Reincarnations and Revolution

posted by David R. Carlin at American Thinker 

The first incarnation of revolutionary spirit in modern times took place during the French Revolution.  This revolution failed to achieve its Utopian goal.  But its spirit, being immortal, lived on and awaited reincarnation.

The second incarnation took place in the Bolshevik Revolution in early 20th-century Russia — a more powerful, and far bloodier, revolution than the earlier one.  Again, the revolution failed to produce Utopia; if anything, it produced just the opposite.  But once again, the spirit lived on.

The third incarnation of this revolutionary spirit is taking place at this moment — an uprising of the world’s persons “of color” against the whites who have for centuries dominated the world.

There is a basic “script” followed by each of these revolutions, a melodramatic script.  According to this script, there is always a conflict between a powerful villain and the “good guy” victim of this villain, a victim who has hitherto been powerless but is now gathering strength.

In the French Revolution, the villain was the nobility, the aroused victim the people.  In the Communist Revolution, the villain was the class of capitalists, the aroused victim the workers of the world.  In the current revolution, the villain is the white people of the world, the victim the aroused non-whites of the world.

This “POC” category, it should be noted, includes many groups who are not, or at least not entirely, “of color” — for example, Arabs, Muslims, and Latinx (as the revolutionists would have us label everybody south of the Rio Grande).  We may perhaps call these un-colored groups “honorary POCs.”

The first two revolutions were not without impact in the United States.  The French Revolution had its American sympathizers, Thomas Jefferson (at least for a while) being the most notable of these.  The Russian Revolution had lots and lots of American sympathizers, many of them members of the Communist Party (CPUSA) along with many “fellow-travelers” outside the party.  More than a few of these sympathizers operated within the U.S. government.

The current revolution has far more American sympathizers than either of the first two.  This has recently been made clear by the sudden great upsurge of pro-Palestinian and anti-Jew feeling among many “progressive” young Americans on the campuses of some of our “best” colleges and universities.

What’s more, the ideological leaders of the Democrat party, who are typically professors of social science and humanities at (once again) our “best” colleges and universities, are strongly in sympathy with this third revolution.  They believe that white Americans are for the most part anti-POC racists — not because they are born with a racist gene, but because they are taught to be racist from the cradle.  Almost miraculously, though, a few (highly virtuous) whites are anti-racists — for example, most of the professors themselves.

Since the Democrat party now controls the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, and since the beliefs of these academic ideologues “trickle down” to non-academic Democrat politicians (including President Biden), can we be surprised that the Biden administration has adopted — in a de fact if not de jure way — an open-border policy with regard to the Third World (the Global South)?

After all, if whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, and if whites are generally racist, and if racism is the greatest of all sins, then it follows that the USA has a population that is mainly made up of wicked people.  If we can reduce the white percentage of the U.S. population — if (let’s say) we can bring it down to about 33 percent — then the country will have undergone a tremendous moral improvement. 

Open borders will bring about this improvement.  By 2050 non-whites will be a slight majority of the U.S. population.  By 2100, if we keep the borders open, they will be an overwhelming majority.

As a result, then, the USA will at long last be a morally good country — almost as good, perhaps, as Cuba or Venezuela or Haiti.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- Feb 2

 

How To Ensure a Big, Ugly War with Iran ~ VDH

When serially attacked, loudly responding that we will only proportionally strike back and wish no wider war will only ensure a big, ugly one.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Iranian-backed militias have attacked American installations and forces in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan some 170 times.

Ostensibly, these terrorist groups claim they are hitting US forces to coerce America into dropping its support of Israel and demanding a cease-fire in the Gaza war.

In reality, these satellite terrorists are being directed in a larger effort by Iran to pry the US. out of the Middle East, in the manner of the 1983 Marine barracks bombing.

That way, Iran will be free to fulfill its old dream of becoming a nuclear shield for a new Shiite/Persian terrorist axis from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut to the West Bank and Gaza—surrounding Israel and intimidating the Gulf regimes and more moderate states like Jordan and Egypt into concessions.

These Iranian appendages have made a number of unfortunately correct assumptions about America in general and the Biden administration in particular.

One, after the recent serial humiliations of the flight from Afghanistan, the passivity of watching a Chinese spy balloon traverse with impunity the continental United States, the mixed American signals on the eve of the Ukraine war, the troubled Pentagon’s recruitment and leadership lapses, and the destruction of the US southern border, both Iran and its surrogates feel that the United States either cannot or will do much of anything in response to their aggression.

They see the U.S. military short thousands of recruits, its leadership politicized, its munition stocks depleted by arms shipments to Ukraine and Israel, and the massive abandonment of weapons in Kabul.

