We Don’t Need any More Immigrants in This Country – Legal or Illegal

The Invaders: A Parable

Pulling into our driveway after a relaxing month-long cruise, my wife Mary yelled, “What the…?”  Mexican flags, old cars, discarded beer cans, and trash were all over our property.

I recruited my Spanish-speaking neighbor.  He yelled over the blaring Mexican music expressing my outrage to the group’s leader.  The leader told me to go “f” myself.  He said they have a right to a better life.

The invaders had an insane tangle of extension cords plugged into my electrical outlets.  Sinking into the mud of my once beautiful lawn, I called the police.  Sheriff Bob showed up to inform me that the mayor had decreed ours a sanctuary community.  He also conveyed the mayor’s zero tolerance for my hateful, racist attitude.

Code enforcement cited me for various violations.  I was ordered to clean up my property, add bathroom facilities, and upgrade my electrical power to accommodate the daily influx of new residents.

Mary yelled from our bedroom, “Oh, my gosh!”  Her jewelry, including her 30th wedding anniversary diamond earrings, was gone.

A neighbor updated me on our community’s crisis.  Beloved elderly Mr. Ben had been beaten and murdered, eight students were raped, numerous neighbors were assaulted, and several homes were burglarized.  Remarkably, not a word of the crime wave had been mentioned in our newspaper.  Clearly, the mayor was behind the media blackout.

As a matter of fact, Community Times reporters flooded us with articles praising the invaders and our loving mayor for welcoming these saintly souls seeking a better life.  I and fellow neighbors who opposed the invasion and complained about the cost were branded haters, selfish, and racists.  The mayor made us owners responsible for providing food, health care, and education for the invaders occupying our properties.

Widowed Miss Shirley, the community gossip, gave Mary the scoop.  She reported to Mary that many of the invaders worked for wealthy contributors to the mayor’s re-election campaign.  The invaders were paid peanuts to work as domestics, janitors, laborers, and maintainers of properties.

My feisty Irish wife said, “One thing is for sure: the mayor and his rich pals don’t have to worry about their estates being invaded.  Their homes are protected behind 12-foot fences armed with barbed wire, electric fences, and cameras.  Meanwhile, we’re forced to be their invaders’ welcome wagon!”

Folks, the above tale is fiction, a parable I wrote years ago illustrating illegal immigration.  I was stunned that so many readers thought my outrageous tale was true.  It’s a sad commentary on the insanity we have come to expect from government.

Both political parties have a vested interest in supporting the invasion.  Big business gets cheap labor.  Democrats have blacks on the path to aborting themselves into extinction, so illegals offer Democrats a fresh crop of future voters – an underclass unskilled, uneducated, and dependent on government.

Insidiously, both parties and the mainstream media prey upon the goodness of the American people.  Anyone opposing the invasion is branded racist, heartless, and mean.

GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush calls embracing illegal aliens an “act of love.”  Rush Limbaugh says this is not immigration.  We are being invaded.

For several years, I was honored to sing my original, “Celebrate America,” at U.S. naturalization ceremonies in Maryland.  I took pride in knowing that my song was the first thousands heard as new Americans after swearing their oaths of allegiance.  Every ceremony was electric, the hall radiating with emotion and excitement, tears flowing down countless faces.  Unbelievably, Obama decreed that new applicants will no longer be required to pledge their allegiance.

Here is a moving, memorable scene.  Family members raised the gentleman, in his 80s or 90s, from his wheelchair to his feet.  A grandchild held up his right hand.  His entire family was tearful as he recited the oath.  Folks, these people truly wanted to be Americans.  They studied, passed the test, and were anxious to assimilate and contribute.  After reciting their oaths and hearing the emcee say, “Congratulations,” the hall always erupted in applause and cheers of elation.

Obama refuses to enforce federal immigration law.  Ordered to break the law, border security allows everyone to enter, including gang members, rapists, and murderers.

Obama is endangering and devastating American families, with loved ones raped and murdered by invaders.  Then Obama showers the invaders with welfare and government checks.  Yes, government checks.

Under-reported (hidden) is the epidemic of strange diseases infecting our kids because Obama forced public schools to take in invaders’ children.

Obama rolling out the red carpet for invaders is a huge slap in the face to legal new American citizens and those respecting our laws following the legal immigration process.

As with practically every Obama policy, his amnesty for illegals is another self-serving, evil, anti-American agenda item disguised as love.  Thank God a few GOP presidential contenders have the backbone to firmly say, “No!”

 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_invaders_a_parable.html#ixzz3k1NoZ16R

Snake oil Salespeople are Alive and well today. Now they are called Diversification Educators. Same bullshit, different day.

The White Guilt-White Privilege Shakedown

Posturing is a basic element in conflict, at least at the primitive level.  Many animals and even fish can make themselves look bigger and more dangerous than they actually are, and, as stated by chess grandmaster Aron Nimzowitsch, “the threat is stronger than the execution.”  Lt. Colonel David Grossman adds in Killology, “In the territorial and mating battles of every species the individual who puffs itself up the biggest or makes the loudest noise is most likely to win; this process is referred to as ‘posturing.'”

Posturing is the foundation of politically correct shakedowns by, for example, Al Sharpton.  “For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.”  Posturing without substance is similarly the foundation of the white guilt and white privilege shakedown scam.

Posturing was effective when combatants could see one another face to face.  Ardant du Picq wrote, “Each nation in Europe says ‘No one stands his ground before a bayonet charge made by us.’ And all are right.”  The menace of a bayonet charge was often enough to get the other side to turn and run, whereupon it could be massacred, but the industrialization of warfare changed this.  Belligerents learned the hard way during the First World War that you cannot browbeat or intimidate a machine gun, but that lesson goes back even farther to the Russo-Japanese War.  Mikhail Dragomirov was fond of quoting Aleksandr Suvorov’s maxim that the bullet is stupid while the bayonet is a fine fellow, but the bullet had learned during the century after Suvorov’s death how to be fired from a magazine rifle rather than a muzzle-loading musket.

Alternatively, as stated in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, “[s]omehow, every time the magic of folderol tried conclusions with the magic of science, the magic of folderol got left.”  This, ladies and gentlemen, is where the magic of political correctness gets left.

The White Guilt/White Privilege Racket

A Google search on these topics led me to the White Privilege Conference University.  This organization offers academic credit along with a “Graduate Certificate in Diversity, Social Justice, and Inclusion.”  Cornell University similarly offers a “Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program” as well as an Africana Studies program.  Notre Dame offers a course entitled “White Privilege Seminar: An Introduction to the Intersections of Privilege in Preparation for the White Privilege Conference.”  All these courses and programs seem to qualify the student to do exactly two things: (1) teach similar material to other students, and (2) take customer orders at Starbucks or McDonald’s.  When we consider the fact that there are not enough teaching positions for all the graduates of these programs, and that restaurant order-taking is being automated, this looks like a losing proposition.

The inconvenient truth is that most of the people who promote coursework and seminars in white privilege, gay studies, women’s studies, womyn’s studies, Africana studies, and so on have few genuine work skills that qualify them to (1) manufacture a product or (2) deliver a genuine service such as medicine, accounting, law, or education in a value-adding trade or profession.  This is why they must posture, and foment feelings of white guilt and white privilege to sell their meaningless and worthless “services.”

This is not to say that African, Native American, Latin American, and other cultures have nothing to teach us.  If seemingly primitive witch doctors or medicine men use a plant for medicinal purposes, there is probably a reason, and it may even do things that Western medicine cannot.  Jesuit’s Bark, a remedy for malaria, was discovered not by Spaniards, but by Peruvian natives.  The phrase “ethnopharmacological” also is important, noting the effectiveness of Mauritanian native remedies against diabetes and its complications.

This kind of knowledge is extremely useful, but it is factual knowledge and not ideology.  The problem with academia involves “academicians” who peddle ideology, and often expensive ideology given today’s tuition rates.  Here, for example, is the kind of drivel for which University of Wisconsin students are wasting their tuition money: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” is defined as “racial microaggression,” and so is “There is only one race, the human race.”

If the writer thinks that is microagression, try mine: “Affirmative action means hiring or appointing somebody for the color of his or her skin rather than the content of his character,” which is 100 percent accurate.  In fairness to the publication, however, it calls out some genuinely offensive expressions such as “welsh” and “gyp” as verbs.  The combination of some useful information with pure unmitigated ideological swill, however, does not result in a useful educational product. Now, here is where the magic of political correct folderol meets the magic of facts and science.

America’s History Was Not “Cowboys Versus Indians”

The peddlers of white guilt and white privilege want us to believe that evil Europeans, as led originally by Christopher Columbus, invaded the New World to wage a racist war on the peaceful and innocent Native Americans.  The truth is substantially different.

  1. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that they did not do to each other in both Europe and the New World.  Settlers and colonists were as ready to slaughter each other as they were to slaughter natives.  Skin color or ethnicity was far less a factor in making somebody a target for aggression as was possession of land, livestock, or wealth that the aggressor wanted.
  2. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that the Native Americans did not do to each other.
  3. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that the Native Americans were unwilling to do to Europeans.  Different native tribes sided with the French and British during the French and Indian Wars (part of a genuine world war that also involved Europe and India), and with the Americans and British during the War of Independence.  They sought to gain from the wars just as the other belligerents did.

While Hernán Cortez’s conquest of Mexico was certainly an act of aggression, we need to remember that the Aztecs were not exactly peaceful flower children who lived in a previously unsullied Garden of Eden.  It also did not involve a hopeless conflict between poorly armed natives and Spaniards with advanced technology.  Spanish armor was better, and the Spaniards also had cavalry that was totally unfamiliar to the natives.  The Spanish projectile weapons were, however, inferior to those of the Aztecs.  Spaniards used slow-loading crossbows and matchlock muskets, which were not effective beyond much more than the length of a football field.  The Aztec bow and sling could deliver more shots per man per minute, and quite probably to a greater range.  The Aztecs also had the atlatl, a throwing stick that could propel a javelin with incredible force.  It couldn’t pierce armor, but it was devastating to any unprotected part of a man’s body.  The Aztecs almost wiped the Spaniards off the face of the Earth in La Noche Triste (the Night of Sorrows) and would probably have won the war had they pursued the fugitives to the death.

The History of Slavery Was Not Whites Versus Blacks

Europeans enslaved Africans not because they were black, but because Africa was where slaves were available.  The slaves were primarily enslaved by other Africans and sold by other Africans or by Arab slave traders.  Whites were, however, equally willing to enslave other Caucasians.  “Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.”  This means not that two wrongs (enslaving black people and enslaving Caucasians) make a right, but rather that the evil of slavery was equal-opportunity evil, with perpetrators and victims of all races.

The Civil War Was Not about Slavery

I grew up to believe (as a child) that the First World War was started by evil proto-Nazis who wanted to conquer the world, which was pretty much what Triple Entente propagandists wanted the world to believe in 1914.  Only later did I learn that the war was started by a Serbian terrorist, and that all the participants were more or less equally guilty of allowing the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand to draw them into a world war.  This underscores the danger of historical revisionism, or, as stated by George Orwell in 1984, “[t]hose who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

The same historical revisionists who want to get rid of not only the Confederate Flag, but also statues and place names that involve Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee want us to believe that the Civil War was between emancipating Northern angels on one side and whip-cracking Simon Legree devils on the other.  The inconvenient truth is that Union states like Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri also had slaves who were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, and that Maryland’s Yankee clipper ships played a major role in the slave trade.  In addition, while Abraham Lincoln did not believe in slavery, he was no friend of the African-American, either.

Now, if the revisionists want to get rid of street names and statues that involve Robert E. Lee, they also need to get Robert Byrd (D-KKK) off all those streets and buildings in West Virginia.  Here is, for example, one of Byrd’s comments.

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

This allows, in turn, a wide variety of Robert Byrd jokes, such as “Why didn’t Democrat Robert Byrd like Lord of the Rings?  The White Wizard never became the Grand Wizard.”  “Why didn’t Democrat Robert Byrd like the Knight Rider TV series?  There wasn’t a single night rider in any episode!”  “Why did Democrat Robert Byrd stop reading The Hobbit?  He realized that his friend and mentor (Theodore) Bilbo was not going on a trip to see a (Grand) Dragon.”  Byrd’s political affiliation should always be mentioned when telling these jokes, and especially when race hustlers of that affiliation demand the removal of memorials to Confederate generals and statesmen.

The bottom line is threefold.  (1) Race hustlers like Al Sharpton, as well as “academicians” who peddle “education” in white privilege, have little or nothing of genuine value to offer to society, so they must fabricate reasons to justify their existences.  (2) Race hustling and the “white privilege” scam rely entirely on posturing with no substance behind it.  (3) Posturing shatters like an eggshell against a hammer when it is confronted with the facts, the same way the bayonet charges of the First World War went down before machine guns.  The proper thing to do with race hustlers and politically correct charlatans is to confront them head on, and expose them for the worthless parasites they are.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_white_guiltwhite_privilege_shakedown.html#ixzz3k1LdFbKL

Well Written Expose on Why islam Can Never and Will Never be Compatible with Western Civilization

Letter to the Muslims of Europe.

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their expressed intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breath the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

From Defend the Modern World Blog: https://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/page/2/

Fractured Conservatism

John Derbyshire Essay on The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

 

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes: John Derbyshire is hard at work preparing Radio Derb tonight, so we are taking the opportunity to post his essay from The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement, edited by Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer and recently published by Radix. Ironically, just as we do so, George Will is ritually invoking the sacred name of Bill Buckley to justify yet another purge, this time of Donald Trump. The Great Purge features other VDARE.com writers such as William Regnery, the late Sam Francis and…moi. It’s available though Amazon, but Radix will make more money, and Jeff Bezos less, if you buy it direct.

These first years of the twenty-first century have been a sorry time for Americans who favor national sovereignty, demographic stability, restraint in government, traditional culture, and the rule of law.

For eight years the federal apparatus was in the hands of neoconservatives, and so distinguished itself by instituting massive new welfare programs ,waging futile missionary wars, and waving in millions of unskilled workers and their dependents (to become our dependents) across wide-open borders.

The U.S.A. then elected its first affirmative-action president, a law-school nonentity with no executive experience and nothing in his head but 1980s college-radical sociobabble and the endless rancor of the blacks. His administration plastered further layers of folly, irresponsibility, and idiot idealism onto neocon policies, with new bursts of welfare gigantism, the toppling of tame, useful dictators who did not meet faculty-lounge standards of “human rights,” and the de facto annulment of immigration laws on behalf of the Mexican and Central American underclasses.

Offered the opportunity to replace this neo-neocon administration with one headed by a worthy but timid and unglamorous (which is to say, white male) contender from the original neocon mold—one who actually had been a missionary in his youth!—the nation declined. Instead they re-elected the guy with the exotic name, who by this point had stopped even pretending to be interested in administering the federal government and had given over most of his calendar to golf, vacations, second-guessing law enforcement, and making vapid speeches at party fund-raisers.

Today the bureaucratic leviathan rumbles on, directed by delusional world-savers and ethnic lobbyists, staffed by middle-aged white graduates of student Trotskyism and out-of-their-depth minority quota hires. Congressional constituencies are ever more finely gerrymandered to assure perpetual incumbency. Washington, D.C. has become a glittering Xanadu of wealth and power, its surrounding dormitory counties regularly ranking at the top of lists logging median household income. Protestants have been purged from the U.S. Supreme Court lest they should assert the interests of our founding population; eleven million Americans are taking federal disability benefits; foreign gangsters loot Medicare; cynical bankers game the system in confident knowledge that the government, terrified of political consequences from a “financial crisis,” will bail them out at last.

As the great meat-grinder wars of the middle twentieth century recede into the fading memories of octogenarians, we maintain 40,000 troops in Germany, 11,000 in Italy, 51,000 in Japan and 21,000 in Korea. A full generation after the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, we continue to support NATO—and even seek to expand it—antagonizing Russia, our natural ally against Muslim fanaticism, Third World demographic pressure, Chinese young-superpower irresponsibility, and North Korean insanity. Ill-considered WW2 socioeconomic quick fixes—employer-linked health benefits, big-city rent control—have become permanent, unquestionable features of the sociopolitical landscape.

Our culture has continued to slide giggling into the pit. It is now thirty years since you last heard anyone hum a tune from a current popular song. Concerts of serious music rarely include anything less than half a century old. Very few of us could name a living painter or architect. Entire years pass when no American outside the academy spontaneously quotes a line of verse written by any American poet younger than Elizabeth Bishop (b. 1911), or a British poet younger than Philip Larkin (b. 1922). The middlebrow novel is slipping into extinction. Movies are an extension of the comic-book industry; only TV drama shows occasional flashes of brilliance. The churches are branch offices of Globalist Multiculturalism, Inc.: the Episcopal church in my sleepy, 360-year-old Long Island town advertises Misa en Español.

Forbidden by Supreme Court decree to test job applicants for ability, employers demand college degrees as proxies, obliging parents either to beggar themselves or to see their children loaded with debt after four prime young-adult years learning nothing much. The colleges themselves are hotbeds of Cultural Marxism, padding out their prospectuses with intellectually worthless Grievance Studies courses, awarding degrees to illiterate black athletes, and writhing in frenzies of agonized self-abasement when someone is seen wearing a hood on campus. Police and Fire Departments, to avoid diversity lawsuits, allow black female cadets to walk through their test fitness runs. Other working- and lower-middle-class employments are sold off to low-bidding H-1B visa holders or illegal aliens. Homosexuals can pretend to be “married,” and if you peaceably express disapproval you will be hounded from your job. Submarine crews are co-ed.

Has there been any push-back from the conservative movement against all this? Not so as you’d notice. It is difficult to name anything that the conservative movement has conserved … although to be sure, the English language is still spoken, or at least understood, in most precincts.

*

The second year of Obama’s first term did see a little gusher of populist conservatism. The Tea Party movement, however, was easily and swiftly co-opted by institutional Republicanism, as the Gingrich revolution had been in the second year of Bill Clinton’s first term. (Concerning that earlier gusher, neocon authors James Bennett and Michael Lotus pass the following remark in their recent book America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century: “The Republican Congresses, after a decade, lost any connection to the reforming Congress of 1994 and had slumped into oligarchic favor-trading.”)

The Tea Party survives as an independent entity today only in leftist mythology: as a sinister Klan-without-hoods boogie-man used by Cultural Marxists to frighten their children. Among themselves, the leftists refer to the movement by a disgusting slang expression drawn from the louche subculture of homosexuality. They still, after four years, think it the height of avant-garde wit to do so, and utterance of the expression in those circles is still an occasion for thigh-slapping and side-holding. Don’t look to Red Guards for a sophisticated sense of humor.

Hopes for reform through populist conservatism have bubbled up at intervals of a decade or two ever since the Cultural Revolution began fifty years ago. The Tea Partiers were only the latest manifestation of what sociologist Donald Warren, an early observer of the phenomenon, called “Middle American Radicals.” That was in 1976.

I offered my own pessimistic—and of course correct—take on prospects for the Tea Party in a 2010 column for The American Conservative, when the movement was first attracting attention:

Perhaps it is just as simple as this: a meritocratic elite is, by definition, smarter than the rest of us. It can always “control the discourse,” planting shame and doubt in the minds of those who seek to challenge it, manipulating their sensibilities, feeding them a steady diet of soma through media and educational outlets, bewildering and outfoxing them with bogus appeals to the higher emotions. Perhaps it is all an unequal contest.

If there is nothing to be hoped for from populist conservatism, what of the more intellectual variety?

*

Here a distinction needs to be made between what Peter Brimelow calls “Conservatism, Inc.”—the people who staff the major conservative magazines and think tanks—and the ragged, shoeless, mostly-unsalaried battalions of what I refer to as the Dissident Right.

Conservatism, Inc. has been no more effectual against the civilizational rot than have the populists. Its commanding heights—those magazines and think-tanks—have long since been captured by neocon careerists, dependent for their funding on un-intellectual businessmen and political lobbyists steeped in the Cultural Marxist miasma and terrified of heterodoxy for its impact on sales.

As I told a roomful of National Review cruise passengers three years ago: You can forget about standing athwart History crying “Stop!” The modern style of career conservatism prefers to run along panting behind the juggernaut squeaking: “Would you mind perhaps just slowing down a teeny bit?”

A landmark event in the recent history of Conservatism, Inc. was the cashiering of analyst Jason Richwine by the Heritage Foundation in May of 2013 for facts Richwine had included, with full supporting references, in his Harvard Ph.D. thesis! As I pointed out at the time in an article commenting on the affair, this was a case of the cultural commissars “killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.” Richwine was merely the chicken; Heritage were the monkeys, and they were duly scared.

A lesser purge along the same lines had occurred a year previously in April 2012 when political scientist Bob Weissberg and myself were simultaneously—though for separate offenses—dropped from the contributor lists of National Review at the behest of leftist watchdogs.

Prof. Weissberg’s offense was to have addressed the annual conference of American Renaissance. The editors of National Review confidently described his address in print as “noxious” even though the conference organizers did not issue DVDs of the event until some weeks after Weissberg’s dismissal and no transcript was available until I made one from Bob’s notes five months after that.

In fact the Weissberg address argued against white nationalism, so that one of the following things must be true: either (a) the decision-makers at National Review were both clairvoyant and sympathetic to white nationalism, or else (b) they jumped reflexively at the crack of the leftist whip—chicken and monkeys again—and justified themselves by pretending to know what Weissberg had said.

My own dismissal caused more fuss because it occurred in, and was related to, one of what historian Paul Johnson, in Modern Times, called those “spasms of self-righteous political emotion” to which “America seems peculiarly prone.”

The occasion of hysteria here was the February 2012 encounter between black ne’er-do-well Trayvon Martin and neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. There was an altercation that ended with Martin kneeling astride Zimmerman and smashing his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman managed to pull out a licensed handgun and shot Martin with it; Martin died on the spot.

When the facts of the case were tested to courtroom standards of evidence a year later, Zimmerman was swiftly acquitted of second-degree homicide. In April 2012, however, public hysteria over the incident was at fever pitch, whipped up by leftist mainstream journalists—excuse the pleonasm—with the assistance, most disgracefully, of the President himself. An innocent baby-faced black teenager has been stalked and murdered by a white vigilante! (Martin was 17; Zimmerman is actually of mixed German, Peruvian-Indio, and black African ancestry.)

The editor of National Review himself had signed on to the Left narrative in a column expressing his concord on the matter with the views of black supremacist scofflaw Al Sharpton—a column the editor must surely have come to regret but which, to his credit, he allowed to remain on the magazine’s website.

At the time I spotted an interesting sub-category of contributions to the general hysteria. Black journalists were publishing columns lamenting that they had to take their children aside and give them The Talk: earnest instructions and warnings about the danger posed to them by the ever-present malice of whites, who because of their privileged position in a racist society need not fear justice.

This of course is nonsense. On Department of Justice statistics—including the National Crime Victimization Survey, where citizens record crimes whether or not the police and courts were involved—blacks are far more dangerous to whites than whites are to blacks. It is therefore much more appropriate for nonblack citizens to warn their children of the danger from feral blacks, as of course most of us do.

Flagrant contradictions of that kind are grist to the mill of opinion journalism. I published a corrective column at one of my other outlets, with thirty-odd hyperlinks to supporting facts and statistics. The Left got hold of the column, the whip was cracked, the monkeys squealed in fright, and the chicken was slain. My column was described by the editor of National Review as “nasty” and I was dropped.

(Following our simultaneous cashierings, Bob Weissberg and I have acquired the habit, when we meet, of hailing each other with: “Well, well—Mr. Noxious!” … “Ah, Mr. Nasty!” …)

National Review was guilty of cowardice, no doubt, but there are mitigating, or at least qualifying, factors. Most prominently: That year was divisible by four, and in early April it seemed that Mitt Romney had a good chance of winning the presidency. A president needs word people: speechwriters, press secretaries, and such. He also needs lawyers: Attorney General, Solicitor General, White House Counsel. At least one National Review staffer had had a creditable prior career as a government lawyer. Visions of sugar-plums were dancing in heads at 215 Lexington Avenue.

Never having been afflicted with political ambition myself, I am indulgent of it in others. Without ambition there would, after all, be no politics, and then where should we be? A president as unimaginative and as thoroughly infused by the Kultursmog as Romney obviously is might indeed be reluctant to hire in persons from a magazine tainted, however remotely, and from however far out on the Left, by accusations of—gasp!—racism. Thus the cowardice had a reasonably self-interested side to it … as cowardice usually does.

And then, I was an easy discard for the magazine, not being a salaried employee (they paid me on piecework rates). Irreligious and not much interested in party politics, I was not actually a very good fit for the place, though I tried my best to not flaunt my indifference to “life” issues, to stay awake through long discussions about Medical Savings Accounts, to feign interest in the latest shyster congressreptile posing as a standard-bearer of family values in breaks from porking his secretary, and to clap along with the collective pretense that George W. Bush had a conservative bone somewhere in his body.

There were, too, particular personal animosities of the kind that will inevitably arise during fourteen years of close confinement with a dozen or more opinionated intellectuals.

One of the first to unsheath his stiletto in the April 2012 business, for example, was senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru, in whom high intelligence, ready wit, and a wonkish mastery of political detail are combined with a feline talent for intrigue and a patience in revenge that would have elevated him to the highest levels in the court of an Oriental despot.

I had earned Ponnuru’s enmity some years before with a critical though not unkind review of his 2006 right-to-life book Party of Death. It was, I suppose, injudicious of me to give a less-than-favorable review to a colleague’s book; but a column was due, I had no topic at hand, and had read the book. Sometimes you just want to knock out some copy and get to bed.

On that earlier occasion Ponnuru and at least one other member of the more strongly Roman Catholic element at National Review had urged the magazine to drop me, but they had been overruled by Bill Buckley. By 2012, though, Buckley was in his grave. As the Chinese proverb says: When the lips are gone, the teeth are cold.

(You will not read much that is positive about Buckley from presses like this one. I only knew the man in the last decade of his life, so I cannot speak to the criticisms in general. Possibly some of the negativity is apt. The maxim current in Northamptonshire during my upbringing, however, was: “Speak as you find.” I never experienced anything but courtesy, kindness, generosity, appreciation and support from Bill Buckley, and I was very sorry when he died.)

These purgings, though petty and inconsequential in themselves, illustrate key facts about Conservatism, Inc. It is timid and pusillanimous in the face of criticism from the Left. Its younger members have absorbed some of the vapors of Cultural Marxism into their body tissues, however unwillingly and unknowingly. At key points in the electoral cycle, ambition becomes a dominating factor.

Worst of all, Conservatism, Inc. is not very intellectual. It was unusual to hear an interesting or original idea around the National Review editorial table; and when any such thing was heard, it usually came from an older staffer. With the settling-in of Cultural Marxism as our state ideology, there has come a flattening and dulling of thought, affecting any American less than fifty, but especially the thirtysomethings. The Overton Window of acceptable opinions is narrow, the notion of peering around it to heterodox ideas outrageously shameful.

Again there are qualifications to be made. From where we stand, out on the Dissident Right, Conservatism, Inc. looks like a power center, owning the ears (if no other organs) of cable TV personalities and congressional panjandrums.

From within Conservatism, Inc., however, things seem different. Staffers at those magazines and think tanks see themselves in fancy as a beleaguered minority, struggling to make their voices heard against the roar of a statist majority. It’s understandable, even if you have only the merest smidgen of heterodoxy in your soul. Turn on your TV; pick up a newspaper; stroll around a campus. The Narrative is mighty; we live under strong ideological control; as timid and ineffectual as they are, career conservatives stand in partial, feeble, occasional opposition to it.

*

If the populist conservatism of Fox News, Dinesh D’Souza, and the Tea Party is a mere “beggars’ democracy” in the fashion of Frederick the Great’s Prussia (“My people say what they please, and I do what I please”), and Conservatism, Inc. is a mere disgruntled subsidiary of gigantist, world-saving managerial bureaucracy, what hope is there of a return to traditional American notions of individual self-support, governmental restraint, judicial modesty, noninterference in other nations’ squabbles, and realism about human nature?

If there is any hope it lies with the scattered voices of the Dissident Right. How invigorating it is to turn from the latest bellicose editorial at The Weekly Standard calling for war against Yemen, or the latest puff piece from National Review for some bought-and-sold GOP senator, or the latest call to missionary endeavor from Dinesh D’Souza, to the calm sanity, data-rich statistical inquiries, and genuine intellectual curiosity of Dissident Right websites! (And still a tiny number of print outlets. Chronicles magazine deserves an honorable mention here.)

And there is hope. We have on our side the most potent agent of intellectual advance in the modern age: science. As official ideology has drifted so relentlessly leftward this past few decades, an undercurrent of improved understandings from the human sciences has flowed in the opposite direction, and risen ever closer to the surface. We now know enough about population genetics, paleoanthropology, and neuroscience to make happy talk about “the psychic unity of mankind” untenable, fatally undermining the Narrative.

At some points the Narrative is already near collapse, at least among well-informed mainstream observers. Key Cultural Marxist slogans—“Strength in diversity!” “Close the gaps!” “The new civil rights issue!” “Nation of immigrants!” “Glass ceiling!” “Human rights!”—already get a roll of the eyes or a shake of the head from a surprising number of thoughtful middle-class Americans, including human-science academics and—most encouragingly—many young people. The surge of welfare moochers and teenage gangsters across our southern border in 2014 met widespread public hostility. Enrollment in lesser colleges is falling; the spread of online education will advance the healthy rot.

The traditionalist-conservative view of human nature is true; the Cultural Marxist view is false. The truth will take a while to work its way up to the surface of public discourse, but it will get there at last. There will be a new Narrative: not necessarily perfect or infallible, but in closer accord with nature—with reality—than the present one. “We told you so” is not a very satisfactory response in the aftermath of cultural disaster, but it will sound better than guilty silence.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His most recent book, published by VDARE.com com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

From V-Dare: http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-report-from-the-conservative-movements-dustbin-john-derbyshires-essay-in-the-great-purge

 

The Capitulation and Downfall of the Boy Scouts to The Radical Gay Agenda

Would you let your 12-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an 18-year-old boy?

I was driving in to work earlier this week, listening to a local talk show, when I did something I almost never do. I called in.

The subject was the decision by the governing board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to allow openly gay adults to serve as den leaders, scoutmasters, and camp counselors.  How could I resist?  I am an Eagle Scout, and I have a book coming out next week called Scarlet Letters that deals with this larger subject.

When the producer screened me about my stance, I decided to hold off on more complex issues like freedom of assembly and the historical scout requisite to be “morally straight” and focus instead on the pragmatic.

I told him that as an Eagle Scout, I can attest to the cross-generational intimacy of the scouting experience.  Young boys, older teens, and men share a lot of private time.  They swim together, shower together, sleep in the same tents together.  On the everyday level, I told him, I would worry about the Jerry Sandusky factor.

The producer flipped.  “Are you saying that all gays are pedophiles?” he shot back angrily.  “No,” I said, “but would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?”

He didn’t get my drift, so I had to explain it.  For a man to find an adolescent sexually attractive is not pedophilia.  It is human nature.  Pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent children, eleven or younger.  To join the BSA, a boy must be at least eleven.  The Scouts have always encouraged older adolescents to assume intermediate leadership positions.  So it would not be unusual for an eighteen-year-old to share a tent with twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.

In her classic 1990 book Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia, herself a lesbian, wrote at length about the “beautiful boy of homosexual tradition.”  That attraction has underscored much of Western art for the last 2,500 or so years.  Writing twenty-five years ago, Paglia felt free to say the obvious.

That much said, gay men may have no more attraction to adolescents than straight men do.  For instance, in his autobiography, Roman, director Roman Polanski expressed shock that “I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.”  By “making love,” he was referring to the drugging and anal penetration of a thirteen-year-old girl.  He saw that as perfectly natural, as, apparently, did much of Hollywood.  Its denizens gave Polanski a standing O when he won an Oscar years after fleeing the United States.

Whether gay men have more or less attraction to young adolescents is beside the point.  What they do have is more access.  Now, in an act of institutional madness, BSA board members are licensing that access.  They are putting the gay male in a position in which no one in his right mind would put a straight male.  The sane answer to the question, “Would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?” is, and always will be, “Are you nuts?”

What will the leadership tell the parents when the first semi-sanctioned cases of statutory rape come trickling in?  More to the point, perhaps, what will the leadership tell the attorneys representing those parents?

The Catholic Church has already faced this quandary.  Despite the headlines, only in rare instances was pedophilia the issue.  The real problem was the age-old one of allowing homosexual men unfettered access to unsuspecting adolescent boys.  The Church screens much more carefully now.  As a religious institution, it can get away with doing so.

It seems ironic that the left was hammering the Catholic Church for its lack of vigilance at the same time it was hammering the BSA for its excess.  This seeming contradiction makes sense when one understands that the left’s endgame was never to protect children or to advance gay rights.  The endgame is to destroy by whatever means necessary the traditional institutions that undergird Western civilization.

Regardless of how the various church groups respond to the new BSA directive, the left has won this battle.  Its foot soldiers have broken the feeble resistance of the governing board and eliminated the real Boy Scouts of America from the field.  Scout leadership was no better prepared for this war than the French were for theirs in 1940.

From now on, at the top, at least, collaboration will be the name of the game.  Within a generation, the Vichy wing of the BSA will collapse under the weight of its own pointlessness, and the resistance will fight on, even if without uniforms.

Be prepared!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/would_you_let_your_12yearold_daughter_sleep_in_a_tent_with_an_18yearold_boy.html#ixzz3hTyFsgI8

 

The Boy Scouts Rapid Descent into Madness: Unleashing Gay Pedophiles to Abuse Young Boys

Boy Scouts PSA

It does not matter the argument that anybody can come up with, allowing gay scout leaders is a terrible decision.

RTR3WCZI-1024x682

You can’t have homosexuals put in charge of young boys. Gay men obviously find other men sexually attractive, considering the fact that gay men are a very small minority of the population, one could assume that finding partners is a bit more difficult than finding a partner of the opposite sex. So now you have gay men who are in charge of a group of boys in a unsupervised environment. It’s like putting a fox in the chicken coop.

Look, you hear about school teachers having sex with their students regular basis, the majority of which are high school students. What makes anyone think that a homosexual will keep their hands off of young boys? This decision on the part of the Boy Scouts of America will destroy the lives of countless boys, mark my words within 6 months the news of scout leader abuse will hit the headlines. 

Any parent who has a kid in the Boy Scouts or is preparing to get their kids involved, I suggest you remove them from the program immediately. I live in one of the most conservative states in the country and a local news station interviewed a man who is gay and is planning on volunteering to be a scout leader, the man was not only out of the closet, he came out flaming. The thought of having someone like that as a leader for any of my kids turns my stomach. Thank goodness my kids are raised, but my nephews and grandsons are not and I will be damned if I will let them be involved in a program that could potentially ruin their lives.

It is my hope that enough people feel the way that I do and the Boy Scouts lose thousands upon thousands of scouts, maybe then they will understand that Americans are not willing to have their kids subjected to the homosexual lifestyle of a gay scout leader, and their decision to appease the LGTB community was a resounding disaster.

From A Nod to the Gods: http://anodtothegods.com/

End Time Prophet George Orwell was Right

That Clicking Sound

When I came into the world, the idea of the state rounding people up because they had bad thoughts or showed signs of having bad thoughts was the basis of Cold War. The Ruskies did that sort of thing. Free countries did not do those things. That’s why we fought Hitler and Tojo, so people couple be free of that sort of tyranny. It looks like I will exit a world, however, where crime think is as normal a sunshine.

A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.

As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalisation programme at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.

The three-year-old in the programme is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behaviour.Many of the government’s counter-extremism measures typically relate to older children and adults – buy very young children can be referred if authorities are concerned about the effect of their families on them.

In the past, police have gone through the family courts to bring care proceedings in cases involving these children, and measures have included taking away the children’s passports, to make it harder for them to be taken overseas.

With figures obtained from the London Assembly, the Standard found out that London accounted for around a quarter of all ‘Channel’ referrals nationwide since the start of 2012.

Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.

It’s a funny thing about this world. There are no results that don’t lead to the demand for more state control. The government imports millions of Muslims, resulting in domestic terrorism and the default solution is even more state power. Reversing course and rolling back a policy is never an option. In fact, you can be thrown in prison for suggesting that Britain stops importing Muslims.

The startling thing to me is that no one finds any of this strange. The reporting is not quite enthusiastic, but you get the sense that the reporter thinks this is a good thing. How is it possible to reach adulthood and not see the connection between this sort of thought policing and just about every dystopian science fiction movie every made?

It goes back to what I wrote at the start. You come into the world accepting it as it is, because it is all you know. Young people don’t pay much attention until they get into the world. That means most of the reporters these days think the custodial state is just the way the world works. Giving a little more power to the game wardens so they can police the populace probably does not strike them as a big sacrifice.

It’s the one thing I think Orwell got right. People will put up with an enormous amount of abuse from their rulers. It’s not just the threat of violence either. People adapt and they adjust. Before long it is just what passes for normal. The ratchet clicks and people adjust. A new generation comes along full of optimism, the ratchet clicks again and they adjust. It’s only on your way out can you appreciate how many times you’ve heard the ratchet click, but then it is too late.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

This islamic Evil is not Hard to Figure Out. It is Spelled out plainly in the koran. There is NO moderate islam. Only islam.

Understanding the Tennessee Jihadist

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/understanding_the_tennessee_jihadist_.html#ixzz3gYmbrBhg

Obama and Leftists Have an Evil Plan to Force Upon America

The ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America’s Neighborhoods

America is now learning that on the painful road to ‘fundamental transformation,’ Barack Obama has plans to diversify suburbia. The president’s suburban justice plan is one where HUD tracks the racial and religious composition of American neighborhoods and then, doing away with the choice of established populations, makes changes to reflect Barack Obama’s vision for a fairer, more equitable nation.

The policy that accomplishes this progressive goal is aptly dubbed “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH). A 2013 FOX News article titled “Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods” claims that in conjunction with the federal government HUD will remake neighborhoods using data gathered from a “discrimination database.”

In turn, “zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation” will be determined by government decree.

The progressive utopian assumption must be that people become smarter or richer based on where they live. Simply put, rather than respect the theory of social evolution, liberals continue to blame zip codes for the economic demise of those they imagine would otherwise be the fittest. Thus, to solve shared problems that have nothing to do with geography, the Obama transformation team is moving forward with the plan to usher low-income people into the midst of middle- and higher-income classes.

That’s why, as part of the liberal quest to establish heaven on earth, every American will be forced to live in a neighborhood designed by government totalitarians. Meanwhile, those who “spread the despair” around will continue to peacefully dwell in exclusive enclaves paid for with wealth they’ve pilfered from the pockets of those whose lives they’ve made miserable.

And here’s how it will happen: the federal government will track neighborhoods according to race, class, and ethnicity. Then, the feds will descend, rezone the area, and proceed to transform American suburbs into the equivalent of Venezuela. The hope is that flooding established communities with lower-income people that represent the racial, religious, and economic makeup of the government’s choosing will result in the ultimate exorcism of injustice.

Sound impossible? According to an article in the Seattle Times titled “Get rid of single-family zoning? These conversations shouldn’t be secret“, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s advisory committee on housing’s co-chair drafted a letter that said this “We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot.”

Can anyone say eminent domain?

For those who still don’t get it, this is not about hardworking black and Latino Americans buying and moving into white neighborhoods where they are welcome to live as free citizens, this is about the government socially engineering what they perceive to be WASP neighborhoods with a deluge of third-world types and refugees from Muslim countries who, once here, open bodegas and build mosques.

And if that’s not disturbing enough, after the complexion, religion and language of a neighborhood has been altered to the government’s liking, according to the 64-page White House Task Force (emphasis on force) on New Americans April 2015 “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents: A Federal Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant and Refugee Integration” prospectus, Barack Obama has plans to safeguard against the residents balking. To make sure “newcomers” are greeted in a friendly manner, Obama’s blueprint proposes the imposition of “Welcoming Communities.”

Question: How does government strong-arm a community to be welcoming?

At any rate, Obama maintains that if an unauthorized, unsanctioned hardworking but undocumented person has a family and wants to stay in America, instead of an ‘illegal,’ he or she should be characterized as a “new American.” For those of us presently having our neighborhoods overrun with undocumented intruders, that excuse is sort of like saying if a home invader has a family and empties the dishwasher and runs the vacuum after raiding the jewelry drawer, homeowners should view home invasion in a positive light.

Meanwhile Barack Obama has a double-spiked fence encircling his residence.

Either way, the president’s goal is to “further strengthen the federal government’s integration efforts by making them more strategic and deliberate.” That step requires “[e]nergetic AmeriCorps VISTA members” be dispatched into American communities to “implement local integration plans.”

For those who are unfamiliar with AmeriCorps, they are the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps. AmeriCorps members are recruited and supported by the federal government and AmeriCorps is defined as a “civil society program.” The government determines what a ‘civil society’ is and then ObamaCorps, er… I mean AmeriCorps troops are enlisted to enforce liberal diktats under the guise of community service.

Then there’s AmeriCorps VISTA. Rest assured that if poverty-fighting AmeriCorps VISTA is being asked to report in, poverty is coming to middle class neighborhoods and according to Obama’s transformative federal plan, economic destitution is about to be equitably allocated.

And if brown-shirt and patent leather-booted community organizers marching lockstep through American suburbs weren’t enough to chill your block party beer keg to the core, in addition to guaranteeing that newcomers have preferential access to housing, healthcare and education, arbiters of the civil society will also serve as Refugee Job Developers whose business will be to advance “immigrant-focused career-pathways programs.

In an environment where 92 million Americans are currently out of the labor force, AmeriCorps responsibilities will include “identifying and partnering with local employers willing to hire newly arrived refugees with limited English skills.”

Translation: the federal government’s goons have been given the mission to ensure that low-skilled newcomers be given employment opportunity preference over citizens whose blood, sweat, and tears built this soon-to-be-remade nation.

Then, as an added bonus, after the communities are fully organized, AmeriCorps will spend time installing government-funded “community solar” panels, which, among other things, will use taxpayer monies to save the planet while providing clean solar power to renters or others with limited financial means.

And so Obama’s remodeling of America is progressing along nicely. Illegal aliens, who swarm over the border like ants at a picnic have been granted the kinder, gentler moniker “new Americans” and based on the makeup of long-established communities HUD is currently indicting neighborhoods for bias.  In addition, plans are also being made to bus into the suburbs cultures and peoples who have already declared that they have no plans to assimilate.

After that, the only hurdle left is seeing the day when illegal “new Americans,” like a modern-day Ruby Bridges, are escorted around town by community organizers/solar panel installers who, on behalf of President Obama, will be also charged with the job to coerce the conquered receiving community to be more welcoming.

Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/the_fundamental_transformation_of_americas_neighborhoods.html#ixzz3fxbzXOWB

 

The Civil War, The Confederate Flag, and other Truths You Probably Did not Know

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered By Chuck Baldwin

Published: Thursday, July 9, 2015
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish.  The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

© Chuck Baldwin

 

The Clock is Ticking. People are Sick and Tired of DC and the Political Elites.

“Payback’s a Bitch”: Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm

ConFlag The furor over the Confederate flag, think I, has little to do with the Confederate flag, which is a pretext, an uninvolved bystander. Rather it is about a seething anger in the United States that we must not mention. It is the anger of people who see everything they are and believe under attack by people they aren’t and do not want to be—their heritage, their religion, their values and way of life all mocked and even made criminal.

The talking heads inside Washington’s beltway, in editorial suites in New York, do not know of this anger. They do not talk to people in Joe’s Bar in Chicago or in barbecue joints in Wheeling. They are cloistered, smug, sure of themselves. And they are asking for it.

We are dealing with things visceral, not rational. Confusing the two is dangerous. Hatreds can boil over as syllogisms cannot. The banning of the flag infuriates, for example, me. Why? Although a Southerner by raising, I would far prefer to live in New York City than in Memphis. Yet I value my boyhood in Virginia and Alabama. My ancestors go back to the house of Burgesses, and I remember long slow summer days on the Rappahannock and in the limestone of Athens, Alabama.

When the federal government and the talking heads want to ban my past—here, permit me to exit momentarily the fraudulent objectivity of literature—I hate the sonsofbitches.

A lot of people quietly hate the sonsofbitches.

To them, to us, the Confederate flag stands for resistance to control from afar, to meddling and instruction from people we detest. It is the flag of “Leave me the hell alone.” And this Washington, Boston, and New York will…not…do.

A surprise may be coming.

What is the anger about? Most visibly, but far from uniquely, race: the illegals, the Knock-Out game, and Washington’s protection of both. The racial hostility that pervades the country today is largely the doing of the talking heads and its perverse social policies. The rancor is unlike anything I have seen.

Curious. When I was a lad ages ago, I thought well of Brown vs. the School board. Southerners said that integration would never work and they were right, but what came before was just wrong. I thought so then, and I think so now. I favored the civil-rights acts. I reluctantly favored affirmative action (I was very young) thinking it meant a hand up instead of an entitlement. I wrote hopefully of the prospect of educating blacks.

But look what happened. We now see forced hiring of the incompetent as a right, endless accounts of blacks destroying shopping malls, burning cities, brutally attacking whites in gangs, and the giving to blacks of anything they want because they are black. You don’t like the Confederate flag, Jesse? Why then, it must go. Whatever you say, Jesse.

It wasn’t this way, but it is now. It is getting worse. But there is far more than race.  We now are compelled to live in a national sexual-freak show. Day after day after day the media are full of trans-this and trans-that, of homosexual marriages, all thrust in our faces, a parade of prancing peculiarities demanding and demanding and demanding. People who dare not say so are sick of it.

It isn’t viciousness. I don’t know anyone who wants to persecute the erotically baroque. Poofters in particular are usually bright, productive, decent people, and do not attack whites in wheel chairs with hammers. Yet I weary of their endless tedious concerns. I say, go. Go with God, but for God’s sake go. Or just shut up. That would do as well.

I, we, will be told, “But Fred, homosexuality is natural.” So is hemorrhagic tuberculosis. So is sadism. So is genocide.

Any sexual predilection can be called natural, and arguments can be made for all of them: Polygamy, or marriage with a sheep, or copulating on a public bus, or sex with girls of nine years. (How about, “Sex is natural. Children are erotic: Don’t they play doctor? Little girls are only afraid of it because of puritanical conditioning by society. Oral sex feels good, and adults do it, so why not…? Why shouldn’t her father gently teach her….” And so on.)

And crime is out of control, protected by a President and Attorney General with whom we, so many Americans,  have nothing in common, who dislike us,  and who want to disarm us and flood our country with illegal and incompatible aliens.

Do  you think that wanting a gun is silly? Last week I started getting emails: “Chuck got shot.” On Breitbart I found that Chuck De Caro, a journalist and friend for so long that I forget how I met him, had checked into a motel in Albuquerque with his wife, whereupon an armed dirtbag tried to rob them and perhaps worse. I suppose that a white couple in their sixties must have seemed a soft target. Oops. It wasn’t a swell career move. Chuck is ex-Special Forces and a longtime war correspondent. Threatening his wife doesn’t fly well with him.

Anyway, Chuck apparently had other ideas about being robbed and perhaps killed.  He also had a handgun. In the ensuing gunfight, he was hit several times and rushed to the hospital. Chuck will be okay, the dirtbag less so. He escaped to the parking lot, where he decided to lie down and bleed to death. A good choice. The news stories didn’t describe the perp, which meant…. Decaro

This gem, Tomorio Walton, is, or was, a career criminal and was, of course, on parole. Can you guess why so many of us want guns and carry permits? Characteristically I had to find the photo in  the Mail Online, an English paper.

Then there is the de-Christianizing of the country. Religion, both historically and currently, is a potent thing. Play with it at your risk. It is not always  really a matter of religion. Many of us, I among them, are not believers but value Christmas and its traditions. But no. We must not have nativity scenes or sing Christmas carols on public streets. Easter-egg hunts are unconstitutional. Mommy Washington doesn’t like them, and we have to do what Washington says.

Unless, of course, one day we don’t.

We are winding a spring.

bloody-beatdown

Standard beatdown of white man by black mob at Fourth of July in Cincinnati. Almost a daily occurence. The media will hide it. This is not a part of my culture. Why do we put up with it?

Stoking the flames under the pressure cooker is the unending, ever-tightening control of every aspect of life by Washington. People inside the city’s beltway, a venue I know well, do not understand what they are playing with. They are sure that they know best, and they are going to make us toe the line.

Federal bureaucrats  tell people in Casper, Laredo, and Knoxville what they can and cannot teach their children in the schools, what religious practices they may have and what their children may eat. They set curricula, determine to whom bakeries must sell cakes, decide who can marry what, and with whom we must associate.

I could go on. There is quiet fury about open borders, the forced acceptance of criminal aliens, of 100,000 Somalis by Minnesota, the endless wars, the declining standard of living, the insane censorship (say “nigger” and your career of thirty years ends) and the ungodly surveillance. Washington pushes, pushes, and pushes, thinking that with just enough pressure, we will all come to kowtow.

What if one day we don’t?

And there is governmental corruption, the sense—“realization,” I would say—that Washington is entirely in the hands of the arms manufacturers, of the Israeli lobby, of big pharma and ethnic lobbies and, well, anyone who bribes Congress. Elections are a sham, serving only to decide the division of the spoils for eight years. All decisions of importance are carefully kept out of the public’s hands.

Maybe Washington will always get away with it. Maybe it won’t. White Americans are an obedient and passive people, easily cowed, but maybe enough will prove enough. Maybe things will blow. Maybe jurisdictions will just ignore the feds, as begins to happen.

But it is dangerous. The economy declines, people out of college can’t get jobs, the ghettoes simmer, automation surges across the board, and one day soon we will have cutbacks in the entitlements. When groups begin competing for dwindling resources, things will get ugly. It could explode. It really could. You might be surprised how many people out there think, “Bring it on.” Not a good idea, but we go that way.

Tick Tick. Tick.

From Fred on Everything: http://fredoneverything.org/paybacks-a-bitch-rural-wisdom-and-the-gathering-storm/

Those Who Value Liberty and Freedom Must Resist. Our Lives Depend Upon it.

Standing Up to the Ruling Class

by Angelo M. Codevilla July 4, 2015

What citizens can do to resist the ruling class’s redefinitions of moral and cultural norms.

“To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.”— Voltaire

If you’re wondering what Americans can do as our ruling class sets about enforcing its redefinition of marriage, start by looking back at what it did to the citizens of Indiana when their legislature raised the possibility that someone might object to joining in celebrations of homosexual marriage. Support for homosexual unions was incidental to the insistence of the likeminded folks atop society’s commanding heights on punishing Indiana. What incurs their ire has less to do with any substantive matter than with the American people’s resistance to honoring their fantasies. These fantasies can be reversed without notice. (Obama opposed homosexual marriage until 2013.) But dissenting from any of them — whether about race, or sex, or science, or anything else — risks ostracism and disqualification from earning a living.

Indiana’s Republicans, its churches, and conservatives in general pled for the liberty to speak and act according to religious faith. They did not and do not argue the worth of the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs that the ruling class deems odious. This has proved to be self-defeating. Appeals for tolerance of all beliefs in the name of America’s traditional freedoms fail because they concede the ruling class’s assertion of its own moral-intellectual superiority, as well as its underlying assumption that good and evil, better and worse, are just other words for its own likes and dislikes.  The ruling class’s component groups jointly dismiss America’s traditional liberties because they aim to replace them with their own primacy. Having seized the power to redefine liberty, our rulers tighten their definitions around their opponents’ necks like nooses. Since their desire for primacy has no limit, they can’t stop tightening. The norms that they demand that we honor help sustain each constituency by letting its members feel good about themselves while looking down on others. Their “dignitary interests” (to use Justice Kennedy’s term for who must be honored vs. those who must submit to being vilified) simply trump those of others. This is why the ruling class demonizes any questioning of its demands’ substance by imposing modern equivalents of the slave-era “gag rule.” They wage identity politics as war.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420743/truth-safeguards-liberty

A word of Hope

tumblr_nl7s2mZQmd1thfeewo1_500

“My message, unchanged for more than fifty years, is this: God loves you unconditionally, as you are and not as you should be, because nobody is as they should be. It is the message of grace…A grace that pays the eager beaver who works all day long the same wages as the grinning drunk who shows up at ten till five…A grace that hikes up the robe and runs breakneck toward the prodigal reeking of sin and wraps him up and decides to throw a party no ifs, ands, or buts…This grace is indiscriminate compassion. It works without asking anything of us…Grace is sufficient even though we huff and puff with all our might to try to find something or someone it cannot cover. Grace is enough…Jesus is enough.” ― Brennan Manning, All Is Grace: A Ragamuffin Memoir

“You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.”

No Truce With the Left

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left’s useful idiots. It’s only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they’re wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don’t like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe’s Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that’s the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power. That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn’t disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won’t work. There’s no ‘agree to disagree’ possible here. He’s picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists ‘care’ about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It’s the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he’s ready to  kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he’ll be laughing at them again.

There’s a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the ’cause’.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can’t find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.

These changes have the mad logic of a byzantine ideology behind them, but to the ordinary person their definition of progress seems entirely random.

A Socialist a century ago considered factories progressive instruments of the future and men in dresses a decadent reactionary behavior. Now factories are reactionary pollution machines of globalization and men in dresses are an oppressed victim group who have transcended biology with the power of their minds.

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other class enemies cannot possibly ‘progress’ enough to be acceptable to the left because it identifies progress with political conformity. A tolerant and progressive Republican is a contradiction in terms.

If he were truly tolerant and progressive, he wouldn’t be a Republican.

The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can’t attack you, they’ll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

The left’s social justice program is really a wave of these purges which force their own people to hurry up and conform to whatever the Party dictated this week. Examples are made out of laggards on social media to encourage the rest to stop thinking and start marching in line. As Orwell knew well, these shifts select for mindless ideological zombies while silencing critical thinkers.

Yesterday we were against fighting Hitler. Today we’re for it. Retroactively, we were always at war with Oceania. Retroactively, Bruce Jenner was always a woman. Retroactively, Obama was always right about Iraq, even when he appeared to be making the wrong decisions.

These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

The constant shifts create their own version of future shock. They leave people baffled and uncertain. Society no longer seems to resemble what they knew, even though the real society of men and women has not really changed much, only the media’s presentation of it has. But a beaten down mass of ordinary people now imagines that the country is filled with gay men and trannies. They accept that what they thought was common sense no longer applies and that it’s someone else’s country now.

And that is the prize that the left dearly wants. Surrender.

The left’s media machine makes its madness seem cool even though behind all the agitating young things are a bunch of bitter old leftists. But the madness is a means, not an end. So is the facade of revolutionary cool to each shift.

The Futurists of Russia vowed to heave the past “overboard from the steamship of modernity”. But when the Revolution came, the classics came back into the libraries and the Futurists were forced to stop drawing triangles and make their art conform to the conventional structure of a totalitarian state.  The time of change had ended. Once the left was in power, the future became a lot like the past.

You can’t accommodate the left on social issues. You can’t accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can’t do it. Period.

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It’s not about gay marriage. It’s not about cakes. It’s about power.

More fundamentally it’s about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.

From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html

The American Christian Church. Merchandising the Gospel into Irrelevance .

Evangelical Mercerism

That said, I have not counted myself as a Catholic for a very long time and I’m not much of a believer. I think the Catholic mass is the most beautiful of the Christian services, followed closely by the Anglicans, the latter having much better music. The CoE also does a first rate job designing churches. Those big red doors are striking.

Black churches are the most entertaining and have the best food. It’s not even close on the food side of things. The mail order theologians I see on TV like Joel Osteen strike me as creepy and weird. I suspect they are just con-men without a lick of faith, but I have no proof of that. I could be completely wrong, but that’s my hunch.

Having said all that, I wish you nothing but the best if you find peace of comfort watching Joel Osteen or attending a non-denominational quasi-Christian service down at the motor lodge. A world run by the followers of Joel Olsteen would be a better world than one run by Progressives. In the former you get to say “no thank you” and close the door when they knock. In the latter you better open the door and do what they say – or else.

That buildup is a lead in to some comments regarding this post Rod Dreher linked to the other day.

One of the great Evangelical leaders of the twentieth century, Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ (now called Cru) and signatory of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, published a small booklet in 1952 entitled Four Spiritual Laws. It was used for over six decades as an evangelistic tool by literally millions of Christians worldwide. And it had – indeed, continues to have – a profound and lasting impact on Evangelicalism and the way in which that movement presents the Gospel to unbelievers and those who have strayed from their faith.

Even though I count myself among those whose spiritual journey was shaped by Bright’s vision and his call to share the good news of Jesus with family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, I have come to believe that Bright’s first spiritual law – “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life” – presents a misleading depiction of what it means to follow Jesus.

I’ve known a great many Evangelicals and I have attended their services and even some of their Bible classes. This passive, feminine view of Christianity has always struck me as anti-Christian. It is occassionalism, the antithesis of Christianity, to believe man does not play a defining part of his destiny.

Logically, it is even nuttier simply because God’s plan could be that you have to figure it out on your own. Put another way, His plan may be for you to create your own plan. Simply blaming things on God and his plan for you sounds like an excuse to me. It also sounds like paganism, where the fates determine the course of your life.

But the decades long near-absence of the truth of the cross and the Gospel of suffering and transformation – that following Jesus is as much about getting heaven into you as you getting into heaven – resulted in generations of American Christians who spend half their Sunday services singing “hymns” to a Jesus that sounds more like their boyfriend than their Lord.

For this reason, as the hostility to Christian faith continues to mount in the United States – especially on issues that will require government coercion in matters of religious conscience –many of our fellow believers, unwilling to entertain the possibility that they must suffer as Christ suffered, will continue to acquiesce to the spirit of the age and construct a Jesus that conforms to that spirit. This Lord will wind up agreeing – or at least, not disputing – any of the pieties of the secular intelligentsia.

The economic, social, and familial pressures will seem so unbearable – so inconsistent with that “wonderful plan for your life” – they will quickly and enthusiastically distance themselves from those brethren who choose to pick up the cross and not check the “like” button. Whatever it is that hangs in the balance – professional honor, academic respectability, securing a lucrative business contract, or thirty pieces of silver – it will surely be described as the place to which “the Lord is leading us.”

Although they will claim to be devout “Evangelicals” or “Catholics,” they will nevertheless embody the beliefs that H. Richard Niebuhr once attributed to what was at the time the most dominant religious force in America, Liberal Protestantism: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

This is already on display as many Evangelicals adopt the pagan beliefs of environmentalism. You can be sure that they will quickly buckle to pressure on gay marriage. There are already many out celebrating the love that won’t shut the hell up. How long before Joel Osteen is sporting a rainbow tunic and pointing out passages in the Bible he say are in support of sodomy?

It’s why I say Christianity in the West is in permanent retreat. Sure, there will always be people kicking around calling themselves Christian. There will be churches with decent crowds on Sunday. But, in the face of the Fosterite Cult of Modern Liberalism, it will be nothing more than Mercerism, a harmless pastime at best. A tool of social control at worst.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

The Bible is Very Clear That These Things Will and Must Happen in the Last Days

Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country

By Rod Dreher who is a senior editor and blogger at The American Conservative.

Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision “a threat to democracy,” and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.

One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.

Last fall, I spoke with the prior of the Benedictine monastery in Nursia, and told him about the Benedict Option. So many Christians, he told me, have no clue how far things have decayed in our aggressively secularizing world. The future for Christians will be within the Benedict Option, the monk said, or it won’t be at all.

Obergefell is a sign of the times, for those with eyes to see. This isn’t the view of wild-eyed prophets wearing animal skins and shouting in the desert. It is the view of four Supreme Court justices, in effect declaring from the bench the decline and fall of the traditional American social, political, and legal order.

We live in interesting times.

From: http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/

SCOTUS Obergefell decision Has Opened Pandora’s Box and Christian Persecution is about to Escalate

Loserville

Anyone who has played sports knows that strange feeling where you look up and see you’re not just losing but getting clobbered, despite feeling like you were doing well. Maybe the last time you looked up it was close and now it is a blowout. Perhaps you feel like you’re competing, but the other side just keeps pulling away. When you’re in the heat of the battle, it is easy to not only lose sight of the bigger picture, but get a wildly incorrect view of that bigger picture.

Reading conservative sites the last week, I’m getting that vibe from both the chattering skulls and their readers who show up in the comments. There’s a state of shock at what has transpired over the two weeks.Their preferred party sold them out to please global finance. The court untethered itself from the English language and made itself the enforcer for the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Not only was the Right not winning, they were blown off the field.

As I pointed out the other day, the gay marriage ruling is the biggest assault on religious liberty in the history of the nation. One cannot read the majority opinion without wondering how long before the courts declare Christianity illegal.

The ObamaCare decision is the most radical in the history of the court. Judge Roberts literally declared that the English language is no longer a constraint on the court, which means they no longer have to read the relevant laws in future cases.

Most of the Right is in shock, unable to muster more than the old complaints that sound rather silly given what has just transpired. Surprisingly, Rod Dreher gets it, as far where things stand for people of his faith. That’s a well written essay displaying the right amount of sadness for what he and his coreligionists face in the coming years.

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

What Rod and others got wrong is they thought they were in the fight. They truly thought they were giving the other side a battle over who will control society. The fact is, they never had a chance. They were getting their butt kicked for decades. The last week is just the part where the other team does the outrageous celebration on the loser’s team logo.

Last week was part of the mopping up phase of the culture war. The major institutions of the West have all been converted to the Cult of Modern Liberalism. There are no cultural institutions that stand in opposition to any of this stuff.

Their breathless support is seen in the speed with which retailers banished the rebel flag. A white guy shoots up a black church and the Cult demands a sacrifice in return. Hours after the gay marriage ruling major companies were celebrating it in TV commercials. You would not be cynical to think that maybe this has all been coordinated.

It’s tempting to think that normal people will resist, but history says otherwise. The Catholic Church is maneuvering to join the Cult on global warming. The Pope has already made noises about embracing the homosexual agenda. Everyone with something to lose is figuring out that it is time to join the winning side. You can be sure that the rest of the Christian sects will follow the Catholics into the abyss.

I received an e-mail from Paul Gottfried a while back, in response to one I sent him. I don’t know Professor Gottfried and he does not know me. I doubt he knows of this blog. Today, no one thinks twice about firing off an e-mail to a stranger and I’m no different. I sent off my query after reading this column.

It occurred to me that we are losing a lot of important knowledge as the geezers of the Old Right die off. They are the last ones to remember the old fights and why we find ourselves where we are. Professor Gottfried would do us all a great service by putting together a list of writers and books that the next generation could use in the resistance.

He was not interested and sounded a bitter tone in his response. Professor Gottfried, like many on the Old Right, has been shunned and forced to live on the fringes. The fringes of the public intellectual space, that is. Almost all of these guys used to write for mainstream publications and conservative publications with wide circulations. One by one they were proscribed starting in the 1980’s.

I really don’t blame these guys for being bitter, assuming they are bitter. They were right from the start. In the 80’s, when being Right was suddenly cool, all sorts of faddish sorts jumped on board, but few possessed the social core required to carry the fight to the Progressives. Instead they went in for whatever was fashionable to sell books, radio shows and ugly ties. Instead of building a movement that could displace the Left, they sucked it dry. The so-called paleo-cons predicted this result.

That’s all water under the bridge now. There’s value in learning from past defeats, but the time for that has passed as well. The only job left is to pack up the old books and articles in the hope that some future generation, looking for a way out, discovers them and find some inspiration.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Think the SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage is about “Gay Marriage?” Better think again.

 

After The Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council declared marriage, as we have known it for 10,000 years, to be null and void, most of the chattering skulls on what passes for the Right these days went into predictable hysterics. Progressive lunatics decorated themselves in rainbows, celebrating without fully understanding what it is they are celebrating. They just like gloating.

So far the only chattering skull to sort of get what’s happening is David French at National Review.

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.

Consider the already much-quoted closing: As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Or this:

“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”

This isn’t constitutional law, it’s theology — a secular theology of self-actualization — crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, “What decent person can disagree?” This is about love, and the law can’t fight love. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that).

It has always been theology. The striking thing about the century long battle between the Cult of Modern Liberalism and the American Right is how uneven the fight has been. One side is focused, never losing sight of the bigger goals. The other side is composed of blithering idiots convinced they can talk their opponents out of destroying them.

And destruction is the only end possible. The Cult never loses sight of their main targets. The health care bill was mostly changes in the law to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Forcing some Christians to pay for abortions, for example, is forcing them to violate their faith. Do that enough and even the faithful give up. History is clear. Conversion is always compulsory.

This piece in America’s Newspaper of Record shines the light on what comes next.

On Friday, in a momentous decision, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages nationwide. But the fight over how those weddings are accommodated or recognized, particularly by religious organizations, is far from over.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent noted the many outstanding issues, which is why he would have preferred states passing laws allowing gay marriage, rather than judicial fiat. For Roberts, only legislation or voter initiatives signal “true acceptance.” Also, “respect for sincere religious conviction” led to “accommodations for religious practice” in every jurisdiction to democratically adopt it.

Those religious-liberty protections make clear that pre-existing bans on sexual-orientation discrimination — which provide sorely needed protections to LGBT individuals in housing, hiring and public accommodations — do not inadvertently spill over to a religious sacrament like marriage.

For example, in DC, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Washington, marriage counseling provided by churches could continue to cater exclusively to heterosexual couples. After extensive hearings, legislatures in four states expressly provided that religious social-services agencies could continue to place children exclusively with heterosexual married couples, although in three states, such placements may occur only if the program receives no public money.

The First Amendment, courts agree, means churches can refuse to conduct religious ceremonies for same-sex partners if it conflicts with their belief. But what if, say, a couple wants to hold a reception in a church basement? Can they be refused?

The dissenters skewered Justice Anthony Kennedy for trivializing the impact on religious believers. Kennedy says, “The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

Clarence Thomas countered that “individuals and churches [will be] confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples,” an “inevitability” that the majority’s “weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph” is wholly insufficient to address. Samuel Alito worried that “those who cling to old beliefs . . . risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

At oral argument, Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli the question nagging many religiously affiliated educational institutions — the fact that Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in the 1980s because it opposed interracial marriage. “So, would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?”

Verrilli conceded that tax exemption is “certainly going to be an issue.”

Of course it is going to be an issue. It has always been the issue. The whole point of gay marriage, after all, is to further bust up the traditional family and to marginalize Christian churches. A central tenet of the Cult of Modern Liberalism is the first and only loyalty of the people is to the state. The state is not just a government but the entirety of life. Nothing is outside the state, including God. This reads like it was written yesterday by Barak Obama for a reason.

What will happen from here is a wave of lawsuits against anyone and everyone holding out against the Homintern. This will include churches. Initially the courts will try to beat back this assault on the First Amendment, but in a decade the cost of not embracing the sodomite banner will break the remaining holdouts. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will lose their tax exempt status. Many will close. Being a Christian will be equated with being in the Klan.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Today, the Confederate Flag, Tomorrow, Who Knows Where the Hysteria will Lead…

Don’t Let Dylann Roof and the SPLC Define the Confederate Flag

I am going to go against what seems to be the wave of public opinion, including that of prominent Republicans, by urging South Carolina to keep the Confederate flag.  I also encourage people to circumvent Amazon.com’s and eBay’s bans on Confederate flag merchandise by looking for alternate distribution channels.  Let somebody other than Amazon and eBay collect the commissions on the sales.

The reason is simple: if we go along with repudiation of the Confederate flag, then (alleged until proven guilty) murderer Dylann Roof wins.  We will have allowed him and the Ku Klux Klan on one side, and race hustlers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Al Sharpton on the other, to hand the Confederate flag over to white supremacists to use as their symbol.  There is even conversation about removing the names of Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee from Army bases.  Al Sharpton, of course, supports this agenda, even though he, unlike General Lee, was at least partially responsible for two incidents of racist violence (Crown Heights and Freddy’s Fashion Mart).

Robert E. Lee never participated in, much less led, a KKK rally around a black-owned store in a Caucasian neighborhood.  He therefore compares very favorably to Al Sharpton, who personally called the owner of Freddy’s Fashion Mart a “white interloper” while his followers threatened to set fire to the store, and one finally did.  Come to think of it, it would be instructive to determine whether Lee ever used the N-word (even when it was socially acceptable) in contrast to Al Sharpton, who applied it to New York mayor David Dinkins.  Sharpton has also often used colorful language for white people in general and Jews in particular.

General Lee’s distaste for slavery was meanwhile comparable to Abraham Lincoln’s.  “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”  Lee, however, became a role model for character and integrity when he declined command of the Union Army to serve in an initially subordinate position in the Confederate Army.

The Confederate Flag Is Not about Slavery

I don’t know how many thousands of slaves were imported under the Stars and Stripes, but the number imported under the Stars and Bars comes to roughly zero.  Prior to the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, the Baltimore (as in Yankee rather than Confederate) clipper ship played a major role in slave transportation.  Even as late as 1849, Baltimore-built clippers played an active role in the slave trade under foreign flags.  “In 1849 reports surfaced indicating that a Baltimore clipper had cleared $400,000 from eleven slave-trading voyages over a four-year period.”

This little piece of history, by the way, proves the blatant double standards of those agitating for removal of the Confederate flag.  “Baltimore Clippers” was the name of a hockey team and a basketball team in Baltimore, a solid blue (Obama Democrat) municipality. A reasonable person would acknowledge this as a symbol of pride in the city’s shipbuilding history, but it could also be construed as glorification of the city’s role in the slave trade.

Don’t Revise History

If we allow Dylann Roof, the KKK, Al Sharpton, and the SPLC to define the Confederate flag as a racist hate symbol, we are also tolerating revisionist history to the effect that the Civil War was about slavery.  While the issue of slavery was certainly divisive, the war’s primary cause was economic.  Men who had to march barefoot because they could not afford boots did not own slaves, and they were far more likely kept out of paying work by the institution of slavery.  They would have no more fought to defend the right of a few percent of the South’s population to own slaves than today’s working class would fight to defend the right of corporations to ship jobs offshore for cheap labor.

In addition, the Underground Railroad could have never operated without complicity by Southerners who were willing to look the other way while slaves escaped.  Many Northern workers meanwhile supported slavery because they were afraid that emancipated blacks would take their jobs.  There was plenty of right and wrong on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The industrialized North could abolish slavery for the same reason the United Kingdom abolished it.  Mechanization and productivity make slavery uneconomical, just as Henry Ford proved later that mechanization and productivity make low-wage labor uneconomical.  Northern factory owners, however, agitated for tariffs on the goods that the South imported from the United Kingdom in exchange for cotton.  This was simply another version of a major cause of the War of Independence; the United Kingdom would not let its colonies manufacture anything, and forced them instead to trade raw materials for finished goods.  If we look at the principal and immediate cause of the Civil War from the perspective of the Founding Fathers, therefore, the Confederacy was in the right.  The Confederacy was of course wrong about slavery, but slavery persisted the longest in the states that remained loyal to the Union.

Only after the war began did Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which British cartoonist John Tenniel dismissed as a political ploy in which Abraham Lincoln plays an “Ace of Spades” against Jefferson Davis.  The Emancipation Proclamation must therefore be viewed as doing the right thing (abolishing slavery) for the wrong reason (as a weapon against the South rather than against the inherent wrongness of slavery).  It meanwhile exempted every single slave-owning state such as Maryland (the home of the Baltimore slave ship), Delaware, and West Virginia.  Slavery remained legal in those jurisdictions until 1865.

This brings us to the next issue.

If the Confederate Flag Is a Hate Symbol, so Are the Penny and Five-Dollar Bill

History quiz #3: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”  Who said it?

  • Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the Ku Klux Klan)
  • Simon Legree (in Uncle Tom’s Cabin)
  • Jefferson Davis
  • Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debate)
  • Robert E. Lee
  • Stonewall Jackson
  • David Duke (Ku Klux Klan)

The quote is straight from the Great Emancipator, whose name is on many public schools in black neighborhoods.  Lincoln was admittedly ahead of his time because he did not believe that the “white race’s” purported superiority over black people went so far as to entitle white people to own black people, but he was not ahead of his anti-slavery contemporaries like Robert E. Lee.  Should we therefore remove Lincoln’s portrait from the penny and the five-dollar bill?

Let’s first consider, though, the proposition that somebody’s use of anything as a hate symbol makes it a hate symbol.

What Is a Hate Symbol?

The Ku Klux Klan often marches with the Confederate flag.  A group of Confederate reenactors once turned up at such an event with their own Confederate flag and, as soon as the Klansmen got close enough, turned as a single man to show the Kluxers their backs.  The Confederate flag obviously has a very different meaning to each of the two groups.

The fact that the Phelps family and Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama’s pastor) preach hatred from behind the Christian cross, and the fact that the Klan burns crosses, does not mean that the cross represents hate.  If the person burning the cross is wearing a kilt rather than a sheet and hood, in fact, he probably has nothing against black people, although, in the bad old days, he might have had something against a rival clan (that’s clan with a c and not a k).

Are sheets and hoods hate symbols?  It depends again on the context in which they are displayed.  These Spanish Penitentes (Holy Week penitents) hide their faces not because they have any intention of threatening or harming black people, but because they believe that public religious devotion should be anonymous.

The swastika is obviously a hate symbol, but only if one believes that pre-Columbian Native Americans as well as ancient Indo-Europeans were Nazis.  I saw a swastika petroglyph in Nevada, and I doubt that the people who drew it ever heiled anybody or anything but the Great Spirit.  ProSwastika.org argues quite persuasively, “By associating the swastika with the Nazis, we only give credit to the monstrosities of this horrible regime.”  In other words, the world allowed the Nazis to define the swastika at the expense of hundreds of millions of people around the world who used it long before anybody ever heard of a Nazi, and to whom its meaning is contrary to everything the Nazis represent.  Hitler, at least to the extent of stigmatizing Native American, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Tibetan, etc. swastikas in this manner, therefore won that part of the Second World War even though he lost the rest.


Nazi Native Americans?  Not in 1909.

The Confederate Flag and the Right of Self-Defense

The states of the former Confederacy, unlike many Union strongholds like New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, believe that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says rather than what the likes of Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama want it to mean.  It means that people of all races have an inherent right to possess weapons for defense of home, family, and country.  The fact that Roof allegedly used a weapon with a seven-round New York SAFE Act-compliant magazine saved none of his unarmed victims, as he was able to reload several times.

What would have saved them would have been a controlled pair to Roof’s thoracic cavity followed by another to his head if he was still standing with a weapon in his hand.  This is a solution that blacks who might be afraid to go to church because of racist threats, and Jews who might be afraid to go to a synagogue because of Islamist terrorists, ought to consider.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/dont_let_dylann_roof_and_the_splc_define_the_confederate_flag.html#ixzz3eSFrxgv0