Kill All The White Christian Conservatives

Historical lessons on where the Progressive/Marxist/Fascist Left  is taking America

The handwriting is on the proverbial wall in regards to what is coming at us – but most of you reading this will not believe it, or want to hear it.  Your liberal-leftist friends will laugh and declare this to be delusional.  Your other friends will think it ridiculous or impossible.

Yet history is screaming the warnings at us with an almost daily occurrence of parallels that make anyone who has properly read history realize something far worse than what happened last century is unfolding upon us.  An understanding that most willfully ignore – because they will not allow their minds to contemplate that such things are possible here, even though history teaches us they are playing out like a blueprint before you.

This is because in 6,000 years of recorded human history – human nature does not change.  Neither do the Principalities and Powers in High places that many in our “enlightened” society do not believe exist.

Henry Dampier.com has posted one of the most succinctly intelligent and historically urgent essays I have recently read regarding where this nation is headed.  It’s a hard read.  The writing is above your average sophistication, and I would assume he is doing so for reasons that I find familiar; proper English usage goes over the heads of most in our digital media culture today and the subject-matter is razor sharp, shredding sanguine notions that accompany Normalcy Bias.

Before you get started, I want to add to the prescient timing of Dampier’s essay – these headlines and news posts are all road signs leading to the destination Dampier illustrates with subtle aplomb:

Praise, from those of us excited to see any club of all-white all-men rendered extinct,

The end of white Christian America is nigh Common Core written for the purpose of ending “White Privilege” in the nation.

“Just being White is racist because your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself”.

Being Christian is automatically discriminatory, and therefore biblical Christianity must be banned.

Progressives respond to survey: “The only good Christian is a dead Christian.” ‘

Kill all the Whites’ was once unthinkable in places like Rhodesia and South Africa at one time not too long ago.  What happened to whites in those nations reveals that the current zeitgeist of vitriol in America towards Conservative Christians makes it clear that the Leftists are moving towards a similar goal .

The wholesale demonization of Christians and white Conservatives over the Restoring Religious Freedom Acts the past week is your canary in the mine.

Demonization programs always rapidly descend from boycotts, to empowering government seizures of wealth and property, followed by criminalizing existence and then, pograms of extermination. The goal is to eliminate the cited ‘problem’ to the planned utopia, and the Left is telling us daily whom they hate and whom must be considered a threat to the country.

This is how millions are wiped out in genocides, and the seeds being sown right now – are already germinating and will bloom sometime in the not-too-distant future.  ‘Kill Whitey’ will become just more than a slogan for ghetto blacks and race pimps.

It will become government policy.

Kill the Kulaks

Why have America’s leading organs of influence decided to demonize white, Christian men as the most uniquely evil group in the history of the world? Why is it necessary for students, especially of that ethnic group, to unpack their invisible knapsacks?

The answer is that these men are routinely targeted for politically-empowered looting, usually by their own wives, with the assistance of the state. This looting would not be morally palatable without a pervasive myth of uniquely white male evil. It would otherwise trip the moral alarms that might otherwise come up when dissolving a family for personal gain.

When the left says that they want to expropriate you (and later kill you) in increasingly less subtle terms, they are being entirely serious, and the dumbest mistake to make is to treat it as idle talk. They mean what they say. They will do what they say as soon as they have the political will and the numbers to execute it.

The growth in anti-white-male op-eds in influential magazines makes more sense when you look at the real lives of middle class men, which are often marked by either divorce or threatened divorce, which typically involves an enormous transfer of valuable assets from the man to his ex-wife. This expropriation would have been regarded as execrable even just 50 years ago, but with the assistance of a powerful guilt-myth, it goes down much easier.

The pre-existing myth can be used by lawyers and others to sway judges to the favor of their clients. If white men are assumed to be uniquely wicked, it becomes easier to weave their reported actions (whether true or false) into a legal case against that man, and then to use that case to deprive him of his children, assets, and honor.

The irony here is that men like Teddy Roosevelt, the founder of the Progressive party, were imperialistic white supremacists. However, this was within the framework of the ‘white man’s burden’ of uplifting the other races of the world. This part has stayed within the Progressive platform, and arguably the supremacy plank has stayed also, but in the form of creating a uniquely flagellating class, trained into self-loathing. The tragicomic part of this is that the successful uplift of African-Americans that TR brags about as a unique American success has been reversed by future more aggressively progressive policies.

The flagellating guilt complex is seen as furthering the international-uplift mission, but the Christian aspect has, in large part, been bumped off. The humility before God has become humility before the diversity instructor. The Fall from Eden has become the fall from a murky fall from racial grace. The space in life that would have been allocated towards the worship of God has instead been allocated to the hatred of the White race, although this co-exists simultaneously with a proclamation that race is a social construct that has no bearing on anything temporal.

Without Satan and the demons as scapegoats, White men and their pallor do a great job as stand-ins as the source of the world’s great historical and contemporary evils. The narratives catalog all the purportedly unique historical crimes of the White devil, and then close with some argument to seize the assets of that class, often combined with a demand for the denigration of that entire category of person.

It is not entirely useful to make the comparison to Nazis and their assignment of anti-Jewish math problems and the like in schools, because this program of retaliation is seen as a corrective for those sorts of things, in the same way that the Nuremberg trials were one-sided against the Axis, while ignoring the pervasive and open attacks on civilians by the Allies, in which civilian body counts were seen as success indicators.

It might be funny to bring up the Turks and how they got rid of the Armenians, but most people are unfamiliar with that, and in any case, unlike in the 16th and 17th century, ‘Turk’ is not a byword for ‘bad person’ — ‘White’ is. That is the cultural context in which the educated American classes are operating in. Reforming the image of the Kulak is not easy when every day, all the educated people learn that to hate the Kulak is to get in good with the authorities.

So, what is a Kulak to do? For one, you should take the language denigrating your ethnic group seriously, because calls for asset seizures are always presages to calls of physical liquidation. Once your liquid assets are seized, it is necessary to take your tough-to-move assets, and when you have nothing left to give, you are useful either as a slave or as a dead body.

If the moral trend can be reversed, by openly contradicting the story of [insert group here]’s perfidy, then good on you, but typically, once a state has begun the scapegoating process, it finds itself unable to back down from it — it has to see it to its logical conclusion. Physical resistance usually never occurs, because actors within states only begin these sorts of widespread demonization programs if there is unlikely to be any real physical resistance to it.

Similarly, whining slogans about ‘white genocide’ are meaningless when that sounds like a great idea to the people who want to expropriate you. The guilt-narrative is that White Christians are uniquely responsible for the post-1945 crime of genocide, and that retaliation is more than fair play. That chatter only works if they are actually amenable to that moral argument, and in fact, they think it would be a great thing, and have indeed cheered on such operations in countries like Rhodesia and South Africa.

Memorializing the Communist leader Mandela is practically mandatory in the US, just as veneration of various Communist revolutionaries was mandatory in the USSR.

No one cares — that, in fact, only enhances the support for the policy on the opposing side. In the same way that telling Turks that they are naughty for getting rid of the Armenians, the left just grins and laughs when you tell them that they are doing what they want to do, what they plan to do, what they are openly proud of talking about doing.

