Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Today’s Red Pill: There never was a “Palestine”

Published

on

Woooo-dawgie! Ever since the commemoration of the move of the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem, which coincided with Israel’s 70th anniversary as an independent state, and the corresponding Palestinian violence on the ground, there has been a fierce, vitriolic uproar of competing narratives.

Observing the spectacle, I’ve reached an unpleasant conclusion: there is an inexcusably large number of people operating under false information, an indefensibly great number of people inflicted by historical illiteracy.

The most obvious manifestation of the historical ignorance of our body politic is the belief that Palestine was once a sovereign country, the land having been wrongfully stolen by the evil Israeli stormtroopers…. or something.

Is there any truth to this?

Well, if you answered this question with, “Yes,” you need to grab a glass of water and prepare to swallow today’s Red Pill.


First, it is important to know that there has never – not ever – been any autonomous country of Palestine.

Second, it is important to know that, since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the Arab Palestinians have obstinately, doggedly, repeatedly refused a multitude of generous offers of compromise, including the establishment of their own independent, Arabic country.

As Allen H. Luxenberg of George Washington University explains the above two points [1]:

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews. 

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God.  Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

…In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine.  There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time.  Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

I’ve compiled a timeline of events, complete with maps, to elucidate the pertinent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1880-1946). (For the sake of brevity, a follow-up piece will cover the 1947 United Nations passage of the Two-State Solution and the Establishment of Israel.)


SEGMENT 1: OTTOMAN RULE

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
16th Century The Middle East, part of North Africa, and parts of Europe belong to the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
1880 Jewish population one again becomes the majority in Jerusalem.
1891 By 1891, the number of Jewish immigrants into the area known as Palestine (referred to by the local Arab population as Lower Syria) equaled the number of Jews moving out of the area.
1891 Disturbed by the rising number of Jewish citizens, local Arab notables called upon their Ottoman administrators, demanding Jewish immigration to the area be banned and that the sale of land to Jews be prohibited. “In response, the Turks briefly suspended Jewish immigration, a ban lifted only when Jews agreed to pay a per capita bribe.” [2]
29 Oct. 1914 The “Ottoman Surprise Attack” – The Ottoman Empire enters WWI with an attack on Russia’s Black Sea coast. This attack and the series of events that followed would ultimate lead to the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
1 Nov. 1914 Russia declares war on the Ottomans.
5 Nov. 1914 Britain and France, Russia’s allies, declare war on the Ottomans. Swaths of Ottoman land were quickly captured. [3]
(See the map below.)
1917 British capture Jerusalem, ending Ottoman rule. [4]

SEGMENT 2: BRITISH MANDATE

BRITISH-CONTROLLED MANDATE OF PALESTINE

1917

The Balfour Declaration: The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Balfour, issued instructions for what was to be done with the former Ottoman Empire territory known as Palestine, now controlled by Great Britain.
(See the map below.)
1919 Versailles Peace Conference decides that the Ottoman Empire’s land which had been conquered during the war would not be returned to Ottoman rule.

 

1919 The League of Nations was established as to prevent further war.

1921

Arab Executive Committee demands the British halt all Jewish immigration to the territory which the British now label “Palestine.” The committee also demands the British rescind the Balfour Declaration and, then, appoint a national Palestinian legislative parliament controlled by the Arab population. [5] Arabs riot in Jaffa and other cities.
1921 The British temporarily halted Jewish immigration in response to the Arab Executive Committee’s demands. I addition, the British convened the 1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry to examine Arab violence which had broken out across the area. The Haycraft Commission rules that the Arabs had been responsible for the intense outbreak of Arab-on-Jew violence.

1921

In the fall of 1921, Winston Churchill invited Arab and Jewish Palestinians to come together in hope that a peaceful coexistence would be negotiated between the parties. For months upon months, the Arab Palestinians doggedly refused to join any discussion involving Jews. [6]

Feb. 1922

Winston Churchill offered to establish a legislative body as the Arab Palestinians had requested. However, the Arabs refused, because the legislative body included provisions for Jewish representations. [7]

July 1922

The League of Nations officially entrusts Britain with as the administrator of the Palestinian Mandate. [8] Britain was called upon to facilitate the creation of a Jewish National Homeland as was ordered by the Balfour Declaration. [9]
(See the map below.)

Sept. 1922

The very first plan for the partition of Palestine is proposed, often referred to as The Churchill White Paper: Great Britain, along with the League of Nations, attempts to strike a compromise in Palestine by dividing the single state into two territories: one Jewish Palestinian Home Land and one Arab Palestinian Home Land. [10]
In an effort to forge a compromise, the British chose to divide the “Palestine” Mandate into two halves (east and west) along the line of the Jordan River.

The terms of the partition were as follows:

The Jewish Palestinians agreed to the terms of the Churchill White Paper. The Arab Palestinians, however, vehemently rejected it

The terms of the partition were as follows:

“Jews were prohibited from settling in 77 percent of Mandate Palestine—all the territory east of the Jordan River . They were allowed to settle anywhere in western Palestine (including today’s Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza .) Thus, Eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan , was removed from the area that was set aside for the Jewish National Home in the historic Balfour Declaration and handed over to the Emir Abdullah. This split was viewed as the “definitive Palestinian Settlement,” with Transjordan as ‘the Arab National Home,’ parallel to the Jewish National Home on the West Bank of the Jordan River all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (from the river to the sea).” [11]

(See the map below.)

1923

The British administration suspends the Palestinian constitution due to the Arab Palestinians’ refusal to cooperate.

 

1930

British authorities organize and invite Arab and Jewish Palestinians to a “roundtable discussion,” hoping to reach and agreement regarding Palestinian-Mandate constitutional issues. The Arabs boycotted the efforts and the plans were shelved. [12]
 Jan. 1935 A fatwa (religious declaration) is issued by 500 Muslim religious notables prohibiting Muslims from selling land to Jews. Muslims caught selling land to Jews could face death.

1936

The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) is created after six Arab political factions joined forces.
The AHC’s first resolution called for a general strike until 3 demands were met [14]:
1) All Jewish immigration into Palestine must be banned.
2) Land sale and land transfers to Jews must be banned.
3) An Arab national government must be established with no representation – none – for Jews.  This would ensure Jewish disenfranchisement.

 

1936-1939 The Peel Commission is formed to investigate the Arab riots. The Commission was also tasked with making recommendations for a peaceful coexistence of Arab and Jewish Palestinians in Western Palestine.

1937

The Mufti presents Arabs’ demands to the Peel Commission. The demands were as follows [15]:
1) the abandonment of all plans for a Jewish Home;
2) a cessation of and prohibition on all Jewish immigration to the entire territory, as well as a ban on all land purchases to Jews;
3) and the immediate end to the British Mandate, to be replaced by a pro-British, Arab regime.
4)*There was a fourth condition desired by the Mufti: a decrease in the number of Jews already living in the Palestine Mandate.
After a Peel Commission member questioned the Mufti about decreasing the number of Jews, the Mufti frankly responded to the commissioners that some Jews would simply have to leave, either “kindly or painfully.” [16]

July 1937

The Peel Commission “issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.” [17]
“The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.” [18]
(See the map below.)
The British authorities accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, the Zionists, displeased, requested the opportunity to negotiate further, and the Arabs immediately rejected the committee’s report in its entirety. [19]

Sept. 1937

Meeting in Syria, 450 delegates of the Arab National Congress officially reject the Peel Commission’s plan.
The Arab Revolt was resumed. Those targeted with violence included Jews, as well as moderate Arabs who were open to compromise.
Approximately 25% of the Arabs who lost their lives during the 1936 to 1936 revolts were killed by their fellow Palestinian Arabs. [20] The plan was then shelved.

 

17 May 1939

Hoping to gain backing from the Arabs amidst the dawning of WWII, the British issued the 1939 White Paper, in which, “The Peel Commission’s partition plan on the grounds that it was not feasible. The document stated that Palestine would be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab one, but an independent state to be established within ten years. Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited to 75,000 for the first five years, subject to the country’s “economic absorptive capacity”, and would later be contingent on Arab consent. Stringent restrictions were imposed on land acquisition by Jews.” [21]
A scathing report was issued by the Jewish Agency for Palestine regarding the 1930 White Paper, exclaiming, “It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British Government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope…” [22]
Delegates from all Arab states, following a September meeting in Syria, proclaimed all of Palestine to be “an integral part of the Arabian homeland and no part would be alienated with Arab consent.” [23]

 

Oct. 1945 The United Nations is founded.
23 Oct. 1946 The first ever United Nations meeting is help in New York.
1946 Two more plans are proposed for the establishment of peace and stability and British Mandated Palestine. Both plans rested as single-state solution, and both called for increased Jewish immigration to alleviate the plight of displaced Jews, a result of the Holocaust. Both plans are explained below:

Apr. 1946

1) The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Plan (April):
This plan called for equal representation and equal powers for Jews and Arabs. It called for the issuance of “100,000 certificates for immigration to Palestine be issued immediately and that the U.S. and British governments try to find new places for the Displaced Persons, in addition to Palestine. Future immigration to Palestine should be regulated by the Mandatory administration, and the land transfer regulations of 1940, which forbade the sale of land in certain parts of the country to Jews, should be annulled.” [24]
(See the map below.)
“The White Paper of 1939, and the drastic limitation of Jewish immigration and of land sales to Jews which followed, met the Arab view only in part. The Arabs would have gone much further. The demands voiced by their leaders are for immediate independence, for the final cessation of Jewish immigration and for the prohibition of all land sales by Arabs to Jews,” the report explained. [25]
Failure:

The Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted the plan; the Arab rejected it. The report notes that, since the very beginning of the British Mandate, the Arabs had vocally and firmly held a stance in opposition to all possibilities of allowing a Jewish Homeland. [25] Furthermore, the British continued the White Paper’s strict immigration limitations. [26]

July 1946

2) The Morrison-Grady Plan (July):
The scheme called “for the division of Palestine into four provinces: an Arab province, consisting of about 40% of the area; a Jewish province, with 17%, and two British provinces – the Jerusalem district and the Negev – covering 43% of the area. A British high commissioner, assisted by a nominated executive council, would head the central government. The Arab and Jewish provinces would have elected legislatures, with executives appointed by the high commissioner from among their members. The powers of these executives would be very limited…” [27]
(See the map below.)
Failure:

The plan was rejected by both Arabs and Jews.

It was after the failure of these talks that the British then handed the “Palestine Problem” over to the United Nation for final resolution.

From there, this story really gets interesting… but that’s for next time.

(To be continued…)


Citations (in order of usage):

[1] “The Ironic History of Palestine,” Alan H. Luxenberg, George Washington University, retrieved at: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

[2] Avraham Yaari, The Goodly Heritage: Memoirs Describing the Life of the Jewish Community of Eretz Yisrael from the 17th to 20th Century , Jerusalem, ZOA 1958, pp. 215-16.

[3] “History of the Ottoman Empire”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_during_World_War_I

[4] Unrest & Realignment in the Middle East (1914-1918 CE) : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism

[5] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 59

[6] Ibid. pp. 71-72

[7] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 81.

[8] “League of Nation,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/league-of-nations

[9]  “British-Palestine Mandate,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-british-palestine-mandate

[10] “The Churchill White Paper,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/churchill-white-paper-1922

[11] “Rejectionism,” retrieved at: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

[12] Christopher Sykes, p. 128.

[13] “The Arab Revolt,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-1936-arab-riots

[14] See [11]

[15] Christopher Sykes, p. 174.

[16] Ibid. p. 174.

[17] “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission

[18] Ibid.

[19] Christopher Sykes, p. 185

[20] Christopher Sykes, p. 188.

[21] “British Palestine Mandate: The British White Papers”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers

[22] “British White Papers: Zionist Reaction to the White Paper (1939)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-reaction-to-the-white-paper-of-1939

[23] See [20].

[24] “Pre-state Israel: The Anglo-American Committee (1946)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-anglo-american-committee

[25] “Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/psychological-analysis-of-hitler-s-life-and-legend

[26] See [24].

[27] “Palestine, Partition and Partition Plans”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-partition-and-partition-plans

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Hashtag Authoritarianism: How the Left uses subtle methods to manipulate the electorate

Published

on

By

Hashtag Authoritarianism How the Left uses subtle methods to manipulate the electorate

The danger of the Authoritarian Socialist Left using social media trends and tricks to alter opinions.

The dominant social media publishers are exerting their influence subliminally and the situation is only getting worse. It’s to the point that a small and exceedingly undemocratic elite could decide to swing future elections to the Left from now on.

This was extensively discussed in a recent congressional hearing where experts and victims of social media free speech suppression presented the problem in stark terms on the future of our representative republic

#Istandwith [insert name of SJW ‘victim’]

The danger in all of this was perfectly exemplified by the initial report of an alleged ‘verbal assault’ of Georgia Democrat Erica Thomas by a “white man” because she had too many items in the express lane. Suddenly the erstwhile hashtag #IstandwithErica trended and we were off to the races.

At first, she doubled down on her lies. Then she backpedalled, but not before showing the gullibility of several candidates for president.

What is rather interesting is that the hashtag in question started trending in the early afternoon Saturday, staying in the list for what was trending in the colonies for a few hours and then suddenly dropping off the list as though it has never been there. Then early Sunday another hashtag #HateHoax emerged.

These hashtags can easily drive a particular narrative, emphasising certain themes over others. These ‘trends’ are then picked up by a lazy national socialist media to drive the news cycle. All based on a hidden realm that decides what is ‘trending’ now.

Who determines what is trending?

According to Twitter, Trends are determined by an algorithm [In other words, we don’t want to tell you] depending on a number of factors. However, it is quite telling that certain trends can be ‘promoted’ or placed at the top of the list for money. What’s to stop some enterprising employee from adjusting the ‘algorithm’ to have a certain topic or issue trend?

There is a touch of mob rule in those who post in the trending twitter hashtag lists. People who want to be part of the crowd in adding their voice to the issue or cause. This is made easier with the ‘#Istandwith[insert name of someone of instant fame]’ format. Then it’s easier to go along with the SJW crowd – saying something without actually saying something.

If hashtags can be ‘promoted’ what is to stop the dominant social media publishers from ‘demoting a trending tag?

AutoComplete autocracy.

All hashtags are equal, but some hashtags are more equal than others to paraphrase George Orwell. This was seen in the little graphic added to the ‘#Marchforourlives’ or #Pride tags. Apparently, this is a perk of being of a certain political bent. Then there is the very useful feature of auto completing certain tags. Meanwhile, other tags don’t seem to engender this benefit because they don’t fit into the politics of the ‘algorithms’.

The hashtag #LibertyControl is a prime example, since it contravenes the #GunControl hashtag, framing this issue as being one of Liberty instead of inanimate objects of metal and wood, it does accrue the ‘perks’ of a more politically palatable tag.

Desire for control determines one’s place on the political spectrum.

Governmental power or desire for control is the only practical metric for arranging the political spectrum. It is to the advantage of some groups to obfuscate or confuse the issue, leaving it undefined, but with the implication that Left means good and Right means bad or some other nonsense.

These vague metrics are confusing at best and dreadfully false at worst. The metric of governmental power or desire for control is the underlying theme to almost all dictionary definitions of political ideologies, thus, this makes the most sense. Never mind that it eviscerates certain political lies or long-held but farcical beliefs.

For all of their false protestations over a desire for democracy, the far-Left radical socialists only want one thing: Power. For all their words about equality, they desire the exact opposite just as happens with their use of the term Liberal in connection with the cause of Liberty.

These examples show that the Left is using the dominant social media publishers to manipulate and control the electorate. Control epitomises the Left and the Left epitomises control, even if it’s by covert methods and hashtags.

The Takeaway.

While these issues may seem rather inconsequential, consider that we as a nation are on the razor’s edge in what happens in the next few years. Its not being overly hyperbolic to assert that if the national socialist Left attains control of the government in 2020 that will be the end of the country. Were they to win, they will no doubt open the borders and offer anyone and every free goodies all paid for by the taxpayers – until the run out of other people’s money.

Authoritarianism via hashtags is but one method the Left wants to use to accomplish that goal. Create a crisis or cause and have it trend and have enough people vote for their own enslavement almost subconsciously.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Ben Carson points to Trump’s policies as proof he is not a racist

Published

on

Ben Carson points to Trumps policies as proof he is not a racist

HUD Secretary Ben Carson knows about racism. He’s dealt with it throughout his life growing up in Detroit. He knows how to recognize a racist and makes an important point about President Trump as the media and Democrats continue to paint him as a bigot. His point: If you want to see whether or not Trump is a racist, look at his policies.

I’ll take that sentiment up a notch and say look at the results of his policies. The unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans are at all-time lows. His attempts to thwart illegal immigration are designed protect and empower legal immigrants. And the freedom to live as an American citizen regardless of race or any other element of intersectionality has never been higher. If Trump is a racist, he’s very bad at it.

The point the media and Democrats point to is a Tweet that many question whether or not it was a racist sentiment. Don’t buy into the media lies that it’s a foregone conclusion; they are using the logical fallacy of “begging the question” in order to try to convince the American people that they don’t like Trump’s Tweet. But in reality, what he said in context was not racist. Irresponsible? Yes. Inappropriate? Maybe, maybe not. The House members he was referring to have a tendency to inflame people, mostly in a negative way, and have demonstrated clearly anti-American worldviews through their own words and actions.

Secretary Carson’s point should be heeded by all Americans. If Trump is a racist, his policies certainly don’t reflect that. If he’s trying to keep minorities down, he’s failing miserably. But look at the state of minorities in Democratic cities. Different story.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand: They are now a small political minority

Published

on

By

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand They are now a small political minority

Studies have shown that the far-Left radical socialists are an ever-shrinking but excessively vocal political minority.

This is one of those columns that’s been in composition for weeks, being a number of ideas that floated about in their own eco-sphere until they attained enough weight to gel together. Oddly enough, the spark was a piece on journalist Andy Ngo in Buzzfeed ‘News’. Apparently being attacked by a mob of the fascist Left that put him in hospital was the best thing for his career, never mind the neurological aftereffects.

Much like the stopped clock being right twice a day, the Far-Left media does get things correct on occasion. They have begun to label anyone not of their ilk to be on the ‘center-right’ or Conservative as in this case.

The Hidden tribes study showed this to be a stark situation for the far-Left radical socialists, with only 8% of the country self-identifying as such. These are what the study termed to be ‘Progressive’ activists [ a misnomer in itself since they want to go back to the failed ideas of socialism of the past – but we digress]. However, they do have it correct in that most who are not of their collectivist cadres are on the Pro-Liberty Right, the country’s political majority.

The political minority that is the far-Left radical socialists: The Totalitarian Ten Percent

We’ve rounded this up to 10% for generosity and alliteration to be the Totalitarian Ten Percent as an accurate and handy moniker for those who want to ‘Rule the population’. This is the ever shrinking true believers in socialism, that dismiss the stark evidence of it’s 400 years of failure as ‘not really being socialism’ or some such nonsense. Many on the Conservative-Right have eviscerated this mythology numerous times:

The study showed the rest of the population as being the opposite of the ‘Totalitarian Ten Percent’. The people in the 90% fall into the defined categories of the rational political spectrum as being on the Pro-Liberty Right moving from the political center with ‘Traditional and passive’ Liberals, those politically disengaged, moderates and Conservatives.

Studies on ‘Political correctness’ the culture and Liberty destroying scourge of our day also show a decreasing tendency for ‘concern’ on this issue. As has been the case throughout our history, we have fixed the problems that have plagued us. The issue is that while the political majority on the right has righted these wrongs. The political minority on the socialist Far-Left has taken credit for these actions and then come up with new issues no one else care about, such as the labeling of underground cable access points as ‘manholes’. The rest of us on the Pro-Liberty political majority right don’t care, we’re too busy living our lives..

The problem of the Totalitarian Ten Percent annoying everyone else.

The problem for the political majority is that Totalitarian Ten Percent holds the attention or is part of the nation’s socialist media. While their ratings and audience are shrinking at an alarming rate for them, they have an unfortunate tendency to lash out at the rest of us. Their desperation has driven them to want to burn it all down, causing havoc and chaos, so they can step in and offer their ‘solution’. These are, of course, the usual concepts of an ‘Ideal state’ born in the Socratic dialogues of Plato’s Republic from 2,400 years ago, ideas that have failed for centuries but are now supposedly ‘new’.

This is why they want the insanity of open borders, free health care for the world, gun confiscation and strict controls on the Liberty of free speech. This is their ‘Hail Mary’ play to avoid ignominious defeat of their precious cult of collectivism. Encourage as many illegal invaders from around the world, in addition to murderous criminal gang members and drugs, to stream over the border to be newly minted citizens that can vote for all kinds of goodies with other people’s money.

Their socialist national agenda is clear to all that are listening, offer free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food, free childcare, free money and anything else they can think of. To everyone and anyone willing to pay thousands to hop a flight to Brazil and cross the Southern border.

All of this ‘paid’ for by simply – and insanely – inflating the money supply.  The funds for this extreme largess eventually being other peoples’ money. Never mind that their ‘Flat Earth’ socialist ideology has never worked in 4 Centuries, or that one way or another, it will destroy the economy. That’s a feature, not a bug for them, because in their minds, when the whole thing inevitably implodes, they will run in and offer their ‘solution’. In much the same way that they are offering the same solution to Obamacare imploding.

In the case of the inspiration for writing this, the piece from Buzzfeed ‘News’ was essentially another case of the overly vocal socialist far-Left blaming the victim. The piece also expended a number of electrons describing virtually anyone not of their collectivist mindset as Conservative or on the right, hardly attributable to some media personalities who ‘rightfully’ [pardon the pun] consider themselves to be Liberal or moderate. Thus was the inspiration for this essay.

It’s time for the rational 90% to stand up for sanity.

There are obvious problems with a small political minority of ‘neo Bolsheviks’ wanting to run everyone’s life, beginning with their complete hypocrisy [what else is new] in making demands for democracy. But then again, these are people who disdain Liberty while pretending to be ‘Liberal’ or want to go back to failed ancient ideas while being ‘progressive’. Of course, Leftists have explained that apparently ‘Liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are imaginary constructs – along with the concept of money. Illustrating just how far they have gone in losing the plot.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left would like to run everyone’s life for various reasons, social justice, global cooling, or just because they somehow are more intelligent than the rest of us [Just as them]. We of the rational 90% would just like to be ‘left’ alone, we do not care about their ever changing sensibilities over language. We do not care about their repetition of the dangers of global cooling, global warming, Climate change, climate emergency, climate crisis, or whatever it is this week. We don’t care that someone else is making a dollar more than us, the economy is humming along nicely.

Were they truly interested in democracy, Liberty or Progress, the far-Left radical socialists would advocate what works in the real world: Economic freedom. The fact that they want to impose by force a system that has never worked by undemocratic means to the detriment of Liberty should tell us everything we need to know about why they should be rejected and opposed at every turn.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending