FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Friday, April 21, 2017

US History Gone Missing at Colleges

During the War Between the States, for example, trigger warnings had an entirely different meaning

US History Gone Missing at Colleges



For years, we have watched American history disappear in academe. It turns out that we’re not the only ones who have noticed.

“I think in some ways I knew more American history when I finished grade school than many college students know today,” best-selling historian David McCullough said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “And that’s not their fault—that’s our fault.”



Indeed, when we meet college students, we find that they are curious about their history. Unfortunately, there are not too many institutions of higher learning they can go to in order to find it. Outside of university gates, McCullough’s books are a good place to look.

And, arguably, now is a good time to brush up on it. “It’s an antidote to a lot of unfortunately human trends like self-importance and self-pity,” McCullough avers. In nearly a half a century, McCullough has published nearly a dozen histories that span America’s life span.

McCullough points out that in the Civil War, the U. S. lost 2 percent of its population. The flu pandemic of 1918 took half a million American lives.

Surely there are not many micro-agressions that can compete with that level of carnage. During the War Between the States, for example, trigger warnings had an entirely different meaning.



Malcolm Kline
Accuracy in Academia (AIA), a non-profit research group reporting on bias in education. In that capacity, Kline serves as editor-in-chief of AIA’s two web sites

During the War Between the States, for example, trigger warnings had an entirely different meaning

US History Gone Missing at Colleges



For years, we have watched American history disappear in academe. It turns out that we’re not the only ones who have noticed.

“I think in some ways I knew more American history when I finished grade school than many college students know today,” best-selling historian David McCullough said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “And that’s not their fault—that’s our fault.”



Indeed, when we meet college students, we find that they are curious about their history. Unfortunately, there are not too many institutions of higher learning they can go to in order to find it. Outside of university gates, McCullough’s books are a good place to look.

And, arguably, now is a good time to brush up on it. “It’s an antidote to a lot of unfortunately human trends like self-importance and self-pity,” McCullough avers. In nearly a half a century, McCullough has published nearly a dozen histories that span America’s life span.

McCullough points out that in the Civil War, the U. S. lost 2 percent of its population. The flu pandemic of 1918 took half a million American lives.

Surely there are not many micro-agressions that can compete with that level of carnage. During the War Between the States, for example, trigger warnings had an entirely different meaning.



Malcolm Kline
Accuracy in Academia (AIA), a non-profit research group reporting on bias in education. In that capacity, Kline serves as editor-in-chief of AIA’s two web sites



The myth of ‘white privilege’

Whether it’s racial, economic, gender or sexual orientation, there will always be prejudice and discrimination. But the idea that this discrimination is institutionalized is ludicrous and downright harmful

The myth of ‘white privilege’



To listen to the juvenile whack-jobs ranting about ‘white privilege’ one would think that black slavery was still pretty much alive and well in America. The latest pabulum maintains that white people merely have to show up, blow their white folks’ dog whistle and wealth and power just falls into their laps.

Except that it doesn’t. My own personal experience as a white guy who came from a dirt-poor family is just one example. I won’t bore you with my various tales of working full-time while earning my college degree or with all the social opportunities today’s young take for granted that I chose to forego in order to sleep and/or study, but suffice it to say my efforts, not my whiteness, are largely to be credited.

Any black person achieving any degree of success without affirmative action is impossible. Just ask the social justice crew

And yes, I had siblings, both of whom like me were white males born to the same household. Yet they chose to pursue a different course in life and their circumstances are thus different from mine.

There are oodles of very successful white people whose life is largely the result of hard work dedicated to the pursuit of a goal, not the colour of their skin. (Albeit there are many individuals of all ethnicities who were born with a silver spoon)

There are also large numbers of very successful Asian, black and other races whose formative experiences mirror those of whites. With the common denominator being hard work and dedication.

Dr. Ben Carson is an example that comes to mind. He was reared in a poor single parent household in Detroit. He did not perform particularly well in school until his mother insisted that both he and his older brother, Curtis read two books a week and submit book reports. Both brothers gained success and acclaim in their respective fields, with Curtis becoming an aeronautical engineer and Ben a paediatric neurosurgeon.

Yet to follow the current narrative any black person achieving any degree of success without affirmative action is impossible. Just ask the social justice crew.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders did so well in last year’s election is that he gave people an excuse for failing

If there were real interest in bettering the lot of minorities it would be helpful to stop treating them like losers and recognize that they are perfectly capable of achieving anything they want in life, so long as they are prepared to pay the price. And the price isn’t so much monetary as it is the commitment of time and effort. Telling people that they are doomed to fail because the system is stacked against them is not particularly helpful; quite the opposite, actually, in that they are now being offered ready excuses for not even showing up. If you offer excuses for failure, you are guilty of the prejudice of low expectations and depriving members of these so-called aggrieved groups of the gratification that comes with achieving success through one’s own efforts. Did they succeed because they worked hard and struggled to do their best, or did they succeed because they served to fill a quota as a member of a race from which little is expected? In that sense I think slavery is alive and well in America and blacks are kept down on the Plantation by well-intentioned progressives.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders did so well in last year’s election is that he gave people an excuse for failing. His pitch, simple as it was, was also extremely effective. Bernie told young voters that banks and big corporations had screwed them and the reason they couldn’t find a job was the direct result of greedy Wall Street types. This is yet another variation of the ‘white privilege’ myth, except in this case it’s about economic privilege. Somehow he failed to mention that there are very few jobs for people with PhDs in gender studies or Social Justice.

Whether it’s racial, economic, gender or sexual orientation, there will always be prejudice and discrimination. But the idea that this discrimination is institutionalized is ludicrous and downright harmful.


Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on RetirementHomes and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism.  His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others.  He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.

Klaus can be reached at klausro@gmail.com
Whether it’s racial, economic, gender or sexual orientation, there will always be prejudice and discrimination. But the idea that this discrimination is institutionalized is ludicrous and downright harmful

The myth of ‘white privilege’



To listen to the juvenile whack-jobs ranting about ‘white privilege’ one would think that black slavery was still pretty much alive and well in America. The latest pabulum maintains that white people merely have to show up, blow their white folks’ dog whistle and wealth and power just falls into their laps.

Except that it doesn’t. My own personal experience as a white guy who came from a dirt-poor family is just one example. I won’t bore you with my various tales of working full-time while earning my college degree or with all the social opportunities today’s young take for granted that I chose to forego in order to sleep and/or study, but suffice it to say my efforts, not my whiteness, are largely to be credited.

Any black person achieving any degree of success without affirmative action is impossible. Just ask the social justice crew

And yes, I had siblings, both of whom like me were white males born to the same household. Yet they chose to pursue a different course in life and their circumstances are thus different from mine.

There are oodles of very successful white people whose life is largely the result of hard work dedicated to the pursuit of a goal, not the colour of their skin. (Albeit there are many individuals of all ethnicities who were born with a silver spoon)

There are also large numbers of very successful Asian, black and other races whose formative experiences mirror those of whites. With the common denominator being hard work and dedication.

Dr. Ben Carson is an example that comes to mind. He was reared in a poor single parent household in Detroit. He did not perform particularly well in school until his mother insisted that both he and his older brother, Curtis read two books a week and submit book reports. Both brothers gained success and acclaim in their respective fields, with Curtis becoming an aeronautical engineer and Ben a paediatric neurosurgeon.

Yet to follow the current narrative any black person achieving any degree of success without affirmative action is impossible. Just ask the social justice crew.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders did so well in last year’s election is that he gave people an excuse for failing

If there were real interest in bettering the lot of minorities it would be helpful to stop treating them like losers and recognize that they are perfectly capable of achieving anything they want in life, so long as they are prepared to pay the price. And the price isn’t so much monetary as it is the commitment of time and effort. Telling people that they are doomed to fail because the system is stacked against them is not particularly helpful; quite the opposite, actually, in that they are now being offered ready excuses for not even showing up. If you offer excuses for failure, you are guilty of the prejudice of low expectations and depriving members of these so-called aggrieved groups of the gratification that comes with achieving success through one’s own efforts. Did they succeed because they worked hard and struggled to do their best, or did they succeed because they served to fill a quota as a member of a race from which little is expected? In that sense I think slavery is alive and well in America and blacks are kept down on the Plantation by well-intentioned progressives.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders did so well in last year’s election is that he gave people an excuse for failing. His pitch, simple as it was, was also extremely effective. Bernie told young voters that banks and big corporations had screwed them and the reason they couldn’t find a job was the direct result of greedy Wall Street types. This is yet another variation of the ‘white privilege’ myth, except in this case it’s about economic privilege. Somehow he failed to mention that there are very few jobs for people with PhDs in gender studies or Social Justice.

Whether it’s racial, economic, gender or sexual orientation, there will always be prejudice and discrimination. But the idea that this discrimination is institutionalized is ludicrous and downright harmful.


Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on RetirementHomes and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism.  His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others.  He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.

Klaus can be reached at klausro@gmail.com


Crazy shooter targets whites, hate crimes industry piles on the victims

Hate crimes profiteer Brian Levin-- The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all

Crazy shooter targets whites, hate crimes industry piles on the victims


Immediately after black gunman Kori Ali Muhammad (a.k.a. Kori MacSun McWallace) killed three white men in Fresno, California on Tuesday (he reportedly killed another man last week), the “hate crimes expert” machine sprang to action, granting interviews and spinning facts.

This was an anti-white hate crime, they did admit. It would be difficult to do otherwise, given the killer’s digital trail of anti-white declarations, but they’ve managed to deny politically inconvenient motives many times in the past.

So this crime spree, they announced yesterday, was indeed hate, but it wasn’t terrorism.

Why wasn’t it terrorism?

The gunman worked alone, said Brian Levin, who holds the important title of director of the San Bernardino Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State.


In a sane world, it could be argued that many terrorists work alone, or work on a sliding scale of aloneness. It could also be argued that a lot of internecine crimes (black-on-black, gay-on-gay) are hate crimes. Most importantly, given the body toll, it could be argued that the vast network of criminal gangs who commit much of the bloodshed in America’s cities are, in fact, both terroristic and ethno-supremacist, just like the Ku Klux Klan, and they constitute the most prolific and only organized hate crime killing machine this country has seen in nearly a century.

But there’s no political return, or rather exactly the wrong political return, in arguing such things, so the hate crime experts pretend that they have arrived at scientific explanations that differentiate between gang violence and hate violence, and hate crimes and terrorism, and anything else to prevent people from looking at the wrong types of offenders and drawing the wrong types of conclusions about them.

Although presented as science, hate crimes analysis is pseudoscience, with made-up definitions and invented rules as ornate and disturbing as any other pseudoscientific racist rant.  Hate crime activists, who answer to the title “professor” or “expert,” behave in ways that are both carelessly ghoulish and exquisitely political – an ugly combination.

When the call goes out that a hate crime has occurred, activist groups leap into action, fighting to get to the microphone first. It’s an ugly scrimmage, and lawsuits aren’t unheard of as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and various directors of academic Centers of Hate Studies compete for attention and fundraise off the suffering of others.


The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.”
The way to really succeed in the hate crimes industry is not, as one might think, to reduce hate but to manufacture more of it.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.”  Somewhere in their palatial Alabama headquarters, there is a room filled with piles of literature illustrating countless “rising tides.”  Most of this literature features white men in Klan masks, and the SPLC works tirelessly to promote the idea that white men are responsible for every alleged “rising tide” of hate, even if they are the victims of the crimes being used to promote the Center’s ideology.

Donald Trump’s face appears on all the most recent publications from the SPLC: it is currently de rigueur to blame Trump for the mere existence of hatred, even to blame him for acts of violence perpetrated against his supporters by people who hate Trump.

Blaming white people and Americans for acts of violence perpetrated against white people and Americans is a foundational methodology of the pseudoscience of hate crime analysis.

This morning, “expert” Brian Levin genuflected his two cents worth in the media to blame whites for the cold-blooded murder of whites in Fresno, announcing in the pages of the Los Angeles Times that the murderer was participating in “reciprocal prejudice”:

“We’re living in an era of violent reciprocal prejudice, and there are references on [the killer’s] website to Fard Muhammad, the founder of Nation of Islam, and Nation of Islam uses the term white devils quite prolifically, as did this shooter,” Levin said.



The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all
What is “reciprocal prejudice”? Well, it’s whatever Levin says it is, or more specifically, it’s one of the scores of garbage excuses tenured professors of hate make up to shift blame for violent acts committed by minorities onto society in general and even onto the victims of those crimes.

“Islamophobia” is another term tossed around to shift blame onto victims: whenever Muslim criminals attack and murder Americans, the cry goes up in hate crime circles to “oppose Islamophobia.”

This is grotesquely cynical, but the hate crimes industry is too powerful to face consequences for being cynical in this way. Guys like Levin dial in ugly stuff like this all the time, and the media still calls them to get a quote, and they still cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks and prance around at academic conferences pretending to be on the side of sweetness and justice and light.

