▶️ VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: THE LONG VIEW OF IRAN
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: THE LONG VIEW OF IRAN
uuu
ne day, the United States seems ready to unleash a Curtis LeMay-style devastating bombing campaign of Iran. The next, it appears trapped in endless haggling with Iranian dissimulators.
Of the roughly 150 days since the first strike, about 90 have passed without major military operations.
Iran believes time is on its side. The Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, gas prices are too high, and antiwar House Democrats seem poised to win the midterms and bring Trump’s war to a halt.
Trump, by contrast, believes Iran can talk all it wants while sanctions, embargoes, and military pressure steadily weaken the regime.
The war has become so politicized in an election year that several basic realities have gone largely unnoticed by the media.
First, the cycle of bombing, pausing, negotiating, and bombing again may seem endless. But the confusion obscures the continuing effects of the embargoes, sanctions, blockade, and financial isolation imposed on Iran. Together, they are costing the theocracy more than $400 million a day in lost revenue, money that it can ill afford to lose. By haggling, Iran believes it can run out the clock until the midterms, but it may be only prolonging its own miserable situation.
Second, so far the bombing has not descended into a ground war. There are no embedded reporters and few Western journalists in Iran. So the world knows little about the true extent of the damage to the Iranian regime and its military-industrial-nuclear complex.
Nor do we know the mood of the once-restive Iranian street. But whether or not there are future allied military attacks, tensions will only increase as Iran runs out of money and basic goods. Whatever the outcome of negotiations or further combat operations, the Iranian military and economy have already been wrecked and will take years to rebuild.
Third, however the war ends, Iran will remain at a terrible disadvantage for years in dealing with the neighbors it has so gratuitously attacked. The regime currently has no effective combat aircraft or air defenses—and no allies.
In contrast, the Gulf states can field more than 700 combat aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Rafales, Mirages, and Tornados. Israel has another 300, including late-model F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s. U.S. bases in the Middle East are home to some 300 more, including F-22s, F-35s, F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s—not counting carrier-based aircraft.
In sum, the United States and its allies have some 1,300 late-model combat aircraft in the region. They should therefore be able to hit Iran hard for years to come if it resumes drone and missile attacks against its rivals.
Fourth, Iran’s problems will not end when the United States declares victory and sends most of its forces home. The regime has lost a half-century and half a trillion dollars in military and nuclear investment. Until the United States lifts its sanctions and embargoes, Iran cannot rearm. And if it eventually does rearm and again tries to supply its Arab terrorist clients in its “ring of fire” around Israel, its destitute people will grow furious at a disgraced and humiliated regime for diverting the nation’s wealth abroad.
Fifth, several unforeseen developments ahead of the impending midterms; more favorable gerrymandering in Red states than in Blue ones, the Supreme Court’s ruling against racial redistricting, a substantial Republican fundraising advantage, and the capture of the Democrat Party by near-lunatic radical socialists, may offer Republicans a narrow path to retaining control of Congress. That possibility has added urgency to the administration’s choice: negotiate one final time or use overwhelming force to inflict still greater damage on the Iranian economy.
Sixth, air supremacy and the normal rotation of U.S. naval forces through the Middle East, together with help from the Gulf states and naval contingents from European and Asian oil-importing nations, could keep the strait open if they decide to do so. And they may need to do so for only another year or two, by which time the strait may become far less important to oil exports.
Iran’s efforts to close the strait have already accelerated the expansion of existing pipelines and the construction of new ones that will bypass the strait and connect the oil fields directly to the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean.
The bottom line? Iran is losing whether it is being bombed, sanctioned, or embargoed—or all three. Its ultimate fate now rests with the Trump Administration, which apparently has not yet decided what, exactly, that fate will be.
The headlines focus on negotiations, but the war’s real story is this: Iran is steadily being broken by sanctions, isolation, and relentless military pressure.✪
▶️ VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: IS ‘COMMUNIST’ NO LONGER A SLUR ?
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: IS ‘COMMUNIST’ NO LONGER A SLUR?
ppp
t is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “Democratic Socialists”—once they find power. Indeed, the more the ossified Democrat Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists; the more they act like and even appear comfortable being called—communists.
With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.
How about declaring capitalism a failure? All the socialists now do that; and even Democrat California governor Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.
Confiscating private property? New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.
Dismantling the U.S. Constitution? Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democrat Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.
And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist?”
They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats. For example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.
Like all good Marxists, these “ends-justify-the-means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: if two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.
How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property? Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?
In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they—the newly presumed guilty—can prove themselves innocent.
Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court. Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes; in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.
Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.
Why is Mamdani doing this? The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:
First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.
And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it. To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.
Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.
Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all; from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.
However, it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.
Sánchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain—while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.
So why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens—poor, often angry, and unassimilated—from the Third World?
Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.
And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.
Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.
The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them—and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled—is often only about 20 years.
So if one enjoys watching the careers of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, or Zohran Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.
It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy; only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.
But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned. So far, the model holds true: socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.
In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.
The farther today’s Democratic Socialists advance, the less they resemble reformers—and the more they embrace policies long associated with communism.✪
▶️ JB SHURK: GLOBALISM MUST BE VANQUISHED
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
JB SHURK: GLOBALISM MUST BE VANQUISHED
ppp
ome politically charged words have become part of our common vocabulary almost overnight. “Globalism” is a timely example. Ten or fifteen years ago, calling someone a “globalist” didn’t have much effect. Today, it is well understood as a pejorative that highlights someone’s allegiance to international institutions over those created within a nation state.
