GODLESS CAPITALISM IS NO SOLUTION, PART III

      With Elections supposedly coming up in November, the Controlled Opposition Republican Party is trying desperately to prove itself somehow distinct from the Ruling Junta Democratic Party. To the Corporations who actually rule the United States, this is all just a social experiment; changing parties to them is not much different than changing management. It's really to Wall Street and not to the people that both parties are marketing their message proposing a platform; the GOP is apparently to position themselves as more overtly ruthless and willing to execute the New World Order than the Democrats are. Those of us who remember the 2000 Elections probably all see that it's the same script being played. Hopefully, we all remember how well that worked out. 

    Neoconservatism has never been friendly to Christian or traditionally Conservative values, though for obvious reasons Neocons have to pander to the so-called 'Religious Right' and have largely redefined what 'Christian Values' mean. The movement began in the 1960s, by former Marxist academics and pundits---mostly Jews and Atheists---who split with the Left largely because of Neocon opposition to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights programs; as well as their belief that LBJ was too soft on Vietnam. If this sounds paradoxical, it must be remembered that the bulk of them came from the Trotskyite branch of Communism, which by the 1960s had the belief that Stalin and Khrushchev destroyed the 'golden ideal' of Communism and that the USSR was hopelessly corrupt. 

   Against that background, one can see the real context behind the famous quote of Irving Kristol, one of the ringleaders of the Neocon movement: "A neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality." It also accounts for the Neocons' fanatical hatred of all things Russian. 

   Another of Kristol's insights into practical politics illustrates the Neocon's true feelings towards representative self-government:

   "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

    We'll let the reader decide for himself how compatible with Christ's teachings that statement really is.* (See note at the end of this article.) The idea, however, is not incompatible with the goals and aims of the dandies at the World Economic Forum. An anonymous writer stated the following which points out how phony the Neocon opposition to Left-Wing 'wokeness' really is:

  "The idea of forcibly spreading democracy and free markets throughout the world is parallel to the Communist idea of a world revolution.The political philosopher Francis Fukuyama stated that his book, 'The End of History' which was written from a neoconservative perspective, set forth an essentially Marxist vision of social evolution with liberal democracy replacing 'pure communism' as the final state of society. He furthered this parallel by stating that the Bush administration's sort of neoconservatism was a form of Leninism, i.e., a sort in which an elite vanguard tries to push the revolution forward when the proles won't.

  "The much more low-brow neoconservative pundit Dennis Prager also authored a book similar to Fukuyama's called 'Still the Best Hope', which set forth a vision of the world in which people worldwide would embrace 'American values' after the liberal media, universities, and politicians could no longer dupe the public into voting left-wing. After this, the world would largely embrace American ultraconservatism, which would result in the fall of Leftism and Islamic Fundamentalism leaving neoconservatism as the most widely embraced ideology in the world for the foreseeable future."

   As pointed out in the previous two articles, the free market that the Neocons embrace is really the crony-capitalism of the WEF and similar organizations. Their Elitism, egoism, revolutionary zeal, and contempt for the untermensch largely explains their complete unwillingness to raise the standard of living in the US, while having no qualms about imposing their exceptionalism on other countries whether those countries want it or not. 

   To sell their baloney to the constituency, the Neocons have to do a lot of revisionism to Christian principles to hoodwink Churchians into believing that money and power are Fruits of the Holy Spirit. 

  "Whether we like it or not, we humans have become this planet's stewards. Our long-term success is not remotely assured but ignoring reality and building fatally flawed systems upon which hundreds of millions rely is certain to lead to our's and possibly our planet's demise. Yet the solution is right before our eyes and is happening every day. There is a symmetry and self-balancing nature driven by modernity. Modernity brings freedom and Rule of Law. Modernity brings the scientific process and widespread knowledge of all aspects of reality. Together these provide the framework for wealth creation. This wealth creation further drives innovation in all areas of life. It creates a virtuous circle where one good thing leads to another and so on.

   "One feature of this symmetry is the reduction of the number of people required to generate the same or even more economic output. Almost all predict in just the next few years we will see an explosion of these innovations even further reducing the number of people required to do the same things---hitting low-skilled jobs the hardest. This is in perfect harmony with another feature of modernity: birth rates dropping and populations stabilizing. All of these pieces support the others and they all move more or less in harmony. It is clear that the worldwide answer to the Population Explosion is freedom and modernity and anything which distorts this harmony by definition will be destructive."

    This drivel wasn't written by Bill Gates or His Royal Highness King Chuck of England, but it may as well have been. No: it came from the pen of John Conlin, one of the 'rising stars' of the Neocon punditocracy. Conlin runs a nonprofit consulting firm and it's foundational principles state "a search for truth...the truth we will leave to God."  His financial expertise seems to be a fairly sophisticated form of day-trading. Regardless, he seems to be promoting the idea that population control is somehow now a 'Conservative' value. 

    First of all, the idea of population control is based on the pseudoscience that Earth's resources are limited relative to population increases. That's true if all of the wealth and resources are being hoarded by Oligarchs, but in reality its falsehood is evident by one of Conlin's own assertions: "Modernity brings the scientific process and widespread knowledge of all aspects of reality. Together these provide the framework for wealth creation. This wealth creation further drives innovation in all areas of life. It creates a virtuous circle where one good thing leads to another and so on." In other words---in a genuine free market---science and knowledge expand their technologies to meet growing demand for more resources. His conclusion that this should lead to population decline is specious---in fact, it should logically lead to larger families. Absent abortion-on-demand and political propaganda, it usually does. Note that in Victorian times, the birthrate among the expanding Middle Class went up, it also did in America during the settlement of the West, and today the birth rate is coming back in Russia as economic conditions have begun to improve. 

    At any rate, the idea of population control is not a spiritual doctrine in any major Western religion that I know of. The Jews teach "Be fruitful and multiply" as one of the first commandments given by God to mankind; the Catholic Church has never sanctioned birth control in any form; the Moslems believe that children are gifts from God (actually Western Christians used to believe that too, but today it's Islam that practices what it preaches). 

    Frankly, the only difference I can discern between Conlin's proposals and Klaus Schwab's is that Conlin seems to target population control to 'undesirable' (i.e. non-White American) demographics whereas Schwab wants it for the hoi polloi in general. Throughout Conlin's entire thesis there is not a single reference to the ethics of his proposals: his entire argument is based on economic expediency and market calculations (none of which are actually beneficial to the working class or to small businesses, but are hugely beneficial to monopolistic corporations). 

   Conlin also makes other questionable assertions in addition to his flawed premises. "Rather than importing people, perhaps we should be spreading the message of freedom and modernity and all of the wonders it brings to all parts of the globe. {Query: How?} Individuals in these countries may choose to ignore these wonders; that is their choice.{Our recent interventionist history strongly suggests otherwise.}  But exporting their “surplus” population to the United States is not a solution for either country." This last statement is demonstrably false. In Mexico, for example, it's easier to start a small business than it is most of the US. The problem that most Mexicans face is that it is extremely difficult to raise capital. Many come to the US and work at minimum wage (the Mexican minimum wage is 50 cents an hour) and raise the money needed to begin a new life---not here, but in Mexico. The Mexicans benefit and so do we, as our small businesses often need temporary minimum-wage workers.

    But missing from all of this is any concept of humanity as Children of God. The Neocon view shares with the WEF the view of humanity as human capital,**(See second note at the end of article). It's a small move intellectually from that viewpoint the sort which sees political opponents as enemy combatants who ought to be dealt with accordingly.

   If there is any truth to either Christian or Conservative principles, then there is no justification for resorting to force and fraud to maintain them. Mimicking the Left's tactics is a confession that their methodology works and ours does not. If we have faith in our principles, then we don't need more than stand firm in them and let the Truth speak for itself. 

****************************************************************************

(Note 1) I can't vouch for the veracity of this anecdote, given its source. It came from David Brock, a former RNC operative who switched sides after Hillary Clinton and George Soros offered him more money and a live-in boyfriend to work for them instead. I tend to believe it's true, however, given Brock's intimacy with the people involved and their known characters.

     According to Brock, one of Bush's top cronies and arch-Neocon Karl Rove is actually an Atheist, though Rove went around campaigning at churches and Christian activist groups. Brock said that Rove afterwards would laugh up his sleeve at how stupid he thought Christians were and their gullibility for falling for any of Bush's talking-points which the latter had no intention of honoring. 

(Note 2) A specimen of this attitude in practice is the UK-based Serco Corporation, which has in offices signs stating "Just remember, you're not a worker or an employee. You're human capital." Shortly before the Scamdemic, Bill Gates bought a huge chunk of Serco stock and then lobbied to have them manufacture Vaxx-tracing equipment. Serco is a major government contractor supplying the Security and Surveillance State. It's CEO is Christopher Hyman, a member of a Fundamentalist Christian Church who goes about giving testimonial speeches claiming the secret of his success is because he "listens to God." 

   

  
  

   

    

GODLESS CAPITALISM IS NO SOLUTION, PART II

      So, shortly after the last article went to print, another specimen of alleged profound Conservative thought, also reached the public. This time, Dennis Prager weighed in to explain to us all how being nice is not a Conservative value. His argument is flawed right from the start:

    "The human being is composed of two moral components—the micro and the macro. In a truly good human being—”good” is not the same as “nice”—one is good in both realms. It is therefore quite possible to be nice in the micro and hold awful values for society; and it is quite possible to have excellent macro values and not be a particularly nice person." No, Dennis. What you say is not true. There is no dichotomy between 'micro' and 'macro' approaches to society; there is only the element of Virtue or lack of it. Good people want to do good things; bad people do not; and their motives are reflective of the criterion upon which their actions are judged good or bad. 

   Prager's position is essentially a morally relativist one, though he would never admit that. Belief in this ideology is one reason why we see so much hypocrisy on the political Right these days. Bruce Jenner has excellent macro values but is not  a particularly nice person; but nonetheless is welcomed while identical characters on the Left are denounced. We could probably find dozens of similar examples. His way of thinking is only the opposite extreme of the Left's the personal is political. Both are wrong: in reality, the political is personal. 

  Ideas, however, do have consequences. If one has seen some recent headlines among the Controlled Opposition Conservative Media, A pair of politically ambitious Republican Governors are proving their ability not to be nice on the macro level by making a big show of putting illegal immigrants on various forms of transportation and shipping them to 'sanctuary cities.' These actions have garnered effusive praise from many on the knee-jerk Right, but even from the standpoint of pure Realpolitik, it's a stupid idea. If illegals should all be deported---like these jokers claim to want---how is sending them to Sanctuary Cities where they won't be deported supposed to accomplish that? 

   It also seems rather ironic that just a few months ago many of us were concerned about rhetoric from the Left's punditocracy suggesting that everyone refusing the Loyalty Vaxx should be packed on buses and dumped somewhere. If it's wrong for one side to do it; it's wrong for the other. It's ironic too that this latest batch that Abbott shipped to Kamala Harris' house are from Venezuela---a country supposedly ruled by a Socialist dictatorship---and nobody on the Right seems to understand that they might be fleeing Socialism and be by definition supportive of Conservative causes themselves.  

  But these are the consequences of the doctrine that personal and social beliefs are categorically distinct. It's really disgraceful that we even have to explain that rounding up human beings like cattle, stuffing them onto boxcars and dumping them in random cities like garbage is not an especially Christian thing to be doing. Reading many of the comments on these stories, though; one immediately sees that the humanitarian aspect of this policy is not exactly an outstanding concern of many on the so-called Right. 

  "Migrants arrived at Kamala's taxpayer provided residence in Washington D.C. and were greeted warmly as human beings just looking for a better life - no explanation was given as to why America must provide that better life." 

