#StandAgainstCensorship by taking action: 10 powerful things you can do NOW to take back your freedom from the “techno tyrants”

Your ability to speak freely is under extreme assault as YouTube, Facebook, Google and Twitter are now pursuing the most outlandish censorship purge they’ve ever attempted. (They’re going for broke to desperately try to control the narrative on everything…)

At stake is our very democracy, for without the ability to engage in public debate that’s free from interference by the tech giants, we no longer have the knowledge base from which a sustainable democracy can exist at all. Censorship is tyranny, and it is by definition anti-democratic. Censorship by the tech giants is a form of bullying aimed at selected political targets to silence their views and expel them from public discussion or debate.

These tactics have been used throughout history by the most evil regimes in history, including North Korea, the former Soviet Union and modern-day Communist China. Now, Silicon Valley’s left-leaning tech giants are borrowing a page out of the playbook of tyranny to unleash extreme censorship in America that can only give rise to tyrannical regimes that severely abuse human rights. Consider: Corporations that are willing to obliterate your right to speak are just one small step away from obliterating your right to exist at all.

10 powerful actions you can take starting NOW

To join the fight against the extreme censorship of the left-leaning techno-tyrants, for the first time in nearly five years I am hosting the Alex Jones show today at InfoWars.com from 11am – 2pm central. There, I’m announcing the following action items that must to be pursued and shared by every individual who believes in the liberty to speak:

ACTION ITEM #1) Call your representatives and demand a Dept. of Justice criminal investigation into YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter.

• The capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121


• Sample message you might say, “We demand a federal investigation into the accelerating censorship of independent news organizations by YouTube, Facebook, Google and Twitter. It’s time for federal anti-trust action against these monopolistic internet gatekeepers.


• You might mention how these tech giants have become dangerous monopolies that are stifling free speech, causing an erosion of our democracy.

ACTION ITEM #2) Tweet the @Youtube team with the hashtag #StandAgainstCensorship

• Demand YouTube stop bullying and harassing The Health Ranger, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit and other independent media sources.


• Demand TheHealthRanger account be reinstated and explain why you value the video content we publish to YouTube (over 1700 videos and counting).


• Demand YouTube stop using radical left-wing “trusted flaggers” such as the SPLC, whose only real goal is to censor the speech of all conservatives and libertarians.

ACTION ITEM #3) See the new website REAL.VIDEO

• Real.Video is the home of a new anti-censorship video distribution community that I’m launching this year.


• Natural News, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, Activist Post, SGT Report, Dave Hodges and many other prominent independent media channels have already confirmed they wish to participate.


• Real.Video does not compete with D.Tube or Bitchute.com, but rather complements these other distributed video services in a unique and revolutionary way that no one has seen before.

ACTION ITEM #4) See all the videos YouTube banned by visiting VIMEO

• All my videos banned by YouTube are available right now at Vimeo.com/healthranger


• There, you can see 1,920 videos that YouTube has banned.

ACTION ITEM #5) Download the Natural News app to completely bypass all online censorship

• The Natural News app (iPhone and Android) brings you articles, videos, podcasts, lab results and more.


• See the download links at this article page.


• I also encourage you to download the apps of all your favorite online sources to make sure you’re getting all the news and videos you want, without centrally-controlled censorship from evil tech giants like Google / YouTube.

ACTION ITEM #6) Read Censored.news daily

• Censored.news brings you near-real-time updates of all the news headlines from the most heavily censored websites on the ‘net.


• It’s automatically updated every few minutes.


• Provides a liberty-oriented alternative to Google News, which has banned all real news sources and primarily carries fake news from discredited “legacy media” sources like CNN.

ACTION ITEM #7) Type your favorite websites URLs directly into your browser… stop relying on Facebook, Reddit or Google to “feed” you information

• If you allow Facebook to “spoon feed” you news stories, then you’re allowing your mind to be controlled by Facebook censorship.


• Go directly to your favorite websites each day. Type the URLs into your browser, then add to your favorites.


• Read Censorship.news to stay informed of the latest assaults on your free speech.

ACTION ITEM #8) Support the sponsors and retail operations of your favorite websites that are being targeted with censorship

• The fight against censorship is powered by free market revenues.


• Support the sponsors and retail operations of your favorite liberty-oriented websites.


• Buy products from them instead of Amazon.com, wherever possible.


• Visit the sponsors of your favorite websites and reward them with your business.

ACTION ITEM #9) Walk away from Facebook, YouTube and Google

• Facebook makes you depressed and wastes your time.


• Google is evil. Use DuckDuckGo.com instead.


• Ditch YouTube and check out BitChute.com or D.Tube. Learn about Steemit.com and get involved with “steem.”

ACTION ITEM #10) Start publishing your own content and join the march against censorship and tyranny

• We need a new wave of independent, informed voices to start publishing articles, podcasts and videos that question the status quo and denounce the techno-tyranny of the lunatic Left.


• Check out Real.Video for an exciting new way to share your content without centralized censorship.


• Publish your videos to your own user account at Vimeo.com or post podcasts at SoundCloud.com. Check out D.Tube and other alternative sources that resist blatant censorship.

The revolution is here! And you’re invited to help win it for freedom and liberty. – Mike

Via Natural News

---

Featured Image: From Sovereign to Serf – Roger Sayles/Flickr

The post #StandAgainstCensorship by taking action: 10 powerful things you can do NOW to take back your freedom from the “techno tyrants” appeared first on Intellihub.

How to Have a TRUE Democracy (VIDEO)

In ancient Greece, the proclaimed origin of “Democracy”, they had an incredible way of selecting public officials to serve in the government, and it was not by popular election.

As admitted recently in a “tell-all” book written by a United States congressman, the vast majority of his time, an estimated 75% or more, is spent on raising money and votes for re-election. Subsequently, this only leaves a few scraps of time leftover for actually doing the job he was hired to do. Additionally, and even more importantly than wasting precious limited work time, in the process of campaigning and fundraising for his prized position, political favors and promises are made which compromise the integrity of his pledge to represent the “people”, rather than the rich and highly influential corporations, the latter of whom are the only ones with enough wealth capable of helping a congressman, senator, or president, get elected in the first place, and to whom they are now indebted to favor above the people when it comes to “serving” them, through enacting laws which end up favoring the rich few, rather than the meager majority, thusly turning this alleged “democracy” into an undeniable “oligarchy”, the exact opposite thereof.

How did our “Democracy” get turned Upside-down?

The wise old Greeks had a very simple solution to make sure that “public officials” had no political favors to return for getting into their prized positions. Can you guess what it was . . . ?

There were no elections!

You might ask then, how were their representatives chosen?

By Lottery.

The same way a jury is still selected to this very day.

Surely, if it is fair for twelve citizens, chosen at random, to have power of life or death over a fellow countryman, and this is the very same methodology which the founders of “Democracy” used in selecting their “representatives” to best assure that there was no corruption, then this exact same technique can be used Today to assure that the governmental system is clean and free of “favor-returning” for attaining these highly coveted government positions.

A few simple rules could be set in place for eligibility for the lottery, such as an age minimum of twenty-five years, the necessity of being born in the territory of the United States, and no felony convictions in the last seven years. All citizens who meet these modest requirements would be automatically put into the lottery for congress, and if they are chosen, have the right to decline. From among the group of four hundred thirty-five representatives chosen at random, just as a jury is today, to represent the citizens of our nation, these lottery selectees would then nominate from among themselves, by popular vote within this group, three persons for the office of President. Once these three candidates were chosen, and after a public debate process, there would be a national general election by the citizens of America, choosing the President from among these three candidates by the majority of popular national vote, with the Vice Presidency going to the second place winner. Each candidate would be given equal funds from the public treasury with which to campaign, such as fifty million dollars, and television stations, plus newspapers, would be required to freely give each candidate equal time and space in the election process with which to express their positions.

