A Casualty of the Long March Through the Institutions

Unlike Europeans, Americans are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which means they have the right to speak freely — unless, of course, they want to keep their jobs.

The following report by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff recounts what happened to Karen Siegemund, the president of American Freedom Alliance.

A Casualty of the Long March Through the Institutions

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

I am currently finishing up another tour here in the United States, educating patriotic Americans about the state of free speech in Europe and how America’s First Amendment rights are under siege.

Two weeks ago I attended a conference hosted and organized by my dear friend Dr. Karen Siegemund, president of American Freedom Alliance, in Los Angeles. The topic of the conference was prescient in so many ways:

“The Long March Through the Institutions: The Left’s Revolution by Other Means”

The roster of knowledgeable speakers included David Horowitz, Trevor Loudon, Jim Simpson, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, Charlie Kirk, Michael Walsh, Bill Whittle, and many more. In short, Karen assembled an astounding line-up of experts on the subject matter who were able to educate the large crowd.

Little did she know it, but Karen was about to become the latest victim of the Left’s destruction of America’s liberties. Only a few hours after the end of this successful conference, Karen was told her teaching contract would not be renewed. She was fired for being too outspoken about her political views.

As Ann-Marie Murrell wrote at Politichicks:

For the past several years [Karen Siegemund] has been teaching Advanced Math and Ancient Greece at Le Lycée Français de Los Angeles, a private “dual language international” high school in Los Angeles. As an added bonus, she teaches these subjects in French.

[…]

Dr. Karen Siegemund should never have been fired (or “not renewed”) from her job simply because her employers didn’t believe the same way she believed. Karen probably didn’t like their politics either but that didn’t stop her from wanting to teach the children at that school. But that’s the difference between Totalitarians and true Americans. Americans believe in Freedom for all people. The ones stealing our Freedom of Speech only believe in freedom for a select few.

Continue reading

And Yet Another Symptom…

Once more Tucker Carlson’s people go out and about to film the homeless human wreckage on the West Coast while he adds commentary. I like the way he stays off the screen for the most part.

[I was under the impression he was a California native, but it turns out Carlson was born and raised in the D.C. area. Back in November, his home was attacked by a bunch of speech suppressors while his wife was there, alone. The Antifa mob managed to break the front door before police arrived.]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This time he opens with California’s boat people but then moves quickly on to Eugene, Oregon, where he finds some hope.

Eugene, a smaller city, has a college, making it a liberal bastion. But it also has a group of Vincent de Paul workers who have set up tents for the homeless. Unlike my experience with the Salvation Army – a hard-working group in Charlottesville – the Vincent de Paul workers take in the drunks and drugged out. That’s quite impressive and unusual. Like Jordan Peterson’s advice on how to take charge of your life, the workers do require that beds be made and personal gear be stored away. The large tents they use appear to be old military surplus equipment.

I wish they’d had a longer interview. When I was first placed in an orphanage, the whole routine was healing in the long run. And it included making our beds each morning. The experience made me love routine. This all-too-brief interview left me wanting to know more about the program. [For some reason, I keep thinking of an early poem of the Baron’s titled The Decay of the Social Fabric in Tidewater VA…can’t find it in my files, though.]

For those who are interested, here’s more information on St. Vinnie’s, as they call it.

Another Symptom of Our Growing Social Problem

This is the third in a series by Tucker Carlson on homelessness. He is focusing on the west coast, but the social evil is ubiquitous. [I searched in vain for the second part of the series yesterday. If anyone finds it, please leave a link in the comments.]

In my experience with the homeless, the issues he mentions – mental illness and broken families – are all too true. The roots of those causes are deep and difficult to unravel. For those I worked with who were using only their prescribed medications, family shunning was common and long-standing.

Very often mental illnesses don’t show up until mid-or-late adolescence. When it occurs, families are not prepared to deal with the attendant out-of-control behavior; their child has become a strange monster. Send a teenager to his room? He’ll break up the house. Impulsive, destructive behavior escalates as the mental problems increase. Unprepared families have no idea how to cope. For intact families not riven with their own unresolved issues, things can be turned around but it’s a painful process.

