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

Progressives Claim That “Christians Are Obsessed With Sex” But Progressives Really Are Obsessed With Sexualizing Very Young Children And Having Access To Them In Schools So They Can Teach Them To Experiment Sexually

The is a quote that is often attributed to Joseph Stalin. Before I quote it, I want to explain that it is a controversial quote and that many people get hung up on its apparent mis-attribution to Stalin. This offended response is a nice smokescreen for ignoring what the quote actually says and, no surprises, there’s a good reason for that: the quote, no matter its source, is a hard-hitting truth that exposes the Marxist-Progressive agenda.

Here it is:

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

All of this was at one point accurate – the American population was zealously patriotic and largely moral specifically because of their strong Christian heritage and faith.

Three guesses as to what problems America has today?!

Firstly, Christianity is scorned as a curse in favour of false gods, ideologies, and idols.

Secondly, Christian morality has been usurped with relativity and amorality.

Finally, patriotism has been replaced by a self-loathing of all that America once stood for and a welcome embrace of the Communist ideologies that America once fought so hard.

One more thing that is heartily accepted in America and her Western allies these days: teaching young children to become sexually active and experiment with twisted LGBTIQ-endorsed perversity.

Who needs life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Now, how on earth did a culture known as “Christendom” change so quickly and so completely?

Was it an accident? A mistake?

Of course not – a lot of people worked very hard to completely alter America and disconnect the nation from its history.

The same is true in most Western nations and Australia is no exception.

It began early in the century but found its voice with the sexual revolution in the 1960’s. Paraded as “liberation”, it was in fact anarchy that has lead us down the road of faultless divorce, abortion-on-demand, a plague of STD’s epitomised by HIV AIDS, normalising homosexuality, and now the sexualisation of children no older than toddlers.

Consider the following article by Jennifer Oriel:  

There are few forms of predation that offend our common morality more than child sexual abuse. During the 1970s, paedophile groups capitalising on the sexual liberation movement sought to redefine their exploitation of youth as an expression of children’s sexual rights, self-determination and autonomy. Groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association claimed children were sexual beings and sought to repeal age of consent laws to liberate their sexuality. They were welcomed by fringe elements of the neo-Marxist minorities movement that advocated sexual libertarian ideology under Queer and “sex positive” politics. Today, the discourse on children’s sexual rights and the belief they are sexual beings are invoked to justify school programs that sexualise youth at ever younger ages.

The Andrews’ Labor left government in Victoria invokes neo-Marxist rhetoric to defend questionable school programs that encourage the sexualisation of children. The Safe Schools Coalition (SSC) and Building Respectful Relationships programs were introduced using minority politics as the rationale. In each case, a state-designated minority group and political cause are aligned in a program of social change that uses youth as change agents. Program designers create a health case for government funding without causal evidence to validate a relationship between program activities and core objectives. The Safe Schools program was created for the minority group LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) for the cause of anti-bullying with the stated objective to improve health outcomes.

The program encourages young people to become change agents for the cause of sexual ­diversity. When the program was criticised by conservative Senator Cory Bernardi, Labor leader Bill Shorten accused him of homophobia. After community outrage following revelations that program co-founder Roz Ward designed Safe Schools as part of a Marxist social change strategy, the liberal coalition withdrew commonwealth funding beyond 2017. Despite the Marxist objective of the Safe Schools program, or perhaps because of it, Daniel Andrews continues to defend it. His education minister James Merlino vilified politicians concerned about the hard Left’s indoctrination of children, calling them “bigots”. 

Unfortunately, the SSC debacle is not isolated. It has transpired that the Andrews government has produced another school program that sexualises children. As with the SSC program, Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) began with a state-designated minority group, women, aligned with the important cause of domestic violence prevention. The case for government funding was again framed as a health imperative, namely, the prevention of violence against women. And once again, the program was introduced in schools without causal evidence linking its exercises to the stated objective. Like Safe Schools, the BRR program promotes a radical agenda divorced from its stated program objective. It promotes the sexualisation of children by inculcating techniques and beliefs centred on the premise that children are sexual.

In the program instructors are encouraged to sexualise children, and children to sexualise themselves and their peers. They are asked to view highly sexualised personal ads and write their own, discuss transgenderism and anal sex. Program authors acknowledge that one exercise may cause “disassociation” in children. Sexualising and inducing a dissociative state in children are methods of paedophilic predation. They are not methods of domestic violence prevention. It is increasingly common to find the sexualisation of very young children promoted as part of sex education in schools. In 2009, the United Nations produced International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. The first iteration met with controversy after conservatives revealed it sexualised prepubescent children by promoting masturbation.

NGOs have joined the UN in a push for radical sexual programs aimed at youth under the auspices of sexual diversity and sexual health. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) claims that “the taboo on youth sexuality is one of the key forces driving the AIDS epidemic”. In fact, the premature sexualisation of youth, especially the exploitation of girls for prostitution, have been key drivers of HIV transmission in Southeast Asia and Africa for ­decades. Despite the fact, the IPPF asserts repeatedly that “young people are sexual beings” and criticises the Catholic Church for imposing barriers on young people, denying “pleasurable and positive aspects of sex”. Its solution is comprehensive sexuality education, which it describes as perhaps “the single most important gift that parents can offer to their children”.

The Netherlands government promotes comprehensive sexuality education in what some call the Dutch model. Under the Dutch model, schoolchildren begin sexual programs at four years of age. Modules for young children include “what feels nice” and “does bare make you blush?” Lessons marketed under the “Spring Fever” package include “being naked”, a module that explores nudity, undressing and being in the bath. It is unclear why any adult would solicit an account of how a child undresses or why the Dutch state would mandate such discussion in schools. CSE advocates defend their programs with studies that indicate efficacy, but mainly in comparison to abstinence programs.

There is a more moderate middle path that provides children requisite knowledge in biology, safety from violence and mutual respect without encouraging their sexualisation in activities that resemble grooming. The sexualisation of childhood by governments and NGOs should be a source of broad community concern. The state has no business interfering in childhood by conditioning children’s sexual responses. As a whole, parents remain the best arbiters of their children’s morality and guardians of their development. Australian children are ranked 14th in literacy and 19th in mathematics according to OECD reports. Governments should take remedial classes in teaching kids the basics of reading, writing and arithmetical instead of indulging messianic pretensions to parenting by proxy.

Even if Stalin never said it, I am saying it and I am saying that the Marxists clearly took its advice and have successfully weakened America and the West, perhaps fatally.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/ben-carson-cites-stalin-gets-quote-wrong.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/protect-kids-from-marxist-sexualisation-programs/news-story/2d4f796c2c53c26c22320df709719f7a

“Islam Is Colonialism, Palestine Is Colonialism”

The Leftists/Progressives/Marxists always needs victims that they can stir into a frenzied rage against their powerful and/or cashed up enemies.

