Saturday, January 19, 2019

Vox Popoli: Back from the future - (American DE-MORALIZATION>destabilization>crisis)

American DE-MORALIZATION, the deliberate destruction of traditional American morality based on Christian Western civilization.
Owen Benjamin returns to 1984 to help the younger generations understand how they have been prevented from being able to see what is right in front of them after 34 years of ideological subversion:
Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate overt and open you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all American mass media has to do is to unplug their bananas from the ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it there is no mystery, there is nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage intelligence-gathering looks more romantic, it sells more the audience through the advertising, probably that's why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond-type of three words, but in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15 percent of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such the other 85 percent is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare.

What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and it's divided in four basic stages.

The first one being demoralisation. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation why that many years because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result the result you can see most of the people who graduated in 60s drop outs or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the governor civil service business mass media educational system you are stuck with them you cannot get rid of them they are contaminated they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern you cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior in other words these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible to get rid society of these people you have you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of the United States society and yet these people have been programmed and as you say in place and you are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept.

These are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this case, most of them, yes simply because the psychological shock when they will see in future what they want, the beautiful society of equality and social justice, means in practice. Obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy frustrated people, and the Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate these people, they obviously they will join the ranks of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist Leninist America. Here you can you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being dissidents, for criticizing your Pentagon. In the future these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful noble ideas of equality. This they don't understand and it will be greatest shock for them. Of course the demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years, actually it's over fulfilled because the demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would have ever dreamed of such a tremendous success.

Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to a lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with the authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in the in his fat bottom. When a military boot crashes his balls then he will understand, but not before that, that's the tragic of the situation of demoralisation. So basically America is stuck with demoralisation, and even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating a new generation of Americans, it will still take you 15 to 20 years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normal normalcy and patriotism.

The next stage is destabilization. This time subversion does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat, it doesn't matter anymore this time, and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation. What matters is essentials. Economy, foreign relations, defense systems, and you can see it quite clearly that in some areas in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast.

The next stage of course is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see it in in Central America now, and after crisis, with a violent change of power structure and economy you have the so-called period of normalization. It may last indefinitely. Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda: when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 68, Comrade Brezhnev said, "now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized. This is what will happen in the United States.

The demoralization of the West is now very clear to even the most superficial observer. Notice the link to Aristotle's dialectic/rhetoric model; the demoralized cannot process dialectic even when it is right in front of him. Notice also how the former KGB agent specifically uses the phrase "social justice". None of this was an accident. The SJW insanity we now see that is dominant in so many societal institutions is the direct result of American DE-MORALIZATION, the deliberate destruction of traditional American morality based on Christian Western civilization.

Which means we are deep into the destabilization phase and the crisis is rapidly approaching.

Holes in the Map - By E.M. Cadwaladr (America - you are being replaced!)

Call me a racist if you want to – I cannot bring myself to care. I saw the buried remains of displaced Indian nations as child. The basic lesson of what migrants do to native populations wasn’t lost on me.