One grassroots group, NAMI, has been particularly effective in resourcing help. This is not a government bureaucracy:

NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, is the nation’s largest grassroots mental health organization dedicated to building better lives for the millions of Americans affected by mental illness.

What started as a small group of families gathered around a kitchen table in 1979 has blossomed into the nation’s leading voice on mental health. Today, we are an association of more than 500 local affiliates who work in your community to raise awareness and provide support and education that was not previously available to those in need.

I found our local group and wanted to attend so I could figure out how to effectively help my daughter. She died of a methadone overdose the day I’d chosen for my first visit. I never had the heart to go back.

Meanwhile, back in Seattle, there are unexpected consequences. One is
contaminated seafood:

As more and more American communities grapple with opioid addiction, the human toll of the epidemic has grown in both scope and severity. And now, scientists at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have found evidence that drug’s impact has literally flowed downstream to affect marine life, as well.

Specifically, they used mussels as a barometer of pollution in the waters off Seattle and discovered that oxycodone is now present enough in the marine environment there for shellfish to test positive.

The surge in homelessness has many causes. The hollowing out of the American family is one. And the loss of manufacturing jobs which led eventually to the opioid crisis is another. When meaning is lost, people will find substitutes.

I hope Tucker Carlson builds on what he learns about homelessness in America. And I also hope he addresses, however briefly, the surge in the “retired” population, many of whom live in their vans or cars, moving from job to job.

It’s not just a California/west coast problem.

Trump: Viktor Orbán Has Done the Right Thing on Immigration

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met with President Donald Trump in the White House on Monday. The president held a brief photo op and press conference during Mr. Orbán’s visit, at which the prime minister was able to say a few words. After that the reporters predictably peppered the president with questions about the issues du jour — notably the “trade war” with China.

However, someone has kindly created an excerpt from that presser focusing on Viktor Orbán’s remarks and President Trump’s response. Note the assumption by the “journalists” that Hungary is not a democratic country, and requires “reform”:

Hat tip: László.

Guy Bechor: Progressive Jews Are More Dangerous to Israel Than Iran

In the following TV panel discussion from Israel, the journalist Dr. Guy Bechor explains that American Jewish Progressives are the enemies of Israel and their fellow Jews, and should even be denied the right to return to Israel, since they are a danger to the Jewish state.

He also highlights the prominence of Progressive Jews in the “Russia collusion” conspiracy against President Donald Trump.

Many thanks to Rachel L for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Just a Symptom of Our Growing Social Problems

Tucker Carlson will have an ongoing feature this week, focusing on homelessness. It would appear he’s going to concentrate on the west coast, but it’s a problem everywhere.

Charlottesville, Virginia has a problem with homelessness and drug addiction, but they won’t advertise the fact. I used to work in a drop-in center a few blocks (and a whole world) away from that mess the city cooked up and then spewed out at the unsuspecting. I mean the theater of racial “unrest”, our modern version of the Leftist Theater of the Absurd.

As Carlson mentions, this whole thing started in the 60s with Kennedy’s ill-advised closing of mental hospitals and turning out its denizens into their communities to be preyed upon by the criminal class.

Old Sobersides

JLH sends the saga of Miz Hillary in verse form. One can only hope that the shade of Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (father of the Supreme Court justice) is not overly agitated tonight…

Old Sobersides
by JLH

Ay, tear her tatty logo down!
Too long has it made us sigh,
And many a face has had to frown
At what “justice” let go by.
Vince Foster, Seth Rich and others, too —
What is it they may have seen:
Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater all true,
In the service of the Queen?

Erupting bimbos, Tammy Wynette,
The little woman wasn’t pleased.
Hillary Care was not a good bet.
Nuclear secrets for the Chinese,
And who knew pork bellies could be so swell,
If their futures were bright enough?
And who knew the Russians would pay so well
For that radioactive stuff?

