▶️ VDH: THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE NEW ANTISEMITISM
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VDH: THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE NEW ANTISEMITISM
jjj
ew predicted blaming Israel and the Jews who support Israel would flare up in the early 21st Century; and in America of all places, where there are nearly as many Jews as there are in Israel.
After all, Israel is the only consensual society in the Middle East. It holds regular elections and maintains tripartite judicial, executive, and legislative checks and balances.
Free speech is found in the Middle East only in Israel, where religious apostasy, criticism of one’s own country, gender equity, and tolerance of gays are guaranteed in marked contrast to all its neighbors.
It was once common knowledge Israel survived the huge numbers of its enemies because its tiny population was better educated, freer, more adept at Western technology, more tolerant of dissent; and because it enjoyed the goodwill and bipartisan support of the United States.
True, the recent affluence of the Gulf States has presented a thin veneer of Westernism which has fooled many in the new anti-Israel media. But just because Qatar did not censor a celebrity newsman’s broadcast from Doha does not mean Qatar is a free society. After all, no Western journalist would dare schedule a broadcast from Qatar with a Qatari who had condemned the regime for its intolerance or announced his religious apostasy from Islam.
So why and how did millions of Americans come to express hatred for Israel and, albeit more subtly, the Jews who support it? There are four converging fronts in this perfect storm.
✪ Demographics
First, in demographic terms, the US Muslim population is expanding exponentially; due almost entirely to recent immigration and higher birth rates than the American norm (e.g., 2.5–8 versus 1.6–1.7).
There are now nearly five million Muslim Americans. These numbers are anticipated by 2030 to surpass the Jewish American population.
Moreover, increasing numbers of Jews are not just secular or intermarried but no longer identify so strongly as Jewish, much less as supporters of Israel. More importantly, billions of dollars in the last few years from the Gulf states; primarily Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, have flowed into American universities.
These enormous sums bankroll weaponized Middle East studies programs and enrich left-wing NGOs, nonprofits, and sympathetic politicians. The new antisemites talk nefariously of the money of “International Jewry,” and “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” but in truth, Gulf money dwarfs Israel’s lobbying budget.
An entire generation of young American elites has been groomed in universities to despise Israel and, by extension, to express hostility toward Jews. After October 7, the scab was torn away, revealing what had festered underneath for years.
Any visitor to a contemporary American campus who talks at length to protesting students quickly arrives at two general conclusions:
First, many have been taught to despise Israel and simply parrot the indoctrinated talking points of their professors; “apartheid, genocide, war crimes, settler colonialism,” and so on.
The result is that it is now “cool” on campus to trash Israel, utter the platitude that “hating Israel is not hating Jews,” and then either make life uncomfortable for Jewish students or remain silent when witnessing such harassment firsthand.
Second, today’s students know little to nothing of the modern Middle East. Most have no idea what the eliminationist slogan “From the River to the Sea” actually portends. Few anti-Israeli demonstrators could identify either the Jordan River or the Mediterranean Sea, much less distinguish between them. Yet all understand that chanting the hip and approved slogans earns social acceptance in and outside the classroom.
✪ DEI
The DEI binary fuels both anti-Israel and anti-Jewish animus. In this Marxist moral schema, the world abroad; and within the United States, is divided into “white oppressors” and “nonwhite victims,” despite the fact people commonly classified as white comprise only a small minority of the global population. The dichotomy is reductive and often absurd, collapsing immense differences in class, wealth, power, culture, and historical circumstance into a crude racial narrative. Instead, in this paradigm, superficial appearance—including something as trivial as adding accents to names or adopting some sort of virtue-signaling head dress or garb—can brand one as a nonwhite victim. Once so identified, the supposedly oppressed are granted collective grievances against their victimizers and, increasingly, exemptions from censure.
Thus, DEI offers a pass from charges of antisemitism on the theory that the oppressed cannot themselves become oppressors. Muslim students on American campuses were often graphic in their chants and placards wishing deaths upon Israelis, unapologetic in roughing up Jewish students, and confident—often correctly— their purported victimhood exempted them from consequences.
The idea that minorities cannot be antisemites is, of course, not new. For example, graphic antagonism toward Jews; long at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement has long been expressed by prominent black leaders with little downside (e.g., Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “dem Jews” Jesse Jackson: “Hymietown” Al Sharpton: “diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights” Malcolm X: “bloodsuckers” Louis Farrakhan: “termites” and “gutter religion”).
Thus, Jews in America found themselves classified among the whitest and most privileged of the oppressor class, perhaps by virtue of their material success, while Israel abroad was deemed a white colonialist settler state because it repeatedly defeated neighboring enemies.
Key to the DEI demonization of the Jews has been the diminution of the horrors of the Holocaust to ensure Jews are excluded from the victim side of the ledger. The murder of six million had once been a principal reason for many to support the idea of an independent sanctuary in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Downplaying the Holocaust; or treating it as irrelevant or understandable, therefore calls postwar Zionism into question.
When Tucker Carlson declared that the unpublished podcaster Daryl Cooper was the preeminent historian of World War II, his praise rested neither on Cooper’s comprehensive scholarly work (there was none), nor bestselling popular accounts of the war (there were none), nor distinguished public lectures, seminar classes, or journal articles on the war (there were none).
Instead, the reason for such hagiography was that Cooper, in his podcast, had downplayed the Holocaust in narratives of the war, whitewashed Germany, and cited a nefarious, shadowy group of you-know-who for pushing supposedly naïve or sinister leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt into an aggressive and unwarranted war against a supposedly victimized Hitler and Nazi Germany.
✪ From Underdog To Overdog
Third, Israel is no longer the Israel of 1947, 1956, 1967, or 1973, nor the Israel mired in the various Lebanon and Intifada quagmires which have followed.
In the early 21st Century, Benjamin Netanyahu helped open the Israeli economy and foster a meritocratic, free-market boom. Only oil-rich Qatar and the UAE surpass Israel in regional per capita income.
Its military, honed over generations of warfare, has become more capable than those of France, Germany, or the UK in key areas, especially combat aviation, the number of combat aircraft, and pilot quality. In short, tiny underdog Israel; surrounded by hundreds of millions of aggressive Muslims, has somehow been recast as the settler “overdog” bully. With a mere 18 percent of collective Arab GDP and outnumbered 50,000 to one, Israel is depicted as poised to carve out a “Greater Israel” from the impotent but simultaneously more virtuous and richer Arab Middle East.
October 7 and its aftermath, counterintuitively, accelerated the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hatred. If Israel had not responded to the massacre, the new anti-Israel cohort would have claimed their inaction was a passive admission of prior guilt for which the attack was merely partial payment.
Yet once Israel moved to destroy Hamas, it was branded genocidal. Early Israeli calls for Gazans to turn over the planners and perpetrators of the massacre were dismissed by the Palestinians as absurd or unserious—mere jest. Few in the West called on the Palestinians to surrender their mass murderers.
Yet few of Israel’s critics could ever explain exactly what the Jewish state was supposed to do after suffering mass murder in peacetime from an enemy that had abducted more than 240 hostages—to the cheers of most Gazans.
How was the IDF—or any army—supposed to descend into a billion-dollar, booby-trapped labyrinth of tunnels, its exits and entries hidden beneath schools, private homes, mosques, and hospitals, to free hostages and kill terrorists while the media effectively shilled for Hamas?
✪ The New Jacobin Agenda
Hating Israel; and by association, Jews, was voiced not merely by DEI or the radical new wing of the Democrat Party. Anti-Israelism instead merged into a broader leftist potpourri of open borders, illegal immigration, anti-ICE violence, Green New Deal-style wokism, and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
These causes came to be viewed as an inseparable package whose elements were interconnected and tolerated no apostasy from any of them.
Thus, Jacobinism became an all-or-nothing litmus test. As a result, even though Totenkopf tattoos might have been the last thing seen by Jews as they were herded by the tens of thousands into the gas chambers, such Satanic iconography scrawled into the flesh was apparently no longer disqualifying for a Democrat Senate nominee in Maine.
For figures like Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or Chuck Schumer to forcefully challenge hatred of Israel; and by extension, of the Jews—would now be treated as political heresy, a career-ending death wish. Defending Israel and calling out antisemitism became as unfashionable in progressive circles as praising secure borders, deportations, or fossil fuels and pipelines. And so the old party largely kept mum and sanctioned the new loathing.
As for conservative podcasters and internet influencers who now seem unrecognizable from what they had professed only months or years earlier, many had grown tired of being ostracized from popular culture and the establishment hallmarks of media and entertainment.
How else to explain their sudden hatred of Trump for the current Iran war, or his support for Israel, when the remaining 90 percent of his agenda has matched their own life-long conservative views, and were antithetical to the Left they now sometimes court?
However, once figures like Candace Owens or a newly radicalized Tucker Carlson became fixated on the Jews, the Left found them useful as both shields and validators. Their rhetoric suggested that virulent anti-Israelism was not merely a left-wing fixation but something shared across the political spectrum.
The more such figures received establishment tolerance—or even praise and social acceptance—like addicts, the madder and louder they became until they were very nearly indistinguishable from the leftists they had so long warned about. Thus, Carlson, a once eloquent conservative, came full circle and effectively rationalized the idea of allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb. That notion, after all, was the subtext of Obama’s Iran Deal and his morally neutral idea of a powerful Tehran-Damascus-Beirut-Gaza axis to balance moderate Arab regimes and Israel.
The Left praised these new right-wing opponents of Israel, as if they were Liz Cheneys—who were not so bad after all. Such praise from the corridors of cultural influence and power apparently was seen as welcome shelter from the prior left-wing hailstorms that had pelted them for years.
The final irony? The only meaningful resistance to the anti-Israel crowd is not the DEI coalition, not the new Democrat Party, not the coastal and credentialed and supposedly enlightened left-wing white elite, not the supposedly “character is destiny” Never Trumpers, and certainly not the allegedly brave mavericks who have bolted from the MAGA base.
Instead, what is left in the pathway of demonizing Israel and blaming Jews, here and abroad, is the supposed bigot Donald Trump and his “irredeemable, deplorable” MAGA movement; is for now, the last dam holding back the rising flood. ✪
▶️ JB SHURK: BRITAIN IS THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
JB SHURK: BRITAIN IS THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE
ddd
he United Kingdom’s recent elections were a bloodbath for the Establishment political parties and a resounding success for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. UK voters are furious with their “ruling elites.” Because these were local elections, though, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party remains in control of the national government. Therefore, the election results will likely prove symbolically seismic yet practically anemic.
Starmer insists on rejecting the democratic will of Brexit voters and reintegrating the U.K. with the European Union. The “ruling elite’s” hostility toward British citizens’ desire for national sovereignty will produce many unsavory outcomes, including a likely surge of foreign migrants resettling in the U.K. Whereas the local elections have been correctly interpreted as an expression of the public’s overwhelming opposition to mass migration of foreigners into their communities, Starmer’s Labour Party will exacerbate the problem.
Ever since voters chose to leave the E.U. back in 2016, the U.K.’s political Establishment (Conservative and Labour) has undermined the effort. It took four years to negotiate a “divorce” which ended up looking more like a temporary separation. Many of the most important issues for British citizens; including the reimplementation of sovereign decision-making over economic, regulatory, and immigration policies, were almost immediately watered-down, skirted through legal workarounds, or outright ignored.
Ten years ago, the Brits tried to take their country back from the globalists who use all national homelands as little more than junkyards for spare parts, plantations for slave labor, or dumping grounds for unwanted migrants. As the globalists have remained in control of the national and international institutions, however, they simply bided their time and hollowed out the substance of the people’s vote until the consequential referendum became Brexit-in-name-only. The will of ordinary voters proved insufficient to overcome the political and economic power of bureaucratic armies — especially when those armies are funded in perpetuity by the very taxpayers who oppose them.
The U.K.’s local elections, then, should be seen as part of the rolling tug-of-war between citizens and “ruling class” bureaucrats over the last decade. Regular Brits have done everything they can to pull their country back from the globalist abyss into which Establishment “elites” wish to drag all nations. They have voted, protested, expressed themselves online, and marched through the streets. In turn, the U.K.’s “ruling class” has ignored voters, criminalized protest as “hate speech,” censored online debate, and defamed marchers as “far-right fascists.”
To make matters immeasurably worse, the political Establishment has been exposed as a complicit partner in a decades-long Islamic rape gang scandal that has destroyed families across the U.K. While covering up the heinous crimes of foreign nationals abusing, raping, and murdering British girls, the “ruling class” directs police forces to intimidate and silence any British citizens discussing these important public safety matters online or at protest rallies. In other words, the British Establishment takes the side of foreign criminals and has betrayed the British family.
The “elites” have spent the last decade undermining the spirit of self-government while simultaneously puffing out their chests and pretending to be arch-defenders of “democracy.” Where do things go from here? Well, as President Kennedy warned, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” It is worth noting a growing chorus of British scholars, military veterans, and foreign policy professionals are stating emphatically: The United Kingdom is headed for civil war.
As the combustible U.K. is a canary in the coal mine for the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States, it is important to see Britain’s suicide with clear eyes.