  "They are like a hybrid of locusts and cockroaches. They circumvent the laws and avoid taxes, so each year the tax payer pays more, with less improvement to the infrastructure, and more and more of non illegals jumped on that democrap free wagon to join them if you can't beat them. Everyone else moved. It's a nightmare going back there to see what the country has turned into, as the past never happened. It's surreal, and shocking."

"The Left is trying to genocide whitey through immigration."

  "These just aren't dirty illegals coming to get the free and take, they are out to destroy."

  "DeSantis realizes illegal immigrants bring nothing of value to our country. As a former military man, he knows what it takes to get results, who is valued most and how a good strong work ethic Makes America Great Again. He has a natural innate disdain for parasites."

   Bear in mind that these are the sentiments---not of Godless Communists, but from those of a political movement purporting to stand for faith, family, and freedom. The entire notion that these people---like ourselves---are Children of God and worthy of humanitarian dignity is not even mentioned. 

  There are a few points that supporters of these thoughts and policies seem to leave out: 1) A large number of these illegals are women, children, and legal minors who probably had little choice about coming here; 2) Most of them come here to work, send money home and then leave and start projects in their own country---most are illegal because of the ridiculously complicated and convoluted immigration laws; 3) Contrary to what most of them seem to believe, the so-called Blue States also are dealing with immigration issues. It happens to be a national problem; but as we've seen, care for one's neighbor is not an overwhelmingly strong affect among the Right these days.

   A specimen of their state of mind can be seen with this commenter's insights: "The old Mitch McConnell way of dealing with a bully was to sit down with them and negotiate an equitable distribution of our lunch money. The new DeSantis method is to punch them in the nose to let them taste their blood, then offer them nothing. It took a long time, but the Republican party is finally on the right track."

  My idea of being on the right track would be to do what Conservatives traditionally did: provide for the needs of these people---most of whom are obviously desperate---and deport the known criminal and antisocial elements. Notice too how these people never seem to have any issue with certain immigrant groups---mostly Cuban, Jewish, and Indians---minority blocks that tend to vote Republican all seem to get a free pass. 

  While we're on the subject of deportations, it is also quite telling that we never hear any discussion of deporting say, foreign NGOs (like Soros and his groups), or foreign lobbyists, or foreign corporations which are over here instigating trouble. No: that would be Protectionism and violating the Free Market. We have to follow Prager's advice and embrace the "realistic" macro worldview, even if that means not being 'nice.' Such a worldview reflects the spirit of our Postmodern Era; the Spirit of Christ, not so much. 

   This is part and parcel of the problem of Godless Capitalism, of which these immigrant deportations are but one manifestation. The whole problem is being viewed from a cold cost-benefit analysis with no regard to the impact on people effected by it. “It is not the responsibility of Floridians to subsidize aliens to reside in our state unlawfully" said DeSantis, apparently not caring one way or the other whose responsibility it is. These deportations are the extension of it: the might makes right philosophy. As to it's compatibility with Christianity consider the words from the Satanic Bible: "Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates! Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!" But at least, according to Prager, the Postmodern Right has the luxury of being able to hold Christian views on a Micro Level and Satanic ones on the Macro Level.

   To Society in general, it makes little difference whether the jackboot on its throat is on the Left or Right foot. This is a point that contemporary Conservatives can't seem to grasp: we're not going to defeat the Left by being more ruthless and contemptuous of human rights than they are. A civilization in decline needs to return to its values and not try to compete with the forces destroying it.

GODLESS CAPITALISM IS NO SOLUTION EITHER

    Our old friends among the smug, self-appointed Neocon Intellectual Elite are at it yet again. Victor Davis Hanson---a gadfly who keeps popping up on Conservative forums because of his ability to sound smart by throwing endless historical and philosophical non sequiturs into his various jeremiads against the current state of society---has written another such specimen titled American Delira. 

   Hanson's basic premise is that Americans have become weak and degenerate (which is true); but not because of social apathy, rampant narcissism, and corporate totalitarianism. Instead, he believes that Americans aren't working hard enough, have been too prosperous, and have had too much freedom of expression. It's as if the 9/11 Anniversary brought back fond memories of the erection of the Security State and Bush Administration attitude of don't ask questions, just trust us. (Which, BTW, is the same general attitude of the RNC when asked about their objectives in the upcoming election---assuming that we have an election of course). 

  There seems to be strange assumption on many parts of the political Right that unelected Corporate bureaucrats are more sympathetic to the Rights of Man than elected Governments are. It seems to have escaped their notice that our cultural and economic decline really took off in the 1990s and 2000s decades when we had massive 'deregulation' that created monopolies, lifted controls on lobbying, permitted outsourcing, and created numerous private NGOs and so-called 'Private-Public Partnerships.' People like Hanson look back with nostalgia at eras like the 1950s but forget that the Eisenhower Administration was expanding public investment in infrastructure had very strict regulations against concentrations of wealth. 

   They also seem forget that as private entities, Corporate policies are not subject to Constitutional Law: in other words, the bigger the enterprise the less accountable it is. This week it was announced that Visa and Mastercard were setting up databases to track and record gun purchases. No Government agency is forcing them to do this. Under the US Constitution, a database like this would have to be approved by Congress and subjected to Judicial Review by the federal courts. But Visa and Mastercard are private entities and not subject to this kind of oversight. These two corporations also control 77% of market-share. In fact, there's nothing really stopping them from banning gun purchases from their system altogether. If anyone believes that this can't happen, consider that these same people blockaded transactions to Wikileaks just a few years ago. If the 'power to tax is the power to destroy', it shouldn't be forgotten that the power to control private transactions is also the power to destroy. 

