The 100 Days of Bill Shorten, PM

Comedy…or reality…gold?

Michael Copeman lets you decide.

Australians opt for the shorter of two options on July 2. What follows brings delight in industrial quantities to wind-turbine operators, gay-studies faculties and a Cecil B. deMille cast of rent-seekers, revenuers, republicans, grievance mongers and social engineers

With just a 4% two-party-preferred swing on 2nd July, William Richard Shorten could become the 30th prime minister of Australia. Let us pause to imagine what the first 100 days of his ALP Government might bring. Remember, what follows is only imaginary — for now.

Ten days in, with the last marginal seat finally declared, the new Parliament is convened urgently to pass a Bill for Marriage Equality. Two ALP Members threaten to resign rather than vote for the bill, but are persuaded not to bring down the Shorten Government, and decide to abstain instead. The bill passes and is celebrated by an impromptu Mardi Gras parade the following weekend. The PM is enthroned on the first float — a hero to the ecstatic 1 million-strong crowd, lining the full length of Sydney’s famous Oxford Street. Several churches indicate they will now be referring all couples to non-religious wedding celebrants, thus avoiding entrapment by gay provocateurs pounding on their doors and demanding to be united in accordance with the law’s dictates.

The new PM also foreshadows that there will be a referendum (not a plebiscite) to make Australia a republic, via the “minimal” change of making the Governor-General the President, in late 2016. If passed, it is planned to swear in Australia’s first President on 26th January, 2017, “Invasion” Day, thereby disavowing the shame of British colonisation and genocide.

Two weeks in, new Treasurer Chris Bowen reveals that the state of the government’s books is much worse than what was forecast in Scott Morrison’s budget of May 3. In a joint press conference, Bowen and Shorten outline their plan for new taxes to balance the budget within three years. Shorten renews his promise that no government spending will be cut in the process.

The discount on taxation of capital gains from longer-term investments is to be scrapped, and from 2018 the family home will be subject to the capital-gains tax. Bowen says the discount and family-home exemption allowed the rich to get richer. The change is projected to raise $2 billion a year.

Federal death duties are also brought in, confiscating 40% of estates over $1 million. Shorten points out that this is similar to the inheritance tax in the UK, under a Conservative government. He notes that the tax will “level the playing field”, previously tipped in favour of wealthy Australians who often inherit untaxed property worth millions. This change is projected to raise $1 billion a year initially, assuming house prices don’t drop markedly as a result of sudden divestments by older people. The following Saturday, record low auction clearances are reported for homes in all Australia’s major cities except Hobart.

Because 2015 was officially the hottest year on record, Shorten says his government has decided to act urgently to reintroduce a Carbon Tax at $25/tonne. This is projected to raise $7billion a year, with $2 billion will be paid back in subsidies to ensure that poorer Australians are not disadvantaged. The measure is aimed to rapidly reduce Australia’s still-high CO2 output per capita. As a result, airfares rise by 10-15%, but this won’t affect politicians or public servants’ travel.

The Medicare levy — which has only ever covered part of Australia’s growing health expenditure — is to be doubled from 2% to 4% for taxpayers earning over $50,000. This will raise $5 billion, which will be spent on health — the majority going to the states to keep their public hospital systems running.

Finally, Federal Government funding to private schools charging fees of more than $5,000 a year is to be discontinued. It is estimated that $2 billion per year will be saved, the promise being that it will be ploughed back into education. Champagne corks pop in gender-, womyns- and gay-studies faculties across the country, where Safe Schools 2.0 lesson plans materialise overnight.

The ASX 200 plunges 10% in its first day of full trading after all this news, with resources and energy stocks plunging up to 50%. But shares in renewable energy companies soar an average of 150% as rent-seekers dust off schemes for wave generators, solar farms, “promising” battery technologies and a wind turbine on every hill. Unfortunately, almost all will be imported. On cold, clear but windless nights around Southern Australia, power costs will soar as high-cost gas-burning plants come on line to make up the missing energy.

Coal companies announce plans to phase out their Australia operations. All steel mills, aluminium and nickel refineries in Australia are to close within two years. The price of standard unleaded petrol at the bowser begins to rise, widely expected to hit $2 a litre within six months.

Fortunately for some Australian oil and LNG producers, a re-drawn treaty with East Timor has moved the huge Sunrise seabed field into East Timorese territory, exempt from Australia’s carbon tax. The producers and the East Timorese are both very grateful.

The next week, Australia’s first indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney — newly elected in the redrawn Sydney seat of Barton — announces that she is working on a treaty to be signed on behalf the government of Australia and all Australians with indigenous blood. She envisages that the Treaty will include reparations – probably in the order of $10 billion (given the $3 billion projected total cost of the Maori reparation program in New Zealand). More significantly, the treaty will re-create individual indigenous territories across Australia, each to have their own law-making parliament, elected exclusively by Australians with indigenous blood from that region.

Ms Burney indicates that it could be important for completion of Australia’s reconciliation process if the Aboriginal flag were also to be chosen as the new Australian flag. Another plebiscite on the flag (to be held along with the Republic referendum) is announced for late 2016.

Deputy PM and Minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, unveils a landmark Equality at Work Bill, which will require that at least 50% of the employees at all levels of any organisation be women, and that the take-home pay of female employees, averaged across all employees in all departments and jobs, be no lower than that of males. Companies that fail to meet these targets within five years will be subject to higher corporate taxes.

Two weeks later, the new Australian Union Powers Bill is unveiled by the PM himself. This Bill gives union organisers rights to enter any workplace in Australia, to inspect which workers are there (and check their Union membership), and review corporate employment and pay documents. Where Union organisers find any discrepancies, the company’s executives may be ordered to a compulsory meeting, chaired by a Fair Work Australia official with “relevant” union experience. The ASX slumps another 10%.

Richard Marles, Minister for Immigration, announces that all detention centres are to be closed, and Australia will provide reception centres in Indonesian ports for asylum-seekers considering taking sea voyages to Australia. To satisfy the ALP’s left factions, and the crucial Green Senators, all would-be immigrants will be flown to Australia on chartered commercial flights and housed “in the community”. Coincidentally, much of this housing is in marginal seats, with cynics noting that the influx of new arrivals can mostly be expected to vote Labor. Airline shares – which fell 50% after the carbon tax announcement – now rise 100% on this news.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Health, Catherine King, announces plans to re-nationalise Medibank Private, and compulsorily take over all other private health insurers. She notes that Australia’s Medicare system is the envy of countries round the world, and that the Government is determined to see all Australians participate in Medicare, rather than a divisive two-tier public/private system.

Within a fortnight, a million Australians drop their private health insurance. Struggling private hospital operators call for urgent talks regarding buy-back of their facilities by the Government. Government spokesmen note that private hospitals were the domains of “the rich” and the move is intended to promote “fairness”.

During a quick trip to the United Nations HQ in New York, Bill Shorten announces that Australia will be backing his former boss, Kevin Rudd’s candidacy for UN Secretary-General. Only this way, Shorten states, can Australia’s reputation as a decent, progressive and fair-minded country be restored. Kevin promises to come and visit Australia within six months of his election as Secretary-General.

In London, the PM and his wife dine with Her Majesty and HRH Sir Philip at Buckingham Palace, and assure them that Australians will always have a soft spot in their hearts for the Monarchy, even after the likely passing of the referendum to create the minimalist model Australian Republic shortly. Bill and Chloe tweet a selfie from the Queen’s private dining room at the Palace to their many followers. The Duke of Edinburgh is heard to mutter something characteristically colourful about the noxious nature of short people

Over the next three weeks, Bill and Chloe visit and meet with national leaders in Washington, Berlin, New Delhi, Beijing and Jakarta. President Obama notes that Bill Shorten reminds him a lot of himself just eight years ago. Hillary Clinton is too busy fending off investigations looking into her use of a private email server but sends him a best-wishes message.

The PM finally arrives back in Melbourne just 98 days after election. Working late in his office on the 99th night of his prime ministership, he hears a knock on his door. Deputy PM Plibersek enters with some bad news. As Shorten remembers it later, the words of another ousted Labor PM came back to him and he recalls that, as Julia Gillard once did, she walked in ‘ice cold, ice cold’.

The next day, Australia had yet another new Prime Minister.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/imaginary-first-hundred-days-shorten-government/

Advertisements

John Dickson: Hugh “…Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised.”

It’s blindingly foolish to claim that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus are different.

For anyone who missed the easily understood story: Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is God, period.

Yet it’s become “a thing” to talk about how Jesus wants us to be compassionate to one another which is really a way of saying “Hey Christian, shut your mouth about God and truth but open your wallet and pay to fix all the problems that godless people have created.”

No surprises but that sounds a heck of a lot like Communism. If you can’t see it though, don’t strain yourself.

Frankly, either you quote Jesus on God’s judgment on the godless and the establishment of his rule over the nations or you don’t get to quote him.

You can’t ignore the topics Jesus speaks predominantly on – like judgment on the Godless, the lake of fire, the coming kingdom of God where Jesus rules the nations – in favour of the ones that atheistic Marxisxs accept to further their dominance in Western society.

Nonetheless, on a regular basis someone who totally rejects the biblical scriptures and Jesus own testimony of who he is will come out and attempt to tell all of us exactly why Jesus only cares about social justice issues and how to treat people.

Welcome to the May 2016 edition of that farce.

For good measure, here is a great response to said farce:

To suggest Jesus never told anyone what to believe in is not only historically wrong, it misses the essential connection between what we believe and how we treat others, writes John Dickson.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival yesterday, the much loved social commentator and author of The Good Life and Beyond Belief Hugh Mackay opined about the teacher at the root of Western ethics: “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

My colleagues in the room – experts on this stuff – raised an eyebrow. The festival social media department thought the remark worthy of an immediate verbatim tweet.

Who knows whether Mackay’s words were a throwaway line or studied aphorism. But they are inaccurate in the extreme, both as a religious statement and as a historical one. Mackay may come from the modern school of thought that says that religion is not really a proper field of study. Anyone is therefore allowed a firm view without reference to “experts”. I mean, how can someone be an expert in something that doesn’t exist? And so on.

But forget religion. What about history? What do our first-century texts say Jesus said? I’ll spare you the long list, but what struck me once I gave this five minutes’ thought is the way almost all of the paradigmatic statements in the Gospels urge beliefs as the logical basis of ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel opens with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The most famous sermon of Jesus, in other words, begins with a reminder that he is not just looking for moral riches but a humble recognition of our moral poverty as the key that unlocks the door to God’s kingdom. There’s a bit of belief in there.

Or consider the opening words of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel”. There’s that pesky “kingdom” stuff again, and a call to believe it all – as “gospel”.

Luke’s Gospel is often thought to contain the most “ethical Jesus”, with loads and loads of material about caring for the poor, being a Good Samaritan, and all that. The opening manifesto of Jesus in Luke declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners … to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” As so often in the Gospels, God’s grace and favour are the drivers of the grace and favour we are meant to show others.

What about the fourth Gospel? John has Jesus sum up the work of God in this way: Jesus says, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit.

Of course, a sceptic like Hugh Mackay might reply that these key passages represent the opinions of the Gospel writers not Jesus. Jesus, he might suggest, is authentically heard only in the humanitarian stuff about “loving enemies” and “turning the other cheek”. But maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the real Jesus only ever banged on about believing theological stuff, and it was the Gospel writers who invented the ethical material Mackay prefers. That’s the point: Mackay is just picking and choosing.

In truth, neither caricature is likely. Everywhere you look, Jesus appears to have endorsed the old-fashioned idea which Mackay wants us to abandon: namely, that what you believe about ultimate things impacts how you think you should treat others.

Two further examples bear this out clearly. When asked by an expert in the Jewish tradition, “Which is the greatest commandment?” Jesus replied that there were actually two great commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself.” Like it or not, Jesus probably thought the religious hypocrite was in exactly the same position as the moral agnostic. The former cares for God but ignores people; the latter cares for people but ignores the source of all reality. Jesus would have condemned both.

And when Jesus himself summarised all his beautiful sayings about “love your enemies”, “do good to those who hate you”, and “turn the other cheek”, he concluded the speech with, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here we find the inner logic of all that Jesus taught about ethics: it is precisely because mercy is at the heart of God that it is also the central ethical principle of the universe.

I am almost tempted to say that Jesus never taught people “how to treat each other” without grounding it in stuff we are “meant to believe” about ultimate things, including God and his kingdom.

Read charitably, Hugh Mackay is trying to open up an important discussion about the role of “beliefs” – or fundamental convictions – in shaping ethics. Jesus is a bad example to use, but I agree it’s a vital public conversation to have.

Personally, I reckon Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised. It seems obvious to him that we should be humble, love our enemies, and show compassion to the destitute. But, historically, these things were connected with religious ideas in the West about the inestimable value of human beings made in God’s image, the love and mercy of God for all, and so on. These particular morals – humility, love, etc – played no role in the ethics of Greece and Rome for the simple reason that Greeks and Romans did not believe that everyone was made in God’s image or that God loved everyone the same. Their different beliefs led to different moral emphases.

I would love to see a genuine debate about whether one can logically justify an ethic of love, humility, and compassion – things Mackay admires so much – without appealing to the “kingdom of heaven” Jesus spoke so much about. I don’t think we can. I think it’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit rather than a logical match between fundamental realities and human ethics. I could be wrong, but it’s a debate that needs to be had. And if we’re going to have it, important public intellectuals like Hugh Mackay need to do better than give us quotable memes like “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

Mackay’s sad hope will not comfort him or anyone else when Jesus is established on the throne of the nations and executes long deserved judgment on everyone who refuses to belief exactly what the Truth proclaims is truth.

Do yourself a favour and get to know Jesus for yourself – he cares infinitely more about your future than Hugh Mackay does.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/dickinson-can-we-love-our-enemies-in-a-godless-world/7433288

A Vote For Australian Labor Is A Vote For Incremental Homosexual Totalitarianism And Radical Government Over-Reach 

Good news if you like police states because there’s a 50-50 chance Australia will take one big leap towards it at our coming July 2nd election: all you need to do is vote for Labor.

Now, you may be supportive of homosexuality and redefining the only definition of marriage in all history but before you leap at the following proposal, just imagine the day when such a ploy is used against you because, guaranteed, it will come.

Government always seeks more power and while today they target the enemies of homosexuality, tomorrow they will target other enemies…and maybe you will eventually find yourself on their list when it is too late to do anything.

Given that just over 60% of Australians identify as Christians (compared to the 2-3% of homosexuals), will Christians be getting our own discrimination commissioner from labor?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Here’s the bad news:

Labor has announced it will appoint an LGBTI discrimination commissioner to the Australian Human Rights Commission if it wins government in July.

Senator Penny Wong announced plans in Melbourne on Saturday morning for a full-time, dedicated commissioner to champion the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex people.

She said the move would help ensure LGBTI Australians feel safer and more included in society.

“The commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces and communities are free from discrimination, continuing Labor’s tradition of removing discrimination and creating a more fair, more equal Australia,” Ms Wong said.

Senator Wong said the person appointed to the job would have a big task ahead of them.

“The simple truth is we’re not equal … and whilst great progress has been made in the fight for a fairer Australia, our fight is far from over,” she said.

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex Australians continue to face discrimination in so many areas of their life.

“The impact of this discrimination is real and it can be deadly.”

Senator Wong said discrimination also included state-sanctioned discrimination and reiterated that the Opposition would legislate for same sex marriage in the first 100 days of the next Parliament if elected.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-21/election-2016-labor-promises-lgbti-discrimination-commissioner/7434660

Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party

Dinesh D’Souza has plenty of useful things to say and I’m guessing his next film about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats will be well worth a look.

https://vimeo.com/163506100

Dinesh D’Souza: This has been a quite eventful year for me. I just got married a couple of weeks ago, by the way. Thank you. And my wife, Debbie, is here. I had actually asked her – she’s a singer — and I’d asked her if she’d sing before I spoke, but she said, “No, I’ve actually got a better offer. I’m going to be singing tonight at dinner.” So she’s obviously getting a bit too big for her boots, but she’ll be performing tonight, and you’ll have a chance to hear her and I hope meet her.

It’s been eventful for me in other ways. As some of you know, I completed eight months of overnight penance in a confinement center for my sins against the campaign finance laws. Now, I don’t want to go into all that, but I just want to say it’s taught me a couple of things I want to begin with. The first thing I realized is that it got me to think hard about the issue of justice because if we think about it, modern liberalism and particularly the Democratic Party, builds its whole argument on the basis of justice. Very often we, as Republicans or as conservatives or as libertarians, we appeal to a rival principle. And that principle is freedom. And so we get into this political struggle, and we play the king, freedom, but then they play the ace, justice, and then they win the hand. Why? Because justice is actually the primary virtue of any society. Freedom does not trump it.

In fact, in some sense, freedom is subordinate to justice. Why? Because freedom is a principle that has a good and a bad side. In other words, we can always think of reasonable deprivations of freedom. People are deprived of freedom all the time, not just kids but adults. But there is no such thing as good injustice. Injustice is always bad. And also, injustice makes the blood boil in a way that deprivations of freedom don’t.

So the reason I say this is because it seems to me that conceding the issue of justice to the Democrats, to the left, is a very dangerous political strategy. I, of course, got my own taste of this in the peculiar field of criminal justice. And of course, did I exceed the campaign finance law? Yes, I did. But right at the same time my case was migrating through the courts, another guy, another Asian Indian guy named Chuck Wall – we Asian Indians appear to specialize in the campaign finance violation area. Well, in any event, this dude gave $180,000.00 in straw donations to Hillary Clinton and a whole slew of Democrats – by the way, I gave $20,000.00 over the limit. I got eight months of confinement in this center that’s under the bureau of prisons of the Obama Administration. Chuck Wall got nothing. He got a fine and some community service. No prison, no confinement. So obviously, justice isn’t just a matter of “you break the law,” but was the penalty proportioned to the crime? Did other guys who did the same thing get roughly the same penalty?  