Two, they view Joe Biden’s serial appeasement as a force multiplier of these perceptions of American weakness. After entering office, the Biden administration begged for a renewed Iran deal from a preening theocracy. It sought to ensure calm by delisting the Houthis from global terrorist designations and sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas and radical Palestinians to buy good behavior.

Biden may have agreed that Iran was the spider in the center of the Middle East Islamic terrorist web, but only thereby to win over it with bribes such as lifting embargoes and sanctions to ensure an Iranian windfall of $90 or more billion in oil sales revenue.

Biden greenlighted a bribery payment of $6 billion to Iran to return American hostages, thereby ensuring more will be taken. It loudly distanced itself from the Netanyahu government. The gulf encouraged radicals to believe they could coerce Israel into accepting radical Islamic states on the West Bank and Gaza.

Three, after hitting American stations and bases 170 times and seeing little sustained, much less disproportionate, responses, Iran and its satellites now feel they are winning proxy wars with the US.

They have all but shut down the Red Sea as an international shipping route—damaging Europe, Egypt, and Israel, which all depend on Red Sea commerce for vital imports and exports.

Iran has forced Biden to publicly alienate the Netanyahu government and push a ceasefire down Israel’s throat. And it has helped to spark international pro-Hamas protests throughout Europe and the US that timid and compliant left-wing governments fear could lose them close elections.

But most damaging are administration spokesmen who mouth the same empty script after each serial attack: 1) The US will respond at the time and place of its own choosing. 2) The US finds no direct evidence of Iranian involvement, although it clearly has supplied the attackers; 3) The US does not wish a wider war and has no plans to attack Iran itself.

Translated to our enemies, it means an 80-year-old non-compos-mentis president is in no position to prevent, much less win, a theater-wide Middle East war that his own serial appeasement has now nearly birthed.

Biden and the Democratic Party know, as National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan pointed out just prior to the October 7 attacks on Israel, that the administration inherited a deterred and quiet Middle East. And then it blew up on their appeasing watch.

Now they are terrified of a theater-wide conflict breaking out during an election year—a fact known to all of America’s Middle East enemies.

Biden and company have forgotten the ancient wisdom that preparing loudly only for peace guarantees war. To prevent war, it should return to oil sanctions on Iran, embargo its banking transactions, slap a travel ban on Iran and its allies, cut off all aid to Hamas and the West Bank, and restore a true terrorist designation for the Houthis.

US officials must stop aimlessly babbling. If the administration must speak, Washington should do so by conveying disproportionality and unpredictability. And if, and when, America were to strike, it should do so in silent and devastating fashion.

When serially attacked, loudly responding that we will only proportionally strike back and wish no wider war will only ensure a big, ugly one.

Comparison of Spending Priorities of RNC and DNC Raises Eyebrows

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

I have continually said, “The DNC wants power. The RNC wants money. The DNC uses money to get power. The RNC uses power to get money. The ideology of the DNC drives their donor activity. The donor activity of the RNC drives their ideology. This is the difference between the two clubs, two wings of the same vulture.”  

The only thing the RNC care about is getting money from their multinational corporate owners.  Raising money is the sole function of the RNC.  Raising money is not the means to an end, it is the end itself.  Apparently, people are starting to catch on:

(Via Gateway Pundit) -Here’s a breakdown of the spending categories between the RNC and the DNC:

Floral Arrangements:
RNC: $70,328.00
DNC: $795

Consultants:
RNC: $1,078,279.47
DNC: $114,000

Office Supplies:
RNC: $297,717.64
DNC: $45,005

Limousines:
RNC: $263,127.25
DNC: $7,000

Voter File Maintenance:
RNC: $39,233.50
DNC: $235,865.88

GOTV Texts:
RNC: $86,019
DNC: $1,676,923.29

State Outlays:
RNC: $13,800,200
DNC: $23,835,437

Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote gives some great perspective:

[Source]

Agenda 2030: A Power-mad Document

posted by E. Jeffrey Ludwig at American Thinker 

The United Nations Agenda 2030, Section 18 of 91 sections, begins with the following words:

We are announcing today 17 Sustainable Development Goals with 169 associated targets which are integrated and indivisible. Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda.

Putting aside the amateurish opening four words, which sound more like a press release than a serious policy statement, the drafters of the statement are actually telling the truth.  There has never been such a global policy statement as this.  It really is not about policy, but about an intended power-grab of unprecedented proportions. 