Now, a former first lady has little to do,
When hubby’s not home at night,
Unless public office comes into view…
Get that carpetbag packed up tight!
So she walks the Senate like one who belongs,
And fades right into the crowd:
How to look brave while going along,
And skim off whatever’s allowed.

When Bill said “Two for the price of one”
No one could have guessed the price.
This inexorable couple is just never done.
They are back like undaunted lice.
The only way to stop this first woman’s run:
A black man’s program of hope.
As Highlander says, “There can be only one”
And Hillary runs out of rope.

But all is not lost — to the victor come the spoiled.
Run the Department of State?
So what if you’re looking a little bit soiled —
After Kerry, who needs to be great?
First, our uranium buddies of old
Need a friendly re-start.
The wording is wrong, so we are told —
Google Translate’s not worth a… damn.

Her greatest achievement was Ghadaffi’s demise.
Some minor Americans died too.
Parents, wives and children apprised:
There was nothing we could do.
We came, we saw, we made a mess.
Move on; there’s nothing to see.
“What difference now if I should confess —
I’d get off on a guilty plea.”

This time is different, there is no Barack.
We all know that now it’s my turn
No one has the guts to mount an attack…
But I think I “Feel the Bern,”
Doesn’t he know everyone has been paid?
Why is he still around?
This is not how the game is played.
I’ll pound him into the ground.

So what if I fixed some things here and there?
He can whimper all he wants.
So what if he doesn’t think it’s been fair?
Who asked him to leave Vermont?
And now I am off to the race of my life,
And I’m running against a clown!
Dirt and rumor against him are rife,
He’ll likely be run out of town.

Hey! Why am I not way ahead right now!?
Where are these polls coming from?
Who are they talking to, anyhow:
Deplorables, reactionaries, dumb!
I KNEW it — that damned electoral thing —
Now it’s gone and cost me the race!
Who cares what tune the “flyovers” sing?
They’re a colossal waste of space!

I will not be Trumped by that arrogant jerk,
But my hands are not lily-white…
Oops, I mean: Now y’all gots to git to work,
‘cause we gots us a rilly tough fight…
Ze basket of deplorable sink zey have won over us;
We’ll show zem “Si, se puede, señor”…
And we are woman, just hear us cuss!…
And we are gayer than ever before!

Continue reading

Please Read This Book!

We’ve discussed the importance of American Betrayal here in the past, but JLH sends this reminder for those who have not yet read the book.

Please Read This Book!

by JLH

It’s the new McCarthyism! It’s a return to McCarthy!

I find this annoying but also amusing when I encounter it in the remarks of a left-leaning writer or politician. When I find it in the remarks of one of the many uninformed or oblivious as a parenthetical characterization, I am disappointed that there are so many of them.

But when I find it in the remarks of Republican members of Congress, or even in an essay in that most effective and informed conservative blog Breitbart, I vacillate between fury and the despair Kierkegaard referred to as “the sickness unto death.” How can it be that informed conservatives and constitutionalists are unaware of the serial vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy — “Tailgunner Joe,” the presumptive creator of the “Red Scare”? And the REALITY of what he was uncovering when he was smeared and forced into a corner… the most memorable moment of which may have come in the Army-McCarthy hearings, when the army’s attorney Joseph Welch, reproached McCarthy for offering the information that a young man in Welch’s firm’s employ belonged to a suspect organization: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” This cry of apparent outrage in defense of a member of his own team has become a shibboleth of McCarthy foes ever since, used as though it applied to everything he had done.

How can anyone not know of the work of the distinguished academic, M. Stanton Evans: Stalin’s Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History; or of Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and others. And if they were in fact ignorant of these and other figures who have offered a different perspective, how can they not know of Diana West’s 2013 book: American Betrayal: The Secret Assault On Our Nation’s Character.