But if you step back from their noise for a moment, what Levin really said comes into focus.

Just as their killer, Kori Ali Muhammad did, Levin blamed the four murdered victims for being white. This wasn’t mere garden-variety prejudice, Levin announced: it was Reciprocal Prejudice. Reciprocal means “in return.” So we have a tenured professor of hate blaming murder victims for causing their own deaths, on the grounds that the murders were “in return” for some hatred presumably visited upon their killer.

That’s certainly scientific if by “science” one means “racist analysis designed to project blame for violence away from the perpetrator and onto some part of society.”

Similarly, when hate crime activists start talking about the difference between terrorism and hate, what they’re really doing is trying to figure out the best way to make excuses for violent Islamists based on the material they have to work with.

When a black, Muslim, spree killer goes out of his way to make his intentions clear, as the Fresno killer did, the activists do cover-up where they can. The ultimate goal is always to project blame onto the right types of people – Americans, or whites, or white men – and away from perpetrators they categorize as victims of society.

Luckily, they get a big assist from the media in doing this.

As Jay Caruso smartly points out, the Fresno killer’s shout of “Allahu Akbar” was immediately translated as “God is great” in AP reporting on his crimes.

To put it another way, every time Trump raises his arm to wave at a crowd, he’s making a Nazi salute, but when a spree killer declares quite clearly that he is killing his victims in the name of Allah and black supremacy, some AP reporter is there to clean up the killer’s mess for him, whether he wants it or not.

You might be wondering what a “hate crimes scholar” like Levin would say about the San Bernardino killings in his own backyard.

Wonder no more: he blamed Trump. Speaking to a Catholic audience in the city last September, Levin pointed at then-candidate Trump as the cause of an “87.5% increase” in hate crimes after the San Bernardino massacre and an alleged increase in hate against Catholics, too. Why a hate crimes expert would be talking about other crimes when the biggest hate crime in years had recently occurred on his doorstep ought to be a mystery, but of course it’s not.

In the wake of San Bernardino, it was simply Levin’s job description to find a way to project blame for the murder of 14 innocents onto the right people: Americans who vote Republican. It was also his job to make excuses for violent Islamists, which is why he stood on a stage in a Catholic Church whitewashing the mass murder of Christians in the Middle East by blaming then-candidate Trump for saying that we need to keep terrorists out of America. “Words matter,” Levin sneered, meaning: ‘words by Trump denouncing terrorism matter more than killing thousands of Christians in the Middle East matters.’

The hate crimes industry has struggled mightily to deflect blame for terrorist acts here and abroad onto Trump and other Western politicians. During the election, they kept hoping Trump supporters would commit hate crimes so they could change the subject from the real mass murders being committed by Islamists and the garden-variety crimes committed daily in cities like Chicago.

But Trump supporters did not commit hate crimes.

So the hate crimes industry simply went out and manufactured imaginary hate crimes committed by imaginary Trump supporters. They also blamed anti-Trump graffiti on Trump supporters. When graffiti linking Trump to Hitler appeared in several places, like O.J. Simpson, the hate crime experts announced they were looking for the identity of the real hate criminals, but really, they just called Trump supporters anti-Semites.

And when incident after incident was exposed as a bunch of nasty, actionable hoaxes committed by leftists, the hate crimes industry kept blaming even the hoaxes, along with the bomb threats and racist graffiti committed by other leftists on Trump and his supporters.

If only they could get away with it, Levin and his peers would doubtlessly go whole hog, and the headlines this week would read: “4 Historically Culpable Men Killed by Reciprocal Violence.”

Conservatives who argue that hate crime laws might someday be enforced equally are missing the point.

Hate crime laws are intentionally designed to create hierarchies of victims, and they are intentionally enforced – but only to advance leftist hate. Occasionally the experts have to admit that a hate crime was committed against whites, but then they turn the blame back on white society anyway.

The hate crime activist lynch mob isn’t going to mend its ways, and why should they? It’s a great gig.

The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all.

Then people like Brian Levin will have to get honest work, or at least stop spreading his socially sanctioned hatreds on the taxpayer’s dime.



BombThrowers -- Tina Trent
Bombthrowers is a blog about politics and the war for the hearts and minds of Americans from a conservative viewpoint.

In line with our name, we do not hold back. We have a take-no-prisoners attitude when it comes to fighting for conservative principles. The Left doesn’t play nice, and that’s why they’ve been winning. It’s time for conservatives to rise up and turn the tide.

We’re not afraid to take on anyone, especially the Washington Establishment—Republican or Democrat.

Bombthrowers is a project supported by the Capital Research Center. Its editor-in-chief is Matthew Vadum.









Hate crimes profiteer Brian Levin-- The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all

Crazy shooter targets whites, hate crimes industry piles on the victims


Immediately after black gunman Kori Ali Muhammad (a.k.a. Kori MacSun McWallace) killed three white men in Fresno, California on Tuesday (he reportedly killed another man last week), the “hate crimes expert” machine sprang to action, granting interviews and spinning facts.

This was an anti-white hate crime, they did admit. It would be difficult to do otherwise, given the killer’s digital trail of anti-white declarations, but they’ve managed to deny politically inconvenient motives many times in the past.

So this crime spree, they announced yesterday, was indeed hate, but it wasn’t terrorism.

Why wasn’t it terrorism?

The gunman worked alone, said Brian Levin, who holds the important title of director of the San Bernardino Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State.


In a sane world, it could be argued that many terrorists work alone, or work on a sliding scale of aloneness. It could also be argued that a lot of internecine crimes (black-on-black, gay-on-gay) are hate crimes. Most importantly, given the body toll, it could be argued that the vast network of criminal gangs who commit much of the bloodshed in America’s cities are, in fact, both terroristic and ethno-supremacist, just like the Ku Klux Klan, and they constitute the most prolific and only organized hate crime killing machine this country has seen in nearly a century.

But there’s no political return, or rather exactly the wrong political return, in arguing such things, so the hate crime experts pretend that they have arrived at scientific explanations that differentiate between gang violence and hate violence, and hate crimes and terrorism, and anything else to prevent people from looking at the wrong types of offenders and drawing the wrong types of conclusions about them.

Although presented as science, hate crimes analysis is pseudoscience, with made-up definitions and invented rules as ornate and disturbing as any other pseudoscientific racist rant.  Hate crime activists, who answer to the title “professor” or “expert,” behave in ways that are both carelessly ghoulish and exquisitely political – an ugly combination.

When the call goes out that a hate crime has occurred, activist groups leap into action, fighting to get to the microphone first. It’s an ugly scrimmage, and lawsuits aren’t unheard of as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and various directors of academic Centers of Hate Studies compete for attention and fundraise off the suffering of others.


The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.”
The way to really succeed in the hate crimes industry is not, as one might think, to reduce hate but to manufacture more of it.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.”  Somewhere in their palatial Alabama headquarters, there is a room filled with piles of literature illustrating countless “rising tides.”  Most of this literature features white men in Klan masks, and the SPLC works tirelessly to promote the idea that white men are responsible for every alleged “rising tide” of hate, even if they are the victims of the crimes being used to promote the Center’s ideology.

Donald Trump’s face appears on all the most recent publications from the SPLC: it is currently de rigueur to blame Trump for the mere existence of hatred, even to blame him for acts of violence perpetrated against his supporters by people who hate Trump.

Blaming white people and Americans for acts of violence perpetrated against white people and Americans is a foundational methodology of the pseudoscience of hate crime analysis.

This morning, “expert” Brian Levin genuflected his two cents worth in the media to blame whites for the cold-blooded murder of whites in Fresno, announcing in the pages of the Los Angeles Times that the murderer was participating in “reciprocal prejudice”:

“We’re living in an era of violent reciprocal prejudice, and there are references on [the killer’s] website to Fard Muhammad, the founder of Nation of Islam, and Nation of Islam uses the term white devils quite prolifically, as did this shooter,” Levin said.



The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all
What is “reciprocal prejudice”? Well, it’s whatever Levin says it is, or more specifically, it’s one of the scores of garbage excuses tenured professors of hate make up to shift blame for violent acts committed by minorities onto society in general and even onto the victims of those crimes.

“Islamophobia” is another term tossed around to shift blame onto victims: whenever Muslim criminals attack and murder Americans, the cry goes up in hate crime circles to “oppose Islamophobia.”

This is grotesquely cynical, but the hate crimes industry is too powerful to face consequences for being cynical in this way. Guys like Levin dial in ugly stuff like this all the time, and the media still calls them to get a quote, and they still cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks and prance around at academic conferences pretending to be on the side of sweetness and justice and light.

But if you step back from their noise for a moment, what Levin really said comes into focus.

Just as their killer, Kori Ali Muhammad did, Levin blamed the four murdered victims for being white. This wasn’t mere garden-variety prejudice, Levin announced: it was Reciprocal Prejudice. Reciprocal means “in return.” So we have a tenured professor of hate blaming murder victims for causing their own deaths, on the grounds that the murders were “in return” for some hatred presumably visited upon their killer.

That’s certainly scientific if by “science” one means “racist analysis designed to project blame for violence away from the perpetrator and onto some part of society.”

Similarly, when hate crime activists start talking about the difference between terrorism and hate, what they’re really doing is trying to figure out the best way to make excuses for violent Islamists based on the material they have to work with.

When a black, Muslim, spree killer goes out of his way to make his intentions clear, as the Fresno killer did, the activists do cover-up where they can. The ultimate goal is always to project blame onto the right types of people – Americans, or whites, or white men – and away from perpetrators they categorize as victims of society.

Luckily, they get a big assist from the media in doing this.

As Jay Caruso smartly points out, the Fresno killer’s shout of “Allahu Akbar” was immediately translated as “God is great” in AP reporting on his crimes.

To put it another way, every time Trump raises his arm to wave at a crowd, he’s making a Nazi salute, but when a spree killer declares quite clearly that he is killing his victims in the name of Allah and black supremacy, some AP reporter is there to clean up the killer’s mess for him, whether he wants it or not.

You might be wondering what a “hate crimes scholar” like Levin would say about the San Bernardino killings in his own backyard.

Wonder no more: he blamed Trump. Speaking to a Catholic audience in the city last September, Levin pointed at then-candidate Trump as the cause of an “87.5% increase” in hate crimes after the San Bernardino massacre and an alleged increase in hate against Catholics, too. Why a hate crimes expert would be talking about other crimes when the biggest hate crime in years had recently occurred on his doorstep ought to be a mystery, but of course it’s not.

In the wake of San Bernardino, it was simply Levin’s job description to find a way to project blame for the murder of 14 innocents onto the right people: Americans who vote Republican. It was also his job to make excuses for violent Islamists, which is why he stood on a stage in a Catholic Church whitewashing the mass murder of Christians in the Middle East by blaming then-candidate Trump for saying that we need to keep terrorists out of America. “Words matter,” Levin sneered, meaning: ‘words by Trump denouncing terrorism matter more than killing thousands of Christians in the Middle East matters.’

The hate crimes industry has struggled mightily to deflect blame for terrorist acts here and abroad onto Trump and other Western politicians. During the election, they kept hoping Trump supporters would commit hate crimes so they could change the subject from the real mass murders being committed by Islamists and the garden-variety crimes committed daily in cities like Chicago.

But Trump supporters did not commit hate crimes.

So the hate crimes industry simply went out and manufactured imaginary hate crimes committed by imaginary Trump supporters. They also blamed anti-Trump graffiti on Trump supporters. When graffiti linking Trump to Hitler appeared in several places, like O.J. Simpson, the hate crime experts announced they were looking for the identity of the real hate criminals, but really, they just called Trump supporters anti-Semites.

And when incident after incident was exposed as a bunch of nasty, actionable hoaxes committed by leftists, the hate crimes industry kept blaming even the hoaxes, along with the bomb threats and racist graffiti committed by other leftists on Trump and his supporters.

If only they could get away with it, Levin and his peers would doubtlessly go whole hog, and the headlines this week would read: “4 Historically Culpable Men Killed by Reciprocal Violence.”

Conservatives who argue that hate crime laws might someday be enforced equally are missing the point.

Hate crime laws are intentionally designed to create hierarchies of victims, and they are intentionally enforced – but only to advance leftist hate. Occasionally the experts have to admit that a hate crime was committed against whites, but then they turn the blame back on white society anyway.

The hate crime activist lynch mob isn’t going to mend its ways, and why should they? It’s a great gig.

The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all.

Then people like Brian Levin will have to get honest work, or at least stop spreading his socially sanctioned hatreds on the taxpayer’s dime.



BombThrowers -- Tina Trent
Bombthrowers is a blog about politics and the war for the hearts and minds of Americans from a conservative viewpoint.

In line with our name, we do not hold back. We have a take-no-prisoners attitude when it comes to fighting for conservative principles. The Left doesn’t play nice, and that’s why they’ve been winning. It’s time for conservatives to rise up and turn the tide.

