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

Advertisements

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/

Facebook Accused Of Suppressing Conservative News

Sounds about what you’d expect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear ABC, Crowdfunded Illustrated Homosexual Fairytails Are Not Headline News But The Dangers Of The Homosexual Lifestyle Sure Are

If I successfully Crowdfunded a fifth leg for my dog, it would no more be “news” than this joke.

What would be news however is an LGBT Aesop-styled fable about the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the LGBT community. Or drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide.

I mean, if your are going to try and pawn homosexuality and other abnormal, dangerous and destructive desires and disorders onto the general public, at least be honest about what is under the hood.

I’m loath to post any of this propoganda masquerading as “news” but there is one important comment which sums up the key problem here:

“The conflict does not arise from a coming out story or someone struggling with their sexuality or a disapproving parent. In this utopian kingdom, sexuality isn’t questioned,” he said.

Ah utopia! Y’know, the key underlying promise of Marxism/Humanism/Atheism.

Otherwise know as a “lie”.

So these authors are under the insane delusion that total sexual anarchy is actually the gateway to utopia – a place where nobody asks any questions or, at least, the wrong type of questions. Just like in Communist countries! 

The threat of the gulag seems to have that effect on questioning types.

With that disturbing lie exposed, let’s consider a very contrary reality to this delusional LGBT fantasy: the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide in the LGBT community are all equally high in all the homosexual-friendly cities of the world including San Francisco, Rio De Janiro and Sydney. 

The LGBT lobby are so eager to represent homosexuals as victims that they will overplay their hand and confess the reality that homosexuals still turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide even when they are embraced, supported, and celebrated.

Regardless of location, consider the following cited article by Matt Slick that clearly identifies homosexuals as victims but most importantly, victims of their own dangerous lifestyle choices and sexual practises:

Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let’s take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let’s start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.

Disease

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: “Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009).” (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

“A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: “Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently.” (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don’t know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: “Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed.” (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

$1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: “June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia–HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion.” (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society’s financial stability.

Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

” . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark–the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality–both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.” (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)

73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals’ problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker).” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Sexual Molestation

Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage–29 percent–of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772″ (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).

Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another ‘sexual orientation’ see http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517). Society needs to protect its children–not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. “There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216, McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253, Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society, and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their “orientation,” is extremely dangerous. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/promised-land-long-overdue-lgbti-fairytale-comes-to-life/7320074
https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

Daniel Greenfield: “Either There’s Something Wrong Within The [Black] Community. Or America Is Racist.”

Humanity were for most history divided according to geographical location. In those many and varied geographical locations, many and varied appearances, cultures, and religions developed. 

We distinguish this as “ethnicity”.

Within each ethnicity, a general uniformity developed. People generally looked the same, dressed the same, ate the same, valued the same things and acted the same. Most importantly, there was nothing wrong with this whole being seperate and distinct thing.

You like French food? Well, you can get it because of that unique French ethnicity. How about Anime? Thank the Japanese. Do you like oppression and subjugation? Hands together for Islam.

What about the idea that all men are created equal? America, man!

Interestingly, God himself divided the nations and he did so to prevent humanity working together to inevitably evil ends.

Today, humanity has come up with two brilliant ways to reverse God’s division: multiculturalism and the United Nations. Both are equally inane in theory and practise and will inevitably cause ruination to everyone involved in either.

Why?

Because respectively, some ethnicities suck and some can never work together, no matter what.

Now don’t get me wrong – all ethnicities have a suck factor. It’s just that some have more than others while a few have maxed it out.

And here is the one point you need to take away, even if you forget all others: ethnicities never suck (or don’t suck) because of their skin colour. Their suck always, always, always comes from other, non-superficial factors such as their values, beliefs, and practises (and, of course, their food!).

NEVER BECAUSE OF SKIN COLOUR!!!

With that clearly in our mind, we can begin to critically examine the reasons ethnicities suck (frequently due to Marxist-atheisic or Islamic belief) and not get bogged down in the Marxist-inspired politically correct slander of “Racist!”

Let’s target the black community in the United States of America. 

(Now, the only reason skin colour comes into the conversation is because people of one ethnicity frequently gravitate towards people of their own ethnicity, and that’s okay! That’s not racist either.)

There was a time in the US where the black community was largely very respectable. 

