December 31, 2019
Happy New Year! And what better sends the warm wishes of the Iranian Mullahs than an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad?
From U.S. Military News:
The demonstrators ignored warnings while gathering outside the embassy, smashed down the embassy reception area’s fortified doors, and fires to various rooms, Washington Post reported. The demonstrators carried out chants of "death to America” and draped the flags of the Kata’ib Hezbollah militia over the embassy walls.
Two other guard rooms were also set on fire and protestors made a bonfire with tires, food rations and papers found in the embassy.
Embassy employees reportedly went into hiding in a secure location as the protestors broke into the compound.
Embassy guards fired tear gas canisters to disperse the mobbing crowd and civil defense workers inside the compound began efforts to put out fires with water hoses.
An Iraqi army commander arrived after the protestors stormed the compound and ordered Iraqi security forces to force the protestors back. Security forces then formed a defensive line between the protestors and the embassy.
The U.S. airstrikes that incited the protests themselves were in response to deadly 30-plus rocket attacks by the militias, which resulted in the death of one U.S. contractor and the injury of other U.S. service members.
"Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq,” President Donald Trump tweeted in response to news of the gathering crowds.
This is intended to duplicate the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran during the Carter era. It, as much as anything, brought down the Administration of Jimmy Carter.
Iran is hoping to duplicate that result with President Trump.
And it is an act of war, one the President cannot afford to ignore. There will have to be reprisals, and major ones, inside Iran itself.
Of course, this is something the Demomedia will have a field day with; they will oppose Trump on this, refusing to authorize military action by the President and claiming he is "wagging the dog" to slither out from impeachment. And they would be lying, but when did that stop these people?
I am unsure of what the President's options are at this point, but he has to take devastating action against Iran. And he's not going to make any friends by doing so.
Patrick Buchanan wonders if this won't ruin Trump's re-election chances, and he may be right, although I suspect the public will understand that war is being thrust upon him. But you never know, and the media will never tell the truth about what is happening. No doubt they will continue to call it a "protest" as opposed to a guerrilla mob run by Hezbollah and Iran.
I think we need to bomb Iran's oil fields at a minimum. And NOTHING must get in or out of the Prince of Persia.
So Iran is giving us war for our new years. And no doubt American Quizzlings are going to try to backstab us at every turn.
This next year is going to be one helluva ride!
The wages of Sin...
From the article:
Since the turn of the decade, Illinois has lost more residents than any other state, with a drop of about 159,700 people, or 1.2% of its population. Only three other states have shrunk since 2010: Connecticut, Vermont and West Virginia, with the latter losing the largest share of its residents, a 3.3% decline.
Population losses in Illinois have been compounding since 2014, when the state began a steady, though not precipitous, decline. Last year, Illinois dropped to the sixth-most-populous state in the nation, falling behind Pennsylvania and New York.Illinois has become almost entirely a Democrat-run state, and the few Republicans left would be considered left of most Democrats in other states. It is a place with crushing taxation, with unrestrained illegal immigration, with rampant crime, with dying industries and a shrinking economy, etc.
These are the wages of Sin, or more precisely the wages of Liberalism.
Illinois is an object lesson.
My time in real estate taught me that so many good Illinoisans want to flee. They are sick of the endless regulations, and the taxes are squeezing them. I have helped placed expatriates in St. Louis homes for a decade or more now.
The problem is, many of these people fleeing the state will bring Illinois with them. They'll vote for the Democrats here in Missouri, in Indiana, in Wisconsin and Iowa. Liberalism really is an infectious agent.
But at least we'll see their power decline in one state once redistricting occurs after next year's census. That at least is a good thing.
On a brighter note, Chicago has seen the third straight year with homicides below 500. While the authorities are crediting technology for the improvement, one wonders if it is not rather a case of the peace of the grave; so much of Chicago has hollowed out that the criminals are leaving along with the rest of the inhabitants of Illinois. After all, what good is it being a crook in an empty state? You can't rob if there isn't somebody to rob, or kill if your victims are all gone.
Belated Hannukah wishes to all my Jewish friends and readers! Sorry; forgot to post this up yesterday.
The Sheriff of Yuma Arizona says the border fence has cut crime by 91%.