The cheeky proposal is to make like previously successful mass-exiles and to negotiate deportation between the state that wishes to get rid of the host population, and a state that could make use of it. The exile of the Huguenots from France to other Protestant countries throughout Europe is a good example of this sort of relatively peaceful ethno-religious cleansing. The more serious proposal is to break up the United States, due to incompatible moral visions of society among the differing members.

In this way, you could separate the states between those that believe Whites are demons whose sin requires punishment on this Earth, and those who believe that Whites are men to be judged by God and perhaps by other men when the time calls for it.

Much like Stalin rewarded journalists and minor authors with high prizes for authoring tracts against the Kulaks, our contemporary authorities award such prizes for demonizing our Kulaks. None of this will make much sense without a good understanding of the greatest, most terrible man of the 20th century, and this biography is a wonderful place to start.

Being able to credibly threaten this would be the only thing that could even begin to derail the de-Kulakization program in place. Once the authorities can no longer promise worthwhile prizes and status in return for mouthing words of hatred towards the White devil, the words will stop being spoken with nearly as much authentic fervor.

We should learn from history that negotiation with the terror is not possible — that is the road to the fate of men like the Girondists, moderates exterminated by the Jacobins. Taking the symbolic meaning of language seriously is important, because people must use strong symbols to arrange any project, either great or terrible.

When the left says that they want to expropriate you (and later kill you) in increasingly less subtle terms, they are being entirely serious, and the dumbest mistake to make is to treat it as idle talk. They mean what they say. They will do what they say as soon as they have the political will and the numbers to execute it. That could be a long time, but it might not be, either.

Also, to think that you can deflect the hatred towards some other subclass of Kulak is folly, because you’re next, even if that succeeds.

In the contemporary sense, just as historically, the way to avoid the de-Kulakization is to re-align yourself with the state and against the Kulaks. If you could credibly be mistaken for a Kulak, you instead loudly proclaim how much you hate Kulaks, and how willing you are to assist in their expropriation.

A defense can be mounted in a secure state, but it can’t be  mounted within a state that is entirely oriented against you. Finland withstood the Soviet invasion, but the states which were already in the Soviet orbit left the gates unlocked, and gladly accepted absorption. During the civil war in Spain, towns purged and counter-purged one another until the borders were clear — the secular Bolsheviks versus the Catholic Francoists.

Even then, people caught on the wrong side of the internal border were killed by their friends and neighbors, often with crude farm tools in barbaric rituals.

This even of course has occurred in recent times under American supervision — similar mass-killing of civilians is going on as I write this in Ukraine and New Russia. Ethnic cleansing famously occurred under hapless US supervision in Iraq, amassing an enormous body count. The American press is uniform in either glossing over these murders of civilians or in lauding them as necessary.

It is not so much of a jump to say that the same governing class that did not bat an eye in those wars would not bat an eye to do the same domestically, at least following a crisis of significant magnitude.

It’s not wise to trust in moderate political parties to brake the success of the neo-Jacobin left, because moderate parties are the first ones to go in crisis, under pressure from both sides.

Of course, none of this will make any sense if you are totally unfamiliar with the history of the left, especially in the 20th century. The rhetoric will seem benign because the symbols that they use for certain things are going to appear benign, rather than containing murderous intent. The normalcy that you have experienced for most of your life will be what you expect to experience for the foreseeable future, because you don’t have the records of others stored in your head, warning of such things.

In the same way, when people talk about ‘socialized medicine,’ you are going to have an entirely different emotional reaction to it if you know that Soviet doctors dumped dying patients out in front of hospitals to make their statistics look better than if you are wholly ignorant of that anecdote.

This is why it is often so difficult to make what should be an alarming historical parallel argument with regards to the bloody history of the left — contemporary people have been trained into fearing the ‘Brown scare,’ but not the far more dangerous ‘Red scare.’ They feel calm when they should feel alarm. They dismiss language that they should take seriously until precisely the moment before language commands action.

The Intolerant Tyranny of a Beast

He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. – Revelation 13:16-17

There are many speculations of what the Mark of the Beast is in Christian circles.  Everything from bar codes to RFID chips to tattoos.  I never subscribed to those assumptions.  Given biblical symbolism of when the ‘right hand’ is used and when ‘forehead’ is used, it is very clear to me that scripture states that ‘right hand’ is an action, and forehead is the way one thinks.  Therefore I am of the understanding that when Revelation 13 is speaking of this ‘mark’ in the right hands or foreheads, it is that this Beast causes all, small and great, rich and poor to THINK AND ACT as the Beast demands they think and act or they will not be able to make a living, buy food, own property etc.

We see this application taking place right now in the collapsing former Republic of America.

Take a look at what the mob directed by the Beast of Leftism and progressive tyranny wrought on L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling last week; they demand to take his property away and banned him from doing business in his league for nothing more than that his private beliefs were revealed, and his views are reprehensible to the Beast that runs the government and the media in this country.  The precedent is now set – that as Americans, you are not permitted to have beliefs and opinions that are contrary to the narrative the Beast of Progressive Soviet Tyranny demands everyone think.  If your thoughts and beliefs do not conform to the zeitgeist at the direction of the Beast – what you have will be taken from you, and buying and selling will be prohibited for you.

That is where all of this goes and is already here.

Dare to disagree with the avalanche of homosexuality and forced acceptance of an abominable lifestyle?  Lose your business.  Get fined by the courts and charged with hate, discrimination and any other crime that can be levied against you.  In short, we are fast arriving at the place that you will not be able to buy or sell without thinking and acting as the Beast demands. Receive the Mark, or starve.

It’s here, in all it’s intolerant tyranny disguised as compassion and understanding.

The religion of the Fascist Left in Amerika.

 

The Suffocating Neo-Puritanism of ‘Progressive’ America

Alexandra Pelosi’s HBO documentary Fall to Grace tracks the evolution of New Jersey’s disgraced, self-dubbed “gay-American,” former governor, Jim McGreevey. In one passing scene, McGreevey enters a church ostensibly more welcoming than the judgmental Catholic Church of his childhood. The message board on the church front reads — and this is a close paraphrase — “Lord help us overcome the sins of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia.”

Had the message board been bigger, the good pastor might have added nativism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. In a postmodern world that prides itself on “non-judgmentalism,” these have emerged as the seven new deadly sins, and God help the man, woman, or child who commits one.

Unlike the Catholic Church McGreevey abandoned, his newfound Neo-Puritanism is unforgiving. It shows sinners little mercy and offers them no path to absolution. Indeed, like Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne, the sinner is publicly branded with her sin.

Celebrity chef Paula Deen did not commit the sin of racism; she is a “racist.” She must forever wear the Scarlet R, just as Mozilla’s Brendan Eich must wear the Scarlet H for “homophobe,” and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali wears the Scarlet I for “Islamophobe.” From the Neo-Puritan perspective, nothing else counts; that letter is their identity.

The cult’s clerics add new sins regularly and new sinners daily. Of late, in addition to Eich and Hirsi Ali, Cliven Bundy, Phil Robertson, even Alec Baldwin have joined the ranks of the damned. Hawthorne described his seventeenth century ancestors as “being of the most intolerant brood that ever lived,” but these “little Puritans” had nothing on the big ones that would flourish four centuries later.

In both the old and new Puritanism, worshippers achieve a sense of moral worth simply by designating themselves among “the elect” — no good works required. To validate that uncertain status, however, they feel compelled to heap abuse upon the sinner lest they too be thought guilty of the sin.

This, LA Clipper owner Donald Sterling has been learning the hard way. Sports-minded progressives who have found mercy in their hearts for dog killers, wife beaters, child deserters, lethal DUI drivers, steroid abusers, cocaine addicts, serial baby daddies, and abortion enablers have not spared a drop of it for a cuckolded old sugar daddy whose comments on race had been so teased out of him that they are impossible to quote. Hell, even a psycho throat-slasher like O.J. Simpson has retained a larger public cheering section than Sterling.

Like Ms. Prynne, Sterling has quickly found himself “without a friend on earth who dared to show himself.” Despite donations exclusively to liberal causes and candidates, the media were quick to redefine Sterling as a “registered Republican” and thus mark him as fair game. Even those who questioned the illegal taping of his private thoughts felt obliged to condemn those thoughts in the harshest possible terms — “disgusting,” “appalling,” “abhorrent.”

“The man who poisoned the Los Angeles Clippers for nearly 30 years with his ignorance and hate,” wrote the LA Times Bill Plaschke, “has at last been dragged away into sweet oblivion.” Hawthorne’s Roger Chillingsworth could not have denounced Sterling more fervently.

Sterling must have had some sense of how the Neo-Puritans rolled. To keep them at bay, he had been buying their indulgences for years. Leon Jenkins, the Los Angeles branch NAACP president, observed that Sterling’s organization “brought in numerous minorities and inner city kids to games” and also “contributed to a lot of minority charities, including the NAACP.” Sterling’s largesse netted him an NAACP Lifetime Achievement award in 2009 and another one — almost — in 2014.

Sterling’s contributions, however, were too limited and too local to buy him much in the way of national political capital. As a result, he held no particular value for a Democratic-media complex that has been nurturing Neo-Puritanism since at least 1976 when the leak of Republican Ag Secretary Earl Butz’s overheard “loose shoes” joke cost him his job and his reputation.

The very success of Neo-Puritanism, however, may be its undoing. Each spectacular new public burning reveals just how empty and oppressive the movement is at its heart. For instance, in exposing Sterling the media have unwittingly shone light on Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

In fact, the NAACP banquet that was to honor Sterling for lifetime achievement was to honor Al Sharpton as “Man of the Year.”  This was the same Sharpton who dissed the work of “Socrates and them Greek homos”; the same Sharpton who instigated the lethal Crown Heights pogrom with the rallying cry, “If Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”; and yes, the same Al Sharpton who said of Sterling, “No one should be allowed to own a team if they have in fact engaged in this kind of racial language.”

As to NAACP head Jenkins, a former judge, it turns out that he had been disbarred both in Michigan and California. The Michigan State Bar Review found that Jenkins “systematically and routinely sold his office and his public trust . . . committed wholesale violations of the most elementary canons of judicial conduct, and brought grave dishonor upon this state’s judiciary.” This should not surprise. A cult without a moral center inevitably attracts charlatans.

Late blue collar philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Had Hoffer lived longer, he might have added a clause about how righteously repressive those racketeers can become

The Communist States of Amerika

Cultural MarxoFascism (Progressivism) has replaced the Judeo-Christian Culture, overthrowing our Republic for a Communist State.

Read it and weep.  An honest person cannot refute the truth of where this nation finds itself.

The Communist States of America

A preferred ploy of left-wing change agents is to ridicule critics when they point out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s “progressive” movement, to include the Democratic Party in general, and the goals of the early, and very much still alive, communist movement.

If, for instance, one mentions the historical fact that nearly every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist, to include his own parents, then one is immediately mocked and dismissed as a neo-McCarthyite hack pining for the bygone days of the Red Scare. This is an evasive, ad hominem strategy employed by those who are caught, for lack of a better word, red-handed.

To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.

There are multiple layers within “progressivism’s” pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian Marxist philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood, however, is the “progressive” rush toward cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as “a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper: “Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which “progressives” seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but, rather, and perhaps primarily, it is also through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., the sanctity of marriage, natural human sexuality and morality, ending the abortion holocaust, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and the like).

This is neither speculative nor hyperbolic. Both the historical record and the U.S. Congressional Record bear out this sinister reality. Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts.

“Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

In 1963, U.S. Rep. A.S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read into the Congressional Record a list of “Current Communist Goals” as enumerated by Dr. Cleon Skousen in “The Naked Communist,” penned in 1958. I encourage you to read the whole list, but for now let’s focus on those goals that most closely align with the seditious agenda of America’s “progressive” movement. It’s actually most of them. Though Herlong was a Democrat, the list reads like today’s Democratic Party Platform.

How far has fallen the party of the jackass:

• Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
• Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist [or, today, Islamic] affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
• Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist [or Islamic] domination.
• Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
• Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
• Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
• Do away with all loyalty oaths.
• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. (An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”)
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
• Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
• Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.”
• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
• Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
• Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
• Internationalize the Panama Canal.
• Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

If achieving these specific communist goals was the final “progressive” step toward the larger goal of securing communist governance in America, then, tragically, “progressives” have realized that larger goal.

Look around. We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America.

Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.

The Imperial Arrogance of Obama Continues

Obama acts above the law and makes up the law and ignores the law at his discretion and decree.

I share the same sentiments.

The imperial arrogance of Obama seems to know no bounds.

The Imperial Arrogance of Obama Continues

There are times when I wonder what I would do if I was freed from the normal constraints that bind all of us, such as morality, conscience, and laws. Would I do as I pleased and seek only my gratification, not caring if my actions hurt others in the process? I would hope not, but the truth remains that all of us have constraint put upon us by society, either through religion or laws. Hmmm…perhaps I spoke too soon. There are some that seem to enjoy not having any shackles put upon them by society, such as President Obama. It must be very gratifying to ignore the rule of law and just decide what to do based upon your latest whim. Don’t care for enforcing a particular law one day? Then decide not to do it! Change your mind a week later? Then it’s full throttle for making sure that law is obeyed by the masses. The imperial arrogance of Obama seems to know no bounds.

We have ample evidence of his “I’m above the law” mentality that he carries with him. Our latest example deals yet again with ObamaCare, that bloated train wreck designed to destroy private insurance and private medical decisions in lieu of big government blessings. Once again Obama has decided to push back the employer mandate another year, which just happens to be past the upcoming midterm elections in late 2014. I won’t bother going into the details, but thresholds have been changed yet again, and employers will have to adjust to them. Nothing like having to jump hurdles when the course is constantly being changed, but then again Obama doesn’t worry about that. Only peasants have to worry about obeying the law. Elites like him and other cronies can flout the law all they wish with little to no consequences. Their legally-binding oaths to protect and honor the US Constitution are worth as much as my belly-button lint.

What I find even more enlightening is the comment that he made while touring Monticello with French President Francois Hollande. He quipped, “That’s the good thing as a president, I can do whatever I want.” While his defenders will say that he made that quip in jest, I think it shows his true mindset that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He told Congress at the State of the Union speech just that. He would use the pen and create legislation if they didn’t do what he wanted them to do. You really can’t get more imperial than that. Obama was elected president, not emperor, but it seems he thinks otherwise.

The fact is that Obama is doing what he wants because nobody is trying to stop him. Congress refuses to act against his illegal activities. The Supreme Court refuses to act against him. Obama has the full weight of the executive branch and his personal goon, Eric Holder, to do his dirty work. The mainstream media is actually cheering him on in his lawlessness. Charles Krauthammer said it best when he described Obama’s latest ObamaCare action “the stuff that you do in a banana republic.”

Stupidity Is The New ‘Genius’ In The Progressive Cult of Obama

The Left considers itself smarter than the rest of us, manufacturing the consensus of their own intelligence and insist that it proves them right, when they are horrifyingly wrong.

One of Daniel Greenfield’s best essays yet written that deconstructs the MarxoFascist/liberal/progressive Leftists in our midst, and explains why they are such smug-smarmy and arrogant people who think themselves morally superior to the rest of the America they hate.

The Left Is Too Smart To Fail

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

The infrastructure of manufactured intelligence has become a truly impressive thing. Today as never before there is an industry dedicated, not to educating people, but to making them feel smart. From paradigm shifting TED talks to paradigm to books by thought leaders and documentaries by change agents that transform your view of the world, manufactured intelligence has become its own culture.

Manufactured intelligence is the smarmy quality that oozes out of a New York Times column by Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni and the rest of the gang who tell you nothing meaningful while dazzling you with references to international locations, political events and pop culture, tying together absurdities into one synergistic web of nonsense that feels meaningful.

There’s a reason that there’s a Tom Friedman article generator online. But it could just as easily be a New York Times article generator that sums up the hollowness of the buzzword-fed crowd that is always hungry to reaffirm the illusion of its own intelligence.

We all know that George W. Bush was a moron. And we all know that Obama is a genius. We have been told by Valerie Jarrett, by his media lapdogs and even by the great man himself that he is just too smart to do his job. And it’s reasonable that a genius would be bored by the tedious tasks involved in running the most powerful nation on earth.

But what is “smart” anyway? What makes Obama a genius? It’s not his IQ. It’s probably not his grades or we would have seen them already. It’s that like so many of the thought leaders and TED talkers, he makes his supporters feel smart. The perception of intelligence is really a reflection.

Smart once used to be an unreachable quality. Einstein was proclaimed a genius, because it was said that no one understood his theories. Those were undemocratic times when it was assumed that the eggheads playing with the atom had to be a lot smarter than us or we were in big trouble.

Intelligence has since been democratized. Smart has been redistributed. Anyone can get an A for effort. And the impulse of manufactured intelligence is not smart people, but people who make us feel smart. That is why Neil deGrasse Tyson, another obsessively self-promoting mediocrity like Carl Sagan, is now the new face of science. Sagan made science-illiterate liberals feel smart while pandering to their biases. Tyson does the same thing for the Twitter generation.

Self-esteem is the new intelligence. Obama’s intelligence was manufactured by pandering to the biases and tastes of his supporters. The more he shared their biases and tastes, the smarter he seemed to be and the smarter they felt by having so much in common with such a smart man.

Obama Inc. built his image around the accessories of modern manufactured intelligence, premature biographies, global reference points and pop culture. This marriage of high and low with an exotic spice from the east embodies modern liberal intelligence. Take a dash of pop culture, mix it with an important quote, throw in some recent technological development that promises to “change how we all live”, mention your time in a foreign culture and draw an insipid conclusion.

That’s not just the DNA of every other New York Times column, TED talk and important book by an equally important thought leader sitting under the floodlights at your local struggling chain bookstore with its portraits of great writers on the wall and the tables groaning under unsold copies of Fifty Shades of Grey, Malcolm Gladwell, Candace Bushnell and Khaled Hosseini.

It’s also the DNA of Obama Inc. It is its assumption of intelligence through compassionate self-involvement, progressive insights derived from an obsession with the self and the sanctification of Third World references, real or imaginary, invoking the spiritual power of the Other, the totem of alien magic, to transcend the rational and the pragmatic. It is upscale Oprah; egotism masquerading as enlightenment, condescension as compassion and soothing quotes as religion.

Once upon a time, bright young American men went to Europe and wrote books about the world. That was our notion of intelligence. JFK did it and was widely praised for his intelligence. Today bright young American men and women go to the Third World and write their books about the world, mining the compost of their Flickr accounts, Tumblr updates and Twitter feed for deep thoughts.

Intelligence to a modern liberal isn’t depth, it’s appearance. It isn’t even an intellectual quality, but a spiritual quality. Compassionate people who care about others are always “smarter”, no matter how stupid they might be, because they care about the world around them.

An insight into how we live matters more than useful knowledge. Skill is irrelevant unless it’s a transformative progressive “changing the way we live” application.

Obama and his audience mistake their orgy of mutual flattery for intelligence and depth. Like a trendy restaurant whose patrons know that they have good taste because they patronize it, his supporters know that they are smart because they support a smart man and Obama knows he is smart because so many smart people support him.

The thought never rises within this bubble of manufactured intelligence that all of them might really be idiots who have convinced themselves that they are geniuses because they read the right books (or pretend to read them), watch the right movies and shows (or pretend to) and have the right values (or pretend to).

Smart is surplus when you have Gladwell sitting under a full DVD set of The Wire prominently displayed on your bookshelf right alongside a signed copy of The Audacity of Hope.

Marxists thought that Marxism was smart. Progressives measure intelligence in progressivism. Its only two qualities are “world awareness” and “progressive future adaptation”.

Obama hit both these qualities perfectly with his Third Culture background and the appearance of modern technocratic polish. Not just a politician, but a thought leader, he had the pseudo-celebrity quality of their kind, able to move smoothly from a celebrity panel about Third World microfinance, to a Jay-Z concert to a fundraiser for DIY solar panels for India to a banquet for a political hack.

Everyone who encountered him thought that he was smart because he made them feel smart. And that is the supreme duty of the modern liberal intellectual, not to be smart, but to make others feel smart. Genuine intelligence is threatening. Manufactured intelligence is soothing. And those intellectually superior progressives who need to believe that Obama is smart in order to believe that they are smart cannot stop believing in his brains without confronting the illusion of their own intelligence.

Manufactured intelligence isn’t smart. It’s stupid. It’s as stupid as building windmills for sustainable energy in places where the wind hardly blows, as stupid as calling inflated budgets “investments” and as stupid as believing that a man is smart because he can reference poverty in the Third World.

It’s easy to tell apart fake intelligence from the real thing. Manufactured intelligence fakes “smart” by playing word games. It constantly invents new terms to provide the enlightened elites with a secret language of Newspeak buzzwords that mean less than the words they are replacing. The buzzwords, Thought Leader and Change Agent, quickly take on cultist overtones and become ways of describing how the group’s leaders would like to use power, than anything about the world that they describe.

Manufactured intelligence is a consensus, not a debate. It’s not arrived at through a process, but flopped into like a warm soothing bath of nothingness. It’s correct because everyone says so. And anyone who disagrees is clearly stupid and lacks awareness of the interconnected ways that the world synergistically works. And probably doesn’t know science, Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson either.

Real intelligence is the product of constant debate. It is forever striving to overthrow the consensus and willing to challenge anything and everything. It uses a specialized vocabulary only to describe specialized phenomena, rather than replacing existing words with new words to describing existing phenomena in order to seem as if it understands the future better by going all 1984 on it.

Finally, manufactured intelligence is self-involved. It mistakes feeling for thinking. It deals not with how things are or even how we would like them to be, but how we feel about the way things are and what our feelings about the way things are say about what kind of people we are.

Liberal intelligence is largely concerned with the latter. It is a self-esteem project for mediocre elites, the sons and daughters of the formerly accomplished who are constantly diving into the shallow pools of their own minds to explore how their privilege and entitlement makes them view the world and how they can be good people by challenging everyone’s paradigms and how they can think outside the box by climbing into it and pulling the flaps shut behind them.

Perpetual self-involvement isn’t intelligence regardless of how many of the linguistic tricks of memoir fiction it borrows to endow its liberal self-help section with the appearance of nobility.

Liberalism isn’t really about making the world a better place. It’s about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

That is why Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for having good intentions. His actual foreign policy mattered less than the appearance of a new transformative foreign policy based on speeches. Gore promised to be be harsher on Saddam than Bush, but no one remembers that because everyone in the bubble knows that the Iraq War was stupid… and only conservatives do stupid things.

Liberal intelligence exists on the illusion of its self-worth. The magical thinking that guides it in every other area from economics to diplomacy also convinces it that if it believes it is smart, that it will be. The impenetrable liberal consensus in every area is based on this delusion of intelligence. Every policy is right because it’s smart and it’s smart because it’s progressive and it’s progressive because smart progressives say that it is.

Progressives manufacture the consensus of their own intelligence and insist that it proves them right.

Imagine a million people walking in a circle and shouting, “WE’RE SMART AND WE’RE RIGHT. WE’RE RIGHT BECAUSE WE’RE SMART. WE’RE SMART BECAUSE WE’RE RIGHT.” Now imagine that these marching morons dominate academia, the government bureaucracy and the entertainment industry allowing them to spend billions yelling their idiot message until it outshouts everyone else while ignoring the disasters in their wake because they are too smart to fail.

 

Christ Ignored For The Religion of the Left: Google Favors A Marxist Over Jesus on Easter, Obama Decrees Today Is Cesar Chavez Day

Obama and the major media proves that the real religion of Democrats and ‘Progressives” is Leftism; Marx-ism, Social-ism, Maos-im, Commun-ism.  They worship their ideology – not the Lord – whether they admit it or not.

This was holy week for those who revere the scriptures (Passover, Unleavened bread, Good Friday, Easter) – the State Media illustrates their disdain for any faith from the bible.  While by itself this slight can be discounted as a sign of anti-Chrisian/Jewish bias, but collectively over the last decade or so – today’s omission of acknowledging Whom most are celebrating today, and replaced with a Leftist icon reveals the fact that the religion of Democrats and Liberals is their political religion of the Left in all it’s doctrines.  They worship the State and their ideology above all else.

So on Easter Sunday – Obama issues Presidential Decree that today is Cesar Chavez Day, and Google ignores Jesus for Chavez.

While this author keeps the biblical feasts, I am disgusted what Google has done today.  It’s boycott time.

My pal John has a great rant about it today.  Thanks John.

On Easter Sunday 2013, Google honors an Alinsky Radical Instead of Jesus

by John Galt
March 31, 2013 11:55 ET

Just when one thinks that our nation’s corporations can not suck up enough to the Alinsky-Obama radical leftists, here comes Google on Easter Sunday:

Seriously?

Cesar Chavez, a learned disciple of Saul Alinksy and his tactics is Google’s choice on Easter Sunday upholding the Imperial Leader Obama’s edict that March 31st from here on out be known as “Cesar Chavez Day” in a proclamation issued last Friday:

Presidential Proclamation — Cesar Chavez Day

CESAR CHAVEZ DAY, 2013

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

A PROCLAMATION

 

Every year, Americans all across our country pause on March 31 to remember a man who made justice his life’s calling. Growing up the son of migrant farm workers who lost everything in the Great Depression, Cesar Chavez knew hard work and hardship from an early age. He labored long hours for little pay, taking odd jobs to help his family get by and forgoing a formal education to follow the crop cycles. But where others might have given up or given in, Cesar Chavez never lost hope in the power of opportunity. He lived each day by a belief as old as America itself — the idea that with courage and determination, any of us can reach beyond our circumstances and leave our children something better.

 

More than anything, we remember Cesar Chavez for lending voice to the voiceless. When no one seemed to care about the invisible farm workers who picked our Nation’s food, beset by poverty and cheated by growers, a courageous man dedicated to dignity stood up and spoke out. Alongside Dolores Huerta and fellow organizers, he rallied a generation of workers around “La Causa,” marching and fasting and boycotting for fair pay and protections on the job. They fought through decades of setbacks and fierce resistance. But through every trial, Cesar Chavez refused to curb his ambitions or scale back his hope. Step by step, march by march, he helped lead a community of farm workers to make the change they sought.

 

Cesar Chavez’s legacy lives on at Nuestra Señora Reina de la Paz, his home and workplace, which I was proud to designate a National Monument last October. It also lives on in those who remember his central teaching: that when workers are treated fairly and humanely, our country grows more just, opportunity becomes more equal, and all of us do better. Because even with the strides we have made, we know there is more left to do when working men and women toil in poverty without adequate protections or simple respect. We know there is more to do when our broken immigration system forces workers into a shadow economy where companies can ignore labor laws and undermine businesses following the rules. Fixing those problems means securing what Cesar Chavez fought for at La Paz. It means taking on injustice, making sure hard work is rewarded, and bringing more Americans into a rising middle class.

 

In 1966, when Cesar Chavez was struggling to bring attention to his cause, he received a telegram from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “As brothers in the fight for equality, I extend the hand of fellowship and goodwill,” he wrote. “We are with you in spirit and in determination that our dreams for a better tomorrow will be realized.” It is a story that reminds us how here in America, we are bound together not by the colors of our skin or the languages we speak, but by the values we share and the brighter future we seek for our children. So today, as we honor a man who risked everything to stand up for what he believed in, let us reflect on our common cause and recommit to moving forward together — as one Nation and one people.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2013, as Cesar Chavez Day. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

 

BARACK OBAMA

This proclamation and the “honor” paid to this hero of illegals and unionists alike did not go unnoticed by the Daily Caller in their article this morning:

Google honors Cesar Chavez on Easter

But does Google know or care about Chavez’s affiliations or how the United Farm Worker’s union has developed close relations to extremist unions like the SEIU? Probably not and it is doubtful they have reviewed the history of his associations especially with one Saul Alinksy:

Cesar Chavez I know, but who is Saul Alinsky? I asked the same question 10 years ago after attending a Teatro Campesino production in Orange County. The theater company was inspired by Chavez and Dolores Huerta in the 1960s, and after the show, UFW activists led a series of call-and-response cheers: “Que viva Cesar Chavez! Que viva! Que viva Dolores Huerta! Que viva!”

Paeans to other Chicano icons followed. Then came a less-familiar blast: “Que viva Saul Alinsky!” The crowd roared its answer, but I was stumped. Alinsky wasn’t a surname I had heard during my Chicano upbringing. Saul, yes. But not Alinsky! As a history professor at Cypress College, I was too embarrassed to ask anyone in the crowd that day.

Later, I learned that Alinsky founded the Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation, which sent battle-tested organizers to train and develop local leaders on issues related to voting, discrimination and police brutality. In his classic treatise, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals,” Alinsky showed how working-class blacks and white ethnics could work together to end employer discrimination and municipal neglect.

For example, to influence elites holding power to make concessions, “Rules for Radicals” proposed the tactic of threatening to have community activists purchase 100 seats for a symphony performance in Rochester, N.Y. Beforehand, the attendees would enjoy bowls of baked beans with subsequent “obvious consequences” as they sat in their concert seats.

To persuade an upscale department store to change its discriminatory hiring practices, Alinsky suggested that protesters order all items in sight, have them shipped C.O.D., and then refuse delivery later. These two tactics signaled that long-standing privileges would be threatened if a community withheld basic rights from its most disadvantaged residents.

One of Alinsky’s disciples, Fred Ross, founded Community Service Organization chapters throughout California after World War II. In Los Angeles, the CSO worked with Chicano activists to promote English and citizenship classes, voter-registration drives, and get-out-the vote campaigns. To aid Edward R. Roybal’s election to the Los Angeles City Council in 1949, the CSO registered 12,000 new voters. Roybal became the first Mexican-American to sit on the City Council since the 1880s, and he later represented Los Angeles in Congress for 30 years.

One of Ross’ protégés was Cesar Chavez. Like his mentor, Chavez traveled the state developing CSO chapters and leaders. After asking community members to invite neighbors, co-workers and family to a house meeting, Chavez listened to their problems and organized them to demand redresses to their grievances. His success led Alinsky and Ralph Helstein, president of the United Packinghouse Workers of America, to summon Ross and Chavez to San Francisco in 1958 to discuss the creation of a CSO chapter in Ventura County. Helstein believed that a CSO there could buttress the UPWA’s efforts to combat the citrus industry’s exploitation of bracero guest worker

– From the Ventura County Star article “The Alinksy, Chavez, Obama Connection,” by Frank P. Barajas, November 2, 2008

In other words, the ties that bind, the historical connection of radicals, especially pro-Marxists like Dolores Huerta who would if empowered to do so force Google to share all of their operating profits with the poor and to become a unionized shop to support their ilk are still strong yet so-called capitalist corporations like Google could care less. Why? Let’s go to the United Farm Worker’s home page and see what kind of affiliations they support:

Besides the SEIU, the other groups highlighted all have a history of association with extremist left wing groups which are anti-business and in many cases anti-American or against our Constitution in their actions and proclamations. Interestingly enough, the “Change to Win” Hoffa founded splinter group allegedly has strong ties to George Soros’ groups and their causes and of course SEIU’s Andrew Stern.

It’s a good thing that I believe in the 1st Amendment and every corporation’s right to speak and act freely with their money, no matter how destructive to our freedom they might be. In response, for now, we the people have that same freedom and I might suggest an alternative search engine to voice one’s displeasure over Google’s choice to honor a radical over Jesus.

IXquik.com

For now, there is nothing forcing anyone to endure the extremist views of Google when doing something as simple as a web search because at some point they need to learn the lesson that political correctness does not always equal profit.

“Progressives” On The Path To Slaughter and Genocide.

A people no longer governed by God are ruled by the tyranny of men.  Harbingers of oppression are already evident as the regime in power arms itself against the American people.

We are told in scripture not to be ignorant of the Devil’s devices (II Corinthians 2:11).  I believe, as our Founders did – this includes being aware of the designs and intents of evil men in power doing Satan’s bidding, and preparing oneself spiritually and physically for such devices being employed.

I often say that history is an excellent teacher, and the fruits of every single Socialist/Marxist/Communist leader and regime totally unhinged from scripture and the rule of law – results in such regimes engaging in the wholesale slaughter and genocide of their own people whom they consider to be enemies of their ideology of the supremacy of the state – the collective.  They are anti-God, anti-Biblical and always redefine morality to fit their twisted utopian views, which they always sell to the gullible as ‘justice’.

History teaches that madmen that become part of genocidal regimes always reveal their intentions to do such slaughter in the years and decades before they achieve power.  If Europe had read and understood Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Holocaust may never have happened.  But people often think that such assumptions of attributed evil are nonsense in the days before a holocaust is initiated.  Such genocides always occur within the spectrum of misery, a collapsed economy, near-starvation and woe among their populations.

Often such misery is created by the very people who use it to transform a society into a despotic one.  A desperate people will sell their birthrights for a bowl of soup.  Handouts from the state and the promise of bread are powerful capitulators to tyrants.  This is dangerous when such handouts are being promoted by people with plans to kill their opposition.  The cabal whom groomed and anointed Obama to power have a history of encouraging mass killing.   William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists who were engaged in open warfare upon America.  The professors at Columbia and Occidental where Obama said he attended college whom were part of Obama’s grooming actually planned to exterminate tens of millions of Americans as far back as the 1980s.

Then we have the state arming itself in the name of security while at the same time – working furiously to disarm the American people.  Connecting-the-dots of where this all may lead does not take a college graduate, only someone who knows a little history and can discern the hints within the language of the ‘progressive’/MarxoFascist movement of the American Left.

Obama’s recent angered invectives and demagoguery of his political opponents over the budget ‘sequester’ that he, himself created – are fruits of a man and regime about to unleash hell upon the American people and their perceived enemies.  Obama’s defacto Presidente Valerie Jarrett said the following:

 

“Hell to pay”.  Perhaps in the form of hollow-point bullets being and armed drone strikes used against American citizens?

Sound preposterous?  Not if one knows the history of the ideology that is the religion of the “Progressives” and their political messiah in Obama and his regime now in power.

There is a good blog assessment based on all the evidence, statements, speeches, papers and actions of the Obama regime and it’s cabal now in power, and we would do well to heed the admonition and warning.  It restates the plain truth of what should become a mantra among those Americans who wish to remain free, and unmolested by the state.

 

THEY WILL KILL YOU

 

May I reiterate a point I made a bit ago?

Maybe it’s the drone white paper. Killing Americans willy-nilly because some “highly informed” political official deems them dangerous, or it’s too “burdensome” for government to get, you know, judicial or Congressional review…

Progressives will always end up mass murdering their fellow citizens.

Let me say that again.

PROGRESSIVES ALWAYS END UP MASS MURDERING THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.

The only exceptions are those that are blessedly removed from office before they are able to gather enough power to execute such orders.

Progressives are collectivists are socialists are communists are tyrants & dictators.

PROGRESSIVES ALWAYS END UP MASS MURDERING THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.

When I say the names Stalin, Hitler, Mao, today’s Progressive apologists say something like, “Oh, they were monsters, OUR progressives-collectivists-socialists-communists aren’t doing that!”

Well, Stalin didn’t do it either. Until he could. Then he did.
Lenin didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Hitler didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Pol Pot didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Castro didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Che Guevera didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Mao didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Ho Chi Min didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.
Kim Jong Il didn’t do it. Until he could. Then he did.

Woodrow Wilson didn’t do it, because there was that pesky Constitution, that back then, people actually believed in. (Trust me. It’s the only reason he didn’t.) He DID put people in prison for speaking out against the war or his government. Because he could.

Franklin Roosevelt didn’t do it. But he did put thousands of Americans into concentration camps. Because he could.

Barack Øbama’s just starting slow. He’s picking off individual fellow-citizens in other countries. (And, of course, anyone else who happens to get caught in the line of fire.) Because he can.

Can he? Are we really going to allow that? Are we really going to permit this?

PROGRESSIVES ALWAYS END UP MASS MURDERING THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.

It’s a law of nature.
It’s the logical conclusion of their way of thinking.

In the beginning a progressive will lie, cheat, steal, destroy, smear, ruin, in order to force his vision of “utopia” down the throats of people who don’t want it. Because he believes he knows better than they.

A progressive will continue to use the same tactics throughout his life. What others want or prefer means nothing to him. He has decided what’s best for others and will move the world to make sure it is imposed upon them.

As his power increases, his tactics become more overt, aggressive and violent.

And of course, any threat to his power is a threat to the “good of the collective” and the Utopian dream. And it must be mercilessly snuffed out for the good of all.

In order to impose his will on everyone else, it is necessary to rule them all with a iron fist. And ultimately the only way to do that is to use extreme violence.

And there will always be some troublesome people who are just ruining it for everybody else. Who just won’t go along. Who are dissenters and disrupters. Enemies of the peace. Enemies of the people. Enemies of the collective and their dreams of Utopia.

And for the dream to survive and come to fruition, such people must be eliminated.

It’s the law of the nature of Progressives.

It’s evident in their ready impulse to silence voices that disagree with them. An example is their enthusiasm for a Talk-Radio “Fairness Doctrine”. The fact that there is one place in the culture that actually has the audacity to speak full-throated Conservatism/Libertarianism is utterly unacceptable to them.

That Academia, the entire Media, all of Entertainment, and the Music industry (with the exception of some country singers) are in lockstep with their Progressive propaganda is not good enough. No one must be allowed to dissent. There must be NO voices questioning their message. All other voices must be silenced. All enemies must be neutralized.

It’s evident in their PC charges of “racism” “homophobia”, designed for no other reason than to shut opposition down. To shut you up.

That’s all Political Correctness is: Progressives’ attempt to silence voices and ban ideas they don’t like  and don’t want anybody to hear.

And those behaviors, friends, are the first steps of the eventual Stalinian mass-murderer.

Yes. That’s extreme. But it’s also true.

Every progressive is an incipient mass murderer. Most just don’t have the opportunity to mature into their full potential.

Progressives use whatever nasty bits of power and corruption they can accumulate. If it’s a little, they smear you. If it’s a lot, they kill you.

DO. NOT. DOUBT. ME.

Demonization Is First Step Towards Extermination

Satan sticks to what works.  History teaches time and again, that ANYTIME a government and it’s supporters begins demonizing a certain segment of their population, it is not long before that segment is criminalized, rounded up and eliminated.

History appears to be repeating, and it’s going to be a fatal mistake to assume ‘it cannot happen here’.

The Revolution Is At Our Door

As the American experiment with liberty collapses into tyranny, a very real bloodbath stands in wait

The American War of Independence and the French Revolution.  Two revolutions against state authority and tyranny.  Two completely different outcomes.

Why?

In attempting to answer the question of where his native nation of France went wrong, Alexis DeToqueville summed up in Democracy in America, that America’s greatness could be found in our churches, and that the day America ceased to be good (and moral), she would cease to be great.  He was stating what John Adams himself had declared when he wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other (people)”.

It is not lost on any right-thinking American that our nation has ceased to be a moral or religious nation and has ceased to be good.  MarxoFascists and Leftists have been busy redefining morality and what is good for the better part of five decades, and their cultural revolution has paved the way for their hoped-for Marxist revolution against Capitalism and individual liberty.  Running on the induced self-loathing of America that has been soaked into the minds of public school and college students since the 1960’s, the culture war has been lost to Leftists.  Coupled with a complete brainwashing of Communist/Socialist propaganda by Leftist Teachers and their Communist Unions being taught as the only true morality and fairness, Obama’s army of disgruntled welfare class dependents and media stooges, are openly calling for the deaths of Americans they hate.

At the other end of the spectrum, lovers of our liberty and Constitution see this as a direct threat to freedom.  The actions of the Obama regime and Democrat MarxoFascists in Congress; the impending nullification of the Second Amendment is spurning the exponentially accelerated talk of revolution against the counter-revolutionaries of the Obama-Left.

War it appears, is on our doorstep.

Revolution may sound romantic – but it is anything but.  It often descends into a bloodbath of horrors and terror that end up being waged by those not grounded in religious principles.  It would do us all well to read the following essay by Daniel Greenfield and contemplate what is being stoked among us, and is standing upon our doorsteps.

And This Is Revolution

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

There are a few things worth knowing about revolutions. Most people don’t participate in them, even if the history books often make it seem otherwise. Revolutions are thought up by small groups of people who then make it everyone’s business. Or alternately they don’t. And those are the revolutions that never happen.

Most people, at any given time and place, are dissatisfied with the government and believe, rightly, that whoever is in charge is guilty of stealing from them, oppressing them and making it impossible for them to live their lives in peace. And they also believe that things are not likely to get any better. Hope is a vanishing emotion that dissipates easily in the drudgery of ordinary everyday work. It may be taken out for a spin on historical occasions, but then it goes back into the barn where it sits for a while gathering dust until it is needed again.

There are however some known crossroads of revolution. A successful revolution usually doesn’t happen among the thoroughly repressed. Those people tend to lack the motivation and skills to face down a modern army. When the peasants revolt, they can often be tricked into going home with some false promises and free beer. It worked more often with the serfs in European history than you would think. It’s the middle class that you really have to watch out for.

People are not at their most dangerous when they’re eating bread crusts and hoping that they won’t die tomorrow. By then they’re often broken, perhaps not individually, but as a society. It wasn’t the people on the collective farms who challenged Soviet tanks in Moscow. Nor was it the Chinese farmers, now being bulldozed off their land, sometimes literally, who stood up to the tanks in Tienanmen Square.

The most dangerous people are the ones who have tasted enough freedom and prosperity to want to keep it. They don’t think their leaders are godlike and they have enough education and competence to think the heretical thought that just about anybody could do the same job as the king, the emperor, the czar or the president. They have experience enough upward mobility to understand that a man’s place in the world isn’t fixed. It can and should be changed. And that is what distinguishes them from the serf. That is what makes them so dangerous.

Authority works best when it isn’t challenged. Ceremony, whether it is that of an emperor or any lesser rank, invests authority with mystical force. Peer pressure and social conformity employ horizontal pressures to keep everyone in their place. Secret police and ranks of informers allow the regime to project an illusion of omnipotent force that seems to be everywhere at once. Reigns of terror create examples to intimidate anyone who might think of challenging the regime.

Revolutions strip away these illusions. The secret police run for cover or comically march out with clubs and guns against mobs, and get beaten to a pulp. The neighbor who rats on everyone sits home and stews in front of the television. And then the regime has no choice but to call on the army and hope that it still retains enough control over the officers and that the officers still have enough control over their men to do the bloody work of winning a civil war.

The army test is the acid test of a regime because it exposes the actual level of power of the regime, which relies entirely on its officer corps and its grunts to be willing to shoot people in the street. In Russia, the army proved unwilling to kill a bunch of civilians to protect a coup by their own superiors leading to the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of Communism.

After generations of worldwide terror, the great red beast was reduced to relying on the willingness of a handful of Russian kids in tanks to run over protesters. The kids, who had grown up on Western rock and roll, listening to old men preach about a coming revolution that was already older than the oldest man they had ever seen, while the echoes of capitalist dreams leaked through the Iron Curtain, chose to sit this one out. And Communism died in the streets of Moscow.

But where the Soviet Union fell, the Chinese Communist Party succeeded because they had men who were willing to run over other men with tanks. After all the great debates and posturing, the fate of hundreds of millions of people came down to the same things that all revolutions come down to, not cogent arguments or complex theories, but the willingness of some men to kill other men for a cause.

Communism also died in China. It had to. But the leadership class remained in power and their princes made it into a hereditary dynasty. In Iran, protests were pitted against the guns of the Revolutionary Guard. The regime won, but at the cost of shifting power to the Revolutionary Guard. In Syria, each side escalated, found foreign backers and is fighting a war in which the most ruthless bastards are winning. That is how the Communists ended up winning in Russia, but not after a long bout of murderous warfare in which all sides did horrible things and painted the land red. Any Russian naval officers with a sense of history watching the whole thing happen from a portside cafe are probably remembering how the same thing went down in the land of red snow.

It’s the aspiring middle class that begins revolutions, but when they turn bloody enough, then they usually aren’t the ones who inherit them. An ascending middle class begins revolutions to protect its privileges, only to see those revolutions hijacked by the fanatics, who to be fair, often began them, the lawyers who want to be executioners, the demagogues who fail at everything but street corner tirades and the psychopaths who drift in and then take over.

The American Revolution avoided being overtaken by these types of lunatics, though at times it was a closer thing than anyone realizes. If history had gone a little differently, Aaron Burr could very well have been our Robespierre. And General Lafayette could have been France’s George Washington. Instead the American Revolution stayed in the hands of the people who wanted peace and prosperity, rather than radical social change, and France descended into blood and chaos at the hands of those who thought that revolution was worthless unless it allowed them to completely transform society.

The other kind of revolution, the Bastille kind, has managed to catch up with us. A vast territory and technological revolutions held it at bay for the longest time, but it was the aspiring middle class that eventually allowed itself to be seduced into mortgaging its political power, national integrity and economic freedom to gain an illusory peace and security in the form of a powerful government. And if there to be another revolution against it, it will once again come from the ranks of the middle class.

The American middle class can feel itself sinking. Its prosperity has been stagnating and the jobs are drying up. The educational revolution isn’t doing what it was supposed to, for most, instead it saddled much of the country with even more debt. Debt is the watchword of the present, as it was of France before the Revolution. Everything is in debt and mortgaged to the hilt for everything else. International financial systems have made it possible to spread the pain and bury it in complicated financial transactions and speculation, but that just means the debt is bigger and badder than ever.

The pre-revolutionary middle class can choose between two sets of villains, big government and big business. Both are big, and thus meet the criteria for being worth revolting against, but the choice of villains often comes down to a choice of professions.

The college student who owes insane amounts of money to a complex network of financial institutions for a degree of dubious worth and a credit card whose interest rates are more complicated than the subject she was studying, is likely to sympathize with Occupy Wall Street’s bank baiting. The small businessman who feels like he spends all day filling out forms in order to get other forms to fill out, while seeking his profits being sucked up by the government and its institutions, feels a tug toward the Tea Party.

It’s the anarchist who is closest to the mark when he notes that there really isn’t that much of a distinction between the two. The government bails out the banks with bad money and the banks bail out the government with fake money. Governments and corporations, are run by the same people with the same phony mantra of social justice, that really means showy philanthropy and profitable regs. But then the cynics usually tend to be closer to the mark because faults are easy to find.

The American middle class is caught between two rebellions. One by an urban middle class elite that would like a more closed and regulated society and another by a rural middle class that would like a more open and less regulated society, with the suburbs split in the middle.

Having the cities is not absolutely mandatory for a revolution. The modern American city is a drain that produces very little except bureaucracy and culture. And while the power of those two should not be underestimated, if every major American city were to vanish tomorrow, some of the sciences would be hard hit and the bureaucracy would become decentralized, but most other things would continue on as before.

During the American Revolution holding on to the cities proved next to impossible, because of British naval power and the large concentrations of Loyalists. Even during the Civil War, most Northern cities leaned rather close to the anti-war side. Urban Democrats may lionize Lincoln now, but many of them thought of him, the way that their descendants thought of George W. Bush, as a war criminal with the brain of a monkey who was obsessed with oppressing the common man. Even some liberal Republicans thought of him that way.

But underestimating culture is dangerous. The sort of culture that we have is mostly worthless, but that doesn’t make it any less effective. There is a great distance between Beethoven’s Eroica and Katy Perry singing for Obama, but unlike Beethoven, few modern liberal writers and artists would have the integrity to rip up the title page on learning that their messiah had feet of muck. The Soviet Union fell in part because it lost that sense of cultural momentum, clinging to the Western Canon, while being overwhelmed by the pop trash that now rules Russia. And though it may be trash, cultural innovation creates a sense that we are moving forward. Those on the side of the newest trend seem like they have the answers to the future. Those who aren’t, end up looking like Brezhnev.

Revolutions can be won without that cultural momentum, but it’s harder than ever because culture carries with it that tang of prosperity, that sense that the good times are out there for those who want them. And revolutions tend to fall on the side of prosperity, on the side of an aspiring middle class looking to the future. Culture can be beaten, but it is best beaten with culture. Successful revolutions make their ideas compelling and appealing, not just in words, but in attitudes, in music, in literature and in art. France had Marat and America had the Death of Jane McCrea,

A revolution is part anger and outrage. It is that sense that you are being unfairly treated and that the life you had or could have had is slipping away from you. It is that breath of freedom that you once took and the belief that life on the other side of the wall must be better. It is a narrative, a story that rejects the authority of those in power on moral grounds and on practical ones.

Revolution works best when the authorities are weakened by a transition period, when they were once oppressive, but have been liberalizing, or where they are asserting a new level of authority that the people are not used to. It is in these transition points that revolutions are most effective because the authorities are not ready to cope with them and the people are made bold and desperate by the uncertainty.

Revolutions are not easy, until they begin rolling, and then it seems in retrospect as if they were always inevitable, the way that big things are. It is that explosion of kinetic energy born out of the potential energy of large numbers of people discovering their strength that fills the air with energy. That ionization is what most people associate with freedom, with the inevitable collapse of an old order and the rise of a new order.

At first a few people begin to push against the wall, and then more and more, their numbers growing as wall-pushing suddenly becomes the thing to do, and suddenly the sober men and women who never held with it, who put their faith in protests and petitions, join in. The wall shakes and then it falls.

This is revolution.