Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Why Governments Have Replaced God with Global Warming


For millennia, monarchs ruled by some form of divine right.  If not asserting god-like powers, they claimed to be acting as God’s emissaries here on Earth.  You can imagine the effect this had on devout peoples of any faith.  How could the great unwashed masses dare question any royal’s divinely inspired orders?  This paradigm kept government authorities towering over those they ruled.

The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution crashed through the walls of absolute monarchies and reoriented political systems on the foundations of natural law, religious toleration, constitutional government, and individual liberty.  Twentieth-century postmodernism later led to a rise in religious agnosticism and a growing uncertainty about even the existence of God.  First, philosophers stole monarchs’ divine right to rule; then they convinced new generations to question God altogether.  

Unsurprisingly, both of these intellectual revolutions weakened the innate authority upon which governments relied.  Stripped of any divine pretense for exerting power over their subjects, governments have been attempting to justify their existence ever since.

From this perspective, it is easy to see why those with power today have gone all-in on “global warming” fearmongering.  By replacing God with the apocalyptic threat of “climate change,” governments have effectively created a “higher power” that they exclusively control.  Instead of beseeching citizens to follow God’s will here on Earth, governments beseech them to “follow the science.”  The “science,” for its part, is treated as some kind of infallible religious scripture that can never be questioned.  It doesn’t matter that climate models have been wildly incorrect, that research has been fabricated, that sea levels are not rising, or that the proposed “solutions” for manipulating naturally dynamic climates will accomplish nothing.  Governments have decreed, “The science is settled,” and once the “science” has spoken, no lowly heretic may disagree.

In truth, the “global warming” con is about three things: gods, money, and control.  

Those who hold the authoritative flame of “science” have regained their divine right to rule.  Governments effectively give their citizens a spiritual choice: they can either follow oppressive carbon-neutral regulations that micromanage every detail of life...or they can burn in a fiery apocalypse.  

You might not think John Kerry, Klaus Schwab, and Bill Gates are gods, but they certainly think they are.  It might make no sense for Barack Obama to own two luxury beach houses if he actually believes the oceans are rising, but his disciples are asked to ignore his actions and devote themselves entirely to his empty words.

Climate taxes and “green”-energy-induced inflation are essentially religious tithes — except all these new “global warming” fees far exceed 10%!  In order to “save the planet” (and be redeemed), we must hand all our property over to the State and beg Swedish gnome Greta Thunberg for absolution.

Ruling governments have always viewed ordinary people as their most dangerous enemy and therefore spend the majority of their time figuring out how to herd them into a pen.  What does a religious-like belief in “global warming” provide for government if not a religious-like obedience from their postmodern parishioners?  The “climate change” hoax is entirely about control.

Government is not the people.  Government does not even represent the people.  It may pretend to represent the people, but it is concerned with only one proposition: self-preservation.  If the people must be abandoned, so that their government may survive, the powerful few will sacrifice the powerless rump without a second thought.  

You might have noticed, for instance, that the U.S. government has spent the last seventy years building nuclear silos in “flyover country” while fortifying a small number of secret bunkers for high-ranking apparatchiks and their friends.  Any attack on our intercontinental ballistic missile chambers would require so many devastating enemy strikes for “success” that the middle part of the country would be utterly annihilated.  Thus, it is the official policy of the federal government to sacrifice the vast American middle in a barrage of mushroom clouds, so that a tiny slither of coastal elites might live to worry about carbon emissions and internal combustion engines.

What sane person would agree to that arrangement?  Easy answer: none.  The government must therefore spend all its time and resources convincing otherwise rational individuals to voluntarily embrace absolutely irrational things.

Government is most secure when the people under its boot struggle to imagine life any other way.  As unnatural, clumsy, and often violent as a government’s thrashing tentacles tend to be, most people look at the bizarre bureaucratic Leviathan pushing them around and accept it as perfectly normal.  

They become accustomed to the illusion that some man-made monstrosity must be allowed to tax their labor, regulate their activities, indoctrinate their children, intimidate them with threats of force, and send them off to war whenever defense industry CEOs think business is slow.  They often choose to fight and die for their government’s honor — even when those in power do the most dishonorable things.  They will romanticize instances of past political corruption as whimsical tales from a bygone era — even as new episodes of government corruption rapidly unfold.  They will look at the technological transformations around them and illogically conclude that only the clunky, corroded cogs of government’s inefficient and outdated machinery can handle the immense complexities of an ever-changing world.  In other words, vast majorities in search of some modicum of mental peace do their damnedest to ignore the government’s ongoing output of harmful injuries, so that they might limp through life under pleasant delusions.

In many ways, living within the walls of government is a lot like serving a life sentence in the penitentiary: at some point, people become so used to the bars on their cells and so dependent on the directions of their jailers that, when push comes to shove, they would gladly choose to stay locked up in chains.  Those who love government’s coercive grip over their lives are forever “institutionalized.”

All rulers — whether in the mold of communist dictator Xi Jinping or Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” fake-but-folksy politician — wield power as Machiavelli’s “prince” by seeking to “institutionalize” the people under their charge.  As such, all forms of government pursue two identical policies: first, they invent threats for their citizens to fear, and second, they establish a monopoly over available solutions.  

An adept government will never solve a problem unless it has a new problem prepackaged and ready to mass-produce for the public.  That’s why Joe Biden didn’t mind bungling America’s exit from Afghanistan when he and other Obama administration alumni were already working on the next forever-war in Ukraine for the upcoming spring.  That’s why the CDC and other government scientists owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry never batted an eye when their miracle elixir COVID “vaccines” proved to be neither safe nor effective — because there is always some new exotic disease ready to be released from a Chinese bio-lab tucked away in an abandoned California factory that will require billions in taxpayer funds, too.  Any government worth its salt has an endless supply of boogeymen and a limited supply of expensive solutions that coincidentally require total citizen compliance.

At the United Nations, dopey diplomats speak in flowery clichés about the value of international cooperation.  In the real world, though, governments succeed in corralling their peoples into pens only if everyone is afraid.  North Korea’s dictator must make his people afraid of Americans.  America’s dictator must make his people afraid of Russians.  The European Union’s dictators must make their hodgepodge of nations all afraid of nationalists.  The ruling atheists must make their postmodern peoples all hostile to Israel.  

And the whole smorgasbord of manipulative, malicious governments must keep the world’s peasants perpetually petrified of COVID...and “hate speech”...and Donald Trump...and, most importantly, “global warming”!



Haka v. Hamas: Maoris Send Pro-Palestinian Rallies Packing


Jennifer Oliver O'Connell reporting for RedState 

Last week, Maori activists from New Zealand came to Brisbane, Australia to rally and stand with Israel. That in and of itself is noteworthy, but in the process of showing their solidarity, the Maoris also thwarted a pro-Palestinian rally. That's a definition of Win-Win if there ever was one. The Maoris performed a traditional Haka, a loud, raucous, and intimidating war dance that is meant to put fear in one's enemies, while also building the character of the warrior performing the dance. In terms of the horrors of the ongoing Israel-Hamas War, not to mention a lot of things happening in our world today, we could use both of these. 

Maoris in Wellington, New Zealand performed this indigenous dance in late October in solidarity with Israel after the October 7 blitz attack by Hamas. They did the same in Auckland, New Zealand last week.


Would you mess with them? I wouldn't. According to exclusive reporting by Rebel News, the planned Pro-Palestinian rallies in Auckland and in Brisbane suddenly decided to find someplace else to be. Like the cowards that they are.

In a surprising turn of events in Brisbane's King George Square, Destiny Church activists from New Zealand, led by Brian Tamaki, stood in solidarity with Israel after the shocking Hamas terrorist attack on October 7.

The pro-Israel demonstration, organised by the indigenous church, clashed with a scheduled anti-Israel rally, resulting in a unique situation.

Rebel News videographer Yemini did a fuller video exclusive (linked below) and he asked one Maori warrior why the pro-Palestine protesters decided to skedaddle.

