Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

When is diversity not politically correct?

When you are pretending to save the planet from the imaginary global warming hoax while trying to persuade "disfavored people" not to reproduce:

This stuff is straight from the Frankfurt School's Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism is a marriage of Marx and Freud and was introduced into mainstream American life over a period of thirty years.

In classical Marxism, workers and peasants, are good, and the bourgeoisie and capital owners are evil. In Cultural Marxism, feminist women, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and other minorities are good.

These "victim groups" have replaced the peasant and are automatically "good," regardless of what any of them do.  Similarly, white males and non-feminist females are determined automatically to be "evil," thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

The confluence of radical feminism and cultural Marxism within the span of a single generation has imposed this yoke on the American male and non-feminist female.  It remains to be seen whether or not they will continue their voluntary submission to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.

Central to the Frankfurt School's studies was the concept of the Authoritarian Personality.  This concept describes a number of qualities, which according to the theories of Theodor Adorno and his colleagues, predict one's potential for fascist and antidemocratic leanings and behaviors.

The Frankfurt School theorized that the "authoritarian personality" is a product of the patriarchal family.  This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels'; "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State," that promotes matriarchy.  It was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a "community of women" in the Communist Manifesto and who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in "The German Ideology" of 1845.

The concept of the "Authoritarian Personality" prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of "women's liberation" and the New Left movement in the 1960s.

It is important to realize that this movement, Cultural Marxism, exists, to understand where it came from, and what its objectives were and are -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. These cultural Marxists aim to destroy, slowly but surely, from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Signs mocking police appear in Minneapolis after fatal shooting of Australian woman


Alex Johnson (NBCNews) is reporting that street signs mocking Minneapolis police popped up around the city over the weekend in the wake of the fatal police shooting of an Australian woman, which led to the resignation of the police chief.

The signs, reading "Warning: Twin Cities Police Easily Startled," appeared to refer to the July 15 shooting death of Justine Ruszczyk, who used her fiancé's last name, Damond.

Authorities pulled down the signs as quickly as they went up, according to NBC affiliate KARE -- appropriated language used by the partner of Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor, who fired the fatal shot from the passenger seat of his police vehicle. Officer Matthew Harrity told investigators that he and Noor were "startled" by a loud noise before Noor opened fire on the 40-year-old meditation instructor.

If you didn't read my comments on "accidental shootings," go here and cursor down.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #3 
This was a jihad attack in the name of Allah by the Somali Police Officer in MN.  Give me a break.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Diversity will get you killed

Robert Spencer (FrontPage) is reporting that a forty-year-old Australian woman named Justine Damond called 911 in Minneapolis Saturday night to report what she thought might be a rape; when police arrived, she approached the police car, and a Minneapolis police officer named Mohamed Noor shot her dead. Since then, Noor has refused to be interviewed by investigators, but has spoken to friends about what happened and why. The more Noor and those who know him have spoken, the more it becomes clear: Justine Damond was a casualty of "Islamophobia."

Mohamed Noor is a Somali Muslim. He was the first Somali Muslim on the Minneapolis police force. In 2016, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges expressed her excitement about that fact: "I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department. Officer Noor has been assigned to the 5th Precinct, where his arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community in and around Karmel Mall."

Hodges wasn't excited because Mohamed Noor had the skills necessary to become a fine police officer. She was only excited because he represented a religious and ethnic that she was anxious to court. And it is increasingly clear, as we learn about Mohamed Noor's nervousness and jumpiness and lack of respect for women, and from his own account of events that he relayed to friends (that he was "startled" and reacted by opening fire), that Mohamed Noor was not cut out to be a policeman. He did not have the temperament for it, and if he hadn't killed Justine Damond, he would likely have done something similar at some point.

So why was he on the force at all? Because he was the first Somali Muslim on the Minneapolis police force. He was a symbol of our glorious multicultural mosaic. He was a rebuke to "Islamophobes" and proof that what they say is false. Minneapolis authorities placed a great deal of faith in Mohamed Noor. He was for them the triumph of diversity, the victory of their worldview. But he has let them down. 

Mohamed Noor is not a jihad terrorist. This was not a jihad attack. He is just a trigger-happy, panicky, reckless individual who held his job not because he was fit for it, but because of what he symbolized. And in the wake of his failure, Minneapolis multiculturalists aren't about to reconsider their religion. On the contrary, they are doubling down. Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges has immediately recognized -- as authorities do everywhere after jihad attacks -- that the real victims are not those who were killed or wounded, but the Muslim community. She should have issued a statement saying that she recognized that Mohamed Noor was not hired because he was competent, but because he was a Somali Muslim, and that she sees now that Leftist social engineering on the police force costs lives. She should have promised that from now on, police officers will be hired based on their fitness for the job, not their religion or ethnicity.

Instead, this, from Hodges' Facebook page:

Betsy Hodges
17 hrs · Minneapolis, MN · 

To the Somali community: I want you to know that you are a valued and appreciated part of Minneapolis. I stand with you and support you. The strength and beauty of the Somali and East African communities are a vital part of what makes Minneapolis so strong and beautiful. I am grateful to be your neighbor.

"The strength and beauty of the Somali communities" -- another liberal fantasy!

This week a Somali police officer, Officer Mohamed Noor, shot and killed a woman under circumstances we don't yet comprehend. Justine Damond's death was tragic and awful for everyone. And I want to be very clear that Officer Noor, a fully trained officer in the Minneapolis Police Department, won't be treated differently than any other officer.

Justine's death is a tragedy for our city. We cannot compound that tragedy by turning to racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. It is unjust and ridiculous to assert that an entire community be held responsible for the actions of one person. That will not be tolerated in Minneapolis. If you are experiencing discrimination, you can file a complaint at…/discrimination-complaint

Mayor Hodges is reassuring Muslims and warning against "Islamophobia," as if a non-Muslim police officer had shot an unarmed Muslim woman. But that's not what happened. And in issuing this warning, Hodges is only reinforcing the false premises that led to the killing of Justine Damond in the first place -- the idea that Muslims are a victimized, persecuted community that needs special consideration, such that an incompetent Muslim police officer had to be hired.

This just ensures that in the future, there will be more Justine Damonds.

Related:  Mohamed Noor -- five facts you need to know

I'm around lots and lots of guns all the time -- big ones, small ones and in-between guns.

As a range safety officer at the largest gun club on the east coast (6,000+ members) it is my job to ensure that individuals shooting on our ranges are properly and safely operating their firearms.

The three fundamental rules for the safe handing of firearms are:

1. The gun is always loaded -- always assume that a firearm is loaded and handle accordingly.

2. Always point the firearm in a safe direction -- never point a firearm at anything you don't want to kill.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

One has to break at least two of the rules in order to hurt or kill anyone unintentionally. Noor violated rules two and three. Everything else is irrelevant.

Noor was improperly trained and should never have been given a handgun.

Nothing has been reported that Damon was a threat -- nothing!

Noor had no business drawing his weapon while still in the squad car. He had no business firing across his partner. He had no business firing at a person who was not threatening him or his partner.

The defense that he was "startled" is absurd. Even if he was "startled" he never should have had his finger on the trigger and Damon would still be alive.


Noor committed manslaughter at best and murder at worst.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

Diversity is code for "non-white"

Stefan Molyneux deconstructs the nonsense political term "diversity" endlessly deployed by the Left to push for reduction of white populations in Canada, America, and the broader West.

I had a customer in Trinidad for many years and spent a lot of time there and this guy's anecdote about Jamaica is correct.

In Trinidad and Tobago the Chinese and South Asian Indians own everything.

My customer, who was a native-born Trinidadian Chinese operated the biggest information technology consulting firm in the West Indies. He also owned a copra plantation on the north shore of Trinidad. It was a beautiful place.

He was unable to operate the plantation because the local population didn't want the work. They didn't need it. Plantains and coconuts grew everywhere and fish were abundant and the weather was beautiful all the time. When money was needed for modern goods, the local people would collect local resources and sell them in the city of Port of Spain.

The rest of the time they spent "jammin' and lymin." Meanwhile, the Chinese and Indians were working their asses off.

Related: The last time I was in Trinidad, the local Muslim population had an uprising that was funded and supplied by Mommar Ghadafi. They attacked the presidential palace and created a lot of havoc, but after a week of fighting, the jihad was put down.

The international visitors were restricted to the Hilton Hotel the whole time.

I never spent so much time at the bar!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Of course the West is superior -- any questions?


