The 100 Days of Bill Shorten, PM

Comedy…or reality…gold?

Michael Copeman lets you decide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Here’s the bad news:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://vimeo.com/163506100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s This?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderator: Dinesh, thank you so much.

Dinesh D’Souza: Thank you.  

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

Heroes Of Cultural Marxism: Beyoncé 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can watch my fat ass twist boy

As I bounce to the next d*ck boy

And keep your money, I got my own

Get a bigger smile on my face, being alone

Bad motherf*****, God complex

Motivate your ass call me Malcom X

Yo operator, or innovator

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

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

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

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

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

Me and my ladies sip my D’USSÉ cup

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

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

I ain’t thinking ’bout you

I ain’t thinking ’bout


Middle fingers up, put them hands high

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

Tell him, boy, bye, middle fingers up

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

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh

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

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


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

I did not come to play with you hoes, haha

I came to slay, b***h

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

Oh, yes, you besta believe it

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 5: Express your empowerment with middle fingers.

Lesson 6: Eat corn bread and collard greens.

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

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

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

Driver roll up the partition please

I don’t need you seeing Yoncé on her knees

Took 45 minutes to get all dressed up

We ain’t even gonna make it to this club

Now my mascara runnin’, red lipstick smudged

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

He popped all my buttons and he ripped my blouse

He Monica Luwinski’d all on my gown

Whoa dere daddy, daddy didn’t bring a towel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hint: she’s not.)

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

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

Be warned: 

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

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

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

Furthermore, he actually makes some exceptionally good points.

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

Just use discernment when you read it is all.

So without further ado, here it is:

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

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

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

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

What Is A Cultural Collapse?

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

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

The Cultural Collapse Progression

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

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

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

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

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

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

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

3. Women begin to place career above family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Birth rates decrease among native population

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

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

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

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

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

5. Large influx of immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Destruction of native culture

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

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

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

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

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

Russia

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very low

Brazil

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Moderate

America

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

England

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Sweden

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Poland

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

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Possible

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

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

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

The True Political Spectrum: Washing Away The Deceptive Left-Wing, Right-Wing Terminology In Favour Of The Reality That Either You Are Free From Government Or You Are Oppressed By Government

In this age, society will always be imperfect at best.

Jesus has not yet assumed his position as King of the nations and consequently there will never be a perfect political and economic system

But let’s remember that we do have a choice about just how bad things can get.

After all, would you prefer the Third Reich and Communism or something a little more freeing?

People literally chose both of those and look how it ended.

Because this is a fallen world, the natural tendency is always towards corruption and the misuse of power. If something good is established in the political and economic realms, it wasn’t achieved without the hard work of people fighting against authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies. 

In essence, someone realised that humanity were made to be free and they fought against those who sought to subdue that freedom in the name of whatever oppressive ideology was popular at the time.

And guess what: nothing has changed!

The contemporary West is in many regards the most successful society ever and most of that can be attributed to the esteemed value of the individual.

Sadly, we are in a significant upheaval where much of what has been gained is currently been stripped away by the corrupt leaders elected by ignorant “useful idiots” who don’t understand their history and consequently cannot see the oppressive future they are ushering in of their own free volition.

As always these days, an understanding of the true political spectrum (ie not the left-right lie where of your two party options, one is always left and one is always right) is absolutely necessary to avoid falling trap to the deceptive language employed by politicians who seek ever more power over society.

The below article from Mr E at Rocking Philosophy is asimple yet astute breakdown of the political into an accurate and useable form: namely the relationship between the size and power of government versus the freedom of the individual.

I find his ending statements the most fascinating as Mr E, an atheist, expresses his desire for a world “where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary”. 

If you know anything about the God of the bible, this is exactly what is promised therein.

Don’t get sidetracked with supposed Christian empire in history that committed evil acts or scandals involving the church and paedophilia. I’m not talking about Christians who fail to be like Christ, or in plenty of cases, people who only claimed the name of “Christian” – I’m referring to what God says the church is and will be perfectly when Jesus rules over the nations as King.

Humanity will be perfectly free, from sin and even death, (with “free” meaning free to love, not free to act selfishly and dangerously) and the church is by default a collective that you can only become part of by your free will, otherwise known as voluntary.

