Pathologized Totalitarianism 101

CONSENT FACTORY, INC

So, GloboCap has crossed the Rubicon. The final phase of its transformation of society into a pathologized-totalitarian dystopia, where mandatory genetic-therapy injections and digital compliance papers are commonplace, is now officially underway. 

On November 19, 2021, the government of New Normal Austria decreed that, as of February, experimental mRNA injections will be mandatory for the entire population. This decree comes in the midst of Austria’s official persecution of “the Unvaccinated,” i.e., political dissidents and other persons of conscience who refuse to convert to the new official ideology and submit to a series of mRNA injections, purportedly to combat a virus that causes mild-to-moderate flu-like symptoms (or no symptoms of any kind at all) in about 95% of the infectedand the overall infection fatality rate of which is approximately 0.1% to 0.5%. 

Austria is just the tip of the New Normal spear. Prominent New-Normal fascists in Germany, like Der Führer of Bavaria, Markus Söder, and Minister of Propaganda Karl Lauterbach, are already calling for an allgemeine Impfpflicht (i.e., “compulsory vaccination requirement”), which should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Germans are not going sit idly by and let the Austrians publicly out-fascist them, are they? They have a reputation to uphold, after all! Italy will probably be next to join in, unless Lithuania or Australia beats them to the punch.

But, seriously, this is just the beginning of the Winter Siege I wrote about recently. The plan seems to be to New-Normalize Europe first — generally speaking, Europeans are more docile, respectful of all authority, and not very well armed — and then use it as leverage to force the new pathologized totalitarianism on the USA, and the UK, and the rest of the world.

I do not believe this plan will succeed. Despite the most intensive propaganda campaign in the history of propaganda campaigns, there remain enough of us who steadfastly refuse to accept the “New Normal” as our new reality. 

And a lot of us are angry, extremely angry … militantly, explosively angry. 

We are not “vaccine hesitant” or “anti-vax” or “Covid-denying conspiracy theorists.” We are millions of regular working-class people, people with principles, who value freedom, who are not prepared to go gently into the globalized, pathologized-totalitarian night. We no longer give the slightest shit whether our former friends and family members who have gone New Normal understand what this is. We do. We understand exactly what this is. It is a nascent form of totalitarianism, and we intend to kill it — or at least critically wound it — before it matures into a full-grown behemoth. 

Now, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not advocating or condoning violence. But it is going to happen. It is happening already. Totalitarianism (even this “pathologized” version of it) is imposed on society and maintained with violence. Fighting totalitarianism inevitably entails violence. It is not my preferred tactic in the current circumstances, but it is unavoidable now that we’ve reached this stage, and it is important that those of us fighting this fight recognize that violence is a natural response to the violence (and the implicit threat of violence) that is being deployed against us by the New Normal authorities, and the masses they have whipped up into a fanatical frenzy. 

It is also important (essential, I would argue) to make the violence of the New Normal visible, i.e., to frame this fight in political terms, and not in the pseudo-medical terms propagated by the official Covid narrative). This isn’t an academic argument over the existence, severity, or the response to a virus. This is a fight to determine the future of our societies.

This fact, above all, is what the global-capitalist ruling classes are determined to conceal. The roll-out of the New Normal will fail if it is perceived as political (i.e., a form of totalitarianism). It relies on our inability to see it as what it is. So it hides itself and the violence it perpetrates within a pseudo-medical official narrative, rendering itself immune to political opposition. 

We need to deny it this perceptual redoubt, this hermeneutic hiding place. We need to make it show itself as what it is, a “pathologized” form of totalitarianism. In order to do that, we need to understand it … its internal logic, and its strengths, and weaknesses.

Pathologized Totalitarianism

I have been describing the New Normal as “pathologized totalitarianism” and predicting that compulsory “vaccination” was coming since at least as early as May 2020. (See, e.g., The New Pathologized Totalitarianism). I use the term “totalitarianism” intentionally, not for effect, but for the sake of accuracy. The New Normal is still a nascent totalitarianism, but its essence is unmistakably evident. I described that essence in a recent column:

“The essence of totalitarianism — regardless of which costumes and ideology it wears — is a desire to completely control society, every aspect of society, every individual behavior and thought. Every totalitarian system, whether an entire nation, a tiny cult, or any other form of social body, evolves toward this unachievable goal … the total ideological transformation and control of every single element of society … This fanatical pursuit of total control, absolute ideological uniformity, and the elimination of all dissent, is what makes totalitarianism totalitarianism.” 