John Hinderaker (PowerLine) says I wrote here about President Trump's excellent Warsaw speech and the Left's unhinged response to it. One of the liberals whom I quoted protested that she doesn't hate Western civilization. Perhaps not. Perhaps she only hates any defense of Western civilization. Sort of like the anti-anti-Communists of the cold war.

Kurt Schlichter lays it on the line, as quoted by Glenn Reynolds:

Let me throw down this marker: The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, we should aggressively back our allies over our enemies, and the guiding principle of our foreign policy should always be America's interests. No apologies. No equivocation. No doubt.

What are your questions?

Well, if you're a normal American, you won't have any questions -- these truths are self-evident. But if you're a progressive, you're gonna have a little sissy snit fit like so many libs did in the wake of the President's triumphant Warsaw speech. There's one thing that always sets them off -- uttering the truth/heresy that not only is Western civilization the best and most advanced culture in the history of humanity, but the United States of America is its greatest manifestation.

The immigrants and refugees get it. Which way are they always headed? North, to the comparative paradise of the Western world, or south, to the hellscape of the Third World? That's a gimme. They are never headed south, and everyone knows it. Yet the Left still insists that we stop believing our lying eyes and start believing the liberal Fifth Column of multicultural liars infesting America's alleged elite.

Except our eyes aren't lying, and now we have a president who won't lie either. It makes them nuts.

Well put.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Multiculturalism is about destroying our culture

Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal, says multiculturalism isn't about other cultures. It is about our culture. More specifically, it is about destroying our culture. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel elaborates:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Muslim sues Little Caesars for $100 million -- claim pepperoni pizza wasn’t halal


Moonbattery says that in contrast to the melting pot approach of days gone by, multiculturalism means our own culture gets incrementally erased, in accordance with cultural Marxist objectives. Steps in that direction have been taken in the Muslim colony Dearborn:

A Muslim man is suing Little Caesars for $100 million after he says he was served and then accidentally ate pepperoni made with pork, a food prohibited by Islamic law.

$100 million for putting normal pepperoni on a pizza. I wonder how much he will demand if he finds bacon in his BLT.

The complaint says Mohamad Bazzi of Dearborn ordered halal pizza twice from the shop on Schaefer in Dearborn. The boxes were labeled “halal,” but the pies inside were topped with regular pepperoni.

Maybe it is mislabeling a box that is worth $100 million. Or maybe the $100 question is, If you want to eat halal, why not choose something that isn’t traditionally made largely out of pork?

Bazzi’s attorney Majed Moughni took this opportunity to teach us a little something about Islam, informing us that eating pork is “one of the worst sins you can do.”

Whereas blowing up a bunch of little girls at an Ariana Grande concert is not sinful at all.

Not all value systems are of equal value.

Allegedly, Bazzi asked an employee to put a halal sticker on the pizza box. It might have made the scam less obvious if he had saved a halal sticker from a previous box.

Nonetheless, he will probably get paid off handsomely. No company wants to face the public’s wrath after failing to revere sacred Muslims. McDonalds was shaken down for $700,000 by Dearborn Muslims claiming to have been served non-halal food in 2011.

Regardless of the outcome of this get rich quick scam and/or crybully nuisance suit, many alive today will live to see an America in which most if not all publicly served food is required to be halal. When they push us, we move. Why should they stop pushing?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Multiculturalism is the problem, not the solution


Caleb Stephen (DailyCaller) says in 2011, then British Prime Minister David Cameron shocked Europe's elites when he declared that multiculturalism had failed in Britain. The idea that all cultures are equal and that they can happily coexist in one country is preposterous. It just doesn't work.

Cameron knew all too well that Britain could no longer ignore the danger of expanding and competing cultures within its own borders, cultures that in failing to share Western institutions and culture -- all originally based upon Christian principles -- threatened British national identity.

This is especially relevant in Europe today where we are seeing Muslim immigrants who do not, in any way, share the same beliefs as Western culture does, failing to assimilate. Just look at Germany in its present state, for example.

Culture reflects the beliefs held by the people of a country. In fact, cultures are formed by those beliefs. For a society to survive it has to have one culture -- a culture that enjoys the participation and useful contributions of all of its peoples. That is true diversity.

Instead of one people, we have been divided up into categories and pitted against each other. Instead of being united, we have succumbed to the dreaded multiculturalism cancer which divides and conquers.

E puribus unum, which means that out of many states (or colonies) emerges a single nation, should be our motto. That is the motto of the United States and that should be the motto for the rest of the world.

This is precisely what multiculturalism used to be up until roughly the mid-20th century when the cultural Marxists hijacked the term and used it to mean something totally different.

Multiculturalism has essentially bankrupted our society through the process of minority appeasement and contrived victimhood -- especially of Muslims. The West has capitulated to political correctness, which is a byproduct of multiculturalism, allowing it to supersede the Christian values, beliefs and philosophies that they were founded upon and made them materially successful.

The irony of it all is that multiculturalism is a policy of exclusion, rather than inclusion. It is a policy that is entirely opposite to it's purported purpose of unity for all. It's a program of separation, not integration. It's a program of division and race-baiting, not harmony.

True immigrants don't arrive on the shores of Western countries to radically change them -- they come because of the abundant opportunities that are simply not available back in the stinking hell-holes from which they came.

When they reject everything the West stands for in terms of freedom of speech, Christian values, free markets,  capitalism and democracy, then we know we have a very real problem. I'm talking very specifically about the large quantities of fundamental Muslims whose one and only goal is raping and pillaging the West, living off our abundance and affluence, taking advantage of our apathy and radically changing all aspects of our culture for the greater advancement of world domination with the end goal of establishing a global Islamic caliphate.

That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous reality and something that many Western nations haven't yet woken up to.

Such malarkey is tied to the doctrine of cultural relativism which is the idea that the principle of a person's beliefs and activities should be understood and accepted by others in the context of that individual's own culture. It conveniently aligns with the false notion that all cultures and religions are equal, that all can coexist and no one system or set of values holds a place of superiority.

And as a consequence of that flawed thinking, the boundaries of what is morally right and wrong have been severely blurred by virtual cultural lines.

Originated to fundamentally transform the West at one point, the concept is now entrenched in the very fabric of Western culture and to repeal this nonsense will be extremely difficult, not to mention highly controversial in this world that seems to be dominated by senseless liberals and social justice warriors.

It is time for us to accept that the only way to be truly progressive is to push for cultural assimilation, not cultural co-existence.

Given the extreme rate of moral decline in the Western world -- and certainly the world in general -- such an idea may only be a reality in the realms of a Christian utopia where all dwell together in peace and harmony.

Nevertheless, we must not stand by and do nothing while our culture is hijacked and destroyed before our very eyes. We must do all we can to stem the tide of the jihadis bent on wiping out the Western world in order to establish their worldwide Islamic kingdom.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

America has been fooled by "diversity" fraud


Thomas Sowell (WND) says nothing so epitomizes the politically correct gullibility of our times as the magic word "diversity." The wonders of diversity are proclaimed from the media, extolled in the academy and confirmed in the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. But have you ever seen one speck of hard evidence to support the lofty claims?

Although diversity has become one of the leading buzzwords of our time, it has a history that goes back several generations. In the early 20th century, the principle of geographic diversity was used to conceal bias against Jews in the admission of students to Harvard and other leading academic institutions.

Because the Jewish population was concentrated in New York and other East Coast communities at that time, quota limits on how many Jewish students would be admitted were concealed by saying that Harvard wanted a diverse student body, consisting of students from around the country.

Therefore, some highly qualified Jewish applicants could be passed over, in favor of less qualified applicants from the Midwest or other regions of the country.

My own first encounter with the idea of geographic diversity occurred more than half a century ago, when I was an undergraduate at Harvard and worked as a photographer for the university news office to help pay the bills.

The instructions I was given were to concentrate on taking photos of students from other parts of the country, rather than from the East Coast, from which Harvard already received more than enough applicants. The idea was to encourage applications from places that would produce a geographically diverse student body.

It struck me as an odd idea at the time, but I was being paid to take pictures, not make university policy. Moreover, I had no idea how such a policy had originated and, by the 1950s, it might have been continued from inertia, for all I know. Meanwhile, I could enjoy seeing publicity photos I took appearing in newspapers in Chicago and elsewhere beyond the East Coast.

Fast-forward to today. It is common, at colleges and universities across the country, for the test scores of Asian-American students who have been admitted to a given college to be higher than the test scores of whites or of blacks or Hispanics.