We’re not afraid to take on anyone, especially the Washington Establishment—Republican or Democrat.

Bombthrowers is a project supported by the Capital Research Center. Its editor-in-chief is Matthew Vadum.











When Murderous Political Opinion is Passed Off as Artistic Expression

Professor’s Painting of a Decapitated Donald Trump Displayed as Artistic Expression

When Murderous Political Opinion is Passed Off as Artistic Expression



What do you get when you send out political opinion masquerading as contemporary ‘Art’?

A painting, depicting a decapitated President Donald Trump, riding full-bore on a pale horse supposedly stressing the importance of “protecting even objectionable artistic expression”.  That’s what!

“I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth. “— Revelation 6:7-8 NASB.

What do you term a center of learning refusing to remove one of its own professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump?

An atmosphere like the one provided worldwide by ISIS, who force their beliefs down the throats of others. That’s what!

The professor’s painting the University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove “shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.” (HeatStreet, April 20, 2017)

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, stands in ‘full gory’ as part of the university’s art exhibition this month.


Surely Prof. Chung seeks being the blowhard of the artistic world.

If the professor wanted to vent his spleen in paint, he could have displayed his masterpiece in his attic.

“But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.” (HeatStreet)
“Not sure how I want to respond to this,” Professor Berger?

Try decisive outrage for a display in such poor taste!

Decapitation is evil both in reality and in art.

The defense of the display by the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, is downright laughable, in consideration that this is the same university that covered up nude sketches in the past.


“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

“Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.” (HeatStreet)

…”The university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

“In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”
Sadly, the “certain trumpet” of the University of Alaska Anchorage is sounding very much off-key these days, Mr. Hamilton.

Could it be because there are few things less constitutional than ‘Captain America’ posed, holding a head of a decapitated president, dripping blood on a patriotic American citizenry?

Meanwhile his university should mark Prof. Thomas Chung as an artiste who who flunked Art 101.

Judi McLeod

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.



Professor’s Painting of a Decapitated Donald Trump Displayed as Artistic Expression

When Murderous Political Opinion is Passed Off as Artistic Expression



What do you get when you send out political opinion masquerading as contemporary ‘Art’?

A painting, depicting a decapitated President Donald Trump, riding full-bore on a pale horse supposedly stressing the importance of “protecting even objectionable artistic expression”.  That’s what!

“I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth. “— Revelation 6:7-8 NASB.

What do you term a center of learning refusing to remove one of its own professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump?

An atmosphere like the one provided worldwide by ISIS, who force their beliefs down the throats of others. That’s what!

The professor’s painting the University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove “shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.” (HeatStreet, April 20, 2017)

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, stands in ‘full gory’ as part of the university’s art exhibition this month.


Surely Prof. Chung seeks being the blowhard of the artistic world.

If the professor wanted to vent his spleen in paint, he could have displayed his masterpiece in his attic.

“But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.” (HeatStreet)
“Not sure how I want to respond to this,” Professor Berger?

Try decisive outrage for a display in such poor taste!

Decapitation is evil both in reality and in art.

The defense of the display by the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, is downright laughable, in consideration that this is the same university that covered up nude sketches in the past.


“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

“Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.” (HeatStreet)

…”The university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

“In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”
Sadly, the “certain trumpet” of the University of Alaska Anchorage is sounding very much off-key these days, Mr. Hamilton.

Could it be because there are few things less constitutional than ‘Captain America’ posed, holding a head of a decapitated president, dripping blood on a patriotic American citizenry?

Meanwhile his university should mark Prof. Thomas Chung as an artiste who who flunked Art 101.

Judi McLeod

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.





Have Americans Lost Their Minds?

Americans who have bought into this globalist agenda blindly and are trying to replace Americanism with Cultural Marxism and Islamo-fascism


Have Americans Lost Their Minds?



Western Europeans have been watching the vitriolic opposition to President Trump with great personal interest, wondering if Americans have lost their minds. Being the inveterate leftists that they are, even in the face of demographic suicide, they were rooting for a like-minded female socialist who vowed to turn the U.S. into the European basket case model of failed multiculturalism and diversity, flooding their countries with more and more Islamists in order to forever change the western culture into a Caliphate. The MSM reported ad litteram the same Teleprompter talking points, that she was the most experienced statesman of the two. No mention of her corruption or scandals, just a constant digging for fabricated dirt on then candidate Trump.

Eastern Europeans thought Americans have lost their minds, afflicted by the progressivist, anti-American malaise, having mounted ever-escalating mob violence and anarchic opposition to the Trump presidency, funded, flamed, and organized by rich billionaires, Hollywood stars, crony capitalists, academia, and the main stream media.  The black-clad and masked rioters have been beating up anybody who does not share their twisted view of the world, silencing any opposition on America’s campuses, especially at Berkeley.

No Eastern European can understand why the former bastion of progress, the shining city on the hill, the America of Europe’s hopes and dreams, has suddenly decided to cut its own healthy veins, throbbing with wealthy blood, just to watch the patient die an untimely death.

How did patriotic Americans manage to send the Marxist brainwashed of America into a frenzy of daily protests and vitriolic talk in the MSM, Hollywood, and other halls of power, hunting down mercilessly President Trump, his family, and anyone who works for him, or who supports him? Which masters are these anti-American “global citizens” serving and why? Are they tired of their abundant lifestyle, of their civilization, of their success, and want to throw it all away for the utopian promise of failed Marxism and to the 7th century denizens of Islamic theocracy in the name of insane tolerance and diversity?



Sane Americans and Europeans do not understand why Cultural Marxists engage in cultural and historical vandalism

Sane Americans and Europeans do not understand why Cultural Marxists engage in cultural and historical vandalism in all countries in which they advocate for suicidal diversity and multiculturalism.

The Democrat Party Marxists are still looking for ways to invalidate the presidential election even though Trump had much more electoral votes than his opponent who allegedly had more popular votes coming from illegal alien voters.

The entire “civil society,” meaning the united leftist agitators around the globe, was incensed when President Trump dared to mention the Islamist attack in Sweden and the religionists of peace who burned down businesses and private property the night before, as shown on Fox News. For some reason, suicidal European bureaucrats are burying the truth, the violence, the rapes, and the destruction of their countries in order not to offend the Muslims.

It will be interesting to watch what will happen with the vote in France this weekend, a vote that will decide if France is determined to survive as a western civilized nation or to continue on the path of multiculturalist self-destruction.  Marie Le Pen promises to end Islamist refugee migration.


The elite globalists are exporting “democracy” around the third world through wars and forced U.N. policies disguised as Sustainable Development
The EU bureaucrats joined the protest chorus over President Trump’s “inhumane and xenophobic” fence on the border with Mexico. I suppose the fences erected between EU nations and other countries around the globe, including Mexico’s wall with its borders, Belize and Guatemala, are more “humane?” India shares its border with Pakistan; it is lit by 150,000 floodlights which give off so much light that it is visible from space as an orange glowing line.

The elite globalists are exporting “democracy” around the third world through wars and forced U.N. policies disguised as Sustainable Development to allegedly save the planet from anthropogenic global warming/climate change. The climate change industry and its sycophant lobby have become very powerful since it is worth now trillions of dollars of easy money. It is nothing but exploitation of the poor and of the middle class using environmentalism as a weapon.  As Hans-Hermann Hoppe said, “Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”

Multinationals and non-government organizations (NGOs) have so much money at stake; they are more powerful and wealthier than most countries.  They are at the forefront of the fight against President Trump’s administration and his nationalist policies. They are instrumental in passing treaties like TPP, NAFTA, and laws that are anti-American, do not benefit the American taxpayers, and represent solely the interests of the elite billionaires around the globe.

Multinational corporations and their interests had and still have an important role in the evolution of the economic, social, and political climate around the globe. United Nations, technocrats, and corrupt politicians are the instruments of implementation of all globalist policies and treaties that will eventually eliminate all borders and create a global hodge-podge of billions of people without any national identity, migrating around the globe, and controlled by the globalist elites through settlements, food or lack thereof, water, land, and medical help.

The fight of a potential WWIII will be the fight to install the new world order through the following:

Uniform culture
Uniform law
Mixing nationalities and races
Destruction of national pride
Destruction of borders
Weakening of states until they are no longer relevant
Destruction of the family
Destruction of religion
One world authority under U.N.
Total control and supervision of the individual through technology
One single currency
One single army

If we consider the percentage of Americans who have bought into this globalist agenda blindly and are trying to replace Americanism with Cultural Marxism and Islamo-fascism, we can perhaps answer my question with a definitive yes - Americans have lost their collective minds.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.

Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com
Americans who have bought into this globalist agenda blindly and are trying to replace Americanism with Cultural Marxism and Islamo-fascism


Have Americans Lost Their Minds?



Western Europeans have been watching the vitriolic opposition to President Trump with great personal interest, wondering if Americans have lost their minds. Being the inveterate leftists that they are, even in the face of demographic suicide, they were rooting for a like-minded female socialist who vowed to turn the U.S. into the European basket case model of failed multiculturalism and diversity, flooding their countries with more and more Islamists in order to forever change the western culture into a Caliphate. The MSM reported ad litteram the same Teleprompter talking points, that she was the most experienced statesman of the two. No mention of her corruption or scandals, just a constant digging for fabricated dirt on then candidate Trump.

Eastern Europeans thought Americans have lost their minds, afflicted by the progressivist, anti-American malaise, having mounted ever-escalating mob violence and anarchic opposition to the Trump presidency, funded, flamed, and organized by rich billionaires, Hollywood stars, crony capitalists, academia, and the main stream media.  The black-clad and masked rioters have been beating up anybody who does not share their twisted view of the world, silencing any opposition on America’s campuses, especially at Berkeley.

No Eastern European can understand why the former bastion of progress, the shining city on the hill, the America of Europe’s hopes and dreams, has suddenly decided to cut its own healthy veins, throbbing with wealthy blood, just to watch the patient die an untimely death.

How did patriotic Americans manage to send the Marxist brainwashed of America into a frenzy of daily protests and vitriolic talk in the MSM, Hollywood, and other halls of power, hunting down mercilessly President Trump, his family, and anyone who works for him, or who supports him? Which masters are these anti-American “global citizens” serving and why? Are they tired of their abundant lifestyle, of their civilization, of their success, and want to throw it all away for the utopian promise of failed Marxism and to the 7th century denizens of Islamic theocracy in the name of insane tolerance and diversity?



Sane Americans and Europeans do not understand why Cultural Marxists engage in cultural and historical vandalism

Sane Americans and Europeans do not understand why Cultural Marxists engage in cultural and historical vandalism in all countries in which they advocate for suicidal diversity and multiculturalism.

The Democrat Party Marxists are still looking for ways to invalidate the presidential election even though Trump had much more electoral votes than his opponent who allegedly had more popular votes coming from illegal alien voters.

The entire “civil society,” meaning the united leftist agitators around the globe, was incensed when President Trump dared to mention the Islamist attack in Sweden and the religionists of peace who burned down businesses and private property the night before, as shown on Fox News. For some reason, suicidal European bureaucrats are burying the truth, the violence, the rapes, and the destruction of their countries in order not to offend the Muslims.

It will be interesting to watch what will happen with the vote in France this weekend, a vote that will decide if France is determined to survive as a western civilized nation or to continue on the path of multiculturalist self-destruction.  Marie Le Pen promises to end Islamist refugee migration.


The elite globalists are exporting “democracy” around the third world through wars and forced U.N. policies disguised as Sustainable Development
The EU bureaucrats joined the protest chorus over President Trump’s “inhumane and xenophobic” fence on the border with Mexico. I suppose the fences erected between EU nations and other countries around the globe, including Mexico’s wall with its borders, Belize and Guatemala, are more “humane?” India shares its border with Pakistan; it is lit by 150,000 floodlights which give off so much light that it is visible from space as an orange glowing line.

The elite globalists are exporting “democracy” around the third world through wars and forced U.N. policies disguised as Sustainable Development to allegedly save the planet from anthropogenic global warming/climate change. The climate change industry and its sycophant lobby have become very powerful since it is worth now trillions of dollars of easy money. It is nothing but exploitation of the poor and of the middle class using environmentalism as a weapon.  As Hans-Hermann Hoppe said, “Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”

Multinationals and non-government organizations (NGOs) have so much money at stake; they are more powerful and wealthier than most countries.  They are at the forefront of the fight against President Trump’s administration and his nationalist policies. They are instrumental in passing treaties like TPP, NAFTA, and laws that are anti-American, do not benefit the American taxpayers, and represent solely the interests of the elite billionaires around the globe.

Multinational corporations and their interests had and still have an important role in the evolution of the economic, social, and political climate around the globe. United Nations, technocrats, and corrupt politicians are the instruments of implementation of all globalist policies and treaties that will eventually eliminate all borders and create a global hodge-podge of billions of people without any national identity, migrating around the globe, and controlled by the globalist elites through settlements, food or lack thereof, water, land, and medical help.

