French hardline union calls for more pension protests

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:46 PM PT — Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Protesters in France are advocating for more strikes amid plans to reform the country’s pension system. The leader of prominent labor union ‘La CGT’ is urging all workers to join the demonstrations this week.

The new year also brought the second month

of strikes as protesters pushed back against the French president’s single system pension plan. The protests have yet to change his goals.
He reiterated his position on pension reform in a New Year’s Eve address earlier this week.

“Calm should always win against conflict. To calm down does not mean to give up, but to respect each other regardless of disagreements. My only guide is and will be the interest of our country, our capacity to guarantee the best pensions for our elders and the defense of those who don’t always have it easy, to have their voices heard, meaning our children.” – Emmanuel Macron, President of France

Macron said he believes a compromise can be made with union workers while still implementing his plans.
https://www.oann.com/french-hardline-union-calls-for-more-pension-protests/

President Trump Announces Date for Signing U.S-China Phase-One Trade Agreement

credit: sundance at CTH

Earlier today, via Tweet, President Trump announced the ‘phase-one’ agreement between the U.S. and China will be signed January 15, 2020.

As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer previously stated this very challenging agreement will be the first-ever attempted trade deal between a state-run economy and a free-market economy.   It will take time to see if communist China will actually follow-through on the terms and conditions.

Ambassador Lighthizer noted the principle challenge is generating an enforceable set of standards -within a written agreement- between a totally controlled communist economic system (China) and a free-market system (USA). No other nation has ever tried, and there is no preexisting trade agreement to facilitate a mapping. What Lighthizer was/is constructing will be what all nations will start to use going forward. This is historic stuff.

Arguably, next to President Trump, USTR Lighthizer is one of the most consequential members of the administration. What he was/is constructing, with the guidance of President Trump, is going to influence generations of Americans.

U.S. Sends New Contingent of 4,000 Troops into Iraq

credit: sundance at CTH

First, the explanation from former CIA Director, current Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo:

.

Does this “escalation” have a familiar feel about it?

Let’s review the timeline:

A joint U.S. DoD, CIA and State Department effort initiated the background for an impeachment effort against U.S. President Donald Trump.

♦ A DoD Lt. Colonel named Alexander Vindman (Defense Dept.) sends false information to CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (CIA)…. that kick-starts a manipulated anonymous whistle-blower complaint through congress and the intelligence inspector general… which precedes a litany of U.S. foreign service operatives (State Dept.) testifying against President Trump.

Despite the known compromise and his certain inability to do his job, the National Security Staffer, Lt. Col. Vindman, is not removed from his position inside the White House National Security Council by Joint Chief’s Chairman Mark Milley.

♦ At the same time Vindman’s activity hits the headlines, U.S. Secretary of Navy Richard Spencer extorts the White House over President Trump’s decision to grant clemency for U.S. Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher.   Spencer offers to drop the Trident review for Gallagher if President Trump backs away from the issue.

After public exposure of the extortion, Defense Secretary Mark Esper is forced to fire Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.  Using Spencer’s firing as the starting point, a contingent of former flag officers mount a mass-media campaign against President Trump.  Joint Chief’s Chairman Mark Milley remains silent.

[NOTE: President Trump has an administration-wide military policy of allowing field commanders to make decisions closer to combat operations.  Offensive military engagement requires Commander-in-Chief approval, defensive operations do not.]

♦ U.S. officials and a coalition of Afghanistan tribal leaders representing the Taliban in Afghanistan announce a joint cease-fire as terms of U.S. withdrawal are discussed.

♦ On the same day the U.S-Afghanistan ceasefire agreement is announced, Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper and JCS Mark Milley travel to Mar-a-Lago to brief President Trump on a range of new airstrikes carried out in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq as retaliation for an Iranian proxy militia attack against a U.S. base in Kirkuk, Iraq, that killed an “American contractor”.

A U.S. civilian contractor was killed and several service members and Iraqi personnel injured Friday in a rocket attack on a base in Iraq, military officials said.

The attack on the base in Kirkuk occurred Friday morning, said Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, which is tasked with fighting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. The base is hosting coalition troops, the military said in a statement.  –  Kirkuk is in the northeastern part of the country, south of Erbil. (LINK)

President Trump is silent for three days as Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper and JCS Milley inform the media of new issues in/around Iraq.

The evidence of Iranian involvement against the Kirkuk base is a located abandoned truck with unfired rockets -with Iranian labels- located near the origination of the attack.

♦ The U.S. response to the airbase attack takes place 300+ miles from the Kirkuk incident.  Secretary Pompeo calls the retaliatory strikes “defensive” operations against Iranian -back proxy militias.