In any event, I find myself in this remarkable confinement center, which, by the way, is not kind of a white collar prison. It’s, in some ways, worse because in white collar prison, it’s basically mayors and dentists and doctors who defrauded Medicare, and I’m told they have an activities director. But a confinement center is a transition point for all criminals to go back to society. And so, if you did attempted murder and served 15 years or you were a drug smuggler or a coyote, you go to the confinement center before you go back to the street. So I had the whole gamut of hoodlums for about eight months. And initially, it was, I have to admit, a little bit of a terrifying experience because it was primarily Hispanic; it’s on the Mexican border. A lot of these guys are in groups and gangs, and the gang structure is kind of byzantine because even among the Mexicans, who are the majority, there are the U.S. Mexicans, who are called south-siders; there are the Mexicans from Mexico. So I thought to myself, I can’t talk to this guy; that guy’s going to want to kill me. So I kept to myself. I considered, but rejected, the idea of starting my own gang, the Asian Indian gang.

But after a couple of months, I thought to myself, look, I can’t do this. I need a different approach because I’m a conservative in a place where conservatives rarely go. I mean, I’m not going to walk down the confinement center and run into George Will or Charles Krauthammer. It’s kind of a unique spot. I’m an anthropologist in a strange land. So let me investigate, and so I began to talk to people. And eight months later, I must say, I’ve learned a lot about what I’m going to call the ideology of the criminal underclass. The ideology of the criminal underclass I previously was kind of unfamiliar with. I mainly got my ideas on the subject from the Shawshank Redemption. So I expected most of these guys to vehemently insist on their own innocence. But I discovered, in getting to know them, that most of these guys have a different view, a rather more nuanced and somewhat more interesting view. And that view is that we did it. We’re guilty. But we are the small fry. We are actually the stupid criminals because that’s why we’re here; we got caught. The big fry never get caught. The big fry are at large and the system doesn’t go after them because, as it turns out, they run the system.  

Now, this got me scratching my head because one thing I realized is that this ideology, if you call it – by the way, by no means unique to the criminal class. It’s also the ideology of the philosopher Machiavelli. Writing about the ancients, Machiavelli says that their mistake is that they focus on imagined powers and principalities, which have never in truth been known to exist. In other words, what Machiavelli’s saying is we focus on the world as it ought to be. And this is also a political debate: things ought to be this way, they ought to be that way. But Machiavelli’s point is, let’s look at the world as it actually is. Let’s look at the world in the face straight on. And that’s a perspective that I had not fully comprehended before, and here’s what I mean by that.  

I have tended, as most conservatives, most of us who are in the conservative intellectual class, we look at American politics as a debate. It’s a debate between two sides, and these two sides have rival ideologies, and they stand for one thing, and we stand for another thing. And we believe in freedom and they believe in social justice. And we believe in equality of rights and they believe in equality of outcomes and blah, blah, blah. Now, the ideology of the criminals is that this whole way of looking at the world is nonsense. People aren’t motivated in reality by debates. People are actually motivated by things like avarice and lust and hatred and revenge and fear, and that those are the real motives of human existence, and those are the real motives of politics. And so politics must be understood that way. And so I began to think about Obama and about Hillary and about what’s going on in American politics.  

And again, we’re always trying to educate the other side. We have all kinds of conferences. This is all part of what can be called the ongoing Obama education project. We’re trying to show Obama the way the world really is. “Hey, Obama, we want to remind you that Vladimir Putin used to be a KGB officer.” “Hey, Obama, if the Iranian mullahs say they want to build a bomb, they probably do.” “Hey, Obama, confiscatory tax rates are not good for economic growth.” Well, this elaborate educational project has now been going on for eight years with what can only be described as hopeless results. Obama is an unbelievably slow learner. Why? Not because he’s a dummy, no; because he’s about something else. Something else is going on. And I want to try to put my finger on what that is. In a sense what I wanted to argue is that the progressives – one reason we look at foreign policy — they don’t understand this, they don’t understand that. Well, why not? Why don’t they understand this? Why wouldn’t Hillary take the Benghazi phone calls? Why did she set up a private server? How do we explain the underlying rationale for why intelligent people would do these things?  

I want to argue or suggest – and I argue the case more fully in my book – that the progressives are about a very serious business, and that is the business of stealing America. Stealing America. Now what does that mean? Does that mean take over the federal government, the $3 trillion of the U.S. economy? No. Does it mean taking over the entire economy? $17 or $19 trillion of wealth? No. Think about what is the most valuable thing that the world has ever produced. Is it the telegraph? Is it the automobile? Is it the airplane? The computer? No. The most valuable thing – I’m not talking about an idea. I’m talking about an actual thing – that the world has ever produced is the United States of America. The entire wealth of the whole country, all the land and all the stuff and all the money in all your bank accounts and all in your savings accounts and all the furniture in your home and your TV, add it all up. It’s about $75 trillion. That is the biggest stash of dough ever accumulated in world history. And naturally, thieves are extremely interested.  

Now, in my view, what’s going on in America today is there is a vicious battle between two groups of people for control of that wealth. By the way, the progressives aren’t about – they aren’t socialists. If you really think about it, they’re way too lazy to be socialists because a socialist is about the government controlling the means of production. It’s about the government going and drilling for oil in Midland, Texas. You think Bernie Sanders wants to drill for oil in Midland, Texas? No! He wants the people in Midland to drill the oil, and then put it into barrels and then label it, and then he wants to step in and control what happens to it. So what’s going on is that we have wealth created in America and we have a sly, clever, powerful group of people — not all of them in politics, some of them in the media, some of them in academia — and they want to get their hands on that wealth. They want to control it. They want your wealth. They don’t just want to raise your tax rate from 39 percent to 42. They want to take your stuff. All of it.  

Now, I want to pivot because I want to talk a little bit about our situation. We often in conferences talk about what’s the problem, but we don’t focus on what actually can be done. What can I do? What can you do to frontally attack this problem? And I want to say a little word about that. We’re obviously in an election year, and a great deal hinges on the election. But I remember two years ago, a great deal hinged on the midterm election and lots of people would say to me, “Well, what do you think? The Republicans are going to take the Senate.” Well, the Republicans took the Senate, control both the House and the Senate, and not a whole lot changed. Well, why not? Well because Boehner’s a wimp and McConnell’s a wimp. But why are they wimps? Do they want Obama to succeed? In my view, no. They’re wimps because they’re terrified of the media. They know that the media can destroy them. And I don’t just mean expose them. I mean, comedians will ridicule them, and they will become laughing stocks, and then they won’t even be invited by David Horowitz to speak at his conference. Our own side will bury them. They know that. Another way of saying it is, I’m saying that while we have — and David is by no means guilty of this; he’s been part of the solution here — but most conservatives focus on the election in a huddle in one corner of the battlefield. And the left has taken over the powerful, I won’t just say “institutions” of our culture. They’ve taken over all the big megaphones. So Hollywood is a huge megaphone. Broadway is a pretty big megaphone. The left controls the whole structure of American comedy. They’ve got Bill Maher, they’ve got Colbert, they’ve got Jon Stewart. Who do we have? Pretty much nobody, nobody and nobody. We’ve seeded this ground. They control the universities. The more elite the university, the stronger is their hold on it. So we’ve allowed this ground to slip away. And so, long term, I don’t think we can beat them if we let this go on.

As you know I’ve been a writer most of my career and a speaker, think-tank guy from AEI and Hoover. I’ve pivoted in my career and now moved into trying to tackle these areas where the left is so strong. I want to say a word about movies. We’re making a film. It’s called “Hillary’s America.” My plan is to release it in July about the week of the Democratic convention. That way, they have their narrative and we have a counter-narrative. And this film is not – well, my earlier film four years ago was just about Obama, kind of the secret history about Obama. This film is a secret history not just of Hillary, but of the Democratic Party. And here, there is a huge argument that to my knowledge has never been publicly hashed out, which is, which is actually the party of emancipation and human rights and civil rights and equality of rights; which historically and now is the party that stands for these things? Well, the Democratic Party says, “We are. That’s our MO. That’s what we do.” And what we show in this film is not just the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, but the Democratic Party was also the party of segregation and Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. It was also the party of Japanese internment and forced sterilization and sympathy for fascism in the 1930s. This is their history.