When I was a boy, sometimes my parents would load the family into our old green Rambler and we’d just go for a drive. I don’t know anybody who “goes for drives” anymore, but it was not uncommon in the 1970s. Blame us for global warming if you want to – I cannot bring myself to care. Most of Ohio was pretty safe back then. There were plenty of things to see – small adventures scattered across the sea of green or yellow corn. My job on such trips, more honorary than necessary, was to navigate our travels by the map.
map, if you happen to be too young to have ever seen a real one, was a huge sheet of paper printed colorfully with roads and points of interest marked by cryptic notes and tiny symbols. Pressing the tiny symbols with your finger did not connect you to anything. There were no web sites in those days. Telephones were solid and heavy devices, some wired securely to the wall at home. They linked to relatives rather than to computers.
You didn’t carry either the world’s wisdom or its idiotic opinions in your pocket. Your eyes and the sheet of paper were all you had to guide you on the road. If you wanted to know what was in Chillicothe, you had to drive to there to find out.
There were, even then, a few holes in the map. Places the old green Rambler dared not go. We didn’t go to the worst parts of nearby cities. It wasn’t that we hated the people who lived there – we were simply realists. Poor neighborhoods are the homes of default for people who, for one reason or another, do not thrive in a modern civilized society. A small fraction of those people really are sociopathic predators. This is just a fact. Violent people without much impulse control just don’t end up in middle-class suburbs unless the government, in its official zeal for “fairness,” plants them there. Even today’s progressives know this, whether they admit it or not. They avoid the slums and ghettos that form substantial sections of all our cities just like everybody else who has a choice.
Times change but human nature doesn’t. The internet has, to the extent to which the left controls it, hidden the inconvenient contradiction between reality and grand utopian narrative – but only if you stay in cyberspace. On the internet, yesterday’s hostile, crime-ridden slum can become today’s rich and vibrant haven of diversity – just as any imaginative loser can become a thriving entrepreneur, or any slobbering pervert can become a child’s new best friend. This is the magic of wishful thinking. It is the refuge of those who can dream the accepted dream, speak the accepted speech, and live some kind of nervous little life inside the accepted safe space of the well-cultivated neo-Marxist mind. There have always been costs to the buzzing, dizzying circus act that has passed itself off as human progress – but our wheels have somehow slipped entirely off the road this time. We are in new, uncharted territory.
Though not exactly a tourist magnet, the northeastern part of Columbus, Ohio used to be an unpretentious, unremarkable part of America. You could go there if you wanted to. It is now an unofficial colony of Somalia. The business signs, grimy and grey for decades, are now in Arabic. Somali women, grown fat on an American diet doled out by the public’s confiscated largesse, waddle along the street in their abysmal burkas. Somali men are something other than Americans with funny accents. Something has gone badly wrong.
While I can still drive through this part of Columbus, I notice the Americans who used to live there, white and black, are fewer and farther between. I notice when I hear on the local news that a “refugee” has run his car into a group of students at Ohio State, then chased others down the street with a knife while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” I notice when another “migrant,” a Muslim from Ghana, enters a restaurant owned by an Israeli and proceeds to hack at the customers with a machete. America’s earlier minorities didn’t do these things. This is something new. I may be in Ohio, my dear Toto, but something tells me I’m not in my own country anymore. I’m in the middle of a pre-industrial, semi-literate, dystopian Islamic theme park.
Unlike Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, I cannot simply tap my heels together and get back to the imperfect but largely harmless familiarity of home. One more part of America has been allocated to another alien population – squatters who have been brought here to feed on us and to drive us out. But where do we have left to go? This isn’t progress – though it is progressive.
This situation did not occur by accident. It is the product of a premeditated and deliberate social policy. When immigration is talked about on what sneeringly masquerades as news, it is always painted in fatalistic phrases that make it sound like an unstoppable force of nature – as though the people surging into America were a swarm of Mexican butterflies or a herd of East African wildebeests that had somehow overwhelmed the TSA.
This invasion is portrayed as if there were no plan involved at all – just some primal urge that arises spontaneously in third-worlders that can’t be stopped. This is the narrative fashioned for the convenience of the unaffected. That they might feel good about themselves while enjoying a little schadenfreude at our expense. They do not see the consequences. They see the dream. No one who actually lives here could possibly believe that back in the 1990s a group of impoverished Somali fishermen and goat herders woke up one morning and said to one another:
“I hear there is good fishing in Alum Creek Lake, and abundant grazing in Sharon Woods Metro Park! Let’s hop a flight to Ohio and become Americans!”
They did not aspire to be Americans in any remotely meaningful sense of the word. We have seen them, and we are not that stupid. The African populations seeded in Columbus, Minneapolis, and many other places did not come here to learn our culture or our values. They were not blown here in some unavoidable freak storm, nor did they wander here in search of missing livestock. They were certainly not brought here centuries ago as hapless and unwilling slaves. People from Washington, Boston, San Francisco and New York have sponsored this invasion – people who staff committees and think tanks, people who show the residents of the heartland the same loving concern that the Jackson administration showed the Cherokee.
Call me a racist if you want to – I cannot bring myself to care. I saw the buried remains of displaced Indian nations as child. The basic lesson of what migrants do to native populations wasn’t lost on me.