Sadly, ethnicities change and in this case, it changed under the duress of cultural Marxism encouraging the ingenious smack down combo of perpetual victimhood status and moral relativity (ie unrestrained immorality).

Remember, this is about belief and practise, not skin colour. 

White society is not in much better shape, being equally impacted and distorted by cultural Marxism and its moral relativity (ie lawlessness) but without the added bonus of shifting all blame for their collective circumstances to another ethnicity.

That’s right – if anything, the burden of being the perpetual perpetrator of all black (or just ALL) social ills has probably worked to keep white society on its toes and a little more humble than other ethnicities. Of course, Marxism would never deliberately instill humility – it just couldn’t be avoided in the blame shifting process.

Anyway, here’s Daniel Greenfield with another outstanding dissection of reality:

There are two ways to look at the problems of the black community. Either there’s something wrong within the community. Or America is racist.

The sensible liberals who used to be able to split the difference are dead or purged. The Moynihan Report is inconceivable in a Democratic Party which has gone all in on freeing drug dealers and bulking up the welfare state. Obama mentioned fatherlessness briefly in his Brother’s Keeper speech before pivoting to a call to dismantle the criminal justice system and school discipline policies.

Obama admitted that, “We won’t be living up to our ideals when their parents are struggling with substance abuse, or are in prison, or unemployed, and when fathers are absent.” But his solution is freeing drug dealers “who could be good fathers and good neighbors and good fellow citizens” if only they weren’t “languishing in prison over minor, nonviolent drug offenses.”

Some recent examples of such potential “good fathers” whom he freed include Vander Keith Gore, the son of a Democratic councilman who ran a drug ring which threatened to murder a cooperating witness’ baby. He freed Isadore Gennings, whose “minor nonviolent drug offenses” involved helping move $2.5 million in cocaine, Carmel Bretous, who helped smuggle in 110 pounds of cocaine, and Tommie Sand Tyree, who was described as having “a lot of blood on his hands.”

Freeing drug dealers also means that that there will be more parents “struggling with substance abuse” and that “drugs are plentiful.” But making matters in the black community worse was always the plan.

Last year, Obama called for going easy on violent criminals just like in Europe where 10 years for murder is considered a severe sentence. The length of prison sentences for rape would also have to be cut by at least 20 percent to comply with European standards. And when these “good fellow citizens” get out, they have a right to be your “good murderer neighbor” or “good rapist neighbor.”

Obama’s HUD has warned landlords that criminals are protected under the Fair Housing Act since due to “widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics”. Freeing black drug dealers also disproportionately burdens the African-American communities where they do business and shoot each other, and denying safe homes to black families living in the areas where criminals are most likely to set up shop is equally terrible.

But there is no moral logic at work here. Only the remorseless political logic of progressive power.

Disparate impact is the monster lurking in the cellar of civil rights. Once you reject the idea that black communities and individuals bear any responsibility for their actions, any disparate impact can only be due to racism. Poverty, broken families, higher crime rates and school discipline rates are purely the products of racial bias. And their existence justifies unlimited government intervention.

Inflicting misery on black people empowers government. This is the twisted liberal version of slavery.

Many black reformers understood that civil rights was less about helping them than about endowing white liberals with unlimited power in a world where the nationwide economic disaster that allowed FDR to impose the New Deal’s drastic economic authority no longer seemed likely to recur. Sensible reformers like Senator Moynihan who actually wanted to holistically tackle the problems of the black community would always be outnumbered by fake outraged reformers who wanted to worsen them. 

If everything is racist, then everything must be controlled. We can see that on campuses where political correctness has outlawed everything from Halloween costumes to raising your hand in safe spaces. But disparate impact is the perfect weapon for imposing unlimited control over everything nationwide.

Disparate impact is the perfect Swiss Army Knife of the totalitarian left because it can be applied to anything. Disparate effect can be used to argue that crime rates are the product of racism and that the entire criminal justice system must be overhauled until arrest, trial and conviction rates are equal across racial lines. And until this impossible outcome can be achieved, it also means that anything that disproportionately impacts criminals is also racist.

That means background checks for jobs and apartment rentals. And of course it doesn’t stop there.

School graduation rates must also be made equivalent. And until that somehow happens, hiring only high school or college graduates is a policy that also has a disproportionate racial impact. If you think this is farfetched, the Supreme Court in 1971 ruled that a high school diploma requirement is racist. A few years ago the EEOC claimed that requiring a high school diploma might also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. A year earlier, the EEOC insisted that a trucking company was in violation of the ADA for suspending an alcoholic truck driver and referring him to substance abuse counseling.

Define a persecuted class, whether it’s drug dealers or alcoholics, then reverse cause and effect, and even the most common sense courses of action become forms of discrimination to be controlled.

And then we end up with a right for rapists to rent your ground floor and drivers with a drinking problem to drive eighteen-wheelers next to your compact car.

As long as a problem exists, it will have a disparate impact. And the worse the disparate impact, the more power can be amassed in addressing it. But the disparate impact is the effect, not the cause. Reversing cause and effect allows the government to go into business fighting the various outcomes of problems, whether it’s alcoholism or fatherlessness, without ever addressing the actual causes.

And to worsen those causes to increase misery and inflate their own power whenever they can.

An Urban Institute report a few years ago found that, “The percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers… tripled between the early 1960s and 2009.” The findings in the Moynihan Report have only grown worse and the fundamental causes have not changed. Without healthy families, there can be no healthy communities. And without healthy families and communities, there will be far fewer healthy individuals. Crime and unemployment rates will continue to be “disproportionately” high.

And that’s a free gift to a political movement built on destroying the black community for fun and profit, expanding the scope of its own power and organizations by creating and feeding off human misery.

The road ahead is simple. Worsen the problems in the black community. Promise to treat them by expanding the scope of disparate impact to address any interaction between the negative social outcomes and the rest of the country until everything is racist and everything is controlled.

That’s the way to deprive everyone of their rights and their futures under the guise of civil rights.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262413/everything-racist-everything-must-be-controlled-daniel-greenfield

Humanity were for most history divided according to geographical location. In those many and varied geographical locations, many and varied appearances, cultures, and religions developed. 

We distinguish this as “ethnicity”.

Within each ethnicity, a general uniformity developed. People generally looked the same, dressed the same, ate the same, valued the same things and acted the same. Most importantly, there was nothing wrong with this whole being seperate and distinct thing.

You like French food? Well, you can get it because of that unique French ethnicity. How about Anime? Thank the Japanese. Do you like oppression and subjugation? Hands together for Islam.

What about the idea that all men are created equal? America, man!

Interestingly, God himself divided the nations and he did so to prevent humanity working together to inevitably evil ends.

Today, humanity has come up with two brilliant ways to reverse God’s division: multiculturalism and the United Nations. Both are equally inane in theory and practise and will inevitably cause ruination to everyone involved in either.

Why?

Because respectively, some ethnicities suck and some can never work together, no matter what.

Now, don’t get me wrong – all ethnicities have a suck factor. It’s just that some have more than others while a few have maxed it out.

And here is the one point you need to take away, even if you forget all others: ethnicities never suck (or don’t suck) because of their skin colour. Their suck always, always, always comes from other, non-superficial factors such as their values, beliefs, and practises (and, of course, their food!).

NEVER BECAUSE OF SKIN COLOUR!!!

With that clearly in our mind, we can begin to critically examine the reasons ethnicities suck and not get bogged down in the Marxist-inspired politically correct slander of “Racist!”

Let’s target the black community in the United States of America. 

(Now, the only reason skin colour comes into the conversation is because people of one ethnicity frequently gravitate towards people of their own ethnicity, and that’s okay! That’s not racist either.)

There was a time in the US where the black community was largely very respectable. 

Sadly, ethnicities change and in this case, it changed under the duress of cultural Marxism encouraging the ingenious smack down combo of perpetual victimhood status and moral relativity (ie unrestrained immorality).

Remember, this is about belief and practise, not skin colour. 

White society is not in much better shape, being equally impacted and distorted by cultural Marxism and its moral relativity (ie lawlessness) but without the added bonus of shifting all blame for their collective circumstances to another ethnicity.

That’s right – if anything, the burden of being the perpetual perpetrator of all black (or just ALL) social ills has probably worked to keep white society on its toes and a little more humble than other ethnicities. Of course, Marxism would never deliberately instill humility – it just couldn’t be avoided in the blame shifting process.

