that they can only hope to replace a government without actually changing the methods by which society is self ruled.

i would argue revolution is entirely pointless for most people now. give it another 30-40 years. when people are really starving like in pre-revolutionary france------the promise of bread will actually be useful to a real deprived starving group of people.

the breadvolution is coming.

[Miggy]

Yeah certain things are easy to spot. When laws are passed that you cannot sell food to your neighbors and 10 year old girls selling lemonaid get stopped by grown men who ask them for a permit you know its serious. Family farms that have been selling overstock to the neighbors for generations are suddenly fined means the ship has sailed. Ayn Rand had it right.

Just like everything else, food is a tool to be used for an agenda.

[PoasterToaster]

Maybe the revolution is the effect, not the cause.

[Omega_Man]

What is not mentioned that makes this hard to accept is that Lenin (not his real name), Trotsky, and henchmen were zionists and funded by other zionists. So the whole premise is wrong. The revolution is not caused by people, but these certain people who want it for the purpose of taking even greater control. These are the people who should be fought against. I am surprised that this was missed, making this article crap as this is what is about to come. 

[omniversling]

Search: jewish revolutionary spirit, and see:

Jewish Revolutionary Spirit & Its Impact on World History?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w5eLDVf4QY

An oldie but goodie:

Vladimir Putin: 80 to 85% Jews in 1st Soviet Government - speech in the Jewish Museum of Moscow, June 2013.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4e_1390041026&comments=1

Jewish Media Roundup

?Russian Jewish museum of Tolerance opens? - a celebration of Russian Jewish life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIG_dtBsHw4
Putin’s Jewish embrace: Love, or strategy?
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/71065/putins-jewish-embrace-love-or-...
Russian Chief Rabbi Tells Jews To Back Off on Criticizing Vladimir Putin
http://forward.com/news/183459/russian-chief-rabbi-tells-jews-to-back-of...

Good viewing here:

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Cl8lSv9Is

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (2/2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2nNtynZAiI

How Vladimir Putin came to power (full documentary) Russia 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiZw1R8w-c 

Vladimir Putin Full Length Documentary: The Putin System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Rkom1RpKA

[Niall Of The Ni...]

Syriza wanted power, not socialist revolution. That's just as well.

The only country that was ever treated to real socialism was Democratic Kampuchea, where the Khmer Rouge actually managed to abolish capitalism. Even money was abolished. The Khmer Rouge's secret was that, almost alone among socialist movements, had the courage to stop pretending that a non-market economy was compatible with freedom of thought, a living standard higher than subsistence farming, or a population anywhere near what a capitalist society can support. On the contrary, the Khmer Rouge made murdering anybody who could possibly pose a threat to their rule a top priority---ethnic minorities and anybody with any education at all as well as former "bourgeoisie" or government officials.

After Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge, all Cambodians were marched into the countryside to start a new life as farm workers, forced to do backbreaking work from sunup to sundown. In three years a quarter of Cambodia's population had starved to death or been murdered by the Khmer Rouge for such crimes as asking too many questions or falling asleep during the day. The killing ended only when the Khmer Rouge stupidly started a war with Vietnam that ended with Vietnam's conquering Cambodia and driving the Khmer Rouge into the bush.

Nobody in Cambodia or anywhere else (so far) has made any serious attempt at carrying out the socialist program since then.

[detached.amusement]

I remember my buddy's stories of his older brother being killed by the government

[squid]

The problem with Greece is the same problem everywhere:

1. Retired or soon-to-retire class with assets and savings,

2. The young (under 30) with nothing,

3. The MASSIVE debts ammasses by those in number 1 who expect those in number 2 to pay them off.

The unemployed young have no money in the bank so don't give a fuck if they leave the Euro. The old farts, who saved money by not paying their taxes over the last 30 years but demanded more and more shit from the government, want to stay in the euro and keep their free government shit and saddle the young with the debt.

This same paradigm, more or less, is all over the west.