That’s why their attacks on colonialism have been like an endless goldmine – there were a lot of legitimate victims but the real jackpot lies in that there are now a never-ending series of faux victims.

But as with all Leftist narratives, their “colonialism is evil” narrative is filled with holes, double standards and blinding hypocrisy.

While you are evil for being a white Westerner who “invaded” any one of Western Europe’s colonies of old, the same standard does not apply to Islam, which has quite literally conquered one quarter of the land on our entire planet.

Read it: ONE QUARTER OF ALL LAND ON EARTH IS OCCUPIED BY ISLAM.

And make no mistake: every square inch was taken by murdering, raping, and thieving conquest.

And make no further mistake: unlike many Western nations, Islam harbours no empathy or sympathy for its victims. 

Daniel Greenfield’s recent article exposes this facet of the Progressive agenda:

At Israeli Apartheid Week, campus haters claim to be fighting “colonialism” by fighting Jews. Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies, dedicated to a country that doesn’t exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism, features diatribes such as Palestine Re-Covered: Reading a Settler Colonial Landscape”. This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population.

You can’t colonize Palestine because you can’t colonize colonizers. The Muslim population in Israel is a foreign colonist population. The indigenous Jewish population can resettle its own country, but it can’t colonize it.

Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel. They forced their language and laws on the population. That’s the definition of colonialism. You can’t colonize and then complain that you’re being colonized when the natives take back the power that you stole from them.

There are Muslims in Israel for the same reason that there are Muslims in India. They are the remnants of a Muslim colonial regime that displaced and oppressed the indigenous non-Muslim population.

There are no serious historical arguments to be made against any of this.
The Muslim conquests and invasions are well-documented. The Muslim settlements fit every historical template of colonialism complete with importing a foreign population and social system that was imposed on the native population. Until they began losing wars to the indigenous Jewish population, the Muslim settlers were not ashamed of their colonial past, they gloried in it. Their historical legacy was based on seizing indigenous sites, appropriating them and renaming them after the new conquerors.

The only reason there’s a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there’s a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.

Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.

Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population.

Even “Allahu Akbar” did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean “God is Great”, as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed’s taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that “Allah was Greater”. Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.

Islam would not have existed without colonialism. It still can’t exist without it. That is why the violence continues. The only way to end the violence is for Muslims to reject their theology of colonialism.

But instead of taking ownership of their real history, the Muslim settler population evades its guilt through propaganda by claiming to be the victims of colonialism by the indigenous Jewish population. This twisted historical revisionism is backed by bizarre nonsense such as claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the Arabs are descended from the Philistines. The Muslim settlers insist on continuing to celebrate colonialism while claiming to be an indigenous population that was always living in Israel.

You can have one or the other. You can have your mosques celebrating the conquest and suppression of the indigenous population or your claims of being the indigenous population. But you can’t switch from being the indigenous population to being its conquerors whenever it suits your pseudo-historical narrative. You can’t claim to be the Philistines, the Jews and their Islamic conquerors at the same time.

From its Roman origins, Palestine has always been a colonial fantasy of remaking Israel by erasing its original Jewish identity. The Arab mercenaries who were deployed by the Romans in that original colonial enterprise continued it by becoming self-employed conquerors for their own colonial empire. The name Palestine remains a linguistic settlement for reimagining a country without a people and a past as a blank slate on which the colonial identity of the invaders can be written anew. That is still the role that the Palestine myth and mythology serves.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “linguistic colonialism”. When Muslims rename the Spring of Elisha, a Jewish biblical figure, Ein as-Sultan in honor of an Islamic colonial ruler, that’s linguistic colonialism. When Jews restore the original indigenous names that Jewish sites held before Muslim colonialism, that’s not colonization. It’s the exact opposite. It’s decolonization.

Promoting mythical claims of a Palestinian state isn’t decolonization, it’s colonization. Or recolonization. Advocates for “Palestine” are not fighting colonialism, but promoting it. They are advocating for a discredited Muslim settler fantasy and against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “geographic amnesia” among “Palestinians”. There’s no geographic amnesia because you can’t remember what never existed. There’s only paramnesia because there was never a country named Palestine.

Palestine has no history. It has no people. It has no borders. It has never been anything except a colonial invention. It is a name used by a variety of foreign settlers operating on behalf of colonial empires.

You can’t colonize Palestine. How can you colonize a colonial myth? You can only decolonize it.

Every Jewish home built on land formerly under the control of the Caliphs is decolonization and decaliphization.

When Jews ascend the Temple Mount, they are also engaging in decolonization and decaliphization.

When the liberation forces of the Jewish indigenous population shoot a Jihadist colonist fighting to impose yet another Islamic State on Israel, that too is decolonization and decaliphization.

Resistance to Islamic terrorism is resistance to colonialism. And Jews have the longest history of resisting the Islamic State under its various Caliphs throughout history. Israel is still resisting the colonialist Jihadist plans for the restorations of the Caliphate.
Zionism is a machine that kills Islamic colonialism.

The existence of Israel not only means the decolonization of Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh’s imaginary colonial fantasies of “Palestine”, but inspires resistance in peoples struggling against Islamic colonialism throughout the region, from the Copts to the Berbers to secular intellectuals fighting for freedom.

Islamic colonialism has always been defeated, whether at the Gates of Vienna or in the Sinai Desert. Its colonial fantasies are false and will be defeated as many times as it takes, whether in the form of Palestine or ISIS.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/11/islam-colonialism-palestine-colonialism/

Naturalistic Atheism: Religious Worship At The Feet Of An Apostate Preacher

Atheism is a religious faith.

Unlike Christianity, atheism doesn’t have the luxury of God’s special revelation to unbelievers and so it’s down to its devoted proponents to force it upon others, any which way. 

Intimidation works well enough at the heights of the academy but the masses are largely ignorant and uninterested in a detailed study of not only biology, but also geology, history, physics, mathematics, language, and human nature itself: things that when explored sincerely totally undermine naturalism, Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution, and the atheistic religious hope and belief that somehow humanity will do whatever we please and get away with it. 

Naturally, the masses will buy something if the sales technique is convincing. It also doesn’t hurt that Darwinian evolution ensures subjective morality at best, permitting you to do whatever you please without accountability, bar to the state and your own seared conscience. 

Consider Don Boys great article below – sure, it’s preaching to the choir but when today’s Big Brother is pressing down with the 2+2=5 routine, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded that actually, it doesn’t.

Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.’” 

And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/08/evolution-not-fact-fraud-faith/

Communism, Islam, Or Christianity: These Are Literally Your Only Choices

There are two great powers in the world today: Islam and Progressivism.

You may know Progressivism from its starring role in murdering 100 million people last century. It also made a significant part of the world far poorer than it ever needed to be, given the whole Industrial Age and all. 

Like any destitute soul trying to hide a wanted felon, it’s proponents knew that Communism would not be able to show its face for a long while. It needed a disguise!
So they took Communism and threw a wig on it, gave it a spray-on tan, let it grow out a refined moustache and voilà: “Progressivism”.

In what must surely be the greatest snake oil rebranding in history, Progressivism offers the same impossible utopia at exactly the same asking price: your every human right and freedom. 

But who wants to believe that the West is going to get eaten alive by Islam when successive liars continue to promise the Marxist utopia?

When you reject biblical Christianity, those are your only two options and if you don’t much like truth, then crossing of the genuine and proven threat of Islam is just one more denial.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that we are being governed by people who absolutely do not share in the traditional values that once made this country great. The vast majority of people in this nation, however, still hold the ideals of individual liberty in very high regard, as well as the fundamental Christian principles that were the driving force behind the creation of our government and system of laws. People still believe our constitution should remain the law of the land, and, furthermore, many people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the continuous usurpations of power by the current governing body. In fact, many people are fully aware that we are being governed by communists whose number one goal is the destruction of American sovereignty in favor of a global hierarchy, in which we find ourselves subservient to the whims of global dictators. In order to overcome this, we have to understand it for what it is: spiritual warfare.

Communism is generally understood, at the very least, to be a system of economics in which government controls all aspects of a society’s production. This is purported to ensure equality and fairness among the masses. Communist regimes have historically claimed that a utopian, egalitarian paradise awaited the masses if they would simply surrender their rights and let government have the necessary power. Others believe communism to be a system of absolute atheism, where the belief in a God other than the state was absolutely forbidden, as people who worshipped a God would not offer total subservience to the governing powers. While these descriptions may give someone a basic understanding of what communism is, they are not totally accurate. Communism was actually created for the very purpose of destroying religion and being the anti-thesis to western capitalism. Communism itself is a Hegelian dialectic created to cause conflict between two world views, religion and anti religion, which would eventually see the rise of what many people recognize as the New World Order.

In order to gain a better understanding, we have to look at Karl Marx, the man who was understood to be the founder of socialism/communism. Though there is reason to believe that Marx was simply financed by others to create this system, it is generally understood that he was an atheist and his lack of religion is what motivated him to create what has become known as the most oppressive governing system known to man. Karl Marx was not an atheist; he was, at one point in his life, a devout Christian whose knowledge of scripture and Biblical principles were well-rounded. In fact, the following quote was written by Marx when he was young.

“Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ”. 

This certainly doesn’t sound like the ramblings of someone who hated or didn’t believe in God. The truth is, at some point in the life of Karl Marx, he became very angry and turned on God. Karl Marx became a Satanist. Why this happened remains unknown, but the later writings of Marx confirmed that he had indeed turned his back on God and became one with God’s adversary. The following quote illustrates this.

“…Yet I have power within my youthful arms

To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears ‘Descend,

come with me, friend.’”

For some reason, which again remains unknown, Karl Marx became a man filled with hatred towards God, and this is what motivated him to create communism. Though, as stated above, there is reason to believe that others from a group commonly known as the Illuminati actually paid Marx to create it. Take this quote for example from cuttingedge.org.

“We know that, in 1848, a highly select body of secret initiates who called themselves the League of Twelve Just Men of the Illuminati, financed Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.”

This puts our understanding of communism into a different perspective, doesn’t it?

The essential understanding that should be taken from this is that communism wasn’t created as an economic system to create total equality; it was created as a system of governance to be run by Satan in an effort to destroy humanity and man’s divine connection to God. That is why it was created as an “Anti-Thesis” to western capitalism. The ideas behind capitalism, liberty, the free market, and every other value that made America great all revolve around one spiritual absolute, and that is that man was created with free will. What do socialism and communism always do? They create populations of non-thinking people who become totally helpless and dependent on government. Would this happen if they retained their belief in God and operated from the notion they were born with free will? This is why communism seeks to destroy religion, or, as Marx described it in The Communist Manifesto, “Destroy God in the minds of men.” The purpose wasn’t to create a system full of atheists but to create the conditions that would enable the creation of Satan’s new order. Creating atheism was but a means to an end in the quest to defeat God.

To further illustrate this, let’s examine our current presidents continuous assault upon the economy that does little but destroy opportunity and create dependence. The economy has become so bad that we have more people living on welfare than working. This does nothing but enslave and destroy an individual’s initiative. Soon, people forget how to care for themselves and they will forego their principles and vote for whomever guarantees to maintain their lifestyle of dependence. By removing opportunities to live self-sufficient lives, the Marxists create a system of slavery and convince everyone that it was done in the name of fairness. It’s the same story every time. The question is: can Marxism prevail in the Land of the free? Or, do we still have the moral, intestinal fortitude to stop it?

http://freedomoutpost.com/communism-is-spiritual-warfare-created-to-destroy-god/

The Problem Of The Fragmented Political Right

Great essay.

Why the political right is so fragmented

by MC

The genuine conservative political right is defunct. It no longer exists as a separate entity and is now securely blocked in with the fantasy ‘Nazi’ ‘far right’.

The leftist/collectivist policy of denigrate, divide and destroy has worked beautifully, no doubt assisted by fifth-columnists well able to hide amongst the tolerant liberalism (small L) of conservative (small C) opinion.

The US Republican establishment is now left of centre. With the exception of the Reagan years, it has been drifting steadily leftwards, totally out of contact with grass-roots conservatism. In fact, the modern GOP does not hide its contempt for its supposed conservative roots.

The British ‘Conservative’ Party is a bit of a far-left-of-centre joke. For sick political expediency it has killed justice and allowed a multi-tier system of ‘race/Islamophobia/social cohesion’-driven legal exceptions to prevail. We now have one law for Muslims and their patrons, another law for the man in the street, and a third more draconian law for those who wish to express their freedom, liberty and/or right of free speech. The Conservatives have particularly allowed freedom of speech to become encrusted with so-called ‘hate’ legislation where hate is an ill-defined term, randomly applied and seemingly related to causing offense particularly to Muslims and/or gays and/or general dissent. But where causing offense to Christians or Jews or real conservatives is studiously ignored.

So how did we get here?

I suspect that the contrived association between Nazism and the ‘right’ has much to do with it. However, there is also a failure to understand liberty , racism and nationalism as they apply to traditional liberal conservatism. But there is yet another factor which may also be critical.

There was recently an article at Gates of Vienna about Jewgida, which attracted more than the usual number of comments. Many of those were divisive and intolerant, seeking to emphasize that Jooos are the enemy rather than celebrate the number of Jews who participate in the counterjihad movement.
Personally I am disappointed that Jewgida feels the need to exist outside of any local/national Pegida movement(s), but all the same I would welcome them into the fold.

The right is vapid because it is fragmented. It is fragmented because it has been taught to be intolerant and see the likes of Jewgida as a threat. This is not part of true conservatism or the true right; it is the absorption of leftist principles into the conservative psyche.
Real conservatism has a Judeo-Christian core belief, a belief that leads to trust and tolerance: trust and tolerance in God and in (conservative) man. When that core is deflated, however, then there is only fear and fragmentation. The negative reaction and mudslinging provoked by the publication of Diana West’s book American Betrayal (a MUST-read for ALL those on the right), presumably at the fear/knowledge that the Republican Party had also been thoroughly penetrated by KGB agents of influence, was just too much for the supposed icons of right-Republican thought.

So here is a provocative piece from a UK Nationalist website of dubious origin, which is unconfirmed in any way:

“I learnt some of the plans of the deliberate One World agents at a meeting in Harold Wilson’s [UK Prime Minister in the 60’s] room in University College, Oxford, in October 1940. He explained the organization of the subversive groups in this country, with the biological, economic and political sections as the most important, and with overt left wing organizations such as the Communist Party to divert attention from the three vital sections. He said that the overall head of the subversive organization was the head of the biological section, while he himself was the head of the political section of the subversive organization. Members of his section were to infiltrate the political Parties, A larger proportion were to infiltrate the Labour Party, most of them posing as ‘moderates’ on the right of the Party, but a substantial number were to infiltrate the Conservative Party, these posing as ‘moderates’ on the left of the Party. He explained that they were to pose as ‘moderates’ because the British people tended to distrust ‘extremists.’ At a later stage everyone who is patriotic was to be described as a ‘right wing extremist.’

— Dr. Kitty Little PhD. BSc. MA.

Let me reiterate that this is unconfirmed in any way. Nevertheless, it is thought provoking because what it posits has come true (see the rest of article at the link).

If the ‘right’ has indeed been penetrated, then the brief for the agents of influence would be to divide and render harmless, which has very obviously been achieved. The infighting in the ranks of the right, worldwide, has been sad and destructive.

Margaret Thatcher described Ted Heath as a Conservative éminence grise constantly sowing discord. This is the same Ted Heath who took the UK into the EU (EEC) and lied (by omission) about an “ever-closer union”.

By all appearances the natural Right has now been demolished and removed from the political scene in most of the western world. Thus Geert Wilders’ PVV is deemed ‘far right’ rather than plain ‘right’ because any criticism of ‘immigrants’ means ‘racism’, and ‘racism’ is ‘Nazi’ and thus ‘far right’.

The ‘Socialism’ in National Socialism is rarely emphasised, and it is the ‘National’ that is deemed responsible for all the evils of the Holocaust and the general hatred of Slavs, Africans etc. And, yes, the Nazis were very racist when it suited them. But they accommodated the Japanese, and the Bosnian Muslims and the proto-Palestinians when it was in their interests to so do. We see this same phenomenon too in most socialist regimes, where the real but covert object is to create a feudal state with a party elite ruling over a proletariat of workers whose existence is little more than slavery. All are equal, “but some are more equal than others,” as George Orwell put it. Stalin hated Jews, but he also hated Caucasians and Mongolians, and the Chinese communist nobility hate anybody not of Han descent.

Nationalism is not the same as racism. Nationalism can be precisely defined, but racism is exactly what socialists want it to be, in that it is not necessarily anything to do with ‘race’ but more to do with skin colour or religion. Socialists are obsessed with skin colour in a way that nationalists find strange and revealing. To a nationalist it is ‘culture’ that is important, and particularly the preservation of the national culture. Religion, too, is a socialist paranoia. In the socialists’ view, Christianity is uniquely indicative of ‘white’ supremacy and ‘white’ privilege, and must be purged. The more a Christian is Bible-orientated, the more dangerous he/she is. Any other religion is just a point of leverage which can be used to turn on the faucet of violence at need, and at this Islam has shown itself to be compliant and thus useful.

Socialism is a political religion. It believes that man is god, and that mankind can build a heaven-on-earth utopia based upon equality and social justice, but only if all become believers. This means that pragmatically, dissenters must be isolated and removed (exterminated), whether by using gulags or Konzentrationslager, or just scimitars, is largely academic. This philosophy also means that the party must redefine ‘truth’ because the basic curiosity of a human must be eradicated and replaced by doctrine and propaganda, a process nicknamed ‘brainwashing’.

The political right has thus been brainwashed out of the common perception, and an Antifa movement has been established to make sure it stays there. Antifas are interesting as well as oxymoronic: these are the Sturmabteilung of the Nazis rehashed as enforcers of socialism, which implies that it was always the socialism of the Nazis that was important, and that every howl of antifa rage is to give voice to an opinion that both Stalin and Hitler were correct.

There is no political ‘far right’, because in reality the Right’s policy is for small government and minimum interference with individual liberty. Therefore, to interpolate ‘far right’ is to contemplate a state with no government at all i.e. anarchy in the truest sense of the word (anarchy = without government).

The ‘right’ is often closely associated with capitalism, and we have to be careful here for most people confuse capitalism with cartelism. Capitalism means that everybody has access to the markets subject only to their own financial resources and ability to sell their labour. Cartelism means that markets are only open to those meeting criteria set by those already controlling that market. In the UK one works for a company and is paid a remuneration which is governed by a salary band. This salary band is an averaging-out of the ‘value’ of all the workers in that pay band, so the good, profitable workers have to subsidize those in their band who are unprofitable, This is called ‘Social Justice’, and is just another expression of cartelism.

The ultimate in cartelism is in the full socialist agenda, where the state is in absolute control of all production of wealth. Communism abhors capitalism, but enforces absolute state-run cartelism. That is not to say that capitalism is perfect, but it is like democracy: it is the best we have, despite its faults. There was a time when, especially in the USA, if one worked hard and intelligently, then one was almost sure to prosper. This was the American dream. But cartelism has turned that dream into a worldwide nightmare. No longer can lemonade be sold from the front yard — the cartel just can’t stand the competition.

