Former Reagan Economic Adviser: Are Whites Being Setup For Genocide?!

Identity Politics has responded with outrage against People Magazine’s choice of white male country singer Blake Shelton as “sexiest man in the world.”

According to adherents of Identity Politics, the choice indicates that People Magazine is itself racist and part of the white supremacy movement to elavate white people above people of color.

The choice is doubly outrageous because, according to a writer in Salon, it reinforces and celebrates toxic white male sexuality and elevates a white man to a position of popular acclaim.

Every white person needs to read this article — http://www.unz.com/article/the-end-of-white-celebrity/— to understand how they are being demonized and marginalized to the point of oblivion.

By focusing primarily on white heterosexual males, Identity Politics tries to split white women off from white men by the use of the pejorative “misogynist”, but, as the article reports, white women, such as Taylor Swift, are also publicly demonized for their whiteness.

Reading this article in The Unz Review reminded me of an article I read last November in a Texas university newspaper that declared white DNA to be an abomination. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/texas-student-newspaper-blasted-over-anti-white-your-dna-is-abomination-column.html

Think about this for a minute. Suppose the writer had said “homosexual DNA is an abomination,” or “black DNA is an abomination,” or, heaven forbid, “Jewish DNA is an abomination.” Anyone who declared homosexuals, blacks, or Jews to be an abomination would be instantly fired, sued, charged with hate crimes and driven so deep into the ground that they would never reemerge.

The article in the student newspaper was a bit too much for Texas and produced a furor of its own. Lost in the furor was the realization that the writer was correctly interpreting the Identity Politics that today defines the liberal/progressive/left.

Hillary Clinton herself expressed Identity Politics when she declared Americans who rejected her as president to be “deplorables.” CounterPunch printed an essay by its radio host that concluded Trump’s election was not legitimate because he was elected by racist, sexist, homophobic white male Trump deplorables.

In other words, Identity Politics cannot be dismissed as some sort of idiocy on the part of a few kooks. It is institutionalized in American politics and culture and is becoming a habitual way of thinking. The growing demonization of white people parallels the demonization of the Jews and can result in marginalization and physical destruction.

The immigration policies of white countries have created a diversity basis for ganging up on whites. If we put together a diverse population with the anti-white ideology of Identity Politics, we have a political and cultural trap for white people.

It seems paradoxical that Identity Politics is led by white/liberal/progressive/leftists advocating their own marginalization.

However, as it is a correct conclusion from Identity Politics that white DNA is an abomination, white adherants of the ideology can logically see their demise as a benefit to humanity. But why should they be allowed to condemn whites who do not see themselves as an abomination?

What we are seeing unfold with Identity Politics was foretold by Jean Raspail in his futuristic novel The Camp of the Saints. Perhaps white people should read it as an indication of their possible fate.

Star Wars For The Splitting Soul Of America

Via GEFIRA,

The last episode of the successful movie – Star Wars – is actually a lot less about the stars in space and much more about culture and class. Most importantly, it reflects the dangerously growing disenfranchisement of the race-and-gender obsessed liberal upper class and everyone else.

The movie finally came out, the money started flowing and eventually the reviews arrived. The result? On the primary review sites Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes the critics loved it, the public did not, which left many wondering why.

Some explanations came out already: the good results are scientific, the bad ones are there because of internet trolls.Nope, there’s nothing scientific about subjective opinions, even if they (allegedly) represent the majority of those who express them. Science is, or should be, objective.

Trolls, more trolls, and finally, Russian interference.

That’s the cue to solving the enigma of the different ratings: the standard profile of the movie critic is a liberal arts graduate, easily identifiable by the verbosity of his writing and by the fact that he is easily impressed by cheap virtue-signalling elements like token ethnic minority leading characters and a strong female lead. As the movie panders (not even that much to be fair) to his ideological preferences, he gives high scores based on diversity and equality. The average-movie goer probably doesn’t care too much about politics. In a country where a “decisive’’ election like the last one, turnout is 55%, the biggest party by far is the one of those who stay at home. In comparison, in Europe important electoral dates easily get an 80% turnout.

So if the audience isn’t into politics, they might not care about the significance of a strong and independent woman outmanoeuvring a straight white male, the evil of mankind, in a duel with lightsabers to eradicate toxic masculinity⁴⁾.The non-politically biased movie goer wants a nice plot with unpredictable twists, satisfactory fight scenes, and some throwbacks to past episodes; and he didn’t get that. The plot falls flat.

Then there’s the other side of the political spectrum, the underclass who are simply fed up with the increasingly totalitarian tendencies of identity politics by the “liberal” Left and their constant attempts to shove their political beliefs down everyone’s throat. The new fad of the liberal elite, diversity, is being rejected like a bad transplant by the public. Nonetheless, it’s being pursued relentlessly and obnoxiously. The politicization of sports is already causing a haemorrhage of viewers for the NFL (the US football organization). Entertainment is also not immune to these attempts. The calls for the “diversification” of cast actors are regular.

The last two groups represent the “user score” and their review isn’t positive. The most interesting point, however, is another; it’s the reaction of critics to the public having a diverse (the irony!) opinion. That’s where the accusations of trolling or Russian meddling start, but they also reveal the insecurity of critics and especially, their inability to handle an opposite opinion. Just like the liberal political elite can’t accept that the world Obama built in the last 8 years received a negative review by the voters, who opted for the radical (in theory) change by electing Donald Trump, the liberal movie critic can’t accept a negative review of a work that reflects his ideological preference.

We might be seeing now the impact of those infamous participation trophies on the minds of the new generations: they don’t know how to accept defeat, nor any negativity whatsoever. They grew up being told that “everyone is special in their own way”, then Facebook arrived, allowing only likes but not dislikes contributing to the creation of a mindset where negativity is not allowed.

If there is negativity, then it must be from some malign agent… from Russia. One year ago, in one of our articles Russia did it ⁵⁾we spotted a trend: every political shortcoming of the Western elite would be blamed on Russia. We were right as the cases of alleged Russian interference have expanded from Trump and Brexit to the Italian referendum last year, and according to Joe Biden⁶⁾also the rise (and fall) of Marine Le Pen in the French elections and most recently the Green US politician Jill Stein, which may rank as the most hilarious cases of paranoia.

It turns out, however, that the Russian scapegoating is expanding outside the traditional boundaries of politics, as everything becomes increasingly politicized. Hence, even negative reviews of the Star Wars latest movie are now a result of the Russian sabotage.

As millennials, the generation that was put in a bubble protected from negativity by educators and social media and thus unable to handle it, are now fully settling in the job market, the prospect isn’t promising. If you think that’s bad, remember that the new cohorts in college campuses are now fighting to suppress free speech on the basis that it might offend someone’s feelings. Last year we concluded “expect to see more”. This time, expect to see worse.