To which the Democrats come back and say, “Oh, gee, yeah, well, yes, that’s all kind of true. But we switched. We became enlightened, and all the racists who were in the south all became Republicans.” This is the theory of the “big switch” and this argument has never been frontally attacked by our side. We’ve kind of conceded it’s true and yet the whole argument hinges on about three examples, mostly focusing on one man, Strom Thurmond. The truth of it is there are about 1,200 racist Democrats who were elected to the Senate, the House, governors, all kinds of top officers in the Democratic Party for most of the 20th century. About eight of them became Republicans. Most of the dixiecrats remained Democrats all their life.  

What’s This?

Now, it’s one thing to say this. It’s something completely different to show it. This is the great power of film because film is an emotional medium, and if you put things that are true on film, you can settle the argument emotionally in a way that you can’t do just through intellectual argument because intellectual argument at the end of the day ends up as “you think this and I think that.” So we’re releasing the film in July. It exposes Hillary as part of a longstanding Democratic tradition of exploitation, subjugation and theft. If you think about it, slavery was theft, theft of another guy’s labor, making another guy work for you for free. Lincoln called it “you work, I eat.” That’s the essence of slavery. Similarly today, when the Democrats have built their whole ideology on taking from one guy and giving it to another – now this giving to another is very suspicious.  

I’ll just say one word about Hillary here because the Democrats don’t really give a whole lot. Hillary has this big education proposal. Free education, a $350 billion program. Now let’s think about that. Who is Hilary giving free education to? Young people. Where is she going to get the money to do it? The government is $19 trillion in debt, so you have to borrow. But who is the national debt going to be handed off to? Young people. So what Hillary is really doing is she’s not actually transferring money, she’s reaching into the young guy’s back pocket, lifting his wallet, taking money out of his own future earnings, giving some of it back to him now and acting like she’s doing something wonderful for this person. She’s not even robbing Peter to pay Paul. She’s robbing Paul to pay Paul and counting on Paul to be too dumb to see that he is actually paying for his own education. So who benefits from all this? The one who benefits the most is Hillary because she granted all these people a free education without it costing her a penny from the hundreds of millions of dollars that she’s personally accumulated or touching the $2 billion in the Clinton Foundation. She doesn’t have to spend a cent of it. She gets to be a philanthropist on the public purse.  

Now, the movie, as I said, opens in July. Some of you will know this already, but it is a secret of movies that the success of a film is dependent upon opening weekend. Well, the movie will open pretty big, probably 1,500 theaters. We’ll have all kinds of momentum that we didn’t have in 2012. But if the movie does well in opening weekend, we’ll go from 1,200 theaters to 2,000 theaters the next week. If we do poorly, we’ll go to 800 theaters the next week. And so the point being that it’s very important for us to make this movie work. People say I want to get the movie to independent voters. The way to do that is to actually help to put some fuel in our rocket opening weekend and trying to see it if you can or organize a bunch of friends to go see it opening weekend.  

So I was talking the other day at a women’s Republican group in Texas, and the women there were saying, “Well, gee, Dinesh, we don’t really know what we can do in this election because Texas is going to fall in the Republican camp. This is red America. What can we do?” And what I said was, “Listen, the names and addresses of all the independent voters in the swing states in this country are known. That number is not that large; let’s say a million people in Florida and Colorado and North Carolina and Ohio, and our team actually has their names and addresses. So you’re in Texas, true, but there’s nothing to stop you as a group from buying a bunch of DVDs. If you find this messaging to be powerful, if you believe it’s messaging that the Republican National Committee or the campaigns officially won’t do or can’t do, you can drop a DVD of this film at a kind of infinitesimal cost right in the mailbox of every independent voter who will decide this election. That’s something that you can do, not for millions or even tens of thousands of dollars. Each DVD will probably cost you two or three bucks. And so this is a way to make yourself a lethal force in American politics, essentially harnessing your own power and the power of all the people around you to actually drop a grenade into the other camp.” 

Long-term, I think we have to do more, and what I mean by that is we have to think of ways to combat the left’s monopoly in education, in media and in Hollywood. Long-term we have to do that. But short-term, we are all today much more powerful than we realize, and if we harness that power effectively, creatively, I think that we can discover that right in this room, there is bottled up, most unfortunately, an influence in our life, most of it’s unused, but I think we should find a way this year when your country needs you to uncork the influence that you have and use it effectively for the betterment of your country. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you. We have time for two questions.  

Audience Member: What weekend in July will it open? And how will we know?  

Dinesh D’Souza: The movie will open – well, the Republican convention is in Cleveland and it goes first for a week and the Democratic convention is next. Our plan is to do our premier in Cleveland. We’ll do a premier in LA as well the week – we’re going to do a premier in Cleveland the week of the Republican convention and then open wide the week of the Democratic convention. And how will you know? You’ll know because it will be out there in a big way.

Audience Member: Thanks for coming, Dinesh. I’m a mom of two boys and very frustrated with what’s going on in this country and trying to raise my boys knowing what they’re being taught at school is not reality. I like that you touched upon talking to us about what we can do because one of my frustrations is that I feel like I know all this information, but I don’t know what to do with it to make a difference. I’m excited about your movie. I’ve told my friends about it. How do we go about getting copies of it to disseminate it to people?

Dinesh D’Souza: So the peculiarity of movies is that they open by contract. You have to stay in the theater for three months. So the movie will open in the middle of July. It will be in the theater through the middle of September. So there will be just a window of a month and a half or so when the movie pivots to DVD. But again, it will, at that point be everywhere. It’ll be in Redbox. It’ll be on Netflix. It’ll be everywhere, and there will be easy ways at that point to get DVDs and, obviously, if you want to do this in bulk, you should contact me and I’ll give you an email and a place to stay in touch with us. The other thing is if you wanted to buy out a theater opening weekend, hugely helpful to us. Again, don’t put up the money for the whole theater. Organize a bunch of your friends and go just make an evening of it. Hugely helpful to us. We’d like to work with you in doing that and I’ll be trying to organize that on a national scale. So those are two thoughts about ways to help.

Moderator: We’ll take one last question in the back. Okay.

Audience Member: What is the name of the movie going to be?  

Dinesh D’Souza: The movie is called “Hillary’s America” and the subtitle is “The secret history of the Democratic Party.”

Moderator: Dinesh, thank you so much.

Dinesh D’Souza: Thank you.  

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262822/dinesh-dsouza-confronting-lefts-cultural-monopoly-frontpagemagcom

Heroes Of Cultural Marxism: Beyoncé 

While many people are helping to destroy the West, there are a few, the elite, who do the lion’s share of the destruction..

Beyoncé pretty much holds the “Queen of Cultural Marxism” title in my books.

It’s hard to image another woman with the cultural reach and influence that she has and make no mistake, she does not waste even a moment accidentally building up or preserving Western culture.

Like a category 5 tornado, Beyoncé is a force of Marxist destruction, captivating and corrupting any youth she comes across with the foulest mouth since that coke fiend from across the street.

And how telling that this is the woman that Barack Obama (one of the few cultural Marxist heroes who outrank Beyonce) praises mostly highly as a rolemodel for his daughters?!

Consider Matt Walsh’s unveiling of this hero of the cultural Marxist movement:

Over the weekend, pop singer Beyonce released a new album called “Lemonade” (because if life gives you lemons). For a piece of work hailed as “groundbreaking” and “brilliant,” it’s strange that the title is one of the most overused cliches in the history of cliches.

But this is the advantage of being a feminist sex icon in modern America. Everything you do and say will become the greatest thing anyone has ever done or said, that is until the next thing you do or say. Beyonce does not occupy this category alone, but due to her race and her dancing ability, she stands at the pinnacle of it.

Never mind that “Beyonce” is more a brand than a person. The lady herself is a person, but what’s presented to the world is a carefully constructed and marketed product. It’s a narrative, a story, a walking and talking fantasy novel for girls. I don’t know how much of the final manuscript is Beyonce’s brainchild and how much comes from the team of people around her, but rest assured that everything we see is manufactured. This, after all, is a woman who hired a “visual director” to follow her around and document and stylize her every move.

None of this is unique to her, of course. What I’m articulating is a familiar lament about all pop music today. It’s not art, it’s advertising. Like superhero films are designed just to hock action figures and sell tickets to the next superhero film, Beyonce’s albums are designed to hock her fashion line and sell downloads of her next album. Everything in pop culture is a franchise now, including pop singers. It’s all made for the purpose of perpetuating itself, like a virus. It certainly is not interested in expressing anything true or beautiful or good or difficult or joyous or painful. As the new iPhone is just the old iPhone with different commercials, so the new Beyonce song is just the old Beyonce song with an arguably different computer-generated beat.

But, as I said, I could lob that criticism at most of what we consume in this culture. So much of it is bland, superficial, repetitious, existing for its own sake. Devoured quickly, with little intellectual effort, leaving you still hungry and slightly nauseated. I find it therefore annoying and confusing when people speak of Beyonce’s alleged genius, but the unwarranted intellectualization of vapid, empty nonsense is not the most troubling aspect of all of the Beyonce adulation in this culture. The most troubling aspect is that her music is called ”empowering.”

I only found out about the album because social media was overrun on Saturday night with women declaring how “empowered” they feel by Beyonce’s latest offering. The media has crowned it the most empowering anthem to womanhood ever produced. The Daily Beast took it a step further, announcing that the “breathtaking” work of art calls us to “introspection, to speculation, and, most fiercely, to action.”

The album has been extolled as a “beautiful,” “stunning,” “powerful,” and “epic” masterpiece. The Pieta is a lump of Play-Doh in comparison. Beethoven’s 5th is mere flatulence when stacked against this album. Even God’s most awe-inspiring artistic achievements – Mount Everest, Victoria Falls, the universe itself – all melt away in the blinding light of ”Lemonade.” That’s the gist of the critical response.

One feminist website went so far as to chronicle 45 lyrics that, they promise, “you won’t be able to stop thinking about.”

Here are a few of the “unforgettable” lines they highlighted:

“Hold up, they don’t love you like I love you / Slow down, they don’t love you like I love you.”

“We built sand castles that washed away / I made you cry when I walked away.”

“Nothing else ever seems to hurt like the smile on your face / When it’s only in my memory.”

“I hop up out the bed and get my swag on / I look in the mirror, say, ‘What’s up?’ / What’s up, what’s up, what’s up.”

“Epic” and “stunning” seem to be a bit of a stretch here. I think I’d go more with banal and tiresome. Metaphors about oceans and sandcastles haven’t suddenly become brilliant again. And if I can’t stop thinking about “get my swag on,” it will only be because I’m trying desperately figure out why anyone can’t stop thinking about a meaningless slogan that’s been used in approximately every rap song since 2006.

At any rate, it would be merely absurd, not necessarily dangerous, for a woman to feel “empowered” by these rote pop song platitudes. Unfortunately, in Beyonce’s case, when her lyrics aren’t warmed-over and cliched, they’re vulgar, ugly, manipulative and destructive. Often they’re all five of these things at once. Granted, many pop songs are profane, mind numbing garbage, but considering Beyonce’s status as Pagan Goddess of Secular America, her garbage is all the more toxic. Especially when mixed with racial exploitation. Remember, this is the woman who gave us a militant homage to the Black Panthers at the Super Bowl.

I was particularly disturbed reading some messages and emails from a number of mothers who, after I criticized Beyonce on Twitter a few days ago, wrote to inform me that their daughters have become “better” and “more confident” people from listening to Beyonce. Beyonce is a role model, I’m told. The president shares this view, stating a while ago that Beyonce “could not be a better role model” for his girls.

Role model. Empowering. Brilliant. Genius. These are lofty titles for anyone to fit, so how close does Beyonce come? Leaving aside for the moment the racist undertones and the fact that she dresses like a wealthy stripper, let’s look at what she’s actually saying. Here are a few choice lyrics from the the same album the New York Times calls “a revelation of spirit:”

Who the f*** do you think I is?

You ain’t married to no average b***h boy

You can watch my fat ass twist boy

As I bounce to the next d*ck boy

And keep your money, I got my own

Get a bigger smile on my face, being alone

Bad motherf*****, God complex

Motivate your ass call me Malcom X

Yo operator, or innovator

F*** you hater, you can’t recreate her no

You’ll never recreate her no, hero
…And…
Going through your call list

I don’t wanna lose my pride, but I’ma f*** me up a b**ch

Know that I kept it sexy, and know I kept it fun
…And…
He trying to roll me up, I ain’t picking up

Headed to the club, I ain’t thinking ’bout you

Me and my ladies sip my D’USSÉ cup

I don’t give a f***, chucking my deuces up

Suck on my b*lls, pause, I had enough

I ain’t thinking ’bout you

I ain’t thinking ’bout


Middle fingers up, put them hands high

Wave it in his face, tell him, boy, bye

Tell him, boy, bye, middle fingers up

I ain’t thinking ’bout you
…And…
Y’all haters corny with that Illuminati mess

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh

I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’)

I’m so possessive so I rock his Roc necklaces…


Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that

I did not come to play with you hoes, haha

I came to slay, b***h

I like cornbreads and collard greens, b***h

Oh, yes, you besta believe it

This is all quite incoherent, but I was able to discern 6 messages your daughter will hear loud and clear while listening to “Lemonade:”

Lesson 1: Use sex as a weapon to possess and to gain revenge.

Lesson 2: Find self-worth in your money and the expensive things you can buy.

Lesson 3: Speak with the grace and femininity of a drunken frat boy, saying things like “suck on my b*lls.”

Lesson 4: Never hesitate to f*** a b***h up.

Lesson 5: Express your empowerment with middle fingers.

Lesson 6: Eat corn bread and collard greens.

That last lesson is actually not bad culinary advice, but the others seem a bit hazardous. It truly boggles the mind that mothers (and fathers) would be enthusiastic about their daughters marinating their minds in this bile. I understand, in today’s culture, it’s exceedingly difficult to insulate children of a certain age from this kind of stuff, particularly if they go to public school (which is another argument for homeschooling). But the sad truth is that many parents don’t see any reason to even attempt to shield their daughters from music that encourages them to “bounce to the next d*ck.”

It should go entirely without saying, but apparently it must be said: bitterness, greed, envy, narcissism, sexual desperation and self-objectification do not empower. They diminish and demean. And they certainly don’t lead to happiness.

Besides, Beyonce’s “I don’t need no man” mantras are undermined by her own music, which often encourages women to degrade themselves for the sake of pleasing men. Here’s a lovely stanza from her last album:

Driver roll up the partition please

I don’t need you seeing Yoncé on her knees

Took 45 minutes to get all dressed up

We ain’t even gonna make it to this club

Now my mascara runnin’, red lipstick smudged

Oh he so horny, yeah he want to f***

He popped all my buttons and he ripped my blouse

He Monica Luwinski’d all on my gown

Whoa dere daddy, daddy didn’t bring a towel

Really, the grossest thing about that verse is that she refers to herself in the third person. But it’s perhaps an even greater concern that she released a song all about being covered in a guy’s bodily fluids. And this is the kind of thing that, based on my interactions, many mothers want their daughters to hear and take to heart. The president of the United States said himself that the woman who sings about performing oral sex on a dude in a limo “could not be a better role model.”

The truth is, Beyonce’s music, like a lot of pop music, is weird, aggressive, sullen, whorish, egomaniacal, vaguely satanic and deeply stupid. I feel no remorse in saying that, because that’s precisely how it’s intended. If her producers read this I’m sure they’d respond, “Yes, exactly, thanks for noticing.” Her music and her whole image and much of the pop industry are craftily designed to rip your soul out and stuff the vacant cavity with a loud jumble of sex, violence and materialism.

There are many forces in society who share this goal, but few can be quite as effective as pop singers. Once a culture abandons god, celebrities like Beyonce step into the void. They are revered with a religious fervor because every culture must revere something with a religious fervor. The Christians have Christ, ancient pagans had Apollo, the modern pagans have Beyonce and her fellow deities in Hollywood and the recording industry.

And the real danger is that this deification and worship is not an accident. Modern pop artists specifically call for it. Beyonce celebrates herself in every insufferable song and invites the listener to do the same. “Invite” is probably too generous a word. She demands that her fans literally “bow down, b***hes” and tremble before her. These days, feminists would spontaneously combust if you quoted Ephesians 5, but if a rich pop singer calls them “b***hes” and tells them to get on their knees in worship, they eagerly submit. The sadomasochism of pop music is probably one of its most bizarre elements.

And once the listener bows, as she’s been instructed, whatever Beyonce says – even if it’s shallow and hackneyed and idiotic – will not only be celebrated as a work of uncompromising brilliance, but as an infallible moral insight. “I can wear this/do this/say this because Beyonce did.” This is the thought process of young girls and grown women alike. This is what spiritually poisonous music can do to a person. Indeed, music is and has always been a powerful art form, but in a country where the pews are empty, it becomes a religion.

So, no, your daughter is not just having fun and gaining ”confidence” when she listens to Beyonce. She is worshiping at an altar. She is adopting an ideology. She is learning things.

The question is whether she’s learning the right things.

(Hint: she’s not.)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/beyonce-is-destroying-your-daughter-not-empowering-her/

Amazing Insights About Cultural Marxism And The Erosion Of The West From It’s Own Proponents

Be warned: 

The following article comes from the website of “pick-up artist” Roosh, who spends their time picking up women for sex using the best tricks in the book.

As an atheist, I once used the very same techniques and skirted this subculture so I feel for the guy.

Now, Roosh is a product of cultural Marxism, which encourages people to indulge their natural, fleshly desires and he is also a perpetrator of cultural Marxism in his sexual pursuits. Sadly, he is aiding and a betting even though he doesn’t like its consequences. However, he has also somehow understood a number of the other damaging facets of cultural Marxism (beyond a shared appreciation of sexual immorality) to actually put together a pretty coherent study of the topic.

Furthermore, he actually makes some exceptionally good points.

But it is essential you understand the perspective he is coming from: hedonism, philosophical naturalism, atheism, and Darwinian evolution all form the basis of this mans worldview. With this is mind, be prepared to chew what meat he offers and spit out the bones of an anti-biblical worldview that sometimes creep into this dish. 

Just use discernment when you read it is all.

So without further ado, here it is:

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

What Is A Cultural Collapse?

Cultural collapse is the decline, decay, or disappearance of a native population’s rituals, habits, interpersonal communication, relationships, art, and language. It coincides with a relative decline of population compared to outside groups. National identity and group identification will be lost while revisionist history will be applied to demonize or find fault with the native population. Cultural collapse is not to be confused with economic or state collapse. A nation that suffers from a cultural collapse can still be economically productive and have a working government.

First I will share a brief summary of the cultural collapse progression before explaining them in more detail. Then I will discuss where I see many countries along its path.

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.
1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

Even though many people today claim to believe in god, they may not step inside a church but once or twice a year for special holidays. Religion went from being a lifestyle, a manual for living, to something that is thought about in passing.

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

  • medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
  • shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
  • criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
  • imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
  • taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
  • promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.

3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]

they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]

they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

4. Birth rates decrease among native population

The stage is now set for the death rate to outstrip the birth rate. This creates a demographic cliff where there is a growing population of non-working elderly relative to able-bodied younger workers. Two problems result:

Not enough tax revenue is supplied by the working population in order to provide for the elderly’s medical and social retirement needs.[32] Borrowing can only temporarily maintain these entitlements.

Decrease of economic activity since more people are dying than buying.[33]

No modern nation has figured out how to substantially raise birth rates among native populations. The most successful effort has been done in France, but that has still kept the birth rate among French-born women just under the replacement rate (2.08 vs 2.1).[34] The easiest and fastest way to solve this double-edged problem is to promote mass immigration of non-elderly individuals who will work, spend, and procreate at rates greater than natives.[35]

A replenishing supply of births are necessary to create taxpayers, workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers in order to maintain the nation’s economic development.[36] While many claim that the planet is suffering from “overpopulation,” an economic collapse is inevitable for those countries who do not increase their population at steady rates.

5. Large influx of immigration

An aging population without youthful refilling will cause a scarcity of labor, increasing that labor’s price. Corporate elites will now lobby governments for immigration reform to relieve this upward pressure on wages.[37] [38] At the same time, the modern mantra of sustained GDP growth puts pressure on politicians for dissemination of favorable economic growth data to aid in their re-elections. The simplest way to increase GDP without innovation or development of industry is to expand the population. Both corporate and political elites now have their goals in alignment where the easiest solution becomes immigration.[39] [40]

While politicians hem and haw about designing permanent immigration policies, immigrants continue to settle within the nation.[41] The national birth rate problem is essentially solved overnight, as it’s much easier to drain third-world nations of its starry-eyed population with enticements of living in the first-world than it is to encourage the native women to reproduce. (Lateral immigration from one first-world nation to another is so relatively insignificant that the niche term ‘expatriation’ has been developed to describe it). Native women will show a stubborn resistance at any suggestion they should create families, much preferring a relatively responsibility-free lifestyle of sexual variety, casual internet dating via mobile apps, consumer excess, and comfortable high-paying jobs in air conditioned offices.[42] [43]

Immigrants will almost always come from societies that are more religious and, in the case of Islam with regard to European immigration, far more scientifically primitive and rigid in its customs.[44]

6. Sanitization of host culture coincides with increase in immigrant power

While many adult immigrants will feel gracious at the opportunity to live in a more prosperous nation, others will soon feel resentment that they are forced to work menial jobs in a country that is far more expensive than their own.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] The majority of them remain in lower economic classes, living in poor “immigrant communities” where they can speak their own language, find their own homeland foods, and follow their own customs or religion.

Instead of breaking out of their foreigner communities, immigrants seek to expand it by organizing. They form local groups and civic organizations to teach natives better ways to understand and serve immigrant populations. They will be eager to publicize cases where immigrants have been insulted by insensitive natives or treated unfairly by police authorities in the case of petty crime.[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] School curriculums may be changed to promote diversity or multiculturalism, at great expense to the native culture.[56] Concessions will be made not to offend immigrants.[57] A continual stream of outrages will be found and this will feed the power of the organizations and create a state within a state where native elites become fearful of applying laws to immigrants.[58]

7. Destruction of native culture

This step has not yet happened in any first-world nation, so I will predict it based on logically extending known events I have already described.

Local elites will give lip service to immigrant groups for votes but will be slow to give them real state or economic power. Citizenship rules may even be tightened to prevent immigrants from being elected. The elites will be mostly insulated from the cultural crises in their isolated communities, private schools, and social clubs, where they can continue to incubate their own sub-culture without outside influence. At the same time, they will make speeches and enact polices to force native citizens to accept multiculturalism and blind immigration. Anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws will be more vigorously enforced than other more serious crimes. Police will monitor social networking to identify those who make statements against protected classes.

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

I want to now take a brief look at six different countries and see where they are along the cultural collapse progression…

Russia

This is an interesting case because, up to recently, we saw very low birth rates not due to progressive ideals but from a rough transition to capitalism in the 1990’s and a high male mortality from alcoholism.[59] [60] To help sustain its population, Russia is readily accepting immigrants from Central Asian regions, treating them like second-class citizens and refusing to make any accommodations away from the ethnic Russian way of life. Even police authorities turn a blind eye when local skinhead groups attack immigrants.[61] In addition, Russia has also shown no tolerance to homosexual or progressive groups,[62] stunting their negative effects upon the culture. The birth rate has risen in recent years to levels seen in Western Europe but it’s still not above the death rate. Russia will see a population collapse before a cultural one.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very low

Brazil

We’re seeing rapid movement through stages 2 and 3, where progressive ideology based on the American model is becoming adopted and a large poor population ensure progressive politicians will continue to remain in power with promises of economic redistribution.[63] [64] [65] Within 15 years we should see a sharp drop in birth rates and a relaxation of immigration laws.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Moderate

America

Some could argue that America is currently experiencing a cultural collapse. It always had a fragile culture because of its immigrant foundings, but immigrants of the past (including my own parents) rapidly acclimated into the host culture to create a sense of national pride around an ethic of hard work and shared democratic values. This is being eroded as a fem-centric culture rises in its place, with its focus on trends, celebrities, homosexuality, multiculturalism, and male-bashing. Natives have become pleasure seekers with little inclination to reproduction during their years of peak fertility.[66]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

England

While America always had high amounts of immigration, and therefore a system of integration, England is newer to the game. In the past 20 years, they have massively ramped up their immigration efforts.[67] A visit to London will confirm that the native British are slowly becoming minorities, with their iconic red telephone booths left undisturbed purely for tourist photo opportunities. Approximately 5% of the English population is now Muslim.[68] Instead of acclimatizing, they are achieving early success in creating zones with Sharia law.[69] The English elite, in response, is jailing natives under stringent anti-race laws.[70] England had a highly successful immigration story with Polish immigrants who eagerly acclimated to English culture, but have opened the doors to other peoples who don’t want to integrate.[71]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Sweden

Sweden is experiencing a similar immigration situation to England, but they possess a higher amount of self-shame and white guilt. Instead of allowing immigrants who could work in the Swedish economy, they are encouraging migration of asylum seekers who have been made destitute by war. These immigrants enter Sweden and immediately receive social benefits. In effect, Sweden is welcoming the least economically productive people in the world.[72] The immigrants will produce little or no economic benefit, and may even worsen Sweden’s economy. Immigrants are turning some parts of Sweden, such as the Rosengard area of Malmo, into a ghetto.[73]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Poland

From my one and half years of living in Poland, I have seen a moderate level of progressive ideological creep, careerism among women, hedonism, and idolation of Western values, particularly out of England, where a large percentage of the Polish population have emigrated for work. Younger Poles may not act much different from their Western counterparts in their party lifestyle behavior, but there nonetheless remains a tenuous maintenance of traditional sex roles. Women of fertile age are pursuing relationships over one-night stands, but careerism is causing them to stall family formation. This puts a downward pressure on birth rates, which stems from significant numbers of fertile young women emigrating to countries like the UK and USA, along with continued economic uncertainties faced from transitioning to capitalism[74]. As Europe’s “least multicultural” nation, Poland has long been hesitant to accept immigrants, but this has recently changed and they are encouraging migrants.[75] To its credit, it is seeking first-world entrepreneurs instead of low skilled laborers or asylum seekers. Its cultural fate will be an interesting development in the years to come, but the prognosis will be more negative as long as its young people are eager to leave the homeland.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Possible

Poland and Russia show the limitations of Cultural Collapse Theory in that it best applies to first-world nations with highly developed economies. They have low birth rates but not through the mechanism I described, though if they adopt a more Western ideological track like Brazil, I expect to see the same outcome that is befalling England or Sweden.

There can be many paths to cultural destruction, and those nations with the most similarities will gravitate towards the same path, just like how Eastern European nations are suffering low birth rates because of mass emigration due to being introduced into the European Union

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

One issue that I purposefully ignored is the effect of technology and consumerism on lowering birth rates. How much influence does video games, internet, and smartphones contribute to a birth decline? How much of an effect does Western-style consumerism have in delaying marriage? I suspect they have more of an amplification effect than being an outright cause. If a country is proceeding through the cultural collapse model, technology will simply hurry the collapse, but giving internet access to a traditionally religious group of people may not cause them to flip overnight. Research will have to be done in these areas to say for sure.

Conclusion

The first iteration of any theory is sure to create as many questions as answers, but I hope that by proposing this model, it becomes more clear why some cultures seem so quick to degrade while others display a sort of immunity. Some countries may be too far down the wrong path to be saved, but I hope the information presented gives concerned readers ideas on protecting their own culture by allowing them to connect how progressive ideologies that may seem innocent or benign on the surface can eventually lead to an outright collapse of their nation’s culture.

http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory

Hedonists And Atheists Are Happy To Acknowledge That Game Of Thrones Turns Them On Sexually And Encourages Them To Fantasize, Porn Use Actually Decreases On The Nights That The Show Airs, And Yet An Increasing Number Of Christians Insist They Have The “Spiritual Maturity” To Watch It’s Graphic Sex Scenes And Gratuitous Nudity With An Immune Stoicism

I know a bunch of Christians who watch the show and try to justify it in a bunch of different ways – the depths to which they sink is terrifying.

“It’s a great story, it’s unconventional story-telling, it’s full of morally complex-characters, it shows us our need for redemption, it exposes us to the darkness of humanity, it’s got really great art design, yada yada, blah blah.”

One particularly clever saying shifts the spotlight over the violence, as though that somehow justifies it:

“Oh, yes I do find some of the sex and nudity shocking…but the violence is also shocking.”

Nice try.

How about these Christians explain to us how watching packet corn syrup splatter and plaster cast heads drop off fills them with the same dread and horror as scoping out some young, buxom bosom?

Yeah, recovering from that shock must be really tough – you got my deepest sympathy, bro!

I was addicted to pornography for a good decade of my life so I know porn when when I hear about it. I also read the books way back when I was addicted to porn and I longed for a movie version of it because, hey, it would be violent and full of sex and nudity – a lot like porn which, if you have a minimalist moral compass (and boy did I), sounds fantastic! 

I write this to make the point that if a Christian is going to try and justify their immoral lifestyle choices that completely contradict the biblical scriptures and the historical teachings of the church regarding sexuality, they have your work cut out.

But try they do.

The “spiritually mature” argument is a great one – it essentially gives you the licence to do, well, anything you can think of and make an appeal to the liberty we have in Christ.

They even deceive themselves so far as to apply Romans 14 to justify themselves. Let’s recap:

“One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Romans‬ ‭14:2-6‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I suppose Paul, the apostle appointed by Jesus Messiah himself to reach the Gentiles with the proclamation of God’s coming kingdom, could have meant that people who abstain from watching pornographic sex scenes are weak!

Sure, Paul may have intended that if you are fully convinced in your own mind that watching all those bouncing breasts and vivacious vaginas, then watch away in honour of the Lord!

Then again, Paul did earlier write:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans‬ ‭1:22-25‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Perhaps the worship of images Paul refers to extends to the pornographic ones on the television screen?!

Indeed, Jesus does set people free but in case the point needed emphasis, he doesn’t do it so you can watch Game of Thrones and pretend that watching naked women feigning  orgasm has no effect on you. 

It’s like watching porn and claiming it has no effect on you. Seriously?!

Anyone Christian who disagrees is welcome to demonstarte their conviction by sending me naked pictures artistic portrayals of their wives or girlfriends, or if they are a woman, themselves. After all, there is a beauty in nude “art” that us spiritually mature can handle.

Anyway, about the following article: I loathe to publish something supportive of Game of Thrones but if it exposes the self-serving lies of Christians who promote any show with sex and nudity as permissible before God, then the words of your enemies can actually point people to the truth about God. 

PornHub data shows the sexually-charged and barbaric (but totally awesome) program is so good at fulfilling our sexual needs, the nights it airs leads to a drop in porn consumption.

And for those not getting their fill during airtime, search words “Game of Thrones” increase on the porn site that evening — by a whopping 370 per cent, in fact.

So statistically we know the show turns us on — but anecdotally it’s also liberating our conversations around sex.

What’s a bit of incest between siblings? 

Gone are the days where my friends and I were timid about sharing our sexual fantasies. Now my colleagues are leaning over the partition to tell me watching Games of Thrones with a beau is the perfect “warm-up” to an evening filled with sexual delight.

The night is dark and full of pleasure, indeed.

We’re also sharing what gets us off and there’s no holding back on the fact that a bit of disturbing television romance may be helping in that department. Yeah, we might not want to invite Joffrey and his thirst for pain into our bedroom, but we’re no longer afraid to say we enjoy watching it.

And it’s not just medieval style-sadism that is rocking our world — “softer” pornography like Fifty Shades of Grey has women changing their porn habits also. Early last year PornHub reported a 219 per cent increase in searches conducted by women for the word “submission” in the days after the premiere of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Searches for “dominate” and “spanking” were also on the up.

The release of the film version of Fifty Shades of Grey last year saw a dramatic shift in the porn searches conducted by women. 

Rewind more than a decade and it was Sex in the City loosening up women’s dialogue about men and dating. All of the characters talked opening about orgasms, regularly faced dilemmas such as Carrie’s politician boyfriend asking her to pee on him, and sleeping with as many men as they pleased was A-OK.

But women are now well past being comfortable talking about what brand of vibrator we use — we want next level in a space we feel at ease sharing and GoT airing on primetime is giving that to us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/how-game-of-thrones-made-porn-socially-acceptable/news-story/40b149ce4b39cf4756719fd00413c49f

Facebook Accused Of Suppressing Conservative News

Sounds about what you’d expect:

FACEBOOK is being accused of fiddling with its formulas to suppress conservative news.

That’s what some unnamed former Facebook workers told the tech site Gizmodo — and it’s an accusation that strikes at the heart of the social network’s credibility.

Facebook relies on computer algorithms to determine what is “trending,” an influential designation that inevitably boosts traffic for what are deemed the hottest topics. But unbeknown to much of the public, Facebook hires journalists to tweak these formulas, and this is where the question of political bias has erupted.

Gizmodo reports that Facebook “routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers,” according to a former journalist who worked on the trending designations. And several former Facebook “news curators” told the website that they were told to “inject” certain topics into the trending list, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant making the crucial list.

Depending on who was on duty, said the unnamed conservative ex-curator, citing fear of retribution from the company, “things would be black-listed or trending … I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognise the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

Facebook denies any political bias. A spokesperson said in a statement: “We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum. Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives.”

The Gizmodo account is based on interviews with a handful of ex-employees who chose to remain anonymous and could be pushing their own views. Other former curators told Gizmodo they did not consciously make biased judgments on trending topics, and no one is alleging that Facebook management ordered such actions.

But as Facebook has mushroomed into a mighty media force, one that has content-sharing arrangements with major news organisations, Mark Zuckerberg has always cast his global operation as a neutral platform. If there is a cooking of the digital books that penalises conservatives, Facebook could face a considerable backlash.

A former curator gave Gizmodo notes he had made of stories that were omitted from trending topics. These included the allegations that former IRS official Lois Lerner improperly scrutinised conservative groups, and stories involving Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the Drudge Report and Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was killed three years ago.

The sources also told Gizmodo that stories reported by such conservative-leaning news outlets as Breitbart, the Washington Examiner and Newsmax, which were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm, were excluded unless so-called mainstream sites like the New York Times, CNN and the BBC followed up on those stories.

Facebook’s political stance has been called into question during the presidential campaign.

Zuckerberg, the company’s founder and CEO, took an obvious shot at Donald Trump last month, saying: “I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others.’ I hear them calling for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, for reducing trade, and in some cases, even for cutting access to the internet.” Zuckerberg has also signed a legal brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Obama’s executive action limiting deportation of illegal immigrants.

And in March, as part of a weekly internal poll, some Facebook employees asked Zuckerberg: “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

That prompted a statement from Facebook: “We as a company are neutral — we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote.”

With more than 1 billion users worldwide, Facebook wields tremendous influence. The controversy over trending topics could cause some users to question whether the social site is subtly tampering with people’s news feeds to promote or minimise certain political stories or viewpoints.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/former-facebook-staffers-say-conservative-news-is-deliberately-suppressed/news-story/0b8782a851790aefff2f6cd20393bcb9

Joel Richardson’s The Global Jesus Revolution: The Church Must Embrace Prayer And Missions, Target Muslims As Largest Unevangelized People Group

Joel Richardson is one of the most important voices in understanding the role of Islam in biblical eschatology. Richardson has outlined this relationship in numerous books including Islamic Antichrist, Mideast Beast, and When A Jew Rules The World. 

Most recently, his documentary End Times Eyewitness reviewed this idea from the midst of the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East over the past few years.

Now, Richardson has released the follow up documentary The Global Jesus Revolution, which focuses on how the Church in the West needs to respond to the increasing troubles we see across the world, especially in the Middle East.

In a recent episode of The Underground, Richardson discusses these issues and the roadmap forward for Christians:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Eyewitness-Joel-Richardson/dp/1938067517

London Elects Muslim Mayor, Succumbs To The Global Islamic Empire

If Westerners had been shown two decades ago the impact of Islam we all see (and are so wearied of we go back to watching our favourite television programs), I am pretty certain that they would have taken action.

Too late now though.

London has elected its first Muslim mayor – a milestone in showing tolerance to a culture and an empire that has sought for 1,400 years to conquer Europe in the name of Allah.

Bill Muehlenberg’s assessment of the situation is a sound one:

Ten years ago English commentator Melanie Phillips wrote a very important book entitled Londonistan. It was a prophetic volume, a jeremiad against a sleeping England and an aggressive Islam. British self-loathing and loss of confidence coupled with advancing Islam is a recipe for disaster. As I wrote in my review of this vital volume:

Its thesis is that Britain has largely created a culture which breeds Islamic terrorism. British authorities have certainly done very little to discourage it, and in many ways have actually aided and abetted home-grown terrorism. Indeed, “London has become the epicentre of Islamic militancy in Europe”. That is, it has “become the major European centre for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism”.

This book examines how and why this has happened. Two broad reasons are given: First, Britain no longer believes in itself, no longer cherishes its founding values, and no longer thinks it has a role to play in the world.

Second, British authorities have seriously misjudged the threat of Islamic terrorism. Therefore Britain is engaged in a policy of denial, appeasement, blaming itself, and hiding its head in the sand. These two major factors have led to London becoming the “hub of European terror networks”.

Let me offer just a few more quotes from the book:

Britain has become a decadent society, weakened by alarming tendencies towards social and cultural suicide. Turning upon itself, it has progressively attacked or undermined the values, laws and traditions that make it a nation, creating a space that in turn has been exploited by radical Islamism….

The attempt to establish this separate Muslim identity is growing more and more intense, with persistent pressure for official recognition of Islamic family law, the rise of a de facto parallel Islamic legal system not recognised by the state, demands for highly politicised Islamic dress codes, prayer meetings or halal food to be provided by schools and other institutions, and so on. No other minority attempts to impose its values on the host society like this. Behind it lies the premise that Islamic values trump British ones.

This was fully true a decade ago and it is even far truer today, especially after the first ever Muslim has just been elected as London’s mayor. This is a very significant and ominous development indeed. Here is how one news report discusses this development:

Sadiq Khan, a practicing Muslim and Labour Party politician, has been elected mayor of London, marking a political milestone in the Western world. Londoners voted in Khan, 45, as the first Muslim mayor of a major Western capital city. He will take office in a metropolis where his fellow Muslims comprise about 12% of the population. His victory followed an unusually bitter campaign against Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, the son of a billionaire, in which race and religion have proven ugly flashpoints.

Other news reports noted his apparent anti-Semitism:

During a heated parliamentary debate on Wednesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron accused Khan of sharing “a platform with an extremist who called for Jews to drown in the ocean” Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in turn accused the Conservatives of “smearing” Khan. He said one of the men Cameron had accused Khan of sharing a platform with had also been close to Goldsmith….

The former human rights lawyer has also had to distance himself from Corbyn after a row over anti-Semitism. The Labour leader ordered an inquiry into charges of anti-Semitism after suspending Ken Livingstone, a political ally and a former London mayor, for saying Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism.

And incisive article just out speaks more to these very real concerns and is worth quoting from at length:

Kahn’s rise is a testimony to the fact that major sections of the city are already close to 50 percent Muslim, and critics say many of its non-Muslim residents seem comfortable with turning the top elected post over to a man with questionable connections to terrorists.
With most of the first round votes counted, the Labor candidate had a lead of around 9 percent over Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith. Voting came amid fresh accusations from London’s chief rabbi that the British Labor Party has a problem with anti-Semitism.

Khan was accused of being unfit to become London’s next mayor after footage emerged of him describing moderate Muslims of being “Uncle Toms.” Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said Labor had a “severe” problem with anti-Semitism that would get worse if the party’s inquiry into the issue turns out to be a whitewash.

“This is part of the Islamization of Britain,” Pamela Geller, the activist-author of “Stop the Islamization of America” and editor of AtlasShrugs.com, told WND. Khan’s ties to so-called “radical Islamists” such as Yasser al-Siri, a convicted terrorist and confidante of the notorious preacher Yasser al-Siri, should give pause to any sane Briton, she said. When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron exposed some of these ties on the Parliament floor, he was shouted down by chants of “racist!”

“That a man who has shared a platform with open Jew-haters could still be elected mayor of London is an indication of how far gone Britain already is,” Geller told WND. “In Sadiq Khan’s campaign, his opponents brought this up as a blot on his record. Soon enough in Britain, however, it will be a selling point for candidates appealing to an increasingly Muslim electorate.” Yet even as Cameron attacked Khan’s background and connections to “radical” Islam, the prime minister was advocating for the importation of more Syrian Muslim refugees.

The article continues:

Dr. Mark Christian, who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood father and became a child imam by the time he was 14 only to later renounce Islam and become Christian, said the rise of Muslim politicians in major European cities is inevitable given the brisk pace of Islamic migration. “This is definitely a historical event, a historic moment,” he said.

He noted that Cameron and Goldsmith, Khan’s opponent, have tried to connect Khan to “radical” Islam. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam and its long-term goals, Christian said. “The narrative that he is connected to radical Islam is by itself something the West invented, trying to differentiate between regular Islam and radical Islam. Islam is Islam,” he said. “The mindset of Muslims, whether Mr. Khan is devout or not, is such that he will be used by other Muslim leaders to accomplish things that have never happened through the sword.”

What’s happening in Britain is “civilization jihad” in action, Christian said, as defined by the Muslim Brotherhood in its 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum.” This document, seized by the FBI in 2004, laid out the Brotherhood’s plan to infiltrate Western societies and destroy them from within “by their own miserable hand and the hand of the believers.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is now deep into its strategy to infiltrate and deceive Western politicians into thinking they are the “good Muslims,” Christian said, the “peaceful Muslims.”

Khan, for instance, presents himself as a liberal-minded leader. He even confided in a speech that he secretly fears his two teenage daughters could be groomed to join ISIS. “When you look at what is happening in England, this has been building up for more than three decades now,” said Christian, who lived in Britain before emigrating to the U.S. “You have seen in the streets of England the rise of the real jihad, I would call it the violent kind of medicine. As the West has been subjected to Islamic violence and agitation, it has responded with political correctness, and the result is a Muslim mayor of London.”

Writing three months ago about the ever increasing Islamic demographics in the UK Robert Spencer wrote:

In five or ten more years, when there are majority-Muslim areas in Britain, do you think there will be beautiful multicultural harmony? Or do you think Muslims will be making increasingly aggressive demands for implementation of Sharia provisions? If you think the latter, you’re a greasy Islamophobe, and the British government hates you. You’re also correct.

We all know about bloody jihad, with bombs being detonated and heads being lopped off on a daily basis. But there are other forms of jihad, including what we call creeping sharia or stealth jihad. Taking over the UK and the West by force may be a daunting task, but it looks like taking it over from within is a walk in the park.

As Phillips wrote in the last two paragraphs of her book:

Britain is the global leader of English-speaking culture. It was Britain that first developed the Western ideas of the rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals, and exported them to other countries. Now Britain is leading the rout of those values, allowing its culture to become vulnerable to the predations of militant Islam. If British society goes down under this twin assault, the impact will be incalculable – not just for the military defense of the West against radical Islamism, but for the very continuation of Western civilization itself.

The West is under threat from an enemy that has shrewdly observed the decadence and disarray in Europe, where Western civilization first began. And the greatest of all is in Britain, the very cradle of Western liberty and democracy, but whose cultural confusion is now plain for all to see in Londonistan. The Islamists chose well. Britain is not what it once was. Whether it will finally pull itself together and stop sleepwalking into cultural oblivion is a question on which the future of the West may now depend.

Barring some sort of miracle, it now seems that we can say goodbye to London and the UK.
billmuehlenberg.com/2006/08/31/a-review-of-londonistan-how-britain-is-creating-a-terror-state-within-by-melanie-philips/

edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/europe/uk-london-mayoral-race-sadiq-khan/

ca.news.yahoo.com/britains-labour-set-london-bitter-mayoral-campaign-101122139.html

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/london-poised-to-elect-1st-muslim-mayor/

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/05/07/londonistan-is-now-here/