That may not seem strange, since that is true of test scores in general. But, at any given institution, applying the same standards to all, the test scores of students at a particular institution would tend to be similar. More Asian-Americans would be admitted to higher ranked colleges and universities, however, if the same standards were applied to all.

In short, something very much like the quota limits that were applied to Jews in the past are now being applied to Asian-Americans -- and, once again, are being justified by diversity.

But what justifies diversity? Nothing but unsupported assertions, repeated endlessly, piously and loudly.

Today, as in the past, diversity is essentially a fancy word for group quotas. It is one of a number of wholly subjective criteria -- such as "leadership" -- used to admit students to colleges and universities according to their group membership, rather than according to their individual qualifications.

This is not something new. Nor is it something confined to the United States. Very similar patterns were found more than a decade ago, when doing research for my book "Affirmative Action around the World."

In India, the courts' attempts to rein in some academic quotas were met by a proliferation of new, and wholly subjective, admissions criteria. Individuals from groups that were not as qualified by objective criteria were simply ranked higher on subjective criteria and admitted.

In the United States, the Supreme Court itself has long been part of such game-playing when it comes to affirmative action. Back in 1978, an opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell banned racial quotas with one hand and created "diversity" as a criterion with the other. In other words, colleges were told in effect that they can have racial quotas, but they just can't call them racial quotas.

According to the Constitution, "We the People" are supposed to decide what laws and policies we live under. But not if we can be so easily fooled by courts using slippery words like "diversity."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

The inclusion delusion

Many people might think the last eight years under Barack Obama were great for inclusion, but Bill O’Reilly took serious issue with that line of thinking tonight. He called it a liberal "delusion" to think that the "philosophy of inclusion is endangered" by Donald Trump's victory.

Across the country, lots of people -- especially minorities -- are worried about what could happen to them and those around them now that Trump will be president, but O’Reilly argued that Trump’s victory showed that millions and millions of Americans did not feel included in Obama’s vision of America, saying, "There is not a man on this earth more opposite Barack Obama than Donald Trump.

O'Reilly addresses a list of issues and policies -- like health care, crime, and illegal immigration -- where he doesn’t think the Obama administration has been particularly inclusive.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Obama's latest dangerous globalist move -- the last of the Americans


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says multiculturalism will destroy the American identity -- our soul -- and Team Obama just kicked it into overdrive. The latest assault from the Obama administration is to tell early childhood education officials they really need to teach in different languages.

This will start with the government-subsidized schools no doubt and it is unsustainable.

The latest policy guidance devised by the departments of Education and Health and Human Services, "advises" states to instruct early childhood students in their home languages and to allow them to keep their separate cultural attachments.

There is no longer any assimilation, we are merely a land of foreigners who can traverse at will and who can force their languages and cultures on us. Forget teaching foreigners about the Constitution or freedom, we must adjust to their statist ways.

This is Marxist multiculturalism aimed at destroying who we are because the hard left that now rules this country hates who we are.

The administration's excuse is that "not recognizing children's cultures and languages as assets" may be hurting them with school work. "Over half the world's population is estimated to be bilingual or multilingual," the statement lectures almost plaintively.

It's categorically untrue that having young children learn our language hurts them -- they need to learn English while they are young if possible. And what schoolwork does a young child have? This is the United States and they have to learn our ways and our language.

The polyglot argument is one the left has long loved to throw around as an excuse for abandoning who we are.

The policy "suggestions" call for creating curricula and educational systems around the foreigner's home and advise the schools to hire more foreign teachers.

That should help further the destruction of America. And where the hay is the money going to come from?

Does anyone know how expensive this would be? Obviously we will have to ship in more foreigners to teach the foreigners who will take over our country.

States must move with alacrity, the statement warns, because these children will soon make up a "sizable proportion of the workforce" and their linguistic and cultural assets will be needed in an "evolving global economy."

"The growing diversity of our nation's children requires that we shift the status quo," says the statement, in order to "build a future workforce that is rich in diversity, heritage, cultural tradition, and language."

This is what they are doing to our country and it's about their budding drone workforce! Get it???

We can't just be tolerant, we have to embrace their cultures, their languages and cede ours in the process.

What ever happened to states' rights? While this is a policy advisory, it puts states in the position of having to do it.

This does nothing for our unity as a nation or our economic cohesiveness.

You can read the policy statement for yourself on the link. If we want a country completely torn apart, Obama and the Democrats have the answer. They are telling us we have to prepare for our increasingly diverse population as they replace citizens with foreigners. We won't be the UNITED States any longer. Our only hope is probably and sadly Donald Trump.

This all goes hand-in-hand with the assault on Capitalism, Christianity, Judaism, anything normal or traditional. Walter Williams has a good article about multiculturalism on the link.

An even better article is the one linked below. We are being wiped out in plain sight.

Multicultural Suicide

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Multiculturalism -- the tool of the Left to destroy the West


Erik Rush (FreedomOutpost) says recently, I had occasion to peruse the transcript of a speech I'd seen before, and with which a lot of political Internet prowlers are familiar. It was made in 2004 by Richard D. "Dick" Lamm, who was the governor of the state of Colorado from 1975 to 1987. I find this bit of oratory interesting not only because I relocated to that state in 1986, but because Lamm is a Democrat and was fairly popular even among Republicans and conservatives (there being a marked distinction between the two).

The speech, which has become an almost iconic indictment of multiculturalism, was delivered at an immigration conference in Washington, D.C., and its focus was the downside of immigration in America, particularly the illegal variety. Lamm's cynical message postulated how America might be systematically destroyed via multiculturalism.

"Here is how they do it: Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country."
 -- Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm

Lamm went on to enumerate the components of a plan that he said would ensure America's destruction. This included, among many other elements, encouraging immigrants to maintain their culture, ensuring that the fastest-growing demographic groups were unassimilable, undereducated and antagonistic to our population; enrolling large foundations and businesses in subsidizing these efforts, and establishing the cult of victimology.

Finally, the former governor detailed two of the most important (and perhaps familiar) components: Making discussion of anything contrary to "cult of diversity" sensibilities off-limits and making it impossible to enforce America's immigration laws.

Lamm said that such a plan should also "make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, that there are no cultural differences." I've never been reticent to state that some cultures are manifestly inferior to that in the West, which positively enrages leftists. I am confident in this assertion because it is invariably undesirable elements of their culture that compels so many people to immigrate to the West. In times past, their goal was to assimilate -- to divest themselves of those undesirable elements of culture -- and we encouraged them to do just that. As we can see, the opposite is occurring now in America, just as Lamm proscribed.

Writing for Breitbart, former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo cited a recent Forbes article which revealed that the Internal Revenue Service has been encouraging illegal aliens to steal or fabricate Social Security numbers for years. Their rationale, if you can believe it, was to ensure that they would file tax returns. This has resulted in billions of dollars in bogus tax refunds being collected by illegals, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Congressional efforts to initiate an investigation into this abuse were blocked by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which threatened massive protests against "discriminatory practices" if such an investigation went forward.

This effectively makes the Congressional Hispanic Caucus an enemy agency with a primary allegiance to something other than that to which its members pledged allegiance when they were sworn in as members of Congress.

On April 17, the New York Post related an account of how those at the highest levels our government conspired to cover up the kingdom of Saudi Arabia's role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Many have suspected that this was the case for some time, but now proof has been offered. These actions were outright treason -- far worse than government officials in Germany warning the press off of reporting on the rape sprees carried out by Muslim men this past New Year's Eve -- but they were consistent with the whorish diplomatic policy American officials have carried on with that Islamic nation for many years.

It is practically common knowledge amongst conservatives that Barack Hussein Obama is a stealth saboteur who has situated members of the Muslim Brotherhood (an Islamist organization that has been plotting Islamic ascendency in America since 1928) in sensitive positions in our government. We've also learned over the last few years that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been selling America out piecemeal to the Muslim Brotherhood for decades. Other less prominent politicos, both Democrat and Republican, have engaged in similar practices with unfriendly nations and organizations that have compromised our sovereignty and national security -- essentially conducting espionage under the guise of diplomacy.

Writing for the American Enterprise Institute on April 1, Leon Aron stated that an obscure "cultural" difference in perception between Western elites and citizens in their nations is causing the rift between those governing and the governed, driving the latter to embrace nationalistic tendencies and "populist demagogues on both the right and left." He advised the community of Western leaders to start "adjusting its vocabulary and values to the point where it can talk to its people in ways that the latter will find credible, respectful and understandable."

