Newsweek magazine headlined on February 5th, “‘Biggest NATO Reinforcement Since Cold War’ Sets Frontlines Against Russia,” and reported that, “According to general Charles Wald, former-deputy commander of U.S. European Command, … ‘The question for Europe is: is Putin creeping further and further west?’” Wald is quoted as saying that the case of Ukraine especially worries him. This article continues: “‘Is this a precursor to Russia moving into Moldova? Nagorno Karabakh has been bubbling up, and the Georgia issue is still unresolved. NATO has essentially set these [new military] bases in its frontline states,’ Wald says, referring to the countries’ proximity to Russian territory.”
So: Russia is moving too close to NATO countries, according to the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department.
But it’s a blatant lie. Actually, since 1999, 11 former members of the Warsaw Pact, countries, which had been allied with Russia during the communist Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, have switched to the U.S. military alliance against their former ally Russia, NATO: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Albania.
So: Russia hasn’t been moving at all, not an inch; but the U.S. certainly has — by surrounding Russia with its NATO missiles.
This Newsweek story is ‘news’ that’s published in a mainstream U.S. ‘news’ source, which people pay bad money for — it’s worse than a waste, it’s their being charged for U.S.-Government propaganda.
Here is authentic news, from an authentic news source — news which had been posted just four days earlier than that Newsweek lie, on February 1st — news that was posted at the Fort Russ blog, which not only is free, but it’s the most thorough and reliably truthful news site of all on the Ukrainian conflict:
“NATO is moving closer to Russia and blaming Russia for being close to NATO.” A video is shown there.
This video, which was posted to youtube on 17 October 2014, shows a Pentagon spokesperson being asked at a press conference about ‘Defense’ Secretary Chuck Hagel’s accusation, that Russia’s army is “on NATO’s doorstep”; and the (extremely unusual, skeptical American journalist) questioner then asks “Why is that?”
Hagel’s press spokesperson insists there that it happens because Russia has been seizing nations and thus moving closer to NATO; he refuses to acknowledge that NATO has instead been expanding up to Russia’s very border, bringing U.S. weapons surrounding Russia’s periphery. How would the U.S. react if, say, Russia had tried to install nuclear missiles in, say, Cuba — like the Soviet Union tried in 1962?
Here’s that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LexhW8SCM2c.
There are lots of reader-comments to that video, many of which are from fools who are treating Russia as being evil and dangerous, and ignoring the insult to their own intelligence that came forth from Chuck Hagel’s spokesperson in this video, which they had just watched.
However, Fort Russ reports this videoed statement without comment, as being instead a self-evident lie from the U.S. Government, and it is that; not as being (like Newsweek does) a supposed truth from the U.S. Government, a supposed truth that’s being unchallenged by Newsweek’s ‘journalist,’ though if Newsweek had been an authentic news-source it would have reported that the U.S. Government was simply lying there — since that’s the actual fact.
In other words: the only reason why the Obama Administration is pushing the fraudulent line that Putin is trying to seize the Donbass region of Ukraine away from Ukraine, is because Barack Obama needs to portray his own sponsorship of an ethnic-cleansing operation to get rid of the residents in Donbass (the rebellious region of Ukraine) as being instead an “Anti Terrorist Operation” by the Government against rebel fighters who (as the Harvard Kennedy School ‘Expert’ said) “85 % came from Russia.”
We’re supposed to be this stupid, and this misinformed, by a propaganda-line that doesn’t even make sense — the line that says the people who are bombing the residents in Donbass and destroying the region, are the invading Russian army, and/or the residents who live there (the “Terrorists,” as the Ukrainian Government calls them), instead of being the Government forces that are trying to exterminate the residents there, and who are actually terrorizing those residents in order to get them to die or else to leave Ukraine.
As to the reason why Obama wants to get rid of those residents, look at this map. It shows the results in the final nationwide Ukrainian Presidential election, the one that was held in 2010 and which pitted the pro-Washington Yulia Tymoshenko against the pro-neutral-Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. As you can see, the dark purple area is the region that voted 90% for Yanukovych. That’s also the area which the Ukrainian Government has been bombing. If the voters who live there, ever again vote for a President of Ukraine, then Obama’s February 2014 coup which overthrew Yanukovych will be elected out of office: the Obama coup-regime will end. That’s why Obama wants those voters to either die or else leave Ukraine. He needs them gone. (And official Washington wants this mass-murder of them to increase; and this genocidal push is bipartisan, both Republicans and Democrats.)
No wonder why the U.S. Government keeps lying, and its propaganda-organs (virtually the entire U.S. press) are lying. The press are controlled by the same aristocracy that control the Government. But, in order to do this, they are playing the American people for suckers. Maybe enough of the American public are, but that’s no justification for what America’s aristocracy are doing. The people who are being slaughtered aren’t Americans at all, but are instead the entirely innocent residents in the Donbass region of the former Ukraine.
Prior to Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, that entire country was a democracy, and there was no ethnic cleansing there. But Obama has the nerve now to accuse Russia of “aggression,” when in fact it is he that is the aggressor. And that’s the sole basis for the economic sanctions that Russians now suffer.
What a massive crime: a war-crime that would be worthy of being tried as such at Nuremberg — but, this time, not by Americans. Obama is instead the anti-FDR President. An American President like this would make Franklin Delano Roosevelt turn over in his grave.
The Minsk ceasefire agreement announced on the 12th February must be considered in the context of the concrete reality of the situation in Ukraine and Nato’s ambitions in Eurasia. Some hope that this agreement is evidence of a split between the United States and its Nato allies, particularly Germany and France, but the German-French meeting with Putin in Moscow, and the Obama-Merkel press conference held in Washington one day before the Minsk meeting began, buried any hopes that the European countries in Nato would separate themselves from their common objective, the domination of Russia.
Merkel made it plain in Washington that there were no differences in the ultimate objective, only differences over tactics and timing. American leadership in the alliance remains firm as Merkel showed dramatically when asked a question, by a German reporter, about the Ukraine, and whether the scandal of Americans spying on her affected her views. Instead of directly answering these questions she acted like a courtier before a king and indicated with her head and a hand movement that she was asking Obama if it was all right for her to address the questions. Obama politely nodded his head yes and with a flick of his hand released his underling so she could respond and mumble phrases that totally evaded saying anything. She might as well have kissed his ring.
The Minsk agreement does nothing to relieve the pressure on Russia. Indeed Sputnik News Agency, citing German media reports, states that, on the same day that Obama met with Merkel, he threatened President Putin in a telephone call, that if Russia did not stop its alleged involvement in Ukraine the “costs for Russia will rise."
Point 10 of the Minsk agreement illustrates the problem. It requires the withdrawal from Ukraine of all foreign armed forces. Since Russia does not have any forces in Ukraine and since Nato keeps stating it does and will continue to do so no matter what Russia’s position, it gives the Nato alliance the flexibility to mount another offensive when the Kiev forces are reorganised and resupplied. There is no doubt that the Nato forces now operating in Ukraine will remain and will be increased under the guise of “advisers” and “trainers” and there is little doubt that but for the complete failure of the Nato ordered offensive begun in January, in violation of the September Minsk agreement, and the debacle of the Kiev forces trapped in the Debaltsevo pocket that these talks would not have taken place.
This gangterism is now being employed against Russia itself and Obama openly bragged about it when he stated in an interview on Vox.com on January 23rd that “we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do if it weren’t for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we have.” Such people do not engage in negotiations with equals. Gangsters never do.
International law has been dispensed with, the United Nations Charter spat upon, and all means; economic, political, psychological, moral and military, have been engaged to achieve their objective. The Nato penetration into eastern Europe was never about “justifying its existence,” as some claim, but about war against Russia. Nato is a military alliance that supplies the physical force necessary to secure the prime political objective of the west, the total subjugation of Russia to their will, one way or another.
But we return to the fundamental point, that the interests of all the Nato countries are aligned. The Germans realise that pushing the military option in Ukraine can be costly and lead to a European war and so are encouraging Obama to increase the economic warfare against Russia instead of relying on the military option. Further “sanctions” are already being considered depending on what happens after the Minsk agreement. According to the same journal, Merkel even announced that she is convinced that the “West will be victorious in the power struggle with Moscow” but she prefers economic warfare instead of the use of arms.
However, the Germans know that if economic means do not bring Russia to her knees, and they will not, there is, as Obama would say, only one other way to “twist” Russia’s arm, the direct use of military force. And so, what the Germans are calling the “double strategy” will be used, diplomatic actions initiated by Germany and France, proceeding under threat of increased economic warfare, coupled with the build up of forces and continued conflict in the Ukraine.
The only way forward is to resolve the conflict at the political level on the basis of the recognition of the right to self-rule and autonomy for the Donbass republics, a federal state to assure ethnic stability, and the commitment by Ukraine that it will be a neutral state and not part of any plan to “contain” Russia, a plan that can only lead to world war.