The Department of Defense took offensive actions in defense of our personnel and interests in Iraq by launching F-15 Strike Eagles against five targets associated with Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is an Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia group. The targets we attacked included three targets in Western Iraq and two targets in Eastern Syria that were either command and control facilities or weapons caches for Kata’ib Hezbollah.

~Def Sec Esper

♦ Iranian-inspired proxies inside Iraq then use the U.S. retaliatory strikes to mount a protest against the U.S. embassy in/around the “green zone” in Iraq.   Chaos ensues.  U.S. troops are dispatched to reinforce the massive embassy compound.

♦ As a result of the increased risk and hostility to U.S. interests in/around the U.S. embassy in Iraq; and as a result of escalating friction caused by the original Iranian-militia attack; and as a result of the two U.S. air strikes in response to that initial attack; and out of an abundance of caution that our U.S. embassy in Iraq does not turn into another Benghazi-like outcome; we are now sending 4,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq.

All of this, we are told, is the result of rockets fired into an airbase in Kirkuk by “Iranian” militia; who our intelligence services identified from an abandoned truck and un-fired missiles with Iranian stickers.

You decide…

.

11 Times Hollywood Leftists Fantasized About Violence Against Trump, GOP in 2019

Article by Hannah Bleau in "Breitbart":

Left-wing Hollywood celebrities exhibited advanced levels of unmitigated rage against President Donald Trump, his family, and those who support him, and openly detailed their violent fantasies throughout the year.

Several leftists in Hollywood were confident that the Mueller report, released this year, would fulfill their wishes of taking down the president. However, after the report came out, indicating no collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, some took their rage up a notch and expressed their violent fantasies for all to see.

Here are some of the worst examples of that rage.

1. Bette Midler openly wished for someone to “shiv” or “stab” Trump.

She wrote the tweet in reaction to Trump’s surprise visit to the McLean Bible Church in Wolf Trap, Virginia, in June.

“He actually looks better here! Maybe someone in his camp can gently give him a shiv. I mean, shove,” she wrote in the now-deleted tweet.

2. Months later, the Broadway star praised the man who violently attacked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) — an attack that resulted in injuries, including broken ribs and bruised lungs.
“I DO NOT promote violence but… Rand Paul says the Kurds are being ‘ingrates’ for taking their frustrations out on US troops. Which is a good reminder for us all to be more grateful for the neighbor who beat the shit out of Rand Paul,” Midler wrote in a now-deleted tweet.

3. Barbra Streisand shared an image depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) killing Trump.

The Grammy-winning singer shared an image of Pelosi impaling Trump with the heel of her shoe. She never deleted the graphic tweet.

Left-wing Hollywood celebrities exhibited advanced levels of unmitigated rage against President Donald Trump, his family, and those who support him, and openly detailed their violent fantasies throughout the year.

Several leftists in Hollywood were confident that the Mueller report, released this year, would fulfill their wishes of taking down the president. However, after the report came out, indicating no collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, some took their rage up a notch and expressed their violent fantasies for all to see.

Here are some of the worst examples of that rage.
1. Bette Midler openly wished for someone to “shiv” or “stab” Trump.
She wrote the tweet in reaction to Trump’s surprise visit to the McLean Bible Church in Wolf Trap, Virginia, in June.

“He actually looks better here! Maybe someone in his camp can gently give him a shiv. I mean, shove,” she wrote in the now-deleted tweet.

2. Months later, the Broadway star praised the man who violently attacked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) — an attack that resulted in injuries, including broken ribs and bruised lungs.
“I DO NOT promote violence but… Rand Paul says the Kurds are being ‘ingrates’ for taking their frustrations out on US troops. Which is a good reminder for us all to be more grateful for the neighbor who beat the shit out of Rand Paul,” Midler wrote in a now-deleted tweet.

3. Barbra Streisand shared an image depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) killing Trump.

Actress Barbara Streisand attends the premiere of Paramount Pictures’ ‘The Guilt Trip at Regency Village Theatre on December 11, 2012 in Westwood, California. (Jason Merritt/Getty Images)

The Grammy-winning singer shared an image of Pelosi impaling Trump with the heel of her shoe. She never deleted the graphic tweet.

 4.  Far-left actor Jim Carrey depicted Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey being killed in an abortion.

Carrey opted to weigh in on Alabama’s abortion law by posting a graphic image of Ivey, who signed the pro-life Human Life Protection Act, being sucked into a tube.

“I think If you’re going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama,” Carrey wrote.
He also shared an image depicting Pelosi crushing Trump’s testicles.
5. Robert de Niro openly wished to see Trump hit in the face with a “bag of shit.”

The Irishman actor outlined his fantasy during an appearance on Rumble with Michael Moore in December.
“Pigs have dignity. He has no dignity. He is a disgrace to the human race,” de Niro said.
“I’d like to see a bag of shit right in his face. Hit him right in the face like that, and let the picture go all over the world,” he continued.