Liberals Take Aim At White People Again As Soros-Funded Panel Attacks The Very Idea Of White Womanhood

Another day, another piece of news pointing to the now strikingly obvious fact that the hard-left is attempting to further divide the country along racial lines while painting anyone that disagrees with their liberal views as racist.

Appearing on the Sirius XM Progress Channel’s Make It Plain, three organizers of the anti-Trump “Women’s March” spoke about the need to confront white womanhood itself while attacking any white person who didn’t vote for anti-gun Democrat Doug Jones in the recent Alabama Senate election.

“More white women voted percentage wise for Roy Moore than did for Donald Trump,” the panel’s host breathlessly claims. “So this is why this is such an urgent conversation, such an urgent panel to have quite frankly.”

As Infowars.com noted, “The panel largely centered around making white women feel guilty for their alleged complicity in upholding white supremacy.”

One of the organizers, Sophie Ellman-Golan, shared a graphic on her Twitter account that shows the percentage of white women who voted for Roy Moore over Democrat Doug Jones. The fact that a majority of white women did not support Jones is apparently enough evidence for Golan that they simply had to be racist.

#ConfrontWhiteWomanhood pic.twitter.com/D51WGwV9er

— Sophie Ellman-Golan (@EgSophie) December 13, 2017

Ellman-Golan made it clear that the left now believes that if a white women votes for a Republican then she is straight up racist and if a white women “conforms” to the liberal orthodoxy she is only “inherently racist” but at least trying to fight it.

“We designed this obviously to work directly with, specifically with white women, but I think also in this particular setting it’s really valuable to have multiple voices talking about both because it’s obviously for white women to confront our own complicity in upholding white supremacy, but it’s not like white women’s voices are, or should be the only voices talking about the ways that white women cause harm and violence,” Ellman-Golan said during the discussion.

That’s right, in the new America, white people are not even allowed to vote for their favored candidate without the fear of being labeled a racist.

Shockingly, this is the third time in the last week that the left has specifically attacked Americans based on their skin color in what is sadly becoming a routine, mainstream media supported, theme.

As I reported for this website, just two days ago a women was attacked and robbed at a Brooklyn area deli by two Hispanic teens who targeted her because she was white and therefore a likely Trump supporter. (she was not)

“A 32-year-old liberal white woman was attacked and robbed by two Hispanic teens who accused the woman of being a Trump supporter while pelting her with groceries at a Bronx area deli Wednesday night.

Amazingly, the woman is not actually a Trump supporter and was apparently attacked as one simply because she was white. Keep in mind that the left has specifically blamed white people for Trump’s election victory so one can imagine that the teens were simply carrying out an attack they thought was for the greater good.”

One day earlier literally tens of thousands of liberals throughout social media, including many “prominent” leftists, used Doug Jones stunning victory in Alabama to attack white people as a whole.

“In the new America, the hard-left openly mocks and insults all white people simply because a certain percentage of them do not vote for liberal candidates,” I reported, again for SHTFplan.com.

“Keep in mind that BOTH candidates were white yet that did not stop the race baiting left from conducting a vile series of attacks on the white race while pretending that they are the actual civil rights heroes.”

Make no mistake, this is a Soros-funded, globalist operation to scare white Americans into supporting ONLY liberal candidates or take the risk of being viciously attacked as a racist.

All Americans must stand up to this transparent divide and conquer strategy or risk an all out civil war.

Video: Leftists Embrace Domestic Terrorism, Call For Assassination Of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Over Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to “dismantle” Obama-era rules that regulated the businesses that connect Americans to the internet in a move that the left has breathlessly attacked since its announcement.

The so-called net neutrality regulations were supposedly put in place to prohibit broadband providers from blocking websites and or charging consumers for higher-quality services or to watch certain content such as Netflix.

“The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to have stronger oversight over broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most communications. It reflected the view of the Trump administration and the new F.C.C. chairman that unregulated business will eventually yield innovation and help the economy,” reported The New York Times.

“It will take weeks for the repeal to go into effect, so consumers will not see any of the potential changes right away. But the political and legal fight started immediately. Numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill called for a bill that would reestablish the rules, and several Democratic state attorneys general, including Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, said they would file a suit to stop the change.”

While The New York Times noted that the “legal fight” has started immediately, they failed to even acknowledge the numerous calls for violence against the Republican chairman of the FCC that included direct threats of assassination.

“I hope a dark web assassin kills Ajit Pai,” one of the disgusting Tweets read. “Can someone please kill this subhuman scum? read another.

As Infowars.com reported, “Does net neutrality cripple innovation or encourage it? Ultimately the FCC would vote to release the internet back to its pre-Obama days in the wild, but more death threats against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai weigh in on Twitter. It’s the way the left operates now as they embrace domestic terrorism unchecked in the face of our Republic.”

One can only imagine what the mainstream media would be doing if Trump supporters openly called for the death of a Democratic politician….

The End Of The Age Of Benevolence

Authored by Francis Marion of CanadianGunBlog.com, via Jim Quinn"s Burning Platform blog,

The history of democracy, Marxism and feminism is the history of the snake, which, being hungry for more, stalks its own tail and consumes itself.

Some evenings I sit on the sofa in the family room with my teenage daughter and watch a TV program with her. I leave the choice of the show to her, it matters little to me, and when she finds something she likes she sits next to me, puts her head on my shoulder, and snuggles up for the hour it takes to watch whatever it is she’s chosen.

It’s our time.

Occasionally we’ll sneak in another twenty or thirty minutes to the objection of her mother but I like my time with her so I put up with the raised eyebrows and the, “She’s got school tomorrow,” scoldings. It’s important to me that she knows I love her, that I want to spend time with her and that she feels safe when she is with me. Someday, when she is a grown woman I want her to find a man that will take care of her and protect her like I do. I expect no less from a suitor and neither should she.

There will be women who read this who will object to my stance. They will say, “She doesn’t need a man to feel safe or validated or content,” but I would disagree. When she gets older she’ll need a good man, not just any man, and that’s as true today as much as it was ten years, twenty years, fifty years, one hundred years and even one thousand years ago. And it will become even more so as time goes on.

Indeed, we have reached peak denial in our civilization and whether we like it or not reality is about to make a come back.

The freedom that we have enjoyed in the west and the modern democracies that have sprung forth from our evolving and enlightened philosophies over the past few hundred years are not a given. Granted, they are preferable outcomes given our natural state but politically speaking they are an anomaly in the history of mankind and not the norm.

As such, democracy and the systems, social structures and institutions that have grown up around them are grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of the western world. Most of the people living in the west today have been raised to believe that democracy is a moral system of governance and that it is our gift to the rest of mankind. But democracy is not an inherently moral system nor is it a guarantor of linear, progressive political growth.

At its root democracy is quite simple. It is the exercise of political power by the majority over the minority. It is the power to choose in matters of politics. This, of course, begs the question: to choose what?

Since choices in general (and political ones are no exception) can be either good or bad, in this case, both for the individual and the body politic, then it follows that democracy is neither. It is nothing more than a tool for decision making where the majority holds the power to make decisions that affect everyone, either for better or for worse. Democracy is, therefore, a reflection of the character of the people who exercise it.