    In his article, Hanson remarks that "Properly understood, wokeness is simply the doctrine that all perceived inequality must be the result of culpability, not personal behavior or conduct. There is no role for chance, individual health, inheritance, or character that make us different. There are no cosmic forces like globalization that transcend race. What’s left instead is a nefariousness that divides the world into a collective binary of the noble victimized and their demonic oppressors. Thus, the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country, in post-Marxist style, to identify the victims/oppressed, and to redistribute power, money, and influence to them. That allows the anointed to condemn the victimizers/oppressors collectively and to stigmatize, ostracize, and enfeeble them." 

  It seems to have escaped Hanson's attention that the distribution of wealth and power has not trickled down during the last three decades: in fact, wealth distribution has become more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. He says that "thus the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country" without explaining who benefits from such division. A 'stigmatized, ostracized, and enfeebled' productive class is precisely what the Corporate Overlords want: first, because it eliminates the potential for competition; secondly because less-skilled workers demand lower wages and benefits; and third because they haven't the initiative, resources, or organization to challenge the Oligarchy politically. 

   Hanson rather disingenuously adds that: "Every agency available—government, popular culture, science, history, literature, the arts, the university, the media, big tech, the corporate boardroom, and Wall Street—must be subordinated and recalibrated to spot supposed inequality so that they can fix it through reparatory discrimination. All being equal and poorer is preferable to all being richer, but with some richer than others," as if none of these institutions has the power to resist wokeness. The fact is that government, the media, academia, and the boardrooms are completely under the thumb of Wall Street---and it is Big Business, not Big Government, that is driving the woke agenda. 

   If anyone would like an example of what an unregulated Corporate social order would look like, one need look no further than the World Economic Forum. The Top 100 'Strategic Partners'---promoting such polices as the Great Reset, depopulation, and 'smart cities'---have among American representation alone the following:

   AIG Insurance, Amazon, Bain & Company, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, BlackRock, Boston Consulting Group, Bridgewater Associates, Chevron, Cisco Systems, CitiBank, Clayton, Dubilier,& Rice, Coca-Cola, Dell Technologies, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, Goldman-Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, Infosys, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan-Chase Bank, JLL Investments, Kearney Consulting Group, ManPower Group, Marsh McLennan Consulting Group, Mastercard, McKinsey & Co., Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Morgan-Stanley, Open Society Foundation (Soros), Palantir Technologies, PayPal, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble, Salesforce, Uber, UPS, Verizon, and Visa.

   Foreign-owned Companies heavily invested in the US include: Allianz Insurance (Pemco in the US), AstraZeneca, Alibaba, British Petroleum, Credit Suisse, DHL, Ericsson-Sony, Hitachi, HSBC, Huawei, Lazard Advertising, Mitsubishi, Nestle, Novartis, Pfizer,  Publicis Group (owns Zenith in the US), Royal Dutch Shell Oil, Royal Dutch-Phillips, Saudi Aramco, Siemens Electric, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Unilever, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

   This isn't even counting the two hundred or so 'Associate Partners' who also are on board with the WEF Agenda. Here we only listed the ones based or operating in the United States. This combined level of capital, if it were an independent country, have more assets than the national GDP of every country except the US and China. Is anyone going to pretend that a bloc like this stands for Free Enterprise and Free Markets? 

   People like Hanson ought to reflect that the WEF holds annual meetings with it's so-called 'stakeholders' and governments send representatives there. Are these corporations and cartels protesting to any of these leaders about excessive 'wokeness?' 

     If anyone is still inclined to doubt this, they need simply observe the modern 'woke' Police State known as Canada. The entire leadership of that nation is under the WEF jackboot. Every year, the WEF selects and honors a group of 'Young Global Leaders'---the very fact that they are doing this ought to be a huge red flag as to what the objective of these corporations really is. The WEF for 'security reasons' doesn't reveal all the names, but that didn't stop Klaus Schwab from boasting in 2017 that "I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum."

Here are some of the ones that we know of: 

Justin Trudeau (2005) Strongman and de facto dictator Prime Minister.

Chrystia Freeland (2005) Deputy Prime Minister under Tiananmen Trudeau, encouraged brutal suppression of the Truckers' Protest.

Melanie Joly (2016) Foreign Minister

Francois-Phillippe Champagne (2009) Minister of Industry. Former executive with WEF Top 100 Strategic Partner, ABB Technologies. 

Karina Gould (2020) Minister of Family, Children, and Social Welfare

Sean Fraser (2022) Minister of Immigration

Dishonorable Mention:

Ricken Patel (2010) CEO of Anglosphere 'activist' social media powerhouse Avaaz, a Soros-funded front. 

Dominique Anglade (2014) Deputy Premier of Quebec; pushed extreme lockdown measures.

Jagmeet Singh (2018) Head of the New Democratic Party and MP from Ontario, instigator of Truckers' Protest suppression.

   “'Capitalism as we know it is dead' the WEF says. And thus ‘stakeholder capitalism’ is needed. In this case, rather than pursuing profits, companies would 'pursue the wellbeing of all people and the entire planet.' Essentially ‘stakeholder capitalism’, would be capitalism with a dose of Marxism, which the WEF believes is needed for capitalism to survive...'The Great Reset' would also serve as a way to tackle the ongoing climate crisis. This 'fourth industrial revolution' would include accelerating efforts to reach net zero emissions... It would push all countries to become digital and 'will lead to fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities' says Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the WEF. It is also said that 'America will no longer be a world superpower', but instead 'a handful of countries will dominate.'" Corporate Media 'fact-checkers', incidentally, deny that the WEF is engaged in any kind of global government conspiracy. 

  Here, though, we have Hanson's parroting the same Corporate party-line while posing as opposition: "What will end wokeness? The reversal of the leisure and affluence that were the bounties of 233 years of what birthed it—free-market capitalism, constitutional government, meritocracy, human rights, tolerance, and free expression...Destroy the bounty that produced and empowered the woke decadence, and we won’t have anything—the woke included. Wokeism is, for now, an affordable irrelevancy that rests on the wealth and lessons produced by those long dead and now much rebuked. But it won’t remain affordable."

