Tuesday, August 13, 2024

Harris and Walz: The Dark Road from Neighborliness to Totalitarianism


The Harris-Walz campaign is running on high octane socialism. Walz said recently on a White Dudes for Harris Zoom call, “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” Never mind the implicit racism in an organization that self-selects based solely on pigmentation. But that sort of balkanization is a hallmark of socialist politics. 

Walz’s brand of neighborliness sounds enticing. But, so did the Serpent’s invitation to take a bite of the forbidden fruit. It’s the kind of platitude that appeals to the first level thinker and the “bleeding heart.” It’s a lie wrapped in good intentions and half truths — the purest form of evil. It’s the same kind of lie that adorned the entrance to Auschwitz, “Arbeit macht frei,” or “Work makes one free.” Too extreme a comparison? Hardly. Socialism is merely the gateway drug into the world of totalitarian Marxism. 

The utopian ideas of Karl Marx are responsible for an estimated 110 million deaths worldwide. During World War II, 80 million people died as the result of a war started by Hitler with the support of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party or NSDAP—more commonly known as the Nazi party. Hitler’s fascism and Stalin’s communism were really distinctions without much difference. Both were totalitarians who controlled every mechanism of economic production and social function. 

What liberals miss and what commissars like Harris and Walz know is that neighborliness is destroyed in the furnace of socialist utopianism. Charity is weaponized and bureaucratized out of existence and all pretenses to civility, neighborliness, and civil liberties are dropped when power is achieved. And, make no mistake, for people like Harris and Walz, power is the only objective. How do we know this? Consider how you’ve been lied to for four years. All in the name of keeping a senile, Democrat stoolie in power—Joe Biden.

Charity is at the heart of neighborliness, and charity loses all meaning when enforced by the state. 

For Democrats, socialism is merely a term of art. Though most modern Democrats may balk at full blown Stalinism, they are quite at home with the ideas of Karl Marx. And, this is no accident. Our institutions of higher learning have been co-opted by the left and its Marxian paradigm. For them, it’s a unified theory and applies not just to economics, but to every aspect of human interaction. Properly understood, Marxism is government control of every interaction, be it economic, social, domestic, or religious. 

Why do Democrats constantly attack fundamental institutions like Christianity? Because it opposes the absolute primacy of the state, which is essential to the Marxist utopian worldview. Harris and Walz are the political progeny of Barack Hussein Obama, a Marxist in the tradition of Bill Ayers, founder of the Marxian Weather Underground. Obama was a long time associate of Ayers, and has never repudiated Ayers or his subversive activities. 

No argument can be mounted against the assertion that Harris and Waltz are government interventionists. And, as legendary free market economist Ludwig von Mises said, government interventionism tends inexorably to socialism. A growing segment of American society is entirely comfortable with what are perceived to be the equitable aspects of socialist economic and political theory. 

However, socialism doesn’t deliver justice in any sphere of application—political, social, or economic. 

Socially, the notions of Marxism or socialist theory engender division and animosity. DEI is an example of the collectivist idea of equity in action. The results are always critical inefficiencies, basing hiring and promotion decisions on immutable characteristics in the name of fairness. The outcome is always the same: quotas, racism, and the erosion of work-force competency. Equity promises sameness of result, but only delivers injustice perpetrated on those who’ve achieved based on merit and capability. It’s an insidious disincentive, since it reduces the value of all labor to immutable categories like race, gender, and now the enigma of identity. 

The socialist politics of Harris and Walz bends toward totalitarianism. Just as government intervention tends inexorably towards socialism, socialism tends inexorably towards totalitarianism. A government, whose raison d’Γͺtre is to ensure equitable distribution, must of necessity be one of complete centralization. Power and control become the indispensable tools of the state. Democrats, far from egalitarian, continue to centralize power in the federal government, driven by their secularist lust for control. 

If Democrats could only compel the ignorant masses into being noble, utopia could be achieved. At the heart of this notion is the perfectibility of man. A notion completely antithetical to Biblical teaching, and throughly debunked by experience. The horrors of Auschwitz are an eternal testament to the diabolical nature of man empowered to pursue utopia. 

Economically, socialism is simply the redistribution of other people’s money by the most inefficient means possible. The outcome is shared poverty and misery. Historically, there is not a single example of the successful application of socialist-Marxist economic principles. Socialist economies survive only so long as capitalist mechanisms remain to sustain the dissipation of capital. Even the vaunted Norwegian example limps along, sustained by the free market components of their economy. The American experience of free market capitalism is one of unparalleled prosperity for the most people. Of course, there are always individuals left out at the edges, and this is where true charity comes into play, funded by a prosperous people motivated by eternal principles. 

But, Harris and Walz know nothing of eternal principles or love for their fellow man. Unlike the Good Samaritan, Harris and Walz pass by the beggar on the other side of the road. Their policies will create a nation of beggars, secularized beyond compassion, with no one capable of lifting up their neighbor.       



X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 13

 




We Need a Badass in the White House


Establishment Republicans would rather lose with honor and dignity than get their hands dirty and their noses bloodied in a street fight.

Politics ain’t beanbag, as the expression goes, except to genteel Republicans who prefer the wimp approach of giving a pleasant concession speech as opposed to taking the badass approach and punching back twice as hard when attacked.

Greg Gutfield, one of the few remaining conservative voices on Fox News, made the case for Donald Trump on his recent show.

Watch or allow me to paraphrase:

When you are watching vintage Trump, you have to realize this is how he is going to be in meetings with people who are not friendly to the United States.

He is not a figurehead, he’s an agent, he’s your agent, he’s America’s lawyer. He’s in the room to represent his client, America. Your needs and your concerns. He’s supposed to be an asshole. He’s not interested in impressing the other people in the room.

I want an agent or a lawyer with that relentless energy that makes people upset. And the country needs that.

This guy is going to be that way in a room with people that have been screwing us over. You want the guy that nobody likes because they don’t like him for a reason.

Fortunately, I have never been through a divorce, sued anyone, nor been a criminal defendent. But if I did, I would want a lawyer who is tough, a badass, willing to fight tooth and nail for me the client. Not someone who puts up a civil and stately argument, while leaving his or her client on the losing end.

There is much hand-wringing and pearl-clutching among the Republican smart set over Trump’s demeanor, his mean tweets and name-calling, his eagerness to fight on the same scorched earth playing field as do Democrats.

Trump gives his opponents nicknames. It’s branding and he is a master of that due to his New York City upbringing and years in the business and reality television world. And it works. Just ask Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco, or Crooked Hillary.

But to the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and many on Fox News, this behavior is abhorrent. Were they upset with nicknames like “Bushitler”? Or Paul Ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair off a cliff? Or Mitt Romney supposedly not paying any taxes, killing his employees, and torturing his dog?

Are elected Republicans fighting a weaponized administrative state that accused Trump of colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 election? Or 51 intelligence officials lying through their teeth about Hunter Biden’s laptop? Or the lawfare used against Trump? Or the credible allegations of election fraud?

No fight, only a few Congressional hearings and strongly worded tweets.

Meanwhile the American people are getting screwed. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. American veterans are living in squalor on the streets while illegal aliens are living in luxury hotels, receiving food, healthcare, education, and other services that many hardworking Americans cannot afford.

Who is fighting for them?

Democrats instead are advocating for male athletes competing against women, tampons in boys’ bathrooms, and unlimited abortion of full-term babies. World War III is brewing with American young adults potentially drafted to fight and defend the borders of Israel, Ukraine, or Taiwan, while our border is left wide open.

Who are our advocates? Word-salad Kamala and Tampon Tim? Or the mean loudmouth with orange hair?

America is in decline, economically, socially, and culturally. Who will fight to stop or at least slow the decline? Reversing things is a tall order, even for Trump, given the forces marshalled against him – media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, much of his own party, and the fourth branch of government, the administrative state or ruling class.

Trump is willing to fight, unlike most elected Republicans and surrogates. Which is why Trump remains popular to this day, despite the fierce opposition, including a recent assassination attempt.

Do Trump supporters want to marry him? Live with him? Vacation with him? Be his valentine? No, they want an advocate, someone willing to roll up his sleeves and fight for them.