Additionally, democracy is also the use of soft force. That is, the minority bends to the will of the majority on political matters and the apparatus of the state is responsible for carrying out its demands. The minority consents, willingly or unwillingly not because violence is present but because, by the state’s presence, it is implied.

More importantly, though, democracy is a luxury that is preceded by benevolence but does not necessarily guarantee its continuance or creation if forgotten.

Societies in a state of internal turmoil, or where competing factions vie for political power, often through the use of overt physical violence, will forgo democracy because the primary component for its exercise, order, is absent.

Democracy in the western world has always followed ‘order’. ‘Order’ is a byproduct of force and, like democracy varies in severity on the scale of good and bad, its moral leanings by and large being dependent on the type of people who impose it from the top down. It can be fatherly and benevolent or it can be violent and oppressive. It is never universally both.

Thus democracy usually occurs where ‘order’ has been established and the apparatus of the state is at least somewhat benevolent.

In a political world ruled by strength, order and benevolence are precursors to suffrage. Without either suffrage would not exist, choices would be limited and brute strength would still be the order of the day.

Whether feminists are willing to admit it or not, brute, physical strength is at the root of all political power, thus feminism came into being because those who held that strength chose to exercise benevolence and reason over strength and subjugation. Their suffrage was dependent first and foremost on the benevolence of those who held political power. And like it or not, those who held political power at the time it was introduced were men.

As time progressed, at least in the West, democracy, and universal suffrage gave way to both physical and intellectual freedom for women. In the West during the twentieth century, its political structure (and the intellectual values it embodied) and the industrial revolution it spawned ushered in a new era for women, giving them choices they had not previously had, by and large, since the beginning of recorded history.

Women were finally free to choose between family, career or both. Rather than playing the role of the weaker, subservient sex women found their place beside men in society as intellectual equals. Physical strength was no longer a factor in the social structure of our civilization. An intellectual meritocracy came to be valued over a system based simply on brute force. This structure was the product of order created from benevolent strength.

But the rise of Marxism and feminism, particularly the rise of third-wave feminism has put ‘order’ at risk.

Without order, an intellectual meritocracy will once again become subservient to strength. It’s a hard pill for women and progressive liberals in general to swallow but it’s a fact.

Marxism and modern feminism work continuously towards a perfect world but ignore reality in the process. They forget an important lesson, born true repeatedly throughout history:

There is no utopia.

The best we can hope for in any civilization is for a society to be built and based on fundamental individual rights and freedoms. If we refuse this then we return to what we were before. This means rule by brute force which means the end of political and legal equality for women and the death of democracy itself.

The irony in the dilemma which the West now faces is that our demise, the continual erosion of a democratic, intellectual meritocracy, is by and large spurred on by the very people that our system was created to protect.

Feminists, both female and male, cry daily for more of the same poison which infects us.

More illegal and unscreened immigration. More tolerance of philosophies which are intolerant themselves. More invitations for an enemy created by a corrupt and immoral government to ignore our borders and live among us.

More cries for moral nihilism, the repression of speech (one of the cornerstones of their own suffrage) and the denial of fundamental biological reality.

More cries for the denial of basic math and the continuance of government-sponsored bread and circuses. More of everything which our civilization cannot sustain. More of everything which rots us from the core.

Subsequently, modern feminists decry the men of their own civilization as misogynists, racists, and intolerant while forgetting it was their own men who recognized that a society built on equal political rights for all was preferable to a society built on spoils taken by the strong.

They forget that it was the men they live among who valued justice over greed and force so much that they shed the old ways and took their place beside their women instead of in front of them. They do all of this while cheering on the invasion of their own countries by foreign men who view them as nothing more than chattel property. In doing so they have unwittingly invited the destruction of their own freedom.

While I sit next to my daughter I wonder what the future will hold for her. I have no desire to see her disenfranchised but the reality is that many of her own kind have chosen a future where reason has been rejected and instead, traded for thirty pieces of silver and whatever makes them feel good. Unfortunately, a world without reason is a world without order which is a world without choice. A world without choice is a world of brute force. And that’s a man’s world.

Ironic.

Benevolence and democracy should have ushered in an era of truth and reason but instead, they ushered in an era of denial and wishful thinking. Thus, democracy’s beginning will also be its end. What came from force will return to it.

For those of you paying attention and who can see the contradictions and the resultant decay, pray. Pray that what comes afterward will once again be benevolent.

Snoop Dog Poses Over ‘Dead Trump’s’ Body In New Album Cover

World famous musician, Snoop Dogg just threw himself into headlines, but it’s not for his love of marijuana.  This time, he’s getting attention for all the wrong reasons.

Rapper Snoop Dogg has taken a break from garnering attention for cannabis by posing with president Donald Trump’s dead body on his new album cover. Snoop Dogg’s new single, “Make America Crip Again,” which is the title track on his upcoming EP (extended play), takes aim at Trump and his governing practices. “The president says he wants to make America great again. Fuck that shit. We gonna make America crip again,” Snoop Dogg says in the track.

Many are considering the image to be threatening, but a minimum, it’s disrespectful. Snoop Dogg claims that his album cover isn’t political either. “It’s not a statement or a political act: it’s just good music. Certain people feel like we should make America ‘great again,’ but that time they’re referring to always takes me back to separation and segregation so I’d rather Make America Crip Again,” Snoop Dogg said in a statement obtained by Rolling Stone.

Snoop Dogg’s album released October 27 and has drawn applause and harsh criticism for the cover choice. “In my lifetime, that’s when young black men in impoverished areas organized to help their communities and to take care of their own because society basically left them for dead. A lot of people glorify the gang-banging and violence but forget that in the beginning, the Crips’ main and sole purpose was to be the reflection of the Black Panthers. They looked after kids, provided after-school activities, fed them, and stepped in as role models and father figures.”

Of course, to claim that this is not some sort of political stunt by the rapper is absurd. Especially considering this isn’t the first time Snoop Dogg has gone after the president. The rapper, who was a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, targeted Trump earlier this year in a music video where he can be seen shooting a clown dressed as Trump.

*The scenes in this video may be disturbing to some and are not suitable for all viewers.

According to the Washington Examiner, Trump responded to the video, saying the rapper would have likely faced “jail time” had he pulled the same stunt with former President Barack Obama at the forefront.

Pat Buchanan Asks: "Is Liberalism A Dying Faith?"

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more democratic - and the model for mankind’s future.

Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.

But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.

And even Europe seems to be rejecting what America has on offer.

In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.

The right-wing People’s Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria’s vote, delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!

Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.

South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians are talking of separation.

By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington Post, Babis “makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO’s mission is outdated.”

Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.

To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many may nod at Thomas Jefferson’s line that “All men are created equal,” but they no more practice that in their own nations than did Jefferson in his.