Consequently, the EU countries, to show good faith, should immediately abandon the sanctions against Russia, create a foreign policy independent of the United States and arrive at an agreement with Russia on a completely new European framework. Only then can the Minsk ceasefire lead to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But unless the political situation in Germany, France, and an increasingly irrelevant Britain, changes in a fundamental way, so that war is abandoned as a means of diplomacy, that may be a hope too far.
In Part One of this article I explained the model of generational theory as conveyed by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning. In Part Two I provided an overwhelming avalanche of evidence this Crisis has only yet begun, with debt, civic decay and global disorder propelling the world towards the next more violent phase of this Crisis. In Part Three I addressed how the most likely clash on the horizon is between the government and the people. War on multiple fronts will thrust the world through the great gate of history towards an uncertain future.
The drumbeats of war are pounding. Sanctions are implemented against any country that dares question American imperialism (Russia, Iran). Overthrow and ignominious imprisonment or death awaits any foreign leader questioning the petrodollar or standing in the way of America spreading democracy (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt). The mega-media complex of six corporations peddle the government issued pabulum about ISIS being an existential threat to our freedoms; Russia being led by the new Hitler and poised to take over Europe; Syria gassing innocent women and children; and Iran only six months away from a nuclear bomb (they’ve been six months away for the last fourteen years). Hollywood does their part with patriotic drivel like American Sniper, designed to compel low IQ unemployed American youths to swell with pride and march down to enlistment centers, located in our plentiful urban ghettos.
The most disconcerting aspect of Fourth Turnings is they have always climaxed with total destructive all-out war. Not wars to enrich arms dealers like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, but incomprehensibly violent, brutal, wars of annihilation. There are clear winners and losers at the conclusion of Fourth Turning wars. Leaders mobilize all forces, refuse to compromise, define their enemies in moral terms, demand sacrifice on the battlefield and home front, build the most destructive weapons imaginable, and employ those weapons to obtain victory at any cost.
It may seem inconceivable that war on such a scale will happen within the next ten years, but it was equally inconceivable in 1936 that 65 million people would die in the next ten years during World War II. We valued all the wrong things and made all the wrong choices leading up to this Crisis and during the early stages of this Crisis. The accumulation of unmet obligations, unpaid bills, un-kept promises and unresolved issues will provide the fuel for an upheaval that will shake our society to its core and transforms the country’s direction for the next sixty years. The outcome of the conflict could be tragedy or triumph. Our choices will make a difference.
There will be war on many fronts, and they have already begun. The culmination will likely be World War III, with the outcome highly uncertain and potentially disastrous.
The technological means to put an end to mankind is at the disposal of leaders in a number of nation-states. It would only take one psychopathic despot or elected president of immense ego and self-importance to initiate the doomsday clock. It appears these qualities are now essential to governing a modern day nation. Someone will do something stupid, and then all hell will break loose.
Anyone who doesn’t comprehend the implications of alliances being formed and broken by countries around the globe is either choosing the ostrich strategy or is ignorant of history and the events leading to wars. A thorough reading of The Guns of August may be helpful. The world is like a room full of gunpowder and the sociopaths running the show keep lighting matches. Someone is going to miscalculate and the place is going to blow sky high. The insolvent EU is splintering. The northern countries despise the southern countries. Greece, Spain and Italy are all economic basket cases and their exits will mark the end of this grand experiment in debt delusion. Once the bad debts crash down upon the European banks and governments, the anger, bitterness, accusations and violence will reach epic proportions. This could trigger war, as extremist political parties gain traction. The economic suffering in the 1920’s led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Hunger leads the peasants to rally behind any strong leader.
The Ukrainian civil war, crafted by the U.S. and its weak kneed NATO allies, has been the facilitator of a shift in world alliances. The U.S. has made a blundering attempt to teach Putin a lesson for interfering in their Syrian pipeline uprising against Assad and encouraging the Crimea to rejoin Russia. By attempting to position NATO armaments on Russia’s border they have triggered centuries old fears of being invaded by European powers. Russia will stop the U.S. plan at all costs, and the Russian supported rebels have soundly defeated the Kiev Nazi forces in eastern Ukraine. The U.S. backed forces have slaughtered women and children randomly as they blunder about in eastern Ukraine. The latest cease fire will not hold. Germany and France are coming to their senses and starting to look out for their best interests, rather than the interests of the American Empire. A shattering of the NATO alliance would be an earth moving event and would set the stage for further conflict in Europe. Enemies are interchangeable when you are an imperial power.
The world has begun to devolve into two distinct factions. The imperialist actions of the American Empire in the Middle East and Ukraine have pushed Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Iran closer together regarding trade deals; transacting commerce without using the USD; oil and gas pipelines; and military cooperation. If there is going to be total war in the next dozen or so years, it most surely would be the United States versus an alliance of Russia and China. Japan is experiencing Chinese saber rattling over disputed islands. Russia continuously probes NATO defenses with aggressive actions. It is clear the U.S. has decided Vladimir Putin and Russia is world enemy #1 and are using all their economic and propaganda tools to de-claw the bear. Failure to make Putin bow to American pressure will raise his stature at home and abroad.
The Federal Communications Commission will vote on a new “net neutrality” regulatory framework for the Internet on Feb. 26. FCC has already been stopped in its tracks twice by federal courts which have ruled that the FCC has no authority to impose such regulations. Not to be thwarted, the Obama administration has doubled down, declaring the Internet a public utility subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
While the administration promises a bonanza of new benefits, this regulatory framework will stifle innovation, hobble Internet startups, and ultimately place the heavy hand of government on both accessibility and new media content.
Net neutrality is being sold as a method to make broadband access inexpensive, but to paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, “If you think [the Internet] is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” Net neutrality is a form of price control, and price controls everywhere distort the market. By affording equal access to all comers at below cost, demand will skyrocket while supply dries up. If an ISP cannot provide Internet access at a profit, it will go out of business. The government will then step in to take its place.
And it won’t be cheap. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposes the plan, recently warned that it will give FCC power to micromanage virtually every aspect of the Internet. “If you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan,” he says. According to Pai, this is what’s coming:
- Billions of dollars in new taxes, higher prices and hidden fees
- Reduced investment in broadband networks, slower internet speeds and less access
- A move from a largely unregulated Internet to a regulated monopoly
Just as Obamacare will slowly squeeze private insurers out of the market, with the ultimate objective becoming a government-run, single-payer health care system, private ISPs will find it increasingly difficult to compete with taxpayer-subsidized government ISPs. The ultimate outcome will be complete government control of the Internet.
Net neutrality has been called socialism for the Internet. Robert McChesney, co-founder of the left-leaning Free Press and author of Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Away from Democracy, made this explicit in an interview with the Socialist Project:
A Pew Research survey published on Feb. 5 reports that fully 64 percent of journalists believe the government has spied on them, and 80 percent think that being a journalist makes them a target of such spying. Given the administration’s demonstrated hostility to news media, and its heavy reliance on it to craft the president’s image, would one expect more freedom of expression following the planned government takeover of the Internet, or less?
If that question doesn’t keep you awake at night, the Federal Election Commission held a hearing on Wednesday to discuss contemplated new regulation regarding political speech on the Internet.
When American forces pursue ISIS into Syria, Putin will respond in force. Putin has previously threatened to nuke the United States if it invaded Syria in violation of international law. Syria is critical to the Russians on a number of fronts. For a complete explanation of the dynamics related to Putin’s threat and the Federal Reserve’s overt strategy to invade Iran and how Syria factors into this equation, please click here. This is the beginning of World War III.
America is about to engage in the same behavior of citizen subjugation in preparation for a coming war. Only this time, protesting will not be permitted and protesters will be “dealt with”. Along these lines, I am in receipt of the following which is very troublesome:
“SAN FRANCISCO — President Obama will announce a new executive order on the sharing of cybersecurity threats and information at Friday’s cybersecurity summit at Stanford University, the White House said.
Most importantly to Silicon Valley, the president’s proposal is expected to cement the role of the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the National Security Agency, as the government lead for information-sharing with the private sector.”
One of my colleagues in the media sent me the press release. Within 15 minutes, I had two very high level confirmations of what this meant. One of the sources is a high ranking government official with oversight responsibilities and the other is an ex-military intelligence asset with multiple and strong connections to dissident military types serving today. However, this is a story that writes itself. I really do not need unnamed sources in order to demonstrate where this is likely headed. The President’s intention to transfer intelligence information on American citizens from the NSA to the DHS is both ominous and the purpose is self-evident. My sources simply serve to reinforce the obvious intent. Also, this information is beginning to leak out in the independent media.