In October 2020, I published The Covidian Cult, which has since grown into a series of essays examining New-Normal (i.e., pathologized) totalitarianism as “a cult writ large, on a societal scale.” This analogy holds true for all forms of totalitarianism, but especially for New Normal totalitarianism, as it is the first global form of totalitarianism in history, and thus:

“The cult/culture paradigm has been inverted. Instead of the cult existing as an island within the dominant culture, the cult has become the dominant culture, and those of us who have not joined the cult have become the isolated islands within it.”

In The Covidian Cult (Part III), I noted:

“In order to oppose this new form of totalitarianism, we need to understand how it both resembles and differs from earlier totalitarian systems. The similarities are fairly obvious — i.e., the suspension of constitutional rights, governments ruling by decree, official propaganda, public loyalty rituals, the outlawing of political opposition, censorship, social segregation, goon squads terrorizing the public, and so on — but the differences are not as obvious. 

And I described how New Normal totalitarianism fundamentally differs from 20th-Century totalitarianism in terms of its ideology, or seeming lack thereof.

“Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism was more or less national and overtly political, New Normal totalitarianism is supranational, and its ideology is much more subtle. The New Normal is not Nazism or Stalinism. It’s global-capitalist totalitarianism, and global capitalism doesn’t have an ideology, technically, or, rather, its ideology is ‘reality’.”

But the most significant difference between 20th-Century totalitarianism and this nascent, global totalitarianism is how New Normal totalitarianism “pathologizes” its political nature, effectively rendering itself invisible, and thus immune to political opposition. Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism wore its politics on its sleeve, New Normal totalitarianism presents itself as a non-ideological (i.e., supra-political) reaction to a global public health emergency.

And, thus, its classic totalitarian features — e.g., the revocation of basic rights and freedoms, centralization of power, rule by decree, oppressive policing of the population, demonization and persecution of a “scapegoat” underclass, censorship, propaganda, etc. — are not hidden, because they are impossible to hide, but are recontextualized in a pathologized official narrative. 

The Untermenschen become “the Unvaccinated.” Swastika lapel pins become medical-looking masks. Aryan ID papers become “vaccination passes.” Irrefutably senseless social restrictions and mandatory public-obedience rituals become “lockdowns,” “social distancing,” and so on. The world is united in a Goebbelsian total war, not against an external enemy (i.e., a racial or political enemy), but against an internal, pathological enemy. 

This pathologized official narrative is more powerful (and insidious) than any ideology, as it functions, not as a belief system or ethos, but rather, as objective “reality.” You cannot argue with or oppose “reality.” “Reality” has no political opponents. Those who challenge “reality” are “insane,” i.e., “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “Covid deniers,” “extremists,” etc. And, thus, the pathologized New Normal narrative also pathologizes its political opponents, simultaneously stripping us of political legitimacy and projecting its own violence onto us. 

20th-Century totalitarianism also blamed its violence on its scapegoats (i.e., Jews, socialists, counter-revolutionaries, etc.) but it did not attempt to erase its violence. On the contrary, it displayed it openly, in order to terrorize the masses. New Normal totalitarianism cannot do this. It can’t go openly totalitarian, because capitalism and totalitarianism are ideologically contradictory. 

Global-capitalist ideology will not function as an official ideology in an openly totalitarian society. It requires the simulation of “democracy,” or at least a simulation of market-based “freedom.” A society can be intensely authoritarian, but, to function in the global-capitalist system, it must allow its people the basic “freedom” that capitalism offers to all consumers, the right/obligation to participate in the market, to own and exchange commodities, etc.

This “freedom” can be conditional or extremely restricted, but it must exist to some degree. Saudi Arabia and China are two examples of openly authoritarian GloboCap societies that are nevertheless not entirely totalitarian, because they can’t be and remain a part of the system. Their advertised official ideologies (i.e., Islamic fundamentalism and communism) basically function as superficial overlays on the fundamental global-capitalist ideology which dictates the “reality” in which everyone lives. These “overlay” ideologies are not fake, but when they come into conflict with global-capitalist ideology, guess which ideology wins.

The point is, New Normal totalitarianism — and any global-capitalist form of totalitarianism — cannot display itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. It cannot acknowledge its political nature. In order to exist, it must not exist. Above all, it must erase its violence (the violence that all politics ultimately comes down to) and appear to us as an essentially beneficent response to a legitimate “global health crisis” (and a “climate change crisis,” and a “racism crisis,” and whatever other “global crises” GloboCap thinks will terrorize the masses into a mindless, order-following hysteria). 

This pathologization of totalitarianism — and the political/ideological conflict we have been engaged in for the past 20 months — is the most significant difference between New Normal totalitarianism and 20th-Century totalitarianism. The entire global-capitalist apparatus (i.e., corporations, governments, supranational entities, the corporate and state media, academia, etc.) has been put into service to achieve this objective. 

We need to come to terms with this fact. We do. Not the New Normals. Us. 

GloboCap is on the verge of remaking society into a smiley-happy pathologized-totalitarian dystopia where they can mandate experimental genetic “therapies,” and any other type of “therapies” they want, and force us to show our “compliance papers” to go about the most basic aspects of life. This remaking of society is violent. It is being carried out by force, with violence and the ever-present threat of violence. We need to face that, and act accordingly.

Here in New Normal Germany, if you try to go grocery shopping without a medical-looking mask, armed police will remove you from the premises (and I am saying this from personal experience). In New Normal Australia, if you go to synagogue, the media will be alerted and the police will surround you. In Germany, Australia, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, and many other countries, if you exercise your right to assemble and protest, the police will hose you down with water cannons, shoot you with rubber bullets (and sometimes real bullets), spray toxic agents into your eyes, and just generally beat the crap out of you.

And so on. Those of us fighting for our rights and opposing this pathologized totalitarianism are all-too familiar with the reality of its violence, and the hatred it has fomented in the New Normal masses. We experience it on a daily basis. We feel it every time we’re forced to wear a mask, when some official (or waiter) demands to see our “papers.” We feel it when when we are threatened by our government, when we are gaslighted and demonized by the media, by doctors, celebrities, random strangers, and by our colleagues, friends, and family members. 

We recognize the look in their eyes. We remember where it comes from, and what it leads to.

It isn’t just ignorance, mass hysteria, confusion, or an overreaction, or fear … or, OK, yes, it is all those things, but it’s also textbook totalitarianism (notwithstanding the new pathologized twist). Totalitarianism 101. 

Look it in the eye, and act accordingly.

X22, Red Pill news, and more-Nov 29

 

Evening. Here's tonight's news:

On the Fringe:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/woAhUigS88Qo/

A Tale of Two Cities: Kenosha vs. Waukesha ~ VDH

The media’s blatant lies amount to racial arson.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Both Wisconsin towns, Kenosha, and Waukesha, about 50 miles apart by car, were the recent sites of multiple deaths. The violence in both made national news. Yet in contradictory ways both reflected the common themes of America’s current legal, media, and societal corruption.  

The relevant public prosecutors in both were in the news for alleged ideological bias. Specifically, they habitually calibrated the charging, indicting, and trying (or not) of defendants through ideological lenses and community pressure rather than on the basis of the facts and the law.  

Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17-year-old armed youth who volunteered to protect business properties at the height of the August 2020 arson, riots, and looting in Kenosha. He was pursued and attacked by three members from a larger group who chased the armed youth, presumably either to disarm, injure, or kill him—or perhaps all three. 

Rittenhouse variously was assaulted, kicked, and had a firearm pointed at him. In reaction, he fatally shot two of his pursuing attackers and wounded a third. Kenosha prosecutors reviewed videos of the altercations. They saw clearly that Rittenhouse was running away from his assailants. He was variously rushed by one assailant, kicked by another, and struck with a skateboard by still another. Again, a final pursuer pointed a gun at him at close range.  

No matter. The Kenosha district attorney’s office charged Rittenhouse with several felonies including two first-degree homicide charges. All four whom Rittenhouse fired at—whether he missed, wounded, or fatally shot—had lengthy arrest records. Three were convicted felons; the fourth had a long arrest record. 

Given the lengthy and quite horrific rap sheet of Rittenhouse’s first attacker Joseph Rosenbaum (including multiple counts of pedophiliac rape), it is difficult to understand why the latter was not in jail (he had been released earlier that day from a mental facility to which he had been committed after a failed suicide attempt). The common denominator to the various prior convictions of his other three assailants was that they should have led to consequences far worse, given that many of their arrest charges were dropped, or bail was sometimes waived, or plea bargaining turned serious charges into merely bothersome ones. The release of violent offenders on little or no bail seems now thematic in Wisconsin. 

Shortly after the August 2020 shootings, the media, Joe Biden, and most of the left-wing commentariat had claimed Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist,” even though there was no evidence of such a libel, then or now. Remember, the Kenosha shootings took place just nine weeks before the November presidential elections, at a time when the Left was framing the incumbent Trump as a “white supremacist” and Joe Biden a “healer.”  

