Saturday, November 1, 2025

From Ethnocentric to ‘Racist’

I don’t remember the first time I heard the phrase “ethnocentric,” but I remember the context. I was in some history class and we were studying a primitive South American tribe. They lived essentially the exact same way their ancestors had thousands of years ago. Our teacher told us their civilization was equal to ours, and we should never think that any civilization was superior to any other. Doing so would be “ethnocentric,” which apparently was a belief that our society was superior to others.

The truth is, when we were first admonished about this, I remember thinking something wasn’t quite right about it, but as a kid in school, who was I to argue with the teacher? It was only years later that I would realize that teachers weren’t all-knowing and that that little piece of wisdom was anything but.

Of course, almost no one uses the phrase ethnocentric anymore. No, it’s been replaced by the ubiquitous and multifunctional moniker “racist.” Different word, but it means basically the same thing: Everything white or western is bad and anything else, whether color or culture, is good.

Whatever the name, the lesson was: Every society is equal.

But is that true? No. While common sense suggests it’s wrong, how does one really know? Who decides? Well, if we left it to academia and Western elites to decide, we’d all be wearing dashikis, praying towards Mecca five times a day, eating out of a communal plate with right hands, and then wiping our posteriors with our left. Not that the elites themselves would be doing any of that, but they would coerce the unwashed masses into following such diverse practices.

As for deciding, look around. Are there millions of people risking their lives every year to migrate illegally to Africa, South America, or South Asia? No. Where do the millions of people seeking to flee conflicts in Syria, Libya, or anywhere else in the Muslim world go? Do they go to any one of the 50-plus Muslim majority nations? Other than passing through Turkey on their way to Greece, the answer is largely no.

Where do those seeking to escape economic malaise throughout much of the southern hemisphere go? Mexico City or Timbuktu? Unlikely. Where do CCP or Hamas or banana republic leaders send their kids to be educated and live? Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Burkina Faso, or Vietnam? No, they send their kids to Paris, London, and New York.

But the history! For example, India has a history going back thousands of years. We’re told that British rule decimated the Indian GDP, taking it from 23% of the world’s GDP in the mid-18th century to less than 4% today. That’s obviously a story of Western civilization destroying a superior civilization, right? Not so much.

While the Brits did bring substantial and sometimes negative changes to the Indian subcontinent, the reality is that India’s share of GDP shrank largely because Western advances expanded world GDP at an extraordinary rate never before seen. To put that in perspective, between 1750 (about the time Britain took control over India) and 1990, the GDP of the entire 3rd world grew by about 15 times.

During that same period, Britain and the developed world grew GDP by 123 times. India didn’t lose its economic powerhouse status because Britain destroyed its economy; it lost its status because the West became an economic juggernaut, powered by the advances of the Industrial Revolution, which built on those of the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, all of which originated in the West.

So, why is it that for half a century, elites have been telling us that Westerners are not allowed to take pride in the advances of their civilizations or celebrate the forces that brought about unprecedented freedom and prosperity?

Because they are spoiled, entitled brats who are ashamed of the prosperity their forebearers created. P.J. O’Rourke perhaps put it best. “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child—miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

Like the children of so many successful entrepreneurs, those boomer elites (the fount of today’s liberalism) found it hard to live up to the achievements of their progenitors. In the century before 1970, Western civilization literally revolutionized the world. Automobiles. Telephony. Radio. Television. Movies. The structure of DNA. Flight. Heart transplants. Microchips. Nuclear power. The electric light bulb. And much more. Westerners even put a man on the moon and brought him back safely!

Since then? Not so much a revolution as changing the curtains. Sure, the PC, the Internet, the iPhone, Netflix, Amazon, and Facebook have affected our lives, but nothing revolutionary on the scale of many of those inventions from the previous century. No time travel. No teleportation. No cure for cancer. Not even roads without potholes!

Thus, America and the West have experienced a half-century of nepo leftists wanting to make their own mark by rebelling against the very ideas that provided the prosperity that sustained them in the first place. And the easiest way of doing that? Celebrating anything and everything that is not part of Western success.

A religion where women are second-class citizens, where rape victims are stoned to death for the crime of being raped, and where freedom of speech and religion are anathema? Absolutely! Nations where Communist dictators kill and imprison political opponents while delivering economic calamity to their citizens? More please. Countries where blood is the coin of the realm, and whoever is the least morally constrained is the tyrant in charge? Nobody’s perfect…but at least they don’t have billionaire capitalists killing the earth with their private jets.