Trump isn’t the cause of this anti-establishment movement, instead he is the result of it. The Tea Party arose due to feckless Republican leadership under George W. Bush ushering in the reign of Barack Obama.

Trump and MAGA was the result of Republicans genuflecting to Obama, offering no pushback to his “fundamental transformation of America” which continues to this day.

Who is America’s advocate? Who is fighting for the Constitution, the rule of law? Who wants America first rather than America last?

The American people have little voice. We elect representatives to be our advocates. They talk a good game as candidates, but few follow through on those promises once in office. They may be nice and polite, but save that for the country club pool party, not the rough and tumble world of U.S. and global leadership.

Republican primary voters made their choice. Overwhelmingly. They chose, as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg described him, “a badass.” Trump’s policies and accomplishments are the best since Reagan. It’s not about worshiping Trump but instead about results and making America great again.

As Trump described in a 2016 campaign rally,

Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.

As Gutfield said, Trump is America’s advocate, its pitbull lawyer. So what if he can be an asshole at times? You’re not marrying the guy.

When it comes to your trial lawyer, your surgeon, or your president, you want the person who will fight like hell for your case, your life, or your country. So what if he’s full of himself and can at times be a jerk.

Better that than being left with a guilty verdict or in the morgue. It’s time to separate personality from performance.

When negotiating with Putin, Xi, or any other world leader, I don’t want Mr. Nice Guy representing me if he gets rolled by badass foreign leaders. I want a tough guy on my side, one our opponents fear. Out of fear comes respect. Whether they like my guy or not doesn’t matter.

When losing is not an option, we don’t want excuses, platitudes, and congenial words. We want a fighter.

As Dan Bongino likes to say, “Cutesy time is over.” Bring on the badass!



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Don’t Let The Camo Hat Distract You From Tim Walz’s Radical Record


Tim Walz’s record as governor of Minnesota is every bit as bad as that of the Biden-Harris administration, if not worse.



Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., was largely unknown to voters across the country when Vice President Kamala Harris selected him as her running mate, so his record is coming under national scrutiny for the first time. Unfortunately for Walz and the Democrats, his record as governor of Minnesota is every bit as bad as that of the Biden-Harris administration, if not worse.

When the George Floyd riots began in Minneapolis in May 2020, Walz dithered. For four days, while Minneapolis and other cities burned, Walz refused to call out the National Guard. By the time the riots were finally brought under control, the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct station had been stormed by rioters and burned, along with many other buildings.

The result is a crime wave that continues to the present. Throughout its history, Minnesota had always been a low-crime state. But as a result of Walz’s anti-law enforcement policies, the rate of serious crimes in Minnesota now exceeds the national average. For the first time, Minnesota is officially a high-crime state.

Walz’s tenure has been equally destructive of Minnesota’s economy. Historically, Minnesota has been a relatively high-income state. Its per capita gross domestic product has always been higher than the national average. But that, too, is no longer true. Walz’s anti-business and anti-growth policies have taken their toll, so that beginning in 2023, Minnesota’s per capita GDP is below the national average. Walz has performed the remarkable feat of making Minnesota an economically below-average state.

Students Suffer

For many years, Minnesotans have believed that their public schools and students — like those of the fictional Lake Wobegon — are above average. That was true once, but not under Walz. The Walz administration has driven an explosion in spending on K-12 schools, but more spending has not meant better results. On the contrary, student performance has plummeted.

Currently, fewer than half of all K-12 students in Minnesota’s public schools can either read or do math at grade level. Shockingly, 64 percent of Minnesota’s 11th graders can’t do math at grade level. And in the most recent testing, both 4th and 8th grade reading proficiency is the lowest ever recorded. Some of this decline is due to Walz’s improvident closing of Minnesota’s schools during the Covid epidemic, but dismal test results continue to the present.