The Yuma Border Patrol Sector used to be the worst in the country for illegal crossings, until it became a poster-child for the effectiveness of a border fence.
In 2005, before the fence, more than 2,700 vehicles crossed the Colorado River and open deserts, loaded with illegal immigrants and drugs, according to Border Patrol numbers.
Apprehensions steadily increased to more than 138,000 in fiscal 2005.
"Yuma battled entrenched smuggling groups for control of the border,” said Border Patrol in a video. "Mass incursions often left agents outnumbered 50 to 1. Agents were assaulted with rocks and weapons daily.”
Following the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Yuma tripled manpower and added mobile surveillance, as well as fencing and vehicle barriers.
Yuma went from having 5.2 miles of fencing to 63 miles, and subsequently saw an almost 95 percent decrease in border apprehensions by 2009, when Border Patrol made about 7,000 arrests.
It also directly affected what the sheriff’s department had to deal with.
"We were able to reduce [ancillary crimes] by 91 percent,” Wilmot said. "The deaths in the desert, the rapes, the robberies, the homicides, the burglaries, the thefts.”But fences and walls don't work, we are told!
Well, when Attila and his army of Huns tried to invade China (he wanted to conquer China to turn it into a war machine to attack the Romans, whom he hated) he came to the Great Wall. After spending days trying to find a way around it the Scourge of God simply turned around and left. Worked pretty well there!
And the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a wall closing the border between Roman Britain and the wild lands of the Scots and Picts - and it seemed to work quite well for them. There was never a major invasion by the Scottish hordes into the peaceful, settled British lands.
Walls work great around prisons. And my fences keep people out of my backyard.
The notion that a wall or fence is pointless is beyond stupid. Of course, you can't rely solely on a passive deterrent; you have to guard it, too, and kick trespassers out. That's what we do on private property; nobody lets some trespasser stay and eat food and drink at a private party just because they made it inside. Unfortunately America does exactly that.
Here is something all men will learn at some point!
From the article:
In fact, 315 of them died from the stress that is assumed to be the result of an argument with a partner. Also, due to the unsatisfactory life together research has shown that in middle-aged men at increased risk of death three times.
As if we didn't know a nagging wife will cut short our lives!
And if it doesn't, it may well make us wish it did!
BTW, this in no way applies to my wife, who is sweet as honey and who is standing right behind me as I write this...
In a recent post Dr. Mark Musser discussed the roots of the modern Green movement and how it came first from the old European aristocracy and transitioned through the Third Reich.
Well, we've had a discussion about that. Here it is:
And yes, it had an eschatology to it as well - https://
You could probably call the E.U. the "Fourth Reich"; it seems to be run by the same aristocracy that ran Europe prior to the First World War, and it has the same failings as the Nazi Reich. Also, it seems to resemble rather strikingly the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Yes, European royalism has not disappeared and plays no small role in EU politics today - particularly through the green movement.
By the way, the last heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Otto Von Hapsburg, just passed away. It is interesting to note he was a member of the European Union parliament. And he was a passionate advocate for the E.U.:
Now, why would a guy like that be so enthused on the creation of a superstate/empire like the European Union?
Europe is run by the old aristocracy coupled with the nouveau rich. While this may seem at odds with the old European order of competing powers, it really isn't that different; the old order featured the merchantilist ambition where a nation had a colonial empire to draw on for all the resources it needed. These empires were hegemonous, and always sought to control the fate of Europe. They fought each other constantly in an endless struggle for position. But the fact remains, they were all multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and sought to elevate the ruling class above the peasants. It's important to understand; the aristocracy of these countries were often related by marriage and blood. The Russian Tsar Nicholas, for instance, was Queen Victoria's cousin. Europe was ruled by one big, squabbling family.
And while the fascist/nazi order may seem aberrational as they looked to ethnic and cultural purity, it was really not so different as both sought to impose their power over other nations in Europe itself. Hitler, for all his talk about German purity and the like, wanted to unite Europe under the Nazi banner. Most nations in Europe had Nazi parties of their own. Austria certainly did. And Hitler kept taking bites out of neighboring nations, ostensibly to colonize them with Germans, but in the end Hitler was willing to allow others into the Nazi order; he just wouldn't accept certain groups - like Jews, or Romani.