Squid

[scatha]

Wrong on Greece: There is no revolution in the air just exhaustion but underground is brewing.

Wrong on Syriza: Syriza is not leftist:

https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/greek-odyssey-through-debt/

Wrong on Lenin: He hijacked bourgeoisie revolution of February 1917 when old calcified structure of Tsarist regime, including security agency "OCHRANA" started to collapse. He organized few hungry navy sailors to storm Winter Palace, seat of fresh bourgeoisie government where there were practically no defenses. There was no support for revolution at all even by most of workers. Bolsheviks survived only because they were funded by German bankers after Lenin wanted to end the war.

Wrong on Stalin: Stalin was low level apparatchik he had no interest in politics or ideology. He, brutal bully, came to power thanks to the West that fueled opposition to Bolshevik government by supporting militarily so called "white" army and invading western (British) marines in Odessa and threatening very life and existence of Bolsheviks. Lenin delegated security to Dzerzinsky and later, after Lenin was shot, to Stalin. Most Russians did not want to get involved. The red and white reign of terror was driven by psychotic suspicions and lack of trust in divide society. There was no revolutionary spirit since first workers revolution failed in 1905. What started in 1917 was brutal civil war funded by the Anglo-Saxon West while Bolsheviks were supported by Germans.Check out NEP.

Wrong on revolution itself:

What revolution really is: Popular Revolution and Palace Revolution. Popular Revolution never wins in long term.

No more than 15% or 20% of population make revolutions. What's actually happening in so-called successful revolutions is that remaining 70% withdraw support from ruling elite since they feel their myth of invincibility collapsed, causing ruling elite  and its courtiers to split and fight not 90% of population but factions within elite itself using  divided security forces or military with divided loyalty.

Those who win palace revolution, declare themselves friends of the people and promise reforms that never come. They "invite" some leaders of popular uprising to " share" the power if they betray allegiance to the people one way or another and be satisfied with meaningless gestures and by that fact splitting leadership of popular revolution. Otherwise, they are hunted and executed.

The end of revolution, lasting usually 10 to 20 years, is marked by returning of the same or similar structures of power under different names and propaganda and with somewhat changes personnel who runs it, 70% of population quietly submit to so-called new rule, 20%, true heroes of revolution those most courageous who lost most in the struggle are mercilessly eradicated as enemies of the people.

The true change in society can only be achieved by changing social values and attitudes of society toward power, from fascination to fundamental mistrusts and condemnation we will be stuck in endless loop of struggle, sacrifice and defeat.

Interesting take on conditions of true political change I found at:

https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/regime-change-we-can-...

[StateofFraud]

Nice...

It is a party of those former worshipers of EU with cushy jobs that have been pushed away from the trough, rejected by their fascist EU pals in their quest for greed and left behind to rot. What they wanted is to return to EU bosom to continue to suck her monstrous tits of gluttony.

[falconflight]

Exceptionally cogent post.  Thx for taking the time.

[videinfra]

Stalin a bully. How much you know my history. 

I care to elaborate, but as cowards most of the accusators are, they never accept my invitation on a skype talk to englihten them.  Rather they say ''i know all need to know'' - dumb idiots

[omniversling]

Lenin. A Sealed Train. And 10m Dollars.

"The funny part about the Russian revolution, when it came, is that Lenin was the last to know.
A neighbour in Switzerland stopped by with the news.
Actually, not such good news at first. Lenin couldn’t scrape together the bus fare back to Russia at the time. Moreover, the rest of Europe was at war. So the story recounts the devious dealing between Lenin, a bunch of secret agents and the German Government.
Eventually, Lenin and his entourage were transported back to St Petersburg via Scandinavia in a sealed carriage. For company, Lenin had 10 million dollars from Germany to bring down the Russian Government and to surrender the Russian army in the process. Yes, this was high treason of course and the story of The Sealed Train was kept from Russians for many years."

http://www.thecopydude.com/lenin-a-sealed-train-and-10m-dollars/

[Cheyenne]

"The formula for inertia is p = mv"

Ummm, no. That's the equation for momentum. The equation for inertia is actually I= mr^2.