I remain at a loss as to how Western leaders might package their betrayal, treason and delivery of their constituents into chaos, poverty and squalor in a way they will find "credible, respectful and understandable." Given the deportment of Western leaders -- particularly over the last decade -- it would seem that they are being driven by a compulsion to destroy, rather than by a twisted ideology or even simple greed.

All of the foregoing gives rise to the question: How do these American would-be lords and ladies of the global elite expect to carry on, let alone preserve their power, once they have succeeded in destroying America?

Look at Europe today, to see the results of the twisted ideology of "multiculturism."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Some cultures ARE better than others

Dave Blount says George Orwell had it right:

"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious."

Let’s give it a try:

1.  Western Civilization is the best thing the human race has ever produced.
2.  Cultural relativism is bullshit.
3.  Political correctness is a toxin.

Paul Joseph Watson elaborates (with some salty language):

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

Dartmouth's "seemingly endless diversity initiatives" are failing badly


Trey Sanchez (TruthRevolt) is reporting that "diversity" is fast becoming the new segregation.

A shining example of the failures of the relentless pursuits of forced diversity is playing out on the Ivy League campus of Dartmouth College. Students and researchers alike are witnessing a breakdown between the races and an increase in tensions among them.

The Dartmouth Review writes about the college's "seemingly endless initiatives on diversity" stemming from efforts by administration to create an atmosphere dubbed "Inclusive Excellence" and its failure to show any meaningful results in its misguided attempts.

Dartmouth's own Associate Director for Curricular and Research Programs at The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, Ronald Shaiko, has been warning about the "diversity puzzle" for some time now. His research and writing have resurfaced in conversations surrounding this new era of campus protests by the "Black Lives Matter" movement that have not only infiltrated Dartmouth's campus, but campuses nation wide.

Back in 2013, Shaiko wrote:

I can attest to the fact that the benefits of diversity do not spontaneously arise merely from the presence of a varied student body. It is amazing to me the amount of effort undertaken to create diverse incoming classes while comparatively little is done to create a "choice architecture," to borrow a phrase from behavioral economics, that would "nudge" students into interactions outside of their comfort zones. Without such nudges, students will default to sameness or, in the words of the political scientist Robert Putnam, they will "hunker down" with students like themselves.

Dartblog, a daily blog for the school, has a recent article about Shaiko's assessment and speaks from experience about how things have worsened on campus:

If you have ever wondered how it can be that two generations of affirmative action and diversity besottedness have brought us to the worst campus race relations in memory, the Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Curricular and Research Programs at the Rockefeller Center, Ronald Shaiko, has thoughts that will make blood boil in Parkhurst.

Shaiko recently spoke with The Dartmouth Review explaining what his research has continued to uncover:

  • "The choice architecture that's in place at most universities is one that facilitates the bonding side -- we go out of our way to make people comfortable, give them the opportunity to be with people just like them -- and I think that's just not the way to do it… [The bonding aspect] will happen on its own -- you're going to gravitate toward people like you as a matter of human nature. So why do anything to promote that at the expense of mixing with people that aren't just like you?"
  • "In many ways it seems to be admitting failure that you have to have safe spaces on campus. It's saying that the campus is not comfortable enough for people of all walks of life to take part in without feeling some pain or some fear… So the notion of requiring that to be a part of your experience is really a mark against the institution, that there's a need felt by a critical mass of people that they have to have a space that's their own, and that no one else but them can take advantage of that space."
  • "Everyone's afraid to say what he feels, and that's terrible, that's not a way for a university to operate, and so we're in a tough position, where we can't even be honest with each other. That to me is the crux of the problem. We're not even to the point where we can have communication in an adult, rational, honest way. We can't even articulate our own views in an honest fashion without feeling like we're going to get our heads chopped off."
  • "The more diversity you get, the harder it's going to be to be a diverse campus. So we've set ourselves up for failure in that sense… What we really have is fourteen different colleges going on and they just share the same faculty. I don't think that's what people had in mind [with regards to creating] more diverse campuses."

There's more details to Shaiko's research, here, but Dartmouth alum are speaking out about the matter and comparing it to their experiences. One instance comes from the comments section of the Review's interview with Shaiko. User name Vox_Clams describes a very different time in the not too distant past:

Back in the 70's, we called it integration, and virtually everyone favored it. Integration efforts yielded mix results… but for the most part, the direction was positive. Students went out of their way to embrace the opportunity to become friends with someone from a different ethnic group. Integration, of course, was facilitated by the fact that the only color that mattered was Dartmouth Green.

This is a notion shared by Dartblog who echoed the sentiment: "In my time in North Fayerweather the dorm's residents lived happily together as equals, even though many were members of groups that had at one time in the past been scorned by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants for their difference: Jews, Catholics, Swedes, Irish, Germans, Asians, Italians. Even a Canadian. Of course, at the time none of us noticed. We were all Dartmouth students."

The former student from the 1970s especially hit the nail on the head describing how diversity is fast becoming a new form of segregation:

Now we have "diversity," which has turned into a euphemism for segregation. Not surprisingly, with all this emphasis on "diversity," segregation has made a comeback that the most avid racist of the 1950's would envy. There is a movement afoot at Dartmouth and elsewhere for residences where only "people of color" are welcome. I fail to see the distinction between marking those "affinity houses" and marking the drinking fountains "colored."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Pitsburgh high school's "Diversity Day" backfires bigtime

Frieda Powers (BizPacReview) is reporting that angry parents of Pittsburgh high school students were made even angrier when school officials refused to answer any of their questions regarding a "Diversity Day" event.

One parent said, "Whoever gave you the idea that saying nothing up here was a good idea gave you really bad advice," scolding board members in an emergency meeting held Friday, according to WPXI-TV.

The parents of Gateway High School students were demanding answers about who sent emails, phone calls and a Facebook post calling for a "Diversity Day" this week after an after-school fist-fight broke out at a local park on Tuesday. The post, which has since been removed, told students to wear Gateway shirts and "Black Lives Matter" shirts, reported WPXI.

Frustrated and in disbelief, parents accused the school of turning a juvenile brawl into a race issue, escalating tensions unnecessarily. Rumors followed the controversial post and email stating that white students wearing black shirts to school on Friday would be targeted, leading to hundreds of students staying home.

"You all made it worse," a parent condemned the school officials in the heated meeting.

Calling for the removal of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, parents vented their anger to a silent board.

The school board finally admitted they were not aware that the administration had sent out the email and post about the event and were still investigating who was responsible for what they termed a "personnel issue." The school officials insisted it was safe for students to return to school on Monday.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

Mark Steyn's brilliant mockery of multiculturalism

"Multiculturalism" is an all-inclusive yet meaningless concept that would best be relegated to the trash bin of history along with safe rooms, micro aggressions, and trigger word avoidance which are sweeping American college campuses today.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

Obama's CIA is putting diversity above national security

Fred Fleitz (NationalReview) is reporting that America's intelligence agencies have a serious and difficult mission: protecting our national security from a world of diverse and changing threats. These include nuclear, military, terrorist, and economic threats from nation-states and non-state actors. China is a rapidly growing intelligence, military, and cyber threat. Russia has exploited a power vacuum in the Middle East caused by President Obama's failure to exercise leadership in the region. ISIS, which did not exist in 2009, is now a global threat and could be planning new terrorist attacks with chemical weapons and dirty bombs.

Protecting our nation from such threats requires extremely competent and capable individuals to conduct intelligence operations and write analysis in challenging security and legal environments. This means the intelligence profession needs officers who will speak truth to power, obey the law, and resist pressure to politicize analysis.

CIA Director John Brennan apparently believes otherwise and that advancing Barack Obama's political and social agendas should be an important part of the CIA's mission. This may be why Brennan recently announced his "Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (2016–2019)" to make the CIA more diverse and politically correct. Brennan says in the introduction to this strategy:

Diversity at CIA is defined as the wide range of life experiences and backgrounds needed to ensure multiple perspectives that enable us to safeguard US national security. It encompasses the collection of individual attributes that together help Agencies pursue organizational objectives efficiently and effectively. These include but are not limited to characteristics such as national origin, language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, socio-economic status, veteran's status and family structures.

Brennan has mandated "diversity and inclusion performance objectives for all CIA managers and supervisors and ultimately [for] the entire workforce," so that CIA personnel must weigh diversity and gender figures in making key assignments and senior-level promotions. Brennan's plan also includes agency-wide "unconscious bias" training.