This writer is proposing that the “common action” is to eliminate nation-state sovereignties throughout the world.  The sinister nature of this purpose is deflected by the words “universal policy.”  Policy would be, for example, to double the daily consumption of about half the world’s population, living on $2 a day per person, to $4 a day.  That would be a policy.  But this agenda has no specific policies.  It is couched throughout in vapid, non-specific terms, being specific only when referring to various U.N.-sponsored conferences held before 2015, the year that Agenda 2030 was written.  Not one specific economic or social policy implementation — and successful implementation — is referred to in the entire Agenda 2030 document!

The above is only scratching the surface of Agenda 2030’s attempt to obfuscate and deceive while claiming a wholesome and positive goal for the entire world.  Section 33 states, “We are determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife.”  My question to the U.N.: How is it that oceans, rivers, lakes, forests, arable land, and wildlife have existed since the beginning of the planet Earth until the formation of the U.N., with its “vision” of a viable planet (sic)?  Their language of sustainability is pure hubris.  The U.N. will do a better job of maintaining, sustaining, and improving all of nature than what nature has been able to do without the U.N.’s all-caring intervention?

This writer grew up thinking that the oceans and the air belonged to everyone in the world.  Then there were vast, sparsely inhabited regions of mountains, deserts, and forests within nations that were to be managed by those nations.  Now the U.N. is claiming management rights over the oceans and the air, and even vast areas within countries.  That in effect gives the U.N. authority over all governments regarding nature and of all of nature that is presently not under any specific government.  This is communism without a takeover by the proletariat.  The danger to nature warrants a new world order, and a collective authority that takes precedence over business rights, civil rights, and claims to individual rights.  Nature’s needs and requirements trump the individual’s rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Behind their assumption is a dark, communist vision: capitalism with its greedy, self-interested propensities and institutional manipulations, has raped and distorted nature.  The balance and life-producing principles of nature (“Mother Nature,” if one loves that idiom) have been superseded by a profiteering motive.  That motive is exploiting the people of the world.  Those who understand the extent and danger of this exploitation, whether they be rich or poor, young or old, brown, black, or white, must join with the visionary U.N. to correct this distortion of nature and of man’s relation to it.  The U.N. thus has the idea and the wisdom to meet true human needs and sustainability.

Under the distortions of an unjust world order, the long-term as well as the short-term meeting of needs and the balance needed for nature’s survival are threatened.  Profits are taking precedence over people and nature throughout planet Earth.  This is the false narrative and leftist dream that is driving this so-called agenda.  (In reality, it is a shift from the original U.N. agenda of world cooperation of sovereign nation-states based on the enhancement of rights — see the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights — to being the world governing power.)

In the midst of Section 31 about sustainability goals, Agenda 2030 states, “We are also determined to promote sustainable tourism, tackle water scarcity and water pollution and strengthen cooperation on desertification.”  We know that there is a lot of water scarcity and desertification in the Sahara and Mohave Deserts.  However, here Agenda 2030 writes about these things without naming one specific piece of geography.  This is an insult to any intelligent reader, who would automatically wish to know what parts of the world they are interested in “improving.”  For example, Phoenix is connected to the Sonoran Desert.  Would Agenda 2030 determine that it could tell Phoenix about various civic decisions on the grounds that those decisions are promoting desertification?  Many, many metropolitan centers throughout the world are located in or adjacent to desert areas.  Any reasonable person would thus understand sentences like the one above as providing for U.N. control over governmental urban planning decisions wherever “desertification” might even remotely might be a legitimate claim.

And what about the surprise insertion of the term “tourism”?  As we saw above, that single word is inserted in Section 31 with a long list of environmental concepts.  The drafters of this document reveal with this one word that they want control over the movement of all people — large and small movements — to and from all locations.  The average person might have thought sustainability might mean something about air quality or global warming.  But the sudden inclusion of “tourism” shows that even the short-term movements of people may impact the “sustainability” of the planet and will need to be controlled.

As we reflect on the glittering generalities of the text of Agenda 2030, it becomes clear that the U.N.’s intention is to interfere in and take over the affairs of sovereign nation-states in the name of “meeting needs” and environmental sustainability.  The lack of specificity of the document itself sends signals about the intent of the organization to secure power over humanity in the name of protecting humanity and nature.  

House Republicans Seek To Interview Witness Of Hunter Biden’s Potential Pay-For-Play Art Scandal

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist 

As part of their impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, House Republicans issued a letter Thursday requesting an interview with an individual central to Hunter Biden’s art career that may have allowed the president’s son to launder bribes.

“The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability … and the House Committee on the Judiciary … are investigating whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden for consideration by the full House. … This request is made pursuant to that inquiry,” GOP Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan wrote.