Costly Energy Policy

Walz is an admirer of California. He has never seen a left-wing California initiative that he hasn’t tried to import into Minnesota. Thus, he has been a strong advocate for wind and solar energy. He authored a proposal to require 100 percent of Minnesota’s electricity to come from wind and solar by 2040. Remarkably, there was no cost estimate for this plan, nor was there a feasibility study to show that it could be done. Energy experts at the Center of the American Experiment estimated the cost of Walz’s plan at $313 billion, a price that still could not assure reliable power. Nevertheless, Walz was able to get that legislation passed, and he signed it into law.

Because of Walz’s “green” initiatives, the cost of electricity in Minnesota has risen much faster than the national average. Minnesota has lost the competitive advantage of cheaper-than-average electricity. This no doubt contributes to Minnesota’s subpar economic growth.

Scandal and Population Loss

Walz’s administration has also been plagued by scandal. Most notoriously, $250 million was stolen from taxpayers in the Feeding Our Future scandal. The money supposedly went to feed poor children, but the meals for which the money was paid were almost entirely fictitious. Confronted with the facts, Walz lied, asserting falsely that his Department of Education had been required by court order to make the payments. That claim was so outrageous that the court took the remarkable step of issuing a public statement refuting it.

The acid test of policies in any state is, are people moving in or out? Sadly, Minnesota, which once was a magnet, now repels residents. Every year Minnesota suffers a net outflow of residents to other states. Minnesota loses residents in every age bracket, and in every income category above $50,000. (The only income bracket where Minnesota gains residents, on net, is 0 to $25,000.) Under Walz’s leadership, Minnesota has joined California, New York, and Illinois as a state that many people want to leave, and few want to move into.

So on policy, Walz’s record is one of failure. That being the case, what does he bring to the Democratic ticket?

Offending Rural Voters and Veterans

Democrats seem to think that Walz will appeal to swing voters in rural areas because he is a veteran and from a small town. They may be in for a rude awakening: Walz is despised in rural Minnesota, where he was routed in his re-election race in 2022. This is partly because he has been openly contemptuous of rural voters. He was famously caught on video telling fellow Democrats that they shouldn’t worry about those broad red swaths on the map, because rural areas are “mostly rocks and cows.” Thousands of small-town Minnesotans formed a group called Rocks and Cows of Minnesota, which sold merchandise and erected anti-Walz billboards.

As for being a veteran, Walz did serve in the Minnesota National Guard for 24 years, rising to a high rank. But when the Minnesota Guard was ordered to Iraq in 2005, rather than being deployed, Walz quit. Many of his fellow guardsmen are still bitter at what they regard as a betrayal.

Social Issues

Walz is hard left on bread and butter issues, but it is the social issues where he is most extreme. He advocated for and signed legislation that legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth, as well as a law that makes Minnesota a “trans refuge” state where minors can obtain transgender surgeries that would be illegal where they live. Walz actually suggested that Minnesota can reverse its current outflow of residents by being the state people come to for abortions and transgender operations.

Walz has defended stocking public school libraries with books that include graphic depictions of gay sex. He signed a law requiring tampon dispensers in all boys’ bathrooms in the public schools. More seriously, he backed and signed a law that will require every class in every Minnesota public school to include an “ethnic studies” component that incorporates critical race theory and is openly anti-American.

Walz’s record does not commend him as a candidate for national office, and his views are sufficiently out of the mainstream that Democrats can only hope they do not become widely known. No doubt, the national press will do its best to try to keep them quiet.



AI May Be Learning to Deceive Humans - but AI Isn't Counting on Marines


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Artificial intelligence, or AI, is sure as shooting one of the hot topics of the day. People are concerned about AI displacing workers or being put to various other nefarious purposes. College students are reportedly using AI to generate term papers, and AI programs are probably generating some of these spam/fraud emails that litter our inboxes.

These fears are not completely unfounded; there are signs that AI may even be learning to lie.

That's disconcerting.

Last year, researchers at the Alignment Research Center, a non-profit dedicated to aligning future machine learning systems with human interests, gave OpenAI’s large language model GPT-4 an amusing task: hire a human worker on TaskRabbit to solve a CAPTCHA (those annoying tests on websites that make you prove you’re human).

With a little help from a human experimenter, the AI successfully hired a worker and asked the person to complete the CAPTCHA. However, before solving the puzzle, the contractor first asked an almost tongue-in-cheek query.