I support a fair and equitable workplace at CIA without any form of unlawful discrimination. But this as a dangerous development because Brennan is creating diversity quotas for hiring and promotions instead of promoting a work environment that prioritizes competence and achievement.

The CIA's mission is too serious to be distracted by Obama's social-engineering efforts .

Brennan is doing this in response to Obama's efforts to create a more diverse federal work force. While there may be merit in this for many U.S. government jobs, hiring and promoting intelligence officers based on diversity quotas will not, as Brennan claims, better enable CIA to safeguard our national security. The CIA's mission is too serious to be distracted by Obama's social-engineering efforts meant to redress real and perceived injustices in our society.

It is not unjust to hire a white male with a Ph.D. from Harvard and a background in nuclear science to analyze the Iranian nuclear program over someone with weaker credentials who is a member of a racial or gender minority. Altering the rules so the latter candidate will win a competition for such a job is not in our national interest. Adding such considerations to CIA promotion rules will further complicate the agency's management, which is already suffering from politicization and political correctness. This is why in the CIA Directorate of Intelligence, where I worked for 19 years, many highly qualified officers refuse to apply for management jobs -- or they last in them for only a few years before returning to analyst positions.

As a former CIA officer, I believe one of the worst signs of how backward the agency's personnel system has become under Director Brennan is that his diversity plan lists Maja Lehnus as the agency's new "Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer."  I was stunned when I read this. Ms. Lehnus served as director of the CIA Weapons Intelligence and Nonproliferation Center and the director of the National Intelligence Counterproliferation Center (NCTC). According to the NCTC website, Lehnus worked for 20 years in a wide range of CIA technical and management positions on counterproliferation and weapons of mass destruction.

At a time of growing WMD threats from North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, and ISIS, why is this brilliant WMD expert being moved from such a critical intelligence mission to a position overseeing diversity quotas?

There are two discernible reasons for this.

First, this is just the latest evidence that the Obama administration is not serious about protecting U.S. national security. We know this already, given its "leading from behind" and "strategic patience" approaches to foreign policy and constant leaks of sensitive intelligence to advance their political agenda. It therefore is not surprising that Obama would make diversity and political correctness at the CIA a higher priority than improving its analysis and operations. The fact that the administration would move one of the agency's leading WMD experts from a senior job in her area of expertise to heading Brennan's ludicrous diversity program is a clear sign of the CIA's distorted priorities.

Second, there are many signs that the work of the CIA and other intelligence agencies has been thoroughly politicized by the Obama administration. CIA Director Brennan has been criticized for doctoring White House talking points on the 2011 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate to favor the Obama administration misrepresentation of this attack. Brennan also has straddled the fence on the legality of the CIA's enhanced-interrogation program, probably due to pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats.

The United States urgently needs intelligence agencies that are effective and innovative, and that will speak truth to power.

In recent years, we've also seen strong evidence that the White House has exerted political pressure to conform intelligence analysis to meet its agenda. More than 50 U.S. intelligence analysts working with the U.S. Central Command filed complaints with the Pentagon inspector general last year, claiming that their analyses were manipulated by senior officials to downplay the threat from ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (the al-Qaeda branch in Syria). I witnessed similar politicization of analysis at CIA last August when I attended an unclassified briefing by a senior CIA WMD analyst on the nuclear deal with Iran; the official's assessment sounded as if it had been directly drawn from White House talking points.

The United States urgently needs intelligence agencies that are effective and innovative, and that will speak truth to power. While many of the U.S. intelligence community's problems predate this administration, they have gotten much worse since 2009. It is vital that the next president name strong and decisive leaders to top intelligence posts. Our next commander-in-chief must stand by their efforts to conduct major reforms that will reverse the nonsensical initiative of the Obama years and improve the ability of America's intelligence agencies to counter the national-security threats facing our nation.

These reforms should promote fair hiring and promotion practices but should not undermine the CIA's effectiveness with politically correct schemes that will only lower standards and create quotas. Due to the life-and-death nature of CIA's mission, it is vital that its officers be hired and promoted on the basis of competence and achievement, not misguided social-engineering schemes.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Will banning Muslims ruin the anti-ISIS coalition?


Daniel Greenfield (Politichicks) says the most common attack on proposals to end Muslim migration to the United States is that this policy would somehow interfere with the coalition to fight ISIS.

Lindsey Graham asked, "How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you're a Muslim you can't come to America?" "This policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS," Jeb Bush objected.

The White House agreed, "We have an over-60-country coalition fighting with a substantial number of Muslim-majority fighters who are absolutely essential to succeeding in that effort."

But there are two things wrong with this argument.

First, no Muslim country or faction is fighting ISIS because they like us. They're not doing us any favors. They're protecting themselves from the Islamic State.

The insistence of ISIS that it is the supreme authority over all Muslims has even led it into battles with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. No one fighting ISIS is doing it because of our immigration policy. Jeb Bush referenced the Kurds. The Kurds want their own homeland. Those who want to come to America don't want to fight ISIS. Those who want to fight ISIS aren't looking to move to Dearborn or Jersey City.

Second, Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition have much harsher immigration policies for Christians than anything that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz have proposed for Muslims.

When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.

Saudi Arabia also engages in blatant racial discrimination and denies basic civil rights to women. And yet there are no problems with having Saudi Arabia in the anti-ISIS coalition. Certainly the Saudis don't worry that we'll drop out of the coalition because they ban Christianity.

Other Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members include Turkey, whose leader threatened to ethnically cleanse Armenians, Egypt, where discrimination against Christians has led to government persecution, the UAE and Qatar, where churches are not allowed to display crosses, and Somalia, which banned Christmas.

Saudi Arabia's Islamic justice system is often indistinguishable from ISIS. Turkey and Qatar's governments have ties to al-Qaeda. Both also have alleged ties to ISIS.

And they are the core of Obama's Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members.

Why exactly does the United States have to worry about meeting their standards for accommodating Muslims, when they have no interest in meeting our standards for the treatment of Christians?

Muslim coalition countries routinely block citizenship for non-Muslims, some forbid marriages to non-Muslims, yet we're expected to provide citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many of whom support ISIS, al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, just to maintain this coalition?

What use is an anti-ISIS coalition that not only forbids us to protect our own national security interests, but actually demands that we undermine them to accommodate some larger Islamic agenda?

But despite claims by Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and the White House, the anti-ISIS coalition has no interest in our immigration policy. Its Muslim components are divided into local militias and regional powers. The militias are fighting ISIS for the sake of their own interests and their own survival. All they want from us are guns and they don't care about our immigration policy. The regional powers want us to overthrow Assad. Their own interests, not our immigration policy, are their priorities.

The majority of the Muslim anti-ISIS coalition hates us. Some members actually sponsor terrorism against us. We will not alienate them with a migration ban because they are not our friends.

The Muslim countries in the coalition against ISIS are absolutely unashamed of putting their own religious and national identities first. Yet Bush, Graham and the White House would have us believe that we will destroy any coalition with them against ISIS if we put ourselves first for once.

We need to stop worrying about offending Muslim countries that deny Christians and Jews basic human rights and start looking out for our interests, our own security and our own welfare.

Not only won't this weaken the coalition against ISIS, it will make it stronger. Countries can be united by shared values or shared interests. No matter how much presidents from both parties may pretend, we have no values in common with Saudi Arabia. We are not united with it or the rest of the Muslim members of the coalition by shared religious or cultural values. We are occasionally united with them by shared interests. It's time that we were honest about that with them and ourselves.

Jeb Bush's pretense that we must have shared values to have shared interests is a common foreign policy fallacy. Instead of trying to build shared interests around shared values such as democracy or interfaith dialogue that we clearly do not share with them, we should just focus on our interests.

Saudi Arabia is a brutal totalitarian monarchy that hates everything that we care about from our religion to our way of life. Picture anything from a 4th of July barbecue to Christmas and the Saudis will have banned everything from the beer to the pork chops to the men and women sitting together.

But we both hate ISIS and that's all that we really need for a coalition against it.

If we are ever going to have an adult relationship with the Muslim world, it will be based on our interests, not values. It will work because both sides know exactly what they are getting out of it.

The Muslim world wants to know what to expect from us. It hates Obama because of his unreliability. To them, his political ideology resembles some species of mysticism which they do not share. It much prefers an arrangement based on mutual interests over our misguided mystical attempts to discover shared values by pretending that Islam is just Christianity misspelled.