The fight of a potential WWIII will be the fight to install the new world order through the following:

Uniform culture
Uniform law
Mixing nationalities and races
Destruction of national pride
Destruction of borders
Weakening of states until they are no longer relevant
Destruction of the family
Destruction of religion
One world authority under U.N.
Total control and supervision of the individual through technology
One single currency
One single army

If we consider the percentage of Americans who have bought into this globalist agenda blindly and are trying to replace Americanism with Cultural Marxism and Islamo-fascism, we can perhaps answer my question with a definitive yes - Americans have lost their collective minds.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.

Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com


Thursday, April 20, 2017

In the Crosshairs of the Speech Police

Monday, January 24, 2011


In the Crosshairs of the Speech Police

In the weeks since the Arizona massacre, the media has revealed a preoccupation with language almost as intense as the one that motivated her shooter. Loughner's obsession with Congresswoman Giffords seems to have begun in 2007 when she mockingly replied to his question, "How do you know words mean anything?" And Loughner's killing spree has touched off the media's obsession with that same question, leading a CNN anchor to apologize for using the term "crosshairs".


It was almost as if the media had come down with a lighter version of Loughner's fixation on grammar as a tool of mind control. If only they could properly censor the language, no one would have to die or go on shooting sprees. Somehow if we refuse to use the word 'crosshairs', no one will ever wind up in anyone else's crosshairs. It's as if the use of the word creates the idea, rather than the word being only another means of describing an idea.

But controlling language is not the same thing as controlling minds. Orwell's 1984 depicted a totalitarian regime which controlled language in order to prevent forbidden ideas from finding expression. Since then (1948 not 1984) the left has obsessively tried to politicize language. There are entire seminars on the political uses of language. Newscasts are dotted with politically correct terminology, homeless, differently abled, custodial worker-- yet has changing language actually changed attitudes?

Historically euphemisms have taken on the meaning of the underlying idea. So much so that today we often have no idea that many of the taboo words in our language started out as euphemisms. That is because language is a way to express ideas and emotions. A language which attempts to repress common human tendencies will be subverted by slang and eventually transformed by common use, no matter how much the grammarians may protest. Even in totalitarian states, it is the people who control the language, not the language which controls the people.

Believing that words can change reality is magical thinking that appeals to lunatics and tyrants who view other people as less than human, machines whose functions can be altered by inputting the right code. When Giffords replied to Loughner's question, "How do you know words mean anything?" with a few words of Spanish, she was implicitly suggesting that meaning is contextual. Spanish has no meaning to those who don't speak it. And it's full of slang words whose meaning shifts by geographical location. While Loughner believed that language had to be decentralized and the media wants language to be centralized, language is a mirror, not the image itself. Language reflects people, rather than creating them.

For Loughner controlling his grammar could have seemed like running an anti-virus program on a machine constantly being hammered by outside invaders. As a schizophrenic, his mind naturally interpreted the gap between reality and his own distorted thoughts as hostile and threatening. Even language carried with it ideas that cut his gray matter the wrong way. By building a fortress out of grammar, he was trying to protect the deviations of his own mind against the invasion of reality. It was not government that he was opposed to as an individual idea, but the entire world outside his shaved head. A world whose normalcy impinged on his madness with its status quo of sanity.

The media with its word madness is another kind of nut. It is natural for people who work with language to believe in its power. Writers believe in the supremacy of the pen like no one else. Creating worlds out of language circularly allows them to see the creative powers of the word. But for a propagandist press, words are not creative, but constructive. They are building blocks in creating the world that they would like to see. The careful use of language and the delineation of forbidden and permitted words allows them to manufacture and market their worldview to the masses. Orwell's Newspeak, written on digital sand. To the builders and the bosses of the worldview, if something cannot be said, then it also cannot exist. Stop saying 'crosshairs' and no one will ever point a gun. It is absurd, but also grimly revealing.

The media believes in its own power far more than anyone else does. And how could it be otherwise. If they didn't believe in their own power and influence, then why bother. (Aside from the high salaries and free hair gel.) The media's mission is to change minds, to educate and inform the common man so that he will become more enlightened. So that he will become more like them. The blowdried white man's burden operating out of a studio adjoining Park Avenue.

The best propaganda is not just accepted by those who hear it, but also by those who tell it. The lie so compelling that even the liar comes to believe in it. But lies are accepted more deeply when they appeal to the emotions and worldview of the hearer. And so when there is a cultural gap, the liar is more often fooled, than the lied to. He believes his own lie, because he wants to believe it. The lie reflects how he thinks the world really works.


With the rise of the Tea Party, the left finds itself in the curious position of once again denouncing the right as violent agitators plotting a mass revolt against the government-- an occupation that is meant to be the exclusive provenance of the community organizers of the left. But such accusations always reveal more about the accusers, than they do about the accused. What this accusation reveals is a view of the public along the lines of the proles in 1984, mindless and unthinking workers and peasants who can never do more than trudge to their jobs and drink beer, unless someone from the intellectual classes works them up to it with the right combination of words.

When the media fails to win on an issue, it will blame the messaging. But if after every effort is exhausted, the public remains unconvinced, it will decide that the public is unreasonable. Dangerously so. In the media narrative, unpersuadability is equivalent to irrationality. And such people are dangerous. Having placed its own worldview at the apex of reason, worldviews that deviate from it are treated as unreasonable to the extent and magnitude of their deviation. Culture gaps that are not based on race or ethnicity, will elicit a violently xenophobic response. While the media celebrates diversity, it is actually profoundly intolerant of differences.

The media's chief power is language. The word that contextualizes the carefully selected image. It is easy for  them to slip into the error that it is the word that alters reality. That events and people can be transformed just as comprehensively as the images and videos can be contextualized and framed by their narrative. The idea that the people and events on the other end of the viewfinder may have an energy and a force that dwarfs their own never properly occurs to them, except during the occasional war or revolution. And even then they remain confident that their live version of history will properly define it as it should be. Will fix it in the frame of the lens and freeze it that way forever.

In such a frame of mind, it can seem as if their act of withdrawing a word from the collective grammar of the broadcast will also withdraw it from the minds of the listeners, as comprehensively as anything Orwell envisioned in 1984. And a larger uninformed public, which to them always seems on the razor edge of bursting into unreasoning violence, will no longer have the mental tools to plot and plan violence against government officials. It is the arrogance of the tyrant in the bubble,representing an alienation from the general public that is almost as pervasive as the one that hummed inside Loughner's malfunctioning brain.

Loughner and the media both agree that words can control men's minds. The media's descent into the madness of the speech police reflects a multichannel schizophrenia of their own. The belief that their words create reality. And in the crosshairs of the speech police, criminals become the victims of language, and language becomes the target.

Monday, January 24, 2011


In the Crosshairs of the Speech Police

In the weeks since the Arizona massacre, the media has revealed a preoccupation with language almost as intense as the one that motivated her shooter. Loughner's obsession with Congresswoman Giffords seems to have begun in 2007 when she mockingly replied to his question, "How do you know words mean anything?" And Loughner's killing spree has touched off the media's obsession with that same question, leading a CNN anchor to apologize for using the term "crosshairs".


It was almost as if the media had come down with a lighter version of Loughner's fixation on grammar as a tool of mind control. If only they could properly censor the language, no one would have to die or go on shooting sprees. Somehow if we refuse to use the word 'crosshairs', no one will ever wind up in anyone else's crosshairs. It's as if the use of the word creates the idea, rather than the word being only another means of describing an idea.

But controlling language is not the same thing as controlling minds. Orwell's 1984 depicted a totalitarian regime which controlled language in order to prevent forbidden ideas from finding expression. Since then (1948 not 1984) the left has obsessively tried to politicize language. There are entire seminars on the political uses of language. Newscasts are dotted with politically correct terminology, homeless, differently abled, custodial worker-- yet has changing language actually changed attitudes?

Historically euphemisms have taken on the meaning of the underlying idea. So much so that today we often have no idea that many of the taboo words in our language started out as euphemisms. That is because language is a way to express ideas and emotions. A language which attempts to repress common human tendencies will be subverted by slang and eventually transformed by common use, no matter how much the grammarians may protest. Even in totalitarian states, it is the people who control the language, not the language which controls the people.

Believing that words can change reality is magical thinking that appeals to lunatics and tyrants who view other people as less than human, machines whose functions can be altered by inputting the right code. When Giffords replied to Loughner's question, "How do you know words mean anything?" with a few words of Spanish, she was implicitly suggesting that meaning is contextual. Spanish has no meaning to those who don't speak it. And it's full of slang words whose meaning shifts by geographical location. While Loughner believed that language had to be decentralized and the media wants language to be centralized, language is a mirror, not the image itself. Language reflects people, rather than creating them.

For Loughner controlling his grammar could have seemed like running an anti-virus program on a machine constantly being hammered by outside invaders. As a schizophrenic, his mind naturally interpreted the gap between reality and his own distorted thoughts as hostile and threatening. Even language carried with it ideas that cut his gray matter the wrong way. By building a fortress out of grammar, he was trying to protect the deviations of his own mind against the invasion of reality. It was not government that he was opposed to as an individual idea, but the entire world outside his shaved head. A world whose normalcy impinged on his madness with its status quo of sanity.

The media with its word madness is another kind of nut. It is natural for people who work with language to believe in its power. Writers believe in the supremacy of the pen like no one else. Creating worlds out of language circularly allows them to see the creative powers of the word. But for a propagandist press, words are not creative, but constructive. They are building blocks in creating the world that they would like to see. The careful use of language and the delineation of forbidden and permitted words allows them to manufacture and market their worldview to the masses. Orwell's Newspeak, written on digital sand. To the builders and the bosses of the worldview, if something cannot be said, then it also cannot exist. Stop saying 'crosshairs' and no one will ever point a gun. It is absurd, but also grimly revealing.

The media believes in its own power far more than anyone else does. And how could it be otherwise. If they didn't believe in their own power and influence, then why bother. (Aside from the high salaries and free hair gel.) The media's mission is to change minds, to educate and inform the common man so that he will become more enlightened. So that he will become more like them. The blowdried white man's burden operating out of a studio adjoining Park Avenue.

The best propaganda is not just accepted by those who hear it, but also by those who tell it. The lie so compelling that even the liar comes to believe in it. But lies are accepted more deeply when they appeal to the emotions and worldview of the hearer. And so when there is a cultural gap, the liar is more often fooled, than the lied to. He believes his own lie, because he wants to believe it. The lie reflects how he thinks the world really works.


With the rise of the Tea Party, the left finds itself in the curious position of once again denouncing the right as violent agitators plotting a mass revolt against the government-- an occupation that is meant to be the exclusive provenance of the community organizers of the left. But such accusations always reveal more about the accusers, than they do about the accused. What this accusation reveals is a view of the public along the lines of the proles in 1984, mindless and unthinking workers and peasants who can never do more than trudge to their jobs and drink beer, unless someone from the intellectual classes works them up to it with the right combination of words.

When the media fails to win on an issue, it will blame the messaging. But if after every effort is exhausted, the public remains unconvinced, it will decide that the public is unreasonable. Dangerously so. In the media narrative, unpersuadability is equivalent to irrationality. And such people are dangerous. Having placed its own worldview at the apex of reason, worldviews that deviate from it are treated as unreasonable to the extent and magnitude of their deviation. Culture gaps that are not based on race or ethnicity, will elicit a violently xenophobic response. While the media celebrates diversity, it is actually profoundly intolerant of differences.

The media's chief power is language. The word that contextualizes the carefully selected image. It is easy for  them to slip into the error that it is the word that alters reality. That events and people can be transformed just as comprehensively as the images and videos can be contextualized and framed by their narrative. The idea that the people and events on the other end of the viewfinder may have an energy and a force that dwarfs their own never properly occurs to them, except during the occasional war or revolution. And even then they remain confident that their live version of history will properly define it as it should be. Will fix it in the frame of the lens and freeze it that way forever.

In such a frame of mind, it can seem as if their act of withdrawing a word from the collective grammar of the broadcast will also withdraw it from the minds of the listeners, as comprehensively as anything Orwell envisioned in 1984. And a larger uninformed public, which to them always seems on the razor edge of bursting into unreasoning violence, will no longer have the mental tools to plot and plan violence against government officials. It is the arrogance of the tyrant in the bubble,representing an alienation from the general public that is almost as pervasive as the one that hummed inside Loughner's malfunctioning brain.

Loughner and the media both agree that words can control men's minds. The media's descent into the madness of the speech police reflects a multichannel schizophrenia of their own. The belief that their words create reality. And in the crosshairs of the speech police, criminals become the victims of language, and language becomes the target.


Trump vs. Obama


Trump vs. Obama



Obama is a coward.

Trump will call someone a name while Obama will anonymously source a smear through three levels of staffers, political allies and reporters. Trump called CNN “Fake News” on camera. Obama sourced Operation Rushbo, targeting Rush Limbaugh, through a variety of White House people and left-wing allies. Trump will boot reporters he doesn’t like. Obama authorized secretly hacking the emails of a FOX News reporter. Trump had an openly hostile conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. When Obama wanted to call Netanyahu “chickens__t”, he did it by having one of his people anonymously plant it with a reliable media sycophant, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, before later having a spokesman disavow it. Poultry ordure doesn’t smell any worse than that.

But Obama is very careful to launch dirty attacks without getting any on his hands. The insults are anonymously sourced. The retaliation comes out of the bowels of the bureaucracy. And he only finds out about it from the media. That allows him to retain what he cares about most: his popularity.

Obama and his people like to think that their dishonesty is a superpower. They pat themselves on the back for stabbing everyone else in theirs. Sometimes their smugness over how well they use the media to lie and smear gets out of control. Like the time Obama’s Goebbels, Ben Rhodes, boasted to the New York Times about how easy it was to fool everyone about the deal to protect Iran’s nuclear program.

After Trump won, it was business as usual.

Obama put on his best imitation of decency while his people went on preparing to undermine Trump at every turn by smearing him, wiretapping him and doing everything possible, legally and illegally, to bring him down. It was the same phony act that he had pulled for eight years, bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship while ruling unilaterally as a dictator, destroying the Constitution while hectoring us about our values, denouncing racism while organizing race riots, complaining about the echo chamber while constructing one and lecturing us on civility while smearing anyone who disagreed.

Trump’s killer instinct lies in understanding that hypocrisy conceals weakness. That is what powered him through the primaries and then through an election. His instinct is to grapple directly with a target. That is also the source of his popularity. Meanwhile the source of Obama’s popularity is his hollow likability. He’s likable only because he is almost always too cowardly to say what he really thinks.

Americans have seen the real Trump: because he is, in his own way, always real. Obama is always unreal. When Trump and Obama have appeared together, Obama seemed less real. He is a brand wrapped in all sorts of images that have nothing to do with who he really is.

Trump has always understood that Obama’s bravado was hollow. Obama boasted that he would have defeated Trump. Then he went on to try to do that with attacks from behind the scenes routed through government loyalists and media operatives while pretending that he had nothing to do with any of it.

But Obama and his people had learned nothing from how Trump had won the election. When Trump is attacked, his response is to go directly for the attacker, no matter what the argument is or how it’s sourced. Trump doesn’t get bogged down in debates or befuddled by media echo chambers that are so totally enveloping that they resemble reality. He just smashes past them to the source of the smear.

That is exactly what he did by calling out Obama’s eavesdropping. He bypassed all the layers that Obama had put in place to insulate himself from involvement in the attack, the media echo chamber, the staffers who handed information to the media and the government loyalists who provided the information to the staffers, to strike at the wizard behind the curtain.

And, in doing so, he made a mockery of Obama’s bravado.

When Obama boasted that he could have beaten Trump, he meant that he could have done so using the same tactics that worked so well against McCain and Romney. Like most of the media, he had failed to understand that these tactics don’t work against Trump because he is a moving target. Trump created his own brand. Unlike most presidential candidates, he doesn’t need consultants, and unlike most Republicans, he isn’t worried at all about likability. That’s why he won an election and still has majority support for his policies, including the most controversial ones, despite poor likability.

Obama is obsessed with being liked. In the media space, effective messaging depends on likability. But Trump upended the same formula that had ruled presidential politics since Nixon vs. Kennedy. Instead he casually tosses likability aside to grapple with opponents, rivals and enemies. Trump won this election by forcing opponent after opponent to either fight him on his own terms or back away.

This includes the media, which has tried to grapple directly with him, with disastrous results.

The Obama machine, a massive propaganda matrix that alternates between lying and gaslighting, is not built to handle Trump. And Obama isn’t built to handle Trump either. Obama’s hipster transgressiveness made him seem cool when up against Romney or McCain, but everything Trump does embodies real transgressiveness. The machine is built on limiting the freedom of action of Republicans by intimidating them with political correctness and potential smears. But Trump doesn’t care about any of that.

Trump is willing to throw everything into an attack. Obama’s people build complicated traps that he walks through without thinking twice. Obama plays chess. Trump overturns the board.

Obama’s strategy was to create so much chaos that the White House wouldn’t be able to get anything done. Instead it would ricochet from scandal to scandal. Similar tactics had proven quite effective in the second terms of Reagan and Bush. But Trump thrives on chaos. Many of his supporters want him to be a disrupter. Chaos translates to effectiveness. The more noise he makes, the more he’s changing things.

President Trump has made it clear that in response to these attacks, he will directly challenge Obama. And that breaks down Obama’s entire plan of using proxies to do his dirty work while he gives inspiring speeches. Trump will not let Obama get away with attacking him and then hiding behind phony idealism. And he intends to make the Obama machine into the issue in these attacks.

Obama’s plan involved a gradual emergence to deliver more sanctimonious lectures about “who we are”. It did not involve getting directly into a fight with Trump. But, as his other opponents discovered, Trump doesn’t give you a choice.

The favorite quote of Clinton’s damage control man Chris Lehane came from Mike Tyson. “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Obama’s people like to think that this is what they’ve done to Republicans, Iran Deal opponents, police officers and even President Trump. But Trump is showing them what the expression really means.

Obama had a plan. Then Trump punched him in the mouth.

The plan to entangle key Trump people in scandals hit a roadblock. Instead the wiretapping accusations have become the issue. And Obama’s people have been forced to come out and offer cautious denials.

And Obama and his dirty tricks have been dragged out from behind the curtain.

Trump and Obama are two very different men. Their personalities, as much as their politics, will define this conflict. The media routinely accuses Trump of having totalitarian instincts. But the true totalitarians are men like Obama those who hypocritically use the machinery of government to go after their opponents while pretending to be virtuous. President Trump has always fought his fights directly.

And the battle for America has only begun.




Daniel Greenfield


Trump vs. Obama



Obama is a coward.

Trump will call someone a name while Obama will anonymously source a smear through three levels of staffers, political allies and reporters. Trump called CNN “Fake News” on camera. Obama sourced Operation Rushbo, targeting Rush Limbaugh, through a variety of White House people and left-wing allies. Trump will boot reporters he doesn’t like. Obama authorized secretly hacking the emails of a FOX News reporter. Trump had an openly hostile conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. When Obama wanted to call Netanyahu “chickens__t”, he did it by having one of his people anonymously plant it with a reliable media sycophant, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, before later having a spokesman disavow it. Poultry ordure doesn’t smell any worse than that.

But Obama is very careful to launch dirty attacks without getting any on his hands. The insults are anonymously sourced. The retaliation comes out of the bowels of the bureaucracy. And he only finds out about it from the media. That allows him to retain what he cares about most: his popularity.

Obama and his people like to think that their dishonesty is a superpower. They pat themselves on the back for stabbing everyone else in theirs. Sometimes their smugness over how well they use the media to lie and smear gets out of control. Like the time Obama’s Goebbels, Ben Rhodes, boasted to the New York Times about how easy it was to fool everyone about the deal to protect Iran’s nuclear program.

After Trump won, it was business as usual.

Obama put on his best imitation of decency while his people went on preparing to undermine Trump at every turn by smearing him, wiretapping him and doing everything possible, legally and illegally, to bring him down. It was the same phony act that he had pulled for eight years, bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship while ruling unilaterally as a dictator, destroying the Constitution while hectoring us about our values, denouncing racism while organizing race riots, complaining about the echo chamber while constructing one and lecturing us on civility while smearing anyone who disagreed.

Trump’s killer instinct lies in understanding that hypocrisy conceals weakness. That is what powered him through the primaries and then through an election. His instinct is to grapple directly with a target. That is also the source of his popularity. Meanwhile the source of Obama’s popularity is his hollow likability. He’s likable only because he is almost always too cowardly to say what he really thinks.

Americans have seen the real Trump: because he is, in his own way, always real. Obama is always unreal. When Trump and Obama have appeared together, Obama seemed less real. He is a brand wrapped in all sorts of images that have nothing to do with who he really is.

Trump has always understood that Obama’s bravado was hollow. Obama boasted that he would have defeated Trump. Then he went on to try to do that with attacks from behind the scenes routed through government loyalists and media operatives while pretending that he had nothing to do with any of it.

But Obama and his people had learned nothing from how Trump had won the election. When Trump is attacked, his response is to go directly for the attacker, no matter what the argument is or how it’s sourced. Trump doesn’t get bogged down in debates or befuddled by media echo chambers that are so totally enveloping that they resemble reality. He just smashes past them to the source of the smear.

That is exactly what he did by calling out Obama’s eavesdropping. He bypassed all the layers that Obama had put in place to insulate himself from involvement in the attack, the media echo chamber, the staffers who handed information to the media and the government loyalists who provided the information to the staffers, to strike at the wizard behind the curtain.

And, in doing so, he made a mockery of Obama’s bravado.

When Obama boasted that he could have beaten Trump, he meant that he could have done so using the same tactics that worked so well against McCain and Romney. Like most of the media, he had failed to understand that these tactics don’t work against Trump because he is a moving target. Trump created his own brand. Unlike most presidential candidates, he doesn’t need consultants, and unlike most Republicans, he isn’t worried at all about likability. That’s why he won an election and still has majority support for his policies, including the most controversial ones, despite poor likability.

Obama is obsessed with being liked. In the media space, effective messaging depends on likability. But Trump upended the same formula that had ruled presidential politics since Nixon vs. Kennedy. Instead he casually tosses likability aside to grapple with opponents, rivals and enemies. Trump won this election by forcing opponent after opponent to either fight him on his own terms or back away.

This includes the media, which has tried to grapple directly with him, with disastrous results.

The Obama machine, a massive propaganda matrix that alternates between lying and gaslighting, is not built to handle Trump. And Obama isn’t built to handle Trump either. Obama’s hipster transgressiveness made him seem cool when up against Romney or McCain, but everything Trump does embodies real transgressiveness. The machine is built on limiting the freedom of action of Republicans by intimidating them with political correctness and potential smears. But Trump doesn’t care about any of that.

Trump is willing to throw everything into an attack. Obama’s people build complicated traps that he walks through without thinking twice. Obama plays chess. Trump overturns the board.

Obama’s strategy was to create so much chaos that the White House wouldn’t be able to get anything done. Instead it would ricochet from scandal to scandal. Similar tactics had proven quite effective in the second terms of Reagan and Bush. But Trump thrives on chaos. Many of his supporters want him to be a disrupter. Chaos translates to effectiveness. The more noise he makes, the more he’s changing things.

President Trump has made it clear that in response to these attacks, he will directly challenge Obama. And that breaks down Obama’s entire plan of using proxies to do his dirty work while he gives inspiring speeches. Trump will not let Obama get away with attacking him and then hiding behind phony idealism. And he intends to make the Obama machine into the issue in these attacks.

Obama’s plan involved a gradual emergence to deliver more sanctimonious lectures about “who we are”. It did not involve getting directly into a fight with Trump. But, as his other opponents discovered, Trump doesn’t give you a choice.

The favorite quote of Clinton’s damage control man Chris Lehane came from Mike Tyson. “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Obama’s people like to think that this is what they’ve done to Republicans, Iran Deal opponents, police officers and even President Trump. But Trump is showing them what the expression really means.

Obama had a plan. Then Trump punched him in the mouth.

The plan to entangle key Trump people in scandals hit a roadblock. Instead the wiretapping accusations have become the issue. And Obama’s people have been forced to come out and offer cautious denials.

And Obama and his dirty tricks have been dragged out from behind the curtain.

Trump and Obama are two very different men. Their personalities, as much as their politics, will define this conflict. The media routinely accuses Trump of having totalitarian instincts. But the true totalitarians are men like Obama those who hypocritically use the machinery of government to go after their opponents while pretending to be virtuous. President Trump has always fought his fights directly.

And the battle for America has only begun.




Daniel Greenfield


Will the World be Divided Into 3 Parts?

Will the World be Divided Into 3 Parts?







I am still marveling at the brilliance of Trump on how he has done what no American President has ever done, namely, align the United States military with the Chinese.

MOAB

President Trump’s brilliance in the art of making deal continued with the dropping of the Mother of all bombs (MOAB) on ISIS. This too, was brilliant beyond description because he covered so many bases in one fell swoop.

First, Trump demonstrated to ISIS there is nowhere you can hide and they are encountering a President that is intent on stopping their activities.

Second, Trump’s move to cooperate with the Chinese military has left Russia and Iran isolated. Did you know that Russia and China actually increased their trade by 30% last year? The new reality not only threatens Russia, militarily, but economically as well. This move further emboldens Israel and increases its status in the Middle East and Trump did not even have to spend a dime of taxpayer money.

Russia can respond militarily like a spoiled brat, but they cannot win.  This will force Russia back to the negotiating table, but on America’s terms.

Third, the dropping of MOAB on ISIS and other conglomerations of terrorists sent another message Russia: “We can still work together”.  Perhaps there is wiggle room for the future of Assad. Why would I come to that? The answer is simple, North Korea was clearly sent a message by the dropping of MOAB that they face the same fate if they do not change their dangerous behavior. However, the Russians were also sent a message. The message is, we can still work together to defeat ISIS, but it will be on our  terms.

Fourth, Russia can be persuaded that there is a better way for them to economically survive, than to fall on their sword for Syria and Iran. This could drive a stake through the heart of the BRICS desire to forge a gold-based currency. With China on board with the United States, Russia may also join the new hegemony and abandon the BRICS.  If Russia and China abandon BRICS, who really benefits?

Fifth, If Russia and China move away from the BRICS, the real winner is the preservation of the Petrodollar and the Federal Reserve will reassert the claim that the Federal Reserve’s dollar is still the reserve currency of the world. And yes, that means that ultimately, Trump is serving the needs of the Federal Reserve.  Before so many of you begin to go ballistic, please remember that if the BRICS succeed, the dollar is dead and so is the value of your money. Many Americans will face a dollar de-evaluation, loss of employment and hyper-inflation.

Sixth, Trump has silenced the noise of the corporate controlled media and the ridiculous claims that his aligned with Russia. In effect, Trump just defeated Russia the globalists are thrilled for reasons listed below.

Seventh, in the immediate future, the parents of American children may have avoided a draft and facing certain death. Armageddon may not be meant for our time. However, on this point, time will tell.

Eighth, I strongly believe we could be looking at a new evolutionary development in the New World Order. Please remember there are always two sides to every coin. Therefore, there is a downside to Trump’s brilliance to make the deal of the millennium. In examining these developments, if Putin andh the Russian oligarchy capitulates and Iran goes through a regime change, it will mark a time when a three-headed beast will rule this planet.  China, Russia and the United States could easily form a “corporate merger” of sorts and divide up the resources of the planet into thirds. And it’s not like Russia has a choice, they have been isolated both politically and militarily. The central banks would still be in play as well. The New World Order will not be dead, it will have morphed into the proverbial three-headed monster.  I do not necessarily believe that this is Trump’s intention. However, under the rule of unintended consequences, this is what may arise. And if one thinks that this permanently removes the possibility of war, I think it increases the likelihood, but at a later time because, for now, the consolidation of divided resources will be the focus.  Yes, Russia can and will be bought

Conclusion

Trump may very well have forestalled an all-out nuclear war, maybe. And that is a very big maybe. However, he has no ability to eradicate the New World Order. This will not happen until the Second Coming of Christ and we are two days away from celebrating the Resurrection of Christ and his final triumph over Satan and his New World Order minions.  Happy Easter weekend to all my Christian brothers sisters. The final victory will be ours.

Will the World be Divided Into 3 Parts?







I am still marveling at the brilliance of Trump on how he has done what no American President has ever done, namely, align the United States military with the Chinese.

MOAB

President Trump’s brilliance in the art of making deal continued with the dropping of the Mother of all bombs (MOAB) on ISIS. This too, was brilliant beyond description because he covered so many bases in one fell swoop.

First, Trump demonstrated to ISIS there is nowhere you can hide and they are encountering a President that is intent on stopping their activities.

Second, Trump’s move to cooperate with the Chinese military has left Russia and Iran isolated. Did you know that Russia and China actually increased their trade by 30% last year? The new reality not only threatens Russia, militarily, but economically as well. This move further emboldens Israel and increases its status in the Middle East and Trump did not even have to spend a dime of taxpayer money.

Russia can respond militarily like a spoiled brat, but they cannot win.  This will force Russia back to the negotiating table, but on America’s terms.

Third, the dropping of MOAB on ISIS and other conglomerations of terrorists sent another message Russia: “We can still work together”.  Perhaps there is wiggle room for the future of Assad. Why would I come to that? The answer is simple, North Korea was clearly sent a message by the dropping of MOAB that they face the same fate if they do not change their dangerous behavior. However, the Russians were also sent a message. The message is, we can still work together to defeat ISIS, but it will be on our  terms.

Fourth, Russia can be persuaded that there is a better way for them to economically survive, than to fall on their sword for Syria and Iran. This could drive a stake through the heart of the BRICS desire to forge a gold-based currency. With China on board with the United States, Russia may also join the new hegemony and abandon the BRICS.  If Russia and China abandon BRICS, who really benefits?

Fifth, If Russia and China move away from the BRICS, the real winner is the preservation of the Petrodollar and the Federal Reserve will reassert the claim that the Federal Reserve’s dollar is still the reserve currency of the world. And yes, that means that ultimately, Trump is serving the needs of the Federal Reserve.  Before so many of you begin to go ballistic, please remember that if the BRICS succeed, the dollar is dead and so is the value of your money. Many Americans will face a dollar de-evaluation, loss of employment and hyper-inflation.

Sixth, Trump has silenced the noise of the corporate controlled media and the ridiculous claims that his aligned with Russia. In effect, Trump just defeated Russia the globalists are thrilled for reasons listed below.

Seventh, in the immediate future, the parents of American children may have avoided a draft and facing certain death. Armageddon may not be meant for our time. However, on this point, time will tell.

Eighth, I strongly believe we could be looking at a new evolutionary development in the New World Order. Please remember there are always two sides to every coin. Therefore, there is a downside to Trump’s brilliance to make the deal of the millennium. In examining these developments, if Putin andh the Russian oligarchy capitulates and Iran goes through a regime change, it will mark a time when a three-headed beast will rule this planet.  China, Russia and the United States could easily form a “corporate merger” of sorts and divide up the resources of the planet into thirds. And it’s not like Russia has a choice, they have been isolated both politically and militarily. The central banks would still be in play as well. The New World Order will not be dead, it will have morphed into the proverbial three-headed monster.  I do not necessarily believe that this is Trump’s intention. However, under the rule of unintended consequences, this is what may arise. And if one thinks that this permanently removes the possibility of war, I think it increases the likelihood, but at a later time because, for now, the consolidation of divided resources will be the focus.  Yes, Russia can and will be bought

Conclusion

Trump may very well have forestalled an all-out nuclear war, maybe. And that is a very big maybe. However, he has no ability to eradicate the New World Order. This will not happen until the Second Coming of Christ and we are two days away from celebrating the Resurrection of Christ and his final triumph over Satan and his New World Order minions.  Happy Easter weekend to all my Christian brothers sisters. The final victory will be ours.


The New Civil War

The New Civil War


A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning. 

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible. 

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election. 

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear. 



We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now. 

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next. 

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.




Daniel Greenfield


The New Civil War


A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning. 

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible. 

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election. 

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear. 



We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now. 

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next. 

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.




Daniel Greenfield




Muslim Violence is Our New Law

Muslim Violence is Our New Law

Over two centuries ago a group of British colonists huddling amid the forests and rivers of a new continent decided what they could and could not say by killing enough soldiers and mercenaries that the people who had been in charge of their speech decided they should try their luck somewhere where the regulating was easier.

This state of affairs in which the country that those colonists formed became and remains one of the very few places in the world, even among Western democracies, where freedom of speech is absolute, came about through stirring speeches, deeply felt debates, classical ideas and a passionate political culture-- but most of all it came about because large numbers of people were willing to kill over it.

Currently large numbers of people are willing to kill over the idea that Islam is the supreme religion, that Mohammed is a deity whom all mankind should respect and that the infidels living in the suburban sprawl of a thoroughly explored continent should accept that or die. Our government calls those people a tiny minority of extremists. Our unofficial name for them is, "Muslims."

Laws are decided by many things, but sweep away all the lawbooks, the pleas from tearful mothers, the timed publicity campaigns, the novel legal theories and the greedy bureaucrats expanding their turf, and under the table you will find a gun. The first and final law is still the law of force. The law begins with the power to impose its will on others. It ends with the enforcement of that power.

Law either has force behind it or it does not, and if it has no force behind it then it is an optional thing that is subject to custom. And every now and then the law is challenged, not with novel legal theories or with petitions, but with force, and it either responds with force or submits to a new law. That is what we call revolution.

Islam has made laws that it expects all of mankind to abide by. These laws are not backed by novel legal theories or by petitions, though its practitioners are willing to offer both, they are backed by the naked practice of force. And the imposition of these laws can only be defended against by force.

We are no longer led by revolutionary believers in the freedom of man, but by revolutionary believers in the submission of man to the higher principles that make their utopian sandcastles possible. They cannot honestly draw a red line on freedom, not when they have crossed it so many times themselves for their own agendas. They believe in a variety of rights, but all of those rights involve imposing their ideas and beliefs on others, and that is something they have in common with the Muslim lawyers waving guns and black flags over our burning embassies. They might contemplate killing and dying for gay marriage or the right to put tobacco warnings on cigarettes, but not for the pure idea that anyone should be able to say anything that they want without regard to ideological alliances.

The lawyers who run all our national affairs have chosen to respond to the Islamic legal briefs of bombs and bullets with the equivocation with which they meet all difficult questions. They will not abandon the principle of freedom of speech, but they will lock up the filmmaker whose imprisonment the murderous Muslim legalists called for. They will not censor YouTube, but they will encourage YouTube to censor itself. They will not ban speech that offends Islam, but they will strongly condemn and discourage it.

These equivocators offer to abandon the practice of freedom so long as they are allowed to retain the theory of freedom. The Bill of Rights will not change, but as in the Soviet Union it will not apply. The authorities will pay lip service to the freedoms that we only think we have until we actually try to use them and then we will discover that we don't actually have any of these freedoms left in stock.

In theory America will be an independent country, in practice it will be a vassal state of the Muslim world whose displays of outrage will be our law telling us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot think, and what we can and cannot do.

This is the typical kind of bargain that decadent empires make with the barbarous warlords on their doorstep. The empire will keep its splendor and its titles, while the barbarians will tell the empire what to do. Eventually the warlords will rule the empire, but that will only come as a shock to the citizenry who were too dazzled by the pageantry of power to realize that power is not defined by its display, but by its usage. Power is law and where there is no power, there is also no law, and those who have the power also make the laws.

What is the difference between American law and Muslim law? There are a great many differences, but the only one that matters is the difference between Constantinople and Istanbul. The only reason that we do not have Muslim law is that Muslims have not yet succeeded in forcing it on us, as they have already done to a sizable percent of the peoples and cultures of the world. That difference will be eliminated the moment that they succeed in doing so.

Law is not some mystical or technical affair. At its most basic it is the school bully demanding a cut of your lunch money in perpetuity. It is the ability to force someone to do something for some reason. Law can be high-minded, it can be moral or it can be a mob demanding that you imprison anyone who offends Mohammed. This is school bully law and it is as valid as any other kind because the distinctions that legal theorists make have no relevance in the face of the law of force.

A demand for a code of conduct backed by violence is law. It is not our law, it is not the law of the civilized man, but it is the law that we are slowly adopting. It is the law of the decadents appeasing the savages. Its only real content warns against offending the savage on the grounds that this will have negative consequences for our soldiers, our billboards, our image in the world and our embassies. And that is the law of the savage mediated by all the fine useless intellectualization of the decadent.

Under this code, Muslim violence dictates our permissible forms of speech. To know whether a thing may be said, drawn or filmed, we must first determine how Muslims will react to it. If they will react with violence, as they do to a sizable percentage of things, then it becomes incitement, retroactively, that must be punished and condemned.

Muslim violence has become our law. It is the law of action which determines our laws of speech. To understand what we can say, we first have to decide what Muslims will do about it. A long long time ago, perhaps less than twenty years ago, our government would meet their action with an action of its own, it would meet force with force. The British government did not do that with Salman Rushdie, instead it got him to read a statement apologizing for his book, but perhaps ours would have done better. Probably not.

When we were revolutionaries, our government saw force as a way of dealing with other countries who wanted to tell Americans what to do. But since then our government has really gotten used to telling us what to do. Occasionally it invades other countries in the name of some global consensus that claims to be able to treat countries the way that our government treats us and tell them what to do.

Lately that consensus, which we can call the United Nations, the International Community or an International Disease of Corrupt Bureaucrats and Power Mad Utopians, has been telling our government that it needs to tell us what we can and cannot say. And our government has no response except to mumble something about the First Amendment, which it doesn't really believe in anymore, but since it's had no luck getting rid of the Second Amendment, it isn't about to try with the First, and urges the consensus and the murderous mobs to work with us to arrive at an agreement that we can all live with. And by "we", I don't mean us.

In a world where jet planes rapidly crisscross the planet and bombs can be embedded in anything, where companies and non-profits both lust for immigrants and unstable Third World societies export their instability to First World societies as immigration, where corporations have offices everywhere and national interest is just a fancy way of saying international trade relationships, the primary law becomes maintaining the stability of a broken system and containing its inherent violence.

The lawyers running the system will not defend national interests because they don't believe in them, they won't defend freedom because they don't believe in it, they will defend the system because it is the only thing that they do believe in. And they will defend it at the point where it is easiest to defend, not from the attacking Muslims, but from the natives who appear to be making them angry.

Would you rather fight a billion violent madmen or arrest a filmmaker? The answer is very simple. Forget Theodore Roosevelt's "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead". The Obama motto is "It's okay if Perdicaris is dead, so long as Raisuli isn't too mad at us."

Forget the Bill of Rights, a document thrown together by agrarian utopianists worried about central government. Our new breed of lawyer-kings is composed of urban utopianists ruling through central government. To them the Bill of Rights is a piece of incomprehensible lunacy that prevents them from getting anything done. They are not concerned with rural government trespasses, they are worried about bombs and riots in their cities and they are terrified of their global goals being sabotaged by some movie trailer.

They are making Muslim violence into our new law, just as they made urban violence into our new law, just as they have made their own bureaucratic mandates backed by SWAT teams and prisons into our new law.

The age when laws were made by men, rather than machines of social progress composed of lawyers and activists, bureaucrats and think-tanks, lobbyists and judges, is long since gone. There is no law in our laws, but the law of force. The Constitution sits on a dusty shelf while the judges bang their gavels and practice the law that mandates something because those in power want it that way.

And now our utopian lawyer-kings, our armies of bleeding-heart social justice activist, our legions of bureaucrats stamping their papers over our skulls, our grinning black-robed activist judges wielding their gavels like swords, are cringing in terror before a Muslim mob. The bullies who have bullied us for so long have proven to be cowards. While they dismantle our army to sell it for scraps so that the EPA and HUD and the cowboy poetry festivals can get their billions, they order us to fall on our knees before the Army of Allah.

The liberal bullies who bullied us for so long have been successfully bullied and have handed us over to the bully's bully. But bullies, of the liberal or Muslim kind, are cowards. Their bullying only works until they are successfully bullied and without their threat of force, their laws wither and blow away on the wind.

Muslim Violence is Our New Law

Over two centuries ago a group of British colonists huddling amid the forests and rivers of a new continent decided what they could and could not say by killing enough soldiers and mercenaries that the people who had been in charge of their speech decided they should try their luck somewhere where the regulating was easier.

This state of affairs in which the country that those colonists formed became and remains one of the very few places in the world, even among Western democracies, where freedom of speech is absolute, came about through stirring speeches, deeply felt debates, classical ideas and a passionate political culture-- but most of all it came about because large numbers of people were willing to kill over it.

Currently large numbers of people are willing to kill over the idea that Islam is the supreme religion, that Mohammed is a deity whom all mankind should respect and that the infidels living in the suburban sprawl of a thoroughly explored continent should accept that or die. Our government calls those people a tiny minority of extremists. Our unofficial name for them is, "Muslims."

Laws are decided by many things, but sweep away all the lawbooks, the pleas from tearful mothers, the timed publicity campaigns, the novel legal theories and the greedy bureaucrats expanding their turf, and under the table you will find a gun. The first and final law is still the law of force. The law begins with the power to impose its will on others. It ends with the enforcement of that power.

Law either has force behind it or it does not, and if it has no force behind it then it is an optional thing that is subject to custom. And every now and then the law is challenged, not with novel legal theories or with petitions, but with force, and it either responds with force or submits to a new law. That is what we call revolution.

Islam has made laws that it expects all of mankind to abide by. These laws are not backed by novel legal theories or by petitions, though its practitioners are willing to offer both, they are backed by the naked practice of force. And the imposition of these laws can only be defended against by force.

We are no longer led by revolutionary believers in the freedom of man, but by revolutionary believers in the submission of man to the higher principles that make their utopian sandcastles possible. They cannot honestly draw a red line on freedom, not when they have crossed it so many times themselves for their own agendas. They believe in a variety of rights, but all of those rights involve imposing their ideas and beliefs on others, and that is something they have in common with the Muslim lawyers waving guns and black flags over our burning embassies. They might contemplate killing and dying for gay marriage or the right to put tobacco warnings on cigarettes, but not for the pure idea that anyone should be able to say anything that they want without regard to ideological alliances.

The lawyers who run all our national affairs have chosen to respond to the Islamic legal briefs of bombs and bullets with the equivocation with which they meet all difficult questions. They will not abandon the principle of freedom of speech, but they will lock up the filmmaker whose imprisonment the murderous Muslim legalists called for. They will not censor YouTube, but they will encourage YouTube to censor itself. They will not ban speech that offends Islam, but they will strongly condemn and discourage it.

These equivocators offer to abandon the practice of freedom so long as they are allowed to retain the theory of freedom. The Bill of Rights will not change, but as in the Soviet Union it will not apply. The authorities will pay lip service to the freedoms that we only think we have until we actually try to use them and then we will discover that we don't actually have any of these freedoms left in stock.

In theory America will be an independent country, in practice it will be a vassal state of the Muslim world whose displays of outrage will be our law telling us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot think, and what we can and cannot do.

This is the typical kind of bargain that decadent empires make with the barbarous warlords on their doorstep. The empire will keep its splendor and its titles, while the barbarians will tell the empire what to do. Eventually the warlords will rule the empire, but that will only come as a shock to the citizenry who were too dazzled by the pageantry of power to realize that power is not defined by its display, but by its usage. Power is law and where there is no power, there is also no law, and those who have the power also make the laws.

What is the difference between American law and Muslim law? There are a great many differences, but the only one that matters is the difference between Constantinople and Istanbul. The only reason that we do not have Muslim law is that Muslims have not yet succeeded in forcing it on us, as they have already done to a sizable percent of the peoples and cultures of the world. That difference will be eliminated the moment that they succeed in doing so.

Law is not some mystical or technical affair. At its most basic it is the school bully demanding a cut of your lunch money in perpetuity. It is the ability to force someone to do something for some reason. Law can be high-minded, it can be moral or it can be a mob demanding that you imprison anyone who offends Mohammed. This is school bully law and it is as valid as any other kind because the distinctions that legal theorists make have no relevance in the face of the law of force.

A demand for a code of conduct backed by violence is law. It is not our law, it is not the law of the civilized man, but it is the law that we are slowly adopting. It is the law of the decadents appeasing the savages. Its only real content warns against offending the savage on the grounds that this will have negative consequences for our soldiers, our billboards, our image in the world and our embassies. And that is the law of the savage mediated by all the fine useless intellectualization of the decadent.

Under this code, Muslim violence dictates our permissible forms of speech. To know whether a thing may be said, drawn or filmed, we must first determine how Muslims will react to it. If they will react with violence, as they do to a sizable percentage of things, then it becomes incitement, retroactively, that must be punished and condemned.

Muslim violence has become our law. It is the law of action which determines our laws of speech. To understand what we can say, we first have to decide what Muslims will do about it. A long long time ago, perhaps less than twenty years ago, our government would meet their action with an action of its own, it would meet force with force. The British government did not do that with Salman Rushdie, instead it got him to read a statement apologizing for his book, but perhaps ours would have done better. Probably not.

When we were revolutionaries, our government saw force as a way of dealing with other countries who wanted to tell Americans what to do. But since then our government has really gotten used to telling us what to do. Occasionally it invades other countries in the name of some global consensus that claims to be able to treat countries the way that our government treats us and tell them what to do.

Lately that consensus, which we can call the United Nations, the International Community or an International Disease of Corrupt Bureaucrats and Power Mad Utopians, has been telling our government that it needs to tell us what we can and cannot say. And our government has no response except to mumble something about the First Amendment, which it doesn't really believe in anymore, but since it's had no luck getting rid of the Second Amendment, it isn't about to try with the First, and urges the consensus and the murderous mobs to work with us to arrive at an agreement that we can all live with. And by "we", I don't mean us.

In a world where jet planes rapidly crisscross the planet and bombs can be embedded in anything, where companies and non-profits both lust for immigrants and unstable Third World societies export their instability to First World societies as immigration, where corporations have offices everywhere and national interest is just a fancy way of saying international trade relationships, the primary law becomes maintaining the stability of a broken system and containing its inherent violence.

The lawyers running the system will not defend national interests because they don't believe in them, they won't defend freedom because they don't believe in it, they will defend the system because it is the only thing that they do believe in. And they will defend it at the point where it is easiest to defend, not from the attacking Muslims, but from the natives who appear to be making them angry.

Would you rather fight a billion violent madmen or arrest a filmmaker? The answer is very simple. Forget Theodore Roosevelt's "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead". The Obama motto is "It's okay if Perdicaris is dead, so long as Raisuli isn't too mad at us."

Forget the Bill of Rights, a document thrown together by agrarian utopianists worried about central government. Our new breed of lawyer-kings is composed of urban utopianists ruling through central government. To them the Bill of Rights is a piece of incomprehensible lunacy that prevents them from getting anything done. They are not concerned with rural government trespasses, they are worried about bombs and riots in their cities and they are terrified of their global goals being sabotaged by some movie trailer.

They are making Muslim violence into our new law, just as they made urban violence into our new law, just as they have made their own bureaucratic mandates backed by SWAT teams and prisons into our new law.

The age when laws were made by men, rather than machines of social progress composed of lawyers and activists, bureaucrats and think-tanks, lobbyists and judges, is long since gone. There is no law in our laws, but the law of force. The Constitution sits on a dusty shelf while the judges bang their gavels and practice the law that mandates something because those in power want it that way.

And now our utopian lawyer-kings, our armies of bleeding-heart social justice activist, our legions of bureaucrats stamping their papers over our skulls, our grinning black-robed activist judges wielding their gavels like swords, are cringing in terror before a Muslim mob. The bullies who have bullied us for so long have proven to be cowards. While they dismantle our army to sell it for scraps so that the EPA and HUD and the cowboy poetry festivals can get their billions, they order us to fall on our knees before the Army of Allah.

The liberal bullies who bullied us for so long have been successfully bullied and have handed us over to the bully's bully. But bullies, of the liberal or Muslim kind, are cowards. Their bullying only works until they are successfully bullied and without their threat of force, their laws wither and blow away on the wind.


Why Is Gold Being Consfiscated? What Does It Mean for You?


Why Is Gold Being Confiscated? What Does It Mean for You?





Turkey has begun to confiscate gold from its citizens. They say it is help the citizens ear money. What they should be saying is that the confiscation is designed to help the elite take money from the citizens.

When governments confiscate gold, it can only mean one thing.  Find out what that is…


Why Is Gold Being Confiscated? What Does It Mean for You?





Turkey has begun to confiscate gold from its citizens. They say it is help the citizens ear money. What they should be saying is that the confiscation is designed to help the elite take money from the citizens.

When governments confiscate gold, it can only mean one thing.  Find out what that is…



Kissing the Crocodile

Kissing the Crocodile


In Vienna, toward the end of the Age of Aquarius, a father bought his little girl a baby crocodile for her birthday. The child had become enchanted with the reptile after seeing a picture of it in a storybook and when all the other presents were opened, her new pet was presented to her.

The little girl was delighted with the present. She began to play with the baby croc and then tried to kiss it. The croc bit her on the nose. The little girl began to cry and had to be taken to the hospital. And the angry father went off to dispose of the nasty little beast.

On the next day, the police responded to reports of a strange creature in the Danube canal, that arm of the great river which flows timidly through the locks and into the city. Vienna being full of animal lovers, the crocodile was rescued from the canal while the father was reprimanded for nearly causing the creature, used to the warmer climes of the east, to perish of a cold in the chilly waters.
The matter was worried over in the newspaper columns dedicated to one of the rare events in a city where not very much was happening.

Scandalized animal lovers complained that the beast had been misunderstood. They urged readers to empathize with the crocodile. Imagine, they said, that a giant creature a hundred times your size brings you close to its parted mouth. Could they not see that the crocodile was convinced that it was about to be eaten and was only defending itself?

Wiser heads suggested that the father should never have introduced a dangerous creature into his home and once he had introduced it, he should have expected that it would bite. Like the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog; biting was in its nature. And throwing it into the canal after it had bitten one of us was in our nature.

The subject was fortunately confined to crocodiles, canals and little girls. There was no talk of the '75 hostage crisis in which the Austrian government allowed the Arm of the Arab Revolution led by Carlos the Jackal to escape to Algeria with his hostages after murdering a police officer.

Not long after the crocodile controversy, two Muslim terrorists armed with machine guns and grenades attacked a synagogue where a Bar Mitzvah celebration for children was taking place. Hesham Mohammed Rajeh, a mathematics student, had been living in Austria for two years. When he was later put on trial, he tried to kick the judge and shouted, "When I am out of here, I will spit on you."

Hesham Mohammed Rajeh and Marwan Hasan shouted "PLO, PLO" and began to shoot and throw their grenades.

Ulrike Kohut, 25, rolled in front of a grenade to protect another woman's child. She died of her injuries on the way to the hospital. Lotan "Nathan" Fried, 68, died of shrapnel wounds on the same route. Many more were wounded including a pregnant woman and a 12-year-old girl.

Two policemen and an Israeli bodyguard shot it out with the terrorists and won. Their arrest was followed by a phone call in broken German threatening bombings if they were not released, but this time, perhaps because no actual bomb was found, the authorities held firm and the crocodiles stayed in the canal.

A month earlier, two terrorists had been stopped at the airport after Kalashnikov rifles and hundreds of grenades were found in their luggage. The terrorists had been deported and the authorities had lodged a formal protest with Ghazi Hussein, the PLO representative in Vienna, who had been there to meet them at the airport, and eventually kicked him out of the country. Four years later, that airport was the scene of a hand grenade attack in which 39 people were wounded.

Austria's Socialist Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, despite being of Jewish ancestry, was fond of Muslim terrorists and of Nazis, but not at all of Jews. Despite being on the left, Kreisky had a habit of filling his cabinet with former Nazis while comparing Zionism to Nazism. His political success rested on a welfare state built with Soviet money funneled through commercial orders and turning a blind eye to terrorist attacks carried out with Soviet and Polish machine guns was part of the price.

Even though the two terrorists had shouted, "PLO", Kreisky announced, "I am firmly convinced that the attackers had nothing to do with the PLO," Instead he suggested that they had been out to sabotage "Palestinian interests." During an interview, he offered that "the bad, unqualified treatment of Palestinians in Israel is one of the causes for these extreme actions."

Kreisky, the first Western leader to officially receive Arafat, refused calls from the Jewish community to end ties with the PLO and rejected criticism from the conservative opposition that his courting of the terrorist group had brought terrorism to Austria. Instead he counseled understanding the point of view of the crocodile. The crocodile felt mistreated. It bit.

Some decades later, Yusuf Ocak was sitting in a Vienna prison. Yusuf had made a Christmas video in which he announced, "Today is the 25th. Yesterday the kuffar unpacked their dirty presents on their dirty holiday. Now they will get something from us!" The video made for (DTM) Deutschen Taliban Mujahidin was one of the reasons why he was in custody.

Vienna had become a hub for the German Taliban, the way that it had once been a hub for the PLO. Jihadist terrorists targeting Germany, like the DTM or the Global Islamic Media Front which ran its German language operation out of Vienna, found its lax enforcement convenient. Two years later another German Taliban member was arrested in Vienna for plotting to fly an airliner into the Reichstag. Both men had been born in Europe. The crocodiles had learned to swim in the cold waters of the Danube and like it.

Yusuf and Thomas were not the first Islamist terrorists to be arrested in Vienna. Asim Cejanovic was caught trying to get to the American embassy with a backpack full of explosives and nails. But the judge decided that because he had been formerly treated for PTSD that he was innocent of plotting a terrorist attack and instead sentenced him only for illegal possession of explosives.

Empathizing with the crocodile required understanding that sometimes it only bit because it was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. And then it was best to pretend that it didn’t do it.

Chancellor Kreisky had turned over Vienna to the PLO and terrorist attacks had boomed in the seventies. The targets of the PLO and its various splinter and rival groups had been fairly narrow. Naturally the Jews were first on the list. Then came their own leaders, like Egypt's Sadat or the OPEC ministers. But the Islamists were far less narrow-minded.

Mohamed Mahmoud, one of the leaders of the Global Islamic Media Forum, bluntly declared, "I was born as a Muslim, from two Muslim parents. I have nothing at all in common with the Austrian culture and mentality. To the contrary, there is enmity and hate between me and those in Austria, Germany, the EU and the USA."

Mahmoud, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood member, vowed, "My goal in life is victory or the martyr's death," As the scorpion said to the frog just before they both drowned, "It is my nature." If the crocodile in the Danube canal had been able to speak and explain his actions, he would have probably said the same thing.

There may be as many as 500,000 Muslims in Austria; a country with a population of only 8.4 million.  Nearly 8 percent of Vienna is Muslim. The Muslim population of Austria doubled in two decades. It will take less time for it to double again. Half of the Muslims in Austria are under 25; twice the number for the general population.

By 2030, Austria is projected to have the 4th largest ratio of Muslim to native population in Europe; an increase of 68 percent. The native Austrian fertility rate is 1.3. The Muslim settler fertility rate is 2.4. The difference is one entire child. It's the 4th largest native to settler difference after Norway, Finland and the UK.

By 2050, the majority of children and teenagers in Austria could be Muslim. The Vienna of the
seventies was a place with more dogs and senior citizens than children, but if this goes on then the Vienna four decades hence will have few dogs and many children. Its primary languages will be Arabic and Turkish. And if global warming ever kicks in, perhaps crocodiles will even be able to swim in the Danube.

The doting father who brought his daughter a crocodile because she was taken by an exotic picture in a storybook did not mean for the blood and screams to follow; but it is the role of adults to keep children from kissing crocodiles even if the storybooks say they should.

If you bring a crocodile home, then blood will flow. Kissing the crocodile will not make it love you. It will bite you, because that is what crocodiles do.
Europe tried to kiss the Islamist crocodile only to be bitten for its trouble. The poisonous gift of multiculturalism that it brought to its children has ended in blood and tears. Those who want the nations of the continent to keep on kissing the crocodile urge them to empathize with the reasons why he mistakes love for hate and bites, but no matter how much they try to understand him, he refuses to stop biting them.

If the fathers of Europe would like to see a future for their children, then they must stop bringing crocodiles home to their birthday parties.





Daniel Greenfield 

Kissing the Crocodile


In Vienna, toward the end of the Age of Aquarius, a father bought his little girl a baby crocodile for her birthday. The child had become enchanted with the reptile after seeing a picture of it in a storybook and when all the other presents were opened, her new pet was presented to her.

The little girl was delighted with the present. She began to play with the baby croc and then tried to kiss it. The croc bit her on the nose. The little girl began to cry and had to be taken to the hospital. And the angry father went off to dispose of the nasty little beast.

On the next day, the police responded to reports of a strange creature in the Danube canal, that arm of the great river which flows timidly through the locks and into the city. Vienna being full of animal lovers, the crocodile was rescued from the canal while the father was reprimanded for nearly causing the creature, used to the warmer climes of the east, to perish of a cold in the chilly waters.
The matter was worried over in the newspaper columns dedicated to one of the rare events in a city where not very much was happening.

Scandalized animal lovers complained that the beast had been misunderstood. They urged readers to empathize with the crocodile. Imagine, they said, that a giant creature a hundred times your size brings you close to its parted mouth. Could they not see that the crocodile was convinced that it was about to be eaten and was only defending itself?

Wiser heads suggested that the father should never have introduced a dangerous creature into his home and once he had introduced it, he should have expected that it would bite. Like the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog; biting was in its nature. And throwing it into the canal after it had bitten one of us was in our nature.

The subject was fortunately confined to crocodiles, canals and little girls. There was no talk of the '75 hostage crisis in which the Austrian government allowed the Arm of the Arab Revolution led by Carlos the Jackal to escape to Algeria with his hostages after murdering a police officer.

Not long after the crocodile controversy, two Muslim terrorists armed with machine guns and grenades attacked a synagogue where a Bar Mitzvah celebration for children was taking place. Hesham Mohammed Rajeh, a mathematics student, had been living in Austria for two years. When he was later put on trial, he tried to kick the judge and shouted, "When I am out of here, I will spit on you."

Hesham Mohammed Rajeh and Marwan Hasan shouted "PLO, PLO" and began to shoot and throw their grenades.

Ulrike Kohut, 25, rolled in front of a grenade to protect another woman's child. She died of her injuries on the way to the hospital. Lotan "Nathan" Fried, 68, died of shrapnel wounds on the same route. Many more were wounded including a pregnant woman and a 12-year-old girl.

Two policemen and an Israeli bodyguard shot it out with the terrorists and won. Their arrest was followed by a phone call in broken German threatening bombings if they were not released, but this time, perhaps because no actual bomb was found, the authorities held firm and the crocodiles stayed in the canal.

A month earlier, two terrorists had been stopped at the airport after Kalashnikov rifles and hundreds of grenades were found in their luggage. The terrorists had been deported and the authorities had lodged a formal protest with Ghazi Hussein, the PLO representative in Vienna, who had been there to meet them at the airport, and eventually kicked him out of the country. Four years later, that airport was the scene of a hand grenade attack in which 39 people were wounded.

Austria's Socialist Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, despite being of Jewish ancestry, was fond of Muslim terrorists and of Nazis, but not at all of Jews. Despite being on the left, Kreisky had a habit of filling his cabinet with former Nazis while comparing Zionism to Nazism. His political success rested on a welfare state built with Soviet money funneled through commercial orders and turning a blind eye to terrorist attacks carried out with Soviet and Polish machine guns was part of the price.

Even though the two terrorists had shouted, "PLO", Kreisky announced, "I am firmly convinced that the attackers had nothing to do with the PLO," Instead he suggested that they had been out to sabotage "Palestinian interests." During an interview, he offered that "the bad, unqualified treatment of Palestinians in Israel is one of the causes for these extreme actions."

Kreisky, the first Western leader to officially receive Arafat, refused calls from the Jewish community to end ties with the PLO and rejected criticism from the conservative opposition that his courting of the terrorist group had brought terrorism to Austria. Instead he counseled understanding the point of view of the crocodile. The crocodile felt mistreated. It bit.

Some decades later, Yusuf Ocak was sitting in a Vienna prison. Yusuf had made a Christmas video in which he announced, "Today is the 25th. Yesterday the kuffar unpacked their dirty presents on their dirty holiday. Now they will get something from us!" The video made for (DTM) Deutschen Taliban Mujahidin was one of the reasons why he was in custody.

Vienna had become a hub for the German Taliban, the way that it had once been a hub for the PLO. Jihadist terrorists targeting Germany, like the DTM or the Global Islamic Media Front which ran its German language operation out of Vienna, found its lax enforcement convenient. Two years later another German Taliban member was arrested in Vienna for plotting to fly an airliner into the Reichstag. Both men had been born in Europe. The crocodiles had learned to swim in the cold waters of the Danube and like it.

Yusuf and Thomas were not the first Islamist terrorists to be arrested in Vienna. Asim Cejanovic was caught trying to get to the American embassy with a backpack full of explosives and nails. But the judge decided that because he had been formerly treated for PTSD that he was innocent of plotting a terrorist attack and instead sentenced him only for illegal possession of explosives.

Empathizing with the crocodile required understanding that sometimes it only bit because it was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. And then it was best to pretend that it didn’t do it.

Chancellor Kreisky had turned over Vienna to the PLO and terrorist attacks had boomed in the seventies. The targets of the PLO and its various splinter and rival groups had been fairly narrow. Naturally the Jews were first on the list. Then came their own leaders, like Egypt's Sadat or the OPEC ministers. But the Islamists were far less narrow-minded.

Mohamed Mahmoud, one of the leaders of the Global Islamic Media Forum, bluntly declared, "I was born as a Muslim, from two Muslim parents. I have nothing at all in common with the Austrian culture and mentality. To the contrary, there is enmity and hate between me and those in Austria, Germany, the EU and the USA."

Mahmoud, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood member, vowed, "My goal in life is victory or the martyr's death," As the scorpion said to the frog just before they both drowned, "It is my nature." If the crocodile in the Danube canal had been able to speak and explain his actions, he would have probably said the same thing.

There may be as many as 500,000 Muslims in Austria; a country with a population of only 8.4 million.  Nearly 8 percent of Vienna is Muslim. The Muslim population of Austria doubled in two decades. It will take less time for it to double again. Half of the Muslims in Austria are under 25; twice the number for the general population.

By 2030, Austria is projected to have the 4th largest ratio of Muslim to native population in Europe; an increase of 68 percent. The native Austrian fertility rate is 1.3. The Muslim settler fertility rate is 2.4. The difference is one entire child. It's the 4th largest native to settler difference after Norway, Finland and the UK.

By 2050, the majority of children and teenagers in Austria could be Muslim. The Vienna of the
seventies was a place with more dogs and senior citizens than children, but if this goes on then the Vienna four decades hence will have few dogs and many children. Its primary languages will be Arabic and Turkish. And if global warming ever kicks in, perhaps crocodiles will even be able to swim in the Danube.

The doting father who brought his daughter a crocodile because she was taken by an exotic picture in a storybook did not mean for the blood and screams to follow; but it is the role of adults to keep children from kissing crocodiles even if the storybooks say they should.

If you bring a crocodile home, then blood will flow. Kissing the crocodile will not make it love you. It will bite you, because that is what crocodiles do.
Europe tried to kiss the Islamist crocodile only to be bitten for its trouble. The poisonous gift of multiculturalism that it brought to its children has ended in blood and tears. Those who want the nations of the continent to keep on kissing the crocodile urge them to empathize with the reasons why he mistakes love for hate and bites, but no matter how much they try to understand him, he refuses to stop biting them.

If the fathers of Europe would like to see a future for their children, then they must stop bringing crocodiles home to their birthday parties.





Daniel Greenfield