Will The Brazilian Military Save The Day?

NOVEMBER 03, 2022

NY Times:

Refusing to Accept Defeat, Bolsonaro Backers Call on Military to Intervene

Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across Brazil, many of them demanding that the military stop the transfer of power to President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

With each passing day, what we are able to piece together from faraway Brazil points more and more toward a controlled military operation in which the Left was purposefully induced into stealing a presidential election. It’s essentially USA 2020 all over again — the difference being that military intervention appears to be more imminent and not at all covert. The Slimes article itself, though condescending and dismissive in its attitude toward the Bolsonaro voters, describes the military dynamic at play:

“They arrived by the tens of thousands on Wednesday, angry and draped in Brazilian flags, massing outside military bases across the country. They were there, they said, to save Brazil’s democracy from a rigged election, and there was only one way to do so: The armed forces needed to take control of the government.

It was an alarming demand in a country that suffered under a two-decade military dictatorship until 1985 — and yet another bizarre twist in the aftermath of Brazil’s polarizing elections.”

The great danger for the Left here lies in the fact that if a military intervention establishes that massive fraud took place, it will call into question election results in countries across the world — for any election in which a Marxist-Globalist candidate won.

The prospect of a military intervention in Brazil offers us a “teachable moment”  about the good old days of those Latin American military “juntas” who knew how to deal with “subversivos.” One such coup occurred in Brazil, in 1964 — and the military rulers remained in oversight of the nation until 1985.

Concerns over Brazilian President Joao Goulart began in 1962, during the presidency of John F Kennedy. JFK worried over Brazil’s slide toward the Marxist Left and concluded that the US should support military forces in opposition to Goulart. At first, the Kennedy administration attempted to work with Goulart and convince him to change his political views and policies to a more pro-Western system. In December 1962, Bobby Kennedy flew to Brazil to meet with Goulart. The two spoke for three hours, with Kennedy outlining “the presence of Communists” as the main American objection to his government.

In March 1963, Kennedy gave Goulart a choice: either he could remove the commie politicians from political power, or the United States would put economic pressure on Brazil. During the final months of 1963, the Kennedy administration began to search for paramilitary forces capable of overthrowing the Goulart government. JFK was assassinated in November of that year, but the coup-plotting continued.

In the early hours of March 31, 1964, General Olímpio Mourão Filho, Commander of the 4th Military Region, ordered his troops to start moving towards Rio de Janeiro.  In the early hours of April 2 the National Congress declared the presidency to be vacant. The leaders of the Senate and the Supreme Federal Tribunal swore in Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, as president as the Leftist Goulart exiled himself in Uruguay.

A year after the coup, the Brazilian Communist Party was banned in 1965 — and not legalized again until 1985. And that’s pretty much all you need to know about the glorious coup of 1964 — “in a nutshell.”

Italian Election Rocks the New World Order!

“Thank You Italy.”

SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

NY Times:
  Giorgia Meloni Wins Voting in Italy, in Breakthrough for Europe’s Hard Right

BY JASON HOROWITZ

Mamma Mia! The screams of Bolshevik butt-hurt emanating from the press over the election of a “far right” female Prime Minister in Italy are reverberating throughout the hollowed heads of western Libtardia. From the opening paragraph of the Times’ Jason Horowitz whine-a-thon:

“Italy turned a page of European history on Sunday by electing a hard-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni, whose long record of bashing the European Union, international bankers and migrants has sown concern about the nation’s reliability in the Western alliance. Ms. Meloni, the leader of the nationalist Brothers of Italy, a party descended from the remnants of fascism, had led a right-wing coalition to a majority in Parliament, defeating a fractured left.” (emphasis added)

Hmmm. No “hurrahs” for the 45-year-old Giorgia “breaking the glass ceiling” to become the first female Prime Ministerette of macho Italy? Come on now, Whorowitz. This is the type of “historic”  fluff you girlie boys usually get all warm and tingly about, is it not? Youse guys had such a hard-on for “strong women” like Killary, the Frumpy Frau of Germany and that trans donkey down in New Zealand. How about a little love for the Italian babe?

1. “Hard right” — “fascist” — “far right” — male chauvinist pig Horrorshitz has nothing good to say about Giorgia Meloni and her coalition partners. // 2. Meloni:
 “When you no longer have roots, you are  a slave. And when you are a slave, you serve the interests of Soros.”  // 3. The Globalist Press has Giorgia on its mind.

Although the success of the “far right” in Sweden’s elections last week came as delightful news, it doesn’t compare to what just occurred in Italy for the simple reason that Italy is one of Europe’s largest states (pop: 60 million) and largest economies. If Italy “turns its back” (or even just turns sideways) on NATO and the EU, the whole house of NWO cards may topple in Europe — exactly as Q had — when the idea of such a thing seemed unimaginable — accurately forecast as far back as 2017. That being said, infertile, ageing, corrupted and factionalized Italy, like Sweden, still may not be salvageable domestically.

I support the idea of women as political leaders (why not). We should acknowledge this, in a democracy, the placing of softer female masks on the face of the big bad “far right” has certain strategic advantages. And as far as we can tell, Signora Meloni — mother of one out-of-wedlock child by her “significant other” — seems solid in both her political and social positions as she is passionate. Meloni’s political activism dates back to her student days and has been what (((they))) would describe as “fascist” — though she seems to have “moderated” (rolling eyes) in recent years.

We’ll let the lady speak for herself — and then you’ll understand why the likes of Mr. Whorowitz are horrified:

* Giorgia Meloni on God, Family & Country:

A question: “Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to simply be perfect consumer slaves.

They attack national identity, they attack religious identity. They attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators — the perfect consumer.

That is the reason why we inspire so much fear. Because we do not want to be numbers. We will defend the value of the human being because every person has a unique genetic code that is unrepeatable… and like it or not, that is sacred.

We will defend God, country, and family. Those things that disgust people so much. We will do it to defend our freedom because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of financial speculators. That is our mission. That is why I came here today.”

Tell it, Giorgia. Tell it! — Good Christian? well, marry the father of your daughter.

1. When the men are lacking, women must sometimes step up —Meloni with Le Pen of France — who may herself, in the near future, assume high office in France. // 2. If Italy exits the EU — or even just begins to ignore some its dictates — the cherished post WW2 project of the Globalists will, in essence, cease to exist in any meaningful way.