Remember, the Progressive era was started by the educated, upper class types in both Europe and America. And American Progressives were the creators of eugenics, the "science" of biological determinism aka racism. To them, they were the bright ones (as they claim to be now) and they were applying "science" to make a better human race.
America never did take the obvious step as did the Nazis. Here we did have some forced sterilization and other nasty little presents for the poor and weak among us, but it was always "negative" eugenics; the Nazis promoted "positive" eugenics aka genocide. They actively killed people to get rid of them.
But both sides were on the same page, and both were promoted by the same aristocracy. In Europe it was the actual old aristocracy, while in America it was the self-styled, the Ivy League-educated classes.
After the war they eschewed eugenics to a point, but still see many of those who oppose their rule as "deplorables" who must be governed sternly.
Take for example the behavioral theory advocated by Cass Sunstein, radical former Obama Administration member and husband to Samantha Powers. Sunstein came up with his "nudge" theory whereby America's betters would "nudge" the knuckle dragging public via government power to do that which the aristocracy wanted and believed was in the best interest of the populace. For instance, capping soda size would be one such "nudge" because sodas are bad for you. The idea is to not use ham-fisted legal prohibitions but rather soft-soaped incentives and punishments. Of course, there are always going to be those hard-headed types who won't take the nudge, and then...
Never does a man like Sunstein consider for a second whether he has a right to tell others how to live. He's ENTITLED.
This is Fascism 101; the idea that society is intimately involved in every aspect on the life of the individual and the individual has no independent existence outside of the social order. Mussolini was quite clear about that. It came originally from Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. Rousseau - the father of Socialism - believed there could be nothing outside of the common will.
He also disbelieved in religion, although he was a big fan of Islam, because of Islam's monism aka nothing outside of the Islamic theocracy. Rousseau liked that idea; he was diametrically opposed to separation of Church and State, something instituted by Jesus when he held up the Roman coin and asked "whose picture is this". Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" thus establishing a duality in the West, one that Rousseau and the Progressive Left have always despised.
But Rousseau saw Christianity as bunk and set out to create his own church, which was the State. The People, the collective Will, were everything; there could be no rights or duties outside of their pleasure. As a result, it was Rousseau who promoted the idea of "mystical nationalism" whereby the human need for a belief in a higher order would be satisfied by elevating the Volk and the State would be their church.
You can trace the fascist/Nazi racist roots directly to Rousseau.
I would like to point out this is what the term Nationalism means. Too many on our side use it amiss. In the Nineteenth Century conservatives were very concerned with Nationalism, because they knew what it meant. It is not just another term for patriotism, which is a clear societal good and promotes love of both God and fellow man. Natiionalism is the deification of the People and the State.
And while Socialism split into primarily two camps with Fascism occupying one branch (and "democratic socialism" being the less malignant disease of that branch) Marxism occupied the other, International Socialism. Both were present in Europe during the early to mid 19th Century. There was as yet no name for Marxism, but there was the word communism in use even as far back as then. The main difference between the two was that communism advocated a purely material vision of humanity. But it was quite popular, and communists were well represented in the French Reign of Terror as well as the Revolution of 1848.
But always, it was the Aristocracy who were pulling the strings. Socialism found fertile soil in the universities even back during the French Revolution. It was the common education of the Ruling Class even then. Instead of Harvard and Yale and Princeton it was at Cambridge and Oxford.
The settlement of America and the industrial revolution greatly roiled the fortunes of the old aristocracy, but they remained in place and plotted their return. They have now returned to power as the architects of the post-WWII era. THEY were the ones who financed the Russia Revolution. They were the ones who supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War, with loans at critical moments when the USSR was in serious economic trouble. Ronald Reagan's plan to spend them into bankruptcy could have happened at any time, but the aristocracy in America and Europe opposed that. Why? Because the Soviet Union provided them with a tool to move the West in the direction they wanted.
They have since done the exact same thing with China. China is a third world country with first world money and power. We gave that to them through terrible foreign policy. Even some of the people ostensibly on our side, like Newt Gingrich, supported this "engagement" policy with China, building them into our main competitor.
At any rate, it all goes back to the same people, the old order Ruling Class. The Treaty of Maastricht (which established the E.U.) was just another extension of the old Congress of Vienna.
The faces change and so do the names, but the core remains the same.
And this is the same fight we are fighting today, with an intrusive, entitled aristocracy demanding the right to rule and doing a poor job of it.
December 30, 2019
Africa has the world’s lowest electrification rate. Its power consumption per capita is just 613 kilowatt-hours per year, compared to 6,500 kWh in Europe and 13,000 in the United States, African Development Bank (AfDB) President Akinwumi Adesina observedin July 2017. That’s 9.4% of EU and 4.7% of US electricity consumption. It’s equivalent to Americans having electricity only 1 hour a day, 8 hours a week, 411 hours per year – at totally unpredictable times, for a few minutes, hours or days at a stretch.
It’s actually even worse than that. Excluding significantly electrified South Africa, sub-Sahara Africans consume an almost irrelevant 181 kWh of electricity per capita – 1.4% of the average American’s!
In Sub-Saharan Afria, over 600 million people have no electricity, and over 700 million rely on wood, grass and dung for cooking and heating. The region is home to 16% of the world’s population, and 53% of those without electricity. By 2050, its urban populations could increase by 600 million.
Determined to transform the "dark continent,” the AfDB launched a $12-billion New Deal on Energyin 2017 and a Light Up and Power Africa initiative in July 2018. It frequently emphasized that access to sufficient supplies of reliable, affordable modern energy – including fossil fuels – is critical for the continent’s social and economic development. Without energy, it is impossible to create jobs, increase productivity, reduce inequality, improve people’s health and wellbeing, or end poverty.
The Indian government has decided to restrict citizenship, to avoid a massive increase in Muslims who have come as refugees from their own countries (Myanmar and Sri Lanka, for instance.) The result? Nationwide riots and protests have swept across the subcontinent.
According to One America News:
New citizenship laws are prompting both protesters and supporters to take to the streets in India. Reports said demonstrators in New Delhi dressed as police and pretended to beat students on Sunday.
Isn't it strange that Muslims always are ready to riot, even when begging for help. Now why is that?
If the delusioned people in Power think that the protests against CAA and NRC are limited to only muslim majority areas, they should see what's happening in Hauz Khas , New Delhi this morning.pic.twitter.com/tBnXxYqyUY
— Mehdi Rizvi (@MehdiRizvi123) December 29, 2019
It's how Islam is spread; the word you are looking for is Jihad.
India had a terrible time of it when they first attained their independence; the Muslims immediately began fighting with the Hindus, and the result was the subcontinent was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Pakistan split into two countries - Pakistan and Bengladesh. Also, Ceylon became Sri Lanka and the Muslims began agitating there. People had to leave their homes to settle in their "approved" countries, often passing each-other and fighting along the way.
But Muslims are never content unless they rule. Their religion orders them to subdue the infidels, and so they are always trying to get on the inside. Then they agitate for "rights", complaining of being abused. Eventually they grow to ten percent of the population and begin a campaign of terror against the majority. In the end everyone converts or is killed.
India is right in restricting permanent immigration by these people. In fact, they ought to deport them.
Thanks largely to Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders and 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, "existential’ was selected as the word of the year by Dictionary.com. The on-line dictionary describes the phenomenon as follows:
Searches for existential spiked throughout 2019, especially after politicians used the word to characterize the dangers and disruptions climate change is widely held to pose for human life and the environment as we know them.
At a town hall on February 25, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders helped send searches for existential up over 179% when he called climate change "an existential crisis that impacts not just you and me and our generation but our kids and our grandchildren.”
Search volume for existentialwas higher than average throughout summer and fall 2019. August witnessed fires rage across the Amazon and Hurricane Dorian ravage the Bahamas. Many outlets and organizations discussed these disasters not only in connection to climate but also in existential terms. The non-profit Amazon Watch, for instance, framed the conflagration starkly: " … it’s not only the Amazon, but our entire planet that is in crisis as the devastation of this life-giving biome poses a real, existential threat for all of humanity.”
September saw the worldwide Climate Strike and major speeches by the Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg. On September 18, Thunberg notably urged the US Congress: "I have a dream that the people in power, as well as the media, start treating this crisis like the existential emergency it is.”
Why has Nancy Pelosi come around on impeaching President Trump, and why is she now fighting so desperately to force the GOP into allowing a freak show trial?
Judi McLeod has blown the Speaker's cover with this must read article.
I won't try to excerpt it, but rest assured it exposes the immense corruption of the Speaker and her son Paul (and Gavin Newsom, California Governor.) Read it all!
Remember when Pelosi said "it takes a woman to clean the House"? Under her maidship the House has become rancid.
Recently I wrote a (hopefully) nuanced defense of the Trump Administration for their policy of promoting decriminalization of homosexuality. I argued that, while homosexuality is destructive both to the individual and to society in general it is still something that should not be suppressed by force of law and as such should bot be a criminal offense. (It can be decriminalized while not embraced and celebrated.)
Well, Cliff Kincaid disagrees.
From the Canada Free Press article:
Grenell and Craft have justified their campaign by noting that Trump said his administration would be "working with other nations to stop criminalizing of homosexuality.” But there is no evidence that the president wanted to browbeat some of America’s friends and allies at the U.N. into accepting and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. It seems certain that the president was concerned about people being physically injured for their self-proclaimed sexual orientation.
What happened at the U.N. was a major public spectacle designed to shame Christian nations into recognizing and approving homosexuality. It appears to be a case of Grenell hijacking U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of his friends in gay groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans. A foreign affairs advisor to Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential campaign, Grenell has a same-sex partner and claims to be a Christian.
Craft was reportedly recommended for her post by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. She and her husband, Joe Craft, donated about $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.
What they apparently don’t appreciate is that countries with a Christian or Muslim orientation have resisted putting government approval on homosexual conduct for many reasons, including public health. Indeed, in the modern era, the so-called "criminalization” of homosexuality is designed to discourage dangerous high-risk practices which spread AIDS and other diseases. AIDS is devastating Africa in particular.Mr. Kincaid is correct; this isn't about protecting the rights of free individuals but rather about promoting a lifestyle and breaking down the cultural bedrock of nations that realize the dangers of the homosexual movement.
And I believe I agreed with Mr. Kincaid about the motivations of the individuals pushing this; they are homosexual activists, not defenders of civil rights.
Kincaid points out:
The controversial event occurred just a few days before Christmas, when Trump’s U.S. Ambassador to Germany, longtime homosexual activist Richard Grenell, went to the United Nations to promote what he called a global initiative to force all U.N. members to approve homosexual conduct. He was joined in this demandby Trump’s U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Kelly Craft, who lectured the 69 countries which have laws making homosexuality illegal. She told them that "human dignity” requires that every country on the face of the earth embrace the practice of homosexuality.
This is the
kind of homosexual imperialism that evangelical Christians objected to
from the Obama Administration. Christians in foreign countries saw the
attack as unwarranted interference in their internal affairs and
subversion of Biblical values.
Here is an interesting tidbit:
In what way is this qualitatively different than what they are impeaching President Trump for now? It may have had no immediate political benefit to Obama, but it clearly was a quid-pro-quo to force a sovereign nation to give him what he wanted.
This is why I worry about taking any middle ground in any battle; the Left radicalizes these things. If you give an inch...
In the end, I agree with Cliff Kincaid to a large degree, but I do think it is important we not be forced into a fundamentally anti-Christian and anti-freedom position by the aggressive nature of the Left.
Sadly, that is what they always thrust upon us.
If they REALLY cared about homosexuals they would discourage homosexuality in all venues while trying to protect them as individuals. That is not the case; they are attempting to grow the size of the gay community. THEY are the ones who really hate gay people.
As in the parable of the prodigal son, it is necessary to let some people make their own mistakes, but unlike the father in the story you do not enable them.
Which is exactly what we have been doing. Not just enabling but feteing and celebrating.
In worship services to the Greek god Pan often Pan would possess the worshipers, driving them mad (they were drinking and using narcotics). Those who didn't want to go mad would sometimes run in panic - PANic, get it? Pan got them either way.
That's how it is with the Left these days; we either accept their insanity or we run from them in a way that they still win. The key must be to use reason and NOT reject them solely out of desperation. We need to drive the issues, not they.
Twitter just can't leave conservatives alone.
After Twitter banned my ten-year-old account, I started a new account and have only used it for movie stuff and almost NO politics. I have replied a few times on political threads, but posted NO political threads. But I still use it to follow hundreds of conservative writers. And wouldn't you know, but Twitter keeps locking my account even though I haven't used it for anything political.
Why? Because almost all the people I follow are conservatives.
I have been locked and forced to "verify" my account five times in the last two months.
Does anyone really believe this?
Republican political strategist Rick Wilson predicted that Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son, will run for office in 2024 and is likely to secure the GOP nomination in a Daily Beast op-ed published Thursday.
"There are three 2024 scenarios that Republicans pretend they won't face, but that represent the further decline and fall of a once-great party of conservative ideas," Wilson wrote. "First, the clues have been there all along that the real 2024 primary will be between Donald J. Trump, Jr. and everyone else."
"It's becoming more obvious by the day," he said.
He then suggested that Trump Jr. may have an even greater chance of the GOP 2024 nomination if his father loses his 2020 reelection bid. "Every single one of these candidates will spend the year before the election posturing and posing as the sole heir to Donald Trump's legacy," he added.
Please note that Mr. Wilson wrote this for the left wing Daily Beast.
First off, Donald Jr. is not the man his father is and while he may well have a future in politics he will NOT be ready by 2024. Second, even if he were America isn't likely to support him. We don't go in for dynasties in this country. I can think of only two in history; the Adams dynasty and the Bushes.
Hillary tried to do it and failed.
That is not the point here; this is intended to buck up the liberals and depress conservatives. There is no reason why it would appear first at The Daily Beast then Newsweek. This is intended to serve a purpose.
What is that? First it lights a fire under the Democrats, forcing them to focus out of fear that Trump will somehow make himself into another Kim family (as in the North Korean Kims) , or at least into an American version of Francisco Franco. See, the Left, at least the cannon fodder liberals, really do believe Trump is a fascist dictator and the threat of his son being nominated in his stead is so terrifying that they will swallow their pride and unite behind someone they do not like just to avoid a Trump dynasty.
Second, it acts to sever the luke-warm Republicans, who also share a disdain for dynasties, and especially for one established by so uncouth and plebeian a fellow as Donald J. Trump. We could have polished sophisticates like the Bushes, but not a fecal tossing orangutan like Trump creating a dynasty.
Is that the legacy of the GOP, they will be asking themselves.
The prospect of a Trump dynasty will frighten both sides of the aisle, the angry Democrats and the pusillanimous Republicans.
By the way, Rick Wilson is a #Nevertrump guy who has railed against the President from the get go. Mr. Wilson has written such memorable tomes as "Everything Trump Touches Dies" and his latest "Running Against the Devil". At this point one can hardly call this guy a Republican anything.
He is believed to be the guy who gave the Steele Dossier to the CIA.
At his website he states:
Rick enjoys hunting, fishing, flying, and overthrowing governments.
He clearly thinks he's funny. But I think that speaks volumes about the man's heart. And who is he trying to overthrow now?
Hormones in the "Impossible Whopper" leads to whoppers, all right - big ones - on MEN.
Yes, doctors are saying that high levels of estrogen in the faux burgers are grow breasts on male patrons.
I guess we can take that name "Impossible Whopper" literally.
William Kay has done an outstanding job describing the indigenous, holistic, and historical relationship between German Romanticism and the feudalistic world of Europe’s heartland that celebrated the aristocracy and the nobility together with their landed estates over the everyday economic needs of the common man which essentially began what is today called environmentalism – a quasi-revolution from the top down that was designed to squelch both Capitalism and Marxism because of their inherent grubby materialism which was erasing the distinction between the nobility and the peasantry. While the landed estates of Europe were already being eclipsed by what was then known as liberalism or free market capitalism, the opening up of land rich North America became an ‘existential’ threat to their very ‘being’ – all of which was later represented quite well by the existentialisms of proto-Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche and Nazi sage Martin Heidegger.
It was in the political-socio economic milieu of Goethe, Humboldt, and Haeckel, together with religious impulses that mystically worshiped the natural world, in which German environmentalism was born in the 1800’s. Such a movement then climaxed with the advent of National Socialism – which was by far the greenest regime on the planet in the 1930’s, and contrary to even popular scholarly opinion, perhaps the greenest regime seen still yet to date. Many of the same anti-humanist diatribes often witnessed today in the green movement, which was revived again in postwar Europe in the 1960’s that spilled into America as well, were already richly represented and presaged by German racist environmentalists of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
The green movement is not new, but is strongly rooted in the old feudal order of Europe. Thanks to rich, aristocratic ties with lots of cash, environmentalism has managed to cloak itself in progressive rhetoric, but is bent on bringing back a natural order that will lead to untold misery for the countless masses as was already clearly demonstrated by the destructive history of the Third Reich. Every aspect of the entire green movement today was already played out before during the 1930's and 40's under the banner of the swastika. How the Left today has adopted the environmental cloak is an irrational contradiction which only fascist postmodernism can adequately explain.
There are any number of historical nuggets to be found in this book, including the overlooked reality that Count von Stauffenberg's attempted coup against the Fuhrer in 1944, was not merely late in coming, but was also designed to bring back the German nobility back to power. Kaiser Wilhelm died in 1941, and was very proud of what Nazi Germany had accomplished at that early time. His son proudly fought in the Wehrmacht. The royalists were only looking for a way out once the war started going badly. The royalists and the National Socialists were deeply intertwined.
Another interesting fact which I knew but did not really emphasize in my own book on "Nazi Ecology," was over how the Nazi greens were also the only group allowed in the Third Reich to protest against public works and corporatism, even with regard to vital war effort projects and concerns.
Although the Nazi greens were supposed to make known their ecological concerns through the proper government channels, when that failed, they went public with few consequences. Kay points out:
In another very revealing paragraph Kay also writes:
Many Nazi greens were anti-Semitic, and many greens today are becoming increasingly so as well.
Read William Kay's new book The Green Swastika: Environmentalism in the Third Reich.
Read Marks book Nazi Oaks; The Green Sacrifice of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust
December 29, 2019
Coastal Maine has a lot of seaweed, and a fair number of cows. A group of scientists and farmers think that pairing the two could help unlock a way to cope with a warming world.There you have it in a nutshell. Most of the article deals with the scientists' search for the particular seaweed that will produce the best reduction in methane and still be acceptable to the cows. Not a single word about the effect on the taste of the milk or the meat. And will the cows agree to eat the stuff? https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/farmers-to-feed-cows-seaweed-to-cut-down-on-gas-emissions
The researchers -- from a marine science lab, an agriculture center and universities in northern New England -- are working on a plan to feed seaweed to cows to gauge whether that can help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
About a quarter of the methane in the country comes from cattle, which produce the gas when they belch or flatulate.
The concept of feeding seaweed to cows has gained traction in recent years because of some studies that have shown its potential to cut back on methane. The reduction might be because the seaweed interrupts the process of production of the gas in the animals' guts.
In our civilizational quest to make ourselves extinct, the FDA has taken yet another step by approving an Ebola vaccine using LIVE Ebola virus!
From the article the vaccine can shed live viruses, leading to immuno-suppression and infection.
According to the insert given by Merck:
" Transmission of vaccine virus is a theoretical possibility. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in blood, saliva, or urine for up to 14 days after vaccination. The duration of shedding is not known; however, samples taken 28 days after vaccination tested negative. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in fluid from skin vesicles that appeared after vaccination.”
So you may be contagious after receiving the vaccination!
The vaccine may also cause immunosuppression, as well as interfere with test results.
In short, you are getting Ebola, just a milder case of it.
Now filoviruses are composed of RNA (not DNA) and are prone to mutation. This is worrisome; once in the body they may well mutate and become very dangerous. We do NOT need a plague of Ebola! Ebola makes you bleed everywhere. If it were to become an airborn illness, one like a flu virus, the results would be catastrophic.
We've used weakened but living viruses for vaccines before, but never one so dangerous as Ebola. In fact, there was a time when live Smallpox was used as a vaccine; nobody took it, because you essentially got Smallpox. It wasn't until the discovery of Cowpox vaccination by Edward Jenner in 1796 that a practical Smallpox vaccine became possible.
Humanity has become increasingly reckless in modern times, gambling with our own existence. CRISPR technology allows us to cut and paste genes in any fashion we like, giving us the potetntial to create monstrous, evil diseases. I fear recombinant DNA technology far more than I do atomic weapons or any of the other modern boogaboos. We really could wipe ourselves out with some biological experiment gone awry.
This one strikes me as a bad idea all around.
Rashida Tlaib is under investigation for embezzlement and improper use of campaign funds.
From the Clarion Project:
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for allegedly using campaign funds for personal use in a prohibited way. Misuse of campaign funds in this way is a federal crime.
The OCE opened the investigationagainst Tlaib "because there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Tlaib converted campaign funds from Rashida Tlaib for Congress to personal use or Rep. Tlaib’s campaign committee expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.”
In its complaint against Tlaib, the OCE’s notes that federal rules do allow a candidate to receive a salary from campaign funds under a specific set of conditions. Tlaib maintains that she met those conditions, "however, several documents provided to the OCE by Rep. Tlaib suggest otherwise,” the OCE report states.
Tlaib — along with her treasurer, campaign manager and a campaign staffer – have refused to cooperate with the OCE’s investigation.
She also likes terrorists:
Since being elected to Congress, Tlaib has made headlines for her support of terror groups.
During on onslaught against Israel by Hamas in May 2019, Tlaib and her ideological friend Congresswoman Ilhan Omar both supported Hamas.This woman has no business in Congress.
No mention is made in this article of Fayez Tlaib, Rashida's ex-husband. According to Haaretz:
Rashida Tlaib’s father, from the East Jerusalem village of Beit Hanina, moved to the United States in the late 1960s. He returned in the mid-1970s and married Bassam Tlaib’s sister Faiza. The couple returned to America and had a family.
Because Rashida Tlaib married a relative of her mother’s, her married name is the same as her mother’s maiden name.So, she married an uncle or a cousin. Imagine if a Trump-supporting Republican, particularly from down South, were to do that? The firestorm that would ensue would force the fellow from public life. He would be called a hillbilly and cousin-lover. But a Muslim woman can get away with nary a peep.
What is it with left-wing Muslim Democrats and the relatives with whom they copulate? They are more inbred than the Hatfields or McCoys. Remember that Ilhan Omar married her brother.
At any rate, it's good news that this woman is under investigation.
Looks like the Durham investigation is touching a nerve. The CIA bigwigs are getting quite upset with the investigation of John "Muzzie" Brennan.
From Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
Intelligence community veterans say the Durham probe could force (CIA Director Gina) Haspel to choose between protecting her agency from Trump’s wrath and bowing to Barr’s wishes; they point to FBI chief Chris Wray, who has found himself at odds with the president in recent weeks over a watchdog report about the bureau’s conduct in the Russia probe.
And they say the Barr-Durham probe represents overreach by an attorney general who seems to have already made up his mind and is bent on imposing his own skeptical view of the Russia investigation on the intelligence community…
"It is unprecedented and inappropriate to do this via Justice department prosecutors who will tend to apply the standards of a courtroom to the more nuanced, and often more challenging world of intelligence analysis,” said John McLaughlin, who served as both deputy director and acting director of the CIA from 2000-2004…But it was fine for the CIA to spy on the Trump campaign? Where was the "nuance" there? They knew Donald Trump wasn't a Russian asset and yet they spied on his people - and didn't tell him.
The closer one gets to the truth in a thing like this the louder the guilty complain. I think Barr and Durham are getting to the root here.
And John Brennan is the epicenter of a lot of this. A guy who voted for the Communist Party and yet got a security clearance at CIA (which shows how corrupted that agency had become, as we were at the heighth of the Cold War when he received his clearance) Brennan is also very sympathetic to Islam and there are credible rumors he is a convert to that religion, and at a time when we were fighting a war against Islamism. Brennan seemed to move up the ranks rather quickly during the Obama era. And he has been a fierce critic of President Trump, to the point where he was openly defiant of HIS boss, the President, who was forced to fire him.
Eventually Mr. Trump tried to take Brennan's security clearance but it never happened; the career guys simply refused to take it away from Brennan, even though he had been sacked. (Imagine a company allowing a fired employee to walk in and access computers after being terminated for cause.)
I think the closer the investigation gets to Brennan the louder the CIA will scream. Oh, and watch for some sort of black op against Durham or William Barr. Some sort of scandal may suddenly appear out of thin air.
53 queries taking 0.3599 seconds, 236 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.