6. Cher wished for Trump to be “locked in a hot cage with dirty water.”

The pop singer weighed in on the summer controversy on ICE detentions and toed the Democrat Party line, tweeting a flurry of unsubstantiated accusations.

Cher ✔ @cher

Our President At Work.
Saw Video Of Baby In
Custody.Theres Breakout of Chickenpox,Measles,Children Live outdoors in Texas heat,
Bad food,Dirty Water,unsanitary Conditions,Physical,Emotional,Sexual Abuse.

 trumps a psychotic Ass. Wish He Was Locked In Hot Cage,With Dirty Water



7. Alec Baldwin included Trump physically falling as one of his Christmas wishes.

“My Christmas wishes are as follows,” the Saturday Night Live actor tweeted in part, adding, “I hope some of the BBQ sauce in Trump’s hair slides off, he trips and falls and can’t run.”

HABFoundation ✔ @ABFalecbaldwin

My Christmas wishes are as follows:

- Peace/love (Ringo style) 2 all of my loved 1s + beyond.

- the Dem nom makes Climate Change number 1 priority

- Patrick Mahomes and KC win it all

- I hope some of the BBQ sauce in Trump’s hair slides off, he trips and falls and can’t run.

8. Actor Jeff Daniels said Trump needed a challenger who could “punch him in the face.”

During an appearance on The Late Show in July, the To Kill A Mockingbird actor said Trump’s challenger needed to be someone who could “punch him in the face.”
“You know, I — whittle it down, but we need somebody that can take this guy on, that can punch him in the face,” he said.

9. Stephen Colbert fantasized of choking Attorney General William Barr.

The Late Show host accused the attorney general of promoting a “bucket of lies” on the Mueller report and said on his show, “Happy Bill Barr Day, everybody! I got you the traditional gift: a bucket of lies.”
“It was incredibly frustrating to watch — filled with legalistic hair-splitting and political ass-covering. I’d say it made me want to wring his neck but I’d need five more hands,” he continued.

10. Actor Mickey Rourke vowed to give the president a “left hook from hell.”

The former boxer made the remarks in a profanity-laced video released in the fall, promising that Trump would one day “feel” him if they ever ran into each other.
“That piece of shit that’s sitting in the White House, that pussy, that lying cocksucker. That no-good fucking two-faced fucking piece of shit,” Rourke said in the video. “He said some really nasty things about the two of us. And you know what? It’s personal. There’s gonna be a day where he ain’t president, and we’re gonna bump into each other. And you’re gonna feel me.”
“What do you think? A left hook from hell,” he continued.
“What goes up, goes down, and when it goes down like a motherfucker,” he added. “You hear me? You’re going to feel me. What you said about the two of us… You’re gonna feel me.”

11. Tom Arnold fantasized standing over Donald Trump Jr.’s corpse.

In a Twitter thread surrounding a photo featuring Trump trophy hunting, the far-left actor stated that he was “looking forward to the day I’m standing over him wearing my bullet belt & safari khakis, my cartoon sized Daniel Boone buck knife in one hand his teeny tiny tail in the other..”

Rachel McKibbens ✔ @RachelMcKibbens

 · Aug 2, 2019

Replying to @TomArnold

What a coward. Look at him standing there, alone, like everyone’s least favorite uncle.

Tom Arnold ✔ @TomArnold

Looking forward to the day I’m standing over him wearing my bullet belt & safari khakis, my cartoon sized Daniel Boone buck knife in one hand his his teeny tiny tail in the other..

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/01/01/11-times-hollywood-leftists-fantasized-about-violence-against-trump-gop-in-2019/ 

 

Can the Union Endure?

 Article by Christopher Skeet in "The American Thinker":

At this point, Red and Blue America are not even speaking the same language.  We stand near the point of what divorce lawyers term “irreconcilable differences.”  In increasingly strident and self-assured tones, the Left believes it is morally superior, intellectually untouchable, and wholly justified in pursuing whatever extralegal, corrupt, or violent methods available to implement their ideology. 

Talk of a breaking point has been circling conservative circles for some time, with three tangible options arising from the chatter: 

1) continued focus on barely winning elections, appointing "conservative" judges that uphold Obamacare, keeping Arizona from going blue, etc.;

2) a “divorce” of sorts that peaceably divides the United States into permanent blue and red territories, or;

3) civil war. 

The first option clearly is the best. It is the least disruptive and preserves the Union and the Constitution, the goal that Abraham Lincoln fought our bloodiest war to support.