On Oct. 7, scores of thousands of Poles lined up along the country’s entire 2,000-mile border — to pray the rosary.

It was the centennial of the Virgin Mary’s last apparition at Fatima in Portugal in 1917, and the day in 1571 the Holy League sank the Muslim fleet at Lepanto to save Europe. G. K. Chesterton’s poem, “Lepanto,” was once required reading in Catholic schools.

Each of these traditionalist-nationalist movements is unique, but all have a common cause. In the hearts of Europe’s indigenous peoples is embedded an ancient fear: loss of the homeland to Islamic invaders.

Europe is rejecting, resisting, recoiling from “diversity,” the multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual future that, say U.S. elites, is America’s preordained mission to bring about for all mankind.

Indeed, increasingly, the indigenous peoples of Europe seem to view as the death of their nations and continent, what U.S. liberal elites see as the Brave New World to come.

To traditionalist Europeans, our heaven looks like their hell.

Thus Poles fall on their knees to pray to the Virgin Mary to spare them from threats of an Islamic future, as their ancestors prayed at the time of Lepanto, and of Vienna in 1683, when the Polish King John Sobieski marched to halt the last Muslim drive into the heart of Europe.

European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve “illiberal” ends. And it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right. For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds deeply nationalist views.

European elites may denounce these new parties as “illiberal” or fascist, but it is becoming apparent that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem but an existential crisis.

To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from overuse.

And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in nations created for their own kind.

Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.

And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of 1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.

Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.

So, why is liberalism dying?

Because it is proving to be what James Burnham called it in his 1964 “Suicide of the West” — the ideology of Western suicide.

What we see in Europe today is people who, belatedly recognizing this, have begun to “rage, rage, against dying of the light.”

Why Left Wing Nuts Get Away with Murder

“Once Upon A Time, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away” the left wing of the political spectrum were the vanguard of opposing the globalist warfare matrix. The anti-war movement changed the world in the 1960’s and stopped the bloody carnage in Viet Nam. Judging by today’s standards, that world is forgotten and the replacement culture has an attitude that preserving the empire is necessary no matter how trumped up the rationale is to maintain perpetual conflict. Choose the newest enemy; Jihad Islam, Russian nationalism, Chinese supremacy or North Korean belligerence and any dedicated internationalist can spin an argument why fighting the next war is necessary.

Now we all know just how half-crazed the foreign policy of mentally deranged “Bomber” McCain and his NeoCon warmonger comrades has been over the decades, but what is the excuse from the Looney Left for abandoning their moral argument that underpinned opposition to the establishment’s persistent drive to maintain a permanent war environment?

Remember the Democratic left is the party that purged the righteous and enlightened foreign policy opposition from the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and Eric Massa; forcing each from office. Throwing them under the bus is much different from having them sitting in the back of the coach.

While regrettable these expulsions from Congress are consistent with the radical purity litmus tests required to remain within the club of ecumenical warfare. The informative site with accompanied link resources, Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich makes an important point.

“Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism consider wars to impose a liberal-democratic society on weaker countries (which in modern times are countries without nuclear weapons) which cannot give a fight to Western armies are inherently just (“regime change” mentality). So both ideologies are ready to bring revolution to new countries on the tips of (USA in case of neoliberalism) bayonets.”

Once the resistance to imperialism was seen as a desired objective for liberal wing exponents of the anti-war factions. Sadly, that is no longer the case. The persistent and expansive dominance within the deep state of the most notable NeoCon proponents has worked their way into the entire professional establishment. As the NeoLibs become indistinguishable with the fake conservatives, the liberal cause is relegated to the trash bin.

Doug Bandow writes in Forbes, Americans Should Reject Bipartisan Warmongering: Base Foreign Policy On Reluctance To Go To War and acknowledges the failure the post 911 era.

“After 9/11, President George W. Bush abandoned his campaign pledge of a “humble” foreign policy and instead unleashed America’s military throughout the Middle East, with disastrous results.

Fifteen years and another administration later, the U.S. is more entangled in violent conflicts throughout the world than ever before and there’s no end in sight. The American people understandably have rejected a foreign policy driven by regime change and nation building.”

Well, this last conclusion is debatable. Has the public truly scorned the interventionist involvement policy? The grassroots Trump supporters were certainly onboard, but the cold hard fact is that the will of the people has little to do with the design and implementation of foreign policy. Just as President Trump, has been held captive to the careerists from Foggy Bottom.

This brings up the discussion, why is it acceptable in the controlled and manufactured culture for liberals to jump on the train of the arms munitions machine and always get a pass on their bellicose advocacy?

The short answer, they can get away with it in a culture that blames right wing conservatives for all wars. However, this is not based upon the real historic record. According to Willie Osterweil in the essay, Democrats Are the Real Party of War presents a compelling argument.

“Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war.

It’s important to face this fact squarely: in the 20th century, it was the Democratic party that was the more aggressive pursuer of foreign wars. You can make whatever claim you like about historical contingency, necessity, or immediate context. None of them should convince anyone that the Democrats, as a party, are opposed to war. They’re not even more opposed to war than Republicans. They are a party of warmongers.

Many of those young anti-war Obama voters learned a hard lesson: when you put your faith, energy or activism into electing Democrats, no matter what domestic policy you support, you’re also putting your weight behind militarism, a crackdown on civil liberties, and foreign wars of aggression. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Obama’s wars, ultimately, is how, despite it all, many continue to hope for change from the Democratic Party.”

Folks, there are no successors to Eugene Joseph McCarthy a Man of Courage. The Democratic Party is every bit of a fraud as the Republican NeoCons. As for the ideological inept supporters of progressive nihilism, they are irrelevant and act as dreadful fools of the Pelosi contingent wing of the sham two party systems.

The fake news offered up by the corporatist media is so slanted to maintain the protection racket for their heroes and heroines on the left that the condemnation of that other famous McCarthy, “Tail Gunner Joe“, applies to anyone on the right; especially if they propose an American First, non-interventionism populist viewpoint.

Back to, Once Upon A Time, the populism on the left and that of the right shared most of the same basic distrust of the political and economic elites. Not that way anymore. Even the liberal site Vox asks, Why Democrats have no foreign policy ideas.

“Washington’s foreign policy debate tends to be mostly conducted between the center and the right. The issue is typically how much force America should use rather than whether it should use it at all, or how to tweak a free-trade agreement rather than whether it should be accepted at all. Debates over pressing policy issues — from fighting ISIS to the crisis in Venezuela to handling Chinese provocations in the South China Sea — lack a left-wing voice of any prominence.

Dan Drezner, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School admits:

“As progressives, we believe in government. And yet, the logic of a security state tends in directions that are antithetical to things we believe as progressives,” Hurlburt says. “As a security progressive, you’re constantly riding that contradiction, and you’ll never get away from it.”

His conclusions are void of the definite criticism that the Liberal Wing Nuts actually are in basic agreement with the prevailing war imposition objectives of the permanent foreign policy consortium.