Why Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) Matters…

Eric Arthur Blair

Most people think that George Orwell was writing about, and against, totalitarianism – especially when they encounter him through the prism of his great dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

This view of Orwell is not wrong, but it can miss something. For Orwell was concerned above all about the particular threat posed by totalitarianism to words and language. He was concerned about the threat it posed to our ability to think and speak freely and truthfully. About the threat it posed to our freedom.

He saw, clearly and vividly, that to lose control of words is to lose control of meaning. That is what frightened him about the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia – these regimes wanted to control the very linguistic substance of thought itself.

And that is why Orwell continues to speak to us so powerfully today. Because words, language and meaning are under threat once more.

Totalitarianism in Orwell’s time

The totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union represented something new and frightening for Orwell. Authoritarian dictatorships, in which power was wielded unaccountably and arbitrarily, had existed before, of course. But what made the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century different was the extent to which they demanded every individual’s complete subservience to the state. They sought to abolish the very basis of individual freedom and autonomy. They wanted to use dictatorial powers to socially engineer the human soul itself, changing and shaping how people think and behave.

Totalitarian regimes set about breaking up clubs, trade unions and other voluntary associations. They were effectively dismantling those areas of social and political life in which people were able to freely and spontaneously associate. The spaces, that is, in which local and national culture develops free of the state and officialdom. These cultural spaces were always tremendously important to Orwell. As he put it in his 1941 essay, ‘England Your England’: ‘All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official – the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the “nice cup of tea”.’

Totalitarianism may have reached its horrifying zenith in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. But Orwell was worried about its effect in the West, too. He was concerned about the Sovietisation of Europe through the increasingly prominent and powerful Stalinist Communist Parties. He was also worried about what he saw as Britain’s leftwing ‘Europeanised intelligentsia’, which, like the Communist Parties of Western Europe, seemed to worship state power, particularly in the supranational form of the USSR. And he was concerned above all about the emergence of the totalitarian mindset, and the attempt to re-engineer the deep structures of mind and feeling that lie at the heart of autonomy and liberty.

Orwell could see this mindset flourishing among Britain’s intellectual elite, from the eugenics and top-down socialism of Fabians, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and HG Wells, to the broader technocratic impulses of the intelligentsia in general. They wanted to remake people ‘for their own good’, or for the benefit of the race or state power. They therefore saw it as desirable to force people to conform to certain prescribed behaviours and attitudes. This threatened the everyday freedom of people who wanted, as Orwell put it, ‘the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above’.

Edmond O’Brien as Winston Smith and Jan Sterling as Julia, in an adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, 3 June 1955.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, this new intellectual elite started to gain ascendancy. It was effectively a clerisy – a cultural and ruling elite defined by its academic achievements. It had been forged through higher education and academia rather than through traditional forms of privilege and wealth, such as public schools.

Orwell was naturally predisposed against this emergent clerisy. He may have attended Eton, but that’s where Orwell’s education stopped. He was not part of the clerisy’s world. He was not an academic writer, nor did he position himself as such. On the contrary, he saw himself as a popular writer, addressing a broad, non-university-educated audience.

Moreover, Orwell’s antipathy towards this new elite type was long-standing. He had bristled against the rigidity and pomposity of imperial officialdom as a minor colonial police official in Burma between 1922 and 1927. And he had always battled against the top-down socialist great and good, and much of academia, too, who were often very much hand in glove with the Stalinised left.

The hostility was mutual. Indeed, it accounts for the disdain that many academics and their fellow travellers continue to display towards Orwell today.

The importance of words

Nowadays we are all too familiar with this university-educated ruling caste, and its desire to control words and meaning. Just think, for example, of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have turned ‘fascism’ from a historically specific phenomenon into a pejorative that has lost all meaning, to be used to describe anything from Brexit to Boris Johnson’s Tory government – a process Orwell saw beginning with the Stalinist practice of calling Spanish democratic revolutionaries ‘Trotsky-fascists’ (which he documented in Homage to Catalonia (1938)).

Or think of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have transformed the very meanings of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, divesting them of any connection to biological reality. Orwell would not have been surprised by this development. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, he shows how the totalitarian state and its intellectuals will try to suppress real facts, and even natural laws, if they diverge from their worldview. Through exerting power over ideas, they seek to shape reality. ‘Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of your own choosing’, says O’Brien, the sinister party intellectual. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… You must get rid of these 19th-century ideas about the laws of nature.’

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime tries to subject history to similar manipulation. As anti-hero Winston Smith tells his lover, Julia:

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’

As Orwell wrote elsewhere, ‘the historian believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.’

This totalitarian approach to history is dominant today, from the New York Times’ 1619 Project to statue-toppling. History is something to be erased or conjured up or reshaped as a moral lesson for today. It is used to demonstrate the rectitude of the contemporary establishment.

But it is language that is central to Orwell’s analysis of this form of intellectual manipulation and thought-control. Take ‘Ingsoc’, the philosophy that the regime follows and enforces through the linguistic system of Newspeak. Newspeak is more than mere censorship. It is an attempt to make certain ideas – freedom, autonomy and so on – actually unthinkable or impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate the very possibility of dissent (or ‘thoughtcrime’).

As Syme, who is working on a Newspeak dictionary, tells Winston Smith:

‘The whole aim… is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

The parallels between Orwell’s nightmarish vision of totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset of today, in which language is policed and controlled, should not be overstated. In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the project of eliminating freedom and dissent, as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, was backed up by a brutal, murderous secret police. There is little of that in our societies today – people are not forcibly silenced or disappeared.

However, they are cancelled, pushed out of their jobs, and sometimes even arrested by the police for what amounts to thoughtcrime. And many more people simply self-censor out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing. Orwell’s concern that words could be erased or their meaning altered, and thought controlled, is not being realised in an openly dictatorial manner. No, it’s being achieved through a creeping cultural and intellectual conformism.

The intellectual turn against freedom

But then that was always Orwell’s worry – that intellectuals giving up on freedom would allow a Big Brother Britain to flourish. As he saw it in The Prevention of Literature (1946), the biggest danger to freedom of speech and thought came not from the threat of dictatorship (which was receding by then) but from intellectuals giving up on freedom, or worse, seeing it as an obstacle to the realisation of their worldview.