But what if it is sabotaged?  Trump is an anomaly from both the Democrat and Republican point of view.  His no-holds-barred street fighting style has been a welcome change for many Republican voters.  But once his presidency ends, is there likely to be a Trump-like figure?   Rest assured, the GOP Establishment is busy re-calibrating its primary process that “allowed” Trump to win the nomination to begin with.  Republican voters thinking they won’t attempt to force-feed us a Romney or Jeb! next time around are fooling themselves.

At a minimum, in order to keep them honest, we need to be able to consider the other options.

The second option, that of an amicable divorce between red and blue states (and allowing for counties to switch states) seems the best option towards the preservation of the American ideal.  While true that the United States of America would lose some coastline and a few radical hotbeds to the newfound Socialist Republics of Wokestan, we could permanently consolidate our strongholds, restructure our judiciary, clean the Augean stables we call public schooling, and amend our Constitution with stronger protections.

Such a “divorce” would be messy.  Questions of interstate travel, resources, airspace regulation, migration control, and a million unforeseeable disputes would need to be hashed out before we were able to cut away the deadwood.  But it’s doable.  Europe is in the throes of a polygamous divorce, but it is proceeding bumpily along.  Even Sudan pulled it off.

The problem is the Left probably wouldn't agree to a divorce.  It will play the part of the jealous, manipulative, control freak husband who never loved his wife, but rather savored the power he exerted over her.  The Left will delay, obfuscate, and resist divorce at all costs, even if the Right unilaterally gave up the sports car, the big screen TV, and the dog in an attempt to cut loose as quickly as possible.

The economy would unfortunately be, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, a "known unknown."  We would have to prepare for a temporary state of flux.  We lose a fair amount of ports, transportation hubs, and financial sectors.  The world's two largest stock exchanges (the NYSE and NADSAQ), each of which trade over one trillion dollars a month, are both located in New York City.  Silicon Valley alone, were it its own nation, would be one of the world's richest and most productive. 

But though we would have to brace ourselves to find our economic footing, we would not be without our own advantages.  The Bakken Formation of North Dakota alone is estimated to hold 30 to 40 billion barrels of recoverable oil.  Of the 31 states that currently produce oil, 25 (over 82% of total production) went for Trump in 2016.  In addition, the United States has seen its best manufacturing boom in three decades, with over 500,000 manufacturing jobs created since Trump took office.  In the third quarter of 2019, manufacturers' biggest concern was a shortage of skilled labor to keep up with hiring demands.  This is not the concern of an industry in trouble.

Our new economy would be stabilized by stable tax policy, deregulation, America-first trade negotiations, audits of the Federal Reserve (assuming we keep it), and deference to supply-side, free market principles.  And assuming Wokestan pursued the socialistic policies they preach, now unencumbered by such antiquated annoyances like constitutions and elections, their economy would free fall. 

Silicon Valley is already bleeding residents to more tax-friendly states like Colorado, Texas, and North Carolina.  Predictably, problems arise when they refuse to concede that their progressive policies were what caused their home state to go bankrupt.  In our new America, gone would be the days when blue state progressives are allowed to migrate to red states, bringing their ignorant voting patterns with them.  America could focus on God, freedom, family, and productivity.  Wokestan could focus on socialism, homeless encampments, needle programs, and post-birth abortions.  A wall would surely be built, either by us to keep them out, or by them to keep them in.

The third option is civil war.

Suffice to say, victory in such a war would be a foregone conclusion.  Antifa punks fancy themselves brave while terrorizing progressive cities whose socialist mayors green light their thuggery, but when met with actual force they always skitter away.  In a civil war, during which the American side will enjoy the support and firepower of the vast majority of the military, the police, the food and energy sectors, most of the blue-collar class, and over 100 million gun owners, it's doubtful gaggles of black-masked, androgynous incels would offer much “resistance.” 

We won the first Civil War, and we would win a second.  This time around, the slavers have no Robert Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or James Longstreet, but rather the likes of Messers Manning, Bergdahl, and Vindman.  Long gone are the days when Trotsky led the Red Army full of dedicated shock troops into battle.  Today's Left lacks the discipline, the courage, and the spirit of self-sacrifice necessary to muster up enough volunteers for a national army.  Men who micturate aghast at the torment of doing their own laundry don't win wars.

Still, I would argue against this path, which can and always does lead to unintended consequences.  Increasing numbers of conservative thinkers appear open to the idea of civil war.  Most do so hesitatingly, but others seem to relish the prospect, and chortle at the idea of plunging the rest of us into the abyss.

Even for the winning side, the cost of both innocent victims and the quality of life endured by the survivors is far greater than those clamoring for war care to admit.  Internet tough guys who’ve never seen what a bullet does to human flesh can let me know in the "Comments" section just how big of a pansy I am.  That’s fine.  But to more mature readers who ponder their own capabilities for wanton bloodshed more judiciously, I implore you to seriously reckon the ramifications upon our civilian population that civil war would entail.  Sherman’s March to the Sea will seem, by comparison, a sweet dream.  