So when the self-proclaimed indignation of the pseudo holier than thou libtards rationalize that their complicity in murder comes with the territory, just remember that infamous admission from war criminal, Madeleine Albright in her 60 Minutes interview.

Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”

Who can or has the will to bring justice to the establishment elites for waging war for their globalist masters? Liberals are virtually immune to the silence of condemning progressives. This “PC” distortion of reality seldom penetrates the bubble of cover-up. When the echo chamber for leftist exemption from responsibility forgoes accountability, the entire society is drained of an opportunity for social justice.

Liberals need to see their faces in the mirror as an enabler for everlasting war. They are the bookends along with the Bush proponents that destroyed any moral imperative for world leadership. The jury is still out on the Trump administration. However, the emphatic shift to the shadow government operatives is most disturbing.

If the left really wants to be the champion of the common man, where is the push back against a foreign policy that has changed little under Bush, Clinton, Bush Junior, Obama and now Trump?

Bombing the incompliant into submission is not a valid foreign doctrine. The bipartisan gang of warmongers is at blame when the guns explode in a salvo of death. As long as the phony war on terror goes on the net result is that the lasting causality is the body politik of our own nation. Reestablish the anti-war movement as an active vehicle for true national defense by bringing back the troops to our own shore.

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

People Ignore Facts That Contradict Their False Beliefs

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The more people there are who ignore facts that contradict their beliefs, the likelier a dictatorship will emerge within a given country.

Here is how aristocracies, throughout the Ages, have controlled the masses, by taking advantage of this widespread tendency people have, to ignore contrary facts:

What social scientists call “confirmation bias” and have repeatedly found to be rampant, is causing the public to be easily manipulated, and has thus destroyed democracy by replacing news-reporting, by propaganda - ‘news" that’s false - in a culture where lies which pump the agendas of the powerful (including lies pumped by the billionaire owners of top ‘news’media and of the media they own) are almost never punished (and are often not even denied to be true). Thus, lies by those powerful liars almost always succeed at enslaving the minds of the millions, to believe what the top economic-and-power class want those millions of people to believe — no matter how false it might happen actually to be. 

Recently, a particularly stark example of this came to my attention. On 15 September 2017, an article that I wrote for the Strategic Culture Foundation, and which was titled by a true statement that I had only recently discovered to be true, was republished at a news-site that I consider one of the best around, “Signs of the Times” or “SOTT” for short, and a reader-comment there, simply rejected that title-statement and the entire article, because it contradicted what the person believes. This commenter entirely ignored the evidence that I had provided in the article, which proved the statement to be true. 

No matter how irrefutable the evidence is, most people reject anything which contradicts their deeply entrenched false beliefs, and this reader-comment crystallized for me, this phenomenon of “confirmation bias” — the phenomenon of ignoring evidence that contradicts what one believes.

The article was titled “Liberalism doesn’t respect a nation’s sovereignty.” I never knew that fact until I researched it, but I found, after looking through (and my article quoting key documents from) the history of the matter, that it’s actually the case: that liberalism (as it’s understood and defined by the scholars of the subject, and as it’s based upon the key formative documents of the historical tradition, “liberalism”) rejects a nation’s sovereignty. This fact shocked me to discover; so, I wrote an article documenting it, and SCF accepted it, and it then became republished at a few other sites, including SOTT.

The reader-comment at SOTT which for me personified confirmation-bias, was (in its entirety): “This is a rather new twist blaming liberals for invading countries. I"ve always associated liberalism with the left wing and democratic, progressive politics. I"ve always associated conservatism with the right wing, big business, militarism and invading other countries. Trying to move the goal posts, are we?”

That person never clicked onto my article’s links documenting the case, nor even read the quotations given in the article itself from John Locke and from Adam Smith, who were key founders of “liberalism” as that tradition has come down to us. He instead ignored all of that evidence, and stated — entirely without evidence of any sort — that I (and SOTT, and SCF, for publishing it) were “Trying to move the goal posts.”

I (a Bernie Sanders voter, and a lifelong progressive and opponent of conservatism) am “Trying to move the goal posts” — how? By pointing out the manufactured phoniness of ‘liberalism’? By pointing out a key way in which liberalism was designed by its aristocratic sponsors (in this case by the aristocrats who sponsored Locke and Smith), to be an ideology that would encourage conquest, empire, and discourage democracy (which is based upon the sanctity of national sovereignty — based upon the lack of imposition of government by or on behalf of anyone who isn’t a resident on the land). Liberalism, I show there, was designed for Empire, not for democracy. That reader simply refused to consider the evidence.

People who insist upon deceiving themselves disgust me. Anyone who blocks out the key relevant facts and persists in believing the lies they were raised with, or became fooled into believing, doesn’t harm only themselves by the lies they believe; they vote on the basis of the lies they believe, and thus these people who refuse to be open-minded destroy democracy, and invite control of the nation by the aristocracy (who sponsor the proponents of those lies). People who refuse to question their own beliefs, become increasingly putrid pools of their own false beliefs, which have been created and nurtured and sustained and become larger and larger pools of lies, by constant repetition from the media and lobbyists of the rich and powerful, so as to enable the exploiters to enslave the masses, via those constantly repeated and embellished lies. 

Such self-‘justifying’ fools, who refuse to clean-up their conceptual pool that’s been increasingly polluted by lies, are enemies of democracy, no matter how much they may consider themselves to be ‘liberals’. They don’t even know the reality of what liberalism is. One thing that it definitely is not (as my article documented) is progressivism (which is utterly opposed to foreign conquest and to the entire imperial project of imposed rule, regardless whether by outright invasions or else by coups).

Thus, we have two dominant ideologies against progressivism: One is conservatism, which everyone recognizes to be against progressivism and for Empire and constant conquest, profitable war for the arms-merchants and for the ‘news’media owners who also benefit from stirring up invasion-fever, not only like William Randolph Hearst did but today like they all do. The other is liberalism, which hides that it’s actually conservative — hides this, by being ever-so-sweet toward certain ethnicities or other groups that are being oppressed domestically, and by vociferously condemning conservatives for what is actually nothing more than the blatancy of conservatism’s favoritism toward the aristocracy.

An authentic democracy cannot be based upon a “demos” (a public) that is overwhelmingly composed of suckers - manipulated fools. Only by means of the tiny aristocracy plus the huge mass of their suckers, does a democracy degenerate into a fascism. (For example, something like this can be supported overwhelmingly by the political Party that dominates the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, state capitals, state legislatures, and runs the U.S. White House, in this ‘democratic’ nation — ‘democratic’ according to the propaganda; but if this were really a democracy, then none of those politicians would be able to win public office.)

*  *  *

A well-established central finding of psychological research, concerning “confirmation bias” or “motivated reasoning” (which are two phrases referring to people’s tendency to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any contrary facts), is that individuals evaluate whatever they read or hear according to their pre-existing ideas about the given subject. Specifically, psychologists have found that people tend to pay attention to whatever confirms their existing ideas, and tend to ignore whatever contradicts those pre-established beliefs.

For examples, the following studies are available online:

“Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,” in the July 2006 American Journal of Political Science, reported: “We find a confirmation bias – the seeking out of confirmatory evidence – when [people] are free to self-select the source of arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization ... especially among those with the strongest priors [prior beliefs] and highest level of political sophistication [the highest degree of exposure to, and involvement in, the given subject-matter that the study was dealing with].” Prejudices were stronger among supposed experts than among non-“experts”: The more indoctrinated a person was, the more prejudiced. “People actively denigrate the information with which they disagree, while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Moreover, “Those with weak and uninformed attitudes show less bias” (and this is actually one reason why the best jurors at trials are generally people who are not personally or professionally involved in any aspect of the given case – they are “non-experts”).

Sharon Begley’s article in the 25 August 2009 Newsweek titled “Lies of Mass Destruction: The same skewed thinking that supports a Saddam-9/11 link explains the power of health-care myths [such as that Obama’s health plan had ‘death panels’]” summarized the study in the May 2009 Sociological Inquiry, “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification,” which had surveyed, during October 2004, 49 conservative Republicans who admitted they believed that Saddam Hussein had caused the 9/11 attacks. This study found that 48 of these 49 extreme conservatives were utterly impervious to the overwhelming factual evidence which was provided to them by the presenters that contradicted this false belief they held.

A study concerning not political conservatism but merely resistance to new technologies is James N. Druckman’s “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies,” which was presented at a technological conference in 2009. He reported that, “factual information ... is perceived in biased ways ... (e.g., there is motivated reasoning).” “Facts have limited impact on initial opinions.” Moreover, “Individuals do not privilege the facts. ... Individuals process new factual information in a biased manner. ... Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger, and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing” views.

“Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes,” in the January 1999 Psychological Inquiry, found that, “When an applicable stereotype supports their desired impression of an individual, motivation can lead people to activate this stereotype, if they have not already activated it. ... People pick and choose among the many stereotypes applicable to an individual, activating those that support their desired impression of this individual and inhibiting those that interfere with it.” Similarly, another research report, “The Undeserving Rich: ‘Moral Values’ and the White Working Class,” in the June 2009 Sociological Forum, found that John Kerry had probably lost the 2004 U.S. Presidential election to George W. Bush at least partly because white working class voters overwhelmingly believed that Bush was like themselves because he behaved like themselves, and that Kerry was not like themselves because his manner seemed “snooty.”

Why The Battles Against Liberalism, Globalism And The New World Order Are All Related

Do you love liberty and freedom? If you ask that question to people randomly on the street, you are going to get the same answer over and over again. Everyone wants liberty and freedom, but what they don’t understand is that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the amount of liberty and freedom that we get to enjoy. Every time a new law, rule or regulation is established, our liberties and our freedoms are restricted in some way. So the bigger government becomes, the less liberty and freedom we actually have.

On the federal level, there are now literally hundreds of thousands of laws, rules and regulations. And when you throw in the state and local levels, the total number of laws, rules and regulations governing all of our lives is in the millions. This is something that we learned about in law school, and it always stuck with me.

Of course we can’t do away with government entirely, because then we would have anarchy. For example, we don’t want the “freedom” to run around murdering one another at random. So it is very good to have laws against murder.

But in general, our founders intended for this to be a nation where government was limited and where our freedoms and liberties were maximized.

Sadly, what we have today is radically different from what our founders intended. Government has just gotten bigger and bigger over time, and this is true on the federal, state and local levels. And the bigger government gets, the more oppressive it tends to become. North Korea, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are three examples of what can happen when big government spins wildly out of control.

As I run for Congress, this is something that I am working very hard to educate people about. I am running on a pro-liberty platform, and that means that I want to try to restore the constitutional balance that our founders originally intended. In order to do that, we need to dramatically shrink the size of our federal government, and doing so would mean much more liberty and freedom for us all.

But you should see the looks of horror that I get from some liberals when I suggest shutting down certain government agencies. We have been living with big government for so long that they can’t imagine the federal government not managing every area of our society. When I try to explain that we would be better off transferring a lot of authority back to the states, they look at me as if I am from another world. They have been trained for so long to believe that intervention by the federal government is the answer to any problem, and so to them anyone that wants to reduce the size of the federal government is an “extremist”.

Fortunately, most people up here in Idaho’s first congressional district greatly welcome my message about limited government. When I ask them what they want from government, most of them tell me that they simply want government to get off of their backs.

I have a friend named Bob that lives up close to the border, and he is sick and tired of government control freaks. He is a cattle rancher, and federal bureaucrats are making things so miserable for him that he can barely run his business anymore. I have promised to try to help him once I am elected, but for now things are really tough for him.

Other Idahoans have other concerns. My friends over at Health Freedom Idaho simply want the freedom to make health decisions for themselves and for their own families. But because big government politicians in Boise are constantly pushing government interference in heath issues, they find themselves engaged in constant political battles. We need to work hard to remove big government politicians from our state legislature and from state legislatures all over the nation.

I have also been speaking to many small business owners throughout this campaign. Over and over again I hear about red tape and oppressive levels of taxation, and I can sympathize with them because I experience the same things as a small business owner myself.

For decades, both major political parties have been dominated by big government politicians, and so both parties have been marching us down the road toward big government socialism. We have now gone so far down that road that anyone that wants to restore true conservative values to Washington is considered to be an “extremist” by the left, and of course they say “Christian values” are not allowed at all because of “the separation of church and state”.

But of course they have no problem at all using the structures of big government to advance their liberal agenda and to impose their liberal values on all the rest of us.

This is happening on a global scale as well. The global elite have been using international organizations such as the United Nations and international treaties such as the Paris Climate Agreement to impose their liberal values on the entire planet. And they are using international trade agreements to slowly but surely merge all of us into the emerging one world economic system. In the end, they want more and more power transferred into international hands, because they believe that more “global governance” will allow them to achieve their ultimate goals.

For Americans that love liberty and freedom, this is a fight that we cannot afford to lose. We should strongly fight any attempts to erode American sovereignty, and we should greatly resist any attempts to give global bureaucrats the power to make decisions which will affect the daily lives of all of us.

These days even the mainstream media regularly uses terms such as “globalists” and “globalism”. At the top of an article last year, the New York Times even ran this stunning headline: “Besieged Globalists Ponder What Went Wrong”. The Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump were never supposed to happen, and in so many ways we are starting to fight back against the globalist agenda.

Unfortunately, a lot of people out there still don’t think that we can win. In fact, there have been Christians that have criticized me for getting into politics because they are convinced that there is no possible use in fighting the globalists since they are so powerful.

Yes, the globalists have immense amounts of power and money. And of course their ultimate goal is to form a single global system that will manage every single man, woman and child on the entire planet. Should we just lay down and allow their “New World Order” to happen without any resistance?

I cannot do that. I am going to fight any effort to steal the freedoms and liberties that previous generations fought and died to secure for us. And I am going to fight for my daughter’s future, because if the globalists ultimately win, they intend to totally wipe out our way of life.

Big government is the enemy of liberty and freedom, and a “New World Order” would be a complete and utter nightmare for humanity.

This is a battle worth fighting, and I hope that you will help us fight it.

In the end, it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

Ron Paul: Here's The Truth About The War Between The Alt Right And Cultural Marxists

Despite recently being demonetized by YouTube, possibly for his anti-establishment views and slamming President Trump’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is back with a video addressing the widening left-right political divide in the US – and the role that the “immoral use” of government force has played in fomenting the US’s present political crisis.

Claiming that the US is "witnessing a battle between authoritarian groups in America", the prominent libertarian and former politician says that the "Alt-Right" and Cultural Marxists are fighting to control a government that is bankrupt, doesn"t follow the Constitution, and controls a foreign empire that is running on fumes.  Ron Paul describes our dilemma.

“Most Americans agree the violent confrontation between the alt-right and the cultural Marxist is serious, dangerous and getting worse. Understanding economics, cultural differences and the acceptance of authoritarianism is required to find the answer to the crisis.

Rejecting a society based on personal liberty led to the conflict we are now witnessing: replacing authoritarianism with volunteerism must be our goal. The immoral use of government force caused this crisis and expanding it will only increase the hatred between the two sides.

Though there are leaders on both sides promoting violence, large numbers are attracted to the raging culture war for emotional reasons in response to the lies and the incitement by those whose ulterior motive is seeking power, wealth and promoting a dangerous new world order.”

The biggest problem that Paul sees is that neither the left or the right have made liberty – both economic and political – a priority. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Both the left and the right are moving in a more authoritarian direction.

Meanwhile, the left’s penchant for labeling all of their ideological opponents as Nazis and racists is helping to sow chaos and division, Paul says.

“One side has been labeled the alt-right, the other cultural Marxism. The right would like to reduce the debate to the differences between Communism and a populist government that emphasizes caring for Americans over foreigners. The Left would have us believe it"s merely a conflict with supporters of racism and injustice and cultural Marxism. Neither side speaks of Liberty. The alt-right is made up of conservatives, populists, and pro white enthusiasts, but all are labeled Nazis and fascists by the left.”

“Some are just fed up with the false charges and the penalties toward whites by leftist racists and the extremism of political correctness. The vicious labeling of all those who are frustrated and who join with those who are angry as Nazis and racist is only for the purpose of creating chaos. The left demands that all Trump supporters fit into this category. This is the strategy for fomenting race riots and civil war. No doubt Trump makes himself vulnerable to these inaccurate and wild charges by his enemies. The left promotes cultural Marxism and class warfare yet there are fellow travelers who represent typical liberal activists progressives and white haters. Many on the Left generally despise any minority who chooses to be a conservative or libertarian.”

Leftists, Paul says, are far more cynical than their idealistic proclamations would suggest. White leftists only see minorities as important within the context of their votes, and are quick to treat minorities who identify as conservative or libertarian as traitors to the cause. Meanwhile, neither side understands how liberty leads to economic prosperity for the largest number of citizens.

“Too many on the left see minorities as only important when their votes can be corralled. From their viewpoint as minorities, well-being success must come only from benefiting from doctrines promoted by forced wealth redistribution by the liberal left it"s all about control it"s cynical racism.”

“The philosophic issues that divide us are what matters. Both sides accept the principle of government aggression as a proper tool of government. Neither side understands how true freedom leads to the prosperity that both sides pay lip service to. Neither side understands the shortcomings of deceptive, short-lived prosperity that comes with government deficits and monetary inflation which always ends badly, especially for the people who are supposed to be benefiting by government welfare spending. The ending of such a period of artificial wealth is now apparent and since it"s not understood by either side of the current raging conflict, both are proposing different government solutions with sharp disagreements in the blame game.”

Both the left and the right claim to be the torchbearers of the American experiment. But neither side cares about what the Constitution says, Paul said. Furthermore, both sides banded together to support the Bush doctrine, a willingness to countenance foreign interventionism that persists across the modern political spectrum. Leftists and conservatives take advantage of superficial differences to divide people – the left via identity politics and the right via their racist views.  

“Both sides claim patriotic loyalty and ownership of the American tradition. Neither group cares about what the Constitution says both sides support America"s world Empire its militarism the military industrial complex and horribly dangerous Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Neither side condemns our aggression or foreign interventionism. There is extensive support by both for economic planning by government though in different degrees and for different purposes.”

“This means no complaints about protectionism, Federal Reserve power or subsidies to the special interest groups. For our bipartisan leaders, it is only who gets to distribute the loot that matters. Identity politics has taken over in forming alliances. This encourages lying, race preferences demagoguery and inciting hatred since the concept of Liberty is something that applies to individuals rather than special interest groups it is therefore rejected.”

“Liberty is not something that can be distributed according to the various groups that claim victimization and a right to other people"s earnings. The tool used especially by the far left is extreme political correctness that regulates speech by claiming hateful motivation by anyone with whom they disagree. These charges are inevitably spread with a broad brush by a complicit media advocating both types of authoritarianism. Left and right purposely divide people by natural and acceptable differences. Pursuing the cause of Liberty unites all those who honestly seek peace and prosperity in distinction from those who resort to authoritarianism. Divisiveness will cause both sides to fail with their half-hearted efforts to force an escalation of violence and the destruction of the middle class.”

Unfortunately, neither the left or the right has expressed concern with the “deeply flawed” US monetary system, Paul said. The Federal Reserve has been allowed to debase the US dollar through the complicity of both left- and right-leaning politicians. And now, as Paul notes, the bills are all coming due.

“Neither side will face up to the economic reality of a deeply flawed economic system and the pending collapse of the American Empire. Sadly neither side complains about the danger of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes and decisions being made to go to war without congressional approval, the dependency on deficit spending, and the monetary mischief of the Fed. The bills are now coming due and the political chatter associated with the current social strife serves to distract from the philosophical impurities from which we have been infected for many decades. The number of enemies that we have generated by our foreign policy is ignored and the problem made worse by our economic and military meddling around the world our inability to pay our bills and meet our unfunded liabilities will be the limiting factor.”

In short, the US’s economic and military meddling around the world have led to a reliance on unsustainable deficit spending. This, Paul contends, is the greatest threat facing American society - and neither side is talking about a solution.

His full video is below.

Germany Bans 'Extremist AntiFa' Website For "Legitimizing Violence Against Cops"

While over 300,000 Americans have signed a petition demanding the US government formally recognize AntiFa a terrorist organization (and some "cells" calling for "all-out revolution"), the US mainstream media continues to provide cover for the violent leftist organization (as do college professors). However, in Europe, German authorities have banned the most influential AntiFa website in the wake of violence that occured last month outside the G20 summit in Hamburg.

In an unprecedented move against violent left-wing extremism, Germany’s Interior Ministry informed the owners of the left-wing site about the crackdown Friday, the Local reported.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière claimed the website helped incite the violence in Hamburg and warned of “serious consequences” of left-wing radicalism, the New York Times reported.

“The prelude to the G-20 summit in Hamburg was not the only time that violent actions and attacks on infrastructural facilities were mobilized on linksunten.indymedia,” the minister said, identifying the website.

He also said the site tried to “legitimize violence against police officers,” which he described as an “expression of an attitude that tramples human dignity.”

“This is absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with our liberal democratic order,” he added.

Fox News reports that, according to the Local, Germany’s internal spy agency once described the website, which has operated since 2008, as “the most important platform for violent left-wing extremism in Germany. For years it has been providing a forum for people to publish first-hand reports on left-wing crimes.”

The violent clashes between the Antifa and police led to around 476 police officers being injured, while around 186 demonstrators were arrested and 225 were temporarily detained.

The Interior Ministry said the website was shut down because it “goes directly against the law in both its aims and actions,” Spiegel reported.

The police, meanwhile, searched the properties connected to the owners of the radical website in the German state of Baden-Württemberg.

“At the moment several premises are being searched,” said Thomas Strobl, the state’s interior minister.

“This step marks a major blow against the extreme left in Germany,” he added.

Following the announced closure, the extremist website now directs visitors to a “what to do” article calling the government’s move an “authoritarian crackdown.” It also urges people to spread “revolutionary material and ideas everywhere” and come up with “alternative ways to communicate with each other and the general public in times of intensifying state censorship and control.”

Notably, as Ron Paul recently explained, the alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.

Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets.

Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa.

While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech. Laws against hate speech set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech unpopular with the ruling elite and the deep state.

Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle over what we will replace the Keynesian welfare model with. First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity.

Ending the Golden Age of Nothingness

Sir Isaac Newton once famously said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Well, Ike knew a thing or two; for it is indubitable that he would never have had the necessary foundation of knowledge to whip up the law of universal gravitation without the works of Euclid or Copernicus before him. If not for Bach - and his father"s strict hand - perhaps Beethoven would have been a bricklayer. Without Langton and Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers never write the Constitution.

Those giants of Western Civilization were once of a sort that served mankind with wisdom, guiding their antecedents to look towards a future of beauty, freedom, and existential meaning. One Golden Age developed after another as great men were inspired to outdo the other or even to reach for the heavens in art, architecture, music, and literature.

Lately, though, it seems we"ve decided to perch instead on postmodern beings who, while great in technological stature, are cultural ogres. 

When we peer through the looking glass today, all we see, both immediately surrounding and far afield, is a desolation of ugliness and mediocrity:

• Soulless architecture that betokens our standing as utilitarian drones.


• Popular music sung (or mumbled, rather) in the gutter-mouthed patois of degenerate gang members.


• Pointless films - often written by committee and informed by focus groups - that wallow for two banal hours in quick-cut action scenes without dramatic tension; one-dimensional characters as performed by two-dimensional celebrities in third-rate productions.


• An educational system that replaces the canon of Dante, Donne, and Mallory with The Red Wheelbarrow.

Modern art affirms nothing except for mindless consumerism and appealing to our basest instincts. For all our advanced tools and broad access to them, mankind should be practically minting new artistic genius. Yet nothing today can top the achievements of those of ages gone by.

So why then does Nature no longer, to paraphrase Forster, "throw out a god" to stand out as divine amongst the "thin-hammed mediocrities", than when there were billions fewer in the world?

Because when it comes to art, profit motive suborns beauty and invites the average.

This wasteland came about when the best and most talented minds - those who could have been the next Shakespeare or Michelangelo - departed the land of the arts in favor of a life serving as cogs in a corrupted, increasingly statist machine that separates individuality and spits out utility.

When potentially great creators go where the money is, the fields of cultural endeavor are left to be tended by fools.

Soon after the best and brightest left for semi-lucrative STEM careers, the lands became fallow and our current Cultural Dark Age is the result; this abandonment has left the arts securely in the hands of green-haired Gender Studies majors and Nietzsche"s Last Man in skinny jeans.

Each passing generation then subsists off this degraded fare which nourishes neither the intellect nor the soul. Eventually, there will be no one left who can remember tasting anything better and thus the negative feedback loop is in full motion.

It will only worsen until conservatives realize that those who pump the imagery of art into the minds of the young wield infinitely more power than any engineer or writer of computer code could ever dream. That is why the left won the propaganda wars of the past few generations so completely. The cycle only breaks when the political right starts grooming their children to Make Culture Great Again.

One is constantly reading well-meaning advice in the columns and comments sections of alternative media stressing that parents should continue to nudge their children towards the hard sciences, because that"s the sector where they can procure the best livelihoods.

This is sound on the surface, especially for young adults whose gifts are geared for such work. But if you do push them towards those disciplines, make sure they are on the path to self-employment or starting their own companies. Because even in the STEM fields, conservatives hold little power.

Those kids will eventually be forced to toil for the leftists of Silicon Valley who grew up immersed in, and proudly adhere to, subversive culture.  Or the budding scientist must supplicate to those in Washington who dispense the science grants. Kiss advancement goodbye if you hold the wrong opinions.

They"ll be employed by a corsortium of elitists whose ultimate goals are not only antithetical to tradition and morality, but will hasten its extinction.

These are the oligarchs whose philosophical ends are to bring about the Singularity, to silence dissent, or level humanity under one-world governance where cultural greatness, or even humble simplicity, will be made impossible. Better that your kid become a blue-collar laborer or even a NEET with a free mind than to be servants to a wicked system.

But for those of you with children of a creative bent, consider home-schooling them (or enrolling them in carefully-selected private schools) so you can bypass an educational system that is actively airbrushing Western Man"s achievements out of the history books; a system that has perverted the traditional liberal arts beyond recognition and almost out of remembrance.

Once a sufficient number are again steeped in what is the best of mankind, they will be back on the shoulders of proper giants.

They will then write the great novels, paint the sublime portraits, and direct the spiritually fortifying films that can make the fields of culture fertile once more. In so doing, the mediocrities will be banished to their romper rooms where they can frame each other"s finger paintings in deserved obscurity.

By reclaiming education and the arts from the left, we can end our current Golden Age of Nothingness and maybe even repair capitalism in the process.

A new Renaissance - moored to beauty, truth, and ethics - will ennoble the Man of the West, restoring him back to a balanced, fuller humanity. It will be as a torch to burn off the fraud and moral hazard that has attached itself like a leech to our increasingly globalist going concerns. Where virtue exists in abundance, such shady and mercenary practices are reviled.

Economic patriotism and handshake deals will be back in vogue. Instead of capitalism making utility of man, man will make utility of capitalism as originally conceived.

Lord Feverstone of Dystopia USA