Our people are known as warriors, and I think they know that we're not a bunch of pushovers. 

One of the best parts of the video is the "Man Up" shirts the Maori activists wore. Man Up translates in Maori to "Tu Tanga." These men and women did not come to play, as another warrior clearly outlined.

We're bible believing, Christian believing, Jesus believing, but we're not scared to go toe-to-toe either.

It would be a powerful thing if Americans, especially the Christian ones, made it a habit to do the same. While the humanitarian work that Christian organizations and churches are doing in the forefront and behind the scenes is wonderful and necessary, a visual representation of power, strength, and solidarity, like the November 14 March for Israel on the Washington Mall, could be a powerful and consistent tool to abate the Jew-hate and alleviate fears, especially on college campuses. 

I asked Maori community activists who passionately expressed their support for Israel, why they were siding with the Jewish community.

They asserted that Israel, as the indigenous people, had an inherent right to the land, challenging the popular narrative that Palestinians are the true indigenous inhabitants.

Maoris are an indigenous people of New Zealand. These original Polynesians have been in New Zealand since around 1200 A.D. and much of New Zealand culture and rituals started with them. Known as Tangata Whenua or “People of the Land,” Maoris well understand what it means to fight to maintain their place in their land.

The Maoris also spoke about the Biblical and prophetic significance of standing with Israel.

The Destiny Church activists emphasised [sic] their belief in the biblical connection to the Holy Land, stating that the Jews are God's chosen people. They pointed to historical roots and biblical references, rejecting the idea that Palestinians are the original inhabitants.

Many of the Maori warriors intelligently articulated why they Stand with Israel and will continue to do so. As a man with a "Yeshua Israel Forever" face mask on said, "We Stand with the Jews—All Day."

WATCH:



X22, On the Fringe, and more- November 21

 




With Trillions at Stake, the Cleaving Is Becoming Tenuous


When I say the cleaving is becoming tenuous, do not take that expression to indicate the Western global alliance will back down, they will not.  However, as the fracturing of the global economic systems cleave into two very distinct formations, the citizens forced to live in the Western control system are going to experience a secondary position of life that will be entirely new.  Within that dynamic, the political leaders are increasingly isolated; that’s the real ‘non-pretending’ story as expressed.

We have followed this modern construct around the issue of energy production for quite a while.  More recently, those who control the systems have become more desperate because the consequences have become far more visible.

In the big picture the world is separating, cleaving into two polar economic regions based on energy use.  The yellow team, following the WEF climate change agenda and deploying all economic tools to shift wealth and control populations; the carbon tax is at the end of this rainbow.  The grey team are continuing to exploit traditional oil, coal and gas development and provide cheap and abundant energy products; economic prosperity is at the end of this managed transition.

Now, we are entering a phase of extreme consequence.  This is the inflection point when the Western Alliance is most vulnerable, because the people affected by the design are not happy with the outcomes so far.  The BRICS+ and traditional energy development nations are gaining geopolitical influence.  Can the Western Alliance keep their citizens complacent?  That’s the question.

LONDON — World leaders will touch down in Dubai next week for a climate change conference they’re billing yet again as the final off-ramp before catastrophe. But war, money squabbles and political headaches back home are already crowding the fate of the planet from the agenda.

The breakdown of the Earth’s climate has for decades been the most important yet somehow least urgent of global crises, shoved to one side the moment politicians face a seemingly more acute problem. Even in 2023 — almost certainly the most scorching year in recorded history, with temperatures spawning catastrophic floods, wildfires and heat waves across the globe — the climate effort faces a bewildering array of distractions, headwinds and dismal prospects.

[…] The best outcome for the climate from the 13-day meeting, which is known as COP28 and opens Nov. 30, would be an unambiguous statement from almost 200 countries on how they intend to hasten their plans to cut fossil fuels, alongside new commitments from the richest nations on the planet to assist the poorest.

But the odds against that happening are rising. Instead, the U.S. and its European allies are still struggling to cement a fragile deal with developing countries about an international climate-aid fund that had been hailed as the historic accomplishment of last year’s summit. Meanwhile, a populist backlash against the costs of green policies has governments across Europe pulling back — a reverse wave that would become an American-led tsunami if Donald Trump recaptures the White House next year.

And across the developing world, the rise of energy and food prices stoked by the pandemic and the Ukraine war has caused inflation and debt to spiral, heightening the domestic pressure on climate-minded governments to spend their money on their most acute needs first. (read more)

If the WEF/Obama/Globalists had lost the 2020 election, this wouldn’t even be a consideration right now.  Then again, that’s exactly why they went to such extremes to regain footing through the weaponized manipulation of the 2020 USA election.

This is yet another ‘Biden is disposable‘ overlay.  The multinational corps (World Bank, WEF, etc), who are posed to financially benefit from the ‘climate change’ agenda, need to keep the purchased Western politicians on track.  The sheeple foot soldiers now have years of indoctrination behind them – they will play a critical role.

The economies of Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Egypt and the expanded BRICS+ nations are all well positioned to grow, as the U.S, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU are well positioned to shrink.  The smaller “own nothing and be happy nations” will see even more of their wealth assemble in the top tier of the control system.   This is by design.

The Western Alliance will have smaller economies overall, but the scope of the wealth will be assembled in a smaller group of people.  The result is more money in fewer hands, and that is entirely the objective.  From that position, control becomes easier and the socioeconomic ramifications then begin to take place (social scores, energy equity, etc).

What is shared in that link above is really the outline of how the management of the system becomes more tenuous as people within the Western Alliance start to awaken to the reality of what is creating their misery.  Ultimately, this is why the climate control people view Donald Trump as their greatest adversary.

Biden has no clue; he’s just doing what the Blackrock Inc group tell him to do, in order to support their advanced investment allocations.   Climate Change is a hoax similar to the Biden election victory.


Can We Save our Universities? ~ VDH

Stop giving money to elite institutions


It took the widely reported, repellent, and exempt wave of anti-Semitism and violent pro-Hamas protestors harassing Jews, finally to convince Americans that their own hallmark universities are illiberal centers of mediocrity and intolerance—and increasingly unsafe.

Of course, Americans had long known that something had gone wrong at their colleges. They had increasingly encountered college graduates who were poorly educated in basic skills and lacked general knowledge—and yet highly politicized, and intolerant of different views and opinions. Ignorant but arrogant is a sad way to start an adult life.

College, the public knew, has certainly eroded from our cherished idea of a four-year idealized respite from adult employment. It once was intended to be a place where youth learned to be open-minded, tolerant, skilled, and eager to learn the nature and traditions of Western civilization, art, literature, languages, philosophy, and history.

Instead, all too often “college” has now descended into a six-to-seven-year misadventure that nationwide often results in only half those enrolled ever receiving degrees. Nearly all sink deeply in student debt. And yet for all the borrowed tuition money, few prove capable of writing analytically, speaking articulately, or knowing the general referents, past and present, of their very civilization.

Students, especially at the elite campuses, learn to mouth monotonously accusations of “genocide.” “apartheid,” “colonialism,” or “imperialism.” But they lack the ability to define these nouns. As a result, they so often name drop empty slogans in the context of supposed Western sins.

Again, October 7 brought these sorry facts to national attention. Adolescent screamers on video showed no awareness that dropping leaflets and sending texts to avoid collateral deaths is not “genocide.” Most chant the “river to the sea” with no clue that it resonates the very ethos of mass murdering, mutilation, and dehumanization of Jewish elderly, women, children, and infants in the most savage fashion on October 7.

Accusatory students who scream “apartheid” seemed to have no clue that a fifth of Israel’s population is Arab, with citizenship rights that vastly exceed those in all other Middle East nations.

They have no notion of the ancient and long connections of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, or how in the world the revered Al-Aqsa Mosque found itself atop the far more ancient Herod’s Jewish Second Temple sanctuary.

As far as “colonialism” and “occupation” goes, they are clueless that the longest, non-Arab colonial rule of Palestine was the more than 300-years of often brutal Ottoman/Turkish imperialistic control. Nor do they have much knowledge of the repeated and combined efforts of far larger and richer Arab nations to wipe tiny Israel out, especially during the full-scale wars of 1947-48, 1967, and 1973.

Instead, politically correct orthodoxies, not the knowledge or logic, of a student, became the hallmark of an “educated” American graduate. Students and faculty were considered “moral” for proclaiming their devotion to diversity, equity, and inclusion, without a clue that historically unity, equality, and fairness were the better aspirations. Without formal study in civics and ethics, students learned that any means were justified to advance political aims merely asserted as morally superior to others.

After October 7, it proved a small campus step from years of institutionalized racially separated graduations, dorms, and campus centers to singling out and often segregating Jewish students from campus spaces.

At Arizona State, Jewish students had to be escorted by police from a campus debate event. Even 20 years ago administrators would likely have expelled those threatening violence—or been forced to resign themselves. Today, they are terrified of mostly foreign students who abuse their visas and seem to despise the host they dare not leave to return home.

Administrators at prestigious MIT admit that some of their foreign students are openly harassing Jews. But the university will not expel such anti-Semites in fear they might lose their student visas and thus have to return to their Middle-East homes and stew about their own miscreant behavior and ingratitude to their hosts. Instead, for college administrators, entitled, and full-tuition paying children of Middle East’s elites are seen as cash cows whose money masks their bigotry.

As a result, cynical MIT grandees now simply warn Jewish students where and where not it is safe to walk on their own campuses. And thus, they confirm the embarrassing reality that the university is either unable or does not wish to stop the systematic anti-Jewish hatred on their own turf.

Yet since when did such student guests in the United States feel empowered to shut down bridges during commute hours, tear down American flags on Veterans Day, and scout out and hunt-down Jewish-Americans on campus?

If universities canonize critical race theorist Ibram Kendi, who insists that “anti-racism” requires good racism to combat bad racism, then is it any wonder that professors of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and various studies courses at UC Davis or Stanford prominently harassed and threatened Jewish students, or at Cornell cheered on news of Hamas’s murder spree?

If campuses drop the SAT requirement, and no longer rank comparative high-school grade point averages, but instead rely on racial and ethnic quotas and “diversity statements” for university admissions, is it any surprise that insecure and passive-aggressive students feel entitled and exempt from any ramifications for their venom?

And if campuses are fixated on race and superficial appearances, and reward those who are supposedly not guilty of “white privilege,” it is easy to understand why anti-Semites believe they can justify their hatred by assuming Jews are guilty for being white, and they themselves exempt for being nonwhite bigots.

If the endowments of our top universities have reached record-setting multibillion-dollar levels, and if the billion-dollar annual income on those massive sums are non-taxable on the pretense campuses are apolitical and teach inductively rather than indoctrinate, then is it such a shock that exempted huge budgets lead to more staffers than students?

At Stanford, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that there were 16,938 graduate and undergraduate students, but they were out-numbered by the combined total of 15,750 administrators and their staffers, and 2,288 faculty. Would it not be easier and perhaps even cheaper just to hire one tutor for each student and forgo the administrators?

If anti-Semitic and racist professors enjoy life-long tenure, and if such guaranteed lifetime employment has de facto eliminated conservative voices among the faculty, why would any bigot mouthing genocidal chants ever worry about his job security?

So again, ignorant and arrogant describes what the public has concluded of campuses in the last few weeks.

In contrast, there is little such anti-Semitic violence at community colleges or trade schools, where the majority of students attends, and must work to pay for their education, and learn skills in a world apart from therapeutic gut courses. In truth, a multiple-choice American history test at a junior college now demands more knowledge from a student than the weaponized essay requirement of an Ivy-League -studies class.

Taxpayers soon will no longer wish to subsidize elite education, especially when campuses no longer can guarantee their graduates are broadly educated and their professional and graduate programs can no longer turn out top-flight experts and specialists.

So, what happened to America’s once monopoly on global excellence in higher education?

In a word, there was too much money—and too little accountability. Tuition soared faster than the rate of annual inflation. The federal government subsidizes almost $2 trillion in student loans, regardless of the quality of education the student receives, and often with the expectation there will be few if any consequences when indebted but poorly educated students’ default on their repayment obligations.

The professors who harass students, and rant endlessly off topic about current politics, are often not audited or reviewed on the quality of their scholarship and teaching as much as their political views, and their racial, gender, and ethnic status. Most have little knowledge of the reality outside the academic world—having spent their entire lives as students and then faculty confined to campus. Tenure is seen as a birthright rather than an ossified privilege only accorded to a tiny fraction of the workforce on the pretense that faculty should be heterodox, independent thinkers, without ideological blinders.

So, to save us from the monsters we created, Americans must get the government out of the student loan business. We must demand that universities’ endowments back their own student loans.

The government should tax endowment income and end lifelong tenure. Universities must expel and deport foreign students who violate campus laws as they violently act out their various hatreds.

Reinstate the SAT for admissions, and end racial quotas. And require a national SAT-like exit exam to reassure the public that graduates at least know more when they leave college than when they enrolled—an increasingly dubious assumption.

But most important of all: the public should stop giving money to elite institutions. To continue such philanthropy is akin to supplying heroin to an addict, gas to a fire, or fireworks to children.

Do not consider our prestigious schools any longer necessarily prestigious. Many are not. Do not hire a graduate simply because she graduated from Yale, or he attended Stanford—unless one prefers to risk dealing with an employee poorly schooled but likely to act out a pampered victim status and to disrupt a workplace.



Reject Moral Illiteracy


No, my bingo card did not have Generation Z embracing the wit and wisdom of Osama bin Laden, but it probably should have. After all, when you conceive of the stupidest possible leftist flex these days, that flex is likely to eventually come true – hell, I have a series of eight People’s Republic conservative action novels that conceive of some of the stupidest conceivable leftist flexes, and they are all coming true.

Osama bin Laden‘s ravings about how Israel is bad and America is worse, or vice versa, have hit a chord among recently-born TikTok viewers. Osama’s Been Litup’s rants have it all – claims of nefarious Jewish influence, complaints about evil capitalists, and whining like a little girl about Americans and Israelis fighting back against sociopathic Jihadi scumbags who go on murder sprees. This nonsense is supposed to provide “context” for 9/11, and to have further applicability to the current elimination of Hamas. What it actually provides is more reason for us to ignore young people and to ban China’s malevolent TikTok malware.

There’s no question about who was right and who was wrong regarding 9/11. It pains me to have to point this out, but the guys who flew airplanes full of innocent people into major buildings on our East Coast were the bad guys. They were terrorists. They were not misunderstood. They did not make some valid points. You do not gotta hand it to them.

Normal people are disgusted by mass murders like 9/11. Now, you might wonder why these kids aren’t repelled and disgusted by 9/11, but then you will remember that they were raised by other moral morons. Megyn Kelly had a long and potent tweet just lambasting parents who failed to teach their children about the basic moral calculus regarding terrorists versus normal people. These PINOs – parents in name only – along with the schools, have failed to teach moral literacy, the basic ability to discern right from wrong and good from evil. Hence, a generation of moral illiterates.

And it’s not that hard. Here’s a cheat sheet – going out and raping and murdering people at a rave, bad. Hunting down and blowing into pieces people who go out and rape and murder people at a rave, good.

Being a terrorist is wrong. Being a savage is wrong. Being a barbarian is wrong. But fighting back against them is not wrong. Fighting back against them is a moral obligation and a solid moral good. That’s true even when you have to hurt innocent people while doing it. The business of defending civilization is messy, and “war is hell” is not just a cliché but a fact. Today, all we hear about is the collateral damage levied upon those whom the terrorists hid around. Well, it happens, and it’s legitimate. The fact that killing terrorists means also killing those the terrorists hide behind does not give the enemy a Get-Out-Of-Being-Killed-Free card. Their cowardice does not get to define the scope of our retribution and, to Israel’s credit, it has not. The law of war certainly does not say so. The fact that killing enemy combatants means killing enemy civilians is absolutely within the law of war as it actually reads, and not as some blue-haired 23-year-old with daddy issues says it reads on Twitter. 

It is morally correct for the good guys to destroy enemies who seek to destroy the good guys and, unfortunately, the people the bad guys choose to be around. The 9/11 terrorists were trash, and America was right to go across the ocean and kill just about everybody who had anything to do with 9/11, just as Israel is avenging 10/7. Put aside this “forever wars” hack cliché – that a war was mishandled by our totally incompetent establishment and our inept elite does not make the original purpose wrong. The Afghanistan War morphed beyond its proper scope as a merciless punitive expedition designed to extract bloody vengeance upon the savages into some sort of ridiculous nation-building exercise among people who were utterly unable to be a nation. It was right and proper to kill the people who killed our people. It was right to kill them in huge heaps, just like it would be right today to go kill the Hamas vermin ourselves – if our participation would not get in the Israelis’ way – for daring to kill and kidnap American citizens. 

There is nothing moral about stopping the war on Hamas. The only moral course of action is to wipe out every single Hamas terrorist. For the freaks screaming about a ceasefire – and putting aside the Hamas mass murder spree that started this off broke a prior ceasefire – here’s a suggestion. Tell your Hamas buddies to surrender. That would end it. But the freaks won’t ever do that because they do not want peace. They want a Hamas victory. Well, decent people want an Israeli victory, and there should be no ceasefire until every single Hamas scumbag is in chains or in a bag.

Moral clarity is the understanding that good and evil are constantly struggling and that good must fight to win. The morally illiterate will object that this is a black-and-white view. Yes, because, like with gender, morality is binary. There is good, and there is evil, and there is no good/evil equivalent of trans or two-spirit. You should always choose good. But to be on the side of good and actually enforce good requires hard men and women. You have to do hard things. You have to kill people and break things. 

The idea that we are obligated to call a time-out every time the terrorists’ actions put a noncombatant at risk is tactical and moral nonsense. It’s like pacifism. It’s moral posturing by jerks made possible only by other people who are willing to fight. You wouldn’t have a single pacifist left if it weren’t for the hard men and women who are ready to kill the people who the pacifist wants us to roll over for. That’s because the pacifists would be murdered by the people they are being pacific toward. This wailing and gnashing of teeth about Gaza is all a cheap indulgence of safe children and political voguing – strike a pose; there’s nothing to it!

So if you come across some Gen Z idiot who suggests that maybe Osama bin Laden had a point, you need to tell that person that he or she or whatever stupid pronoun he or she has adopted is being an idiot. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Robert O’Neill was right to put bullets in his face after the creep cowered behind his family when 5.56mm justice came for him. That good is not aesthetically pleasing does not make it evil. The destruction of evil is the only possible moral choice. Anyone who thinks differently needs to grow up.



Legitimacy



In the era of great pretending this letter ranks at the top of the 2023 hubris scale.  Having attained her position using ballot manipulation and collection, the fraudulently installed AG in Arizona, Attorney General Kris Mayes, is threatening to arrest anyone who does a hand recount of ballots in Mohave County. [SOURCE]

[SOURCE]

The need for control is a reaction to fear.


We Are Just Scratching The Surface Of The Secrets Behind DEI

Why are these large corporations providing huge sums of money to organizations that seek to destroy trust between different groups of people?



The “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) agenda is a dead-end philosophy that can only end in the destruction of all groups. Is it any wonder that we are currently seeing this Frankenstein monster rampage through society, whether it be the Nashville shooter targeting white children or Palestinian groups turning on their Democratic supporters? If the frame you present only consists of victims and their abusers, there is only one way this can end, and that’s with the poisoning of our entire society.

In our new book, The Diversity Con: The Secrets and Lies Behind the Shady DEI Industry, Project Veritas whistleblower David Johnson and I engage in a deep dive into the strategies, financing, and history behind this philosophy, which has currently captured so much public interest.

We must begin with the acknowledgment that our opponents have done an excellent job of creating interest in the subject of how different groups survive and thrive in society. We want to learn about history, such as the racial separation laws of the Jim Crow South, which forbade a white man from playing a game of checkers with a black man. But we must be vigilant that we draw the correct conclusions. It is not just that these laws disadvantaged black people; it’s that they prevented both sides from seeing their common humanity.

There has been a trend over many years: Activism in student groups and the arts has been mostly a left-wing phenomenon, driven by deconstructionist theories and radical professors. Instead of teaching the unity of humanity, they have promoted eternal war.

Undercover and Embedded in DEI Hotbeds

We began our investigation of DEI with Johnson going undercover at several of these training sessions to understand how this brainwashing was being accomplished. What he discovered was truly remarkable, although not unexpected to those familiar with the rules of persuasion.

Each training course could be broken up into three distinct sessions. First, they open with an initial history and background section, composed of interesting facts and agreed-upon interpretations of history. Second, they move to some more radical ideas, although still remaining within the bounds of reasonable debate. Third, they shift to absolute craziness, such as the claim in one presentation that a mother taking pictures of her 7-year-old son masturbating and then displaying them in an “art show” was not a form of child pornography.

In each training course Johnson attended, the subject matter divided people into different groups — usually some variation of the Marxist perspective of “oppressor and oppressed.” How can one ever make peace with his oppressor? And how can any person who might consider himself historically “oppressed” work to make himself an “oppressor”?

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at behaviors among certain groups to determine their success in society. Yes, it is true we are looking at groups, but this is more a question of behaviors than any genetic traits. Thankfully, we have some good data.

According to a 2018 study from the Institute for Family Studies, 85 percent of Asian children live with married parents, while 74 percent of white children, 61 percent of Hispanic children, and 36 percent of black children live with married parents. We understand that a stable family creates an environment in which children have the greatest chance to achieve their full potential.

One of the difficulties with data such as this is how we might quickly effect change. Marriage rates will not improve quickly, no matter how much attention is devoted to the issue. However, over time, we may come to an improved understanding of the effect divorce might have on children — and just maybe, the adults involved may decide to make better choices.

Example after example of alleged “inequity” or “oppression” in these trainings could be debunked by data studying behaviors of individual groups. Isn’t it time we all became “success supremacists” looking at what works among other groups and seeking to emulate it in our group?

Follow the Money

Probably the most shocking chapter of our book is the one titled “Follow the Money,” which looks at the funding of the DEI agenda. Using the history of the Black Lives Matter movement, we show how the Tides Foundation of San Francisco was the main entity behind its growth and development, generating rivers of dark money to support Black Lives Matter as well as many other left-wing organizations.

By searching through publicly available documents, we found that in 2020, the Tides Foundation gave out $607 million in grants to various organizations, and that same year, it listed $511 million in annual revenue. That’s an amazing amount of money for a “nonprofit” to receive and distribute in an election year.

Of course, we found the usual list of suspects donating to the Tides Foundation: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation providing more than $26 million since 2000, the Ford Foundation providing more than $100 million since 2007, the George Soros Foundation to Promote an Open Society giving more than $30 million since 2016, and the Google Foundation giving $59 million over the years.

[BLM's Shocking $83 Billion Shakedown Of American Corporations]

Why are these large corporations providing great amounts of money to organizations that seek to destroy trust between different groups of people? Is it because when we turn away from each other, our local communities become estranged, which leads us toward remote connections, such as emails, texts, and ordering items on Amazon? This possibility makes a certain amount of sense and makes one ask these questions.

We have considered these histories and the shadowy supporters behind their agendas, and it leads us to ask another question in our book. Is the DEI agenda about making the lives of people better, or is it about serving the interests of our modern-day robber barons?