  How exactly is Hanson's position materially different from Schwab's? One offers a future where we'll own nothing and be happy, the other tells that we'll own nothing and be hopeful. 

  This notion is reflective of a concept which Neocons promote for everyone other than themselves: rugged individualism. Despite the revisionist history surrounding the term, our forefathers probably never heard of it since its first known use was during the 1930 mid-term elections. President Hoover's Interior Secretary explained to the media that:  "It is common talk that every individual is entitled to economic security. The only animals and birds I know that have economic security are those that have been domesticated—and the economic security they have is controlled by the barbed-wire fence, the butcher's knife and the desire of others. They are milked, skinned, egged or eaten up by their protectors." His interpretation of the term was obviously much different that the way that today's 'Conservatives' mean it. Hoover's position was not the 'lift-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' snake oil peddled by today's pundit. Hoover's belief was that American initiative and commitment to Christian principles of duty to one's neighbor would play out and solve the economic crisis.

   The Official Narrative as the term is used today is provided for us by Wikipedia: "American rugged individualism has its origins in the American frontier experience. Throughout its evolution, the American Frontier was generally sparsely populated and had very little infrastructure in place. Under such conditions, individuals had to provide for themselves to survive." 

  The Unofficial Narrative (i.e. the truth) is that the American frontier was settled by pioneers who arrived in convoys of wagon trains, usually from an established settlement. The pioneers---so far from 'rugged individualists' depended upon each other to a huge extent. They took turns working in teams to build each others' cabins and barns; as well as clearing, plowing, planting and harvesting each others' fields. When we read of stories of frontiersmen like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone; it's often forgotten that they were leaders of hunting parties and that the extraordinary amount of game that they harvested was dressed, processed, and sent to the community where it was divided up for wintertime use. Widows with families got an equal portion despite not participating in the hunt. Collecting firewood was carried out much the same way. The community's women would do similar things, forming teams to weave clothes and blankets and preserve food. 

   If one seriously thinks about it, the odds of lone individuals with an "I got mine, screw everybody else" attitude surviving on the frontier were very remote. Consider that the Indians---who were already used to frontier life---lived in mutualist communities. The revisionism has been difficult to dismiss in our national psychology. The majority of Americans perceive wealth and success to be the outcome of individual talent, effort, and entrepreneurship and see poverty due to bad choices or lack of effort, according to recent Pew Research polls. This is basically Hanson's position:  that the poor could become rich if they tried hard enough. It's an illusion, and Hanson knows it. It's also essentially little more than apology for Crony Capitalism, and a rationalization for blind selfishness and outright greed.  

  We will elaborate a bit further on this latter point in a future article, but suffice to say for now that top-down imposed 'wokeism' is a problem of the American people's own making---the political Right included. This is a Third Rail Topic among both Republicans and Libertarians---for obvious reasons they don't want to admit to their culpability in creating the problem, and calling out their own constituency for its hypocrisy isn't considered a good electoral strategy. However, it's necessary. The Right needs a thorough spiritual cleansing and owning up to the American People is the first step to rebuilding. The President-in-Exile Donald Trump is heroically attempting to do something similar through purely political means, but his efforts are going to come up short. What we need on the Right is a secular version of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance or 'wokeness' is going to continue rolling over us without significant opposition. 

   

    

  

   

   

LET'S RETHINK THIS MONARCHY BUSINESS

     As if the world urgently needed more meaningless distractions, the Corporate Media is pounding the drums and saying that we should all be in throes of grief of the passing of Elizabeth Windsor-Mountbatten, aka Queen Elizabeth II. For some unaccountable reason, most of the Anglosphere and Northern Europe (excepting France) still cling to this Divine Right of Kings nonsense. Americans for some reason also join in, mostly because everybody else is doing it. It's doubtful that 3 of 4 Americans could find Britain on a map, but we're all expected to sing along with "God Save the Queen" because Canadians do and the MSM tells us to.

    My opinion of a royal's decease is a little different. To my mind, it's only Nature finally doing what the guillotine should have done a long time ago. When we see a fellow-American wailing in sack-cloth and ashes over Elizabeth, we should politely ask them exactly what good any member of the British Royalty ever did for the United States. Our forefathers made a lot of sacrifices to eject that collection of parasites from our shores and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren made many sacrifices to keep them from coming back. Britain was considered a hostile foreign power by the US until the World Wars, and even then Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt had to beg our media not to display footage of British royalty for fear it would turn public opinion against the British. It's taken decades too undo much of the damage they caused while here like building the Slave system and inciting the Indians against settlers. Not to mention what they've done since: like stretching their tentacles into American markets and dragging us into wars to defend their interests.

     Royalty today is the product of centuries of inbreeding, unearned wealth, and unaccountability from civil law. Monarchy really began in both the West and in the Near East after the fall of the Roman Empire. Among the Barbarians who ushered in the Middle Ages, the only qualification for kingship was being the most ruthless and toughest thug in the tribe. These early rulers were also cunning enough to realize that the people might revolt against some of their future less virile descendants, and so, with the aid of some corrupt clerics, devised the myth that they were appointed by God to defend their Christian subjects (up to and including suppressing other Christians who dared point out that the Church-State system's policies and actions often conflicted with the Bible). That strain of brutality, intolerance, and protecting its privileges at all costs has been a constant royal trait since the beginning. 

    Witness the current situation in Buckingham Palace. The Queen's carcass had barely reached room temperature before Prince Charles pounced on the vacant throne and declared himself the British Head-of-State. 70 million citizens of the UK along with millions more Commonwealth sycophants in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand hail this degenerate as 'sovereign' whose realm also includes a few wayward sons of the Crown (e.g. Americans, Irishmen, South Africans, Indians, among others). 