Mark it zero. Next frame.

[gregga777]

"The equation for inertia is actually I= mr^2."

Actually, that's the equation for Moment of Inertia, for a rotating mass.

[quasi_verbatim]

And so the mathematical conclusion is...?

[williambanzai7]

How many revolutions needed to cook souvlaki?

[omniversling]

Mwaha! Thnx 4 th laff...3 after they're first put on the grill, a Gyro on the other hand...

[Dixie Flatline]

Opa!

[falconflight]

This article lost intellectual credibility upon these planks that have been for the most part Greece since WWII.

• Put an end to austerity and put the Greek economy on a path toward recovery
• Raise the income tax to 75% for all incomes over 500,000 euros, adopt a tax on financial transactions and a special tax on luxury goods.
• Drastically cut military expenditures, close all foreign military bases on Greek soil and withdraw from NATO. End military cooperation with Israel and support the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders.
• Nationalize the banks.
• Enact constitutional reforms to guarantee the right to education, health care and the environment.
• Hold referendums on treaties and other accords with the European Union.

Just not enough redistribution of wealth...Greece can't produce sufficient wealth to even fulfill this mush and tyranny advocated by the author.  That's why Syriza and the Greeks demand further redistribution of the rest of the EU member states TaxPayers, for their tender needs.  End Austerity, what an utter lie.

[TheEndIsNear]

Let's roll.

[cape_royds]

Revolution: is it a question of what one wants? Or is it a question of duty?

Very few people would actually desire a revolution. Especially for those of us who grew up in western developed countries post-WWII, when there was a historically pleasant period of truce between the social classes, a resumption of open class warfare is repugnant.

However, for those of us in the world who do not happen to have control over substantial amounts of capital, it appears that matters are advancing to a point where we might ask ourselves whether we have a duty to revolt.

Is there such a thing as duty? If so, what is it?

Are we so deeply immersed in the ideologies of liberalism and utilitarianism that we cannot conceive ourselves as having any duties, except to honour our contracts, and to pursue cost-benefit advantage as we understand it?

For my part, I am immersed in those ideologies. I am steeped in them, brewed in them, pickled in them. I find it difficult to even ask the question of duty, let alone to answer it.

Nevertheless I can declare that if one expects to have a clear-cut cost-benefit case in favour of a revolution, then one will never be able to revolt. If one is more interested in winning than in fighting, then one will never be able to revolt.

[stock market loser]

America is a powder keg waiting to explode. What happens when millions of americans are unemployed and armed. Interesting times we live in.  Someday americans are going to say "enough is enough" and start something. 

[shouldvekilledthem]

Bitcoin is the only ongoing revolution. :)

[sagitarius]

I can follow you and agree with you under one condition:

you turn the BTC into a S&W.

[jack stephan]

My cousin was a purple gang bootlegger, after he got shot in the arm and it went to bob dole status he escaped constant misses he had a certain attitude, he played ball and eventually became a fire captain.   I admired it, he did so much, too much, he should be dead.  Few times over, easy, pissed everyone off.  All i have is tapes and stories, i heard dean martin was a early driver on the liquor circuit, they said he was a good sneaky driver but such and endless smartass.  Thats neither here nor there.

my cousin could get down and boogie anytime, granted he took a million hits, and he did, limp hand, limp arm. If he could find peace, hell take it, he never got it, dynamite under the stoop of his house wasnt great to feel safe.

but he had limits.  LIMITS....You hit those limits and thats it. THATS IT............... I would expect as any man, eventually death sounds like a family reunion with a dreamy space waterslide.  kinda like bill and teds and contact had a afterlife baby.

greeks should boobytrap every square inch of anything the bankers want.  If that doesnt work, then go to brussels .....what they do is up to their imagination..

its dinner but im going to make steak and eggs, later, do or die greece and if youre able import guns. 