And it’s not just inter-civilizational; it’s intra-civilizational, as well. Here in the United States, we’re told that things like punctuality, hard work, and proper English—things that have been keys to success for generations—are white supremacy, while in Denmark, advertisements are encouraging whites to have kids with non-whites. For half a century, the lesson has been: Western, European, and white are bad while anything and everything else is good.

That was wrong when they called it ethnocentrism, and it’s wrong today when they call it racism. After decades of listening to elites tell us that every civilization is greater than ours, Westerners are finally pushing back as they see their countries and their cultures shredded by hordes of third-world invaders from decidedly inferior cultures. Whether it’s the push for Sharia law, increased crime, or outsized welfare spending, from the United States to Hungary to Italy, patriots are recognizing that their way of life and their cultures are sufficiently elevated that they are worth fighting for.

Finally, citizens of the civilized world are beginning to say “We’re no longer going to let you destroy that which has taken so much blood and toil to build and has produced so much freedom and prosperity. Decades of a cancerous, elite imposed reverse colonization are enough!” We hear a collective “We like the countries our ancestors built, and we’ve decided we’d like to keep them, thank you.

The only question is, is it too little too late? Only time will tell.



Leftist Fanaticism, Now and Forevermore


Attempting to bargain with the Left is futile. The current Schumer shutdownamply illuminates their fanaticism, quest for power, and economic illiteracy. What’s more, the four long, hard years before the second Trump administration offered endless clues as to how far the Democrats and the Left in general have regressed.

Paid anarchists who riot in the streets are described by the fake media as 'peaceful protesters.' District Attorneys bank-rolled by George Soros allow hardened criminals to get out of jail. Some 61% of Democrat school teachersseek to indoctrinate in our children, with many teaching them to despise America.

The Inmates Have the Jail Cell Keys

While blatantly ignoring their own rules, Leftist governors led by Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer mandated restrictions on their own citizens. The ‘Biden Administration’ -- run by who knows -- vigorously undermined the 1776 Project, which offered a balanced view of American history. Instead, the Biden puppet masters championed the "1619 Project," which errantly claims that the true founding of the U.S. occurred when African slaves were first shipped to the New World.

Whether Democrats occupy the White House or not, we witness an untold number of mindless assertions by Leftists such as AOC and Jasmine Crockett, end runs around the law, and media flights of fantasy. The Left’s slimy, unpatriotic, illegal, absurd positions are unfolding at an increasing pace. Whether it's defacing property, absurdly renaming schools or sports teams, ruining women’s sports, desecrating church symbols, or even seeking to assassinate those with whom they disagree, today’s Left knows no bounds.

Sadly, elected representatives as well as opinion makers in a position to call them out often say little or nothing.

The Madness of the Mamdani Crowd

What is the common denominator to the socially destructive, heart-sickening behaviors which we’ve witnessed repeatedly? Each and every activity of the Left, from the minuscule to the monumental, in one way or another, is undertaken to diminish the status, strength, and sovereignty of America.

Whether it's attempting to flood our nation with illegal immigrants, which Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas sought to do, pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, slander and libel GOP elected officials and appointees, redraw congressional districts, etc., all such quests are related.

The intent is to thoroughly quash the opposition, rewrite the U.S. Constitution, obliterate 'one person one authentic vote,' and more, to the point where our nation is left in tatters.

“You Will Obey”

If America declines in power and stature, the Leftists, both here and abroad, believe that their overall objective beckons: installing a one-world government. This government would be run by global elites, namely Leftist billionaires who’d control career politicians and thus pull the strings around the world. Such a government supposedly would result in some type of Leftist utopian society.

Utopias simply do not exist and would not work even if they did. Such societies would end up enslaving their own citizens. Have you read The Republic by Plato, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, Utopia by Sir Thomas More, or any tome on allegedly ideal societies? The Leftist elites in charge invariably regard the citizenry as little more than serfs, to do exactly what they are told.

The Leftists’ decades-long quest for a one-world government is deeply at odds with American ideals, what the U.S. Constitution guarantees, and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

A Vision Made in Hell

If America fails, the entire world fails, with the grim exception of China, which then would control at least half of the planet. The Chinese government (CCP) would prove to be far worse than what the naïve Leftist elites can contemplate. The CCP has imprisoned tens of thousands of individuals in slave labor camps. The CCP seeks to produce biologically enhanced, terrifying super soldiers. In China’s larger cities, to a chilling degree, the CCP employs surveillance cameras to enforce required behavior and broadcast social standing scores.

The global elites, as well as the CCP, need to be contained and eventually stopped -- a monumental task. Nevertheless, we defeated Hitler and Mussolini, we out-dueled the monolithic Soviet Union, and we can triumph today.

We need even more Gen Xers and Millennials to break free from the Left's cultural stranglehold. As they do so, they will discover that 77 million Trump voters will be their staunch allies.



Podcast and entertainment thread for November 1st

 


Hope this month brings a lot of joy and happiness!

Hey, Antifa, Justice Is Coming


Recently, a video clip was making the rounds on social media showing a young ANTIFA member who had been arrested while involved in some mischief at the ICE facility in Portland, Oregon. In the video, a male subject was obviously in distress, his body was shaking and he was cowering in fear while seated at the police station.

It was really indicative of what most of the ANTIFA membership consists of, immature young people who act tough when they're shouting in the face of a law enforcement officer while they have dozens of ANTIFA cohorts standing alongside them egging them on, but when it comes time to actually back up their idle threats once they are isolated from their allies, they are nothing but cowards. Whimpering, hoping that mommy and daddy will come to get them and take them home to safety.

As a group, they hide behind black clothes and black face coverings while they are trying to create havoc on America's streets. But individually, they are nothing but wimps and crybabies, more often than not attacking law enforcement while hiding from view. In short, ANTIFA are just your typical losers.

It's a pretty good bet that the overwhelming vast majority of ANTIFA terrorists are living a double life. By day, they probably sleep late (when you're out rioting all night, you need your beauty rest), then once they wake up, they eat a bowl of Trix (after all, Trix are for kids), and then they sit around mommy and daddy's house playing video games or watching music videos all day. Or perhaps they do the same thing in the small apartment they share with four other ANTIFA terrorists. They certainly can't afford to pay for a place of their own. Besides, living alone is so scary.

By night, they play "dress-up" in their black clothes and hoodies, along with any other protective gear they have cobbled together: gas masks purchased from the local Army surplus store, homemade shields and helmets, and shoulder and knee pads purchased from the local skating store.

They load up into a used, older model minivan with all the other "weapons" they have acquired: "urine and feces bombs" they collected from themselves, fireworks bought from a roadside fireworks stand, and frozen water bottles to chuck at the police. The palettes of bricks will already be in place, paid for and delivered to the riot location ahead of time, likely by Democrat and Soros-related benefactors.

The ANTIFA "warriors" head out to create mayhem wherever the phone chain or other internet chat room instructed them to go, cheering each other on as they prepare for battle against "the man." Most of them couldn't tell you really what they're protesting against; they're all basically just "followers."

It's highly doubtful that most of their parents have any idea what "Little Billy" is doing when he's out until the wee hours of the morning. They're told by Little Billy that he's going to be at the mall to hang out with friends, or over to his buddy Jimmy's house to play video games, or at the "job," which they're always very vague about. But they do get money for rioting from the leftist organizations, so they're able to show an income of sorts to their parents.

Little does mommy or daddy know that their little angel is actually going out and throwing Molotov cocktails at federal agents, and destroying government property to the tune of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars. Government property bought and paid for with hard-earned tax dollars from mommy and daddy.

Yes, your typical ANTIFA indeed lives a double life, but that double life is coming to an end. President Trump has designated ANTIFA as a terrorist group, and the full weight of the federal government is being unleashed to fight against the anarchy and communist ideology ANTIFA members have had instilled in them by the so-called educators they've been exposed to throughout their formative school years.

We can expect to see more videos of arrested ANTIFA members crying and cowering in police stations, as they face a future in a federal prison where they're likely to be very popular with many of the hardcore inmates.

There will be some ANTIFA true believers who will try to go underground and conduct more attacks against select targets, but they, too, will be caught or killed in a shootout with federal agents. Leaving behind grieving parents who never knew their Little Billy had become a domestic terrorist trying to destroy the very country that their mommy and daddy called home.



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


The UN Issues Meaningless Condemnation of US Airstrikes of Narco Terrorist Vessels



The Trump administration has carried out several airstrikes against Venezuelan narco terrorist vessels in the Atlantic, citing the threat these drug traffickers pose to Americans and our national security. After a strike on October 3, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wrote on X, "Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike, and no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation. The strike was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics - headed to America to poison our people."

Three weeks later, Townhall reported that President Trump planned further action against drug cartels in Venezuela:

President Donald Trump is poised to begin airstrikes against drug cartels operating in Venezuela. 

The president explained on Wednesday that he might consult Congress to obtain authorization to carry out the strikes on cartel operatives attempting to smuggle narcotics into the U.S. by land, The Hill reported.

...

Trump characterized the issue as “a national security problem” and said the cartels “killed 300,000 people last year,” which gives him the legal authority to use military force. 

The Trump administration has relied solely on airstrikes against Venezuelan boats believed to be carrying drugs meant for the United States. The airstrikes have killed nearly 30 people so far. This development signals that the White House plans to ramp up efforts against drug cartels.

Now the U.N., ignoring actual problems in places like Sudan, has condemned the strikes as "unacceptable."

Here's more:

The U.N. human rights chief said Friday that U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean allegedly carrying illegal drugs from South America are “unacceptable” and must stop.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk called for an investigation into the strikes, in what appeared to mark the first such condemnation of its kind from a United Nations organization.

Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for Türk’s office, relayed his message on Friday at a regular U.N. briefing: “These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable. The U.S. must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”

The condemnation came after Hegseth announced another airstrike on October 29.

"This vessel, like all the others, was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics. Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel—and killed—during the strike, which was conducted in international waters. No U.S. forces were harmed in this strike," Hegseth wrote in an X post.

To them, never.

The U.N. has no authority here, and its condemnation is meaningless. It routinely put human rights abusers on its "Human Rights Council" while turning a blind eye to their atrocities.

On January 20, the Trump administration declared cartels and other such organizations terrorists. They're using that declaration as grounds for the ongoing airstrikes. Of course, the solution for Venezuelan drug traffickers is to simply stop running drugs to the U.S.

We notice they keep trying, however.



Insubordinate Officers Publicly Attack The Secretary Of War

By criticizing the secretary’s policies publicly and casting aspersions on his fitness for the office he holds, these officers are flaunting both fundamental leadership principles and long-established military tradition.



Trump derangement syndrome and its variant, Hegseth derangement syndrome (HDS), continue to infect an undetermined number of victims in the military. Like the original affliction, this new strain is a debilitating malady that deprives the aggrieved victim of the ability to think and act rationally. Like the sufferers of TDS who warn the country that Trump is politicizing the justice system by investigating and prosecuting some who have opposed him, the HDS symptoms can include a total lack of self-awareness that it is their own actions that are the problem. It leads the sufferers into behavior that, had they not lost their wits, they would recognize as highly improper, even destructive.

The Officers Bellyache, Publicly but Anonymously

The latest manifestation of HDS is documented by The Washington Times in “‘He lost us’: Generals, senior officers say trust in Hegseth has evaporated.” In it, The Times serves as a vehicle for anonymous “generals” and other officers to lambast and denigrate Secretary of War Pete Hegseth following his late September speech at Quantico. The lede sets the tone:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has lost the trust and respect of some top military commanders, with his public “grandstanding” widely seen as unprofessional and the personnel moves made by the former cable TV host leading to an unprecedented and dangerous exodus of talent from the Pentagon, said current senior military officers and current and former Defense Department officials.

Numerous high-ranking officers painted Mr. Hegseth’s Sept. 30 speech to hundreds of generals and admirals gathered at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia as a turning point in how his leadership style, attitude and overall competency are viewed in the upper echelons of the U.S. armed forces.

“It was a massive waste of time …,” one current Army general told The Washington Times.

Let’s take a look at some of the attacks that the officers make. The “current general” quoted in the article’s title anoints himself to speak for all the generals in the military: “If he ever had us, he lost us.

Huh? IF he ever had us ….”? Translation: “We probably never supported him, but now we sure don’t.”

Informants lament the “unprecedented chaos” in the Pentagon, evidenced by a “level of turnover among high-ranking officers … not … seen in recent history.” However, they appear blissfully oblivious to the fact that it is precisely high-ranking anonymous complainers who demonstrate the need for a thorough housecleaning in the Pentagon. That includes General If-He-Ever-Had-Us.