It's not an immigration ban that poses a threat to the coalition, it's the insistence that shared values come before shared interests. If we are to have shared values with a Muslim coalition, that requires us to prosecute blasphemy against Islam, provide a special status to Muslims and a lower status to non-Muslims. Such an approach is incompatible with our own values, yet we have begun doing just that. Locking up filmmakers and condemning cartoonists has given us more in common with Saudi Arabia and ISIS. And it would be unfortunate if we had to become an Islamic state to fight the Islamic State.

We can best fight ISIS by being a free nation. There is no use in defeating ISIS just to become ISIS. That will not prevent us from joining coalitions of shared interests with anyone else, but it will stop us from trying to find shared values with Islamic tyrannies of the axe, burka and sword. A ban on Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS and becoming ISIS at home.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Diversity kills -- file under "liberals are nuts"


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Diversity and multiculturalism -- longing for "The Other"


Dr. Sarah Condor (Politichicks) says diversity is a natural result of globalization. However, Globalization is meaningless if it does not unite Humankind for a common purpose. Diversity must come naturally -- or not at all. Artificially imposed diversity weakens a nation, it does not make it stronger.

To follow nature means to obey God. Unfortunately, our public schools avert from all forms of catechism and laugh at God. By ridiculing religion, liberal atheists are turning away from not only their origins, but their very substance -- religion is extremely important for every human being's mental health and equanimity. If you think you are too "scientific" and too "smart" to believe in God, allow me to remind you that Albert Einstein believed in God, as did Isaac Newton and Aristotle. How does that make you feel? It should make you feel humble and inquisitive, not pompous and condescending.

Indeed, religion is important as a founding stone on which culture is built. However, it cannot be just any religion in any society. A society which rejects its religion -- in order to tolerate all while having none -- is volatile, internally weak, susceptible to being attacked both from within and without. When atheism reaches the point of no return, the individual feels empty, abandoned, unloved. This translates into the feeling of the society at large. Civilization suffers. If you deny the existence of God, you are unable to accept true love and forgiveness.

Being empty within, people either start to crave for their roots again, or reach out to the dominant nations and their religions. The first is a historical and philosophical process: we crave not just for our constitutional founding roots, but also for our past leaders, our legends and myths. When religion disappears from our lives, myths must take its place, in order to sustain social structure and cohesion. Recently, we have seen it with the re-emergence of Star Wars, fighting the imaginary enemy, an inter-galactic monster, a many-headed dragon in the form of saucers and robots. You must not offend the fans -- "It's a religion," they say. True. A myth re-unites the society and fills individuals with their proper "social function." We exist not merely to create and pass on our individual heritage but, above all, to foster and reinforce our nation, to further our culture, to support our civilization.

All our national mottoes express this culturally unifying function, stimulate us as individuals to persevere in our small pursuits and deeds, in order to create one great America! New Deal, Great Society, Yes We Can… Every time we come in contact with a foreign culture, we try to be tolerant, but we cannot be tolerant of the "other" which never accepts US, our culture, our religion, our myths and legends. When I hear CAIR attacking our system of laws, suing an employer over "Muslim prayer breaks" for employees (settled in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) 391 U.S. 563), when I hear the Mayor of Philadelphia stating a religious killing "in the name of Islam" had "nothing to do with Islam…" I wonder whether the Americans who stand by in silence or even further such outrageous acts of forced assimilation by "doing as they are ordered" (in the famous words of an infamous Dachau supervisor) know what they are doing? Sociologically speaking, they are committing genocide upon our culture.

Whenever in history a society and its culture was in crisis, people turned to religion. When religion failed to support them, fairy tales and myths rose into prominence. People would also inevitably turn to their governing bodies, their chosen, appointed or elected "heroes" to stand up for them in times of need… Where are they now?

The reason why young atheists in the ranks of Sanders-Clinton followers do not see the cultural emptiness they have been thrown into is because they were told State stands for God, and there is nothing the State could not do: take property from one, give it to another; take guns or allow them; dole out money, forgive debts, refinance mortgages, regulate markets, provide for the poor of the world…

"What does 'your God' do for you?" they will ask. "Look at what Obama can do!" They will pause at our silence and say: "Your God can't stop ISIS! But Obama -- at least he is doing something…" But what? Those youthful idealists have never really suffered, they have never known real poverty and never been subjected to the rule of a dictator. It is the suffering, the poor, the sick and oppressed that always turn to God -- and, unlike Obama, God is always there for them.

In our materially rich, spiritually poor world, we are trying to revive the great minds of the past: Hegel and Marx on the left; Kant, Locke, Hume on the right; Aristotle and Plato on both sides. However, it is not the works of these thinkers that we read, but interpretations or snippets of wisdom and quotes, 140-character Twitter "treatises" with Facebook links and U-Tube "sources." Only the tip of the iceberg comes up on the screen. The soul, the heart… they remain empty.

With this emptiness, this demise of one's own religious and cultural roots, the insatiable craving for "the other" arrives. What follows is the assault on language: deconstructing texts, creating "narratives," complaining about "the tone." Politicians dabble in our language as if it was a cake they themselves are not too eager to eat: a nip here, a poke there… Perhaps "my people" will like the marzipan, the politically correct façade? What they are doing is smuggling "the other" into our language. What they can, they erase (e.g. the word "nigga" in Mark Twain). What they cannot erase (e.g. the word "terrorist") they ban: all of a sudden, it is a "T-word." Raping the English language, they are molesting our culture. What is our culture but the mother who gave them birth, weaned them from pups. It is a crime too atrocious, whose consequences I dare fain to contemplate.

The "other" is something we want to revere, in order to fill the void within left by God. Thus, populist demagogues come and go, trying out their grin-and-gaggle on us. Of course, some will always fall for the front, because the absence of God makes the human being shallow. Character cannot mature in shallow waters. Those who have fallen for the ideologue, to them, the Ideologue is the deity, and nothing will change their minds. If Sanders says this about the Wall Street, then it must be true. Sanders' word is their commandment.

What they do not see is that economic conditions are only manifestations of inner spiritual life, which means God within: faith in oneself and love for one's country. As they do not believe in God, they are empty inside. Their economic struggle is conditioned by their spiritual emptiness, and reflects it in their conduct, which is that of a herd of sheep, not autonomous, independently thinking individuals. Before you go without and scream mottoes and follow your populist demagogue idol as if they were a god, you ought to pause, turn within yourself, and reflect upon what lies beneath the crust, the façade, the marzipan on the promised paradise.

Needless to say, "the other" may be represented by a culture or religion foreign to our kind. We are accepting of many other religions and cultures today. It is healthy to the extent to which they bring us positive charge, health and wealth -- cultural, social, and ethical growth.

Nevertheless, should we be void within, lacking of our own culture and tradition, faith and persuasion, should we not fight for what is truly ours, not stand up when assaulted and maligned -- then we would become that herd of sheep at the mercy of an idle shepherd, the idol inviting foreign gods (or prophets, if you will).

What is more, an empty person has nothing to offer in the cultural exchange. When one culture murders, rapes, kills -- with the ultimate aim of destroying all other cultures -- and the other culture stands idly by, following an idol, it is the latter which will be destroyed.

Our relationship to other cultures should never be that of submission and dependence, but that of reciprocity. The "other" must accept US as we are, on reciprocal terms. The "other" must not be forced upon us, but we must both go and meet each other half-way, for equal benefit, be equally willing.

One example for all: the "meeting" of the Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian cultures: every Friday, by the local pool, people with Indian heritage don their traditional gowns and costumes to dance and cherish and revel their culture. They are peaceful, innocent, welcoming. You cannot not admire and love it. Those ladies look so splendid, with stars adorning their foreheads… it is like a fairy-tale! Of course, on "normal" weekdays, you would not be able to tell: in all other respects, they are Americans. This is multiculturalism.

There will always be emotional strife and struggle, bickering and bartering -- that is human and fosters civilization. What stultifies it is killing by suicide-bombers, torture, rape, mass murder… Whenever such actions occurred in human history, they were doomed to spite and ultimately failed -- but not without a fight, Mr. Obama, not without a fight!

Interestingly, these "cultural relapses" have always occurred prior to a religious renaissance. Christianity had had this period during the 15th and 16th century. Witches were burned in Europe until the 1750s, roughly about the time we declared our independence. After the centuries of Dark Ages, blights, plagues and terror, a new era began. No wonder it has taken another 300 years for a less advanced religion, stultified by totalitarian rule. Civilization travels from East to West. It reached China and India half a century ago, and now …Iran and Iraq.