[Cold-Pragmatism]

Mr. Orlov,

Everybody else seems to be doing a pretty good job in tearing your piece apart. Your article is filled with so many errors and ommissions its mind boggling. I'm not going to touch anything that everybody else is destroying pretty convincingly, so I'm going touch on one thing that you got horribly wrong, Islam.

1. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as “People of the Scripture.”

The Koran ONLY recognizes the religions of The Book, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam. Yazidism is not neither of these, it is actually a throw back religion that is an off shoot that once was Zoroastrianism. That's why Yazidis are considered infidels to Muslims, they are not of The Book, not even Zoroastrianism.

2. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

Women's rights are not questioned under Islam. Islam strictly observers women's rights! The question is what those rights are under Islam!

3. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

There are many verses but I will pick one from each, the Koran, and the Hadith.

From the Koran (8:39):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”

From the Hadith, Bukhari (8:387):

"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

4. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of mutilation:

"...they argue that Muslims can resort to mutilation if the enemy mutilates the bodies of Muslims or if it is in the interest
of Muslims, that is, if it will lead to winning the war."

and...

"Based on these clear and specific commands of the Prophet, the majority of the jurists maintain this strict prohibition of mutilation and torture. However, some jurists hold that mutilation is reprehensible rather than totally prohibited. Hence, they argue that Muslims can resort to mutilation if the enemy mutilates the bodies of Muslims or if it is in the interest of Muslims, 94 that is, if it will lead to winning the war."

5. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of Destruction of Property:

"However, according to the second group, the majority of the jurists including Ab? H?an?fah, Ab? Y?suf, al- Shayb?n?, al- Sh?fi??, M?lik, and Ibn H?azm, it is permissible to cause destruction to enemy property during the course of fighting. Ab? Y?suf, al- Sh?fi??, and the M?lik? jurists reconciled the contradiction by arguing that Ab? Bakr gave these commands prohibiting the destruction of enemy property because he, they allege, knew that the Muslims would win the battle and so did not want to damage enemy property because he hoped it would be spoils for the Muslims. Nevertheless, Ibn H?azm accepts Ab? Bakr’s prohibition but argues that following this prohibition is optional and, for him, both permitting and prohibiting the destruction of property are acceptable."

6. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat Christians or any “People of the Scripture.”

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of The Justifications of War in the Koran:

"a Muslim is one who submits to, and obeys, God. In this sense, earlier prophets, such as Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus, are also referred to in the Qur’?n as Muslims.  Thus, Jews, Christians, Sabaeans, and Zoroastrians share with Muslims at least their belief in, and submission to, God. They are referred to in Islamic discourse as ahl al- kit?b, People of the Book. Therefore, contrary to what Martin claims,  Islam treats specifically Judaism and Christianity “not as ‘other religions’ but as itself.”

This means, Jews and Christians must follow Islamic Law too!

7. Jihad in Islam is a purely defensive struggle. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and the right rules of conduct.

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of Juridical Justifications for War:

"the terms used in the definitions here, such as “fighting against unbelievers,” “in the path of God,” or “to raise the word of God,” have all contributed to the misrepresentation of jih?d by some as holy war against non- Muslims. But the jurists agree that there are two kinds of jih?d: jih?d al- daf ? (defensive war), which is a fard. ?ayn (personal duty of every capable person), and jih?d al- ? t alab (offensive or preemptive war initiated by Muslims in non- Muslim territories), which is a fard. kif?yah (collective duty on the Muslims, which may be fulfilled if sufficient numbers perform it). Jih?d becomes a fard. ?ayn when the enemy invades Muslim territory, while it is a fard. kif?yah if it occurs outside Muslim territory."

In short, there are two kinds of Jihad, the defensive and the offensive kind.

8. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats — hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

Journalists and aid workers do not carry Diplomatic Passports!

9. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of Juridical Justifications for War:

"d?r al- h ? arb refers to territories in which these criteria are lacking. According to the first definition, it is a territory where Islamic law is not applied or where it is not safe to profess belief in Islam or perform prayers. According to the second definition, d?r al- h ? arb is a territory ruled by non- Muslims, while for the third definition it is a territory in which the laws of Islam cannot be applied or exist and in which Muslims and dhimmis are not safe. In other words, it is a territory in which freedom of religion does not exist and the lives of Muslims and dhimmis are not safe. Thus, the classifications of d?r al- h ? arb and d?r al- Isl?m refer to the existence or nonexistence of safety and peace, specifically the freedom of Muslims to apply and practice Islamic law.  It is worth adding here that calling a territory d?r al- h ? arb “did not mean actual fighting,”  but it clearly indicated a potential state of hostility, enmity, or war in cases when territories did not belong to the d?r al- Isl?m and did not have a peace treaty or alliance with it, and specifically if Islamic law could not be applied, Muslims were not safe to profess their belief in Islam and perform prayer, and the lives of Muslims and dhimmis were imperiled."

It all depends whether or not your nation allows Muslims to pratice Sharia Law!

10. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a Caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

There is no democracy in a Caliphate. This is an absolute rubbish statement. Read it for yourself:

From the book, "The Islamic Law of War", on the topic of Internal Hostilities and Terrorism:

"...what is also important here is that, since the establishment by the Prophet of a state in Medina, Muslims remained politically unified by an Islamic identity under one or more leaders in one form or another until the abolition of the Caliphate on March 3, 1924.  According to the jurists, the main duties of the Muslim head of state include the protection of the religion of Islam and the interests of the nation, as well as the initiation of war. 4 Hence, Muslim jurists agree that appointing a head of state is a fard kif?yah (a collective duty on the Muslim nation). On the basis of specific precedents in the early Islamic history, jurists give four methods for choosing the head of state: first, choosing the head of state by ahl al- h ? all wa al- ?aqd and the general public, following the precedent of the appointment of the first caliph, Ab? Bakr (r. 632–634); second, designation of the head of state by his predecessor, on the basis of Ab? Bakr’s designation of his successor, the second caliph ?Umar ibn al- Khat?t??b (r. 634/644); third, choosing the head of state from a number of candidates nominated by the previous head of state, as happened in the case of the appointment of the third caliph, ?Uthm?n ibn ?Aff?n (r. 644–656), who was chosen from among six candidates nominated by the second caliph; and, more importantly here, fourth, the usurpation of power or coup d’ état, for which the precedent is the coup by ?Abd al- Malik ibn Marw?n (r. 685– 705) against ?Abd Allah ibn al- Zubayr 6 (d. 73/692), who was killed in battle in 73/692."

_________________

Every single item on that list is wrong. This list has been floating around the internet for quite some time. IT IS FALSE. Mr. Orlov, you are incompetent!

NB: excuse the many ??? in the quotes, it is too much work to get the font issues right. But I think you know what goes there, its pretty obvious ['` etc].

People you should understand this about Islam. Islam is NOT ONLY a religion. It is a calling where people must live in a certain way. It is a political, sociological and religious duty. And it is incompatable with Western Society. Islam requires Muslims to obey Sharia Law, even in countries who have a legal system already in place, and conflicts with it. Thus ANY COUNTRY THAT HAS A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW SHARIA LAW IS BY DEFINITION IN CONFLICT WITH ISLAM, AND THUS JIHAD (THE OFFENSIVE KIND OF JIHAD AS OPPOSED TO DEFENSIVE JIHAD) CAN BE USED!

[smacker]

All you're saying is that Islam makes up the rules as it goes along.

No surprise there.

IME all religions are stuffed full of hypocrisy and double standards, Islam more than most.

If something is not allowed under Islam, then they simply redefine what it is that's not allowed to allow whatever it is they want to do. Presto.