A federal law could then be enacted to require that all positions of government, federal, state, county, and city, mayoral and governorship, be required to select themselves, by this same tried and true, and very fair method, of lottery. There could plainly be no purer or simpler way to assure that the “people” were actually being represented by the people than to choose such persons by lottery from among the People. There could also be a federal law enacted to set a term limit of ONE (five year) TERM, for any and all public offices. Thusly, a person could be sheriff once, major once, president once, with no need to repay favors for their election or re-election, as they were chosen at random, just like a jury, and would now be free to follow their conscious, rather than reimbursing favors to the influential rich minority who got them elected, in a system that is supposed to represent the common majority instead.

Voila! Problem solved.

I will discuss all this, and much more, in this week’s episode of Conspiracy Corner News.

Just click on the Youtube Link Below to watch . . .

–Brother Bart-

 Donate

Shop on Amazon by Clicking on the Button Below

Bart Sibrel is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com

When you want to Shop on Amazon, please come back to this page and Click on the Large Button above to visit the Amazon Homepage, or Copy and Paste the following url into your Browser’s Bookmarks as “Amazon” to Save for Future Shopping Use (http://amzn.to/2bvcs9I).

Thank you!

The post How to Have a TRUE Democracy (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was

Authored by Gabriel Rockhill via Counterpunch.org,

One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.

The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.

What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.

To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present).

To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.

Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”

When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.

In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”

To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.

Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one.

Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.

America"s Decline And The Neglect Of Luther"s Principles Of Liberty

Authored by S.T.Karnick via Specator.org, 

Freedom requires a sense of personal responsibility if it is to survive.

With the nation’s news dominated by reports of political corruption (most recently, the Clintons’ apparent use of “pay to play” schemes during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. secretary of state), sexual harassment scandals pandemic among the nation’s elites, extreme vulgarization of political speech and the common culture, riots against freedom of speech on the nation’s college campuses, paralyzing partisanship in Congress, death threats and open assassination attempts against government leaders and police officers, and the rest of the dismaying parade of moral shortcomings on display among the nation’s leaders in all walks of life, it appears that we are in the midst of a war not just between political and cultural factions, but over the very definition of our civilization.

The primacy of individual liberty versus rule by elites is at the heart of this conflict, but with a twist: The undermining of personal responsibility is creating a backlash against liberty as people rampantly abuse their freedoms. A half-millennium ago, the German monk and theologian Martin Luther set the foundations for the modern world by redefining the relationship between people and their institutions, shattering the legal structures that insulated elites from the consequences of their misdeeds.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, King’s College history professor Joseph Loconte insightfully traces the sources of Martin Luther’s ideas about freedom of the individual will and the world-changing effect those thoughts would have over the subsequent half-millennium.

Although Luther was committed to the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, his religious views about spiritual elitism would eventually affect political attitudes throughout the West, introducing “a radical egalitarianism that helped lay the foundation for modern democracy and human rights.” Loconte writes,

 

Luther came to despise every form of spiritual elitism. He sought to replace rigid church hierarchies with “the priesthood of all believers,” the proposition that there are no qualitative differences between clergy and laity. “Just because we are all priests of equal standing,” he wrote in “An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility” (1520), “no one must push himself forward and, without the consent and choice of the rest, presume to do that which we all have equal authority.”

Luther’s “message of freedom” has not lost its power after five centuries, Loconte notes, providing a useful example for those who today oppose the many leaders of modern U.S. institutions who abuse their offices for personal gain:

Luther took an ax to the legal culture that shielded priests and bishops from criminal prosecution simply because they held church offices. “It is intolerable that in canon law, the freedom, person, and goods of the clergy should be given this exemption, as if the laymen were not exactly as spiritual, and as good Christians, as they, or did not equally belong to the church.”

Loconte observes that Luther’s concept of liberty included a deep awareness of the responsibilities that accompany freedom:

“A Christian has no need of any work or law in order to be saved,” [Luther] insisted, “since through faith he is free from every law and does everything out of pure liberty and freely.” Christian liberty of this kind provided no excuse for libertinism. Just the opposite: “I will therefore give myself as a Christ to my neighbor, just as Christ offered himself to me.”