Interestingly, his concerns about an intellectual betrayal of freedom were reinforced by a 1944 meeting of the anti-censorship organisation, English PEN. Attending an event to mark the 300th anniversary of Milton’s Areopagitica, Milton’s famous 1644 speech making the case for the ‘Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing’, Orwell noted that many of the left-wing intellectuals present were unwilling to criticise Soviet Russia or wartime censorship. Indeed, they had become profoundly indifferent or hostile to the question of political liberty and press freedom.

‘In England, the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats’, Orwell wrote, ‘but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all’.

Orwell was concerned by the increasing popularity among influential left-wing intellectuals of ‘the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’. The exercise of freedom of speech and thought, the willingness to speak truth to power, was even then becoming seen as something to be frowned upon, a selfish, even elitist act.

An individual speaking freely and honestly, wrote Orwell, is ‘accused of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege’.

These are insights which have stood the test of time. Just think of the imprecations against those who challenge the consensus. They are dismissed as ‘contrarians’ and accused of selfishly upsetting people.

And worst of all, think of the way free speech is damned as the right of the privileged. This is possibly one of the greatest lies of our age. Free speech does not support privilege. We all have the capacity to speak, write, think and argue. We might not, as individuals or small groups, have the platforms of a press baron or the BBC. But it is only through our freedom to speak freely that we can challenge those with greater power.

Orwell’s legacy

Orwell is everywhere today. He is taught in schools and his ideas and phrases are part of our common culture. But his value and importance to us lies in his defence of freedom, especially the freedom to speak and write.

His outstanding 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, can actually be read as a freedom manual. It is a guide on how to use words and language to fight back.

Of course, it is attacked today as an expression of privilege and of bigotry. Author and commentator Will Self cited ‘Politics and the English Language’ in a 2014 BBC Radio 4 show as proof that Orwell was an ‘authoritarian elitist’. He said: ‘Reading Orwell at his most lucid you can have the distinct impression he’s saying these things, in precisely this way, because he knows that you – and you alone – are exactly the sort of person who’s sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the very essence of what he’s trying to communicate. It’s this the mediocrity-loving English masses respond to – the talented dog-whistler calling them to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.’

Lionel Trilling, another writer and thinker, made a similar point to Self, but in a far more insightful, enlightening way. ‘[Orwell] liberates us’, he wrote in 1952:

‘He tells us that we can understand our political and social life merely by looking around us, he frees us from the need for the inside dope. He implies that our job is not to be intellectual, certainly not to be intellectual in this fashion or that, but merely to be intelligent according to our lights – he restores the old sense of the democracy of the mind, releasing us from the belief that the mind can work only in a technical, professional way and that it must work competitively. He has the effect of making us believe that we may become full members of the society of thinking men. That is why he is a figure for us.’

Orwell should be a figure for us, too – in our battle to restore the democracy of the mind and resist the totalitarian mindset of today. But this will require having the courage of our convictions and our words, as he so often did himself. As he put it in The Prevention of Literature, ‘To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly’. That Orwell did precisely that was a testament to his belief in the public just as much as his belief in himself. He sets an example and a challenge to us all.

10 Ways to Change a Liberal’s Mind…

Have you ever talked with a liberal and made a comment that shuts him down completely?  “Trump sure is getting a raw deal with that FBI raid, isn’t he?”  His eyes go glassy, and he starts to look for the exit.  Or he repeats something automatically, like “Trump deserves anything he gets.” 

This “orange man bad” mantra is often called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  It effectively shuts down all communication between disagreeing sides and prevents any kind of meaningful dialogue, even between good friends or family members.  Even intelligent people who are suffering greatly from Biden/liberal policies, through loss of jobs, high gas and oil prices, rapid inflation, high taxes, or curbs on religious freedoms, won’t be able to change their minds and consider voting for a conservative or moderate candidate once he is somehow linked to Donald Trump. 

They say, “If Trump is for it, then I am against it” even if that means they pay $5 a gallon for gas, can’t get formula for their babies, or can’t afford to heat their homes this winter. 

Why does this happen?  How do people make up their minds, and why do they stubbornly refuse to change them? 

You would think that people would evaluate important issues logically, like a math equation where 2+2=4, but this is not true with beliefs, especially when politics is involved.

Keith M. Bellizzi, professor of human development and family sciences, from the University of Connecticut, is among many who study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, and his article on the subject is a good start.  He explains that there are survival systems that are hard-wired into our brains that actually cause stubborn adherence to wrong beliefs.

“Belief perseverance” is one such system.  “Being presented with facts — whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations — that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened.”  They will reject the evidence, and often their original beliefs will become stronger.

“Confirmation bias” is “the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs.  Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias.”  This is why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. 

The brain itself is hardwired to reinforce existing opinions and beliefs, even if this might cause harm.  When you win an argument, your body releases a rush of pleasurable hormones like dopamine and adrenaline.  In a high-stress or threatening situation, cortisol is released, which depresses your logical mind and triggers the more basic part of your brain, which controls fight or flight.  You “see red,” voices are raised, fists get clenched, and it’s much more difficult to understand what the other side is saying. 

Other sociologists have identified other biases that effect logical vs. emotional thinking.

“Believing people from your tribe” 

Humans developed in tribal cultures, which continue to this day.  You are much less likely to believe an outsider.  Nowadays, a tribe is not just a reference to ethnicity or religion, but also belief systems in global warming or abortion, where members are easily identified by how they look or what they say. 

“The big lie” 

People, by nature, are well intentioned, and they assume that others are as well.  So when they hear a lie, they tend to believe it.  Interestingly, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed because they assume that no one would lie about something of such importance.  

All of these factors are related to survival going back to the earliest days of mankind.  If you constantly have to be re-evaluating your beliefs, such as “growling tigers are a reason to run,” then you might consider having a chat with such a tiger — and end up being his lunch. 

So how can you reach people with closed minds? 

1. Be from within their tribe.  Start by reinforcing what the two of you have in common — you may have lived in the same city, had similar jobs or similar backgrounds.  

2. Get permission to discuss — “Would you like to tell me about your views on global warming?”  This makes the idea of a discussion non-threatening. 

3. Resolve never to argue or raise your voice.  Don’t threaten or invoke fear.  If things start to become even a little heated, then withdraw — “we can always discuss this later” or “now may not be the time to discuss this.”  Getting into a heated argument is going to activate the liberal’s lizard brain and end logical reasoning.  

4. Start small.  Don’t try to convince the liberal that Donald Trump is the next George Washington.  Go for a smaller issue that doesn’t challenge one of his core beliefs.  “Should Iran have a nuclear weapon?” or “Would it be good for China to control our farmland?” 

5. Pick topics where you are well-versed.  Most of the people you will be talking with know very little factual information — they are used to hearing talking points and then parroting them back to you. 

6. Ask questions.  There is nothing threatening about asking an honest question, especially about something that is important to the liberal.  Make it clear that you are open and willing to listen to his side and willing to change your mind.  There is a brain/hormone thrill associated with converting someone to his side that will entice him to interact.  Your openness models good behavior — if you’re willing to change your mind, then he should be open-minded as well.

7. Ask “why?”  Few can survive three “whys” in a row.  The brainwashed rarely know the logic behind what they parrot.  

8. Focus on common sense and fairness.  “Does it make sense to spend $2 trillion to lower global temperature by 0.0006 degrees?”  “Does it seem fair to make a middle-class worker who never went to college pay for the student loan of a Harvard graduate with a women’s studies degree?” 

9. If you start to see the liberal’s resistance crumbling, share how you used to feel how he did, but you changed your mind when you learned new information. 

10. If you get him to change his mind on one topic, don’t gloat or insist that he admit he was wrong.  Just say, “I’m glad we had a chance to discuss this.  I learned a lot from you.  I hope we can talk again in the future.”  Then come back another time with a different topic that is more important.  

Changing minds is not a quick process.  Patience and self-control are essential.  Unless we can learn how to speak to our fellow Americans in a kind and understanding manner, we will never heal the divide in our nation. 

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech.

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

WHAT IS “FASCISM?”

Picture
Franco — Hitler — Mussolini

Fascist! — It is the all-purpose insult which both libtards and misguided conservatives — each in full agreement that Fascism is the worst epithet one can use to describe another person’s political beliefs — constantly accuse the other of being. “You’re a Fascist!” — “No. You’re a Fascist!” — “Oh yeah, your mamma’s a Fascist!” That’s what we call “debate” in our modern “Democrazy.” But how many people actually understand what “Fascism” really even means? Very few. 

Time Magazine offers up a typically incomplete, superficial and vague “textbook definition” of Fascism as follows:

“Fascism is a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithicregimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler.”

Actually, when you think about it — ALL forms of government (including “democracies”) and their laws are maintained by “force” — ALL stripes of politicians promote “monolithic” ideology (their own) — ALL systems require some degree of “regimentation” (common language laws, common currency, compulsory education etc) — and ALL are “autocratic” (in democracies, the autocrats hide behind the curtain). There’s no way around it, boys and girls. ALL Government, by design and by necessity, is force. So don’t kid yourself. The only question at hand is, will the force of government be unlimited and used to oppress and exploit (Globalism / Marxism / liberal “democracy”) — or will it be limited and used to serve and protect (Fascism).

Unfortunately, due to ignorance and decades of intense Marxist-Globalist propaganda, Fascism — in spite of the general happiness of those who had actually lived under such a system — has acquired an undeservedly bad reputation. RHC presents this piece in order to light up the darkness concerning this historical subject.

Picture
Picture
Picture
“Fascist” is about the worst possible thing one can call a political adversary.

Before we can define Fascism in terms of its political, economic and cultural manifestations — some critical historical context (always lacking in the conventional definitions) needs to be known. Though Fascism comes in several different flavors unique to the nations that have “gone Fascist,” it is, first and foremost,a self-defensive and opposite reaction to the growing political, economic and cultural cancer of degenerative atheistic totalitarian Marxism and the international financiers who control it.

Consider this: History’s three most well-known Fascists — Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy and Francisco Franco of Spain all came to power at the precise moment in time when their respective countries were about to be swallowed up by the “democratic” force of Communist subversion. The same can be said for various other Fascist / Military leaders in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s — or even Napoleon Bonaparte with his crack-down upon the terrorist Jacobin Reds and subsequent rise to supreme ruler of France, more than 200 years ago. And when Fascists — usually supported by the majority of the grateful anti-Communist population — do come into power, they must necessarily continue to limit the “human rights” ™ of the evil terrorist Marxist scum which would enslave the nation if they could. The “repression” associated with Fascism is therefore not one of tyranny, but rather, of a just punishment for traitors and would-be tyrants.

With this contextual history in mind, the discerning reader — specifically a conservative one — should already have begun to understand the obvious reason why the term Fascism has such a negative stink to it. You see, when Fascism rises, Globalism / Marxism falls. And because the Globalist / Marxist Left controls Fake News, Fake Academia and degenerate Hollywood, we’ve been taught — brainwashed, that is — to believe that Fascism is inherently oppressive and evil. Get it? Good. Now, let us move on to defining what Fascism is and does after the Reds have been removed from power.

Picture
1922: Left Wing politicians and Communist trade unions were plunging Italy into chaos. Mussolini and his “Black Shirts” (many of them war vets) led the massive “March on Rome” which toppled the left-wing government and enabled the necessary suppression of Italy’s Reds.
Picture
1933: After Communists set fire to the Reichstag as the trigger for a violent revolution, Hitler and his “Brown Shirts” (many of them war vets) soon put Germany’s violent Reds out of business once and for all.
Picture
General Franco’s revolt of 1936-1939 was aided by Germany & Italy — whereas the newly installed (by subversion) Leftist government of Spain was supported by the Soviet Union as well as volunteer Jewish Bolsheviks from the U.S. and Eastern Europe.
Picture
German Fascists / National Socialists carry banner reading “Death to Marxism.” 
Picture
German poster reads “Death to the Lie” — the snake is labeled “Marxism” on its belly and “High Finance” on its back.

There are several different brands of Fascism and not any one defined set of rules. The word itself is derived from the Italian word, fascia — a band — fasciare meaning to band/ bundle together. In this case, to unite the people as brothers and sisters under a leader who in turn serves the interests of the people, not the leftist elites. The symbol of the Italian Fascists dates back to Ancient Rome (and used to be on the back of America dimes). In Latin, “fasces” — a bundle of wooden rods with an ax head, carried by leaders. In short, a good motto for Fascism would be “One for All and All for One.”

Though Fascism is “authoritarian” in the sense that the head of state and his associates reject the liberal model of multi-party chaos and Fake News-controlled mob voting, it is not to be confused with Marxist totalitarianism. In various spheres of the national life, there is certainly a higher degree of personal and economic liberty under Fascism than there is under Marxism or democratic liberalism. Under Fascism, as long as one’s activities do not harm society or corrupt the youth, citizens are free to own guns, or to start businesses, or to worship as they see fit, or to move about freely within the country or even leave the country altogether — like the Communist Albert Einstein left Hitler’s Germany; or the Communist Enrico Fermi left Mussolini’s Italy.

The three major realms of existence which Fascism oversees are the POLITICAL, the ECONOMIC and the CULTURAL — but the objective always centers around the same question: “What’s best for the people?” Let’s review each.

Picture
Picture
1916 U.S. “Mercury Dime” had Roman “fasces” on the back side — the same symbol later adopted by Mussolini’s Fascists in Italy. The symbol of bundled wooden rods stands for a unified people working together to advance their common cause.

POLITICAL FASCISM

We have already discussed how history teaches us that the Fascist leader always seems to emerge at the 11th hour to save the people from imminent Communist takeover. Taking that a step further, history also teaches us that the prep work preceding the rapid spread of this Marxist cancer was always cultivated in the putrid Petri Dish of temporary “democracy.” Upon coming to power, a good Fascist therefore understands that it is not enough to rapidly remove Marxists from all positions of political authority, media influence and education; he must also remove the parliamentary system of multi-party mob voting altogether for it would inevitably enable the cancer to return.

The noble hero of the hour thus becomes the “leader” and his devoted followers thus form the basis of the governing group that knows how to get important stuff done — instead of just talking bullshit all day. Their ranks are generally open to all men of ability and good character from all social and economic classes — thus making the Party truly “democratic” in the positive sense of the word.

The Fascist political order is therefore wholly consistent with the natural order of things — the God-given order which we may discern through logic. Fascism values meritocracy — and rejects the nit-witted notion that the obtainment of 50.1% of the vote somehow magically infers unlimited wisdom and should bestow unlimited power upon the clever rascal who “won the election.” Hitler said it best:

“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.”

Yes, Fascism in this sense is “authoritarian” — but as previously stated, so is “democracy” — a system in which an elected official can shut down your business or arrest you for not enforcing Covid-19 “social distancing”  and mask requirements, all on the basis of an invented hoax. Think about it!

The Fascist leader is bound ”fasces” to the people — but should he turn out to be incompetent or corrupt — there’s a better chance of him being removed by the dissatisfied Party membership, backed by the public, than there is of any real change concurring at a ” ballot box” in some corrupted “democratic” nation in which the people are are given a “choice” between Globalist Puppet #1 or Globalist Puppet #2 — or, in some cases, Globalist Puppets #3, #4, #5 et al. (Prior to Hitler’s rise in chaotic, Germany had more than FIFTY political parties vying for votes.)

In the realm of foreign relations, and contrary to historical distortion, Fascists — notwithstanding Mussolini’s adventures in North Africa — are pro-sovereignty, anti-Globalist and believe in minding-one’s own business while getting along with other countries. Just to set the record straight, both of the tragic World Wars of the 20th Century as well as all of the “Napoleonic Wars” 200+ years ago were imposed upon the peaceful Fascist states by the British-Rothschild complex.

Picture
Picture
Picture
There is no denying the extent of enormous popularity — apart from a minority of Marxists and libtarded idiots, that is — of the Fascist leaders Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. The true foundation of their authority was not force, but rather, gratitude for the salvation of their nations and service to the people.

ECONOMIC FASCISM

In terms of economics, there is no one-size-fits-all school of economic Fascism. One Fascist economic model might be more “hands off,” whereas another Fascist state may take a more cooperative “partnership” approach with certain corporations. The one constant is that the government plays an important role in monitoring banking, trade, production, and labor activity. Any intervention is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the interest of the people. Under Fascism, the state will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole.  Author James Miller puts it this way”

“In a Fascist country, the government asks, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?” If yes, it’s approved. If no, it’s not approved. When they ask, “Is it good?”, they mean, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???” For example, a pornography company would not be allowed because pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women particularly.”

Though Fascism is generally pro-business and free market, harmful “free trade” agreements would never be allowed because such bad deals result in companies shipping jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap). Such activity may benefit the share-holding elite, but it would undermine a nation’s labor class. This is entirely unacceptable and thus prohibited under a Fascist economic model.

A businessman can become wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to this — which is clear contrast to Communism. Fascism also protects the private ownership of property — again, in stark contrast to Communism where private property is not allowed, or even liberal “democracy” in which property is brutally taxed and elderly widows are forcibly removed from their homes if they can’t pay. Such abuse by the state would NEVER happen under “all for one” Fascism.

Though firmly anti-Communist and business-friendly, Fascism also rejects the self-centered “me me me” mentality so common under extreme “Capitalism.” The primary goal of corporate Capitalism is profit and stock price. The main objective of Fascism is the well being of the people. Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs: “Go ahead and run your business. Earn a lot of money. Be successful. Create jobs. But don’t produce any products or services which will damage our nation and our people. Be honest. Treat your workers well and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow this simple standard, we may shut you down.”

With regard to public welfare, the Fascist state may utilize a certain degree of “socialism” to assist the truly needy or deserving. This should in no way be confused with the high-tax Marxist / “democratic” brand of socialism which is calculated to foster mass dependency, create fatherless children and essentially buy votes. The “socialism” of “National Socialist” Germany, for example, was used to help a good hard-working German to buy a Volkswagen (“the people’s wagon”), access higher education, or take a nice family vacation. Hitler’s targeted “socialism” was as far removed from Marx’s comprehensive socialism as a few drops of rum used in a cake recipe is from guzzling down a fifth of vodka straight.

With regard to banking (and this is HUGE!) — money-supply usury is forbidden under Fascism. The government tightly controls monetary policy, including terms of lending and it issues/prints debt-free currency as needed to grow the economy and serve the citizens. And THAT, dear reader, more so than any other factor, is why the blood-sucking / money mad PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) of the modern “liberal” western world HATES Fascism and wants you to fear it.

Economic Fascism values professionals and “Blue Collar” workers equally and, unlike elitist Marxism, promotes harmony between them.

Picture
German poster appeals to workers of “the head” and “the fist” to support Hitler
Picture
German scientist in lab coat and German factory worker in apron hand-in-hand.
Picture
Though Hitler was strongly supported by the German business class, his good-for-all economic policies were also a big hit with the workingmen and farmers of Germany.
Picture
Hitler and Ferdinand Porsche conceived the Volkswagen
Picture
Fascist Germany decorated American businessman and auto pioneer Henry Ford
Picture
Picture
The corrupting influence of Wall Street ‘Fat Cats’ and Cronie Capitalists like Warren Buffoon would be neutered under Fascism.

CULTURAL FASCISM

The Fascist accepts the self-evident existence of a Creator and the natural law which logically derives from such belief. He appreciates the importance of a healthy and high culture. He understands that a trashy culture must, in due time, yield the rotten fruit of  a trashy broken people — and that a society full of trashy, broken, stupid people is the Marxist’s playground.

This is why Marxist / Trotskyites invariably promote Atheism, the destruction of the traditional family, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, cross-dressing, sexualization of children, degenerate “modern art,” lousy music, senseless literature, disrespect toward tradition, patriotism, & elders, and all conceivable forms of vulgarity, stupidity, Fake News falsehood, ugliness and moral depravity. The confused, alienated, dumbed-down and demoralized masses thus become putty in the hands of the Marxist master who fills the void left behind by the destruction of the God-centered sane culture which is no more.

This is what Marxists mean when they say: “The proletariat class is the progressive class” — proletariat meaning the masses of beaten down humanity with low class and morals — and “progressive” meaning progress toward a worldwide Communist state. It’s like one of America’s founding revolutionaries, Samuel Adams, once warned:

“It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined to destroy the people’s liberties, practice every art to poison their morals.”

Fascism protects the people from this insidious form of cultural / moral warfare (known as “The Frankfurt School”) which is, at its core, purely political. Not out of “oppression,” but for protection, the Fascist state will closely monitor news, film, theater, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain high moral standards, keep things respectable, promote a proper sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of the type of depraved filth which corrupts society and makes it ripe for Marxist takeover.

With respect to the sexes, unlike Marxism and Predatory Capitalism which view women as “human resources” which add to the Gross Domestic Product and the tax base, Fascism holds the bearers of life in very high regard. Though they are expected to be educated, worldly, and well read., women are encouraged to marry and have children. Contrary to the deliberate and grotesque bitchification and whoreification the young girls we see in the decadent West today, Fascist gals are raised to be strong and proper,  yet feminine and submissive. The complementing corollary of this is the rearing of boys to be tough, honorable and responsible — yet gentlemanly.  To the extent that this natural order of socialization makes women and men more compatible, the stronger the nuclear family unit — the building block of all healthy civilization — will become.

Picture
German poster depicts the way things ought to be. Fascist women found their ultimate satisfaction in being good wives and mothers. National economic policies facilitated this lifestyle
Picture
Fascist Youth: Fit, clean and tough
Picture
Fascist Art…REAL Art!
Picture
Marxist / Libtard females: nasty, whorish and domineering
Picture
Marxist / Libtard youth: soft, stupid, weak and degenerate.
Picture
Marxist Art (by the known Communist Pablo Picasso)  — not welcome in Germany or his native Spain: Hitler:  
“Works of art that cannot be understood but need a swollen set of instructions to prove their right to exist and find their way to neurotics who are receptive to such stupid or insolent nonsense will no longer openly reach the German nation.”
Picture
German “Nazis” burned Marxist, pornographic and homosexual books.
Picture
he Jewish Bolsheviks of “The Frankfurt School” advocated for a long term infiltration strategy for the mental and moral destruction of “the institutions” as a means of softening up the people for Marxist takeover
Picture
Italian Fascist poster: “The Day of the Mother and the Child.,”

IN A NUTSHELL

In short, Fascism is an “authoritarian” yet merit-based form of populist government based upon natural order and backed up by the military. Its leaders are expected to aggressively protect and boldly serve the true well-being of the people and nation as a whole — politically, economically and culturally. Under Fascism all people of one’s ethnicity — or at least of common culture if the state is multi-ethnic — are regarded as the greater family of that person. This is the essence of Fascism – a strong consideration of the group’s interests balanced with the rights of the individual.

Whereas Marxists and / “Liberals” are like a pair of abusive domineering parents who barely keep their frightened and depressed children fed; Fascist “parents,” on the other hand, though also “authoritarian,” live for and protect their “children” while encouraging them to become happy, virtuous, free, productive and independent. Hitler, in his Final Testament, written on the eve of his suicide, summed up the Fascist ideal perfectly:

“In these three decades love and loyalty to my people have guided all my thoughts, actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions ever to confront mortal man. In these three decades I have spent my strength and my health. … I die with a joyful heart in the knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our peasants and workers and of a contribution unique in the history of our youth which bears my name.” (emphasis added)

It is only when the Marxist devil tries to set foot in the happy family home that the Fascist will “crack down” with what Hitler referred to as “Holy Hatred” for the Leftist evil-doers who would once again use “democracy”  to reduce the people to moral depravity, economic plunder, alienation and emotional misery. 

I don’t know about “youse guys,” but this Fascism stuff actually sounds pretty good to me. Ironically, the greatest endorsement for Fascism comes from the amoral and insane Marxist vermin themselves. You see, the mere fact that both the Red Devils of “Antifa” (Anti-Fascism) “in the streets” —  as well as the snobby New World Order Globalist predator string-pullers “in the suites” — all HATE pro-people Fascism so much — is all the evidence one needs of its positive value as the ultimate anti-septic treatment for the plague of Marxism / Libtardism. And so, to you “conservatives” who hate “Antifa” and the evil Marxist Demonrat Party as much as any right-thinking, red-blooded American should — please stop using terms such as “Nazi” and “Fascist” as an insult of the Left.

Picture
Picture
Picture
The symbols of Fascism — Spanish Falange, Italian Fasces, German Swastika — are to sick, evil, twisted, demonic Globalists and Marxists what the crucifix is to Count Dracula.

IS DONALD TRUMP A FASCIST?

Headlines:

*Washington Post (August 21, 2020): How Fascist is Donald Trump
*Historians for Peace: (2018): Is Donald Trump a Fascist?
*Los Angeles Times (July 25): Portland Proves it. Donald Trump is a Fascist
*Boston Globe: (September 22, 2020): Is it Fascism Yet?
*Haartez (Israel) (June 22, 2020): Is Donald Trump a Fascist
*The Daily Beast (September 3, 2020): I Resisted Calling Donald Trump a Fascist. Not Any More.
*New York Daily News: (October 9, 2020): Trump Just Went Full Fascist

Well, considering the fact that America’s Fake News is infested, from top-to-bottom, with Globalist / Marxist vermin, the relentless attacks on Trump the “Fascist” are a good sign that the man is doing something right. It is interesting to note that the oft-repeated motto of Q Anon — long since proved to be an integral part of the Trump inner circle — is the unifying (fasce)“Where We Go One, We Go All!”

The Trump / Q message is unmistakably anti-Globalist, anti-Marxist, anti-Rothschild, anti-Soros, anti-Fake News, anti-Hollywood, and anti-Academia. In spite of the unfortunately necessary negative references to “Nazis,” the astute student of Q Anon and 20th Century history cannot fail to see that the very same self-perpetuating geo-political forces that killed Mussolini and Hitler by murder and forced suicide respectively in April of 1945 —  and undid Francoism in Spain by patiently waiting for his natural death which finally came in 1975 — are now out to stop Trumpism.

Like the aforementioned Fascist leaders, Trump also emerged at the 11th hour to save the country from the human horror show that would have been a Killary Clinton presidency. Trump also has the backing of the military, albeit “behind the scenes.” And, if Q Anon is to be believed, Trump and company are planning to arrest countless numbers of these Marxist traitors in government and media in advance of unifying the nation and restoring both political and economic control back to the people.

On the all-important cultural front however, we just don’t see a return to basic decency being possible at this advanced stage of the Marxist cancer. Without such a return to mass sanity and common morality,  “the people” will just muck things up again sooner or later. Nonetheless, we welcome whatever rout of the Deep State Globalists which Trump and the Patriots have planned for them. Who knows? Maybe — just maybe — a mass disclosure of Satanic child sex and torture rings operating among the elites would shock the nation to the return to God and his natural order — an order of things which can properly be referred to as “Fascism.”

Picture
Though we wouldn’t exactly call Trump a ‘Fascist,” his struggle against the New World Order conspiracy is indeed the same fight which Hitler. Mussolini and Franco waged.
Picture
A Killary presidency would have been the final Marxist nail in the coffin of America, and the world. Trump’s military-backed arrival just in the nick of time also mimics the heroic rise of the 20th Century Fascists. 
Picture
Trump (and Q’s) repeated calls for the arrests of what the Fake News refers to as “political rivals” also parallels the necessary round-ups carried out by the Fascists.

Confirmed: Government Inslee Setting Up Covid Concentration Camps In Washington State, Issuing Job Listings For ‘Strike Team’ Coordinators

A Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “isolation and quarantine” facility has been set up by Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state. And Inslee is now looking to hire people for the “strike team” that will run it.

government inslee setting up covid concentration camps in washington state

NOTE: A few hours before this article was published, the listing was stealth edited to remove the term “strike team,” and the original URL which contained “strike team” was auto-forwarded to a new URL. This is all an obvious attempt by Washington government employees to deceive the public and obfuscate the true nature of the positions being advertised for hire. We had already captured the original files, however, and we reveal screen shots below that show you this listing before it was stealth edited.

According to shocking new reports, Inslee’s “strike team” will function similarly to the SS from World War II. Hired hands will provide “services, security and management to the facility,” we are being told. Those who “voluntarily” check in to the facility will not be allowed to leave without first notifying the strike team.

hiring page at the Washington “government jobs” website explains that “isolation & quarantine strike team consultants” will be paid $3,294-$4,286 monthly for their services. (See screen shots below, revealing what the page said before it was stealth edited.)

“The Isolation and Quarantine (I & Q) Section works to decompress hospitals by supporting local and state Isolation and Quarantine, Alternate Care Facility (ACF), and patient transport (EMS) by partnering with local governments (Tribes, Counties, Cities) and communities, state agencies, and other entities in the event of an emergency,” the job announcement explains.

“These positions are responsible for participating in program planning and evaluation of health service delivery products and identifying needs for personnel, supplies, and activities to support community and state response activities.”

The listing goes on to explain that the strike teams will “provide for the needs of travelers” that stay at the facility, which is located in Centralia. The strike teams will also be tasked with “responding to emergencies, training contractors and new staff, and providing guest support as needed.”

Medical Fascism Is On The Rise, Thanks To The Branch Covidians

state of washington job opportunities strike team 600

We have been warning about this kind of thing emerging in our country for many months now, only to be called “conspiracy theorists” for even making the suggestion.

Now, it is suddenly a conspiracy fact that at least in the far-left state of Washington, the government there is establishing Chinese Virus holding facilities that supposedly will house people who choose to go there until they receive a “negative” test result for Chinese Germs.

How long will it be until checking into one of these facilities becomes a requirement, much like it already is in Canada, Australia and elsewhere? If we start that slide down the slippery slope of setting these facilities up, what will stop it from sliding right into full-blown medical fascism?

One might argue that a holding facility like the one being set up in Centralia already is full-blown medical fascism, seeing as how the place will operate much like a prison with staff on site 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

“Staff may work any or all of the three shifts and may work overtime as needed to ensure adequate staffing of the facility,” the job listing further reveals.

This is not the direction to go in if we ever hope to regain any semblance of freedom and liberty. But the Branch Covidians are cheering it all on, even after many of them protested “fascism” all last year in response to the death of George Floyd.

“If I was to set up prison camps for some future need under someone’s nose without raising suspicion, I would give it a believable purpose,” one Natural News commenter wrote.

“It’s a reach, but possibly this is for the internment of all the government traitors soon to be imprisoned for treason. It would be a darn clever plan. Probably wishful thinking though. It would be the ultimate in stealth thinking.”

Others expressed suspicion about the camps, warning that they will be used to imprison free-thinkers and those who reject the Cult of Covidism.

By Ethan Huff, Guest writer / Reference: GovernmentJobs.com

Biden’s Six Months In Office: The Agenda Is To Bring Communism In America

Capitalism, with all its warts and pimples, is the way people organize themselves of their own volition. It is economic freedom. Socialism and its children – communism and fascism – can only be foisted on a population through tyrannical coercion and brute force.biden’s road to communism

Biden’s road to communism (Joe Biden by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0), edited by Andrea Widburg.

Dean Koontz, in Icebound, summed up communism, writing:

“This was senseless, pointless lunacy…but nothing the communists had ever done made sense, not anywhere in the world.…Their ideology was nothing but a mad hunger for unrestrained power, politics as a cult religion divorced from morality and reason and their bloody rampages and bottomless cruelty could never be analyzed or understood by anyone not of their mad persuasion.”

We’re not there yet but, as our friends from Venezuela have tried to warn us, we’re well on our way and following closely in their footsteps. We’re now immersed in “senseless, pointless, lunacy,” while our politicians dabble in “a mad hunger for unrestrained power.”

America’s southern border is open. According to the US Customs and Border Patrol, close to 190,000 people crossed into the United States in June alone, and that number has been accelerating in the six months since the Biden administration reversed all the Trump-era policies and refused to enforce existing immigration law.

At this rate, it’s not inconceivable that we’ll have absorbed another 30 million illegal immigrants, or about 10 percent of the current U.S. population if Joe Biden serves two terms. That is an invasion. The US military should be lined up virtually shoulder to shoulder along the entire length of the southern border.

But then who would vote for Democrats? The only immigrants crossing into this country from the south who would not eventually vote for Democrats in large numbers are Cuban refugees. They are also, by and large, the only group with legitimate asylum claims – and they are the only group Biden’s government is turning away. Their fate is something you probably don’t want to think about, but it serves the purposes of the Biden administration, whose goal is to import as many future Democrat voters as humanly possible.

The Canadian border is now closed due to COVID but illegal immigrants streaming across our southern border with their ten percent covid infection rate are being transported at taxpayer expense into the U.S. interior. If this doesn’t qualify as senseless, pointless, lunacy, I don’t know what would.

The people pulling the strings on this insanity may well be communists, but they’re often dressed up as something else. Once they’ve wrecked the Constitution and the middle class, then immigration will certainly dry up. If it’s bad enough, a mass exodus will begin and that is when the left will take off the masks and finish Trump’s border wall.

Where are the Republicans? I know they didn’t sign up for this. “Congressman” is supposed to be a pretty cushy gig. An upper-class salary for life, the best healthcare the country has to offer, and their own police force with a budget now over half a billion dollars a year to protect a few hundred people. Is anyone trying to defund the capital police budget? On the contrary, it is increasing.

Unfortunately for the pampered egotists in Congress, the good times can’t keep rolling. Leftists want to burn the country down and then rebuild it as a third-world communist hellhole, as they’ve done in so many other places around the world. Republicans must start earning their overinflated paychecks or they will be responsible for a great nation’s demise.

We’ve been waiting a long time for them to grow a backbone and start standing up to the left. Some, having gauged the gravity of the moment, are pushing back against the Democrats, but most are still sitting on their hands or actively opposing any effort to rein in all the madness.

Leftists have long known that they can only enact their utopian dreams with an endless parade of existential crises. Global warming was just such a crisis, virtually brimming with potential until all the dire predictions came up woefully short.

People in the north still know what snow is like though it should have disappeared off the scene twenty years ago. We don’t hear much from Al Gore anymore. Having made his fortune selling carbon indulgences, he’s retired to enjoy his massive carbon footprint, which likely exceeds that of many small nations.

AOC’s 12-year doomsday scenario will come and go, and nothing will have changed. She will claim that Democrats fixed the problem just in a nick of time and the new class of public-school automatons will burst into tears, saying, “Thank Gaia.”

If her Green New Deal [which is actually the old Agenda 21] goes into effect, or the Paris climate hoaxers manage to siphon off American wealth, we may see doomsday for America but the world will be just fine. Poorer and much less free, but otherwise just fine. Cubans average $17 dollars a month but their “wonderful” healthcare and “fabulous” government housing are free, so there’s that to look forward to.

The change from “global warming” to “climate change” was devised to save the crisis. Thinking people have been scratching their heads ever since. The climate has been changing for as long as there has been an earth.

A mere 12,000 years ago, much of the planet was shrouded in ice. A thousand years ago, during the little climactic optimum, average temperatures were much higher than today’s.

We should be thanking our lucky stars for climate change, but the left has taught our kids to hate America and capitalism because we are the ones driving this non-existent problem. More lunacy.

If we ignore, for just a moment, all the obvious fraud involved in the last election, then you could easily make the case that COVID cost Donald Trump the 2020 election. As we entered the 2020 political season, we went from the lowest unemployment rate in generations to one of the highest on record. Basically, the economy tanked thanks to the COVID lockdowns.

It now appears that the people recommending lockdowns to Trump were complicit in the dangerous research taking place in the Wuhan labs. The NIH, the WHO, and the CCP have all been behaving as though they have a great deal to hide and it’s not unreasonable to believe that they do.

It might sound like a “bridge too far” to think that the entire episode could have been orchestrated to bring down the president of the United States, but yesterday’s crazy conspiracies keep turning into today’s insane reality.

Who would have believed that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats could fabricate phony evidence, present it to the media, and that the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA would spend three years trying to oust Trump while knowing full well that the case was built on lies?

It turned out to be worse than the wildest conspiracy theory but to this day nobody has been held responsible.

Even if you can’t believe the whole thing was a setup, it’s obvious that, once the COVID ball started rolling, the media and Deep State used it to destroy Trump. I guess a setup conspiracy is probably a bit of a stretch. That would, after all, be “senseless, pointless, lunacy,” and “bottomless cruelty.”

By Frank LiberatoAmericanThinker.com