The Racist Construct 

The shootings were immediately declared to be “racial.” Yet both the shooter Rittenhouse and all of his attackers who were wounded or killed were white (a fourth assailant, an African-American who kicked Rittenhouse while he was on the ground escaped without injury).  

What followed in the media was the most egregious example of concocted fictions since the Russian collusion hoax. Rittenhouse was falsely accused of crossing “state lines” (plural), while unlawfully armed with an “illegal automatic weapon.”  

In truth, he did not buy the Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle, much less bring it into nearby Waukesha, Wisconsin from nearby Aurora, Illinois. It was legal for Rittenhouse to possess and use the firearm. The gun itself was not unlawful. He did not purchase it but had been given it by a friend. And Kenosha was his alternate home in that it was where his father and other relatives lived. Rittenhouse, then, was constructed as the proverbial white supremacist of the sort warned about by the likes of Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley. 

At various times during the trial, the prosecuting attorneys called Rittenhouse a coward. They claimed he should have faced the pursuing mob of at least a dozen and willingly taking a beating from them face-to-face, in at least one case at gunpoint. The jury inter alia was told that the ongoing arson and other violent acts were not serious crimes, and that the three who attacked Rittenhouse were near-heroic victims.  

Protestors outside the courthouse tried to intimidate the defense and jurors. A journalist sought to follow the jury bus, ostensibly to divulge their identities or to intimidate them (MSNBC was subsequently banned from the courtroom).  

The piece de resistance was the lead DA’s pointing an empty semi-automatic weapon at the jury, with his finger on the trigger—all in the aftermath of Alec Baldwin’s accidental shooting with an “empty” loaded gun of two bystanders on a film set.  

The DA apparently wished to scare the jury into a guilty verdict through the sensation of having a rifle pointed at them. Given the jury appears post facto to have been made up of reasonable people, that puerile gambit probably backfired. All that the imbecilic DA confirmed by his actions was the same recklessness as those in state and city government who had permitted parts of Kenosha to burn in the first place.        

There were lots of suicidal prosecutorial stunts such as these in what turned out to be a circus of sorts. The DAs also sought to deprecate the constitutionally protected Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. They bizarrely saw their key witness admitting under cross examination that he had first pointed a handgun at Kyle Rittenhouse who then understandably fired at him. And they deliberately released an inferior version of the video record of the shooting to the defense while keeping the superior one to their perceived advantage. 

So, the state’s madness raised strange questions. Were the incompetent DAs simply a window into a dysfunctional Kenosha County district attorney’s office where bumbling was an institutionalized force-multiplier to bias? Were the state prosecutors deliberately inept in order to prompt a mistrial and thus a retrial/second chance of their botched case? Or were they lazily going through the motions to satisfy the mob, but did not really believe Rittenhouse was guilty? Or were they just mediocre camera-hungry wannabe celebrities, who wished to win cheap media attention for as long as the bewildered judge would put up with their bizarre antics? 

The Message of Acquittal  

A jury unanimously cleared Rittenhouse of all charges. It apparently concluded correctly that if law enforcement and the state either could not or would not protect lives and property in Kenosha, and if because of that dereliction of duty some citizens stepped up to take up the role that the police had utterly abandoned, then as citizens they had a right to defend themselves if attacked by those committing violence.  

For some time, media demand has exceeded the available supply of clear-cut cases of white oppressors and black victims, at least if the Jussie Smollett hoax, the “hands up don’t shoot” lie, and the photoshopped pictures and edited tapes of George Zimmerman are any indication.  

Yet the real reason the Left strained to gin up the theme of white-on-white violence as an example of racism was their larger agenda of sending a message to middle America: no American, in times of riot, arson, and looting, should have the right to use firearms to protect property. And under no circumstances could a citizen use a gun to ward off those intending to maim or kill him. Had Rittenhouse been found guilty, there no longer would be recourse for citizens living in cities where criminals were freely given the streets. 

In other words, had such a clear-cut case of self-defense morphed into a successful murder conviction, then the most powerful figure in the nation would become the local district attorney. De facto, a DA could empower a mob to loot, burn, steal, and injure by refusing to indict those arrested—even if an increasingly politicized mayor and police chief chose to allow their officers to keep the public safe. We would then assume that in this state of nature anyone protecting property during a riot would be fair game for the mob, given the target would know he could become a convicted felon by defending himself from attack. 

So, the Left understood well the messaging of attacking the open city and undefended town of Kenosha and the conviction of a “murderer” Rittenhouse: accept our political agendas and premises or otherwise your culpable community will be torn apart with impunity, and any who chose to combat the violence with violence will be charged with capital crimes. 