Well, of course, it may be that “right-thinking” bookstore owners and librarians do not consider it fit for public display. The profit motive still works, though, as I found out when I ordered it through my local (need I say left-leaning, virtue-signaling) bookstore and, after reading it, donated it to my (ditto) library, because I knew they would not refuse a donation. For heaven’s sake, go find it in a public library, locate it on Amazon, just look it up online. But do not delay in finding and reading this meticulously annotated and devastating analysis of the McCarthy era, of the FDR administration, of everything you have not been told by all those who have an interest in keeping you ignorant and encouraging you to continue saying “McCarthyism” when you should be saying “socialism,” “elitism,” or “just plain damned ignorance.” So no one can say to you, “Have you no intelligence?”

Continue reading

Banning the Cannonballs

I frequently read prescriptive assertions that begin with the words “We should” or “We need to”. Since I generally hang out among fellow Deplorables, such sentences usually conclude with an action based on a right-wing policy position — “close the borders”, “deport all the Muslims”, “ban mosques”, “hang the globalists”, etc., etc.

I always ponder what the word “we” might refer to in such statements. Does it mean “Myself, my brother, my uncle, and a few of my friends”? “The congregation of my church”? “The United States Congress”? “The UN”? “The Provisional Tribunal of Justice established after the revolution finally takes place”?

I’ve written in the past about this mysterious “we” that needs or ought to do certain things that never actually get done. “We” need to do these things, but somehow “we” never do. Why is that?

The Progressive “we” is another matter. If you’re on the Left, one of the most important things “we” need to do is to institute arms control of one form or another. Whether it’s nuclear weapons, standing armies, or guns in the hands of private citizens, “we” need to get rid of them, to ensure that peace will reign. Just imagine… it’s easy if you try.

The most cherished anthem of arms control in the Progressive Liturgy is Bob Dylan’s song “Blowin’ in the Wind”, which contains these lines:

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?

You can tell it’s a hip song, because he drops the “g” from all his participles and reduces “and” to “’n’”.

I was in junior high school when I first heard it. Not Bob Dylan’s version, mind you — it would be several years before I heard the Bard of Greenwich Village sing one of his own songs — but the smash hit by Peter, Paul and Mary. Even back then, when I was a pencil-necked teenage geek, I understood that the sentiment in the song didn’t make any sense.

It was irrational, and ultimately meaningless. Nowadays I would call it “virtue-signalling”, but in 1963 it was just hip and cool and high-minded.

Let’s think about banning cannon balls. How would “we” do it?

“We” would have to include national governments in the process, so major military powers would be called on to negotiate a treaty. If one posits the existence of the United Nations, then it would have to be involved. After lengthy multilateral discussions, the Cannon Control Treaty would finally be signed by all parties and come into force. From then on, cannon balls would be forever banned.

Unfortunately, some years later the Central Asian nation of Ollistan secretly violates the terms of the treaty: its armament factories begin building caissons and casting barrels and balls to make cannons. When the intelligence services of major cannon-free nations learn about the violation, they’re in a quandary. How can they stop Ollistan’s cannons, when they have no cannons themselves? The only thing that could bring the violator to heel would be a bigger cannon.

This is where the UN comes in. If it doesn’t already exist, the cannon-free nations will have to sign a new treaty bringing it into existence. It will be granted the privilege of maintaining a large enough force of cannons so that any treaty-violators will be subdued before a single cannon ball can fly (other than a UN cannon ball, of course). A brand new state-of-the-art Supersized Nuclear Cannon is the preferred weapon in the UN’s new arsenal. It can stop any uppity cannon-making country in its tracks.

Take that, Ollistan! Problem solved.

The UN now has a vast stockpile of cannons that must be kept ready in case another violator appears. What to do with them in the meantime? It seems a shame to waste all that cannon-power.

Well, the nation of Bucolia has just elected a populist president who refuses to implement the UN’s mandated wetlands policy. Fortunately, his deplorable country has no cannons, so it’s a simple matter to reduce its capital city to a smoking crater. Which then becomes a wetland after the next monsoon.

Meanwhile, the nation of Orwellia has declined to admit its quota of UN-sponsored refugees. Just roll out Big Bertha, and all that shiny new border fencing is reduced to a mass of shattered concrete and twisted steel, allowing the puir wee migrant bairns unimpeded entry into the country.

Yes, those special UN cannons really come in handy for maintaining order and implementing public policy in a cannon-free world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

When I started this essay I didn’t intend to write a fable, but then I kind of wandered off track. So now I’ll return to it.

My point is that any prescriptive policy statement carries an implicit threat of coercive force to ensure its implementation. If “we” decide to prohibit, require, ban, mandate, or proscribe, the implication is that “we” will have the firepower to enforce compliance. If citizens are disinclined to do what’s required of them, or want to enjoy what is prohibited, then a massive state apparatus of coercion may become necessary, up to and including uniformed police, secret police, national police, security police, an army, a navy, an air force, electronic surveillance, drones, and satellite tracking systems. Oh, and also lots of cannons.

The above description applies to any mandates or prohibitions, regardless of ideology. Whether “we” demand conservative or progressive behavior by citizens, the enforcement of “our” demands implies a swollen, intrusive state. No matter what “we” want to impose on others, the less people want to do it, the more jackbooted thugs will be required to make them.

I’ll give you an example from the deplorable end of the spectrum. Suppose “we” decided to vet potential immigrants for their level of Islamic ideology, to determine whether they were dangerous to national security. Can you imagine the size of the federal agency that would have to be created to do the job? A veritable behemoth of bureaucracy, complete with civil service regulations, mandated procedures, record-keeping requirements, diversity officers, ombudsmen, and whistle-blower protections. It would grow bigger every year, and even so, 98.6% of all Muslim applicants would be admitted, because… Human Rights.

And I almost forgot: just as with all other federal agencies, a large proportion of its employees would carry firearms on the job.

On the other side of the political fence, if “we” ban assault weapons, “our” agents have to possess even more powerful weapons to take them away from people.

Or suppose a state government were to implement a law prohibiting any restrictions on the possession of firearms (fat chance!). Then suppose a locality within that state passes a law restricting the use of certain weapons. How would the state enforce its regulation, except through the use of superior firepower?

It seems an impossible idyll now, but the state used to be smaller and less powerful, at least here in the USA. Is there any way to reclaim that earlier environment?

Obviously, a government mandate is not the preferred method, or “we” would have to roll out the cannons to make sure it happens.

What conditions would be necessary for general liberty to re-established among a free people?

That’s a big topic. With luck, I’ll be able to return to it in a later essay.

Whose Ox?

The blatant difference between the media coverage of the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka and that given the Christchurch massacre illustrates what everybody already knows: the media and the political elite love Muslims and hate Christians — I mean, Easter worshippers. We’re not supposed to use the “C” word in public anymore.

But that’s not news. It’s a dog-bites-man story, so I won’t waste any more virtual ink on it. Instead I’d like to talk about a more subtle media preference that was revealed this past week in the differing coverage given to two attacks on religious minority groups.

The first was Tuesday’s vehicular attack on a group of pedestrians in the California town of Sunnyvale by a man named Isaiah Joel Peoples. Eight people were wounded in the attack, one of them grievously.

Mr. Peoples is a retired soldier and a veteran of the Afghan war. His mother told the press that he had been discharged early due to his PTSD, which was the only possible explanation for his actions. But Sunnyvale police say the suspect targeted his victims deliberately because he thought they were Muslims. A witness heard him saying “Thank you, Jesus, thank you Jesus” as he got out of his car.

The second attack occurred yesterday. A man named John Earnest entered the Chabad of Poway synagogue near San Diego and opened fire on the congregation, killing one person and wounding at least three others. The shooter was eventually apprehended by police.

Mr. Earnest is allegedly a Jew-hater who regards Donald Trump as a Zionist tool and a traitor to his race. He has posted anti-Jewish materials online, and even has a manifesto (I haven’t attempted to read it yet).

The second story received the kind of media coverage that you would expect, given that it was a deadly attack on a synagogue by a “white supremacist”. Yet the coverage of the first story, despite its anti-Muslim angle, was more muted.

Muslims and Jews are generally held in equal esteem as victims by the media. Given current political and demographic trends, Muslims may well surge past Jews* and become the preferred victim group. But for the moment the two are roughly equal.

I couldn’t understand why the Sunnyvale Islamophobe didn’t rate top headlines on every media outlet. Not only is he an American veteran who deliberately tried to kill Muslims, he’s a Easter worshipper — that is, the media finally have a Christian terrorist to point to, something they’ve been slavering for ever since 9-11.

So why aren’t the talking heads screaming about the incident? Why aren’t the spokescreatures for CAIR being given top billing on every news program to bewail the growth of Islamophobia in this country?

And then I saw the mug shot of Isaiah Peoples, and I understood why: he’s black.

Isaiah Joel Peoples doesn’t fit the Narrative. Yes, he’s an Easter-worshipper, but he can’t possibly be a white supremacist. Covering the story in detail would give the news anchors heartburn, so they’ve mostly ignored it.

If CAIR is shouting about the incident, they’re not getting any media attention. Vlad suggests that their apparent lack of outrage is a deliberate, pragmatic strategy, designed to avoid causing tensions in their alliance with the African-American community.

In any case, the Sunnyvale attack is in the process of being buried, while the Poway synagogue shooting is still major news.

* Dymphna is of the opinion that the pendulum has already swung: Muslims are preferred by the media, while Jews are deprecated.

As evidence she cites this cartoon of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump that was published in the international edition of The New York Times, the overseas outreach division of “America’s newspaper of record”:

Continue reading

A Lexicon for Politically Correct Multiculturalists

Many thanks to Michael Copeland for these useful PC/MC definitions.

Translations

Community cohesion:   Privilege for muslims
Sensitivity:   Self-censorship
Diversity:   Elimination of indigenous culture
Inclusive:   Excluding indigenous residents
Multiculturalism:   Apartheid
Interfaith outreach:   Inflexibility
Vibrant:   Noise pollution, litter
Exciting:   Unsafe
Diverse:   Non-indigenous
Kaleidoscopic:   No English spoken
Enrichment:   Rape gangs, robberies, assaults
Asian:   Muslim 
Respect:   Fear 
Golden Age:   Centuries of slaughter, destruction, and cultural annihilation 
Search and Rescue:   Collusion with people-traffickers
 

I Take This Woman…

Tabitha Korol’s latest guest-essay takes a look at the plight of women under Islam.

I take this woman…

by Tabitha Korol

The internet provides everything you’d want to know about courtships, weddings, married life, but few of them include the instructions on wife-beating. There is a brief but enlightening film, produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and posted on Jihad Watch, of a Muslim sociologist who demonstrates the “proper” wife-beating technique. Of course, the sociologist assures his audience that Islam is merciful, and that the man, the head of the household, should not have to beat his wife every day, and to do so lightly, never to hit her face or head, bruise, break bones or cause blood to flow (m10:12, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law — ROTT). But the cautionary statement rings hollow when the wife’s bruises will never be seen because she must be covered from head to toe. And, should she become inured to the discipline’s sameness, there are other means of control and punishment available to him, all sanctioned by The Religion of Peace.

When is it necessary to beat one’s wife? The sociologist did posit that there are women who prefer domineering, authoritative, and even violent husbands. For the most part, however, beatings are needed when the wife has disobeyed him and the strict Islamic rules of marriage. She may have refused to wear a hijab (m:2:7-8, ROTT) or the finery he chose for her; or fancied attending school with the hope of one day having a career and earning a wage. She may have wanted to leave the house unaccompanied or without her husband’s permission; she is literally under house arrest.

The Shari’a marriage contract contains her virginity status, the dowry amount, and grants sexual intercourse rights to the male, giving him total control over his wife or wives. Should she refuse his advances, be too ill or too young to have sex, or if she engages in sex with another man or was raped, he could stop her daily (financial) maintenance. The woman is considered a she-devil, equal to a domestic animal, harmful and with crooked character. Therefore, he may disallow her to sleep in his bed; or lock her in a room, naked, and without food. Should he choose to enact a simple divorce by repeating “I divorce you” three times — she may receive no more than three months’ maintenance and could lose her children older than age seven.

The Muslim husband has the right to accuse her of adultery, in which case he might gather his friends and neighbors together to bury her almost up to her shoulders and stone her to death. The film The Stoning of Soraya M portrays the true story of Soraya, in Iran, whose husband Ali convinced their two sons and the townsfolk that she was committing adultery so that he could marry a 14-year-old girl. The Internet has an actual film of a Syrian woman being stoned to death by ISIS. About four women per day are murdered in “stove bursts” in Pakistan, by husbands or in-laws who claim the wives’ scarves caught fire while they were cooking.

Continue reading

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

MC weighs in on all the latest trendy socialist initiatives that plague the 21st-century body politic in the West.

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

by MC

The idea of child abuse is defined by a Christian doctrine based upon the words of Yahushua (Jesus), “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It goes on to explain that those who meddle with these children of the kingdom will suffer a fate so bad that they should drown themselves.

It is quite graphic and it is inbuilt into the Christian culture.

So, if we step outside the Christian culture we need to beware, for many a baby is thrown out when we vote for either Islam or humanism.

In the period following the Russian revolution in 1917 we have some graphic accounts of child abuse. Maxim Gorky (or maybe Orlando Figes quoting Gorky) describes starving little girls lifting up their skirts and exposing themselves in the hope of attracting the attention of someone who could give them a crust of bread in return for favours. These children were just the useless human rubble left in the street after the purging of the class enemy. They were “useless eaters”, as Adolf called them in his identical revolution two decades later.

The various socialist revolutions discarded (or worse) many children, for Karl Marx wrote no scriptures specifically about protecting children.

I have never understood Ali Bakr (the first Caliph after the prophet) giving his six year old daughter to a man he must have known to be a sexual predator, but then there is no protection for children in Islam either.

When we step away from Judeo-Christianity we leave behind some very profound doctrines.

The French revolution started as a revolt against the abuses of the Aristocracy and Church leaders who had abandoned their calling at the behest of those same Aristos, for they believed that the ten commandments no longer applied to those of the ‘important’ bloodlines; they were only for the peasants.

In the power vacuum that followed the storming of the Bastille, a series of new political religions based upon humanism and the goddess of reason took hold, so the tumbrels rumbled, the drums rolled — as did the heads of the many of the innocent — and children starved.

The Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian principles establish a framework that has worked and has produced a working environment which, although not perfect, has created a peak of civilization, and it is only in a civilized state that child abuse can even be defined.

But socialists, of course, think they can do better, and that by demolishing the house built on rock, they can replace it with something more fair and more equal but built on the sands of toleration and moral relativity. And that this time it will not fail like on every other occasion man has experimented with self-godship.

What they cannot seem to understand is that it was Judeo-Christianity that was the real healing and beneficial revolution, and that it is their new socialism that is the same old, same old cruelty and abuse.

Continue reading

Assange at Long Last

This is one of those cases where the elites rule while Constitutional law and/or due process is ignored in favor of cheap tricks.

It remains to be seen what Trump’s Justice Department will do with a native-born Australian, now a citizen of Ecuador. To punish Assange is to single him out, especially after our long history of complicity with security leaks, the most egregious of which date back to Nixon’s time in office but none of those can be compared to the on-going attempt to bring down Trump.

Turley says we bribed Ecuador to stand down on and let us have him. Bagged and gagged by now.

Let’s see if the MSM wax double standards on the story…anything you find, please link in the comments.