Although the term has been used in various academic circles for more than a century, it didn’t become part of our common political parlance until anti-Establishment conservatives in the United States and Europe found it a useful taxonomic description of their ideological opponents. In hindsight, it is surprising how long the word “globalism” remained dormant and hidden away in the context of political speech and debate.
During the Cold War, however, the world was divided between the Soviet Union and the United States, between communism and freedom, between closed economies and open markets. To the extent that nationalism and globalism were distinguished from each other, academics and political leaders did so under the umbrella of the Cold War contest between East and West to gobble up as many nation states as possible. Both sides embraced a “domino theory” of geopolitics in which partisans fought for global domination, one nation at a time.
There was, however, an intentional, albeit rarely described, linguistic shift from the 1950s forward. In newspapers and scholarly essays of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, “nationalism” and “patriotism” were largely used interchangeably. Following WWII, “nationalism” increasingly acquired a negative connotation until eventually becoming a proxy word for “fascism” or “Nazism.”
In our current age, prominent political and academic leaders speak of “nationalism” as if it were a virulent form of racism, imperialism, and authoritarianism rolled into one malevolent philosophy. In contrast, until rather recently, “patriotism” retained a positive meaning, even though its Greek roots describe a person’s connection to “fellow countrymen” and the “fatherland.” If only one of these two words — “nationalism” or “patriotism” — were to survive WWII unchanged, a reasonable person might have wagered that “nationalism” seemed more innocuous and less “problematic” for contemporary sensibilities and therefore more likely to endure with its politically neutral meaning intact. “Patriotism,” on the other hand, with its emotional appeal to the “fatherland,” might have appeared more objectionable. Instead, “nationalism” was eventually demonized for its semantic connection to the “national socialism” of the Nazi Party, while “patriotism” was embraced as an essential quality for Western citizens fighting the Soviet Union’s communist expansion during the Cold War. This was not an historical accident.
After WWII, there was a concerted effort among political and intellectual leaders in the West to use the destruction from two catastrophic global wars as a profound moral argument for charting a new course for humanity. Framing the carnage of those wars as the natural result of unbridled “nationalism,” architects of the post-war world put their faith in international institutions. The United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union all emerged immediately after WWII but so did a thousand new international bodies constructed to do everything from standardizing industrial production in factories around the world to regulating the movement of people and goods across borders. “Internationalism” was sold as an antidote to war and therefore became almost synonymous with “peace.”
The dichotomy between “nationalism” and “internationalism” was much easier to advance publicly than a contrast between patriotic love of country and an unpatriotic hatred for one’s countrymen. The United Nations decided patriots could also be internationalists. However, nobody asked out loud whether internationalists could be patriots.
This paradigm has remained attractive for its simplicity but never made much sense. For starters, German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese imperialism (in which an absolute monarch was worshipped as a deity) were not inherently dangerous because their proponents organized power through national governments. They were dangerous because they were totalitarian in nature and compelled citizens to sacrifice themselves completely in the interest of the State. Had the Germans, Italians, and Japanese strongly believed in limiting government power and maximizing personal freedom, respect for individual rights would have kept expansive authoritarianism in check.
It is illogical to assume that international forms of government are somehow more humanitarian or philanthropic than national forms, just as it is illogical to assume that national forms of government are more just and capable of representing citizens than local municipal governments. One might ask what the difference is between the Green Party in Germany demanding total civilian obedience to “global warming” mandates and a group of international ambassadors demanding the same thing through the Paris Climate Accords Are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change somehow less totalitarian because international bureaucrats are regulating the behavior of both Germans and non-Germans alike?
Would we not describe the great empires of the past as “globalist” or “international” in nature? Did Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Cecil Rhodes not swallow up entire nations when they expanded the territorial dominions of their respective empires? How does one distinguish those global empires from modern equivalents such as the European Union or the United Nations? Surely the average European, Asian, or African finds it just as difficult to object to an edict coming from the E.U. or U.N. as it would have been for Europeans, Asians, or Africans of the past to resist imperial edicts from faraway capitals. Had Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, or Queen Victoria described their empires as “united nations,” would their conquests have been considered more just and peaceful?
In other words, have we not simply rebranded imperialism as “internationalism” and pretended that the rhetorical distinction represents “progress?”
This brings us to the current day, when we are finally having a meaningful debate regarding the merits of “nationalism” versus “globalism.” As has become all too evident in recent years, globalists really do wish to dispense with the nation state. But they are not content with merely replacing national governments with international institutions. Decades of open borders policies in North America and Europe reveal globalism’s true goal: to eradicate the vestiges of culture and history that bind a nation’s people together. In the United States, it is quite common to see immigrants flying their “home” flags in sports stadiums, while mainstream news pundits describe the American flag as a form of “white supremacy.” Across the United Kingdom, government officials are cracking down on citizens who wave British flags. On both sides of the Atlantic, globalists berate citizens for not embracing “multiculturalism.” We have finally reached a point when “patriotism” is demonized just as much as “nationalism.”
Without nations or patriots, where does that leave us? It leaves us with continental landmasses filled with strangers. Instead of people bound by common history, culture, religion, values, language, and family, North America and Europe are being transformed into spaces defined by absolutely nothing. America’s new immigrants want to do away with the Declaration Of Independence and the US Constitution.
Europe’s new immigrants insist on replacing all the Christian churches with mosques. Both continents are heading for a future when tribes of distinct peoples will fight for political power within turbulent territories that remain nations in name only. Does anyone really believe that they will put aside their disagreements and obey the international proclamations of the United Nations or the European Union?
Eighty years of “internationalism” have destroyed the most natural political order that has ever existed: the nation state. Now entire continents are filled with immigrants whose incompatible cultures ensure future conflict. And instead of recognizing how destructive their policies have been across the West, globalists have the audacity to ridicule nationalists as threats to peace. The most important lesson from WWII was not that nations are bad but that totalitarian government is evil. Globalists have sacrificed the former and embraced the latter.
Westerners will now have to defeat globalism, too. ✪
▶️ JB SHURK: GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IS A TROJAN HORSE
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
JB SHURK: GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IS A TROJAN HORSE
ppp
f the Trojan War were being fought today, the Greeks would not need to hide inside of a big, wooden horse and hope to be dragged inside Troy’s city gates. They’d simply disseminate all kinds of lies on social media and wait for the Trojan people to fight each other. Such is the power of corrosive ideas: they can destroy a civilization before its defenders understand that they are under attack.
Information warfare is the name of the game today. It exists all around us. Soundbites attack us from every phone, computer, tablet, and television screen. Succinct messages ripple through social media platforms until people from opposite sides of the world repeat the same words without knowing why.
The most powerful bits of information are the ones which sound undeniably true. “Believe all women.Black lives matter. Build back better.” Their simplicity assists their deception. We certainly shouldn’t distrust women, right? Who wants to argue that black lives mean nothing? Surely nobody wishes to build something worse than it was before. People hear the soundbites, nod their heads, and repeat those words to their friends and neighbors. Some place signs in their yards with those three-word messages, as if they were brilliant expositions of fundamental truths.
Successful information warfare propagates ideas without triggering in those who receive the message any need for reflection. Like the Greeks’ wooden horse, the communication is hollow. It is intended to be just attractive enough that listeners drag the soundbite into their heads but sufficiently harmless in appearance to avoid real scrutiny. Great propaganda does not conquer by force. It seduces. It knocks on the door, smiles, and charms its way into unsuspecting minds. Then it waits — patiently — until the day arrives when it can do the most damage.
However, effective propaganda is inherently fragile. Should anyone take the time to reflect on those three-word messages above, their magic spells are broken. Once someone asks, “Don’t some women lie?” people remember that accusations matter less than evidentiary proof. Once a person is shouted down for saying, “All lives matter,” it becomes clear that “diversity” and “equity” have nothing to do with equality and justice. When anyone stops to ask, “What are we building, and why are we building it?” the World EconomicForum’s plans for a “new world order” suddenly stand naked and exposed.
In other words, thinking is the enemy of information warfare. Those who engage in its dark arts see independent thinkers as missile shields that must be eliminated. Reason and rational debate remain the most effective defenses against propaganda. People who ask questions build forts for society with their minds. The entrance to those forts are adorned with this sign: Come let us reason together.
Reasoned debate is not scary; on the contrary, it is the path upon which we walk toward enlightenment. It is why people who demand compliance should never be trusted. Anyone who says, “The science is settled,” or, “Trust the experts,” seeks to deprive the listener not only of his capacity to reason but also of his prospect for salvation. When we forsake the mental gifts that God has given us, we hobble our potential for spiritual growth. Nobody has ever been redeemed for “just following orders.” A good life comes from good choices, and good choices come from faithful contemplation. In this way, attacks on free speech are attacks on our very souls.
When propagandists attack our souls from all directions, it is difficult to know who is waging war against us and why. Yet there are telltale signs. When groups and governments attempt to “cancel” individuals for their personal beliefs, they are waging war against individual conscience.
Sometimes acts of war are obvious, as when a British communist allegedly bludgeoned well-known conservative Ann Widdecombe to death with a hammer. Other times, information warfare is more subtle, as when the British government banned Christian and Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen from flying through London’s Heathrow Airport because she boldly defends the Bible’s prohibition against sexual sin, something that both Finland and the United Kingdom have now officially criminalized as “hate speech.” Along the same lines, the Polish Government recently convicted a young, pregnant mother for the “crime” of speaking at a public rally against mass immigration. Found guilty of “inciting hatred,” Oliwia Olejniczak has received a harsher punishment for expressing her opinion than many illegal immigrants have for committing rape.
When governments abuse their criminal justice systems to persecute Christians and mothers concerned about their families’ safety, the signs are clear: Those governments are at war with their own people. When governments “cancel” citizens for their beliefs, politicians and bureaucrats identify for us which independent thinkers they most fear. As is written in the Gospel of Matthew (5:10), “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” When people stand up for moral truths — while bearing the brunt of their governments’ hatred — pay attention. Those people are building forts for society with their minds. Seek the shelter of those forts; then expand those forts to protect others. This is the way to defeat government propaganda.
Those who engage in information warfare have a propensity for projecting their crimes onto the innocent. This is why leftwing groups and governments accuse Christians of “hate speech,” while saying the most hateful things about Christians. It is also why governments and NGOs insist on categorizing citizens’ dissenting speech as “disinformation” or “misinformation,” when governments and NGOs manufacture false information on an industrial scale.
There has never been a time in human history when self-appointed public censors turned out to be the “good guys.” Communists, fascists, Nazis, and military dictators all believe in censoring public speech and rigging public debate. The globalists, socialists, collectivists, and other Big Government parasites that have infiltrated and seized most national governments today likewise believe in censorship and the criminalization of dissent. Information — whether true or false — does not belong to any one group of people. Oligarchies are not filled with angels; they are filled with sinful human beings.
We saw how evil oligarchies can be during the COVID lockdowns. Government bureaucrats and self-described “experts” told us explicitly, “Now is the time to do what you’re told.” Western governments committed unforgivable crimes against their citizens in the name of “science.” Australia rounded up people into “quarantine camps,” and we now know that pretend-President Joe Biden’s CDC was planning to do the same thing in the United States.
For eighty years, American schoolchildren have been taught President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was an unconscionable violation of Americans’ constitutional rights which could never be permitted to happen again. Yet it almost did happen again. The U.S. Government was preparing to imprison Americans who refused experimental pharmaceutical injections or expressed unapproved speech.
In January 2022, majorities of Democrats believed that “unvaccinated” Americans should be fined, locked in their homes, sent to quarantine camps, and imprisoned for questioning the effectiveness of the experimental injections. A third of Democrats believed that the government should remove children from homes with “unvaccinated” parents.
How did we get so close to completely destroying the Bill of Rights? Health bureaucrats and government authorities engaged in an all-out information war against the American people. They pushed lies into American homes just as the Greeks pushed a wooden horse into Troy. And their attack on the American people almost worked. Americans hated each other more than ever before and nearly tore each other to shreds. COVID was weaponized into the kind of irrational fear that destroys civilizations.
In the end, it was not the “experts” or government ministers who prevented Western civilization’s collapse. It was the people who saw through the propaganda and refused to submit to tyranny. The next time governments send a Trojan Horse, just light it on fire. ✪
▶️ WHAT WOULD A CIVIL WAR WITH THE LEFT LOOK LIKE?
WHAT WOULD A CIVIL WAR WITH THE LEFT LOOK LIKE?
ppp
hat if the current unrest in the country led to a second American Civil War? How could such a scenario play out in today’s modern era of political conflict? Let’s allow ourselves to briefly entertain a daydream; or nightmare, about how it all might go.
Granted, there probably wouldn’t be conventional battles like those fought at Gettysburg or Vicksburg, but it’s conceivable each side would design their own battle flag or banners, since symbols are usually essential. The Right might adopt a “freedom” flag, which would stand in stark contrast to the flag of the Left: a raised marxist resistance fist decorated with small anarcho-feminist and transgender icons; with the middle finger extended.
The first shot of the new civil war wouldn’t be fired at a Fort Sumter, but might ring out during one of the nation’s many anti-ICE demonstrations. Leftist warriors would drive their SUVs and Subarus into lines of ICE agents with a sense of furious self-righteousness, only to find themselves instantly transported to the afterlife.
Consumed by their passion for open borders, blue state migrant activists would go out of their way to ignore reports of illegal alien rape gangs pillaging their daughters and granddaughters. Some would urge tolerance and restraint while simultaneously chalking up these violent incidents to “valuable cultural differences,” the same way they would dismiss the execution-style murders of their gay sons and friends by ISIS style killers who oppose the “genocide” in Gaza..
The Left would probably be taken by complete surprise when President Trump finally declares martial law. They would soon find themselves pining for the good old days when they were able to call him a fascist, nazi, dictator and still be protected by the First Amendment. They would miss the days when they could loot, vandalize and burn confident the worst punishment they’d received would be a blast of pepper spray or a slap on the wrist after spending only one hour in jail.
In blue cities, the Left would meet openly in Quaker meeting houses, Unitarian churches, and city-owned buildings. Formerly benign groups like Nuns on the Bus might rename themselves as Nuns with Guns. The streets of New York and Philadelphia might come to resemble armed camps.
At night, armies of Covid-masked leftists covered in tattoos, with multi-colored hair, and wearing yoga pants would scurry from alley to alley in defiance of new Federal curfew laws. Federal Marshalls would catch many of these curfew breakers, remove their Covid masks, and force them to read the books of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Citizens not involved in the new civil war would make it a point to stay safe in their houses after sundown. These people would be known as the “Middles,” because they are particular things to different things about the Right and other things about the Left. While the Middles might support some aspects of leftism, they would continue to be self conflicted by their own personal issues with abortion, gender ideology, and the transitioning of children. Dressing up their two-year-old daughters as “walking vaginas” to have them scream “f-ck you” at supporters of the President at a No Kings event would not be anything they would even consider.
Violent skirmishes on city streets would probably become commonplace, including the detonation of homemade explosives and the destruction of civic symbols of Capitalism such as ATM machines (Leftists damaged many machines in parts of Philadelphia during the George Floyd riots).
Because of the Philadelphia’s reputation as a major Leftist arena, it would become a nerve center in the new civil war, even under martial law.
The end of all Federal funding would hurl Philadelphia into even deeper dire poverty, forcing many public schools to close and the collapse of basic services such as water, power & waste. Of course, the mayor would expect citizens to accept all of this resulting misery as a necessary sacrifice for the noble ideals of the Left.
Democrat mayors all over the country would probably issue new edicts declaring new taxation, effective immediately to never let a crisis go to waste. To compensate for the loss of Federal dollars: there would be heavy new city taxes on water, ice cream, chocolate, beer as well as a special tax for joggers and dog walkers. City parks would begin charging admission and camping fees.
Of course, outdoor restaurants and cafes would have to close, as well as most theaters. Those remain opening would be required to show exclusively “woke” movies.
Finally, blue cities would enact legislation canonizing all their heroes of the Left. People like Obama, Ted Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Sanger, Fidel Castro, Hunter Biden, etc by renaming & dedicating schools, hospitals and public property after all of them.
That’s one of the many annoying hallmarks of Leftism; to take the most incompetent, disgusting and dishonest public and historical figures and elevate them to a level of historical immortality by naming things after them.
However, I’m jumping too far ahead of myself now, because in this imaginary scenario, this civil war is just barely getting started. ✪
▶️ DEMOCRATS WANT TO CLOSE PRISONS: JUST NOT FOR YOU OR ME
DEMOCRATS WANT TO CLOSE PRISONS: JUST NOT FOR YOU OR ME
fff
urt Schlichter: The current trend of Democratic Socialists of America idiots going on Fox and proudly coming out for all the weird and stupid things they support is akin to the phenomenon of a few years ago where you had Furries publicly and proudly proclaiming their bizarre identities; except the people pretending to be cartoon foxes and wombats were less embarrassing. As dumb and creepy as it is to dress up as an anime marsupial and admit that their furry fetish tops “sincere people” and “long walks on the beach” on their list of turn-ons, at least the furry kinkers didn’t murder more than 100 million people over the last century. Of course, it’s probably only because their costumes don’t provide opposable thumbs to hold the guns.
It’s both amusing and horrifying to watch these DSA out n’ proud people in action. It’s pretty clear they never got the memo: you’re supposed to hide the most insane parts of your agenda so normal people can be suckered in. It’s like being inside a Trojan horse, which probably has a slightly different meaning to these perverts; you want to come across as someone vaguely relatable and then only reveal your true self once you come to power. But it’s hard for them to resist the limelight because they’ve never been in the limelight before. Look at all those goofs. They are a hapless collection of weirdos, losers, and mutations. The kind of people who, in a civilized society, would’ve been bullied in middle school and high school into something near normality. Along the way, our society made the mistake of celebrating freaks, and now we’re overrun by them. Worse, in some places, we’re going to be run by them.
And that’s a problem. Socialism is bad. It’s strange that you have to say it, but people seem to forget most of the 20th Century when socialism, the fantasy ideology of the evil, the envious, and the cruel, was both put into practice and thoroughly repudiated. The heaps of the dead are testimony to its inevitable result. They try to get around the truth of history by claiming that true communism has never been tried—yeah, I know there is supposed to be a difference between socialism and communism, but that’s like the difference between syphilis and AIDS; one is an inevitable gateway infection for the other, and you certainly don’t want either. But based on the world’s experience with this political pathology, true communism probably means 200 million dead. Maybe even more.
Some people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept the fact other people are just plain evil will try to whitewash Marxism by arguing it’s merely bad policy. See, it doesn’t work, they tell you, as if that’s the reason you don’t want to put it into practice. But it’s an inhuman and anti-God ideology which twists and perverts human nature to elevate lies and murder over truth and justice. As these creeps demonstrate, socialism is simply a means for losers to take from productive people what they’re too lazy and stupid to generate on their own.
That’s why you’ll never see one of these Marxists looking forward to the revolution where they get to be the guy digging the sewer line or manning a garbage truck. No, after the revolution, the cadres are going to be the ones composing genderfluid poetry or doing interpretive dances in their gardens, conveniently forgetting those gardens wouldn’t be theirs, nor will anything else.
No, the evil of socialism is not a bug, but rather the feature. Remember, it’s driven by hate—hate of the normal, hate of the smarter, hate of the better, hate of your parents who just didn’t get you. And every single time it’s put into practice, we see the same thing. Since everything in socialism goes against human nature, you need an apparatus of repression designed to force people to accept what nature rejects. There’s not a socialist country without thuggish police. There’s not a single socialist country where you can speak freely. There’s not a single socialist country where you are free because your freedom defeats the whole purpose of socialism, which is ensuring your submission to the cadres.
We could go through all their policy prescriptions, from open borders to amnesty to free everything for everybody, thanks to the people like you who have to work to generate this bounty while the cadres are busy playing their lutes. Socialism is not about making lives better or creating prosperity or security or any of those things. It’s about jerks living out their personal psychodramas while they get off on making you miserable.
Nothing demonstrates that more than the idea of defunding the police and getting rid of prisons. After all, you wicked normal people deserve to have thugs, junkies, murderers, rapists, and other Democrat constituencies turned on you to make you pay for the crime of being you. You need to understand the deep hate that lives within all these people, and that’s why, in every single leftist sector of society, you see the actual criminals not merely being ignored but being idolized. The DSA types would free these barbarians for the express purpose of allowing those barbarians to hurt you, because you deserve to be hurt. You deserve to be killed. You deserve to be raped. Why? Because these freaks don’t like you and it amuses them to see you in pain.
But there’s a practical side to it too. The old Soviet Union understood it. Regular criminals were victims of society, and you, being the foundation of society, need to be victimized in return. If you were a regular criminal, you were treated infinitely better than someone who committed a real crime, that is, a political crime. If you opposed the regime, then you were a real criminal.
So all this stuff about closing the prisons is just nonsense. Same with defunding the police. The DSA types have no intention of ending prisons or ending the police. They just intend to change the target demographic from actual criminals to people like you who stand up and demand your rights. In the socialist paradigm, the only real crime is opposing the socialists. And they would not hesitate to lock you up or murder you if you get in their way.
Now, some people point to the social contract by which we give up our natural right to seek justice from those who wrong us in favor of the procedures we set up through our democratic government. This allows prosecution and punishment to be taken away from what are sometimes called vigilantes and given to our properly constituted government. And these folks critique the DSA prison-closing/police-defunding agenda by pointing out that we could just become vigilantes and do the justice dispensing ourselves. But of course, that would never happen, because the socialists would see vigilantism as an actual crime. Exercising power outside of the socialist structure is unforgivable. Oh, you can rape and molest and murder to your heart’s content, but cut into the party’s action? That’s when the gloves come off. That’s when the underfunded secret police are set upon you and haul you off to the unclosed gulag with the other uppity kulaks.
Socialism isn’t a bunch of 1960s ethnically homogeneous Swedes paying 55 percent in taxes to live moderately comfortably in clean and safe Stockholm. It’s Los Angeles in 2026 where a hobo is crapping on your lawn. It’s London in 2026 where you get arrested for tweeting unapproved things. It’s Spain in 2026, where a zillion Third World barbarians without shirts jump the border and run past cheering 20-something lefty girls in a grand de-reconquista.
We’ve actually been spoiled when it comes to defeating socialism. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan smashed the big socialist enchilada without firing a shot. The USSR collapsed under its own weight, but that was in large part because there was a counterexample, the glorious United States of the ’80s, a beacon to the rest of the world demonstrating that there was something better. But now, the socialists are hitting everything at once. They don’t want a counterexample hanging around out there. They don’t want people to know that there’s an alternative and to be able to peacefully undo their color revolution. We were spoiled, because we defeated socialism without much bloodshed in the big scheme of things.
But this time, we may not get off so easily. Socialists don’t always just give up. Chile overthrew the communists by throwing a bunch of them out of helicopters. The Spanish Nationalists defeated a communist-run revolution through years of fighting. Once the DSA-types get power, do you think they’ll just give it up if we ask nicely? Understand what kind of America these DSA types want. Understand that they will use the engines of government, including the courts and law enforcement, against you. Understand that there will still be crimes; it’s just those crimes will be saying what you think, praying how you want, and owning guns.
The last part is key. The last part is your backstop against perpetual tyranny. The last part is why they want you disarmed. So, buy guns and ammunition, because once the suckers and saps vote us into socialism, there is no voting our way back out of it. ✪
▶️ JAPAN’S SHIFTING NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
JAPAN’S SHIFTING NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
kkk
or decades after World War II, Japan maintained a defense policy shaped by pacifism and strict restrictions on the use of military force. That era is now coming to an end, and the United States should embrace that change as Japan faces an increasingly dangerous security environment.
China has dramatically expanded its military capabilities while becoming more aggressive around Japan’s airspace and territorial waters, as well as the disputed Senkaku Islands. Beijing’s growing military power also poses a direct threat to the stability of the Taiwan Strait and the idea of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Tokyo has responded by beginning to revamp its defense posture.
Under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Japan is accelerating defense spending, modernizing the Japanese Self-Defense Force, strengthening its southwestern islands, and expanding cooperation with the U.S. and other regional partners. Japan will exceed its 2% defense spending benchmark as a percentage of gross domestic product in fiscal year 2027, well ahead of schedule. This is great news for both Japan and the U.S.
A stronger Japan means a stronger U.S.-Japan alliance. Japan hosts roughly 55,000 American military personnel and provides the U.S. with critical bases from which it can project power throughout the Indo-Pacific. This presence allows the U.S. to project power in the Taiwan Strait and the broader Indo-Pacific. Luckily for the U.S., Japan has no intention of merely hosting U.S. troops. Indeed, the Japanese military is already quite competent and well-equipped, and it is showing clear intent to expand its capability in the coming years.
Tokyo should continue to expand its defense budget and build the military capabilities necessary to defend its territory. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force is particularly important. Japan’s geography makes naval power essential to protecting its surrounding waters and maintaining freedom of movement throughout the region. Expanding Japan’s fleet, including increasing its number of light aircraft carriers from two to four, would give Tokyo greater ability to deter aggression and contribute to regional security.
Japan also has major opportunities to expand cooperation with the U.S. defense industry. Tokyo is already procuring American-made weapons and moving toward coproduction of U.S. missiles in Japan. Washington should make Japan a priority for additional military sales, technology sharing, and licensed coproduction. The U.S. should also encourage Japan to develop its own defense-industrial capacity so that Tokyo can produce more of the weapons and munitions needed to sustain a prolonged conflict, and it should license higher levels of U.S. technology and a broader array of U.S. missile systems to Japan to produce on its own.
Allowing Japan to produce more advanced American weapons would expand Tokyo’s ability to supply itself while reducing pressure on the U.S. production capacity. It would also strengthen the broader American-led security network in the Indo-Pacific by creating another capable producer of critical weapons and munitions.
Finally, Washington and Tokyo should deepen operational cooperation. The U.S. is transforming U.S. Forces Japan into a Joint Task Force headquarters, while Japan is establishing its own permanent Joint Operations Command. The two militaries should immediately begin exercising how these new commands will work together.
The U.S. should encourage Japan’s continued development into a more capable military power and work with Tokyo to ensure that the alliance is prepared before a crisis occurs. Japan’s changing defense posture is not a return to its prewar past, but a recognition that the security environment surrounding the country has fundamentally changed and that Tokyo has an obligation to secure the safety and prosperity of the Japanese people in the face of the dramatic military buildup and continued threats from Beijing.
As the Chinese Communist Party expands its military capabilities and becomes more aggressive across the Indo-Pacific, Japan needs the ability to defend its territory, contribute meaningfully to regional security, and sustain military operations in the event of a serious Indo-Pacific conflict.
Japan has proven to be one of America’s strongest and most reliable partners in the Indo-Pacific in recent years, and Washington should seize the opportunity provided by the inspired leadership of Takaichi to make sure Japan has everything it needs to remain a powerful force in the region. ✪
▶️ HISTORY ALREADY TELLS US HOW THIS ALLIANCE WILL END
HISTORY ALREADY TELLS US HOW THIS ALLIANCE WILL END
lll
here’s an emerging alliance in American politics between the far Left and radical Islam. The only tangible thing Marxists and Islamists have in common is their hatred for Western Civilization. Liberalism, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian values run contrary to both groups.
Of course, the values of Islamic society are, in practice, more offensive to the Left-wing vision than those of the West. Marxists value socioeconomic equity above all else. There is no metric by which Islam is remotely conducive to this. In traditional Western society, there are different cultural expectations for men and women. In Islamic society women are treated like property. In Western society there is a mobile meritocracy (even Marx did not deny this). In Islamic society there is a rigid aristocracy. Most notably, Western society lends itself to representative government while Islamic society does not.
Yet the Left views Islam as a natural ally in its fight against Western society. The reasons for this are manifold: naivete, delusions of grandeur, suicidal empathy. Most likely, it’s as simple as the West being the currently established order, while Islam (for the time being) comes from the fringe. Everything looks harmless on the fringe.
But this delusional self-sabotage is nothing new. We saw this before in pre-revolutionary Iran.
In the late 1970s, Iran’s communist Tudeh Party joined forces with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his rebellion against the Shah. Both groups felt that the Shah was oppressive and wanted change. They worked together to overthrow him and install Khomeini in his place. Once Khomeini consolidated power around himself, he outlawed the Tudeh Party and executed the Marxists en masse. In 1988, he issued a fatwa executing thousands of Iranian leftists, including those already imprisoned.
A common adage often applied here is, “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” This is good advice for many of the masses of mindless activists on the ground, but in the case of intellectual thought leaders, it is arrogance more than naivete that drives this mistake.
Tudeh Secretary General Nureddin Kianuri said in a 1979 interview socialism in Iran “cannot have a Muslim content but will be achieved through the cooperation of Muslim forces.” By his own admission, he believed he could use Islamism as a controlled weapon against the West and then simply turn it off when he was done with it. Nureddin Kianuri was arrested by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983 and never saw freedom again.
Of course, the Marxists of today will never learn from the mistakes of the Marxists of the past. If they were capable of such a thing, they would not be Marxists in the first place.
Still, the lesson is an important one as coalition-building becomes necessary in the United States. You cannot control fundamentalist ideologies. The Marxists believed they could point jihadism at the Shah like a loaded gun. It wasn’t a gun. It was a plague. And once unleashed, it did not discriminate in who it destroyed.
When you are angry with the establishment, it can be tempting to look for support wherever you can find it. This phenomenon is not localized to the Red-Green alliance. It rears its head in every political movement that finds itself compromising with radicalism to achieve political goals.
Another group that can stand to take notes is the Left-wing establishment. The likes of Senator Chuck Schumer seem to believe that kowtowing to the socialists within his party will keep him in power. At its core, socialism is incompatible with the traditional Democrat Party. Democrat elites think they can accommodate it anyway and simply direct its radical destructionism toward their enemies.
There is no appeasing this group. First they came for the Republicans; next they’ll come for you, Chuck. You’ll be lucky if they even wait that long. It’s all the same to them. Of course, the Schumers of the world won’t wise up to this anytime soon. If they were capable of such a thing, the Democratic Socialists of America never would have made it this far in the party.
The Marxists believe they can use the Islamists just like the Democrats believed they could use the Marxists. They were wrong. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
In the Conservative movement, we face a similar crossroads. The growing influence of radical influencers, especially among young Republicans, shares commonalities with the socialist takeover of the Democrat Party. We mustn’t make the Democrats’ mistake.
That is why there is no point in tiptoeing around conflict with the likes of Tucker Carlson. A great many on our side of the aisle have cautioned against direct conflict with them, especially as influencers such as Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan become louder opponents of the Conservative movement. We’re frequently told not to “alienate” these people. We should reject these calls.
If they end up voting the way we do, that’s great. But we cannot give an inch to ideologies that are incompatible with our values. Carlson’s anti-capitalist rhetoric, rampant antisemitism, and suggestion of a class revolution demonstrate where his values lie. If we legitimize him, even as a “calculated move” against our political adversaries, it will inevitably destroy us.
Whether it was arrogance or naivete that drove the Iranian leftists into the arms of the Ayatollah is ultimately irrelevant. We cannot afford either in the Conservative movement. We must see our enemies for who they truly are. ✪
▶️ THE CDC WAS PLANNING NATIONWIDE QUARANTINE CAMPS
THE CDC WAS PLANNING NATIONWIDE QUARANTINE CAMPS
sss
o matter how bad you think COVID policies were during the pandemic, they were intended to be much worse. Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.
However, it was undoubtedly planned to be a permanent and nationwide arrangement if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme was dialed back at the last moment.
Features of the CDC’s COVID edicts did incredible damage. They imposed the rent moratorium. They decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and public mask mandates. They enforced Plexiglas as the ridiculous interface for all commercial transactions. They implied mail-in balloting must be accepted as the new norm, which probably flipped the election. They delayed the reopening as long as possible, extending and compounding economic damage. It was all sadistic.
Even after all of that, still worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, once the George Floyd riots finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors have remained unnamed, but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed from the CDC’s website on March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”
By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has never beed tried before. The point of the document was to map out how it would be possible to implement this strategy and alert the authorities to the possible pitfalls to be avoided.
The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.” In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.
Who were these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”
This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.
The model established three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are “physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine it would intervene in households to force old people into separate, isolated spaces.
The model jumps next from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed by authorities to be most vulnerable.
From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different:
“A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”
You read that correctly. Here the CDC is proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of the medically significant consequences of infection. Further:
“To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”
The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Becoming sick was criminalized.
These camps required a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”
The people housed in these camps would need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:
“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”
Further, there must be some mechanisms included to prohibit suicide:
Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”
(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)
In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing such a scheme could ever be contemplated.
Who wrote this and why aren’t we allowed to know that? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists which enabled this to even be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees, contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else which has gone on there during the last six years, both of those numbers should be zero. ✪
▶️ 1000 LEFT WING GERMAN LAWYERS CALL FOR BAN OF ADF PARTY
1000 LEFT WING GERMAN LAWYERS CALL FOR BAN OF ADF PARTY
lll
group of over 1,000 left-wing lawyers in Germany have demanded the government ban the anti-mass migration Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) political party as it has surged to become the most popular in the country.
The self-described leftist Republican Lawyers’ Association issued a public appeal to the German government and lawmakers in the Bundestag to launch proceedings to ban the AfD, which it argues “contradicts the central fundamental values” of the country and its constitution, Die Welt reported.
Chairwoman Angela Furmaniak said banning the leading opposition party would be necessary for the sake of “the human dignity of all people.”
The petition, which was signed by 1,051 legal professionals, notes that the “Basic Law” constitution provides the mechanism to ban political parties if a case is brought before the Federal Constitutional Court.
Such a case can be initiated by either the Federal Government, the Bundestag Parliament, or the Bundesrat Senate, who would have to successfully argue that the party in question “not only takes an anti-constitutional attitude but aims to act on that attitude in a militant and aggressive way.” The party would need to be demonstrated to have acted to “deliberately undermine the functioning of Germany’s free democratic basic order.”
Furmaniak said “politicians must no longer hide behind specious arguments, but must act before it is too late.”
At present, the country’s top left-wing party, the Social Democrats (SPD), is in favor of a ban of the AfD. However, despite being in a governing coalition with the SPD, the centrist Christian Democrats (CDU) have so far refused to back a ban.
Efforts to use lawfare to prevent the rise of the AfD have been longstanding in Berlin, with the government-funded German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR) telling lawmakers in 2023 that a ban against the AfD would be justified, again arguing that the party goes against the “free democratic basic order.” The DIMR accused the party of having an ideology “based on the tyranny of National Socialism” despite it having broadly classical liberal positions.
Meanwhile, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), the German Government’s political intelligence agency, has sought to brand the AfD as a “right-wing extremist” organization. Although the classification is currently being appealed, should it be upheld, the government would be granted additional powers to spy on AfD communications and to install moles within the party apparatus. The classification would also potentially lay the groundwork for an outright ban on the party.
Efforts to ban the AfD have come under heavy criticism from the Trump Administration in the United States.
Last year, Vice President JD Vance remarked:
“The AfD is the most popular party in Germany, and by far the most representative of East Germany. Now the bureaucrats try to destroy it. The West tore down the Berlin Wall together. And it has been rebuilt—not by the Soviets or the Russians, but by the German establishment.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio added surveilling the AfD represented “tyranny in disguise,” adding the “truly extremist” position in Germany was the Berlin establishment’s support of the “deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.” ✪
▶️ ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️ ✪✪✪ 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: American Mining Roundtable
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