Anyway, here’s Daniel Greenfield with another outstanding dissection of reality:

There are two ways to look at the problems of the black community. Either there’s something wrong within the community. Or America is racist.

The sensible liberals who used to be able to split the difference are dead or purged. The Moynihan Report is inconceivable in a Democratic Party which has gone all in on freeing drug dealers and bulking up the welfare state. Obama mentioned fatherlessness briefly in his Brother’s Keeper speech before pivoting to a call to dismantle the criminal justice system and school discipline policies.

Obama admitted that, “We won’t be living up to our ideals when their parents are struggling with substance abuse, or are in prison, or unemployed, and when fathers are absent.” But his solution is freeing drug dealers “who could be good fathers and good neighbors and good fellow citizens” if only they weren’t “languishing in prison over minor, nonviolent drug offenses.”

Some recent examples of such potential “good fathers” whom he freed include Vander Keith Gore, the son of a Democratic councilman who ran a drug ring which threatened to murder a cooperating witness’ baby. He freed Isadore Gennings, whose “minor nonviolent drug offenses” involved helping move $2.5 million in cocaine, Carmel Bretous, who helped smuggle in 110 pounds of cocaine, and Tommie Sand Tyree, who was described as having “a lot of blood on his hands.”

Freeing drug dealers also means that that there will be more parents “struggling with substance abuse” and that “drugs are plentiful.” But making matters in the black community worse was always the plan.

Last year, Obama called for going easy on violent criminals just like in Europe where 10 years for murder is considered a severe sentence. The length of prison sentences for rape would also have to be cut by at least 20 percent to comply with European standards. And when these “good fellow citizens” get out, they have a right to be your “good murderer neighbor” or “good rapist neighbor.”

Obama’s HUD has warned landlords that criminals are protected under the Fair Housing Act since due to “widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics”. Freeing black drug dealers also disproportionately burdens the African-American communities where they do business and shoot each other, and denying safe homes to black families living in the areas where criminals are most likely to set up shop is equally terrible.

But there is no moral logic at work here. Only the remorseless political logic of progressive power.

Disparate impact is the monster lurking in the cellar of civil rights. Once you reject the idea that black communities and individuals bear any responsibility for their actions, any disparate impact can only be due to racism. Poverty, broken families, higher crime rates and school discipline rates are purely the products of racial bias. And their existence justifies unlimited government intervention.

Inflicting misery on black people empowers government. This is the twisted liberal version of slavery.

Many black reformers understood that civil rights was less about helping them than about endowing white liberals with unlimited power in a world where the nationwide economic disaster that allowed FDR to impose the New Deal’s drastic economic authority no longer seemed likely to recur. Sensible reformers like Senator Moynihan who actually wanted to holistically tackle the problems of the black community would always be outnumbered by fake outraged reformers who wanted to worsen them. 

If everything is racist, then everything must be controlled. We can see that on campuses where political correctness has outlawed everything from Halloween costumes to raising your hand in safe spaces. But disparate impact is the perfect weapon for imposing unlimited control over everything nationwide.

Disparate impact is the perfect Swiss Army Knife of the totalitarian left because it can be applied to anything. Disparate effect can be used to argue that crime rates are the product of racism and that the entire criminal justice system must be overhauled until arrest, trial and conviction rates are equal across racial lines. And until this impossible outcome can be achieved, it also means that anything that disproportionately impacts criminals is also racist.

That means background checks for jobs and apartment rentals. And of course it doesn’t stop there.

School graduation rates must also be made equivalent. And until that somehow happens, hiring only high school or college graduates is a policy that also has a disproportionate racial impact. If you think this is farfetched, the Supreme Court in 1971 ruled that a high school diploma requirement is racist. A few years ago the EEOC claimed that requiring a high school diploma might also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. A year earlier, the EEOC insisted that a trucking company was in violation of the ADA for suspending an alcoholic truck driver and referring him to substance abuse counseling.

Define a persecuted class, whether it’s drug dealers or alcoholics, then reverse cause and effect, and even the most common sense courses of action become forms of discrimination to be controlled.

And then we end up with a right for rapists to rent your ground floor and drivers with a drinking problem to drive eighteen-wheelers next to your compact car.

As long as a problem exists, it will have a disparate impact. And the worse the disparate impact, the more power can be amassed in addressing it. But the disparate impact is the effect, not the cause. Reversing cause and effect allows the government to go into business fighting the various outcomes of problems, whether it’s alcoholism or fatherlessness, without ever addressing the actual causes.

And to worsen those causes to increase misery and inflate their own power whenever they can.

An Urban Institute report a few years ago found that, “The percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers… tripled between the early 1960s and 2009.” The findings in the Moynihan Report have only grown worse and the fundamental causes have not changed. Without healthy families, there can be no healthy communities. And without healthy families and communities, there will be far fewer healthy individuals. Crime and unemployment rates will continue to be “disproportionately” high.

And that’s a free gift to a political movement built on destroying the black community for fun and profit, expanding the scope of its own power and organizations by creating and feeding off human misery.

The road ahead is simple. Worsen the problems in the black community. Promise to treat them by expanding the scope of disparate impact to address any interaction between the negative social outcomes and the rest of the country until everything is racist and everything is controlled.

That’s the way to deprive everyone of their rights and their futures under the guise of civil rights.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262413/everything-racist-everything-must-be-controlled-daniel-greenfield

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

Atheism is a religious faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…Yet I have power within my youthful arms

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

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears ‘Descend,

come with me, friend.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Greenfield: Without Virtues, All Politics Are Reduced tTo Tribal Emotion And Personal Greed

This is an exceptional essay that speaks volumes to our current political climate and clearly points to the necessity of Jesus Christ to the human condition that we all share.

The paradox of the individualistic society is that it can only exist if individuals embrace virtues that are greater than their own needs and whims. A society where each individual acts as a little tyrant, pursuing his desires with total selfishness at the expense of everyone else becomes collectivist as the little tyrants turn to a series of big tyrants to get what they want no matter who gets hurt by it.

Social compacts are the alternative to big government. Communities built around unwritten laws in which people do the right thing keep government at bay better than a million laws ever could. No Constitution can protect a people that does not know or care about what it says. Laws embody ideas about what a society can be. But only the people can actually live out those ideas in their lives.

As individual virtues and social compacts break down, selfish squabbles escalate. Tribalism turns into legal civil war. Laws become the means by which one group imposes its will on the other and by which one man seizes the property of another. The people come to view the system with contempt. All virtues and principles are abandoned as neighbor turns on neighbor in resentment and hatred.

Our society has cultivated narcissism as its highest virtue. Even liberalism has become condensed to an identity politics of narcissism in which each victim gets to talk about their feelings for fifteen minutes before crybullying for someone’s head. Political discourse has become an exchange of feelings. And unlike contradictory ideas, clashing feelings of entitlement cannot be resolved. 

Ideas can exist objectively. Feelings only exist subjectively. Identity politics resolves this problem by treating the objective response to feelings as privilege. But even subjective empathy can never truly approach the subjective experience of the crybully. Even a member of that same identity group will differ in some way from the multiple intersectional identities of the crybully. And that difference is its own privilege. This isn’t really politics. It’s self-help narcissism crossbred with stale Marxism.

Marxism pretended to be a science. Its idiot inheritors use the same highly specialized vocabulary to describe their imaginary science of feelings to decide whose feelings get hurt microscopically worse.

But that’s the only kind of politics that narcissists can be expected to embrace. The left has personalized the political as much as it has politicized the personal. Its politics is purely personal. Its ideas can be condensed to “X upsets Y”. With the corollary that in the future X will not be allowed to upset Y because Y will be in charge of everything and stupid people like X will all die off so that history is on the side of Y and not X. This is a seven year old’s politics with better vocabulary.

But narcissism of the kind that our society has cultivated is a formula for perpetual childishness. Adulthood means doing things you don’t want to do and discovering that they can make you the person you want to be. That’s how virtue is born. Perpetual childhood prevents virtue from ever forming. Instead public life is cluttered with oversized children who have the language skills, resources and political power of adults, but none of the virtues that come with maturity.

They blame everyone else for their failures. Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is unfair. They can never admit they were wrong. Every failure adds more grievances and enemies to be blamed. They are incapable of acknowledging simple facts. Instead they lash out when they are shown why they cannot have what they want. The immature mind treats reality as a personal attack. It does not care what the truth is. It only wants its feelings validated by blaming someone, anyone else.

A childish society is an “I Want” society in which everyone wants everything and no one wants to do the hard work of getting it. The clamor of demands is negotiated through the childish hierarchies of bullying, shame, braggadocio, tears, outbursts, violence and deceit. Any social compacts or laws that interfere with “I Want” are always unfair. Anyone who doesn’t agree is the enemy.

Denying a narcissist anything hurts their feelings. And so they lash out in retribution. They are immune to facts or explanations. They know what they want and they know that society isn’t fair because it isn’t oriented around their feelings, but they think it will be once they get their way.

Democracy can’t exist under these conditions. No civil society can. Without common virtues, there can be no enduring common ground. One side makes concessions while the other celebrates its successful bullying until the first side finds its own bully. Without a consensus, winning becomes everything and the winners are those who break the most rules while complaining the hardest.

And refusing to live by any rules while playing the victim is what narcissists are so good at.

Ideas, virtues and principles are the enemies of narcissism because they imply that there are greater and more important things than its feelings. To the perpetually immature, everything is personal. The attempt to move from the subjective to the objective is treated as devaluing the importance of its feelings. The narcissistic refrain of crybullies in campus debates is, “Stop talking and listen to me.”

The safe space represents the total rejection of all dialogue. It is also the ideal metaphor for the politics of an immature mind. It extends the entitlement of the crybully from its mind into the physical space with the ultimate goal of expanding that physical embodiment of its entitlement to the entire world.

All rights become condensed to self-esteem. Individual virtue is reduced to a lack of shame. Narcissists are always fighting battles of personal self-expression against “haters” who make them feel bad about themselves. Freedom of speech, and any other freedom, can’t exist in this space of emotional tribalism where negotiating the validation of your identity is the only thing that matters.

And yet it’s ideas that resolve personal conflicts. They allow us to set limits of mutual respect. These principles make it possible for us to exist as individuals without big government to watch over us. Principles check our entitlement. They tell us that there are things which matter more than what we want or the anger we feel. They tell us that we are not entitled to steal from someone just because we really want to. They remind us of the price we end up paying for winning at any cost.

These are the things that set apart society from savagery and human beings from animals.

A narcissistic society only empowers individuals to destroy their individual freedoms and the society that made it possible. The self-centered logic of narcissism can justify anything as long as it feels right. Principles are abandoned, virtues are mocked and morality is meaningless. The longer this goes on, the worse society becomes since the very worst way of finding happiness is perpetual immaturity.

Narcissists who can’t win their own battles turn to bigger narcissists. Little tyrants become big tyrants. Anything is justified and the very idea of a truth apart from feelings dies away. All that’s left is a brutish scramble to find the power proportionate to the feelings of everyone in Youmerica.

And these days we all live in a Youmerica where feelings matter more than facts, where narcissism is the only politics, where the only way to win is to hate and cry harder and where the future is a government as big as the ego of its rulers. Youmerica is our culture, our government and our creed.

Youmerica is the nightmare of the Founding Fathers come to live. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” John Adams warned. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The same is true of all the rest of it.

We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbound by any code. The only government that will serve is tyranny. We can have a virtuous society of free men and women. Or we can have what we have now, and that is only a taste of what is still to come in the dying days of an empire whose people are busy trading their virtues for pottage without counting the cost.

Without virtues, all politics are reduced to their basic roots of tribal emotion and personal greed.

Without personal responsibility and truth, the cycle of decline will never be broken. Instead it will intensify. There will be scapegoats and circuses, massacres in the forum and fires in the night. There will be a new tyrant on the balcony every week and a new mob in the streets calling for blood.

And the country we once had will never return. There will be no America. Only Youmerica.

The country that we once had was not merely documents or buildings or territory. It was people. They were not a perfect people. Far from it. Like all of us, they were deeply flawed. But they believed in things. And as flawed as these things were, many were willing to live and die by them. They were willing to seek truth even if where it led did not please them. They made mistakes, but they grew up and became the men and women who tamed a land, build a nation and saved the world.

If we are to deserve the inheritance they left us, we must become better than we are. All of us.

We have been betrayed, undermined, misused, lied to and exploited. But in the end only we are capable of that final betrayal of our dreams and our heritage. We can choose to rebuild a social compact, a moral society that can undo the damage that has been done. Or we can let it all go.

http://freedomoutpost.com/without-virtues-all-politics-are-reduced-to-tribal-emotion-and-personal-greed/