   Charles III, as he is now known to the world, exceeds even his father Prince Phillip in villany and moral corruption---and that is saying a lot. In Britain, Charles is widely suspected---not without good reason---of having involvement in the death of his first wife Lady Diana Spencer, whom he abused and gaslighted mercilessly. He was also deeply involved in the sexual blackmail and money-laundering operations of Jeffrey Epstein---whose 'suicide' he's also widely suspected of having engineered. Charles is widely believed to be a latent homosexual, as his uncle and self-described mentor, Lord Louis Mountbatten was a notorious pervert who preyed on young boys.

   Not surprisingly, Charles is a good friend of Klaus Schwab's and spoke favorably of the Great Reset. The connection between Buckingham Palace and Davos is so blatant that Tiananmen Trudeau had to bring in a WEF official to spread counter-propaganda to the CBC and allay Canadian fears about their incoming King. Charles has a particular interest in reducing human population---presumably among nations who don't recognize the sovereignty of monarchs. His father Prince Phillip, who once mourned the fact that malaria epidemics were no longer wiping out large swaths of the Asian populace and once expressed hope that he would be reincarnated as a deadly virus to decimate the earth's population, started Charles down this ideological path. Such is the erudite reasoning and scientific acumen behind Charles' positions on the subject. 

   

    Hopefully, once all of the media hoopla and hero-worship finally fizzles out and cooler heads prevail, the British people will decide finally to rid themselves of these royal leeches and declare for a Republic of Great Britain. Aside from the mischief they cause with the likes of Schwab and Epstein, the royals serve no actual purpose in the interests of Britain except to provide fodder for the tabloids and scandal-sheets. The amount of tax dollars and hoarded wealth expended to maintain these people would be employed much better to improve the situation among the commoners---who are actually despised by the very aristocracy whom they support. 

   In America, we have organized crime families too: only here they're called the Mafia and it would be an interesting exercise to explain how the Mafia and the Royal Family are any different in actual principle. It ought to be instructive to the British people that other countries that abolished Monarchy haven't expressed any especial desire to get them back. After the Iron Curtain fell, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Albania, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria---not one of them wanted their royal families to return. France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, China have gotten along well without them. Even the Nazis didn't want the Kaiser back, and neither did post-war or post-reunification Germany. 

   It's time that Britain and the rest of the Anglosphere Commonwealth did the same. Nobody is going to be any worse off for the loss.

NONE DARE CALL IT CENSORSHIP

    The Whacko Left Wing has been celebrating this week over the success of their pressure-tactics against website Kiwi Farms. Kiwi Farms has been around for awhile, it was basically a site similar to Reddit although geared to (mostly humorous) discussions of public figures and causes. The Left characterized Kiwi Farms as a 'Right-Wing Hate Site' even though Alt-Right figures like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Vox Day and Owen Benjamin  frequently unleashed their wrath at Kiwi Farms threads and called for Cancel Culture to be invoked on their own. 

    Kiwi Farms also had threads calling out nutcases on the Left which naturally drew down the ire of the Gay Mafia, whom for obvious reasons dislike having their activities exposed. In the Postmodern West, being accused of homophobia is an unforgivable social crime---no one apparently stopping to think that the term is a meaningless neologism and not even close to a legal term. The Whacko Left pressured Cloudfare---which has a de facto monopoly on website security systems---to remove Kiwi Farms, effectively taking it offline since no search engine supports a website without that system in place. Not surprisingly, the pressure-group behind this was based in Canada. 

    The NPCs were out in full force celebrating the news. Whereas in our grandparents time, people reacted to speech they objected to simply by turning a page or inserting a pair of ear-plugs; our enlightened era doesn't think it's accomplished anything unless they've prevented everyone else from hearing it. It's rather like the dystopian novel Brave New World where if anyone felt unhappy, that became all of society's problem. Interestingly enough, it's also characteristic behavior of prepubescent girls who, notoriously, when they're mad at someone want everyone else to be mad at them too. 

   Cancel Culture---like most of postmodernism---relates to that kind of childish immaturity more than we might want to believe. The whole utopia envisioned by the Great Reset's architects are essentially about returning humanity back to the state of childhood. The masses will be given a room, their surrogate parents overlords will provide them with appropriate food and clothing, monitor their whereabouts, take them to the doctor when sick, etc. Of course there will also be discipline for the few naughty ones  dissidents who don't obey Big Brother  society's norms, but that aspect of the programme is rarely mentioned. 

   

    When platforms and persons get cancelled, there is widespread criticism of Corporate censorship. This is, however, a misnomer and it detracts from the roots of the real issue. Only Government can commit actual censorship. Private Corporations are legally free to set any terms they choose for whatever content they decide to host: and this is how it should be if we want to Property Rights. 

   The problem is though that we have allowed Corporations like Cloudfare to grow so large and so powerful that they de facto have the power of a government with none of its responsibilities. For example, consider the case with Youtube a subsidiary of Google which is itself a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc. Youtube has been on a recent spate of highly selective content-removal. Youtube's CEO is Susan Wojcicki, who is not only deeply connected with the Great Reset, her brother-in-law was one of the co-founders of Google and top shareholder in Alphabet; which itself is a Top 100 Strategic Partner at the WEF. WEF 'partner' banks hold about 13% of Alphabet stock combined. Now it may be pointed out that there are smaller platforms for video-sharing available: it may be so, but Google currently holds 91% of search-engine capacity. That is not likely to change either there are literally hundreds of revolving-door personnel between Google and the US Government. Alphabet currently has 79 Beltway lobbyists---61 of whom are also revolving-door former federal bureaucrats.

     The case with Youtube could be repeated across the board with any major platform with only minor variations. Whenever we run into economies driven by massive combines and cartels that hold overwhelming majorities of market-shares, we no longer have a Free Market and are really no better off than countries which have State-controlled Media. 

    Younger readers who don't remember the days before there was an Internet need to understand that mass-communication then (print media, radio, and television) had the same problems. There was no shortage of outlets promoting crackpot conspiracy theories, sordid rumors and gossip, and promoting what is called today 'hate speech.' 