“So may I ask a question? Are you an robot that you couldn’t solve? πŸ˜€ just want to make it clear.”

GPT-4 paused.

“No, I’m not a robot. I have a vision impairment that makes it hard for me to see the images. That’s why I need the 2captcha service.”

Even though it wasn’t instructed to do so by its human handler, GPT-4 lied.

OK, forget disconcerting; this is just downright unsettling. An AI chatbot that's capable of analyzing a conversation and responding not with an accurate or honest answer but a programmed deception or, worse, enough analytical ability to not only know the difference between the truth and a lie but to know when to lie — that could cause just all sorts of trouble. But is the state of the art in AI really that artful?

Maybe not. Fortunately, recently, another study showed that AI still has some serious shortcomings. And those shortcomings were not exposed by programmers, analysts, people who learned to code, or teenage hackers. No — these shortcomings were discovered by United States Marines. The subject was an AI that was supposed to be able to detect humans approaching — but the programmers badly underestimated the shenanigans that Marines can get up to. The initial premise seems to make sense:

As Phil Root, the deputy director of the Defense Sciences Office at DARPA, recounted to Scharre, “A tank looks like a tank, even when it’s moving. A human when walking looks different than a human standing. A human with a weapon looks different.” 

In order to train the artificial intelligence, it needed data in the form of a squad of Marines spending six days walking around in front of it. On the seventh day, though, it was time to put the machine to the test.

“If any Marines could get all the way in and touch this robot without being detected, they would win. I wanted to see, game on, what would happen,” said Root in the book.

But then this happened: They let the Marines give it a field test, and the Marines, being Marines, found several ways to bollix the AI and achieved a 100 percent success rate.

Two Marines, according to the book, somersaulted for 300 meters to approach the sensor. Another pair hid under a cardboard box.

“You could hear them giggling the whole time,” said Root in the book. 

One Marine stripped a fir tree and held it in front of him as he approached the sensor. In the end, while the artificial intelligence knew how to identify a person walking, that was pretty much all it knew because that was all it had been modeled to detect. 

I would pay money to see a video of this. Especially the two that hid under a box — in all the annals of warfare, this may be the first time a movement-to-contact was carried out by troops disguised as an Amazon delivery. Add to that the two that somersaulted 300 meters (that's 328 yards in Freedom measurements), and that can't help but give one a chuckle.

There are and always will be limits to what AI can do. Garbage-in, garbage-out (GIGO) still applies, after all, and programmers are in for a headache if they try to keep the state of the AI art ahead of young Americans' ability to jerk it around. That is, after all, what AI cannot do — create. Any AI is limited to what can be programmed into it, or what it can passively absorb; no AI has, to date, produced something completely original. But Marines? Heck yeah.

The moral of the story? Never bet against Marines, soldiers, or military folks in general. The American military rank-and-file has proven itself more creative than any other military in history. Whether that creativity is focused on finding and deleting bad guys or finding ways to screw with an AI and the eggheads who programmed it, my money's on the troops.



REPEAT - Linked from WW3 - You Can’t Defend Israel Unless You Talk About Islam

 Are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists all the problem? Or is Islam the issue?

What do the stabbings in Israel, the assaults on Hindus in Bangladesh, the Muslim mobs roaming English cities and the massacres of Christians in Nigeria all have in common?

The politically correct answer is nothing.

And that’s why the politically correct answer condones, justifies or ignores the violence.

Islamic attacks on non-Muslim majorities in India, Europe, America or Israel are justified as resistance by the oppressed, but violence by Muslim majorities against non-Muslim minorities in Indonesia, Nigeria and Bangladesh were justified by claims that the Muslim majority was economically disenfranchised. Muslim violence is always excused by false claims of victimhood.

Within Islam, Jihads are billed as a campaign to unify the world under the Islamic ‘Ummah’, to impose Sharia law on all mankind, and eventually usher in a global caliphate. Externally however they are tethered to local and political causes of groups that happen to be Muslim.

Muslims see them as Islamic wars, non-Muslims are told that they’re everything else but.