Indeed, this is why we choose freely to become Christians – because our sin is killing us and we want to be made like Jesus, so wing God freely promises to all those who say yes to him.

The True Political Spectrum

Having made a video about the left-right paradigm I feel the yearning to further expound on a more accurate representation of what the left and right truly are. I’ve been researching the concept of the political spectrum for quite some time, and the political compass appears to be the most widely used:

I can no longer accept the accuracy of this chart, since collectivists are always authoritarian to some degree. They restrict individual liberty, and define rights via collective approval. This is the epitome of totalitarianism, brushing aside individuals for collective goals. This is not only oppressive to the individual, but also leads to problems like regulatory capture. Where would the ‘too big to fail’ bankers be today without state funded bailouts, bad debts passed onto the people via money printing and inflation?

Some might argue that if the banks failed then there would have been chaos. This is the fault of policies allowing a small number to dictate economic activity, and tilt this in their favour. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers didn’t care

about losses because they knew that central banks were there to insure them in the event of failure. There is no way to prevent this sort of monopoly under collectivism, since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore it’s better to have a system where mistakes cannot be accommodated for with bailouts and ponzi schemes.

Before a more accurate diagram of the present political spectrum can be given it’s important to be aware of what democracy truly is. Democracy is a collectivist ideology that defines rights via the ballot box. This is the same throughout the democratic world. True, there is a far stronger Lockean inspired culture of individualism in the United States, but still democracy has the same problems wherever one goes, and it’s worked wonders for the expansion of socialism. It saddens me that two world wars were fought in the 20th century, and still socialism could not be kept at bay. While fascism, which is simply National Socialism, has been denigrated as the true face of evil, the same cannot be said for international socialism, otherwise known as communism.

If by now you need to be told that Hitler, fascism, and Nazism, are all socialist ideologies driven by state protectionism and nationalism, then the chances are you’re a communist, or an admirer of Marx. There’s always the strong possibility you swallowed the blue pill of government education that teaches people that the Nazis were far-right, even though they controlled the means of production via state regulated corporations, and restricted property rights. If you need any of this confirmed then I have already made videos called “National & International Socialism” and “Nazis Vs Marxists”.

Nothing seems to make a Marxist and a communist angrier than the unrevised fact that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Fascism obsesses over race, while communism endlessly deals with class, but both demand adherence to authority. Hence they are both totalitarian. These two great evils have fought for dominance throughout the 20th century, and today we have a society where democracy is a perpetual battle for control of production and property rights via either the fascist or communist models.

Corporatism itself is a fascist ideology, where the means of production is manipulated by regulation defined by the state. The differences between this and communist control of production is something communists will contest ad nauseum. But they are semantical issues that ignore the fact that corporations could never exist without state policies of corporate personhood. Under laissez-faire, corporations would just be businesses, like any other. The state however benefits from corporations collecting taxes and controlling society on the behalf of bureaucrats, like feudal lords herding peasants on farmlands under feudalism.

With all this in mind we can now begin to see that we only live in one half of a paradigm made up of collectivism and individualism. Presently we live entirely within the collectivist half, where international socialism and National Socialism reside. Here is what this looks like:

It may seem very unfair to label conservatives as fascists, but this only occurs because the right-wing political choice under democracy is merely a corporatist and nationalistic alternative. Conservatism as an ideology is predominantly based around questioning change, since change may not necessarily lead to good things. Therefore I am not inclined to believe by any stretch of the imagination that conservatives are fascists per se. Admittedly they are more authoritarian than many libertarians. But they are always looking to create a society of personal accountability and minimal statism, which is far more than can be said for any socialist, obsessed with absolute control of society.

Conservatives are often associated with organised religion. Organised religion can be very problematic when it merges with the state. This is called theocracy, and is just another form of collectivism. It is not however compulsory to be religious if you are a conservative, and many conservatives are atheists. Having cleared this up it’s much easier to understand why modern right-wing parties have been lumbered in with fascists, due to their big government military spending and corporate welfare policies. Saying that, the term “far-right” is a smokescreen, since fascists are only far-right collectivists, not far right on a broader political spectrum, which looks like this:

Here the totalitarian ideologies, be it national or international socialism, are on the far left. As we progress to the right we pass all ideologies that demand adherence to the state, like democratic political parties. The middle is obviously the centrist position, though I would call this sitting on the fence. The first position to the right is libertarianism. Modern ‘purist’ libertarians believe in a state that only comprises of military, courts, and police, protecting natural rights instead of defining them (note: left-libertarians are merely communists, using dialectic to reframe terminology). This shows why libertarians are on the right, since they actively work towards a limited state, and democracy would not be a legitimate method to infringe upon the natural rights of the individual. These ideas are defined by such philosophers as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and of course the Austrian economists.

The far-right position is stateless anarchy. In a world of anarchy the individual is sovereign. Appeals to consequences galore are usually the opposition to a stateless world, but at the very least it’s possible to grasp that the interpretation of the political spectrum in this case is totalitarianism on one end, where individuals have no rights without collective approval, and anarchy on the other, where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary. Perhaps some day we can live in this world, but for now even libertarianism would be a positive result for individualists, and a perfect transitory step for the evolution of human society to voluntaryism. It seems to me that the history of mankind is the battle for individual autonomy over the collective, and I for one aim to help this cause.

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2012/08/the-true-political-spectrum.html

Leftist Governments Will Force Their Way Into Your Family And They Will Target Your Children To Do It

Here is the terrifying totalitarian future that Scotland is cooking up for families.

WHAT IS IT?

The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to appoint a ‘Named Person’ for every child in Scotland.

This is a state official tasked with looking after a child’s “wellbeing”, that is, their “happiness”. This state guardian will be put in place regardless of whether or not children or parents wish to have one and regardless of whether there is any need for state intervention.

Confusingly, there are already Named Person pilot schemes in operation across Scotland, but the legislation does not actually come into force until August 2016.

WHAT WILL A ‘NAMED PERSON’ DO?

Named Persons are given some of the duties of parents. A Government-funded leaflet said this includes having to check if children get a say in how their room is decorated and what they watch on TV.

A Named Person will have the power to speak to a child, including about very personal issues, and provide information or advice – all without requiring parental consent.

TEN REASONS WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM

  1. It undermines parents and permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.
  2. The Government keeps saying there’s no need for families to use the Named Person but this is disingenuous. The scheme is compulsory. Every child will have a Named Person by law. They will have power to access confidential data on the family, and to talk to a child without their parents agreeing with what they say.
  3. It’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children with the resources available. The Scottish Government is stretching those resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.
  4. Appointing a Named Person with legal responsibilities for every child will divert resources away from vulnerable children. Time spent filling in forms for dozens of children at no risk is time that could be better spent on those children in need of help.
  5. One piece of Government guidance says a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is the role of a parent.
  6. Because of the pressure on them, Named Persons will be forced to act defensively, reporting trivial or irrelevant family issues to social services. This creates more work for social workers who will have to needlessly follow up these families, cheating vulnerable children of the resources that they need.
  7. The Named Person is legally responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of every child. Official guidance says “wellbeing is another word for happiness”. How can the state monitor the happiness of every child?
  8. Teachers are busy enough without becoming a Named Person responsible for monitoring hundreds of children and handling the large amounts of confidential data sent to them by all the other agencies involved in the child’s life.
  9. These plans could result in children having their privacy invaded over personal issues and could lead to them shunning helplines and advisory services.
  10. The current law says social services can intervene where a child is at risk of significant harm. But Named Persons can intervene merely where there are concerns about a child’s “wellbeing” or “happiness”.

Consider the following commentary for further insight into just how terrifyingly bad this actually is:

http://no2np.org/named-person/

Michael Brown: An Open Letter To Bruce Springsteen 

Pretty much every public toilet, bathroom, and restroom in history has provided men and women with seperate privacy (yes, there are always exceptions).

Everyone else is wrong though and the moral crusaders of the transgender fascist movement are out to ensure you bow to their will.

Bruce Springsteen, rockstar, is leading the charge against North Carolina, a state that had the audacity to continue to differentiate between men and women, by cancelling his planned concert there because they won’t change said law.

Michael Brown offers an open letter that challenges Springsteen and band to actually think about the topic a bit:

Dear Bruce,

As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)

So, please allow me to ask you some questions.

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

And one final question.

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

https://stream.org/open-letter-bruce-springsteen-band/