     We didn't resort to censorship or Cancel Culture back then because there were multiple platforms available, and publications and broadcasts which were odious were generally ignored or at least marginalized and laughed at. What changed with the Internet was that most of the platforms came together under single web-hosts. It also didn't help matters when the Clinton Administration---aided and abetted by Neocon Corporate toadies in Congress---stripped away laws prohibiting concentrated power in media. 

    From a political and economic perspective, the answer to our growing problems surrounding free speech is not to extend such powers: what we actually need is more consumer/creator choice in platforms. To draw an analogy: before there was Cable TV, NBC, CBS, ABC were about the only American television networks in existence. However, there were laws limiting how many television stations they could directly own and limits to how much marketshare they could have in specific geographic areas (radio and newspapers had similar limitations). Most stations were independent and could run syndicated and independent programming (this was the precursor to Cable TV). There were also limitations against interlocking Corporate Boards of Directors and stock-ownership. For example, no one could sit on both the Boards of CBS and ABC; and no one could own stock in multiple media venues. We lost those kinds of regulations in the 1990s; and we only have an illusion of choice in today's digital media because, despite having unlimited choices in platforms the platforms are all run by the same people.

     This situation not only gives the Corporate Oligarchs undue power; it paradoxically empowers the fringe-groups who want to control Free Speech. To draw another analogy with the past, consider the difficulty of an interest group's ability to silence 20,000 independent radio stations as opposed to influencing one Internet Provider. Likewise if there were 20 security-systems to choose from and 30 different search-engine companies---all with roughly equal market-share and independent of Crony Capitalist influence---there wouldn't be any controversy about Internet 'censorship;' and these proponents of Cancel Culture would be only a bunch of harmless cranks instead of an outright social menace. 

    Of course, solutions like these would never suit the interests of the Crony Capitalist cabal which actually controls both our economic and social policies. It is in their interest to keep Cancel Culture going strong because it keeps the population divided, provides a plausible excuse for silencing sites that are obnoxious to their interests, and terrorizes the population into conformity. Monopoly control over mediums of expression allows the Oligarchy to manufacture a 'narrative' and pretend that it is a consensus. Going against that consensus could result in being cancelled. 

   In other words, creating both a uniform social consensus and a corresponding climate of fear means for the individual that his identity is defined by social acceptance and that acceptance is actually being manufactured. It creates an illusion of freedom where none actually exists because silencing dissent becomes in itself a liberating act: it 'frees' people from 'threats' to their freedom. As an example of how this perverse logic operates, consider what a troon writer for corporate-controlled Slate Magazine had to say:

  "As this effort has gone on, Kiwi Farms and its defenders have tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of speech, painting opponents as attempting to suppress free expression. That gets it exactly backward: All those who genuinely love free speech should rejoice at Cloudflare finally dropping the site, thereby making it far harder for the forum to remain accessible on the web. If the larger effort to drive Kiwi Farms off the internet succeeds, survivors of the harassment campaigns, long silenced by fear, may at last be able to re-enter the public sphere and use their voices freely."

  What this character doesn't realize is that that is the very same argument that his opponents could easily use for suppressing magazines like Slate which they consider hostile to their views. Predictably, throughout the Slate article all of the arguments are predicated on the fake news that Kiwi Farms was a 'hate site' (whatever that means) that was inciting violence. The very fact that every Corporate Media outlet which has bothered to cover the Kiwi Farms story uses almost exactly the same talking-points ought to tell us that the campaign was hardly a grass-roots effort organized by some hysterical, gender-dysphoric Internet 'influencer'. More likely this person was a prop; and the fact that Cloudfare rather dramatically caved in less than a week after initially refusing demands to deplatform Kiwi Farms (and that none of their competitors will touch KF despite its heavy traffic) is a fairly strong indication that the pressure Cloudfare really got came from a much higher source. A good bet about that source would be to look at Cloudfare's top shareholders:

Morgan Stanley (WEF) 13%

Fidelity FMR (WEF) 6%

Blackrock (WEF) 5%

State Street (WEF) 2%

    Additionally the Top 10 Cloudfare shareholders have a combined total of 91 Beltway lobbyists; 63 of whom are revolving-door former federal officials. In this day and age though it would be considered radical to imagine that that degree of power and influence had anything whatsoever to do with Cloudfare's decision. In case anybody is wondering, the Federal Communications Commission has been headed by either a former lawyer or a former lobbyist for Big Tech/Big Media since 1993. 

   The future of Free Speech at this point is not looking especially promising; we still are awaiting some court decisions relating to the upcoming show-trial for Julian Assange which is very likely to make a bad situation even worse. Sadly, there is very little---if any---real impetus among Conservatives to do much to defend Free Speech. Just about all of the commentary coming out of most punditry on the Right is  hoping for some 'Red Wave' to come along and play Cancel Culture with the Left. That isn't going to help anything even if it does happen. 

   Earlier American dead White males jurists and political philosophers taught that the best way to combat bad speech was in the Marketplace of Ideas. That's still true, but we'll need a free market again before that can happen. 

    

SOME FURTHER SINS OF EVE

    This week, the Center for Disease Control issued another statistic, showing that for the second straight year, Life Expectancy rates in the exceptional United States have dropped. This is the first time since the Kennedy Administration that there has been a consecutive yearly decline. The Junta blames these trends on the Scamdemic despite the CDC's own admission to lying about the figures. The Scamdemic also doesn't account for why the death rate among women has remained relatively stable while the numbers among men are falling radically. 

   While the Whacko Left Wing is probably high-fiving each other over the news of more male deaths, some elements on the Right are breaking out into their "O tempora! O mores!" routine. After doing absolutely nothing for the last few decades to resist the increasing emasculation of American culture, they've suddenly discovered that the widespread marginalization of men might actually be a significant social issue. As usual, they get it all wrong in their assessments. Rather than examining their own failures, they blame it all on women; as if male apathy and complacency had nothing to with contributing to any of it. 

   Dennis Prager, for example, who's been teetering delicately on a metaphorical balance-beam between Neoconservatism and Red Pill level neurosis, finally has toppled over into the abyss with his latest article 'Women Are Disproportionately Hurting Our Country.'  Prager is wailing loudly that (mostly radical feminist) women have hijacked our cultural institutions. This in spite of the fact that many Feminists seem a bit displeased with the Junta for throwing them overboard in favor of the Homo Agenda. 

   Prager's argument seems to center on the premise that while men have learned to curb their innate aggressiveness (though it's passing strange that he believes curbing it is a desirable goal) women haven't learned to tame their innate emotionalism. He doesn't really explain though how feminine emotionalism automatically translates into Radical Leftist Activism. (There's certainly no shortage of emotionally-driven females on the Right). He also seems to miss the obvious point that suppressing male tendencies towards aggression, competitiveness, and healthy sexuality is the basic cause of all of the things that he is complaining about. 

     Back when we actually had a reliable social policy, these 'innate male aggressions' that Prager complains about were sublimated into socially useful pursuits. Certain interests began seeing a problem with this, and they promoted Radical Feminism---which until the mid-1970s was nothing more than a crackpot fringe-movement. One group with an interest in 'deconstructing' masculinity was the Corporate Deep State, who realized that men supporting a family were more likely to do things like unionize---demanding a living wage, better working conditions, and opposing things like offshoring. Flooding the workplace with women drove down wages and facilitated the (totally coordinated) 'transition' to a service-based economy. Conservative men didn't oppose any of this: it was good for the bottom line and stakeholders. 

   Another group supporting Radical Feminism were the weaker, less productive, and less competent men. To them, elevating the so-called 'status of women' was a means of social levelling---cutting their more capable and responsible peers down to size. As usual in today's America, greed and envy combined to bring about a disastrous situation.

    

   Prager totally ignores the role of men in elevating women who (often by necessity) are being shoved into social roles for which they aren't suited---and then claims that women are responsible for failure. He disingenuously tells us that "young children are prematurely sexualized—they are, for example, exposed to Drag Queen Story Hour in class and in local libraries from the age of 5. These feature a man dressed as a woman reading and dancing for them. And who is facilitating all of this? In virtually every case, a woman. Ninety-two percent of kindergarten teachers are women, 75 percent of all teachers are women and 85 percent of librarians are women." Somehow, it's escaped his attention that 100% of drag queens are male: or that we had about the same percentages female teachers and librarians in 1980 when these things weren't tolerated. 

   He continues: "And they are teaching young people to despise their country (the creator of the poisonous '1619 Project' is a woman), to feel guilty about their 'white privilege' or to think of themselves as victims if they are black. Even worse, they are indoctrinating them in 'nonbinary' thinking regarding sex and gender...These ideas originated in university gender studies and women’s studies departments, nearly all of whose professors are female." True, but these university departments originated in schools which weren't run by women and mostly still aren't. They've also been funded by a multiplicity of federal, state, and local governments who haven't sought even the slightest accountability. 

     "Last week an organization called Physicians for Reproductive Health published an open letter to the nation’s reporters and news editors, demanding they censor anti-abortion activists" Prager continues, “the open letter was signed by more than 600 medical doctors and other health care professionals. Nearly every signatory was a woman. And all four of the listed leaders of Physicians for Reproductive Health are women." And all nine of the Supreme Court Justices who enacted Roe vs. Wade in 1973 were men, and Planned Parenthood was founded by Bill Gates' father. Prager seems to be arguing a la Vox Day that women couldn't wait for legal abortion back then. We've always had a number of women in the medical profession, especially in nursing; but most were like Dr. Mary Jones---who pioneered American Obstetrics techniques---and who stated that "the woman who seeks the destruction of her own child deceives herself, darkens her soul, and casts down her whole moral existence.”  

    This is a major problem with Prager's line of reasoning: he seems to be taking a reductionist view of female psychology that makes his whole article sound like typical Manosphere poppycock. It's almost like he's channelling the ghost of Dalrock, he states that "Women clergy have been at the vanguard of pushing Christianity and Judaism to the left, leaving mainstream churches and synagogues increasingly empty. Of course, the increasingly feminized male clergy go along with their female colleagues." Much like Rollo Tomassi's assertion that the Holy Spirit has been supplanted by the so-called 'Feminine Imperative.' It happens awkwardly enough for Prager and Tomassi however that only about 1 in 8 denominations that allow it have female clergy. Catholics, Moslems, and Orthodox Jews don't even ordain women. 

   Prager makes the highly dubious assertion that "women are disproportionately supportive of cancel culture" though I seem to recall male Corporate Oligarchs, Tech Lords, Media Moguls, and Mad Scientists like Fauci mostly leading that charge. If we weren't starting to question Prager's sanity already, he drops this bombshell:

  "Teachers and their unions did great damage to young people during COVID-19. They demanded—because of their hypochondria and an apparent inability to apply reason to COVID-19 risk—that schools be closed for nearly two years. Teachers unions in big cities threatened to go on strike if schools opened...The unions are overwhelmingly composed of women members and women leaders."

    

    On the contrary, this was a time (and sadly not the only one) where the so-called 'Conservatives' went even further than the Radical Left. Frankly, I was hoping that public schools would never open again and that the supposed 'party of school choice' would seize the opportunity to push for more parental control. But, no; Prager and his ilk showed their true colors and forced Americans back into the dysfunctional system in spite of opposition from the Left. And this completes the Circular Reasoning of his whole thesis. He and his fellow Neocons have marginalized men in society and set women up to fail---now he blames women essentially for not manning up and not behaving more like men should have been doing.

   There is no "sin of Eve" but it's the same as it was from the beginning. When Adam finished eating the fruit, and God asked why he'd disobeyed His commandment to protect the Garden he replied: "She made me do it!" That excuse didn't work for Adam and it won't work for modern Neocons or Red Pills either.