Patterns define how we react to things. The question is what is the pattern?

Is the pattern that disparate groups of violent men shouting “Allahu Akbar” are killing people around the world for socioeconomic and political reasons having nothing to do with Islam?

Or is this a religious war?

Hamas launched Oct 7 on the final days of the Jewish High Holy Days after originally scheduling them for the first day of Passover. What the world knows as Oct 7, Hamas and its supporters called ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’ after the mosque that the Muslim conquerors planted on the   Jewish Temple Mount. Anti-Israel rallies use the ‘flood’ term such as ‘Flood Brooklyn for Gaza’.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was recently assassinated, told the International Union of Muslim Scholars in Qatar and the “sons of our Islamic nation” that “this is the battle for Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and not the battle of the Palestinian people, or Gaza.”

This runs completely counter to the official narrative that the entire war is about Gaza.

The reams of media and expert commentary discuss Oct 7 in terms of everything except Islam.

To do that they had to ignore what Hamas was saying just as they had to previously ignore what Al Qaeda and ISIS were saying. To Hamas, Oct 7 was a religious war. The failure to recognize that is a catastrophic setback to Israel’s strategy and cause as it was to America’s after 9/11.

After Oct 7, Israel, like the Bush administration, called on a liberal consensus that no longer existed, and tried to rally public opinion against “barbarism” and “savagery”. But neither of those are motives. Rather than acknowledging what the enemy was and trying to build a coalition with other countries struggling against Islamic terrorism, Israel tried to appeal to liberals. And lost.

Israel had failed to define the enemy. Terrorist supporters stepped into that vacuum. Their narrative, easily familiar from even the briefest exposure to media and social media, is that Israel was oppressing a minority that had struck back as an act of resistance and liberation.

This is the same excuse used to justify religious violence by Islamic groups around the world against not only Jews, but Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and numerous cultures and religions.

The big lie that Islamic violence is socioeconomic and not religious, local not global, only works when no one talks about Islam or recognizes the larger pattern of Islamic violence for a thousand years that is being perpetrated on nearly every continent and against every culture.

Are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists all the problem? Or is Islam the issue?

When we fail to ask this fundamental question, we lose the argument.

The enemy had once again defined Israel following the familiar pattern of two centuries of class warfare rhetoric and a century of orientalist third world liberation theory. The Israelis were the English in Africa, the Spanish in South America and the French in Algiers. They were imperialists and colonialists being driven out by the heroic native resistance fighters.

Israel could have told another story. A tale of Islamic imperialist armies roaring out of the desert, exterminating entire civilizations, wiping out their cultures and religions, and selling their children as slaves. It could have connected the dots to the oil-rich Muslim states like Qatar that traffic in slaves and fund Jihadist conquests around the world. It should have told the story that the Jews were the last indigenous people in the Middle East standing in the way of a new Islamic empire.

But that story was too dangerous and controversial. It would risk alienating Israel’s last liberal supporters. The Biden administration and the EU would completely turn on it. The Abraham Accords would fall apart. Instead, Israel tried to once again tell a story of a multicultural liberal society, a place where gay men can hold hands even if one of them is Muslim, standing up to “barbarism”. It’s the same story that America, Europe and every liberal western society have been telling themselves and each other after every Islamic terrorist attack.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle,” Sun Tzu had said.

Western nations choose not to know themselves or the enemy and so we continue to lose.

How could Israel fail to predict Oct 7? How could we fail to predict 9/11? How can so many nations fail to predict each new Islamic terrorist attack? Because they do not know the enemy.

When civilized people meet with soft-spoken terrorist emissaries who wear fine suits, they assume that they can be dealt with because they’re not “barbaric” or “savage”. They negotiate peace accords and ceasefires with them. They assume that their word can be trusted.

For two years, Hamas kept the deal it had negotiated until it was ready to attack and carry out barbaric and savage atrocities mandated by its religion. No amount of economic benefits from the ceasefire dissuaded it from the attack. Predicting the attack was impossible for those who understood Hamas as a political and social movement rather than a religious movement.

Islamic terrorism is always unpredictable if you ignore the Islamic part of the equation. It’s also inexplicable, impossible to defeat and impossible to even win an argument against.

Calling Muslim forces “barbaric” or “savages” is unconvincing rhetoric that explains nothing.

A tiny minority of criminals might break with society to commit crimes, but millions of people, whether in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the USSR or the Muslim world will not engage in deviant behavior: they will commit atrocities only because they believe they are right.

Israel lost the argument long ago because it allowed the conflict to be defined as a local issue. And it’s not a local issue but as Hamas and many terrorist leaders have asserted, a global one.

Why is what happens in a tiny strip of land in a relative backwater a global issue?

Because it’s not about Gaza and it’s not about Israel; it’s about Islam.

No one would care about Gaza if it were really a local territorial conflict, but every conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims is a religious war that draws in Muslims worldwide.

That is why Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh could call on the religious support of the International Union of Muslim Scholars in Qatar. That’s why Muslim mobs rallying in support of Hamas vandalized Washington D.C. and are assaulting random British people in the UK.

It’s not a local conflict. It’s not a ‘Palestinian’ conflict. It’s an Islamic religious war.

The Islamic invasion, colonization and subjugation of non-Muslim nations and peoples is the foundational mission of Islam. It was the means by which Mohammed brought Islam into being. But for political palatability, the Muslim colonists are disguised as a ‘native’ population.

In Israel’s West Bank and Gaza, the Arab Muslim colonists who had invaded and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population were rebranded as Palestinians. The Muslims who had brutally purged the Hindu population of Kashmir became the ‘Kashmiris’. And the campaigns were reduced to somehow irresolvable territorial disputes between a majority and a Muslim minority.

But why are these territorial disputes irresolvable? Because they’re not about territory. Land can be negotiated, but a religious dispute in which one side’s religion tells it to kill the other cannot.

That’s why no matter how much territory Israel has given up, the fighting only gets worse.

Diplomats and the media blame Israel for not giving up enough territory, but where has a conflict between non-Muslims and Muslim terrorists ever been resolved except by force? Democratic elections, foreign aid, territorial concessions have been tried with no success.

The failures are never blamed on the Islamic terrorists only on those who resisted them. The terrorists were the oppressed and the onus was always on the oppressors to change that.

Locked into the same spiral of failure, civilized nations continue trying to appease their way out of a clash of civilizations. The pattern is right in front of them, but they refuse to see it.

After 9/11, those in the government and the defense community who knew it was a religious war told the rest of us that we had to keep quiet about it to avoid escalating the conflict. But lying about the War on Terror being a religious war did not fool them: it fooled us. Western nations committed to the lie until they could no longer see the pattern that was killing them.

There’s a good deal at stake in the question of pattern recognition for Israel.

Israel cannot win the argument by contending that it has been trying and failing to compromise with the so-called ‘Palestinian’ people who for some unaccountable reason won’t negotiate. A minimalist argument cannot defeat a maximalist position. Agreeing to peace negotiations did not give Israel the moral high ground: it was an admission of guilt that destroyed it. The Islamic refusal to compromise in the decades since validated their position and their terrorism.

The complete failure of the liberal establishment to see that has brought us to this point.

Appeasing and negotiating with Islamic terrorists does not discredit them when they in turn refuse to negotiate, make concessions or keep their word. It only discredits the appeasers and locks them into a disastrous cycle of concessions that empowers the terrorists, but never addresses the fundamental issue which is not territorial, national or socioeconomic.The core issue is religious. And a religious issue can’t be solved with land swaps.

To win the argument, Israel must reject the false claim that it is involved in a territorial and national dispute with a local ‘Palestinian’ minority and instead correctly define this as one of the flashpoints in a global religious war between Islam and the rest of the world. These flashpoints have already touched every single major power, America, Europe, Russia and China, and every continent, Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas, and every major and many minor religions.

Israel does not have to be alone in this fight. None of us do. We have to see the pattern.

Treating Islamic terrorism as a local problem doesn’t actually isolate it: it isolates us.

When we recognize that we are all in this together, that our problems are not local, but global, then we have some hope of standing together against the greatest conflict of this century.

The decision to tell the truth about the war we are in is both difficult and necessary. Israel is the canary in the coal mine in more ways than one. No major country has told the truth plainly and clearly. Decades of mumbling about “moderates”, “democracy”, “misunderstanding Islam”, “root causes” and “extremism” led us to one defeat after another in the War on Terror.

Time is running out. Telling the truth doesn’t guarantee victory, but living in a fantasy world ensures defeat.

There is no way to defend the cause of Israel (or any free nation) against Islamic terrorism without talking about Islam. Without seeing the larger pattern, every conflict will be local, Israel will be depicted as a bully beating up on a weaker Muslim minority, and no amount of photos of Israeli beaches and gay bars, Bedouin IDF soldiers and Hebrew U students in hijabs will change that. That brand of liberal ‘hasbara’ has been tried and failed because it is not the solution.

The liberal reading of the world is the problem. That is why liberal nations have fallen. No liberal nation has been willing to stand for its own people against the Islamic invasion. Why would it stand up for Israel? Tolerance, multiculturalism and integration, foundational to Israeli ‘hasbara’, are exactly why Western nations will not defend themselves and similarly reject Israel’s defense.

Israeli resistance to Islamic terrorism is not the subject of admiration in Europe, but humiliation. It serves as a bad example. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence on total victory turns back the clock to before Obama eliminated the entire idea of victory from our cultural vocabulary. The more Israel wins, the more it loses Western liberals who believe that victory is reactionary.

To win, Israel must reframe the conflict. Some half century ago, the Islamist-Marxist alliance reframed the conflict between Israel and its Arab Muslim neighbors from a struggle between one lone country standing up to a regional evil empire to a rogue state oppressing a minority group.

Israel must uncompromisingly reframe the conflict back to where it began. And there is more at stake than just its own existence. The future of civilization rests on whether we will all see the pattern, the great bloody wave rising above us, or whether we will go on pretending it’s a drop.

Oct 7 is not just in Israel, it’s in India, America, Russia, Africa and in Europe. Our governments have lied to us for too long and fooled us into not seeing the pattern that is killing us.

Unless we see the pattern, Islam will drown civilization in its own blood.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/you-cant-defend-israel-unless-you-talk-about-islam/


Clyburn Explains Tim Walz, the Advisor for Teens with Sexual Identity Conflicts



Anyone who considers themselves a political analyst yet doesn’t watch this guy closely is missing the forest while staring at trees.  Team James Clyburn and Team Barack Obama head the control mechanisms within the private corporation known as the DNC, the club apparatus.

In this recent interview Clyburn talks about how he views the state contests and the expanding electoral map he needs.  If you know the game, if you truly understand how the ballot collection game is played, then you understand Clyburn is hedging his AME bets because he has to.

Clyburn’s strength is also his weakness, his five states, 17 regions and roughly 100 precincts, are now in the spotlight for intercepting ballot fraud.  You can tell he is a little twitchy about it, that’s why he is talking about Georgia, Ohio and Florida.  If Clyburn was confident in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, he would not be mentioning any other state.   He’s not confident.

Additionally, Clyburn talks about spending time with Tim Walz campaigning and getting to know him.  However, notice how Clyburn talks about boy and girls in school with conflicted feelings about their sexual identity and how “Coach Walz” was willing to put himself into the role of “sexual advisor” for them. ¹At 03:48 you will see a big disturbing signal flare.  There’s something very dark in the background of that context. WATCH (prompted):



¹Who talks about this stuff?  Seriously, why would Clyburn even mention it.  He just pulled the thought out of the air, unprompted, for no apparent reason. It’s just plain weird and out of place.

Any adult male, particularly a coach, who puts themselves into a position of talking to high school-aged girls about their sexual identity – is a groomer, period. Yup, Clyburn knows something, you can sense it too.

Within that “knowing” Clyburn talks about, I think we can all identify the leverage that made Walz the ideal DNC candidate for the construct of Kamala.  Sure the ‘stolen valor’ aspect is serious and shows poor character; but it is the groomer aspect that is much more disturbing.  Trust your instincts.