[Cold-Pragmatism]

No, what I am saying, is that there is a culture of appeasers out in the world who will appease anything. That list of 10 Islamic items is being pushed by unrealistic socialistic fools, who can't deal with reality.

That's is part of the problem we have on this world. Too much appeasement for uncomfortable issues, like Islam being incompatable with Western culture.

Political Correctness is just another word for appeasement. Some things can't be appeased, they have to be dealt with head on, and even sometimes with hard disliked measures. 

Islam is not a religion, it is a social engineering system for tyrants, with a subcontext that uses religion, and it has to be dealt with. For Islam has NO ROOM for anything but its own law, Sharia Law. It is time the West faced that reality.

[smacker]

ok. I agree with all that.

I generally prefer to use terms like "in denial" and "ignoring the elephant in the room" to describe how so many people -- at all levels of society -- avoid dealing with reality. It always comes back to bite.

As you allude to, it is a very serious societal problem which sits alongside another very serious problem: "group-think".

[smacker]

Caption to image of Joe Stalin: "Good old Uncle Joe.
The kids loved him"

This is something that a lot people miss. Many of the most evil murdering despots in modern history have a side to their character which is warm and appealing to vast numbers of people, even kids. It is always the way with psychopaths and is all part of the cleverly constructed façade which people fall for.

Who-da-thunk these two animals were personally responsible for the torture, slave laboring and murder of millions of innocent people:

pol pot  --- comrade duch kymer rouge torturer in chief

[fr0thing]

True. It is also widely known that women overhelmingly supported Hitler (I hate to use the Hitler example but it's apropos here).

[fr0thing]

True. It is also widely known that women overhelmingly supported Hitler (I hate to use the Hitler example but it's apropos here).

[Optimusprime]

Orlov skates lightly over the ethnic angle of the Bolshevik movment--it was Jewish.  It was not "bigotry" that made laws restricting Jews--it was healthy instinct for self-preservation--something Jews never forgive nor forget. 

The immigration crisis in the US is also a Jewish-led movement, ideologically.  All the "diverse" multicultural" crap to dispossess white Christians.

[quasi_verbatim]

Red Terror, perpetrators thereof:

Well skated over.

[videinfra]

Zerohedge, by stating ''thanks to Uncle Joe, so-called “red terror”'' you just showed me how shallow your knowledge in the history of my land are. 

Sincerely a Rus from Donbass 

[atlasRocked]

Why is everyone suprised the socialists in Europe are fiscally sodomizing the Greeks with debt?

Socialists TEACH that debt shuffling to less influential citizens is ok, we see this in practice now:  What do you think the national debt represents?   It is the handing of the bills for socialism to future citizens with less power - the unborn can't vote against this debt being handed to them.  And US colleges are teaching kids not to question this Crime of the Century - billing the unborn for current expenses.

[newsoutlet]

" so-called “red terror”"

I would not name it "so-called" because it was THE RED TERROR:

https://youtu.be/oVZjyyAE-78

[smacker]

I think the number slaughtered by the Soviet Union is estimated at closer to 30 million, not 10 million in the movie. People are aware of their appalling conduct.

And I don't think Putin is a Soviet Union commie. If anything he leans towards 21st century fascism, like many in the West.

[Dixie Flatline]

The author gets a basic newtonian physics concept wrong.  p=mv is the equation to calculate momentum, which is a vector.  Inertia is not.  

1 star.

[detached.amusement]

yeah, the bible is exceptionally ignorant with regard to physics.  why are you even posting dumb things?

Hello to the concept of a TENSOR...

[fr0thing]

I dunno. This article is filled with contradictions. I mean based on his definition of what makes a revolution the rise of the Nazis in Germany was a Revolution, but he neglects to mention that. As for ISIS how many high-ranking government officials or opposing generals have they executed?

[fr0thing]

I dunno. This article is filled with contradictions. I mean based on his definition of what makes a revolution the rise of the Nazis in Germany was a Revolution, but he neglects to mention that. As for ISIS how many high-ranking government officials or opposing generals have they executed?