Friday, January 18, 2019

Wokescold Gillette and the Misplaced Antithesis - BY DOUGLAS WILSON

Gillette has decided to join the ranks of all the wokescold corporations, and they did this by rolling out an ad campaign admonishing men to do better. Be better. C’mon, guys. And a few days before that, the American Psychological Association determined that traditional masculinity, on the whole, was a net minus, and that what the Hive needs is a lot more beta males. Bring up your boys correctly, in the ways of Gillette, and the age might eventually dawn when no boy needs to ever start using Gillette.
Until this Gillette ad came along, it was hard to envisage a line of guys barbecuing as incipient fascism. But now that the creepy point has been made we will not be allowed to forget it. We can’t be too careful apparently.
In the meantime, our erstwhile Christian presence in this country is for the most part tagging along behind this cavalcade of stupidity, trying to retain enough of a Christian vocabulary to deceive any remaining simpletons who have not yet joined the parade. This is all part of the same clown car review, all of it. So as the PCA “investigates” Revoice, keep an eye on what is actually going down. The evangelical establishment has its own version of the deep state, and they do know how to cover for their own.
That we live in oddball times really needs no explanation. Yes, we know. But why we live in such oddball times does need to be explained over and over again.
When our first parents sinned in the Garden, one of the central consequences—which was part of God’s redemptive promise and plan—was that He placed a permanent antithesis between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15
This is why the history of the world is filled with conflict. This is the central conflict. It is the driver of everything that happens. It is the reason for the long war. This is why Jesus had to die, and it is why the death of Jesus crushed the serpent’s head while bruising His heel.
But what if you don’t believe this gospel? What if you don’t believe in its first promise in Gen. 3:15 in its great fruition—the death and resurrection of Jesus—or in its final culmination when God crushes Satan beneath the Church’s feet (Rom.16:20 What if you don’t believe what God said about this antithesis?
You still have to give an account of all the conflict. You still have to explain what is going on out there in the world. And the response of unbelievers boils down to two logical possibilities. The unbeliever can either deny the antithesis or he can misplace the antithesis.
Denial of the antithesis says that mankind is basically good. All we need is a basic education for all, not to mention decent health care and affordable housing, and this will remove certain environmental obstacles to the global group hug and make the general consensus obvious. Not only so, but when we make the harmonious center come into its own, we can then turn our abundant resources to a compassionate treatment of the mental health issues that may be afflicting any remaining dissenters.
Misplacing the antithesis accepts the fact that human history is defined by and driven by a fundamental divide, separating the saints from the non-elect, but then assigns those categories to arbitrary groupings that are not biblically grounded at all—it starts with obvious divisions like our nation/their nations, or our ethnic groups/their ethnic groups, or our economic working class/rich pigs, etc. Communists, race baiters, fascists, etc. are all guilty of misplacing the antithesis.
Given the fact of sin, malice and enmity between such groups should not be a big surprise. It is wrong and sinful, but not surprising. What has been surprising to some is the downward spiral into identity politics that is proving itself to be extremely fissiparous. We now have people hoisting weird flags in an effort to rally people to a new particular cause, and when we get close we find that the rallying point is for “gender queer deaf alcoholics with a penchant for cis-boys.” Sing out, be proud. Genders multiply, identities grow like mushrooms, and at the ultimate end of that process the misplaced antithesis is between the atomistic ego and every form of objective reality. The biblical name for this is the outer darkness.
So it is possible to deny the antithesis, but only for a brief time and only under certain select conditions. In a culture that is largely homogeneous, such as America was shortly after World War II, when the liberal consensus reigned supreme, it was possible to say that “everyone agrees” on certain “core principles.” “We are all saying the same thing really.” There were marginal voices, far away from the microphones, who would say hurtful things like “no, we aren’t saying the same thing at all,” but when a particular culture’s center is still cohesive enough to hold, such voices can be dismissed and ignored. Everybody who matters can still act as though everybody agreed on all the essentials. We don’t need to account for the crackpots.
So denial of the antithesis is the stance of the liberal at peace. But such periods of peace, when there is a large, hegemonic consensus, are rare. What happens when the consensus starts to break down? What happens when some of those marginal voices gain access to microphones, and their contradiction of the grand harmony can be heard? This leads to the liberal at war, which is where the progressives spiral down into identity politics. Identity politics is an example of the misplaced antithesis.
The Gillette ad indicates that we are very close to the “four legs good, two legs bad” stage of all this. We are not fully there yet because alpha males are still being offered the “gospel” of becoming beta males. Repentance is still possible. But the day is coming when the claim will be made that traditional masculinity and toxic masculinity all lie too close to the bone. Nothing whatever can be done about it. Two legs bad.
Now in saying that this ad is part of a calculated campaign to blur everything that matters, I do not mean to say that I am in favor of bullying, or groping, or leering, or that I stand against Gillette’s desire to get men to stop being pigs. The difference has to do with the causes of the misbehavior. As the APA puts it, the causes lie in our desire to teach boys to be strong, to control their emotions. That’s the culprit.
The true antithesis runs down the middle of the entire human race, and there are men, women, boys and girls on one side of the line and men, women, boys and girls on the other side of it. The antithesis divides the human race, and there are blacks and whites on one side of the line and there are blacks and whites on the other side. There are righteous men, in other words, and unrighteous women. There are righteous whites, in other words, and unrighteous blacks. I state it this way because I am trying to affront and insult the current narrative, in which approved women are justified, no matter what, and approved blacks are justified, no matter what. These approved women are considered “true women.” These approved blacks are “true blacks.” Not like Clarence Thomas at all.
Like I said, I am leaning against a particular narrative. If someone were to come up to me and pluck and my elbow, and say something like, “Why didn’t you say there are unrighteous men and righteous women?” I would reply with something like of course that is true. But why did you feel the pressure to get that on the record? Who are you trying to propitiate?
This all ties in with the crucial subject of social justification, which I have written about before.
In that piece, I wrote this.
·         Biblical narrative > biblical justification > biblical justice
·         Social narrative > social justification > social justice
If you want that background, go ahead and read that post. But what I need to do here is expand it slightly.
·         Biblical narrative which includes protagonists and antagonists, defined by the biblical antithesis > biblical justification of the elect, as defined by that narrative > biblical justice
·         Social narrative which includes protagonists and antagonists, defined by an unbiblical “antithesis” > social justification of the “elect,” as defined by that narrative > social justice
And as I have said before, and will no doubt say many more times, it is not possible—oh ye leaders of our great Christian fogbank of confusion!—to graft biblical justice onto a social narrative constructed by infidels. You are only going to get what we are in the process of getting now. And you are going to get a lot of it.
In short, you are going to get PCA churches in St. Louis maintaining what no one has denied—which is that LGBT+ people are created in the image of God—and there will be no way on earth that you could get them to say the same thing and in the same way about Klansmen and editors of neo-Confederate newsletters. Their interest is therefore not the gospel. Their agenda points in another direction entirely.
When you graft the words of “biblical justice” onto an unbelieving social narrative, the nature of the root will still determine the taste of the fruit. And it is this compromise, this fatal compromise, this wicked and stupid compromise, that has our evangelical seminaries, publishing houses, magazines, and denominations, all making their accommodating peace with feminism, trannyism, socialism, critical theory, racialism, and more.
The compromises were all made some time ago, and so anyone who expects the pace of our evangelical capitulations to slow down any is someone who doesn’t get out very much.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Vox Popoli: The Wall 2029

The Israeli Prime Minister shows Americans what they can look forward to on their southern border, hopefully in less than 10 years. 

Completed in 2012, the 200km Egyptian border fence cut illegal immigration to almost zero.

Vox Popoli: Dividing and conquering

The attempts to defend the reprehensible, misandric Gillette commercial are just another form of trying to prevent white men from forming a political identity of their own to compete with all the other identity groups striving for power in the West:

When did simply suggesting that people conduct themselves with common decency become enough to spark public outrage? As part of a new campaign against toxic masculinity, Gillette have decided to put some weight behind their 30-year-old ‘the best a man can get’ tagline by putting out an advert that encourages men to be the best people they can be as well. Smart, right? Well, actually, it turns out that they have potentially lost themselves a fair few customers, with men’s rights activists and far right campaigners crying on Twitter over claims of ‘emasculation’, while threatening to never purchase a Gillette razor again.

But, as their advert and accompanying statement so aptly points out, ‘turn on the news today and it’s easy to believe that men are not at their best.’ And, while it may be a bit exploitative of the #MeToo movement, their prompt to their consumers to try to change this seems entirely reasonable. As marketing campaigns go, it’s probably one of the most poignant that we’ve seen in a while. From the handling of the classic ‘boys will be boys’ excuse for misbehaviour to the notion that men should be working to set a new example for the younger generation, the advert’s proposals for a revised understanding of what it means to be a ‘good’ man navigate the thorny issues of gender inequality extremely well.

So, to be frank, if people are offended by the advert, then they are probably part of the problem. Gillette’s campaign isn’t an attack on masculinity or men; it’s simply an attempt to eradicate the toxic behaviours that have become commonplace and assumed as ‘normal’ in our patriarchal society. No one is taking away the beer, the barbeques or whatever else men have seen in the advert that has caused them to have meltdown over razor blades. They’re just telling men to be nice.

Notice how everyone from Jordan Peterson to this Gillette defender are telling white men to be INDIVIDUALS, to refrain from embracing their evil IDENTITY and engaging in any COLLECTIVE attempts to defend themselves and their interests.

This is not an accident. This is not about helping those men. This is about neutering and neutralizing white men. This is about dividing and conquering white men, often with the assistance of foolish white women.

Don't fall for it.

Vox Day on DaGOP suicide

Do the House GOP leaders truly not understand that whites are the only people who vote for Republicans in large numbers? Do they seriously not understand that Republicans are NEVER, EVER going to win the La Razan, the Vibrancy, the Diversity, or the Neo-Palestinian votes, no matter how many anti-white self-flagellating theatrics they put on display?

The fact is that Rep. King is absolutely right. No civilization can be restored with another people's children. Immigration is invasion and diversity is the death of Western civilization. Without the European peoples, without Christianity, or without the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, Western civilization cannot and will not survive.

However, Rep. King was also criminally stupid to sit down for an interview with The New York Times. What did he think was going to happen? DO NOT TALK TO THE MEDIA! How hard is that? How many times do stupidly vain men and women of the Right need to learn that they simply should not talk to the media UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if you very cleverly record the interview. It doesn't matter what the nominal topic is. It doesn't matter if you are a freaking CONGRESSMAN and you release an official statement from your office to set the record straight, a statement that makes it clear you did not ever say what the media falsely claims you said.

This is precisely why I never, ever, talk to the media about anything anymore. Not even about completely apolitical subjects relating to books I have written, games I have designed, or comics I have published. Since November, I have probably turned down over 50 media and new media requests for interviews about Jordanetics alone, and about a dozen more concerning our claims and the class-action claims against Indiegogo. Stefan Molyneux had it right all along.



On Thursday January 10, the New York Times ran one of its typical smear attacks on a prominent conservative Republican.  It was as fully dishonest and demagogic as usual, using the GOPer as a foil to smear the President and further the Times’ agenda of destroying our country.
This time the target was Iowa Congressman Steve King, and you can see the real target and the narrative in the headline: Before Trump, Steve King Set the Agenda for the Wall and Anti-Immigrant Politics.
It was a blatantly biased hit piece – immediately apparent in the headline, for “anti-immigrant politics” does not exist, not in Steve’s, not in President Trump’s, not in those of the GOP.  Theirs are “anti-illegal-immigrant politics,” a 180-degree difference that the Slimes purposefully ignores.
Steve made the massive mistake of giving the Slimes a 56-minute unrecorded interview for the story.  After the Times goes on a rant against him and the President with such statements as: “Mr. King… helped write the book on white identity politics that are ascendant in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party,” note how it twists his words:
Mr. King in the interview “said he supports immigrants who enter the country legally and fully assimilate because what matters more than race is “the culture of America” based on values brought to the United States by whites from Europe.
Steve never said “brought to the United States by whites” – that’s the Slimes twisting his anti-racist statement that culture is more important than race into its anti-white racist narrative.  Then the interviewer sandbags Steve by asking him about “white supremacy” in America.  His reply:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
That’s all the Slimes needed.  Instantly it trumpeted Steve’s quote to every Dem congresscritter’s office and every Hate America Leftie group in the country from ANTIFA and BLM (Black Lives Matter) on down.  Steve’s office was hit with a deluge of condemnation within an hour of the story’s release.  By 11am the morning of January 10, Steve issued this statement:
“Today, the New York Times is suggesting that I am an advocate for white nationalism and white supremacy. I want to make one thing abundantly clear; I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives.

It’s true that like the Founding Fathers I am an advocate for Western Civilization’s values, and that I profoundly believe that America is the greatest tangible expression of these ideals the World has ever seen. Under any fair political definition, I am simply a Nationalist. America’s values are expressed in our founding documents, they are attainable by everyone and we take pride that people of all races, religions, and creeds from around the globe aspire to achieve them. I am dedicated to keeping America this way.

This conviction does not make me a white nationalist or a white supremacist. Once again, I reject those labels and the ideology that they define. As I told the New York Times, ‘it’s not about race; it’s never been about race.’ One of my most strongly held beliefs is that we are all created in God’s image and that human life is sacred in all its forms.”
Steve then went on the Floor of the House the next day, Friday January11, to make this compelling statement:
“In a 56 minute interview [with the New York Times], we discussed the changing use of language in political discourse. We discussed the worn out label ‘racist’ and my observation that other slanderous labels have been increasingly assigned to Conservatives by the Left, who injected into our current political dialog such terms as Nazi, Fascist, ‘White Nationalist, White Supremacist,— Western Civilization, how did THAT language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?’…just to watch Western Civilization become a derogatory term in political discourse today.

Clearly, I was only referencing Western Civilization classes. No one ever sat in a class listening to the merits of white nationalism and white supremacy.

When I used the word ‘THAT’ it was in reference ONLY to Western Civilization and NOT to any previously stated evil ideology ALL of which I have denounced. My record as a vocal advocate for Western Civilization is nearly as full as my record in defense of Freedom of Speech.”
You’d think that would take care of it, right?  Of course not, the DemFascicrat condemnation of Steve just got louder as if he had said nothing.
And then the cowardly Republicans got right on board.  As reported by the libtard Des Moines Register reveling in the smear, the next day, Saturday January 12:
“Republican leaders — including Iowa Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst — denounced King’s statements. Sen. Tim Scott wrote a Washington Post op-ed about King’s history of racially charged rhetoric and the lack of action by his party to curb it.

‘King’s comments are not conservative views but separate views that should be ridiculed at every turn possible,’ Scott wrote. ‘I condemn Rep. Steve King’s comments on white supremacy; they are offensive and racist — and not representative of our state of Iowa,’ Ernst tweeted.”
The next morning, Sunday January 13, the Associated Press headlined: House GOP leader vows action against Iowa Rep. Steve King over race remarks.  Kevin McCarthy was quoted saying, “Steve’s remarks are beneath the dignity of the party of Lincoln. His language has no place in America. Action will be taken.”
That action came in less than 24 hours when on Monday January 14, by a unanimous vote of the House Republican Steering Committee chaired by McCarthy, Steve was stripped of all his committee assignments.
But that wasn’t punishment enough for Steve’s support of Western Civilization, now transmogrified into support for “white supremacy” by the anti-white racist hate of the Fascist Left.  Oh, no.  McCarthy’s actions just egged them on.
A few hours later, black Dem James Clyburn (SC), one of the most rabidly hate-whitey folks in Congress, submitted a Resolution to specifically condemn Steve King by name: H. Res. 41: Rejecting White nationalism and White supremacy.
The wording is pathologically dishonest, equating what Steve said to the Times and after with the Left’s strawman of KKK-pro-Nazi racists.
Clyburn’s resolution was brought to the House Floor for a full vote the following afternoon, ereyesterday, Tuesday, January 15. The vote was recorded at 3:26pm:  424 Yes – 1 No.  That one No Vote was by Black Racist Dem Bobby Rush (one of the founders of the Black Panther terrorists in the 1960s), because it didn’t condemn Steve more strongly.
Mark the time and date:  At 3:26pm Eastern Standard Time on January 15, 2019, the Republican Party died – cause of death: suicide.
That includes, by the way, Steve King himself – who voted for his own condemnation (see vote link above).  In the Register’s story, House passes resolution rebuking Steve King after comments on white supremacy, nationalism, Steve is quoted:
“I’m putting up a ‘yes’ up on the board here because what you state here (in the Resolution) is right and it’s true and it’s just.”
Steve himself has capitulated to the Fascist Left controlling our language, rebuking his own statement on the House Floor: “If you can control the language, you can control the policy. Labels have been hurled in this country at people like we have never seen in this history of America.”
What has happened is the complete and total RINOization of the GOP.  It’s no longer Trump’s Party – it has submitted to its master, the Hate-Whites Nazi Racists of the Fascist Left, for whom Whites are the New Jews who must be exterminated.
This Nazi racism of the Left was epitomized by CNN anchor Don Lemon on October 29, 2018, who declared (too stupid to realize the ludicrous hypocrisy of his words):
“I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity… So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”
You’ve noted I refer to Congressman Steve King simply as “Steve” – because I consider him a friend who I know personally has nothing whatever in common with KKK wackos.  He is an honest decent American patriot and proud defender of Western Civilization under attack by the Fascist Left.
And now the Fascist Left, the black hate-white racists in Congress, the auto-racist white libtard media, the idiot weirdos like Occasional-Cortex, the whole scumbag lot of them are celebrating today their vast victory over our entire culture – making “Western Civilization” equivalent to “Evil White Supremacy.”
From now on, thanks to them and their gutless Republican poodles, no one can defend America’s culture and civilization without being called a “white supremacist.”
Where now do we find an unapologetic champion of the greatest historical achievement of mankind, Western Civilization, and its apogee, America?
Not among Republicans – they’re dead, or enslaved to the fascists.
Historian Will Durant’s epitaph for the great civilizations of history is:
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
He would now observe that about America.

The FBI Prostituted ItselfThe American Spectator - by GEORGE PARRY - A national disgrace of unprecedented historic proportions

A national disgrace of unprecedented historic proportions.
Citing unnamed “former law enforcement sources and others,” the New York Times reports that “in the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.”
The mainstream media has touted this story as major breaking news. But, to anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention, it is crystal clear that Comey’s firing did not precipitate the FBI’s investigation of Trump. To the contrary, the readily available record facts demonstrate that Comey’s FBI began investigating Trump and his campaign for possible Russian collusion shortly after he won the Republican Party’s nomination.
Even though the Times would have us believe that the FBI investigated Trump out of a legitimate concern for national security, those same facts prove that, in launching and directing the investigation, the leadership of Comey’s FBI was engaging in partisan presidential politics to further their own selfish interests. Here’s why.
Recall that Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the 2016 presidential election. All of the pols, polls, and pundits agreed on that point. She was a lock for the White House.
Nevertheless, Clinton faced a number of politically sticky issues. Most prominent of these was her use as Secretary of State of an unsecure private email server to transact official business.
Because this had unavoidably become a matter of public concern, the FBI conducted a Potemkin investigation of Clinton for possible violations of a criminal statute that makes it a felony for anyone lawfully possessing information pertaining to the national defense to allow it, through “gross negligence,” to be removed from its proper place of custody and disclosed. In other words, under the statute, one need not intend to cause harm. As with a drunken driver who accidentally runs down a pedestrian, “gross negligence” alone was sufficient to warrant a felony charge.
In July 2016, when he announced the results of the investigation, Comey made it clear that Clinton had repeatedly and over a period of years stored, sent, and received “very sensitive, highly classified information” on her unclassified, nongovernment email server. But although Comey conceded that Clinton was “extremely careless” in doing so, he nevertheless concluded that she should not be charged because there was no “clear evidence” that she “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
So it was that, confronted by an insurmountable mountain of proof of Clinton’s grossly negligent and therefore felonious mishandling of classified information, Comey, with a straight face and without apparent embarrassment, raised an utterly irrelevant nonissue (lack of clear proof of intent) to give Clinton a pass.
This was the first overt sign that the FBI director had taken sides in the election and was doing his best to help Clinton’s candidacy and, he undoubtedly hoped, to become part of her administration.
Then things hit a snag. The NYPD was investigating former Congressman Anthony Weiner, husband to Clinton assistant Huma Abedin, for sexual solicitation of minors over the internet. Unfortunately for Clinton and Comey, the NYPD seized Weiner’s laptop computer and discovered on it thousands of classified State Department emails and documents.
The NYPD provided copies of those documents to the FBI. Faced with the possibility that the NYPD might disclose its findings, Comey reopened the FBI investigation.
In his auto-hagiography A Higher Loyalty, Comey states that “I believed that it was my duty to inform Congress that we were restarting the investigation. I would say as little as possible, but the FBI had to speak.”
Responding to subsequent fatuous claims that his announcement may have cost Clinton the election, Comey explains in his book that he might not have announced reopening the investigation if he had thought that Donald Trump had any chance of winning the election. “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls.”
Despite the enormous amount of material provided by the NYPD, the restarted FBI investigation was wrapped up in a matter of days, and Clinton was exonerated for a second time. Comey had doubled his deposit in the Clinton favor bank.
While all of this was going on, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department were investigating the Trump campaign for possible ties to Russia. That investigation was based in substantial part on opposition research helpfully gathered and disseminated by the Clinton campaign. Former British spy and FBI informant Christopher Steele, while working for Fusion GPS which was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, gathered salacious rumors and unsubstantiated information regarding Trump’s purported antics with Moscow prostitutes and other topics that supposedly would make him subject to Russian blackmail and control.
In addition to providing that unsubstantiated information to the FBI, Steele and Fusion GPS fed it to the media.
Compiled in the eponymous “Steele dossier,” this baseless Clinton campaign opposition research and the related leaked media stories were used by the FBI during the campaign to obtain a warrant and three renewals from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to retrieve the electronically intercepted communications of Trump campaign consultant Carter Page. These warrants continued through the campaign and extended after the election and encompassed not only Page’s communications but the identities and responding communications of all persons in contact with him.
At the same time, the FBI tasked an informant to insinuate himself with Page as well as Trump campaign advisers Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, this “longtime U.S. intelligence source” for the FBI and CIA met separately with Page, Clovis, and Papadopoulos and “offered to help with the campaign.”
The informant offered Papadopoulos a $3,000 honorarium to write a research paper and a paid trip to London. When he met with Papadopoulos, the informant quizzed him about his possible knowledge of Clinton’s emails which had allegedly been hacked by the Russians.
Despite the informant’s best efforts and the extensive FISA surveillance, no proof of Russian collusion by Trump or his campaign have surfaced. But make no mistake. The FBI tried its best to link Trump to Russia but failed.
Which brings us to election day 2016 when the unthinkable happened: Trump won.
Comey and his crew were in a world of trouble. They had played partisan presidential politics and their candidate had lost. All of their plans were dashed, and they now faced the disagreeable likelihood of being held to account by the incoming president. What to do?
But, as they pondered this question, their prospects dimmed further. On November 17, 2016, Admiral Mike Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, met with President-elect Trump in New York. While it is unknown what transpired at that meeting, the next day two things happened.
First, the Trump transition team vacated Trump Tower and moved to New Jersey. Was this because Rogers had warned Trump of ongoing FBI electronic surveillance of Trump Tower?
Second, the same day the transition team departed Trump Tower, the Washington Post reported on a recommendation by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to President Obama that Rogers be removed from office. Noting that Rogers had “caused consternation at senior levels of the [Obama] administration” by meeting with Trump without notifying “superiors,” the Postarticle stated that the recommendation to remove him had been made in October 2016, well before his meeting with Trump. Why? What had he done?
We know now that in early 2016 Rogers had advised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of wholesale abuse of FISA powers by the FBI. This led to an internal investigation and a hearing before the FISC in October 2016. On April 26, 2017, the FISC issued a highly redacted Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding this abuse. The court found that “the FBI had disclosed raw FISA information” to a name-redacted organization “staffed largely by private contractors.” These private contractors had been given “access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems…”
Who were these private contractors? What, if any relation, did this illegal activity have with the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign?
While the answers to these critical questions are unknown, the facts recited in the FISC opinion combined with Rogers’ unauthorized meeting with Trump and the Trump transition team’s prompt evacuation of Trump Tower raise the specter that, throughout the presidential campaign and after the election, the FBI’s widespread illegal abuse of FISA was aimed at Trump.
The Times’ claim that the FBI didn’t begin investigating Trump until he fired Comey is patently and demonstrably untrue. Comey’s FBI investigated Trump during the campaign even as it was meretriciously and repeatedly clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal charges.
But let’s accept for the sake of argument the Times’ claim that the Comey firing triggered the FBI investigation of Trump. Are we to believe that, rid of Comey, the FBI was then out of partisan politics? No, it was not.
With Comey gone, leadership of the FBI went to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. In 2015, McCabe’s wife ran for Virginia State Senate with the political support of then Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe’s political action committee and the state Democratic party gave Jill McCabe financial and “in-kind” support of more than $650,000.
McAuliffe was and is a well-known Clinton insider and supporter. In fact, in June 2015, Hillary Clinton had been a featured speaker at a fundraiser for McAuliffe’s PAC, the same organization that had been so generous to McCabe’s wife’s campaign.
When his wife announced her candidacy, McCabe was the head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. But by February 2016, he had risen to the rank of Deputy Director. In that capacity, he oversaw the Clinton email investigation until its very last days, when it had become clear that Comey was going to publicly grant Clinton absolution for her sins.
McCabe did his part to undermine the new president by setting up Trump’s National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn, for his fatal interview by Special Agent Peter Strzok. According to Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, McCabe was on a conference call when Flynn’s indictment for lying to the FBI was announced. McCabe reportedly cheered.
This recitation of FBI connivance and subversion is by no means all-inclusive. The list could go on, but you get the idea. Contrary to the Times’story, Trump wasn’t targeted by the FBI because he fired Comey. While that may have spurred Comey’s crew to intensify their efforts to get Trump and may make for a good cover story, those efforts started almost the day he announced his candidacy for the presidency.
The Times would have us believe that Comey’s FBI was a pristine, nonpartisan guardian of the national interest alarmed by a perceived threat to national security posed by Trump. In fact, under Comey and McCabe, it was an active adjunct of the Democratic Party using its nearly unlimited investigative powers to make a massive in-kind contribution to the Clinton campaign. Comey, McCabe, and others in the FBI hierarchy acted, quite simply, as political operatives with badges.
In February 2018, Joe diGenova summed it up best on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. “It is clear that, at the time prior to the election and subsequent to the election, there were a group of people inside the FBI at the senior levels on the seventh floor [of FBI headquarters] who decided that they were going to protect Hillary Clinton…. they were going to exonerate Hillary and they were going to frame Donald Trump.”
That has been the real story from the very first. It is a story of a once proud law enforcement agency being prostituted by its corrupt leadership as they tried to advance their partisan political agenda by subverting the Constitution and a national election.
It is a vitally important story of an unprecedented national disgrace of historic proportions. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the New York Times or the mainstream media to tell it.
George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor who practices law in Philadelphia. He is a regular contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer and blogs at He may be reached by email at