Our nation’s founders universally acknowledged this view, evident in observations such as this from Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Similarly, the rise and proliferation of such masters undermines virtue, both by making choice impossible (one cannot earn moral credit for actions done under compulsion) and by creating moral hazard, artificial reduction of the risks associated with making choices.

Thus, the enormous growth of government in the United States over the past 125 years both reflects and generates the loss of the idea of liberty, which has made national greatness possible.

We are seeing the results in economic stagnation, the takeover of the nation’s institutions by thieves and tyrants, the decline of U.S. power in the world, and the dizzying array of stories of personal corruption among the nation’s leaders in all walks of life.

The fall of today’s political and cultural icons cannot arrive too soon.

 

Direct Democracy: Best Bet Or Mob Rule?

Direct democracy is defined as a democratic system where citizens, not elected officials, vote on major national issues to decide what becomes law.

As Statista"s Dyfed Loesche notes, some hail it as the purest form of democracy. Others are wary because some issues are highly complex and require a minimum of expertise to make a sound decision.

Some critics argue people can be moody and swayed by demagogues to vote for the wrong thing. The Brexit referendum in Britain is one example where many observers argue that people casted their votes ill-informed and manipulated by populist campaigns. Others see it as a vote pushed by a gut feeling of resentment, with voters not so much concerned with the matter at hand but rather wanting to throw a spanner in the works of a system they feel doesn"t profit them anymore.

You will find more statistics at Statista

As the infographic above shows, the British are comparatively wary of direct democracy, compared to, for example, the Germans.

In Sweden, often lauded for her ingrained democratic tradition, just a little more people than in Britain think of direct democracy as a good or very good system.

However, in all countries depicted more than half of the citizens think this system is at least somewhat good, according to data from Pew Research Center.

“Mental Illness” MSNBC Host And Possible Murder Suspect Joe Scarborough Uses Globalist Talking Point In Attempt To Remove Trump From Office And End Democracy In America

 

Another day, another stunning attack on the very legitimacy of being elected the President of the United States if you are not in bed with the establishment, this time coming from the liberal propaganda “news” outlet MSNBC and their globalist inspired morning show host Joe Scarborough who took to the airwaves to demand that the rightfully elected president be removed from office because his enemies “believe” that he has early signs of some sort of mental illness.

You read that right. MSNBC is now openly calling for the removal of President Trump from office for mental illness, with literally no evidence, simply because the establishment believes he must be crazy for refusing to bow down to the globalist cabal that essentially runs the world.

“He is completely detached from reality, we had a New York Times and Washington Post piece saying so a couple of days ago, and the question is Mika,” Scarborough claimed, “if this is not what the 25th Amendment was drafted for, I would like the cabinet members serving America, not serving the president” to act accordingly.”

Scarborough then claimed that we are literally about to have a nuclear war, sourcing his claims from open world government proponent and Council on Foreign Relations globalist Richar Haas, that of course would be Trump’s fault rather than the rogue dictator in North Korea who has publicly called for nuking America.

“We are headed towards a nuclear showdown,” he continued. “Most insiders say, Richard Haas has said it matches everything we’ve heard from inside the administration, we are closer to war on the Korean peninsula that most Americans know, we heard this months ago, that we are going to have a ground war in Korea, they believe that inside the White House for a very long time.”

Scarborough then called on the cabinet to remove Trump from office in order to save what he believes would be millions of American lives. This truly is Trump Derangement Syndrome taken to the extreme.

“You represent 320 million people whose lives are literally in your hands and we are facing a showdown with a nuclear power and you have you somebody inside the White House that the New York Daily News says is mentally unfit, that people close to him say is mentally unfit, that people close to him during the campaign told me had early stages of dementia,” Scarborough said.

This latest attack on American democracy itself comes after Trump shockingly tweeted about the mysterious (and still unsolved) death (murder?) of an intern who worked in Scarborough’s Florida Congressional office.

Despite claims by the mainstream media, the death of  Lori Klausutis has never been fully investigated and the authorities who did look into the matter where openly friendly with the then Republican Congressman.

Trump’s tweet seemed to hit home with Scarborough who has now gone on a rampage demanding that the person rightfully elected by the American people be removed from office, citing discredited mental illness claims as the reason when in reality it is because Trump is willing to call out Scarborough’s shady past as well as stand up to the world globalist establishment.

“Rule By Brute Force”: The End of the Age of Benevolence

This article was originally published by Francis Marion at The Burning Platform

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.

Geert Wilders: "It"s Time To Drain The Swamp... In Europe"

Authored by Geert Wilders via The Gatestone Institute,

• Our democracies in the Western half of Europe have been subverted. Their goal is no longer to do what the people want. On the contrary, our political elites often do exactly the opposite. Our parliaments promote open-door policies that the majority of the people reject. Our governments sell out sovereignty to the EU against the will of the people. Our rulers welcome ever more Islam, although the majority of the people oppose it.


• Our democracies have become fake democracies. They are multi-party dictatorships, ruled by groups of establishment parties.... The establishment parties control everything, not just the politicians in their pay, but also the top brass of the civil service, the mainstream media, even the courts.... They call us "populists" because we stand for what the people want. They even drag us to court.


• We need to show that Europe"s streets are our streets, that we want to stay who and what we are, and do not want to be colonized by Islam. Europe belongs to us!

Next month, I will be visiting Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic. I have been invited to speak to a group of Czech patriots. The Czechs are a freedom loving people. In 2011, on the occasion of the 100^th birthday of Ronald Reagan, they named a street in Prague after this great American president and freedom fighter.

This fact reminded me of a shameful event in my home town of The Hague, the seat of the Dutch Parliament and the government of the Netherlands. Look for a Ronald Reagan Street in The Hague and you will find none. A proposal in 2011 to name a street in The Hague after Reagan ran into fierce political opposition. Leftist parties, such as Labor, the Greens and the liberal D66 party, argued that naming a street in honor of Reagan would "do the image of the city no good." The whole affair ended in a disgraceful political compromise. Last year, a short stretch of a local bicycle path was named the "Reagan and Gorbachev Lane".

This anecdote is indicative of the difference between East and West in Europe. We can see the same difference in the attitude of their ruling elites towards Islam, the new totalitarianism that is threatening Europe today. In the East, political leaders oppose Islam; in the West, they surrender.

Islam has already gained a strong foothold in Western Europe. Its streets have come to resemble the Middle East, with headscarves everywhere. Parts of Western Europe, such as the Schilderswijk district in The Hague, the Molenbeek borough in Brussels, the banlieues [suburbs] of Paris, Birmingham in Britain, the Rosengård area in Malmö, Sweden, and many other neighborhoods, have become hotbeds of Islamic subversion.

Islam"s totalitarian nature cannot be denied. The command to murder and terrorize non-Muslims is in the Koran. Islam"s prophet Muhammad was a mass murderer and a pedophile. Those who leave Islam supposedly deserve death. And everyone who criticizes Islam and exposes what it actually says, ends up like me: on an Islamic death list.

In the past decades, Islam has entered Western Europe with the millions of immigrants from Islamic countries. Now, the European Union wants to distribute third-world immigrants over all the 28 EU member states. The nations in Central and Eastern Europe reject the EU plans to impose permanent and mandatory relocation quotas for all EU member states. They warn about the dilution of their identity, which is not Islamic, but Judeo-Christian and humanist -- rooted in the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome; not Mecca.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has denounced the EU"s pro-immigration agenda as a means to eradicate the culture and Christian identity of Hungary. Czech President Miloš Zeman is an outspoken opponent of immigration and the Islamification of the Czech Republic. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said that "Islam has no place in Slovakia" and warns that "migrants change the character of our country." Polish Prime Minister Beata Szyd?o staunchly defends Poland"s refusal to accept the EU-imposed immigration quotas. "We are not going to take part in this madness," she says. In the Eastern part of Europe, anti-Islamification and anti-mass migration parties see a surge in popular support.

Resistance is growing in the West, as well. This year, we have seen my party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), become the second-largest party in the Netherlands. This is a great achievement in a country with 13 parties in Parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen made it to the second round in the French presidential elections and her party, the Front National, got more votes than ever. In Austria, the FPÖ became the second biggest party. In Germany, the patriots of the AfD forced their way into the Bundestag.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), casts his vote in The Hague during the Dutch general election that made his the second-largest party in the Netherlands, on March 15, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

However, the political elites in the West do all they can to keep the winners of the elections from power. Last month, in my country, the Netherlands, a new government coalition consisting of no less than four parties was formed. Because they stubbornly refused to talk to PVV, it took the political elites a record seven months to put together a coalition. They preferred to take in D66, the party which had denied Ronald Reagan his street in The Hague, and still they were only able to form a government with a majority of just one single seat in Parliament.

Our democracies in the Western half of Europe have been subverted. Their goal is no longer to do what the people want. On the contrary, our political elites often do exactly the opposite. Our parliaments promote open-door policies that the majority of the people reject. Our governments sell out sovereignty to the EU against the will of the people. Our rulers welcome ever more Islam, although the majority of the people oppose it.

Our democracies have become fake democracies. They are multi-party dictatorships, ruled by groups of establishment parties. They wheel and deal, often selling away the principles for which they have been elected. The establishment parties control everything, not just the politicians in their pay, but also the top brass of the civil service, the mainstream media, even the courts. Parties such as mine are excluded from coalition talks. They call us "populists" because we stand for what the people want. They even drag us to court.

Three decades ago, the countries in Central Europe witnessed a Velvet Revolution: Democratic, political and peaceful. They took to the streets. They decided that enough was enough. Thanks to their Velvet Revolution, they have leaders today who truly represent the people and who are not afraid to stand up for their nation and its identity.

We, in Western Europe, can learn lessons from the Velvet Revolution in the East. We, too, urgently need to make clear that enough is enough. In Western Europe, too, it is time to drain the swamp and to drive the elites from power. Peaceful and democratic, but thorough. We have to make our so-called democratic systems truly democratic again. The political actors should no longer be the professional politicians alone. The crisis is existential. It is time for every man and woman to do his and her duty. Because the survival of our nations itself is at stake.

We, too, have to make it very clear that we no longer want to take part in the madness of leaders, who sell out their country to the EU institutions in Brussels, and the madness of the EU elites, who sell out our continent to mass-immigration and Islam. That is why the PVV will demonstrate in the streets of Rotterdam on January 20^th. We need to show that Europe"s streets are our streets, that we want to stay who and what we are, and do not want to be colonized by Islam. Europe belongs to us!

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.

"Beyond Resistance" - Soros, Pelosi Headline Left"s Biggest Dark Money Conference

Authored by Brent Scher and Joe Schoffstall via FreeBeacon.com,

A secretive three-day conference where big money liberal donors are plotting the next steps of the "resistance" will be headlined by Friday speeches by billionaire George Soros and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Democracy Alliance, a donor club of deep-pocketed liberal donors that each pledge to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to approved left-wing groups, descended on California"s posh La Costa Resort on Wednesday morning for its fall donor summit. The group continued its tradition of secrecy, promising all members and guests of the summit their participation would "remain confidential."

The first page of the conference agenda, which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and can be viewed in its entirety below, lays out "participation guidelines," explaining that the Democracy Alliance is a "safe place" for donors and activists to meet.

Guests are instructed not to share members" names with the press and not to post to any social media sites, to contact Democracy Alliance if "the media or a blogger" contacts them, and to "refrain from leaving sensitive materials out where others may find them."

This latter directive was ignored.

The agenda for the meeting, titled "Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future," lays out three full days of events culminating in a Friday night dinner headlined by Pelosi.

A few hours earlier guests can attend "A Talk with George Soros," who will be introduced with a "special videotaped message" by Democratic senator Kamala Harris (Calif.).

All of the events are scheduled to take place at the La Costa Resort, which features 17 tennis courts of both clay and hard surfaces including one with 1,000 seats for spectators, 36 holes of golf on the Legends Course and the Champions Course, an array of pools including three hot tubs that overlook said golf courses, a spa building, and the Deepak Chopra Center, where guests can do yoga or receive mind-body medical consultations.

Pelosi and Harris are not the only two politicians to have a presence at the swanky conference - Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf (D.) held a Thursday event on his reelection efforts, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) will speak on Friday about "Russian interference in the 2016 election," and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D., Minn.), who chairs the DCCC, will attend a "festive brunch" on Saturday morning. Also making a "special appearance" on Friday will be Virginia"s governor-elect Ralph Northam.

The agenda also lists "special guests" at the conference, some more famous than others. Attendees showcased in the agenda range from failed California politician Sandra Fluke to liberal CNN contributor Van Jones to Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden.

Jones was headlining a Thursday dinner on "going outside the bubble" and learning from Trump voters.

Not all events and prominent guests are listed in the conference agenda.

Not listed, for example, was a Thursday night happy hour hosted by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who was spotted in attendance.

Also not listed as a special guest at the conference was David Brock, who checked in early Wednesday afternoon and has made himself highly visible at La Costa - slowly strolling around the sprawling property and staying up at the hotel bar till past midnight.

Brock is not a "partner" of Democracy Alliance - in fact, he has worked to create his own liberal donor network - but groups he controls, such as Media Matters for America, are among the many groups Democracy Alliance directs funding to.

Not listed in the agenda or spotted at the resort has been billionaire Tom Steyer, one of Democracy Alliance"s most prominent members in the past. Pelosi publicly reprimanded Steyer earlier this month for running a $10 million ad calling for President Trump"s impeachment.

Also not listed in the Democracy Alliance program was a meeting held by Patriotic Millionaires, who gave a Thursday morning briefing on the "tax fight" and "what is at stake." The briefing was delivered by Larry Mishel of Americans for Tax Fairness, Thea Lee of Economic Policy Institute, and Jacob Leibenluft, a member of the Obama administration"s National Economic Council who is now with the Centeron Budget and Policy Priorities.

Not all meetings at the conference are open to all guests. Some meetings are "by invitation only," "for prospective partners only," or for "partners only."

Right before Pelosi"s speech, for example, will be a "Partners only" forum dedicated to "committing resources."

The Democracy Alliance has never made its commitment decisions available to the public.

Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche wrote in a letter to attendees included in the agenda that President Trump"s November victory was "the most cataclysmic election of modern history."

Meotti: The Migrant Crisis Upended Europe

Authored by Giulio Meoti via The Gatestone Institute,

• "The migrant crisis is the 9/11 of the European Union... That day in 2001, everything changed in the US. In a minute, America discovered its vulnerability. Migrants had the same effect in Europe... The migration crisis profoundly undermines the ideas of democracy, tolerance and... the liberal principles that constitute our ideological landscape." — Ivan Kratsev, Chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia and a member of the Institute of Humanities in Vienna, Le Figaro.


• The European public now looks at EU institutions with contempt. They perceive them -- under multiculturalism and immigration -- not only as indifferent to their own problems, but as adding to them.


• "We are a cultural community, which doesn"t mean that we are better or worse -- we are simply different from the outside world... our openness and tolerance cannot mean walking away from protecting our heritage". — Donald Tusk, President of the European Council.

A few weeks after Germany opened its borders to over a million refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that the migration crisis would "destabilize democracies". He was labelled a demagogue and a xenophobe.

Two years later, Orbán has been vindicated. As Politico now explains, "[M]ost EU leaders echo the Hungarian prime minister" and the Hungarian PM can now claim that "our position is slowly becoming the majority position".

Many in Europe seem to have understood what Ivan Krastev, the Chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia and a member of the Institute of Humanities in Vienna, recently explained to Le Figaro:

"The migrant crisis is the 9/11 of the European Union... That day in 2001, everything changed in the US. In a minute, America discovered its vulnerability. Migrants had the same effect in Europe. It is not their number that destabilizes the continent... The migration crisis profoundly undermines the ideas of democracy, tolerance and progress as well as the liberal principles that constitute our ideological landscape. It is a turning point in the political dynamics of the European project".

Thousands of migrants arrive on foot at a railway station in Tovarnik, Croatia, September 17, 2015. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Migration is having a significant impact, for instance, on Europe"s public finances. Take the two countries most affected by it. Germany"s federal government spent 21.7 billion euros in 2016 to deal with it. Also reported was that Germany"s budget for security this year will grow by at least a third, from 6.1 billion to 8.3 billion euros.

In Italy, the Minister of Economy and Finance recently announced that the country will spend 4.2 billion in 2017 on migrants (one-seventh of Italy"s entire budget for 2016). Spain recently announced that in North Africa, the fence around its enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which keeps migrants out of the Spanish territory, will be funded through a further infusion of 12 million euros. Everywhere in Europe, states are allocating extra resources to deal with the migrant crisis, which has also changed Europe"s political landscape.

The recent election victories of Sebastian Kurz in Austria and Andrej Babis in the Czech Republic have potentially enlarged the group of Central and Eastern European countries that oppose Brussels -- countries that do not want to accept the number of migrants that the EU is demanding. The topic of immigration is fracturing Europe along ideological lines. Not only fences, but rivalry, mistrust and hate now divide the European project more deeply than ever before. The European public now looks at EU institutions with contempt. They perceive them -- under multiculturalism and immigration -- not only as indifferent to their own problems, but as adding to them.

Another political earthquake linked with the migration crisis is "the decline of social democracy in the West", as Josef Joffe, Editor and Publisher of Die Zeit, recently called it. Everywhere in Europe, the migration crisis has all but killed the social-democratic parties, long perceived as unable to cope with it. Twenty years ago, these left-liberal parties governed everywhere -- Spain, Britain, Germany, for instance -- but now they are in the opposition everywhere except Italy. From Norway to Austria, Europe is now led by conservative governments.

More than half the terror plots in Germany since the onset of the migrant crisis in 2014 have involved migrants, according to headlines as well as a study by the Heritage Foundation. In addition, ever since the Islamic State -- now defeated in Raqqa -- took advantage of the destabilization caused by Syria"s civil war to become a major driver of the migrant crisis, migration has been a major concern for Europe"s security. From the territory it conquered, ISIS launched major terror attacks on Europe.

The migration crisis has also led to the strategic strengthening in Europe of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He has been blackmailing European countries by threatening that if billions of euros and certain political concessions are not given to him, he will open Turkey"s borders to let millions more migrants flood into Europe. Erdogan has not only demanded that Europe jail writers and journalists; he has also tried to influence elections in the Netherlands and Germany by appealing to his Turkish constituencies there.

A Pew Research report shows how migration is reshaping European countries. In 2016 alone, Sweden"s population grew by more than 1%. The increase is ascribed to mass migration, the second-highest in the EU. The number of immigrants rose from 16.8% to 18.3% of Sweden"s population between 2015 and 2016.

Austria and Norway, two other countries with large immigrant populations (at least 15% percent in 2016), saw a 1% rise from 2015. The newspaper Die Welt recently reported that 18.6 million German residents -- one-fifth of Germany"s total population -- now come from migrant backgrounds.

The Machiavelli Center in Italy reported in a study, "How immigration is changing Italian demographics", that an "unprecedented" shift in Italy"s demography has been taking place due to the migration crisis.

The Pandora"s box of a demographic revolution has been opened.

Two years ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the only voice in Europe speaking of the need to keep Europe "Christian". Now one of his most vocal opponents, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, has said:

"We are a cultural community, which doesn"t mean that we are better or worse -- we are simply different from the outside world... our openness and tolerance cannot mean walking away from protecting our heritage".

In 2015, any talk about "culture" was condemned as "racism". Now it is becoming part of the mainstream.

In trying to cope with the Islamists" war on Western politics, culture and religion, and the cultural clash they created, Europe has been upended.

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.”