Until WWII, the United Kingdom was the largest empire that the world has known. It stretched across a quarter of the planet’s landmass and included a quarter of the planet’s population. It was the industrial powerhouse of the Nineteenth Century and was regarded as the “workshop of the world.” British naval power controlled the oceans and dominated global commerce. In the late 1800s, the U.K. produced roughly 30% of the whole planet’s industrial output and 25% of global trade. The United States did not economically surpass Britain until the third year of WWI. London banks financed projects on every continent, and the British pound sterling remained the world reserve currency until after WWII.
Today, the U.K. produces next to nothing. Its mines are closed. Its valuable North Sea oil and gas fields remain untapped. The U.K.’s largest steelworks shut down its final furnace two years ago, and now the British government is scrambling to nationalize the historic British Steel currently controlled by the Chinese. With regard to the potential takeover of the plant, Prime Minister Starmer said, “Strong nations in a world like this need to make steel.” You think?
How did the British Government allow Chinese communists to take control of a vital national industry? Three simple (and infuriating) reasons: (1) China’s centralized economy has flooded the globe with cheap steel (sold at a loss) as a form of economic warfare that bankrupts companies all over the world. (2) Britain’s insane “green energy” policies forced British steelmakers to pay much more for energy than Chinese steelworks. (3) Britain’s suicidal “green energy” policies forced British steelmakers to “upgrade” their plants to electric arc furnaces, which, coincidentally enough, Chinese companies have been happy to build by taking advantage of “green credits” from the British Government.
This kind of mentality is how you lose an empire and never win it back. Through irrational, unscientific, and economically suicidal “green energy” policies, the British Government destroyed its industrial self-sufficiency, handed over its physical capital to China’s Government, and actually paid the Chinese with taxpayer funds. You cannot remain a nation when you are paying other nations to defeat you in battle. Yet this kind of buffoonery has dominated all of Europe in the present century.
You cannot be a great country without a self-sufficient economy. This is the only discipline in our world where the subject of “diversity” should be greeted with seriousness, not snickering. For a nation to protect its people’s futures, it must be economically diverse enough to provide for its people’s needs. It must strive to strengthen its industrial backbone, broaden its manufacturing capacity, encourage technological innovation, and foster small-business entrepreneurship. An industrious, ingenious domestic labor force produces national wealth. Diversify a national economy to the point that your country competes in every available market, and you can make your country immune from hostile takeovers.
Instead, the U.K. has chosen the path to subjugation and serfdom. The British Government would rather depend upon Chinese slave labor than British labor. It would rather depend upon Chinese electronics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and steel than produce those critical products at home. It would rather depend upon China’s coal plants to keep import prices down than use its own valuable oil and natural gas fields to power the nation.
Banking fees, insider trading, and currency manipulation can artificially elevate a country’s ostensible economic outlook for decades. Eventually, however, if a nation mines nothing and makes nothing, its balance sheets will show nothing but debt. If a nation uses foreign workers abroad and foreign workers at home to perform all the jobs that its people require, citizens will have nothing but debt, too.
Poor nations whose people share a common culture can endure great suffering and remain united. Nations divided by many cultures approach suffering as a feeding frenzy wherein every tribe fights to survive. Britain survived the hardships of WWII because it was a united nation. After a century of mass immigration, it will not survive the next war.
To anybody in the West who wishes to avoid the United Kingdom’s fate: Pay attention. What happens there will happen everywhere. Replacing globalism with national self-sufficiency is a life or death decision. Choose accordingly. ✪
▶️ CALIFORNIA & THE LOGIC OF PATHOCRACY
CALIFORNIA & THE LOGIC OF PATHOCRACY
hhh
ndrzej M. Łobaczewski wrote under the crushing pressure of Nazi and Communist rule, which is why his book, Political Ponerology, still carries such disturbing force. He was not writing as a pampered theorist amusing himself with abstractions; he was trying to understand how political Evil takes hold, how it spreads, and how a society that is mostly normal can come to be ruled by something profoundly abnormal. He coined the term “Pathocracy” to describe a system in which a pathological minority gains power over a society of normal people, then proceeds to deform institutions, language, and public life in its own image. That idea sounds extreme until one looks carefully at California.
“If an individual in a position of political power is a psychopath, he or she can create an epidemic of psychopathology in people who are not, essentially, psychopathic.”
—Andrzej M. Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.
The standard criticism of California is by now familiar enough: too much regulation, too much taxation, too much bureaucracy, too much ideological grandstanding, too much crime, too much homelessness, too much disorder disguised as compassion. All of that is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There is a deeper pathology at work, one that helps explain not only the state’s endless dysfunction, but its eerie indifference to the consequences of that dysfunction. California’s ruling class has created a perniciously hostile environment for corporations, investors, employers, and productive enterprise, then responded to their departure with a shrug, a slogan, or another round of sanctimony. It is precisely that indifference which is the real scandal.
A healthy polity treats the flight of capital, institutions, and jobs as a warning. A healthy government asks what it has done wrong when major companies leave, when plants close, when employers relocate, when entrepreneurs decide they would rather build elsewhere. California’s governing class behaves in a completely different manner. It seems almost serenely indifferent to the exodus, as though productive enterprise were vaguely embarrassing, as though the departure of businesses were merely the clearing away of lesser souls too unenlightened to appreciate the moral grandeur of Sacramento. That is not normal political stubbornness; rather, it exposes a deeper moral deformation.
Łobaczewski warned not only about rulers, but about what he called the lesser pedagogues of society, the self-anointed moral instructors who flatter themselves as guardians of higher values while steadily deforming the public mind. Every pathocratic system requires such a class. It requires activists, bureaucrats, media sermonizers, academic scolds, nonprofit moralists, and professional flatterers to prepare the atmosphere. California is thick with them; in fact, thicker than the smog in Los Angles on a hot summer’s day. They speak ceaselessly of compassion, inclusion, sustainability, dignity, and justice, while presiding over policies that drive out employers, hollow out confidence, degrade public order, and make ordinary life more expensive, more unstable, and more absurd. While the language remains lofty; the effects are constantly deleterious.
One of the most revealing signs of this pathology is the state’s instinctive hostility toward exposure. A healthy system, when confronted with evidence of fraud or corruption, feels shame and moves toward correction; while a diseased one does the exact opposite. It resents the light; it attacks the exposer; it treats the very revelation itself as the crime. The compulsion is to shoot the messenger for the message. That is what makes the recent controversy over legislation derisively dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” so telling. Whatever the technical defenses offered for the bill, and whatever pieties are recited on its behalf, the political instinct behind it is impossible to miss: California increasingly appears more disturbed by the exposure of corruption than by the corruption itself. That is classic pathocratic behavior: The truth-teller becomes the problem because he disrupts the equilibrium of concealment.
This is how such a system sustains itself: through moral inversion, through the steady training of the public to regard vice as virtue and scrutiny as malice. The state smiles while it lies. It moralizes while it evades and performs empathy while permitting decay, while its leaders perfect the manner of concern while remaining strikingly untouched by the wreckage around them. Gavin Newsom’s political style embodies this tendency impeccably. He is not dangerous because he is coarse or crude; instead, he is dangerous precisely because he is polished, charming, glib, and seemingly incapable of embarrassment. He is the perfect losenger for a diseased order, whispering reassurance while the structure beneath him rots.
Meanwhile the practical verdict keeps arriving: major corporations leave, headquarters move, plants close, investment seeks saner ground. The pattern is no longer anecdotal, it is structural, and the state has become so punitive toward enterprise, so suffocating in its regulations, so unstable in its priorities, and so open in its contempt for the productive class that departure increasingly looks like prudence. Yet instead of self-examination, California offers moral theater; instead of reform, it offers posturing and in lieu of serious correction, it gives us hugger-mugger politics—opaque maneuver, bureaucratic concealment, furtive excuses, and the usual pious fog of obfuscation.
One begins to see what Łobaczewski meant: A pathocracy does not merely govern badly, it changes the emotional and moral atmosphere in which governance takes place. It normalizes manipulativeness while rewarding shamelessness, and creates a class of ambodexter operators who can play every side at once—pro-business in private, anti-business in policy; compassionate in speech, callous in effect; institutional in tone, revolutionary in consequence. The public is expected to admire the performance and ignore the results, while the more obvious the failure becomes, the more theatrical the language grows.
That is why the business exodus matters so much. This is not just an economic statistic, it is a moral verdict on the regime. Corporations do not leave states for sport and investors do not move capital out of sentimentality, and employers do not uproot operations because they suddenly developed an irrational dislike for sunshine. They leave because the environment has become hostile to creation, growth, continuity, and ordinary economic sanity. They leave because the ruling class has made clear, in a thousand petty ways, that enterprise is tolerated only so long as it can be milked, scolded, regulated, and politically humiliated.
What makes California especially dangerous is that the people running it appear not merely mistaken, but insulated from the normal corrective mechanisms of shame, loss, and consequence. They do not seem chastened by failure nor sobered by the departure of employers or the visible decline of cities. The spreading sense that the state is becoming unlivable for anyone without ideological protection or extraordinary wealth does not set off any alarms. Instead, they simply move to the next phrase, the next performance, the next nickum of legislative manipulation, the next moralistic press release explaining why what everyone can see must not be named for what it is.
In a sane political order, this would be recognized as a danger sign. Government exists to preserve the conditions under which society can flourish; it does not exist to conduct moral pageants while driving away the institutions that make prosperity possible. It does not exist to wrap self-inflicted decline in righteous language nor to punish exposure and reward pretense. When a state becomes hostile to truth, hostile to enterprise, and indifferent to the flight of value, it is no longer merely misgoverned; it has begun, however, to take on the features of a system that has lost contact with reality.
That is the core of the California diagnosis. The problem is not one bad policy here or there; the problem is a ruling culture that increasingly displays the traits Łobaczewski identified in pathocratic systems: manipulation, moral inversion, hostility to truth-tellers, institutional concealment, and an almost clinical indifference to the human consequences of failure. Under such conditions, decline is not an accident; it is the very manifestation of the system’s inner fetid character.
The question, then, is whether Californians are willing to name the pathology? That is always the first step: A diseased order survives partly because people remain afraid to describe it accurately. Instead, they settle for euphemism and blame abstractions. Instead of confronting the harsh truths, they speak of challenges, complexity, transition, or unfortunate outcomes. They rebuff the inescapable reality: that a governing class can become so psychologically and morally deformed that it no longer responds to reality as a healthy political class should. California is not there by misfortune; it has been led there by injurious and pernicious individuals.
If the state still possesses a healthy instinct for self-preservation, the exodus of companies would have triggered a sobering reevaluation, the attack on those who expose corruption would have been recognized as disgraceful, and the widening public loss of confidence would have provoked humility. In its place, there is only more spin, more manipulation, more bureaucratic aggression, more ornamental compassion, more political theater. That is why Łobaczewski remains useful to comprehend this perilous malady. He understood that some systems become so warped they no longer merely commit errors; they defend error as identity.
A healthy polity corrects itself when confronted by truth; while a pathocratic one retaliates against revelation and continues on the well-worn path to economic and social collapse. ✪
▶️ GOOD VS EVIL: CHOOSE A SIDE
GOOD VS EVIL: CHOOSE A SIDE
rrr
300-page report, “Silenced No More,” from an investigation led by Dr. Cochav Elkayam-Levy, was released this week, compiling over 430 testimonies from 52 countries, plus 1,800 hours of photos and videos, detailing the savage butchery committed by the terrorism group Hamas during the October 7, 2023, attack in Israel. The report documents patterns of systematic torture, sexual abuse, mass murder, and other war crimes so depraved and barbaric that the civilized Western mind simply cannot fathom them.
I’m not accustomed to citing the UK’s Daily Mail as a voice of moral authority, but the outlet had the moral and spiritual clarity to post this today about the report:
“The sadistic sexual violence unleashed by Hamas against men, women and even children on Oct 7 shows that it wasn’t about history or land but pure hatred and evil.” [Emphasis added] Let’s see a mainstream media source like the New York Times or The View have the cojones to say that.
Hatred and evil. There it is – the truth about the enemies the West faces today, both internal and external. They are driven by a demonic; and I use that word intentionally and literally, lust for chaos, a hatred for civilizational order, beauty, and truth. Some have deluded themselves into believing that their motives are righteous and well-intentioned, and will lead to utopian equity; some believe fervently that their “god is greater” and the world must be brought under theocratic rule by any means necessary. Some simply want to watch the world burn. The result is the same: wanton, gleeful destruction of the only true civilization the world has known; mass misery and death; and a nightmarish landscape of terror and torment that rivals any hellish vision by Hieronymus Bosch. The result, in other words, is evil.
What is evil? Christian theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Boethius have agreed that evil has no nature of its own; it is an absence of good, a willful turning away from God. It is a shadow, parasitic of light. In practice, this means profound cruelty, man’s inhumanity to man, a metaphysical malevolence so dark and bottomless that ordinary people shrink from it in horror.
To be clear: evil is hardly the sole domain of one side of the political fence. It can inhabit individuals of any color, sex, political persuasion, or religious belief. As Solzhenitsyn once put it, the line between good and evil runs straight through every human heart. And psychologists may prefer less highly-charged terms to describe people who commit unconscionable acts, but evil is as evil does.
If you were and are one of the useful idiots worldwide who marched and protested and rioted in support of Hamas in the wake of that October slaughter, calling for the eradication of Israel “from the river to the sea” and defiantly chanting, “You don’t get to choose how we resist,” then you were and are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil.
If you are in a position of political authority and facilitate the Islamization of society while repressing and demonizing law-abiding citizens who object to being subjected to a two-tier system of justice and demographic replacement, then you are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil.
If you are law enforcement arresting random street preachers or people who are praying silently in the vicinity of an abortion clinic, while you protect mobs of fighting-age Muslim males who take over public squares and streets to pray in displays of supremacist dominance, then you are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil.
If you celebrate the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, cackle about making a meme of it, crack sick jokes about it among your celebrity friends, and exploit it as a conspiracy theory for social media clout, then you are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil.
If you openly lament multiple failed assassination attempts against the United States President, wish for assassins with better aim, and fantasize about persecuting your political opponents once you seize power again, then you are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil. The same applies if you hail as a folk hero a man who shot a healthcare CEO in the back because his ideology dehumanized the victim.
If you believe that people with disordered sexual desires should be allowed to purchase children to show off as little triumphs in their war on the family, or you believe it’s acceptable for doctors to medically mutilate children who were indoctrinated by adults trying to subvert the natural order, or if you believe unborn children are simply dispensable clumps of cells that you can discard when inconvenient, then you are an enemy of civilization and complicit in evil.
These are just a handful of ways in which civilizational hatred and evil are manifesting themselves in our time.
The conflict in which we are engaged today is not merely political, nor cultural, nor legal, though all those are important arenas in which the battle is being waged. At its heart, the conflict is one of spiritual warfare. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood,” to cite Ephesians 6:
“but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Recognizing this is necessary for understanding that, as the Daily Mail noted, we are not pitted only in a struggle over history or land or political office or economic issues, but in an existential struggle with evil.
It is necessary for understanding with whom it is we are at war, how to fight, and what the consequences will be for losing or surrendering.
So put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to withstand evil in our day, and having given the fight your all, to stand against evil and prevail. ✪
▶️ THE VICTIMS OF VICTIMHOOD
THE VICTIMS OF VICTIMHOOD
ggg
n 1964, former President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty.” He warned it “will not be a short or easy struggle,” but that “the richest Nation on earth can afford to win it.”
He was right that it wouldn’t be a short or easy struggle. Johnson and Congress created a host of new Federal programs, including the Job Corps, Head Start and the Office of Economic Opportunity. His “Great Society” programs also included Medicare and Medicaid. In 1965, he signed a housing bill which included rent subsidies.
Since then, it’s only grown from there. In 2022, the Cato Institute reported, “the Federal Government funds more than 100 separate anti-poverty programs.”
However, Johnson was wrong about two things. First, the U.S. couldn’t afford it. Government, at the Federal, state and local levels, has already spent more than $30 trillion fighting poverty & poverty still exists. For context, the current national debt is more than $39 trillion.
Second, the U.S. didn’t defeat poverty, which was already falling when he announced this effort. In 1960, the poverty rate was 22.2%. In 1964, it had dropped to 19%. By 1968, it was at 12.8%. For the next few decades, the rate was always within 3 percentage points, up or down, of 13%. In 2024, the poverty rate was 10.6%.
However, it is possible to defeat poverty. The key isn’t government money, but better individual choices.
As a new Institute for Family Studies report details, the key is for young people to reach three important milestones. First, they must graduate from high school. Second, they need to obtain a full-time job. Third, they need to marry before having children. Among those who have taken these steps; in that order, 97% “are not in poverty in their mid-30s, and 86% reach at least the middle class,” the report noted.
Notice something about those steps. The government can’t purchase them. They are choices each individual must make for themselves.
This should be thrilling news. There’s a surefire path out of poverty that’s entirely within one’s own control, outside of exceptional circumstances.
Yet, promoting this requires rejecting America’s decades-long approach to fighting poverty. In Johnson’s vision, poverty is the fault; and therefore the responsibility, of society. The poor are victims who must be helped. Critical Race Theory and intersectionality extend this idea even further. They claim the powerful victimize certain groups of people, leaving those individuals unable to improve themselves.
Think about how virtuous this narrative has made Johnson and subsequent generations of do-gooders feel. The poor are a helpless lot. They were doomed to forever wallow in misery and poverty; unless liberals generously give them other people’s money.
However, feeling good about your actions doesn’t mean your actions are doing any good. We have 50-plus years of evidence which show the Left’s approach to ending poverty doesn’t work.
Look at lottery winners. What could be a better cure for poverty than unexpectedly becoming a millionaire? Yet, around one-third of lottery winners eventually declare bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter if your income is $10,000 or $10 million; spending more than you make will cause financial problems.
What’s needed to escape poverty isn’t money, it’s a completely different set of values. The starting point is rejecting victimhood and making better choices, as the Success Sequence lays out.
Yet the system is designed so working full-time and getting married can significantly reduce government benefits. The government’s war on poverty has made it financially costly to take the first two of the steps which lead people out of poverty. If you want to see these absurdities painted in vivid detail, read Theodore Dalrymple’s book, “Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass.”
Ironically, the victims of victimhood are the very people the Left claims to be trying to help. ✪
▶️ GOOD RIDDANCE TO AWFUL THOMAS MASSIE
GOOD RIDDANCE TO AWFUL THOMAS MASSIE
fff
ext week, the people of the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky have a chance to punt that useless poser Thomas Massie through the goalposts of failure. Let’s hope they do. This ridiculous clown was merely a tiresome curiosity when the Republicans had a decent margin in the House; but then, he found himself with a little bit of heat because of the current small margin. And he made the best of it, through shameless lies and cringe-worthy self-promotion, going from marginal mediocrity to an active abscess on the buttocks of the party. It’s time to lance that boil.
Libertarians are useless at best, and it’s worse when they are active co-conspirators with the Democrats. There’s this idea that libertarians are actually Republicans who simply like dope, but that’s not so. They’re like that mythical creature we used to hear about in the ‘90s, the fiscally conservative but socially liberal voter who inevitably voted however the Democrats wanted. And that’s exactly what Massie does, though he tries to cloak it in the garments of principle. It’s unclear whether he’s ever actually passed any legislation of his own, though he’s always eager to propose bills; he’s unable to get anyone to join him. That’s because everybody hates him. That’s because he’s a jerk.
Before his wife sadly died young a couple of years ago, he was content to be a fringe weirdo with bad hair and no heat. Once she tragically passed away, he visited a hairstylist, married a leftist staffer 20 years his junior, and decided he needed to broaden his horizons, which meant helping the Democrats and shafting the GOP more openly than before.
And perhaps he became a player, too, at least according to a woman who said he tried to pay her 60 grand to shut up about their kinky affair. I don’t know if that is true or not, and I kind of doubt it for several reasons including that the idea of a schlub like Thomas Massie scoring is so inherently unbelievable. Still, the story is out there. The primary voters of the Kentucky 4th can decide for themselves whether this current scandal matters, but there are plenty of reasons to dump this loser besides unproven claims about his inability to satisfy a woman. You know, like being the ringmaster for the whole Epstein circus.
The Epstein affair, which rapidly became an idiotic moral panic and an IQ test that far too many people failed, was this guy’s claim to fame. Suddenly, this nobody was a somebody, appearing on all the regime shows and getting a bunch of press because of his courageous and principled stand. Just kidding. Principles had nothing to do with it. It was his willingness to attack fellow Republicans over the shakiest of shaky allegations. He didn’t care who he hurt with his lies. You’ll notice above that I carefully set forth that the claims against Massie himself are unproven and merely allegations. That’s because I’m not a scumbag who makes unqualified accusations against people when I don’t have proof that I find compelling. But Massie had no such compunctions. He was perfectly willing to go out and essentially argue that Donald Trump was the head of a pervert ring and claim that a whole bunch of other people were part of it, and that he had that information, and he was going to see the truth come out. And where is this truth? Nowhere. Nada. A big nothing. He didn’t expose anyone because it was all crap. It was all a lie. And he didn’t care.
And he still doesn’t care that he lies. Donald Trump wants to get rid of this dork and has endorsed Ed Gallrein in the primary. I’ve had a chance to interview Ed, and he’s a solid guy. A straightforward and strait-laced conservative who loves his country. Massie talks about how he’s principled and patriotic; yet he went on Tucker’s show, who has gone insane, and Tucker claimed this primary election will show whether a candidate who loves America can still win. And it will, but not in the way Tucker meant. Ed was a Navy SEAL captain, and he showed his love for America by fighting for it rather than posing for the cameras like Massie did back when the Epstein thing was politically useful and the regime media still paid attention to him.
He’s claiming Ed Gallrein supports Israel; and supposedly that’s bad, apparently because the Jews are responsible for Massie’s many failures. In any case, I’m not sure why he’s trying to make us support his opponent more with his claims that Ed will back our ally in the Middle East, but even a bad strategy is a kind of strategy. He also, hilariously, claims that Ed is some sort of trans-loving guy because one of Ed’s donors supposedly is. Here’s a shock. Brace yourself. You’re not going to believe this. That donor is Jewish.
But hey, Massie’s got his supporters. Ro Khanna is all for him. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez digs him. Jasmine Crockett backs him. And why not? He carries their water for them. He’s organ grinder Hakeem Jeffries’s little dancing monkey for whatever narrative they’re pushing that day. He’s never there when we need him. He wasn’t there for defeating our enemies, or sealing the borders, or the Big Beautiful Bill. He would’ve let your taxes go up. He would’ve kept people who live off tips paying taxes on them, and he would’ve told you it’s because of his rigorous dedication to whatever he’s dedicated to. That seems to change as his political needs change. But he’s consistent about one thing: his precious principles never help the Republicans, though he desperately wants to remain in the Republican Party so he has a chance of winning & keeping his bright-red district.
However, the truth is coming out. Thomas Massie is a Democrat simp posing as a principled rebel. Massie’s only principle is whatever benefits Thomas Massie at any given moment. He’s annoying, he’s a buffoon, and he’s grossly dishonest – I had an encounter with him on X over something a few months ago, and I don’t even remember what it was; I just remember how disingenuous he was. And now his constituents are learning the truth. Once upon a time, he was kind of amusing. But no one’s amused anymore. He needs to go.
And he should go next Tuesday. It will probably happen. The polls are all over the place, but Massie’s support is clustered among the young and dumb, who tend not to vote. Maybe it’s the pot that libertarians love. Maybe they’re just lazy. Maybe they’re afraid of the Jews. Who knows? But older, conservative patriots have had it up to here with Massie’s antics. Those are the folks who vote, and those are the folks who are going to support a proven patriot like Ed over a posturing political peacock like Massie.
Now, some folks question whether the GOP should spend money and effort on a Republican primary in a ruby-red district. Does this distract from taking the fight to the Democrats? No, not at all. Maintaining party discipline is absolutely part of what we must do, and this guy has not backed the party. He has backed himself at our expense, so we must spend time and effort taking him out. It is important to maintain good order and discipline, as military men like Ed Gallrein and I understand. It is not a distraction to deal with selfish creeps who hurt the organization. That is part of the job. So, it is good that Donald Trump is focusing on this race. It is good that we are spending money to replace a putz with a patriot. And it’s going to be great when Thomas Massie gets punted into political oblivion.
I look forward to seeing him on MS NOW or listening to his future podcast, “The Principled Loser Report with Thomas Massie.” ✪
▶️ THE PARTY’S OVER
THE PARTY’S OVER
ppp
he Democrat Party is facing such a host of seemingly intractable problems; structural, financial, legal, and ideological. And it will be close to a miracle if it survives after this year’s midterms. The below-deck shuffles; encouraging illegal alien votes, manipulating the census, making crooked voting almost impossible to check, and stuffing their pockets with illegal contributions through ActBlue and pay-to-play schemes of USAID and NGOs, are all suddenly being exposed and blocked.
✪ Empty Pockets: The Laundromat Is Closed
Running a modern political campaign requires astronomical amounts of money. For years, Democrats relied on two massive funding streams: small-dollar digital donations via ActBlue, and a sprawling network of government-funded NGOs. Both are now collapsing.
Last month, the Washington Post reported the Democratic National Committee is facing a massive cash crunch as “top donors have been slow to open their wallets.” The DNC had assured party officials that their resounding 15-point victory in the Virginia governor’s race would open the floodgates. “But big checks did not flood back,” leaving DNC Chairman Ken Martin presiding over a financial and leadership crisis.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has taken a sledgehammer to the NGO complex. DOGE first targeted USAID, leading to the elimination of over 5,000 programs. These programs were rife with fraud and political grift, with taxpayer money flowing through dizzying arrays of cut-out corporations to Democrat coffers. Musk bluntly explained, “This is one of the biggest sources of fraud in the world; government-funded NGOs.”
The broader recent crackdowns on Medicare fraud, autism services, hospice and daycare funding are systematically cutting off the Federal spigot that has long nourished progressive advocacy groups and political operatives. The “blue laundromat” is being condemned, and the DNC is suddenly discovering that running a political party requires actual money and real fundraising, which tends to be harder than making backroom deals with Somalian cartels.
However, the RNC has no debt: and as of March, has almost $117 million in surplus cash on hand. The DNC has about $13.9 million cash on hand, but with $18.4 million in debts/loans owed. (By my arithmetic, that means the DNC is broke and faces a significant disadvantage in November.)
✪ An Honest Census
The 2020 Census seriously miscounted the population. The Obama administration “scrambled real population data and distorted political representation:”
▶️ 33 Minutes 23 Seconds
“The combination of illegal alien apportionment, flawed censuses, and unconstitutional racially gerrymandered districts created an artificial 40-plus House seats for Democrats.” and the overthrow of the U.S. government in 2020.”
Meaning: Unless Democrats can segregate congressional districts based on race, count illegal aliens in the census, and end requirements to show an ID to vote, they are obsolete — dead and gone. By the way, they admitted it because they got caught.
Add to an honest accounting the fact that blue states are hemorrhaging residents who are fleeing to red states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, and you can see where the power shift leads.
✪ A Gerontocracy & An Odd Assemblage of Disparate Factions
The party’s leaders are increasingly old and clinging to ideas that have proven unworkable and unpopular. The party’s central theme is opposition to Trump in everything, even the privately financed, long-needed ballroom. Sure, some of their fans and consultants have warned them to become more values-oriented; and given the president’s continued victories across the board, that’s sage advice. But they can’t take it, as Childers details:
They are currently trapped in a perfect storm of intersecting, overlapping, cannibalistic calamities, each feeding and feeding off the others. Democrats core problem is that their party has become an “odd coalition” of wildly divergent interest groups united by only one thing: opposition to Donald Trump. The so-called “No Kings” movement is the problem’s purest expression. No Kings is a hot mess of a tire fire, a janky collection of unrelated grievance groups, united only by deliberately vague policy positions— because articulating any specific proposal would immediately expose that half the coalition actively despises the other half. [snip] Recent polling by the Manhattan Institute confirmed the disconnect. The Democrat party is essentially three blocs: Moderates (47%), Progressive Liberals (37%), and a “Woke Fringe” (11%). The median Democrat actually wants border security and safe streets, but the party is held hostage by the 11% who think math is racist, there’s an infinite number of genders, and Karl Marx was on the right track but just didn’t try hard enough.
Sensible voters want secure borders, effective policing, and men kept out of women’s bathrooms. The party can advocate for none of these without losing the fringe 11% essential to their present hodge-podge of support. And don’t even hint that they should support what the vast majority want; honest, accountable election systems, because for decades their viability depends on chaotic, crookedly run ones.
The Virginia and U.S. Supreme Courts this week just compounded the Party’s problems. Briefly, Virginia’s governor, Abigail Spanberger, in clear contradiction to her campaign promises, tried to put over a lobster-shaped gerrymander of the state to turn her party’s 6-5 district advantage into a ten-seat one. In doing so, she bypassed the independent redistricting commission, rushed a dishonestly worded constitutional amendment after over a million Virginians had already voted, and established procedures in clear violation of the state’s constitution. In doing so and defending their action in court, the Virginia Democrats blew in the neighborhood of $70 million dollars at a time when, as I have explained above, the party coffers were quite bare. The state court threw out the redistricting. The Virginia Supreme Court decision is not subject to U.S. Supreme Court review as Bill Shipley so clearly explains:
In the meantime, some Republican states, inspired by this attempted grab, decided they’d redistrict before the midterms, too.
In a sloppy pleading that misspelled both “Attorney” and “Virginia,” the state seeks to undo the state court ruling. I can’t imagine they will succeed in that.
Adding to the Democrats’ troubles, the Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act did not compel the creation of majority-minority districts; and in fact, the Constitution banned creating districts based on race. The combination of Spanberger’s aggressive and illegal play and the clarification of the VRA spurred more Republican states to redistrict, and Republicans may enter November with an eight-seat advantage. (The Cook Report projects Republicans will net +8 House seats from redistricting alone. To win in November, the Democrats will need to flip 11 or more seats, which seems very unlikely.)
Pollster Frank Lutz seems to concede the Democrats have lost any usual midterm advantage:
The Republican wins may be locked in for 2026, but 2028 is another story. Democrats are already laying the groundwork to go scorched-earth. Republicans who so far haven’t budged over the last year may also hop in, especially the Southern states that don’t seem likely to redraw before November, like Georgia.
“It’s not over until it’s over,” said Adam Kincaid, the president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust who drew Texas’ map last summer.
On the horizon, the Democrats’ disadvantages may grow even more than they have already. The drive for voter IDs and restrictions on mail-in voting, as well as increased scrutiny of voter rolls and prosecution for election malfeasance, continues to build. Further, the Biden Administration turned off the fraud detection switch for four years, and we are promised that the billions of dollars fraudulently disbursed are being tracked down and the results made public.
✪ Gavin Newsom’s Brilliant New Strategy
Of course, in arguing that the Democrats are in something of a death spiral, I may have overlooked the genius of California’s governor. You’ve heard of the Roman plan to keep the populace on your side; give them bread and circuses. Gavin’s shrewd plan is to give them disposable diapers.
▶️ 14 Seconds
He plans to spend $20 million in taxpayer dollars to give 400 diapers to each of the 100,000 families with newborns. Math has always been very hard for Democrats. The state will be paying 8-10 times more by giving out diapers instead of giving people cash to buy the diapers themselves. On the other hand, doing it this way means Gavin’s and his wife’s friends will get their “beaks in,” as Tony Soprano would say. Give it to an NGO and pay its officers munificently for distributing the diapers — otherwise these friends of the Newsoms could profit only by arming themselves and holding up the 100,000 families buying diapers at Costco. ✪
▶️ HONDA’S EV FIASCO DRIVES FIRST EVER ANNUAL LOSS
HONDA’S EV FIASCO DRIVES FIRST EVER ANNUAL LOSS
sss
onda announced a 423.9 billion yen ($2.7 billion) loss Thursday in a first-ever negative result for the fabled Japanese automaker, reportedly driven by heavy costs & industry write offs for its electric vehicle plans underscored by President Donald Trump’s pro-U.S. manufacturing policies.
The Associated Press reported the longstanding automaker; established in 1948 by Soichiro Honda, conceded the dire losses related to its EV operations are estimated to total 2.5 trillion yen ($16 billion), incurred mostly in the fiscal year just ended and during the current fiscal year.
Analysts cited by the outlet detailed Honda Motor Co. plunged into an overly aggressive, EV dominant strategy when the market simply was not interested.
As a result, the Japanese carmaker has now abandoned many of its plans for EV models including those in the works in a joint venture with Sony Corporation as it seeks to find a way out of the financial hole it has dug for itself.
Put simply, Honda bet heavily on electric vehicles and that parlay went wrong. Badly wrong. “EV demand has declined considerably, due to the rollback of environmental regulations in the U.S. and other factors,” Honda said in a statement, seen by AP
The Trump Administration has also pulled back on incentive programs for EVs and withheld money to states wanting to add more EV charging stations.
Trump’s efforts to protect American jobs through tariffs on imported autos and auto parts: although lowered to 15 percent from the initial 25 percent, also worked to dent Honda’s profitability even as the rest of the world also continues to find EV’s do not live up to consumer expectations.
Chief Executive Toshihiro Mibe acknowledged the need to focus & work more on hybrid technology and regular gasoline-engine models, not just electric vehicles.
Honda is not alone in finding EV’s are being widely ignored in major world markets. As reported, Ford Motor Company announced a $5.1 billion loss in its electric vehicle and software business at the end of 2024.
At the same time Ford’s traditional gas-powered vehicles continue to perform well, generating sufficient revenue to keep the company profitable overall.
The Detroit automaker, which has poured billions of dollars into electrification along with most of its industry peers, said at the end of 2025 it will no longer make the F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck; instead opting for an extended range version of the vehicle. ✪
▶️ IS GOD USING COMMUNISM TO PUNISH US?
IS GOD USING COMMUNISM TO PUNISH US?
mmm
n this article, I would like to explore an idea which can be hard to confront. Namely, the question of whether God is allowing communism to flourish in America and the West as a way to teach us a lesson. To show us how life without God results in violence and catastrophe.
In his 1948 book Communism and the Conscience of the West, Bishop Fulton Sheen argues that Christianity and communism have similar world views. Christianity contains the truth about our lives, teaching us that love of God and neighbor, respecting the natural law, and the anticipation that we will have to battle real evil in this world. It is bluntly realistic. Communism is a distortion of Christianity. It makes the individual, in Sheen’s phrase, “a robot,” a slave to unstoppable historical and economic forces, which will result in utopia; if only after a lot of violence.
Yet both Christianity and Communism see the world as the spiritual battleground which it is. Sheen respects Communism more than he does liberalism; which seeks comfort and virtue without any real battle. Sheen writes:
“Though utopian and violent, Marxism reveals a better insight into the historical process than liberalism, which saw peace coming without a struggle and which denied that even a relative Easter of economic order would come without the Good Friday of self-sacrifice and effort.”
Sheen goes on to argue the Gospel for the last Sunday of Pentecost and the Gospel for the first Sunday of Advent are gospels of catastrophe; as they proclaim the final era of peace will not be ushered in until the final conflict between good and evil, when God shall come to judge the living and the dead and the new City of Peace will descend from the heavens. Sheen also points out how the Russians learned Marxism from German intellectuals:
As many a parent who educated his child in an extremely progressive school, where the child equated freedom with doing what he pleased, is now the parent who wants to know what to do with his recalcitrant, alcoholic, neurotic son, so the Western world that taught Russia some bad ideas may soon want to know how it can be saved from a country which learned is lesson all too well. A Freudian psychoanalyst cannot help the son, so neither politics nor economics can help the Western world, for the fault is deeper; the world is under the judgment of God and needs repentance.
Sheen writes:
“Though Babylon fell because it was very wicked, it was nonetheless God’s instrument for disciplining the people of Judah. Assyria was bestial, but to was the ‘rod and staff’ of God’s anger against the people of Israel.” In the West, “communism may be the instrument for the liquidation of a bourgeois civilization that has forgotten God.”
Those are extremely bracing words. They also ring true. Our bourgeois culture has all but forgotten God. One of the most famous ex-communists of the 20th Century was Whittaker Chambers, a Time magazine editor who revealed in 1948 State Department officer Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. When he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Chambers explained that he joined the communist party after he witnessed the destruction of Europe after World War I: “It seemed to me that a crisis had been reached in western civilization which society was not able to solve by the usual means.” Chambers then read Marx and Lenin. “They seemed to me to explain the nature of the crisis, and what to do about it.“
Normal, mainstream liberalism can not compare to the “totalizing” vision of communism. Chambers was once asked how a liberal “who made a real living” in America could ever become a communist. “The making of a good living does not necessarily blind a man to a critical period which he is passing through,” Chambers replied. “Such people, in fact, may feel a special insecurity and anxiety. They seek a moral solution in a world of moral confusion. Marxism-Leninism offers an oversimplified explanation of the causes and a program for action. The very vigor of the project particularly appeals to the more or less sheltered middle-class intellectuals, who feel that the whole context of their lives has kept them away from the world of reality.”
Yet perhaps most importantly of all, Chambers came from a middle-class home which had no faith. His father, a graphic artist, was a bisexual who expressed contempt for his wife Laha, a resentful former actress. Chambers’ brother Richard committed suicide, using the oven in the family home on Long Island. “My brother was lying with his head in the gas oven, his body partly supported by the open door,” Chambers wrote in his masterpiece Witness. “He had made himself as comfortable as he could. There was a pillow in the oven under his head. His feet were resting on a pile of books set on a kitchen chair. One of his arms hung down rigid. Just below the fingers, on the floor, stood an empty quart whisky bottle.”
As much as any speeches by Lenin or Karl Marx, the death of Richard was the catalyst for Chambers to reject God and embrace totalitarianism. In his family, Chambers saw “in miniature the whole crisis of the middle class.” The solution to this total disaster was a “totalizing” solution; communism. In 1925, Chambers joined the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). He defected in the late 1930s. Alger Hiss, the man he accused of being a spy, was guilty.
Chambers explained that a communist “may feel a special insecurity and anxiety” which can be cured by attachment to a grand movement. This echoes a New York Times piece from 2017 marking the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution: “the Marxist vision of world solidarity as translated by the Communist Party induced in the most ordinary of men and women a sense of one’s own humanity that ran deep, made life feel large; large and clarified.”
This is why communism, despite its many failures, continues to survive; and why it continues to appeal to middle and upper-class kids. The godless comforts of tepid bourgeois liberalism just can’t compete with it. ✪
▶️ ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️ ✪✪✪ DONATE ✪✪✪ ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️
▶️ DONATE VIA PAYPAL (DEBIT & CREDIT CARD)
ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security
▶️ DONATE VIA ZELLE (DIRECT BANK CASH TRANSFER)
ZELLE is the perfect online alternative to PayPal. It’s an incredibly simple, secure, easy, fast and FREE way to send or receive money to recipients directly from your online banking account without a middleman. Best of all, there are NO fees.
ZELLE is a service provided by your bank and is already built in to your online banking account. You only need to activate it first before using. If you’ve already activated ZELLE in your online bank or credit union account, you can donate to The New Americanist by using our ZELLE address:
vip@thenewamericanist.com
To activate your ZELLE, follow these easy instructions (a simple two minute process):
▶️ DONATE VIA SNAIL MAIL
▶️ RSBN LIVESTREAM LINK: House Hearing On Military Budget
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