The big selling point of socialism is ‘welfare’, and I suspect that the major criticism of rightist politics is that the balance of welfare to work is too much on the side of ‘work’ and an ethic of ‘no work, no pay’. But the incredible ability of ‘right’ politics to create jobs and distribute wealth and therefore to promote wellbeing is rarely discussed, as is the profound reciprocal ability of socialist ‘welfare’ to promote poverty. When, in the UK, I smashed my leg (high-energy pilon fracture type 3), I had a choice: I could live on welfare for the rest of my life, or I could try to hold down a job as a cripple. I chose the latter, but in doing so, had to give up all access to the former because this was an all-or-nothing inflexible type of welfare designed not to help the patient but to be able to tick a box on a political welfare agenda sheet.

Socialism tends to be very physicalist. Whilst it looks after the injury, in doing so it wants to also own the mind. It has no room for the metaphysical, which says I want to be free and to decide for myself and take responsibility for my decisions.

Because socialism is essentially a religion, it seeks always to evangelise and sermonise. It is much like Edmund taking the White Witch’s Turkish delight*: not only can one ever get enough of it, but it also puts one into spiritual shackles to the point where one will betray one’s brother and sisters for more of the same.

The opposite of the (political) Left is not National Socialism, as the Left would have us believe. And, yes, there were (and still are) street battles between socialist factions like the BNP and SWP, or even BLM and Trumpeters. The real opposition to socialism is from the liberal conservative right, who, on the whole, don’t realize that they even exist, they are now so isolated.

Although Communist Russia fought National Socialist Germany, that does not make them political opposites — brothers often fight brothers, and sometimes with an extra bitterness which comes from sibling jealousy and rivalry, given their competition for the same finite resources….

Time to make friends, brothers of the right!

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/04/why-the-political-right-is-so-fragmented/

A Few Nazi Extremists Ruined It For All The Good Nazis Out There

No one believes that (even though there is actually some truth to it) so why have so many people been suckered into the Muslim version to the extreme extent that every act of Muslim violence and terrorism is perceived as unrelated to Islam?

I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern psyche.

The case of the Nazis

In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today, all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of a horrendous crime.

My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final Solution was only fully conceptualised and implemented in the year 1942, that the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.

It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.

This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is, therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional standing, not all were monsters.

The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology, many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.

We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”, whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.

Muslims and a case of double standards

The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e Islam), which is characterised by the worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow (Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.

To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.

What made me think long and hard is the difference in treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it “Padamalgam”[1], which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their obedience to Islamic doctrine.

Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.

Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility

I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they may have killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared throughout history.

We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality, whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name of Islam.

Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be assumed

Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content? Is the objective and unchanging[2] doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?

Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own doctrine?

The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.

The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books, supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.

Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or not?

The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man they are supposed to model their lives on.

In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state, they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to human freedom and dignity.

It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of the proper information and of making a responsible choice.

The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings, respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?

Today we share our society with people who may or may not adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of survival.

And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their faith?

Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.

To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the choices.

It means either:

Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,

or

Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.

There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey areas: that time has come and gone.

Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.

The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/nazis-versus-muslims/#more-39127

“All Leftist “Caring” Has A Hidden Agenda”

Michael Faraday’s story (below) is in many ways my own, though I am much younger and I was delivered by Jesus from my leftist cultural indoctrination earlier.

The moral of this story is the title: All leftist “caring” has a hidden agenda.

Whether it’s the poor, women, homosexuals, refugees or, hilariously, Muslims (not the Muslim victims of Islam but the Muslim perpetuators of Islam’s greatest evils), there is always an agenda at work and frankly it’s always the same one: power.

While some of these groups are legitimately victims (at times and rarely collectively, not entirely and perpetually as per Leftist mythology), they are foremost victims of Leftists “caring” about how useful these idiots will be in launching them into positions of power in society.

From there it’s a sick symbiotic relationship where the informed Marxists treat these groups like perpetual victims, promising to improve their plight, while these groups forever embrace their hopeless destiny in exchange for promises and handouts from the Marxists.

If you grew up in the West, there’s a good chance that this in some ways reflects your story too:

First of all, forget the ‘60s. This situation has been brewing for over 100 years. I was born into a working-class socialist family in New Zealand in 1960. Democratic socialism had been established by popular reforms in the 1930s. By the late ‘50s, almost every working-class child in New Zealand was raised socialist.

But we didn’t call it socialism. We called it “workers’ rights.” In my family, my older siblings and I were the third generation of socialists. We never chose socialism, we inherited it. In the late ‘60s, the younger middle-class joined us.

It is especially in the British Commonwealth that millions have been raised by leftists, who were raised by leftists, who were raised by leftists, and so on. Some leftist families have been so for more than a century. They consider themselves leftist royalty.

For the millions raised as leftists, it is not an ideology; it is a culture. Since childhood, they have lived and breathed it every day in the home. They know nothing else. Like any culture, it is a way of speaking, thinking and acting, with its own narratives and rituals. Narratives are held sacred, repeated, reinforced and, over time, added to. That which challenges sacred narratives, even reality itself, is met with confusion and hostility. As with any aggressive, intolerant culture, if you enter it, it enters you.

Contrary to opinion, leftism isn’t just about hate. Leftists are more complex than that. From my time as a red diaper leftist, I can tell you that a whole range of emotions are involved. Hate, anger, fear, bitterness, jealousy, envy, rage, greed, pride, smugness and paranoia (not technically an emotion, but it is widespread among leftists).

With such a parade of negative emotions, it is no surprise that so many leftists suffer from chronic depression, often from a young age. Even if they lose the anger, they still retain the attitude: that the government must fix everyone’s problems, regardless of cost and that there is an enormous right-wing conspiracy that is just around the corner.

The victim narrative of the Left is very infectious. You are always the victim and you are always owed something. The wealthy are always evil, while you are always good and wholesome. Converts are often more intense than those born into it. My father, raised a leftist, eventually mellowed and began to question some leftist beliefs. My mother, not raised a leftist, but having become one, never mellowed.

The victim narrative was in every conversation.

The class struggle/oppressed victim narrative is part of daily life on the Left. As a child, I would listen to adults talking. With friends and co-workers, with mothers chatting over tea, it was part of every conversation. They would talk about the weather, their kids, television, but before parting, one of them would always say something relating to the greedy oppression of the rich — and the other had to agree. To not agree was social suicide.

While there were differences between working-class and middle-class leftists, certain attitudes were universal:

When a leftist has never worked, they feel very generous toward anyone who claims to need help, who fits the narrative. They are generous with their emotions.

 When they do get their first real job, they are often shocked by the amount of taxes withheld and have a moment of doubt. But this moment of doubt gives non-leftists an opening. So the young leftist, terrified he/she will be changed, quickly walls off this doubt in their mind and refuses to touch it, until it fades.

Economics are not usually considered part of a culture, but for red-diaper leftists, their attitude to economics is cultural. It is part of the core, sacred narrative. They usually have a child-like view of economics, which they often have inherited from their parents. This is probably why the doubt triggered by their first tax shock is so easily forgotten for leftists. The child-like view is comfortable and familiar. Once amnesia sets in and comfort returns, discussions of economic reality are seen as right-wing propaganda.

Leftists hear big numbers and picture Scrooge McDuck’s money bin, not infrastructure, maintenance, specialized equipment, transportation, training, payrolls, etc. 

For leftists, industry has so much money. Businesses make huge profits. The price of everything is too high. The government has billions. They want to keep it all for themselves and their rich friends. So leftists believe that these evil people must be made to spend the money on things the leftists themselves choose. 

Leftists combine child-like naïveté and paranoid aggression in all of their narratives. It is a remarkable and very damaging pairing. The child-like naïveté protects the narrative from facts while the paranoid aggression protects the mind from doubt. For red-diaper babies, this thinking competes with their normal emotional and intellectual development, causing an internal struggle that can go either way.

In the same family, one child may be a mellow, half-hearted leftist while another is a dedicated communist. The one who feels the greatest need to please the parents will probably be the dedicated communist. The Left, on the surface, may look to some like a movement of young misfits, but it is old, huge and culturally entrenched, not just in Europe, but also in most of the English-speaking nations. Leftism is a family history, a cultural mindset and a way of life for millions of households. It is a set of core sacred narratives and daily conversations.

Children inherit leftism as a belief system, knowing nothing else. By the time that they are old enough to hear other points of view, they are indoctrinated. It has become their moral compass.

Leftism encourages and is driven by the most negative, damaging emotions. It harnesses together childish emotions and paranoid thought processes. Its narratives are a filter that reality has to try to struggle through, often failing.

The child-like thinking solves all problems without pesky details and facts interfering, leading to delusions of intellectual brilliance.

It is actually very hard to give up being a leftist, even when you want to. I know people whose families have been murdered by communists and they are still leftists. It is not enough to see the problems. If you are a red-diaper baby, it’s all you know. You have been indoctrinated (with the media’s help) that the so-called Right is greedy and evil and the religious are hypocritical and delusional. Even if you have doubts, there is nowhere else to go, not without literally changing your mind.

I saw the cracks early. My parents had a fanatical hatred of the middle class and never spoke to them, if possible. In my teens I realized my father hated the wealthy because he wasn’t one. That didn’t stop me being a leftist. It made me want to be a better leftist than my parents. I began to see that class struggle was becoming a scam to get more free stuff. I still sought a perfect form of communism. I met upper middle class leftists and was appalled by their arrogance and snobbery. I traveled the world and did not find any form of communism that did not depend on capitalism to save it from collapse.

Returning home, I had daily conversations with a Jewish doctor who was pro-life. Every day we discussed morals and faith. I began to understand the concept of faith, moral absolutes and self-sacrifice; all new to me. A few weeks later, God spoke to me.

I tried to be a Christian and a moderate leftist. I wasn’t alone. Moderate leftists do not think of themselves as leftists. They think of themselves as balanced and reasonable. I worked with refugees and they told me about the torture, slavery and mass murder of the communist “freedom fighters.” This killed any lingering sentiment regarding communism.

I married a refugee and she tried to stab me. I also found that the refugees had very dark secrets. My feel-good multiculturalism slowly died. I began to see the strength of Judeo-Christian civilization. I saw the dishonesty and viciousness of the Marxist-Feminists, who had taken over the Left. The feminism my mother had stuffed down my throat every day had died. When I argued with leftists, their near-psychotic rage shocked me. I felt I was talking to lunatics.

Despite all this, it is hard to totally leave leftist thinking because it surrounds you. It has become mainstream. It’s like trying to bail a boat with holes in the bottom. It takes a persistent intellectual effort to leave it behind. But there is another reason why it takes time to dig out the leftist brain parasite. A powerful lie lives there. It is the most powerful lie they have. It is that the Left “cares.” You must fully embrace the fact that this is a lie. All leftist “caring” has a hidden agenda.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262160/mind-left-insider-michael-faraday

Hillary Clinton: Fermented “Arab Spring”, Turned Syria Into A War Zone, Created Worst Refugee Crisis Since WW2, Empowered Muslim Rape Epidemic Across Europe, The Next U.S. President 

I find myself fluctuating back and forth between Hillary and Trump as the worst presidential option.

Hillary is the disaster we know and Trump is the disaster we don’t.

Hillary hates everything America was established to be while Trump represents the worst of everything America has become.

Honestly, how do you choose?

A bit of reflection on what Hillary has been up to these last few years has put her back in pole position though.

Michael Snyder’s article begins with the terrible symptoms but it gets down to the root cause and guess who is there…Hillary:

Millions of women in Europe are now deathly afraid to walk outside their own homes at night, and with each passing day more news reports of absolutely horrific rapes and sexual assaults come pouring in from all over the continent. So who is to blame for this epidemic of rape? I think that the answer might surprise you, because a very famous politician in the United States is at least partially responsible. But first, let’s examine why women all over Europe are living in such fear right now. I have written previously about this rape epidemic, but since that time it has gotten even worse. At this point, this plague is even affecting small towns in the far northern portions of the continent. 

For example, just consider what is happening in a small town in northern Sweden known as Ostersund…
Women in a town in northern Sweden have been warned not to walk alone at night in the wake of a spike in violent assaults and attempted rapes.
Police in Östersund made the unusual move to ask women not to go out unaccompanied after dark, after reports of eight brutal attacks, some by ‘men of foreign appearance’, in just over two weeks.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, police said they ‘have never seen anything like it in Östersund’, a small town in the north of Sweden with a population of just 45,000.

Of course things were not always this way in Sweden.
At one time, Sweden had some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world, but now the number of reported rapes in Sweden has risen by more than 1,000 percent since the mid-1970s.

So what is causing this?

A massive influx of immigrants from the Middle East and other third world nations is fundamentally changing Swedish society. During 2015, Sweden brought in an additional 163,000 migrants and refugees, and that was the highest level in all of Europe per capita.

Politically-correct Swedish citizens have opened up their arms to warmly welcome their new friends, but all of this kindness has not prevented an absolutely chilling wave of sexual crime. In particular, public pools have quickly gained a reputation as places where young Swedish women are very likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. The following is an excerpt from an outstanding article by Ingrid Carlqvist…

In 2015, when roughly 163,000 asylum seekers came to Sweden, the problems at public pools increased exponentially. More than 35,000 young people, so-called “unaccompanied refugee children,” arrived — 93% of whom are male and claim to be 16-17 years old. To prevent complete idleness, many municipalities give them free entrance to the public pools.

During the past few months, the number of reports of sexual assaults and harassment against women at public pools has been overwhelming. Most of the “children” are from Afghanistan, widely considered among the most dangerous places in the world for women. When the daily Aftonbladet visited the country in 2013, 61-year-old Fatima told the paper what it is like to be a woman in Afghanistan: “What happens if we do not obey? Well, our husbands or sons beat us of course. We are their slaves.”
In her article, Carlqvist lists example after example of sex attacks by immigrants at public pools. This is just one of those examples…

On January 21, there were reports that the number of sexual assaults had increased dramatically at the Aquanova adventure pool in Borlänge. In 2014, one case was reported; in 2015, about 20 cases were reported. The incidents involved women having their bikinis ripped off, being groped in the water slide and sexually assaulted in the restrooms. Ulla-Karin Solum, the CEO of Aquanova, told the public broadcaster Sveriges Television that many incidents “are due to cultural clashes.”

And this kind of sexual violence is not just limited to Sweden. Wherever there has been a large influx of refugees we are seeing the same things happen.

Here is one recent example from Belgium…

HORRIFIC footage has emerged of a group of young men, including five migrants, laughing, dancing and singing in Arabic as they gang rape an unconscious 17-year-old girl.

It is believed the attack happened after the girl passed out after drinking at a party.

One of the rapists later told police: “She can’t complain. Women must obey men.”

Next, here is an example from Germany…

An Algerian man who almost killed his 25-year-old student victim shouted out ‘if Allah wills it’ in Arabic as he raped her in a darkened alley, a court has heard.

The man, identified only by his first name Rheda, is accused of following the student as she walked home from a nightclub at 5am in Hannover, Germany.

Afterwards, with his victim badly beaten, he is alleged to have climbed off her and asked her if she enjoyed it.

Finally, here is a particularly disturbing example from Austria…

An Iraqi migrant has admitted to raping a ten year old boy in a Viennese swimming pool so ferociously that the boy had to be hospitalised for his injuries. The man said he knew it was wrong but couldn’t help himself as he hadn’t had sex in months.

Police investigators have ascertained that the 20 year old man entered Austria on the 13th September, travelling into the country via the Balkans.

Because most European leaders are so politically correct, they simply cannot face the truth.

In fact, some top European politicians have resorted to blaming the victims in a desperate attempt to maintain the fiction that these immigrants are responsible citizens…

One particularly divisive issue is the extent to which officials have tended to “blame the victim”, so to speak. For instance, Cologne mayor Henriette Reker drew sharp criticism for suggesting that it was German womens’ duty to prevent assaults by keeping would-be assailants “at arm’s length.”

Then there was the now infamous case of the 17-year-old Danish girl who faced a fine from police after she allegedly used “illegal” pepper spray to deter an attacker.

Okay, I promised that I would reveal a top politician in the United States that is at least partially responsible for this epidemic of rape. So let me try to explain how I arrived at my conclusion.

Most of the immigrants that are flooding into Europe are coming from areas that have been ravaged by war. In particular, more immigrants are flooding into Europe from Syria than anywhere else.

If we go back five years ago, Syria was actually a very peaceful place. In the early portions of 2011, the Arab Spring was raging, and leaders all over the Middle East were being deposed. At that time, a decision was made by officials in the Obama administration that it would be an ideal opportunity to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria as well.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni allies in the region were quite eager to get rid of Assad. Syria is part of “the Shiite crescent” that stretches across the Middle East, but 74 percent of all Syrians are actually Sunni. So the idea was to create a “popular uprising” that would overthrow Assad, and Syria would then be transformed into a full-fledged Sunni nation and the balance of power in the Middle East would be fundamentally altered.

This effort was spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Huge protests were organized against Assad in Syria, and those protests rapidly turned violent. A civil war began, and members of “the coalition” poured millions upon millions of dollars into jihadist groups that were attempting to overthrow Assad. And at first the plan was working well. The “resistance” was taking lots of ground and it looked like they were going to be able to push all the way to Damascus and topple Assad.

But then Assad enlisted the help of Iran, Hezbollah, Shiite militias from Iran and most importantly the Russians.

Russian air power has completely turned the tide of the war, and now the Sunni militant groups are being routed. This is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are in such a panic, and they are looking to the Obama administration to finish what it started.

Of course all of this has brought us to the brink of World War 3, and most Americans have absolutely no idea how we got here.

And it is this horrific conflict in Syria which Hillary Clinton played such a key role in starting that has caused the worst refugee crisis that Europe has experienced since World War 2.

So how will Hillary Clinton be rewarded for her fine work?

Well, it appears quite likely that she is going to become the next president of the United States, and that is a very, very depressing thought.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-is-to-blame-for-the-rape-epidemic-that-is-sweeping-across-europe

Hollywood, Testament To The Success Of Capitalism, Now Actively Promoting Communism

“Progressive” is the current name Communists go by. 

Sure, they’ve abandoned the revolutionary means of establishing Communism in favour of the culture eroding long march through the institutions but the end result is still the same: poverty and death for the masses, wealth and power for those in control.

Now Hollywood, the perfect example of an industry built on the freedoms of capitalism but long overrun by progressive types, is out to portray a new victim group: Communists.

Yep, why only remember legitimate victim groups like the millions of Jews murdered in the holocaust when we can also remember faux-victims whose ideology in practise murdered 100 million people during peace time!

Here’s the fun:

My wife and I sat down the Saturday before the Academy Awards to watch the 2015 film Trumbo. Dalton Trumbo is played by Bryan Cranston who did a marvelous job, certainly worthy of the Academy Award nomination he received for Best Actor.

It’s loosely based on the Hollywood screenwriter, author, and self-admitted Communist Dalton Trumbo (1905-1976) who was cited for Contempt of Congress for which he spent nearly a year in prison and blacklisted by film studios. I’ve been familiar with Trumbo’s work since the early 1970s through his 1939 anti-war novel Johnny Got His Gun, based on a case of World War I survivor who suffered shocking debilitating injuries.

“Shortly after the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, Trumbo and his publishers decided to suspend reprinting the book until the end of the war.” With the escalation of the Vietnam War, the book became popular again, so much so that Trumbo directed the 1971 film version of the novel that starred Timothy Bottoms.

Metallica’s song “One” is based on the film.

One scene in Trumbo caught my attention. Trumbo’s oldest daughter asks him if he’s a communist. Instead of answering yes or no, he asks her, “Would you share your sandwich with someone who did not have one?” to which she replies, “Of course.” Ipso facto, he replies, “So that makes you a communist too.” If Communism is just sharing, then who could be opposed to Communism?1

Are people sharing their sandwiches in North Korea and Venezuela? No, because there are no sandwiches to share. Communism isn’t about sharing. It’s about brute force.

Charity is sharing . . . voluntarily. That’s not Communism. The Good Samaritan extended mercy by way of self-sacrificing charity by sharing what belonged to him with a man beaten by robbers:

“‘But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you’” (Luke 10:30-37).

The oil, wine, the Samaritan’s mode of transportation, and the two denarii were his.

Jesus and His disciples shared a common purse as they traveled. This, too, was voluntary. No one was forced to participate.

Appeal cannot be made to Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-37. These early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Roman Empire nor the Church had any role in the sale of the property. John R. Richardson writes:

“No one was forced into giving up his goods and possessions. It was not socialism legislated either by church or state. It does not resemble modern communism in any respect. . . . Ananais was free to keep or sell his property. When he sold it, he had the right to determine whether he would give all of it, or part of it, or none of it, into the treasury of the church for the alleviation of the needs of poor Christians. J. W. Lipscomb is certainly correct when he says, ‘The program was a voluntary expression of Christian concern for the needs of fellow Christians, and was not a program for compulsory collectivism such as we hear advocated all too often today.’”2

Paul takes up a collection for the Jerusalem church “from the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15; Rom 15:14-32). They gave “according to their ability, and beyond their ability, of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3).

The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society as mandated by contract by their sponsoring investors. No matter how much a person worked, everybody would get the same amount. It didn’t take long for the less industrious to realize that their diminished labor would net them the same result of the mot industrious.

William Bradford (1590-1657), the acting governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote the following in his first-hand history of events:

“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.

“For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.

“This [free enterprise] had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

Not only is Socialism immoral by being in violation of the Eighth Commandment; it doesn’t work.

Democrats who claim that rich people are not paying their “fair share” in taxes are the less violent version of Communism. The government only uses force if you refuse to pay. No guns are needed. The long arm of the law will just empty your bank account, garnish your wages, and sell off your property for your failure to “share.”

Trumbo was a man of multiple contradictions. He claimed to be a Communist but was a very rich capitalist, described by his communist friends as a “swimming pool Soviet” because the 320-acre ranch where he and his family lived had its own private lake. No community swimming hole for the Trumbos.

The biggest lie of Trumbo, Danusha V. Goska writes, “is the film’s treatment of communism. Soviet communism murdered tens of millions of innocent human beings. The USSR did have spies active in the US. They did do damage. Dalton Trumbo did obey party dictates to insert communist material into scripts.”

It’s not as if Trumbo was ignorant of Communism’s atrocities. He admitted in a letter that he had read former Communist authors who haddenounced their former affiliation and exposed “Stalin’s repression and the existence of a secret Gulag.”3 One of them was Arthur Koestler. Koestler had joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1931, but by 1938 he had left the party having become disillusioned with Stalinism. In 1940 he published his anti-totalitarian novel Darkness at Noon.

“Darkness at Noon is an allegory set in the USSR (not named) during the 1938 purges, as Stalin consolidated his dictatorship by eliminating potential rivals within the Communist Party: the military, and the professionals. None of this is identified explicitly in the book. Most of the novel occurs within an unnamed prison and in the recollections of the main character, Rubashov.”

Trumbo knew what Koestler was describing, and he chose to ignore the warnings, not only Koestler’s but other writers as well. Koestler also edited the 1949 book The God That Failed “which collects together six essays with the testimonies of a number of famous ex-communists, who were writers and journalists. The common theme of the essays is the authors’ disillusionment with and abandonment of communism.”

The history of Communism is a record of genocide,4 as D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe show in their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?:

“Mao killed about 72 million human beings from 1948 to 1976. When we add the 40 million Stalin is responsible for, we come to a number of 112 million. Throw in Hitler’s 15 million (not counting the devastating war he started!), and we come to about 127 million. Add other killings by other atheistic and totalitarian states — as a result of their atheistic ideology — you come up with a number of more than 130 million.”5

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “estimates reach as high as sixty million” deaths just during Josef Stalin’s reign of terror.6 “Historian Robert Conquest, in The Harvest of Sorrow, his definitive account of Stalin’s reign of rural terror, estimated that 14.4 million people, half of them children, perished.”7

In addition to supporting an ideology that led to the deaths of tens of millions, Trumbo hid behind the First Amendment, a right that would not have been afforded to him if he had moved his family to a Communist nation. Trumbo was like so many limousine and private-jet liberals who support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and their wealth confiscation policies after they’ve made their multi-million-dollar fortunes. They love socialism because it keeps the competition at bay.

There’s Leonardo DiCaprio — net worth $245 million with at least five homes and a private island — promoting the scare of global warming while he jet-sets around the world burning up tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
As reported in Movie Freak, Trumbo’s daughter Niki says the depicted scene never happened. “‘No,’ she chuckles, ‘we never had a conversation like that one while riding horses. That’s made up. But it’s also what I was referring to earlier. It’s another essence moment, a scene that fits what was going on at the time and the emotions we were feeling, but not actual reality. The real moment was more like me asking, “Daddy, are you a communist?” and him replying that he was. The follow-up question was something like, “Can I be a communist when I grow up?” and I wanted him to say that of course I could be; that he’d be so proud of me if I was. Instead he told me I had to be 21 before I could make decisions like that. I had to be old enough to vote. I was so disappointed! Of course, what I wanted was his approval more than I wanted to be a communist. But, I also think he didn’t want to influence my political beliefs, so he wanted to distance himself a little bit from doing that until I was older and could actually talk about, discuss and debate those sort of topics from a place of mutual understanding.’” [↩]

Christian Economics: The Christian Message to the Market Place (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1966), 60. [↩]

Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left (New York: encouner Books, 2006), 218. [↩]

Mark Kramer, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 4. [↩]

D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 236. [↩]

Lloyd Billingsley, The Generation that Knew Not Josef: A Critique of Marxism and the Religious Left (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1985), 38. [↩]

Lewis Lord, “A reign of rural terror, a world away,” U.S. News & World Report (June 30/July 7, 2003), 4. [↩]

It’s not long before we’ll be seeing films about hard-done by paedophiles (but only non-Catholic ones, of course) and polygamists winning the Academy Awards, I kid you not.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/soft-selling-communism-in-the-film-trumbo/