Those Criminal SUVs 

Not long after one Rittenhouse was acquitted, one Darrell Brooks, Jr., an African-American with a 20-year record of serious felonies, allegedly drove his car deliberately into a Christmas parade in Waukesha, killing 6 innocents and injuring over 60. 

Unlike the dishonest media reaction lying about Rittenhouse, who had no criminal record, there was initial careful restraint not to identify the career criminal Brooks as the murderous driver who weaponized his vehicle against parade-goers. Despite first-hand accounts from bystanders that the lethal driver was an African-American with dreadlocks, the media, feigning unaccustomed professionalism in this instance, withheld rush-to-judgment identification and culpability. Joe Biden—for a moment—was commendably quiet in editorializing about the racial motivations or ideology of a suspect. 

For a while the media ran with its own concocted rumor that Brooks merely was fleeing from an “altercation” and apparently had mistakenly turned the wrong way into a crowd—despite videos showing the driver deliberately ramming through street barriers repeatedly to seek out targets. Intent likely explains why he killed and injured so many innocents.  

Finally, the news settled into the present narrative of a “car crash,”—as if a driverless vehicle on autopilot had simply bumped into various people in the street—before burying the murders altogether on their back pages and dropping the crime from the evening news. Or as the Washington Post put it, “Here’s what we know so far on the sequence of events that led to the Waukesha tragedy caused by a SUV.” 

That media-generated ruse continued even when details of Brooks’ lengthy felony record were finally released. At the time he was mowing down strangers, he had five open arrest charges, including two felonies. Brooks had been released on $1,000 bail just two days earlier, in another eerie “coincidence” after being arrested for attempting to run over a woman and her child—the same modus operandi reified at the Waukesha Christmas slaughter.  

An alien from Mars who examined Brooks’s life of crime, his recent violence, and the ease with which he was serially let loose upon the public might have concluded some sort of “privilege” as the cause of exemption. 

Brooks posed on social media as an incompetent but narcissistic rapper. He left a video trail not just of his mediocre recordings, but of clear evidence of virulent anti-Semitism and anti-white racism, “So when we start bakk knokkin white people TF out ion wanna hear it…the old white ppl 2, KNOKK DEM TF OUT!! PERIOD.”  

As pundits strained to deny any connection between the climate of BLM anger over the Rittenhouse verdict and Brooks’ murders, Brooks’ own testimonies point to a connection, at least in the sense of hating people on the basis of their race. Indeed, regional Milwaukee BLM activist Vaun Mayes quickly alleged that the Rittenhouse acquittal had earned the homicidal payback.  

A low-level Democratic functionary tweeted that the dead children of Waukesha were proper karma for Rittenhouse walking free: “I’m sad anytime anyone dies. I just believe in Karma and this came around quick on the citizens of Wisconsin.” Or as Mayes further elaborated: Brooks was an insurrectionist whose violence had jumpstarted a supposed “revolution,” his apparent euphemism for mass murder. “But it sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade.”

Brooks is, for a while, in jail. Yet for some crazy reason he can be freed on a $5 million bond. He awaits charges of mass homicide—although one never quite knows. The Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisolm is a controversial “reformer” DA, whose campaigns have been funded in part by the George Soros conglomerate. 

Creepier still, in the past a prescient Chisolm had boasted about his own future to the Milwaukee Sentinel, namely that his prosecutorial and bail policies would eventually release career criminals onto the street who would “inevitably” kill some innocents. Yet he riffed that such carnage was acceptable collateral damage from his decriminalization agendas: “Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into [a] treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.” 

One wonders whether Chisolm will take that argument to the families of the Waukesha deceased—that the loss of their loved ones was a reasonable sacrifice to ensure that misunderstood 20-year criminals like Darrell Brooks, Jr. were not kept behind bars. 

So, what are we left with from these horrors of two cities? 

In Kenosha the media and the Left ginned up race when there was no such component in the trial. But in Waukesha they perpetuated racial arson and smothered the truth. That is, they kept largely silent when there clearly was racial hatred—given Brooks’ own record of anti-white and anti-Semitic venom. Again, the media can turn from creation to suppression on a dime, given the common theme of ginning up racial strife and hatred. 

An amoral media and Left, so far, have kept an inconvenient Waukesha “car crash” out of the mainstream news—reversing their wild sensational obsessions with Kenosha. After all, in their unhinged racialized worldview, the demonization of a 17-year-old white male, who shot three other white males, still could be squeezed for racial juice, given the larger contextual landscape of a riot over a police wounding of an African-American male.  

The shooting of Jacob Blake that set off the Kenosha riots was later determined to be justified, given the armed suspect was heading toward his car, after fighting with police, who were called to the residence to protect a woman who had a restraining order against the career violent felon. 

In sum, Rittenhouse had no criminal record; all four of his assailants had lengthy arrest records. Three of them were ex-felons. He had no record of the racial hatred of which he was accused.  

In contrast, Brooks was an abject violent racist whom the media sought to shield. And he was a career felon, who both long ago and quite recently should have been kept behind bars so that he would not murder innocents.  

How a Wisconsin ex-felon received a $1,000 bail bond and freedom to mow down innocents, after trying to run down two with his car, while another juvenile without an arrest record, with good grounds to claim self-defense, was required to post a $2 million bond (and so stayed incarcerated pending charges without running water in his cell) is a commentary on the abject implosion of the American justice system.  

Rittenhouse should have never been charged; Brooks should not have been out of jail. The effort to make the former a beneficiary of white supremacy and the latter a victim of it required a level of amoral media deceit that finally was unsustainable even in this bankrupt age. 

When Everyone’s a White Supremacist, No One Is

When Everyone's a White Supremacist, 

No One Is

Howard Hyde for American Thinker

The left lost control of their narrative of the "White supremacist" "active shooter" "murderer" Kyle Rittenhouse in the face of overwhelming factual evidence of self-defense.  So leftists did what they do best (or worst): double down.  Racism!  White supremacy!  No justice, no peace!

The right's reaction to the left's reaction to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict ranges from ridicule to confusion.  How can the left and MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times — but I repeat myself — claim anti-black racism and white supremacy in a case in which all of the principals — aggressors, victims, shooters, shot, judge, jury, prosecutors, and defense attorneys — are white?

The answer is simple, and it's critical that we understand it.

All of this nonsense is simply of a logical and rational piece with the left's Orwellian decades-long project to hijack the language in order to control the thoughts which are permissible, indeed possible, for the masses.  We have come to the point where White is Black and Black is White.  But it goes beyond even that.

In order to understand the left's language, the first and simplest thing you can do is put any and all charged terms in quotes.  When you hear Black, hear "Black," and translate it.  Likewise with "White," "White supremacist," and any other term that the left attempts to manipulate your mind with.

Here are the new definitions of these words that you need to understand:
"Black" = "One of us"; Marxist-Leninist revolutionary; leftist; Member or supporter of BLM; American slave or descendant thereof, or spiritual/fraternal descendant thereof [and remember that only America had slavery, slavery is America's "original sin" and it was based on race]; victim; innocent in all circumstances; incapable of racism.

"White" = "NOT one of us [even if of sub-Saharan African descent]"; NOT a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, leftist, BLM-supporter or Democrat; believer in the founding principles of America: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech (and of silence), the right to self-defense, etc; oppressor; enemy; guilty in all circumstances; irredeemably racist; most racist of all if denies being racist.

"White Supremacist" = "White" (even if black) person who by word and/or deed actively defends the principles of "Whiteness" like work ethic, punctuality, deferred gratification, good grammar and manners, and the whole Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian Magna Carta English Common Law inheritance of America.

One quickly realizes that "White" and "Black" have nothing to do anymore with actual color or race; it's beyond just White is Black and Black is White if it were possible to be more opposite from original meanings.  It's about taking sides in a philosophical and physical war that the left is waging against America.

With this understanding, the L.A. Times was not wrong to call Larry Elder "the Black face of White supremacy."  By the above definitions, that's exactly who he is.  And who Leo Terell is.  And who Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, and MLK Jr. — and, I'm proud to say, many of my closest personal (non-Caucasian) friends — are.

Now the left's characterization of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes perfect sense.  Kyle Rittenhouse is a "white" "white supremacist."  His "victims" (fill in the leftist definition; it doesn't take too much imagination) — Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz — were all "black."  The owner of the business that Kyle defended, an immigrant from India, is "white."  The prosecutors were "black."  The defense attorneys, the judge, and — it turns out — the jury are all "white."  And in the case of the jury, they are "white" not just because they came to the conclusion that "white" people agree with, but they came to their verdict by "White" methods: impartially weighing evidence, facts, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof in the great tradition of America.

How do we fight this insanity?  Maybe, rather than attempting to meet force head-on with more Greek phalanx force, we should take a page from aikido and jiu-jitsu and just own it.  You call us white supremacists?  OK, we're white supremacists, then.  And so was Cesar Chávez, who opposed illegal immigration.  And so are Dinesh D'Souza and Herschel Walker.  And so can you be!  You're a Pacific or Caribbean Islander who believes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  No worries — you too can be a white supremacist.  You're a Hispanic lesbian Muslim who believes in capitalism, private property rights, and the rule of law?  Come on in, the water is warm!  After all, it's not as if we discriminate or anything!  Certainly not on the basis of race.

Once upon a time in America, White supremacy was a real thing, an evil with the real ability to affect non-white people's lives and hold them back from achieving their goals.  That time mostly came to a close around August 28, 1963.  Something about a speech on the Washington Mall and a high watermark for inter-racial relations in our great country.
But racial harmony does not suit the needs of the radical Marxist left and its revolutionary plans to overthrow America, so the leftists took something that all decent Americans — liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat — are against, and expanded its definition in order to intimidate resistance into submission.  Soon the label of "White supremacist" was attached not just to people advocating for segregation or the active suppression of non-whites, but expanded to include anyone opposed to "affirmative action" social policies.  Or to quotas in hiring and university admissions.  Or to creating a new holiday (Martin Luther King Day) on a date for which one's state already had a longstanding tradition, as happened in Arizona.  Now, 58 years after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the defamatory label of "White supremacist" is glued to anyone who lacks zeal for the radical left's revolutionary agenda.

What the left calls "White Supremacy" today is such a sick joke that it deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt.  Let us, therefore, give thanks to God and be proud to be all "white supremacists" now.

Rights and Anti-Rights

The Constitution will not persist or provide protection from a degraded, brainwashed, and hostile majority.

by Christopher Roach for American Greatness

Having faced many setbacks in the gun control debate, the Left lately has turned against the very idea of self-defense. Without a robust right of self-defense—one respected by prosecutors, police, judges, and juries—the right to keep and bear arms is hollow. 

Because of highly politicized prosecutions, ranging from George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse, the right of self-defense remains in significant jeopardy. 

A Ray of Hope

Like many others, I was relieved by the Rittenhouse verdict. While condemned as an idiot or a vigilante, in reality this young man courageously stood up and faced an angry, violent mob. He was attacked for putting out fires and protecting businesses. Instead of receiving an award, he faced a second battle in the courts. 

This was a significant burden. His acquittal could only be a Pyrrhic victory. While the jury ultimately did the right thing, the defendant’s near-collapse at the end was exactly what one would expect from a normal, innocent, and highly traumatized person, who just learned that he won’t spend the rest of his life in prison. 

The goal of this prosecution was to appease the mob and discourage Americans from taking risks to defend themselves and their communities. Facing a ruinously expensive trial and a long prison sentence, many otherwise-brave people are being taught to stay home. In other words, a run-amok legal system adds another layer of risk beyond the inherent dangers of standing up to left-wing mobs and the duty of compliance with intuitive laws regarding self-defense.

Because the problem resides in the prosecutors, cops, and politicians hostile to ordinary middle-class Americans of initiative, Rittenhouse’s acquittal only amounts to a temporary setback for the system. 

A Nation of Citizens or a Market of Consumers?

Widespread passivity is antithetical not only to our Second Amendment rights, but also to the right of petition, right to assembly, right to free speech, and right to vote. All of these are designed to protect active engagement and civic republicanism. Such classical values are, as I noted elsewhere, the opposite of those required to thrive in a managerial system, where each of us is treated as a mere consumer of the government and other parts of the system. 

As with the backdoor attack on the Second Amendment, other rights face similar pressure. The exercise of free speech is in great jeopardy from the lynch mob atmosphere deployed against dissidents undertaken with the willing cooperation of Big Tech. One’s job is always in jeopardy from being doxxed. Unchastened by the Steele dossier debacle, the FBI is now targeting parents concerned about the anti-white race hatred and anti-American propaganda forced on their children in schools. 

The right of assembly is also threatened. Tech giants, like GoFundMe, have withdrawn their tools selectively from causes they do not like, including Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund, even while permitting real criminals to post bail funds. All of this is designed to make an uneven playing field, where those on the Right cannot organize and cannot speak. The prospect of job loss, FBI investigations, and harassment all combine to destroy rights de facto while preserving their simulated existence de jure. 

Returning to Rittenhouse, the Left’s corporate-sponsored mob violence threatens more than property rights and the security of our communities, but also the right to a jury trial itself. Intimidated jurors facing threats to their jobs and their safety cannot undertake their important work freely and impartially. Open threats against jurors and their communities are now routine, mostly uncensored by the Big Tech companies supposedly concerned for “safety.”