Many complainers clearly grouse that Secretary Hegseth has a “seeming obsession with reversing the woke military policies of past administrations.” Officers cited by The Times describe Hegseth as “viewing the job through the lens of a junior officer, which has often led him to fixate on issues that otherwise could be left to the services or lower-ranking officials.” He is engaged in “grandstanding,” “theater,” and as a “current senior officer” wants everyone to know, “mainly what I see from him are not serious things.” It’s “internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.” According to another anonymous “current senior officer,” apparently Hegseth’s cleaning house of low-performing staff shows he is presiding over the “opposite of a meritocracy.”

Don’t You Dare Lecture Us About Problems We Failed to Correct

One of the complainers’ principal criticisms is that Secretary Hegseth has what one “source” labeled “the mentality of a midgrade officer” who lectured the generals about “fitness, grooming standards and other issues that typically don’t reach the desk of the defense secretary.” The aforementioned “current army general” felt compelled to be quoted about Hegseth’s focus on lax grooming standards by saying that it’s “not about f— haircuts.”

Lax fitness and grooming standards. Could he be talking about this guy?

The anonymous “generals” and other unnamed “senior officers” are like the proverbial prodigal son who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan. They are the authors of that which they now complain.

It is correct that such matters ordinarily are not addressed at the secretary’s level. But Hegseth was compelled to address them because many of these things, such as grooming and physical fitness standards, have not been adequately addressed at lower levels. Some say that the problem has reached endemic levels in some units. If generals had rigorously enforced high standards, then the secretary of war would not have to do so. This was the secretary telling his generals to get on the job.

Rank Insubordination from a Coterie of Cowards

The anonymous officers who trash the secretary of war reveal their hearts by engaging in rank insubordination while hiding their identities. The Washington Times says it was because “of their concern that they would be fired for providing their honest assessments.” No, their anonymity is a reflection of their cowardice, not their commitment to truth.

If a serving officer disagrees with a lawful order or policy, he has two courses of action: He may express his disagreements privately to his commander or superior officer and then diligently obey if his senior disagrees. Or, he can resign if he believes that it is critical for the public to hear his views. Then he can voice his criticisms publicly. But not before.

These senior officers’ failure to follow either acceptable option violates fundamental principles of military leadership. Officers and NCOs are routinely given orders or required to implement policies that they may question. But once their dissenting views have been heard, their duty is to pass on and implement the order as if it were their own. That is fundamental to military leadership.

For example, if a company commander disagreed with his battalion commander’s attack plan and his objections are overruled, try to imagine the effect on “good order and discipline” if he were to tell his subordinates, “Well, I disagree with the order to conduct this attack at night, but the colonel is making us do it. He’s bucking for a star, so it’s all about him.” Not only would this make the attack more likely to fail, but it would assure his relief from command if his colonel found out what he said.

In this case, the secretary has publicly announced his and the administration’s positions. The complainers apparently disagree with many. But now that the secretary has made these positions public, all these officers have a straightforward duty: keep their disagreement to themselves until they retire. They violate that duty when they grouse to the media about their superior officer.

Are These Generals Courting a Federal Offense?

By criticizing the secretary’s policies publicly and casting aspersions on his fitness for the office he holds, these officers are flaunting both fundamental leadership principles and long-established military tradition, while simultaneously displaying their unfitness to serve. But their conduct also may be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Article 88 of the UCMJ provides that “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words” against senior officials, including the secretary of defense, “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Nota bene: Truth of the statement is not a defense; contemptuous words suffice regardless of intent.

Article 134, called the “General Article,” proscribes “disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces [and] all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

Violations of either Article could be punishable by prison time, dismissal from the service, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

The officers’ comments for publication by The Washington Times are not just improper criticisms of policy decisions. Many are also personalized attacks on the secretary and appear to cross the line into the circle of “contemptuous words.” Readers can decide whether any of these comments by officers or other “high-level sources” either constitute “contemptuous words” directed against the secretary or whether they are prejudicial to “good order and discipline:”

  • It was a massive waste of time. … If he ever had us, he lost us.
  • “The theater of it all is below our institution. … They don’t have to be announced on stage in public in this grandstanding kind of way.”
  • “High-level sources said that they believe Mr. Hegseth is simultaneously doing deep damage to the military …”
  • Across the services, we are bleeding talent, talented generals and flag officers, for what appears to be the opposite of a meritocracy.”
  • It seems like it’s all about one guy here.
  • Mainly what I see from him are not serious things … [I]nternal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.”
  • “Numerous sources, including military officers and current and former civilian officials in the Defense Department, described Mr. Hegseth as viewing the job through the lens of a junior officer …”
  • I hope all of this is temporary … Who knows how long he’ll be in the position and how much damage he can do.”