The individual is Lanette Phillips, an associate of Hunter’s attorney and financer, Kevin Morris, and of Georges Bergès, a New York City art gallerist who sold Hunter’s works. According to Morris’s prior congressional testimony, Phillips introduced Morris and Bergès to the younger Biden at a November 2019 fundraiser for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. Not long after this meeting, Morris spent “at least $875,000 to purchase art by Hunter Biden through his limited liability company, Kuliaky Art, LLC,” and would later provide “at least $6.5 million in ‘loans’ to Hunter Biden,” the representatives write.

Morris has continued to represent the younger Biden in the latter’s legal scandals.

Given Hunter’s extensive history of leveraging the Biden “brand” to enhance the family’s foreign influence-peddling scheme, House Republicans are requesting Phillips testify to provide answers on whether Morris’s “substantial financial support for Hunter Biden was intended to benefit, curry favor with, or gain access to Joe Biden.” “As the person who introduced Morris to Hunter Biden, the Committees believe that you have information relevant to that question,” Comer and Jordan wrote.

Republicans’ request for Phillips’s testimony comes shortly after Bergès revealed to House investigators there was no “agreement” between him and the White House to keep the identities of Hunter’s art buyers secret from Hunter and the administration. In fact, Bergès reportedly said he had “no communication with the White House” regarding such an arrangement and that Hunter “knew the identities of the individuals who purchased roughly 70% of the value of his art, including Democrat donors Kevin Morris and Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali.”

Bergès’s testimony corroborates a July Insider report that identified Morris and Hirsh Naftali as two individuals who have purchased Hunter’s work. As The Federalist previously reported, Hirsh Naftali is a Los Angeles-based real estate investor Insider says is “influential in California Democratic circles and is a significant Democratic donor.” Last year, she reportedly gave $29,700 to the Democratic National Campaign Committee and $13,414 to Joe Biden’s campaign. She also hosted a 2022 fundraiser headlined by Vice President Kamala Harris.

While Hirsh Naftali purportedly couldn’t be persuaded by Bergès to purchase any of Hunter’s works in 2020, she did purchase her “first piece” of the younger Biden’s art for $42,000 after Joe assumed the presidency. In July 2022, Joe appointed Hirsh Naftali to serve on the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, the “same commission that Biden family associate, Eric Schwerin, was appointed to during the Obama-Biden Administration.”

House Republicans asked Phillips to respond to their staff to schedule a transcribed interview by Feb. 8.

House GOP Interview Request... by The Federalist

Illegal Aliens, Who Beat Cops Received Bail, Left Town on Charity Bus Heading to California

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

The only reason this story gained traction was because CCTV video was involved.  With tens of millions of violent illegal aliens throughout the country, just imagine how much crime is occurring without detection or without widespread public knowledge.

In New York City, five illegal aliens acting as a pack of wild dogs were caught-on-camera attacking two NYPD cops in Times Square.  They were tracked down and arrested.  However, after appearing in court, they immediately received bail.

As noted by the NY Post, “Footage of the incident on West 42nd Street shows an NYPD officer and lieutenant telling a group of migrants to move along before a scuffle breaks out. The officers sustained kicks and punches as they attempted to wrestle some of the individuals to the ground.”

In an update, after receiving bail the five assault criminals have now hopped a charity bus heading to California to avoid prosecution.

NEW YORK – Four of the migrants cut loose without bail after allegedly ganging up on two NYPD cops near Times Square may be on the run, The Post has learned.

Cops believe the group hopped on a bus bound for California on Wednesday after giving phony names to a church-affiliated nonprofit group that helps migrants get rides out of the city, according to law enforcement sources.

Four migrants were charged with assault on a police officer and obstruction immediately after the shocking, caught-on-video attack Saturday in Midtown: Darwin Andres Gomez, 19, Kelvin Servita Arocha, 19, Wilson Juarez, 21, and Yorman Reveron, 24.

All were released without monetary bail, though Reveron, who had prior arrests on his rap sheet, was put on supervised release.  A fifth asylum-seeking suspect, Jhoan Boada, 22, was hit with the same charges and also released without bail Wednesday. (read more)

We know it is only going to get worse.  Almost none of these released illegal aliens have an independent financial support system.  Considering the cultural norms and outlooks held by the mostly young adult males, as the reality of their situation hardens, we can expect extreme antisocial behavior to manifest throughout the country.

To gain a perspective on how quickly this is happening, head to your local indoor shopping mall.  Sit on a bench as an observer, maintain full situational awareness and look around.  You’ll see it just as clear as you are reading this type.  The “slowly at first” is currently metastasizing and spreading throughout most population centers.

Be aware of your surroundings, and if you have young vulnerable females in the family – be extremely diligent with their safety.