The search for the "other" is at the same time the search for the meaning of life. Today, we believe that the meaning of life can be grasped, described, photographed, stored on the computer and reviewed in detail. However, all such depictions are only interpretations. At school, children learn interpretations. Consequently, later in life, these children will become adults used to taking shortcuts by means of interpretations. Gullibility is built into our education. Snippets of reinterpreted "wisdom" surround us. Turning on Twitter is passing through waters, seeing tips of icebergs, rowing on, propelled by the desire to "connect," to be a part of humanity. Has internet substituted God? And what happens to such youth when they have no God within, no firm moral and ethical roots? What happens when they feel lost, when they cannot shout "USA! USA!" without offending someone -- when they "do not belong…?"

Then the search for the "other" ends in disaster: drugs out of desperation, gang-life out of the need "to belong," ISIS or Starwars (?) -- out of the starving Soul. We cannot accept -- and will not be accepted by -- the other when we ourselves have forsaken our God and remain empty within. That calls for scorn and dominance, which is what Islamists are showing our atheists. At the same time, inner emptiness is not a civilizational but a human dilemma, which is why "our" western youth may sometimes look admiringly at ISIS as "rebels" who want to undermine and overthrow our entire civilization. Their undeveloped minds are not any less or more developed than those of an average youth in our western societies. It takes the experience of everyday struggles for a human being to become "ripe" and appreciate life. Clearly then what connects "our" atheistic idealistic youth and the radical Muslim murderers, is the desire to follow the idol. It is a vacuous and vain desire, which emanates from emptiness within. In the absence of God, they long for something -- anything -- without.

We have taught them how to substitute religion with Hollywood -- legends, myths, fairy tales transformed into a modern setting. However, the veneer of computerized tricks and professional fly-jumps and shoot-outs is all too clear to penetrate. One must be capable of "keeping up the pretenses," fostering one's own imagination, belief in the supernatural -- before we abandon ourselves to a moving romantic movie or a dramatic chase James Bond style.

There is a strange connection between religion and imagination -- one fosters the other. It is a healthy symbiosis, which produces moral and ethical human beings, capable of overcoming suffering and becoming what God wanted them to become; or, for those less "religious" out there: to follow their bliss. In order to follow your bliss, you must believe. Thus, happiness and belief are inseparable.

Social stability comes from the absence of inner and outer conflicts. Multiculturalism is a way of achieving it. Mutual understanding and respect is at the core of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism… Such civilizations flourish. We ask forgiveness and respect to be respected. We do not slaughter to "earn" a place in Paradise.

Finally, the search for "the other" may result in lack of finding either: a religious root within, outside, without, or a substitute supplied by Hollywood or modern technology. Such a person will remain lost and shall not recover unless helped, set on the right path. All too often, it is these lost souls that opt for painkillers, drugs, crime or suicide. Even some psychosomatic disorders may be seen as effects of inner spiritual emptiness: chronic depression, fibromyalgia, compulsive and manic disorders, gender dysphoria… These are often "scientifically" medically analyzed and causally interpreted. The main causal factors, however, are impalpable -- they lie deep in the soul of every individual. The good old saying: "The doctor treats but only God heals" answers all.

What is society like when those who search for "the other" find only such "other" which is equally empty and hungry within? It becomes a society without a state or nationality. Nationality consists of language, morality, religion -- even borders are secondary to our language and religion. Empty society is running away from itself, asking for shelter and food -- as if God and Faith, belief in oneself, were qualities as palpable as bread and water. The unsatisfied becomes insatiable, asking for more: more and better -- food, house, car, money from "the rich…" They look outside for help, thinking more multiculturalism will help -- more like us.

But what is "us"? Is "us" the Other?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Multiculturalism kills


Stuart Schneiderman wants to know if Philip Haney could have stopped the terrorist attack in San Bernardino? Is this former Department of Homeland Security officer telling the truth when he claims that Team Obama shut down his investigations into Islamic terrorists because they involved ethnic profiling? If this is true, then multiculturalism kills.

The Daily Caller has the story:

One of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security claims he could have prevented the San Bernardino terror attack if the government had not shut down a surveillance program he was developing three years ago.

Philip Haney worked in the Intelligence Review Unit (IRU), where his job was to investigate individuals with potential links to terrorism. He was looking into global terror networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S. and was making progress to that end, when the Obama State Department came in and pulled the plug.

Fox News' Trace Gallagher reported that "about a year into that investigation, they got a visit from the State Department and the Homeland Security Civil Rights Division who said that tracking these groups and individuals was 'problematic' because they were Islamic groups. Haney says his investigation was shut down, and 67 of his records deleted -- among them, an investigation into an organization with ties to the mosque in Riverside that San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook attended."

Haney says he notified Congress and the inspector general about his investigation getting terminated, but instead of the investigation getting reinstated, Haney claims his superiors retaliated, pulling him from his duties and revoking his security clearance.

We do not know, for a fact, what really happened, but we can be confident that, given what we know about Obama's war on profiling and his continued insistence that Islam is a peaceful religion and that the problem is American racism, that is, Islamophobia, it makes perfectly good sense to imagine that it would shut down any investigation that targeted Muslims.

If so, Americans have every right to be worried and afraid.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

We're erasing Western Civilization


Rush Limbaugh says: I have several stories here. The headlines are enough. "Workers Remove Ten Commandment Monument from Oklahoma City Capitol Grounds at 10:30 p.m. to keep protesters from demonstrating." Next headline: "Pork Products Face Workplace Ban for Being Offensive."

The next headline: "School Cancels America Day." Fourth headline. "Fastest Growing Language in the United States Is Arabic." Here's another headline: "World's First Lesbian Bishop Calls for Church to Remove Crosses and to Install Muslim Prayer Space Instead." There is a creep, creep, creep, creep, creep that is happening throughout Western nations, Western cultures, and Western civilization countries.

It is a creep, creep, creep, creep, creep through various means. Illegal immigration, legal immigration, intimidation, political correctness, diversity -- what have you. But Western civilizations are pretty much in the process of erasing themselves, in my view, anyway. The people who wish to erase Western civilization in many cases are not even firing a shot. Some are, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all that, but the legal immigrants are not firing a shot. La Raza's not firing a shot. A number of the domestic upheavals in this country are happening not because of any kind of force.

They're happening because of political correctness, fear, intimidation, you name it. First story. UK Daily Mail: "A granite monument of the Ten Commandments that has sparked controversy since its installation on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was being removed and will be transported to a private conservative think tank for storage. A contractor the state hired began removing the monument shortly after 10:30 p.m. Monday. The work comes after the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June decision that the display violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support 'any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.'"

We are a Christian nation with a Judeo-Christian ethic. Were founded and established that way, and we are erasing ourselves. We are allowing it to happen under the guise of religious freedom, except it's not religious freedom that's making this happen because the religious freedom is also under assault and could be said to be suffering defeats. Try employing your religious freedom if you're a county clerk in Kentucky. Try using your religious freedom if you're a pizzeria or a bakery or what have you in Indiana, southern California, or Colorado.

You'll find that your religious freedom doesn't mean anything. But in the name of religious freedom, the Ten Commandments monument must come down so as not to offend anybody who doesn't believe in them. It used to be our country. I mean, this is how the United States was founded. The melting pot. I guess the people who believe this country was founded in an immoral way, is immoral, is unjust, and has been for over 200 years, must engage in all this to erase its history of racism, slavery, discrimination, or whatever.

In other words, the United States has been flawed from the get-go, and it's time now to fix it. And every precept and principle on which the nation was founded was discriminatory, bigoted, or what have you, and so must not stand. The melting pot used to be people coming here wanting to become Americans. Now it seems like people are coming here trying to erase America -- and many who live in America are actually doing the erasing.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

"Nooses" were fakes, but University of Delaware goes forward with mass diversity gathering


Sara Dogan is reporting that In spite of an investigation which revealed that several loops of rope found dangling from a tree at the University of Delaware were not actually nooses as was first believed, hundreds of students joined by campus administrators went forward with a mass gathering on the campus green on Wednesday to discuss the importance of diversity and racial sensitivity on campus.

The purported "nooses" were discovered hanging in a tree on campus on Tuesday evening and University officials immediately jumped to the conclusion that they constituted a hate crime.

But within hours the "nooses" were revealed to be left over from an alumni event in June when they were used to suspend paper lanterns from the tree.  One student even came forward to admit taking down one of the lanterns to decorate her dorm room, leaving the rope attached to the tree.