The Secretary Has Options

The secretary has a number of options if the rebellious officers can be identified. One is to issue letters of reprimand, which can trigger a grade determination board to decide whether they should be retired at their current rank or at a lower rank. Another is to convene an Article 32 investigation to determine if they should be referred for trial by general court-martial. A third is offer them non-judicial punishment under Article 15, which they could refuse if they preferred to be tried by court martial.

If a junior officer serving under the complaining senior officers had complained to a newspaper that their commanding general was “doing deep damage to the military,” had “the mentality of a midgrade officer,” and was engaged in “grandstanding,” “theatrics,” and “drama,” that officer would be relieved, court martialed, and likely cashiered from the military with head-spinning speed.

But these same senior officers, who would not tolerate such conduct for an instant if it were directed against them, feel free to trash the secretary of war and escape the consequences. Should not they be judged by the same standards?

What a bunch of hypocrites.



DOJ and FBI Whistleblowers Continue Providing Evidence of Arctic Frost Targeting Operation


Senator Ron Johnson underlines a key point being missed by many.  All of the revelations about the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation against President Trump and his supporters, are being provided by evidence carried to congress by DOJ/FBI “whistleblowers.”

Pause and reflect on that observation for a few moments.  The public awareness of political targeting by the DOJ/FBI is coming from ‘whistleblowers’ to Senator Chuck Grassley.  It is not Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel bringing forward the information about the weaponized use of their institutions.

If Pam Bondi and Kash Patel were in control of the root systems within their agencies, they would be the ones bringing forth the information; they are not. Bondi and Patel are not in control.  Instead, the sunlight is coming from a few people within the organizations who are pushing the evidence out. Senator Johnson is providing a very deliberate point here:



One of the ongoing frustrations within the current dynamic is Pam Bondi and Kash Patel continuing to talk publicly about the honor, integrity and fidelity of the institutions they lead; without a public admission and statement about their agencies being comprehensively corrupted by the operation that Barack Obama and Eric Holder carried out.

Operation “Arctic Frost” did not originate organically in response to the J6 protests or the Jack Smith investigation.  Arctic Frost was simply an extension of all former targeting operations that were carried out over the past ten years.

The targeting operation using the IRS.  The targeting operation using the NSA database. The targeting operation using Crossfire Hurricane.  The targeting operation using Robert Mueller.  The targeting operation using the CIA impeachment effort (Schiff/Nadler).  The targeting operation using J6 effort (Thompson).  The targeting operation using Jack Smith.  The Arctic Frost targeting operation.  These are all designated and evidenced identifiers of a continuum of government targeting operations that has its origin in Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Two simultaneous realities need to be accepted if this mess is to get to the point of accountability.

First, the primary function of the FBI is to protect the interests of Washington, DC.  Within the body politic everyone knows what the purpose and agenda is for the FBI mission; there is no one in Washington DC who does not know this.  As a collective body they pretend not to know, because the ramifications of admitting knowledge are far greater than the actual corruption they pretend not to know exists.

Secondly, plausible deniability must be maintained by everyone in Washington DC as it pertains to their pretending.  The FBI operates to defend the pretending by targeting any entity who would appear with the evidence of the underlying corruption.  The FBI will attack any entity who brings forth the sunlight, because the sunlight itself destroys the illusions that all pretending is reliant upon.

To maintain the pretenses in Washington DC, the FBI must target anyone who brings evidence of corruption or unlawful activity.  This is the primary operating mission of the FBI and the Lawfare agents within the DOJ who are vicious in their alignment to keep powerful people protected.

If you think it’s bad, it’s actually worse.

[SOURCE]

Last point from my own personal experience in this Machiavellian network.

If we accept the outlook that Washington DC politics is essentially a UniParty when it comes to retention of the status quo for both affluence (money) and influence (power); then we must begin to accept the same dynamic also exists within DC media.

There are no allies for the American people within the construct of a Right/Left Washington, DC media perspective.  It simply does not exist.  The same way the FBI will attack any truthteller, the “conservative” DC media will do the same to isolate, ridicule and marginalize any voice who brings evidence of the corruption they must pretend not to know about.

The DC protectorate promote outrage as a distraction.

It takes skill to see the trees while standing in the forest.

In the example above, Ron Johnson is highlighting the obvious nature of the trees.