Civil war in present-day America would not consist of professional armies mowing each other down across empty fields.  It would be a house-to-house, street-by-street massacre, more akin to Hotel Rwanda than the battlefields of the American or even the Russian and Spanish civil wars. 

The majority of the fighting would be carried out not by professional armies, but by private citizens, vigilantes, partisans, ad hoc neighborhood units, and the like.  People on both sides would use the breakdown of order to settle private scores and commit crimes of opportunity.  Others would kill indiscriminately based on “offenses” such as voting records, yard signs, etc. 

Schools would close.  Hospitals would become graveyards for the untreated.  Water purification plants, oil refineries, and transportation hubs would be sabotaged.  Even in red states, food and energy supplies would be unreliable.  Sympathizers would be targeted, mobs would destroy, and homes would burn.  Bombings that bedeviled Great Britain during the Troubles or present-day Afghanistan would become the norm here. 

I freely admit this is all conjecture.  Maybe it will be Grenada 2.0, like the neo-cons told us Iraq and Afghanistan would be.  But when contemplating war, especially war in our own streets and neighborhoods, it behooves us to err on the side of caution.  Wars usually go worse than predicted, and we have no idea what it would unleash here.  Despite the aforementioned advantages we would retain, the last century has proven that the Left possesses an unfathomable capacity for atrocity, cruelty, and mass murder in the furtherance of its ideology.  Progressives will burn this nation to the ground before letting anyone enjoy it free from their benevolence.  They wouldn't hesitate to murder their own children on their altars, and would hesitate even less about murdering yours. 

In between today and this hypothetical civil war is the option of divorce.  Knowing the Left, it will only be dragged to the arbitration table kicking and screaming.  But we should at least attempt it before delving blindfolded into slaughter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/can_the_union_endure.html 

 

2016 presidential election by precincts (via Citylab)

Trump list shows 319 'results' and promises kept in three years

Analysis by Paul Bedard at Washington Examiner

One month shy of completing three years in office, President Trump has fulfilled or is making significant progress on most of his 2016 campaign promises, which aides said give him a strong reelection argument to counter his impeachment by a bitterly partisan House last week.

As the president and his team ready for the 2020 campaign at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, officials said it would be built on the administration's achievements list of 15 categories and 319 “results.”

Vice President Mike Pence told Secrets that the message is simple: “Promises made, promises kept.” Pence, who has already hit the campaign trail in a specially outfitted Trump-Pence bus, added, “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are living in a stronger and more secure America with the best economy in the history of this country.”

In looking at the extensive administration “results” list provided to Secrets, pollster Jonathan Zogby said, “You really see the genesis of why Trump was elected in 2016 and will probably not be hampered by the Democratic impeachment and wins reelection in 2020.

Certainly, he will need a big list to overcome being only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. But Trump appears to be starting with polls on his side, many showing that a majority want him punished but not removed from office and others showing that voters don’t believe any of the top Democratic candidates can beat the Republican.

“If things continue the way they are until Election Day, it’s hard to see how Trump can lose, and it might even become more clear to all voters as to why the Democrats rushed a partisan impeachment of a president who has delivered on a lot of campaign promises,” Zogby added.

The list provided to Secrets is the latest update of initiatives, executive orders, accomplishments, results, and brags with a focus on the improved economy, trade, energy independence, job creation, cuts to illegal immigration, the president’s America First foreign policy, help for veterans, cutting eight regulations for every new one, packing courts with conservatives, and Trump's record of becoming the nation’s most anti-abortion chief executive.

It also charted Trump's successes in killing more than a dozen major Obama-era initiatives.

Officials said the list would be longer if key agency initiatives were also included, such as the Department of Transportation’s move to boost rural infrastructure and the Interior Department’s expansion of areas open for hikers, hunters, and anglers.

Critics of the president have claimed that his achievements are overshadowed by multiple court setbacks, tussles with foreign leaders, an exploding deficit, and the Democrat’s investigations. But his supporters point to just the last few weeks when, as he was being impeached, he won some of his biggest policy victories, such as agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and creation of the Space Force.

Presidential historian Doug Wead said: "Historians of the future will come racing back to this Trump era with amazement. The list of presidents on either side will be a boring blur by comparison. Of course, the economic numbers from the Trump time will be telling. They don't lie. And they point to a great presidency."

Pence suggested that his and Trump’s bid to improve the country are most important to voters, and he regularly uses his campaign stops to point that out.

He told Secrets: “Over the past three years, we’ve continued to deliver on our promise to put American workers and American jobs first: We’ve cut taxes, rolled back regulations, and fought for reciprocal trade. In the past three years, seven million new jobs have been created, wages are rising at record pace, and unemployment is at a 50-year low. We negotiated a new strong pro-American trade deal with China and the USMCA, and created the Space Force. We’ve continued our commitment to rebuilding our military, standing with our allies, standing up to our enemies, taking on ISIS, reducing illegal crossings by 75% since May, and confirming more than 170 conservatives to our federal courts — including two Supreme Court justices.”

And Zogby said: “The impeachment of Trump will play little into how voters decide who should be president in 2020. Remember, it's the economy stupid, and you can't impeach that.”

The Trump "results" release provided to Secrets is below.

Economic vs. Cultural Marxism: The Most Important Distinction

 Article by Steven Kessler in "The American Thinker":

Many on both ends of the political spectrum are aware of the fact that social justice is simply Marxism, masquerading as a new ideological movement.  Like Marxism, social justice's goal is to make the world a more balanced and equitable place.

As Marx phrased it in Das Kapital, "[i]n order to establish equality, we must first establish inequality" (1).  By finding the inequalities of the world, the Marxist can then begin eliminating the obstacles that impede equality.  The more of these sources of inequality the Marxist eliminates, the closer we move to an equitable socialist utopia.  This is why Marx was so adamant about abolishing certain fixtures of society.

Among the ills of society perpetuating inequality that need abolition, according to Marx, were history, private property, the family, eternal truths, nations and borders, and religion (2).  By destroying these sources of inequality, the Marxist is one step closer to the equitable world the Marxist knows is possible.  Marx believed that economic issues are the driving force of conflict in the world (3).  Eliminating class structure was the central goal of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Marx's Manifesto influenced a group of intellectuals known as "The Frankfurt School" (4), who expanded on Marx's foundational premises.  They shifted the front from class to cultural struggle.  One of these intellectuals, György Lukács, is credited as the first person to advocate for the application of Marx's economic principles to cultural struggles: "he justified culture to the Marxists by showing how to condemn it in Marxist terms. And in doing so ... he provided crucial concepts to ... the thinkers of the Frankfurt School" (5).

The Frankfurt Schoolers elaborated on and furthered Lukács's cultural Marxism.  While the foundational tenets of economic Marxism are still present in their cultural Marxist works, there is a tenet that militates more with cultural than economic Marxism.  In shifting fronts from class to culture, a different aspect of Marxism mandates emphasis.

That aspect is Marx's desire to abolish individuality.  As Marx himself wrote: "And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!" (6).  The social justice warriors of today are using this tenet of Marxism most frequently and strongly in their quest to create an equitable society.

The modern social justice advocate uses the abolition of individuality as a tool to strip human beings of their individuality and bifurcate society.  A bifurcation is a logical fallacy where a person makes things one or another, with no area in between.  For example, a bifurcation would be the faulty assumption of saying a person is either a Trump-supporter or a Hillary-supporter.  What about those who like Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz?  What about those who like both Trump and Hillary?  What about those who like neither?

For Marx, his bifurcation was the bourgeois versus the proletariat.  You were either a rich person or a working stiff.  There was no in between.  For the social justice warrior, you are either privileged or oppressed.  Look at the diagram below for a visual interpretation of the bifurcation the social justice warrior uses (7):

This diagram is the axis of privilege versus oppression. You're either privileged or oppressed, with little to no in between.  The more demographic characteristics one has from the privilege side, the more unfair advantages he has in life that are unearned (8).  These unearned advantages must be taken from the privileged and given to the oppressed (9).  This is where the abolition of individuality really comes into the picture.

Thomas Sowell, visionary economist, referred to social justice as "the quest for cosmic justice" (1999) (10).  He articulated that:

One of the many contrasts between traditional justice and cosmic justice is that traditional justice involves the rules under which flesh-and-blood human beings interact, while cosmic justice encompasses not only contemporary individuals and groups, but also group abstractions extending over generations, or even centuries. (11)

Social justice is not just about living individuals involved in the current world; rather, it is about abstractions, generalizations, and the past.  Sowell explained that "cosmic justice must be hand-made by holders of power who impose their own decision on how these flesh-and-blood individuals should be categorized into abstraction, and how these abstractions should then be forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders" (12).

The social justice–Marxist strips the individual of individuality and then turns the person into an abstraction.  If a human being is an individual, then we can be held accountable only for our own actions; we cannot be held accountable for the actions of another person, let alone the actions of a group of people who lived and died long before our time.  If we are not individuals, then we can be turned into abstractions.  As abstractions, we can then be blamed for the actions of others who classify as members of these abstractions.  Those in power are the ones dictating the terms of these abstractions.

For an example of this, take race relations.  If I am an individual, I had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, waging war with the American Indians, or anyone who did anything hundreds of years before I was born.  However, if my individuality is abolished, I am not a unique individual with specific characteristics.  I can be broken down into an abstraction designated by those in power.

When the rubber meets the road between theory and practice, it looks something like this: "you're a straight white male, and straight white males have committed crimes against people of color, therefore you have committed crimes against people color."  Knowing the Marxist tenet driving this, the implicit basis for stripping white males of privilege and then assigning those privileges to people of color is no longer camouflaged. 

Sowell really understood the latent heart of the issue: "It is about putting particular segments of society in the position that they would have been in but for some undeserved misfortune" (13).  Sowell astutely recognized that it is not about real justice, but rather about an ideological matrix built to take things away from one segment of the population and give them to another.  Sowell concluded this thought by saying, "This conception of fairness requires that third parties must wield the power to control outcomes" (14).

These third parties are the politicians, academics, movie stars, and athletes.  These people are using Marxism, many without even knowing it, to advance certain peoples and ideas, while simultaneously penalizing others for issues they are not responsible for.

This is possible only by abolishing individuality.  In a world with individuals, we are responsible only for our own actions.  In a world without individuality, we, as individuals, can be held accountable for the actions of others.  It does not matter if these crimes and abuses were committed by the dead against the dead from hundreds of years before either party was born.

The next time you hear someone advocating to rectify injustices committed by the dead against other dead people, pay attention.  This is merely the Marxist charade to abolish individuality. 

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/economic_vs_cultural_marxism_the_most_important_distinction.html#ixzz69n3ybIko

This Is How It’s Done: Apache Helicopters and Marines Respond to Protect Personnel at US Embassy in Baghdad

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

President Donald Trump has made it clear there will be no Benghazis on his watch.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was stormed this morning by hundreds of Iranian-backed militia members. They set fire to areas of the embassy compound and U.S. military had to fire tear gas and stun grenades to back them off the main embassy building.

Media like the NY Times and the AP spun it, calling them “mourners.” As we reported, the U.S. retaliated with airstrikes against the militia after they were behind a rocket attack that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded many more.

The Ambassador and his staff reportedly had already been evacuated out of the compound according to reports, but there were still U.S. military personnel onsite at the time of the attack and it’s not clear who else may have been there.

Trump immediately called on Iraq to send more security forces to help out. Local governments always provide security for our embassies overseas, in addition to U.S. Marines we may have on-site.

But U.S. troops, more Marines with helicopters, were also ordered to help to ensure the safety of everyone there.

VIDEO: AH-64 Apaches protect @USEmbBaghdad. 🚁“We have taken appropriate force protection actions to ensure the safety of American citizens...and to ensure our right of self-defense. We are sending additional forces to support our personnel at the Embassy.”~@EsperDoD 🇺🇸🇮🇶 pic.twitter.com/amABHBAOcL

— OIR Spokesman Col. Myles B. Caggins III (@OIRSpox) December 31, 2019

Those are flares coming out to warn off the folks on the ground.

The Marines have arrived at U.S. Embassy Baghdad: U.S. defense official

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) December 31, 2019

And now video pic.twitter.com/Wph6PgJ9Q7

— Dave Brown (@dave_brown24) December 31, 2019

They released the video after they already arrived because they want to warn the militia that they’re going to be there in force and the militia don’t want to take them on.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a statement, “We have taken appropriate force protection actions to ensure the safety of American citizens…and to ensure our right of self-defense.”

It’s Trump, not Obama. No more Benghazis.

But that hasn’t stopped Democrats from claiming it today, not seeming to understand why Benghazi was such a scandal. Rather than be supportive and condemn Iran, they’re all about attacking Trump. Benghazi wasn’t just about the U.S. mission being attacked but about the failure to protect it beforehand, the failure to come to their aid in time and lying their heads off about everything afterward. But it’s almost like they’re rooting for the disaster that happened under Obama.

Check this leftist vets’ organization tweet. Unbelievable how deep the TDS is.

Progressive Disorder and Injustice

 Article by Anthony J. DeBlasi:

It escapes too many observers that the remedy for the highly visible deficit in social progress is not government.  Government deals with the facts of life and reality; it does not alter or reinvent them. The curative is not the heart, too easily played on by manipulators of emotion.  And it is not the mind, which is in place to adapt to reality, not replace it. If the “enlightenment” claimed by progressives has proved anything, it is that the misappropriation of reason and science by people playing god for more than two centuries has produced a mockery of social justice and wellbeing.

One must be blind, asleep, bribed, drugged, or possessed not to notice the absurdity of “men having babies,” boys becoming girls, girls becoming boys, babies killed for convenience before, during, and after birth, “mother” and “father” branded as obsolete concepts, and expressions of truth denounced as “hate speech” . . . to mention a few products of “progress” that expose a mental pathology that dismisses any profession of enlightenment and claim to authority.

Must it really be explained that being truly “progressive” should not mean imposing a worldview and way of life held by a circle of men who worship power, not justice and that justice depends on more than might? You can spend a lifetime reading about this in classics and best-sellers, or by going where you’re not wanted to see for yourself how might, whether subtle or obvious, does not make right. For the avowed progressives who occupy positions of power, the answer appears to be yes, it must be explained, judging from their cowardly reluctance to climb out of their ideological rabbit holes and confront the actual world.

Adapting to life would be a staggering problem were it not that its fundamentals have been known for thousands of years. The “enlightened” activists, charged with enough zeal and self-righteousness to ignite the next revolution in “social justice” should not be lecturing those of us who could teach them what they missed in their upbringing and education.. Their smarts allow them to spurn the greatness of a heritage that gave them their means to live well in an uncertain and dangerous world, thanks to the work, the voices, the sacrifices, even the martyrdom of the many who came before them. Instead of starting with the givens of life, which minds smarter than ours have begun with throughout history, so-called progressives continue to dump the wisdom of ages and draw on their diminishing source of knowledge, relying on an ever weakening grasp of reality, in a foolhardy assault on reality to spread a worldview infested with Marxist ideology.

Whether they know it or not, progressives suffer from a progressive dumbing that has been taking place over several generations of Americans, a process accelerating during the last century. The fact of dumbing must be kept in mind when trying to understand the present unhealthy state of America. Among the many dots to connect, two very important ones are: 1, the work of early “progressive educators” and 2, the assumption that public educators have the right to overrule parents in raising their children.

This assumed “absolute” of child rearing – that outsiders have authority over one’s children – exposes the hypocrisy of those who do not believe in absolutes (most are faux liberals),yet insist on imposing their absolutes! This is a not-too-subtle application of “might makes right.” Progressives” and false liberals must act with stealth and deception in order to advance a worldview inconsistent with the natural function and nature of parents in the rearing of their children.

How, it must be asked, is such virtual dictatorship possible in a democratic republic like America?  The acknowledged “father” of progressive education, John Dewey (1859-1952), answered that question this way:
“The political and governmental phase of democracy is a means, the best means so far found, for realizing ends that lie in the wide domain of human relationships and the development of human personality” [“The Ethics of Democracy,” 1888]. What this jumble of words signifies is that democracy is a step in the evolution of human development – toward what end is not specified. This Marxist with credentials in behaviorism dismissed the fact that the Constitution of the United States, which underlies and informs our democratic government, a product of minds smarter and wiser than any in Dewey’s day or ours, was not designed to change people. The concept of democracy as consent of the governed is in fact not to be tampered with and made a tool for turning the governed into subjects of the state. And this clearly stated relationship between the state and the governed is not negotiable.

This fact does not keep progressives from pushing to transform America into what it is not by brainwashing the people into voting their own membership in an autocracy, Dewey’s hoped for outcome: democracy used as a path to dictatorial rule by the few. What part of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” does this undemocratic idea come from? What part of reason, what part of enlightenment justifies switching democracy into autocracy? 

The historical move to groom American children for living in a global autocracy, under the guise of “progress,” started in the public schools in the late 1930s. Out to change the world and society into a global dictatorship, Marxists and fellow ideologues sanctioned – and today continue to sanction – death, destruction, and oppression if that is a consequence of realizing their “progressive” vision for the world. And so it is that the most outrageous means to put America on a track to dystopia continues to animate a core of faux progressives and liberals, whose actions betray their loathing of America while shamelessly pretending loyalty to it.

By any measure consistent with reason, the “progressive project” does not benefit anyone and puts the lie to so-called “enlightenment” and justification of authority. Political leaders who continue to ignore the results of the failed progressive experiment and continue to bank on science as a prop for justifying their obsession with a faux progress have only themselves to blame for the social disorder that takes them down too, along with the “victims” they claim to be saving.

It is important to note that humane leaders with a modicum of intelligence have throughout history heeded an enlightenment that transcends their own intelligence and that of their associates and advisors. They have in some degree understood that it is the very intelligence that gave them their bodies, their brains, and their aim in life. This moral principle in human life – tragically ignored in modern times – is in fact as essential as breathing.

Whether the rejection of a transcendent moral principle comes from an excess of faith in reason-plus-science or from hatred of God, a door is left open to every serious disorder and injustice possible against we, the people, whom progressives claim to be helping.

It is plain from the results of their efforts how unenlightened our activists of ”change” are, as they press forth to smash what is left of the country that gave them their freedom and abundance of opportunity to prosper, a country whose Constitution gives everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – a country they despise with pathologic vehemence and determination to destroy – proving that “tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest” (Benjamin Franklin).

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/progressive_disorder_and_injustice.html#ixzz69mtQvUY9