The jury here deserves real credit and praise for deciding what they did in the face of explicit and implicit threats directed against them. Lesser men and women would have buckled. I am reminded of the masked judges of Colombiain the Pablo Escobar era. These men, and their families, faced death and torture from the drug cartels simply for doing their jobs, but many of them continued their brave service. 

Such intimidation exists in every high-profile trial where politics and race are involved. It’s like To Kill a Mockingbird in reverse. The people in power do not spend a moment reflecting on how their hostility and double standards may be driving their opponents into more and more extreme politics fueled by distrust and injustice. 

The Era of Unlimited Politics

The formal structures of our society and Constitution are supposed to provide limits to our disagreements and protect us as individuals. But these limits cannot function in an atmosphere of runaway “wokeness,” “race justice,” “CRT,” “political correctness,” or whatever term is now current. If these ideologies are not checked, we face the backdoor destruction of every constitutional right. 

The Constitution has persisted not through the power of the government or because of its eloquence, but because it reflected and enlarged the will of the American people. But the American people are being replaced, and our young people are being reeducated. 

Under such conditions, the problem is not one of laws or politicians, but of culture and demographics. The Constitution will not persist or provide protection from a degraded, brainwashed, and hostile majority. Thus, the program of the Right has to be broad-based and comprehensive, as much educational as political, because the rot comes from many quarters, and it goes very deep. 

Rittenhouse’s acquittal is encouraging. But it is only a single victorious battle in a war where we are losing our Constitution, our natural rights, and a previously stable political culture. Taking too much encouragement from the Rittenhouse verdict would be a mistake in light of these conditions. The system remains broken and hostile. So long as our rights are opposed by the Left’s program of anti-rights, the war to restore normality and to protect ourselves and our birthright must continue.

Dr. Francis Collins Spews Word Salad When Asked About Case Numbers In Florida

Dr. Francis Collins Spews Word Salad When Asked By Fox News Reporter About Case Numbers In Florida

Scott Morefield for Townhall

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), uttered a lot of words on Sunday when asked by Fox News' Trace Gallagher about Florida's low Covid-19 numbers despite a lack of lockdowns or mandates. However, unfortunately for him and fortunately for those of us who want to see more people see through these clowns, none of those words had anything to do with answering the actual question.

Introducing the topic while filling in for Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Gallagher brought up a chart showing vaccination rates and new case percentages in New York, Maine, Michigan, and Florida. Of the four selections, only Florida is experiencing a decrease in new cases, despite no statewide mask or vaccination mandates and a pedestrian 61% of its population vaccinated.

"It was only a couple of months ago the media was giving Florida an awful hard time, saying Ron DeSantis' policies were all wrong," Gallagher said. "What's going on here? Why are some of the states with some of the most severe lockdowns and mandates doing poorly and states like Florida that have virtually no mandates doing quite well?"

Unable to respond to the question directly with anything that fit the narrative he is apparently required to stick with, Collins tossed the below word salad, making sure to include the words "boosters," "unvaccinated people," "misinformation," "safe" and "effective" somewhere therein - because no Covidian Word Salad is ever complete without them!

Well, it all comes down to who is actually getting the disease, and especially who's getting sick enough to be in the hospital or to die. Keep in mind, getting a mild case of the illness certainly happens as breakthroughs from the vaccinated folks, although boosters really help prevent that. But if you talk about who's in the hospital and who's dying, those are still the unvaccinated people and there are lots of those in all the states you just mentioned. If there's a lesson here, it's, 'come on America we have missed a chance to be at a much higher level of vaccination across the country that would put us in a stronger position. For all those reasons of misinformation that people have heard, we've not done what we should've done to protect ourselves. If OMICRON is one more wake-up call, then let's wake up. Come on America, you can do this. These vaccines are safe, they're effective. People have been using them for more than a year. 200 million people plus have gotten injected. These are something you want for yourself, your family, your community.

White House Christmas decorations revealed as Biden faces host of crises

 

The White House will be merry and bright this Christmas, even as President Biden faces a series of setbacks.

First lady Jill Biden was set to unveil the executive mansion’s 2021 holiday decorations Monday, following the theme of “Gifts from the Heart.”

“As we celebrate our first holiday season in the White House, we are inspired by the Americans we have met across the country, time and again reminding us that our differences are precious and our similarities infinite,” the first lady and the president said in a joint statement. “We wish you a happy, healthy, and joyous holiday season. As we look to a new year full of possibility, may gifts from the heart light our path forward.”  

 

https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/wh-reveals-christmas-decorations-as-biden-grapples-with-crises/