Anyone who has read my articles over the past two years knows that I have obtained information that the NSA’s massive data mining of every person is inextricably tied to creating a Threat Matrix Score for each and every American based on key word analyses of their cell phone conversations, emails, social media statements, etc. Also, a “known associates” file is maintained to determine the amount social reach a potential dissident has. For example, the bigger their reading audience or listening audience or Facebook following, the higher a person’s Threat Matrix Score.
Visionaries such as Steve Quayle and Doug Hagmann have been warning us for decades about the creation of a so-called “Red List”. The Red List is a modern-day interpretation of Nixon “Enemies list”. However, what is happening today is much more nefarious. The “Red List” is a “dissident removal list” and it will be conducted with extreme prejudice.
The people who have referred to such lists and those brave enough to expose them, as “fear-mongers”, may soon change their tune. After reading this article, these people are going to have a little harder time sleeping tonight.
Who has the ability to oversee intelligence gathering and simultaneously act upon the intelligence? It is none other than the Department of Homeland Security. It is also the DHS that has, in the past two years, acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition as well as 2700 armored personnel carriers, not the NSA. It is clear that DHS is the army of the central bankers who have hijacked our government and they are preparing to remove dissidents.
Keep in mind that this coming war is a war to preserve the Petrodollar and it will be waged at all costs. All opposition will be eliminated.
The optimistic part of me would like to believe that this transfer of power is only about streamlining our war on terror, then I am reminded who started al Qaeda and ISIS.
There are two programs designed to round up people who are viewed as a danger to the status quo. The two operations are labeled “Operation BOA”, as in boa constrictor, and “Operation Lightening”. I have some operational details, but at this point they are still sketchy. Suffice it to say that Operation Lightening is the 3AM round up of all perceived dissident journalists and even some local politicians. This will be accomplished on a single night of terror. Operation BOA is a more deliberate process and will focus on more non-media threats such as outspoken veterans, gun rights activists, etc.
Martial law will not be called martial law, it will be labeled as “Continuity of Government”. The announcement of the procedures designed to enhance the “Continuity of Government” policies will be made by a four star General from NORTHCOM.
There is no definitive timeframe for this announcement. Logic would dictate that it will come in close proximity to launching new ground operations in the Middle East against the CIA created ISIS.
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee first viewed the graphic pictures in December. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) then obtained the photos and worked to independently verify and confirm the authenticity of the photos, before providing them exclusively to the Free Beacon.
Inhofe said he hopes the images act as a wake up call to the Obama administration and American people, who largely have been spared from seeing the graphic violence inflicted upon Ukraine by the Russian-backed separatists…
Following publication of this story, serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs provided by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.). Several images of the Russian convoys appear to have been taken in 2008, during Russia’s conflict with Georgia. Given the similarities between the earlier images and those provided by the senator’s office, the Washington Free Beacon is investigating further and will update as necessary.
Sen. Inhofe said in a statement: “The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice. We felt confident to release these photos because the images match the reporting of what is going on in the region. I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008.
In his best attempt to impersonate war crazed Senator John McCain, Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma released photographic proof of Russian solders in Ukraine in order to push forward his bill to provide U.S. arms to Ukraine. Or so he thought…
UPDATE 3:11 P.M.: Following publication of this story, serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs provided by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.). Several images of the Russian convoys appear to have been taken in 2008, during Russia’s conflict with Georgia.Given the similarities between the earlier images and those provided by the senator’s office, the Washington Free Beacon is investigating further and will update as necessary.Sen. Inhofe said in a statement: “The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice. We felt confident to release these photos because the images match the reporting of what is going on in the region. I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008. This doesn’t change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood.”
The Daily Caller put it quite well:
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) released photographs Thursday of what he says is confirmed Russian military action against Ukraine. He gave them “exclusively” to the Washington Free Beacon.
Except there’s just one problem — some of the photographs given to WFB from the 80-year-old senator date back to 2008 from the AP and aren’t exclusive at all.
The WFB points out that the photographic evidence could be pivotal in convincing Congress to back legislation that would give military assistance to the Ukranians. They say Inofe worked “independently” from Congress to verify the authenticity of the photographs.
Independently, meaning his office forget to do basic online image searches.
Inhofe, of course, bashes President Obama, saying he’s “slow to recognize” what is happening around the world.
Also see:
The Sierra Club gleefully reports that our saints at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to date have forced the closure of 186 coal-fired power plants. They claim there are still 337 to go. According to their data, each coal-fired plant produces an average of 500 MW of energy, capable of powering roughly 260,000 households. That's over 48 million households deprived of inexpensive energy, and all in the name of combating global warming.
Their reasoning is to combat the emission of carbon dioxide, that evil greenhouse gas that has caused our Earth to warm unnecessarily.
Yet, recent discoveries have found what we've known all along. That man-made climate change is a scam and a scandal of proportions that we have never seen.
Not long after it was announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record, evidence has come to light of massive tampering of temperature data to make it appear that the earth is warming.
Paul Homewood discovered the tampering when he examined NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies temperature recordings. You may read about his findings here and here. He began by looking at the recordings from rural stations in South America. What he found was staggering. The originally recorded data had been changed dramatically. Not just altered slightly but shifted dramatically.
The originally recorded data clearly showed a relatively steady cooling from 1950 to now. Actual temperature readings ranged from a drop of 1/2° Celsius to a full one degree. However, the doctored data flipped the original graph almost completely around. The new graph, the published data, showed almost a full 2°C warming. It's outrageous! And this is the data that "climate change" experts base their bogus assertions on. And because they're "men of science," no one is allowed to question. Oh, and it's not just on graph or on temperature station.
There can be no reasonable explanation for this. These "men of science" have been lying to us for decades, and this deception is finally, albeit overdue, coming to light. They are being shown for who they truly are - liars and cheats.
This is a scandal of biblical proportions.
Some, like Marc Marano at CFACT's Climate Depot have been shedding light on this scam for years; however, he explains this latest as: "There's an increasing body of evidence suggests climate researchers are adjusting to terrestrial temperature data to cool the past and warm the present."
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Marc, but to me, that statement is a little soft. In my opinion, the people driving this global warming bus have been cheating us and stealing billions and billions of dollars of our money for decades and need to be brought to account.
We on the right have been shouting from the rooftops to anyone who will listen, that man-made global warming is a hoax and a scam. For years, we have been classified by the left as flat Earthers and global warming deniers.
So where do we go to get our money back? Where do the poor scientists--the real scientists who didn't buy into the politics of global warming and were disgraced by their own community--go to get their reputations and jobs back?
Who will explain to the people who lost loved ones in car accidents, due to their automobiles being made of matchsticks and plastic because of government CAFE standards - all in an effort to combat climate change by forcing car companies to increase their miles per gallon?
How many millions of tons of corn, corn that could be consumed and exported to nations of starving people, have been wasted due to bogus ethanol mandates?
Who will explain to the thousands and thousands of out of work coal company employees that they were fired and their plants shut down due to a scam?
Think of all the money, time, and effort we have shelled out in the name of climate change or global warming or whatever. Think of the government agencies, the bogus nonprofits and foundations that have been created just to combat something that doesn't exist.
The Left is now in a full-out attack on Scott Walker. The homepage today has good pieces by Jonah, Kevin, and Charles on the latest brouhaha, Walker’s supposed opposition to evolution, linked to his supposedly mysterious dropping out of college. This is just the next step in a growing campaign. I wrote a few weeks ago on how the progressives would try to defeat Walker, by fear-mongering that he was a “divider” and a threat to minority groups.
But what we see now is the “full Alinsky.” The Left is throwing just about everything in the book at Walker early on, trying to Romneyize him: define him and put him so far back on the defensive that he can never recover. With support from the MSM, which is now thrashing about trying to figure out why he left college, the progressive Left is perfectly following Alinky’s Rule for Radicals No. 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This is exactly what is happening today.
Walker has been picked because the Left senses in him a real electoral threat, thanks to his competence, common sense, and electoral prowess. They’re freezing him by smearing his character and intellect, detracting from any message that he might have that could move forward the debate on public policy. They’re personalizing it by painting him as sinister, reactionary, a dunce, whatever works that week, but keeps national attention on his personality failings. And they’re polarizing him by darkly insinuating that he doesn’t think like the rest of us, and is thus a danger to things we hold dear, like evolution or public-sector unions.
This Saturday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.
The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.
This year, for example, Islamic religious leaders and officials in Malaysia have warned Muslims against celebrating Valentine’s Day. In Saudi Arabia, the morality police have, as always, outlawed the sale of all Valentine’s Day items, forcing shopkeepers to remove any red items, because the day is considered a Christian holiday.
In Islamic Uzbekistan, several universities always make sure that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.
In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day in 2013, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the Day of Love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.”
As mentioned, the Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law.
Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:
“We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”
In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.
As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.
So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?
The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.
The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.
The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule.
In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.
Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.
It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.
This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.
Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.
For a more detailed look at this phenomenon one can read the following fascinating book:
No comments:
Post a Comment