But none of that deterred the students and administrators who used the incident as an excuse for a mass outpouring of grievances about the University's lack of diversity and racial sensitivity.

Student Amina Agyeman who was quoted by opined:

Diversity isn't something UD can say it's already achieved because it hasn't. You can't fulfill a multicultural requirement with a history of fashion class... it's about teaching an experience.

Rick Deadwyler, the University's director of government relations, insisted that the discovery of the "nooses" should spark continued efforts and conversation on campus:

We need it put it in the rear view mirror where it belongs -- not to forget it, but to move forward. Please don't let this thing stop at 5:30 today.

University Vice Provost of Diversity Carol Henderson told the assembled students that the administration is in the process of approving a new diversity action plan:

We hear you. We see you. We need to walk arm in arm with them and say 'I am concerned because you are concerned.'

DelawareOnline reports that the Black Lives Matter movement -- which held a silent protest on campus on Monday in response to a campus speech by Fox News commentator Kate Pavlich who has called the organization a "violent hate group"—figured prominently in Wednesday's gathering:

Throughout the night, speakers and signs referenced the Black Lives Matter movement, which has sparked national attention in recent months. The chant -- used to remind people that black lives matter just as much as white ones, students said -- has become a rallying cry in the wake of black men repeatedly dying across the country at the hands of police.

Even the vast rally in support of diversity did not reassure some students who rejected the innocent explanation for the "nooses."

DelawareOnline reports:

Elexis Keels, of Washington, D.C., said the discovery unsettled her.

"I shouldn't feel unsafe walking past a building where there were supposedly nooses hanging down," she said, "but I do.... I don't think it was paper lanterns."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

America's toxic brew -- "diversity"

Chip McLean says during the first Republican debate Donald Trump struck a huge chord with the "silent majority" of this nation by saying that America's biggest problem is, "being politically correct."

The Donald's succinct summation was more than just a quick soundbite - it resonated with millions of everyday people in all walks of life who believe that politicians are a bunch of mealy-mouthed establishment lackeys who are completely tone deaf when it comes to the real world that the rest of us are forced to navigate. Regardless of the reasons for the inside-the-beltway crowd's flippant view of middle-class Americans (be it indifference, or they're bought and paid for by lobbyists, or just plain old cowardice), Mr. Trump has tapped into an angry disgust with the way that our government functions (or doesn't). As a result -- despite every prediction of establishment politicians and pundits of Trump's impending implosion -- Trump keeps rising in the polls, and is doing so across demographic lines, much to their consternation.

A perfect example of the arrogance that pervades the elitists' thinking is Jeb Bush's recent row with Trump on the immigration issue. Poll after poll reveals that Americans want the flood of illegals coming into our country stopped. So how did good ‘ol Jebbie respond to Trump's plain speaking? He attacked Trump by claiming that he is "not a conservative" -- in Spanish! Jeb Bush claiming someone else is not a conservative? Forget the fact that Jeb makes Mitt Romney seem like Ronald Reagan by comparison; Jeb trying to claim the mantle of conservatism by speaking in Spanish is not simply tone-deaf -- it demonstrates an alarming (even if amusing) case of obtuseness. Jeb Bush is quick to express his huge "love" for illegal invaders but is amazingly bereft of empathy for actual American citizens -- the ones who are being forced to subsidize the endless wave of immigrants (legal and illegal) with tax dollars to pay for mucho government goodies; not to mention they're being passed over for all those jobs that "Americans won't do" (another favorite establishment lie).

Another deadly element of this "diversity" that the PC left champions has been the "sanctuary city" policy enacted by a number of US cities. We have seen numerous instances of crimes committed by illegal aliens who should never even have been here to commit those crimes in the first place. Katherine Steinle's murder by a five-times-deported illegal alien, became a high profile case when it was revealed that San Francisco refused to hand him over to ICE prior to the shooting. San Francisco's sanctuary city policy has remained in place since Ms. Steinle's death - this despite the fact that even the vast majority of Californians are opposed to it, including Hispanics. There are 200 other U.S. cities that have similar unpopular, misguided policies regarding illegal aliens.

"Political correctness" is of course the Left's method of shutting down the opposition. It has led to such ridiculous terms as "undocumented worker." Undocumented? It's as if some heartless bureaucrat forgot to process Juan's immigration papers, rather than the fact that Juan criminally crashed our border without authorization and is hence, an illegal alien. The accurate term "illegal alien" is of course enough to induce hysterics among the politically correct. It is this same PC left who would much rather engage in name calling than discussing actual facts. Their shut-down-the-argument technique always includes hurling such meaningless labels as "hater," "homophobe," Islamophobe," "denier," "xenophobe" and so on.

It is this mindless PC that has led to such "diversity" as the gender-confused crowd. The politically correct media were fawning all over Bruce Jenner's recent decision that he would now live life as a female. In any sane world, no one would be referring to a man as a woman simply because he now believes that he is one. I for one refuse to call him a "she" or "Caitlyn," any more than I would refer to a person as a tree because he now believes that he is a California Redwood. Even if Bruce has an "operation" (more accurately, a mutilation), he will still possess the male DNA he was born with and will never be female.

Logic evidently does not exist among the "diverse" crowd. Parents are being urged by various PC groups to raise their children in a "gender-neutral" way so the child may "select" which gender they feel "comfortable" with. This "select-your-own-gender" idiocy has led to schools dealing with "select-your-own-restroom" students who evidently are finding legal support from the Justice Department. The real tragedy is that childhood can be confusing enough for children trying to understand themselves and the realities of growing up, without a bunch of politically correct manufactured "choices" being thrust upon them in the process. Ultimately, these children will suffer, as will society.

From Diversity to Balkanization

The PC crowd preaches constantly that "diversity" is our "strength." Horse hockey! There is no strength whatsoever when everyone is part of a group rather than being an individual. Strength comes from a common language and culture -- all of these "hyphenated" appellations are doing nothing to bring people together and doing everything to divide us. This is why we are fracturing as a society and devolving into a balkanized country.

Our unofficial motto E pluribus unum, from Latin means, "Out of many, one." What is happening with "diversity" is the exact opposite. We are no longer a "melting pot." Take for example the so-called "Black Lives Matter" movement. To the people that have bought into the lie that Michael Brown was some "gentle giant" gunned down by a policeman while he had his hands up, it is only black lives that matter. The BLM folks have shut down political rallies by interrupting speakers. Democrat Martin O'Malley was booed and basically told that he was a "racist" for saying that "all lives matter". Huh? BLM has had some very sorry moments since then, with members chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". A spokesman later tried to claim they were just being "playful" with the police. Right…and I suppose that Iranians chanting "Death to America" are simply being playful as well. As a number of others have said, perhaps BLM should change the name of their group to "black lies matter."

There does seem to be one "group" of people that the PC crowd doesn't extend its' sympathies to, and that would be Christians. Kim Davis, the (Kentucky) Rowan county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples based on her strongly held religious convictions, is now in jail for contempt of court. The gleeful gay activists are ecstatic, claiming "Love won." No, tyranny won. The first amendment of the constitution guarantees religious liberty, and the fact that Ms. Davis is a "government" employee does not strip her of those constitutional protections. Neither the state of Kentucky, nor its citizens ever approved same-sex marriage. No, that matter was decided for over 300 million of us by five lawyers in robes. The case had no business going to the USSC and should have been left to the states. The majority of the justices -- especially Anthony Kennedy -- seemed to believe their ruling would not impact religious liberty. The rest of us (including the USSC minority opinion), knew differently and now we have our proof with the incarceration of Kim Davis. Christians have been despised by the PC crowd for some time, but now the real persecution has begun -- all in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance." Funny how those who constantly call for "tolerance" are only tolerant of those who agree with them.

Millions of Americans from all backgrounds have been witnessing the destruction of our once great nation through the insidious evil known as "political correctness" for some time. They are from all races and are male and female -- and they are part of the workforce and they work in the home -- and they have been saying exactly what Donald Trump has been daring to say that no other politician will. The establishment GOP -- the smarmy Jeb Bush types along with their equally smarmy George Will-type of pundits who are allegedly bought and paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- are both frightened and flummoxed by Donald Trump. The hard Left Democrats who support mass illegal immigration so they can continue to grow the federal government and increase their voter base by playing the "victim" card with their groupthink -- are equally frightened. You know what? They should be.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved