Wednesday, December 21, 2016

The Madness of Queen Angela

I take the title of this column from a 1994 British film, “The Madness of King George,” which dramatizes the enveloping insanity of George III, the monarch who lost America and was losing his mind. George kept committing actions that were “embarrassing” to the nation, but most of all, to the dignity of his station. Doctors were at a loss to diagnosis and possibly correct the king’s bizarre behavior and eccentricities. Given the primitive state of mental and physical science of the time, they were reduced to examining his stool for clues to a remedy. The only doctor to make a semblance of progress was one who insisted that all regal niceties be dropped and the King be put through a régimen of what only could be called, in certain military circles, “square bashing.” George would be put in a straight jacket every time he “misbehaved.”

But George III’s madness was a low-level one compared to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy of madness. She cannot help but be aware of the insanity and the suicidal consequences of her policies, but she chooses them. George’s madness could not be corrected with rational persuasion or introspection. He was not capable of conscious irrationality. His mind careened in its own world of causo-connections.

As does Merkel’s.

Merkel’s madness seeks to reduce her nation to being a deferential caliphate of Islam against the will of the non-Islamic population, which is expected to meld peacefully without complaint with the savages, rapists, thieves and welfare parasites. It is based on the madness of her brand of collectivism, Marxism.

Marxism itself is a system of madness that defies or denigrates human volition and goes against any measure of rationality. If you were born in a certain “class,” preferably a poor one, then you were destined to become a communist, or at least a socialist, and resent anyone better off economically than you. Dialectical Materialism brands you from the beginning and you have no choice about what you are and what you condition is. Your economic condition or circumstances indelibly “condition” how you think and behave.

Wikipedia has this description of Marxism:

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Marxist methodology originally used a method of economic and sociopolitical inquiry known as historical materialism to analyze and critique the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.

To Merkel’s mind, immigrants who rape, murder, or turn into bloody jihadis are just that way, through no fault of their own, it’s their cultural heritage, and they must not be judged according to Western measures of civil conduct, they were just born that way, and extraordinary efforts must be made to persuade them to be nice, and not commit crimes. They are blameless because that was how they were born.

The Grand Mufti reviewing Muslim troops in Bosnia
On the other hand, native Germans must make an effort to accommodate migrants and Muslims, and form a societal union with them until all conflict between Western and Muslim culture ceases. Unfortunately, the only “dialect” Muslims practice and understand is force. “Peace” in Islamic “dialectics” means your submission, or your death.

If you ever knew freedom under capitalism, you will, because of inevitable, irresistible Hegelian forces, come to question capitalism and your freedom, and argue for impersonal anonymity as a member of a “class.” Your mind and your values will automatically change. You will no longer value freedom.  You will be absorbed into a great collective. You will become one with the “Borg.”

The Phenomenology of Spirit charts the development of consciousness as it rises from lowly common sense to the heights of what Hegel calls ‘absolute knowing’ – the unconditioned form of thinking proper to philosophy itself.

This has been true of Islam since day one of the “religion” in the 7th century. Unless an individual born into a Muslim milieu resists the appropriation of his mind and body, he becomes a part of the Islamic gestalt or the global Islamic Ummah. In Germany, in Sweden, in other European nations swamped by hostile migrants, it becomes a “clash of gestalts.” It is no wonder why the Left finds common cause with Islam. Marxism entails the surrender of your freedom, of your mind, of your “materialistic” values.

Angela Merkel
(born 1954) was, in a sense, “ready-made” to become the nation-destroying beast she is now. Wikipedia reports her early years:

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it difficult to gain admission to higher education] She did not participate in the secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe, however, which was common in East Germany. Instead, she was confirmed. Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel claimed that she was secretary for culture. When Merkel's one-time FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80." Merkel's progress in the compulsory Marxism–Leninism course was graded only genügend (sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was easy for her to make the transition from a communist political environment to a statist one, once East Germany was dissolved.

Apologetics and Agape featured this interesting quotation of Hitler’s:

“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (p. 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas)

Merkel’s Muslim-friendly actions in favor of Islam are basically, part and parcel of Hitler’s admiration of Islam as a complete and unmovable state, society, state of mind, and existence. I’m certain that the historical ideational connection has occurred to her and her Party, but it can’t be one she appreciates or wishes to draw attention to. An article by Joost Niemöller, appearing on the Gates of Vienna in August 2015, states:

It is well known that Mein Kampf is still very popular in the Muslim world: for example, in Egypt and some Arab countries. But also in Turkey. In Iran or in  Pakistan. Germans in the Islamic world are being addressed enthusiastically, because they hail from “The Land of Hitler”. Not so long ago I heard this again from a German friend who travels to the Middle East regularly. In the Islamic world a direct link is being drawn between Hitler’s warfare and the Jihad. At the same time it’s very fashionable among Muslims to deny the Holocaust, which in the eyes of an anti-Semitic would rather damage Hitler’s status as a hero; why then still read his book? But then the denial of the Holocaust is again necessary to refuse the justification for the State of Israel.

“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas

When it comes to feeding hate, logic is irrelevant.

Mein Kampf‘s popularity in the Muslim world is only one signal. Many links exist between Nazism and present day Islamism. One of the abundant examples is the fact that the fake document “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”[7], promoted by the Nazi ideologist Rosenberg, which would be the ultimate proof of a Jewish complot to overthrow the Christian world, became popular again among the PLO via the Islamic world….

Of course it is characteristic of the existing politically correct climate that such thoroughly researched and well-founded historical works do not constitute part of any basic debate about Islam in the mainstream media. Presently Islam is part of an obsolete multicultural society; anybody criticizing this is a kind of Nazi. That the truth is in fact the other way around is a very unwelcome message: both Islamic and Nazi ideologies not only have common elements, but also have a common history. This continues today and by itself provides enough reason to dig further.

Yes, we know that Mein Kampf is popular in the Muslim world.

Yes, we know Amin el-Husseini, the Jew-hating Jerusalem Mufti, who was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and who hooked up with the Nazi empire. We know that one picture of his meeting with Hitler. We know that after the war he was left unpunished and remained active in the Middle East.

The popularity of Mein Kampf in the Middle East is no coincidence.

Amin el-Husseini was not just a bizarre anomaly.

The broad distribution of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Muslim world is part of a bigger picture. In that picture, Hitler plays a leading role.

Do not expect Merkel to backtrack on her policy of culturally annihilating her own country. To do that would require that she contradict the Hegelian and altruist imperatives that she sacrifice her country to the “neediest” – in this case hundreds of thousands of alleged Syrian “refugees,” who are not going to assimilate into German culture except to learn how to game the country’s welfare system.

Merkel said, soon after news of the Berlin terrorist attack reached her:

“We must assume at the current time that it was a terrorist attack,” Merkel said on Tuesday, the New York Times reported. “I know that it would be particularly difficult for all of us to bear if it would be confirmed that this deed was carried out by a person who sought protection and asylum in Germany.”


A German Snowflake?
Won’t protect his girlfriend?

Bruce Bawer in his December 21st FrontPage article, “2016: A Turning Point for Europe?” written a day after a Muslim driving a stolen truck ploughed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring dozens, wrote,

….Europeans didn't have to be familiar with Islamic theology to understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn't need to know the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to would-be conquerors. 

These elites inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials doubled down.

These elites inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials doubled down.

And then came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe's most powerful leader, Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be neither Syrians nor refugees. [including Somalians, Afghanis, Nigerians, Pakistanis, mostly men and very few women from the worst pestholes in the world] Naive do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November 13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year's Eve carnage. Brussels was hit in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned down Russia's ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.” This is not a joke.)[bracketed information is mine]


I am convinced that Merkel's German establishment is on the side of the "atrocious people," not the German population. The same goes for the rest of the EU establishment country by country. I must say the same about the British establishment. For God's sake, London has a Muslim mayor??? Sharia courts blossom all over the place, and while declared illegal, are left to operate? Muslims of all shades run riot over school girls? But Merkel sheds crocodile tears over the victims of the Berlin truck attack. I don't believe there was a word of sincerity in her "Oh! How awful!"

But she is not going to do a damned substantial thing, no volte-face against her immigration policies will be emanate from her, except for the proposed pathetic burqa ban. She's got too much invested in "transforming" Germany into a "brown" nation (as Obama has admitted is one of his goals for America), or into a non-Western country. In virtually every instance of terrorism, "migrants" have been responsible and they're going to continue running trucks over infidels. She let them in, welcomed them, and saddled German's with the stupendous welfare bill. Merkel is a kind of Mother Teresa, fully vested in a kind of nationalist altruism; "We must take care of refugees, help to cure their sores and give them chances in life, jobs, etc., it is the duty of every German to help the government in that crusade, even if it kills them…..

Geert Wilders has some suggestions, in a Gatestone article, “Political Revolution is Brewing in Europe.”

Let no-one tell you that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.

Out of political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one's true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33)….

That is why there is little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence, more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain't seen nothing yet.

We have to drive politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must liberate our countries.

And believe me, my friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and brave leaders, we will de-Islamize, we will win!

Then we will have leaders in possession of all their faculties. And Mad Queen Angela and her hateful, mad policies will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Stockyards of Diversity

The murderous montage of Diversity

Daphne Patal, in her September Gatestone article, “How Diversity Came to Mean ‘Downgrade the West’,” which discusses the degrading of college education to conform to politically correct subject matters to be studied, opens with

There was a time, within living memory, when the term multiculturalism was hardly known.  More than twenty years ago, Peter Thiel, cofounder of PayPal and in late July speaker at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, wrote a book with fellow Stanford alum David Sacks called The Diversity Myth: ‘Multiculturalism’ and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford (1995).

The book’s title refers to the pretense that embracing “diversity” actually promotes diversity of all types, a claim commonly heard to this day.  Thiel had been a student at Stanford when, in January 1987, demonstrators defending “the Rainbow Agenda” chanted “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go!”  This protest led to the infamous “revision” (i.e., suppression) of the Western Culture requirement at Stanford, replaced with a freshman sequence called Cultures, Ideas, and Values, mandating an emphasis on race, gender, and class.

Later in her article, Patal notes that

Furthermore, “multiculturalism” did not involve greater emphasis on mastering foreign languages or carefully studying cultures other than those of the English-speaking world. Instead, work in literature and culture programs was (and still is) done increasingly in English and focused on contemporary writers.  Nor did multiculturalism, any more than the word diversity, mean familiarizing students with a diversity of views. Rather, as  [Elizabeth] Fox-Genovese summarized it, it meant requiring students “to agree with or even applaud views and values that mock the values with which they have been reared.”  And all this, she observed, was being accompanied by rampant grade inflation.

So, if anyone thought that “diversity” simply meant several individuals of various ethnic or cultural backgrounds being by happenstance squinched together into a group, or that “diversity” was similar to a bird aviary in which dozens of different species flitted around in an enclosed space, he would not be far off the mark. There have been dozens of TV and movie series and films that flaunt not only their racial diversity, but their cultural and sexual diversity, as well (i.e., the early and later manifestations of Star Trek).


A diversity-rich cast, albeit no Muslims
For example, The Walking Dead, at several points in its seven-Season-old broadcast, has featured blacks as well as whites, Koreans, Hispanics in leading and central roles, as well as Indians (or perhaps Pakastanis, it was never explained), “gender-breakers,” “mixed” couples, the disabled (in wheelchairs), and the “under-aged” (e.g., pre-teen children shooting guns at zombies and the living). The most recent Seasons of the series have introduced lesbian and gay couples, as well as overweight characters.

The most conspicuously absent group are Muslims; they appear neither as living survivors of the apocalypse nor as zombies, neither as bearded imams nor as women in burqas or hijabs. I do not think their absence is an oversight. I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination to assume that the producers were warned off casting characters as living or dead Muslims. Or perhaps, being so diversity-conscious, and sensitive to the sensitivities of Muslims, the producers decided not to “defame” Muslims or Islam with such risky casting, and warned themselves off the idea.  I contacted Scott Gimple, The Walking Dead’s “show runner,” on his Facebook page, with the question, but have received no response.

One is left to hypothesize if the producers of The Walking Dead are voluntarily or consciously casting the series as “diverse” as possible (there is, after all, a finite number of under-represented groups), or are they under an obligation to become diversity-obsessed by federal or state law, in alliance with gender and ethnic groups? The Walking Dead, as well as  House of Cards, another lavishly produced and racially and gender-conscious TV series, , get tax-rebates in Georgia and Maryland respectively, where they are filmed, and so “diversity” is too likely a condition of the tax-breaks.
Another diversity-rich TV series. Most of its villains are "white"

One might object to the foregoing analysis with the claim that these and many other TV and film productions reflect the true diversity of Americans. But, do they? If they did, why the current Marx-inspired campaign against “white privilege”? Why the vile, but also hysterical campaign to “deconstruct” whites so that they feel “guilt” about being white, and apologize profusely for having created Western Culture and civilization, which somehow “oppress” non-whites of every race and creed?

The leftists have gone to great lengths to connect racial “identity politics” with political “identity politics,” contending that it was the “white” vote that got Donald Trump his presidential victory, (when the evidence was clearly obvious when in numerous videos one saw the racial composition of Trump’s rallies. While the attendance was mostly “white,” large swathes of the audiences were black and “Asian.”)

The British Film Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) has issued new diversity guidelines to be eligible for nomination. Donna Edmunds  on  Breitbart  London exposes the farce.

"From 2019 onwards, nominations for the awards of ‘outstanding British film’ and ‘outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer’ will need to conform to the BFI’s Diversity Standards, established two years ago to increase representation of minorities within British film," reports Breitbart London.

According to the BBC, the nominated films must show they have improved diversity within at least two of four categories to qualify. The categories are: "On-screen characters and themes; senior roles and crew; industry training and career progression; and audience access and appeal to under-represented audiences."

BAFTA has said the changes were "a flexible and achievable model, which the whole industry can adopt as a shared language for understanding diversity." Under these new standards, the James Bond hit Skyfall could not have won the BAFTA for "Best British Film" in 2012. 


Toni Morrison, a black American poet and winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the American Book Award, in addition to the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Humanities Medal, and the Nobel Prize in Literature, and finally, the PEN/Saul Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction, is vested in identity and race politics. Were it not for the current campaign to denigrate whites, she would have nothing of substance to say, except, perhaps, on the issue of police having to shoot black men, "People keep saying, 'We need to have a conversation about race.' This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back. And I want to see a white man convicted for raping a black woman. Then when you ask me, 'Is it over?’, I will say yes.”

 But, weighed down with all those awards (and by a modest amount of money), she has nothing to say about blacks targeting whites for horrendous crimes. And while she insinuates that whites were at root somehow responsible for all the violence against blacks, she conveniently forgets that blacks, if anything, share that history. Among other convenient omissions, for example, black gangs have established records in Chicago of the number of blacks, including children, who were killed during their internecine warfare. There were black slave owners in America from the 17th century on up through the Civil War; call it Antebellum “black privilege.”

Henry Louis Gates Jr. in a 2013 article in the Root, reveals that

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote.

Sheldon M. Stern, in “It’s Time to Face the Whole Truth About the Atlantic Slave Trade,” discusses how black African tribes captured uncountable other blacks and sold them to European and American slave traders.  His article does not even touch on the Islamic slave trade.

Finally, Paul Joseph Watson, in his InfoWars column of August 16, “Hillary’s VP: Whites Must Become a ‘Minority’ to Atone for Racism,” quotes Tim Kaine, speaking to a black Baptist congregation,

“I’ve never been treated badly in life because of my skin color or my gender,” Kaine told a group of black Baptists in New Orleans. “I think the burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put ourselves in a place where we are the minority.”

The “burden” that Kaine mentions obviously means taking on “white guilt,” despite the fact that – even at the height of slavery – only 1.4% of whites in America owned slaves. White people were also victims of far more brutal and longer lasting oppression under the Barbary slave trade….

According to Alicia Powe, Kaine’s comments emphasize how the left has employed “toxic identity politics” to “perpetuate class warfare and the narrative of an unjust America,” with whites demonized as the scapegoats.

It should also be emphasized that no living black was ever a slave, and no living white was ever a slave owner, either (except, metaphorically, the Democrats, who, as far back as Lyndon Johnson, wished to imprison and maintain blacks in their welfare state “plantation”).

But, the issue is one of collectivism. It is herding individuals, defined by their skin color, and now also by their political affiliations (Trump supporters are “deplorable”), into warring power blocs, to relegate individuals into amorphous conglomerations of races responsible for individual achievements or crimes. To the Left’s agenda, “diversity” is a value to be implemented, by force, harassment, and statute, if necessary, and achieved regardless of reason, individual values, and innocence.

Diversity puts a premium on the act of discrimination in social associations (such as on American bakers who, for religious reasons, are punished by Federal or state regulatory laws for refusing to accept gays as customers, or who fire or refuse to hire Muslims who insist on wearing their “religious” garb in their stores), by tar-brushing the act – irrational or not – as a prohibitive offense to be punished, discriminated against, and banned. All individuals who, rightly or wrongly, do not wish to hire or associate with blacks or Muslims are automatically branded as “racists” or “bigots.”

However, Muslims as a group may not be targeted for discriminatory practices because their acts of discrimination against infidels and women are allegedly religiously based and therefore beyond moral judgment. Acts of discrimination based on Christian or secular beliefs, however,  are discouraged, vilified, or prohibited.

The phenomenon has now been expanded into the subject of “white privilege,” which in essence, is a contrived but open assault on Western values on college campuses, and in Western achievements in general. Most Western advancements in philosophy, technology, science, the arts, and the rule of law and politics originated in Europe, which was mostly and incidentally “white.” Thus the legacy of civilized life is an inherited instance of “white privilege.” Or are we still waiting for the news of a Minnesota Somalian to claim that he and his fellow collectivists perfected the probes of Ceres or Pluto?  Or devised a new bypass surgery technique by an Afghan or Syrian or Palestinian (other than in a machete or knife attack)?

Just how many offended groups or groups feeling “unsafe” from or “triggered” by words or someone’s freedom of expression can there be, such as black and brown people, sexual assault survivors, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ people, people with low incomes, people with differing abilities, undocumented immigrants, and anyone that is systematically targeted along identity lines?”

Then again, blacks who can be called “middle or upper class income blacks,” or Asians who excel in science or technology in school, do not consciously identify with such groups. They are automatically pigeon-holed by their enemies, who wish to herd them into the stockyards of “diversity” ready for the smearing or slaughter. Their goal is death.

Aristotle was “white.” But he promulgated reason. Kepler and Copernicus were “white.” But they helped to define the solar system. Isaac Newton was “white.” But he developed the laws of physics. Anna Hyatt Huntington was “white.” But she created heroic statues. Each of these achievers was a pursuer of and a product of Western values.

I am white, too. Lump me into a group with these prominent, “white privileged” whites. But, I don’t claim their achievements, nor would they claim mine. Don’t call me “white privileged.” My privilege is my mind together with my values. The haters of “white privilege” have no minds and no values. They are nihilists.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

George Soros: "The Spawn of Satan"

To judge by the frequency with which Super Billionaire and Super Villain George Soros’s name appears in non-MSM news, you would not be far off the mark in concluding that he would rather not be President of the United States. He definitely wants to be the power behind the Oval Office throne. There he would be able to exercise the same malevolent power by proxy, without having to submit to more public scrutiny than he does now. He would not need to take responsibility for his disastrous policies, but rely on a front man and patsy to take the heat. His appearance in the press (or what is left of it that has not been compromised by bias and the fabrication of “news”) is entirely involuntary; he certainly is not conducting a campaign to make his influence visible.

Soros is a kind of Barkilphredo, the jester, meddler, and malevolent schemer and manipulator in Victor Hugo’s 1869 novel, The Man Who Laughs (L'homme qui rit) whose sole purpose is to make everyone miserable and a vehicle for his own elevation as a power in the courts of James II and Queen Anne.

In my 2007 five-part focus on the rise of Barack Obama and role of George Soros in influencing American politics, “Night of the Long Knives,” I wrote in its Postscript:

In the New York Magazine article, "Money Chooses Sides," note the composition of the photograph that accompanies it. I do not think it is accidental. I do not know if the photographer (or even Obama himself) intended the tableau, but of all the pictures doubtless taken of the event, this was the one selected by the magazine's editors to illustrate Obama's influence. Their motive may have been mockery of the guests or unintended adulation of Obama. That is irrelevant. The picture captures the essence of Obama's appeal.

Which is mindless, insatiable envy of a person vying for political power, and an echo or their elitist mindset.  “We are the superior guides and molders of the hoi polloi. That black fellow can certainly speak, the masses don’t dare not vote for him!”

The first four Parts can be seen here, here, here, and here.

Starting with his Open Society Foundation organization, George Soros founded or funds four other Progressive and collectivist movements: MoveOn, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and America Coming Together (now defunct, it targeted George Bush’s presidency in 2004, and promoted Barack Obama’s career that year. 

Human Events published an article in 2011, “Top 10 Reasons George Soros is Dangerous,” and remember that since 2011, Soros’s “funding” has ballooned to include Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency and Jill Stein’s campaign in the aftermath of Clinton’s defeat by Trump for recounts in the three states that Trump won (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) .

Soros started the Open Society Institute (now the Foundation) in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to progressive causes.  Using Open Society as a conduit, Soros has given more than $7 billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups.  This partial list of recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation, Huffington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.


Soros once said that removing President George W. Bush from office in 2004 was the “central focus of my life.”  He put his money where his mouth is, giving $23.58 million to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating Bush.  His early financial support helped jump-start Barack Obama’s political career.  Soros hosted a 2004 fund-raiser for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and gave the maximum-allowed contribution within hours of Obama’s announcement that he was running for President.

George Soros has now added a domestic terrorist organization that did not exist in 2011, Black Lives Matter. Breitbart reported in August in its “real news” column, “Hacked Soros Memo: $650,000 to Black Lives Matter,”

The documents further confirm that the Open Society last year approved $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

The information was contained in a detailed 69-page Open Society report on the agenda of an Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting held in New York October 1 to October 2, 2015.

The report directly states the Open Society views the Baltimore unrest last year as a crisis that can be utilized to carry out the organization’s agenda.

Same gesture, same lies
George Soros’s tentacles are everywhere. He has not only supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but now is funding Jill Stein’s campaign for recounts of general election votes to tilt the Electoral College so that Clinton wins not only the popular vote but the College’s vote.

Baxter Dmitry’s Your News Wire article of November 26th noted that,

Jill Stein’s fundraising campaign to pay for re-counts in three key swing states has been exposed as a George Soros and Hillary Clinton plot to steal the presidency from Donald Trump.

According to the official fundraising page, the “Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections” however it has been revealed that George Soros, the globalist billionaire well known for his donations to Black Lives Matter and the tens of millions he has given Hillary, is almost singlehandedly funding the campaign.

Investigators became convinced Jill Stein’s fundraising operation was not the organic, grassroots campaign it has been promoted as after they noticed that funding came in at an absolutely perfect $160,000 per hour. That is odd enough, but the donations continued full speed at the exact same rate through the middle of the night while the country was asleep.

Jim Stone, the researcher who was tipped off about the pre-shipped Newsweek cover featuring “Madam President” Hillary Clinton, reports on the fundraising data that proves the Jill Stein campaign is not what the public has been told it is:
A bot is pulling cash from a central fund, and giving it out at a pre-determined rate.

‘This pattern was nailed with precision up until noon CST, and then they shut it off right around 2:30 before it could hit the next “waypoint” at 6:10 PM. Just back calculate. She hit 4,000,000 at noon. She started it up at 1:30 the day before. That is 22.5 hours. Divide four million by 22.5. It comes out to 177,000 dollars an hour. A few people chipped in during the day, to add a little to the top of what the bot continuously ran at – 160,000 an hour

‘Ok so she has so far raised almost 4.5 million on THANKSGIVING DAY and the night before. FIGURE THE ODDS when her entire campaign did not hit 3 million. Yet she did THAT on THANKSGIVING??!!??

…. Jill Stein now has the money she needs to initiate the recount. Where did the funds come from? Soros. Despite spending the whole election season mocking Trump’s claim that the election could be rigged, mainstream media is now pushing the narrative that the votes were hacked – even in Pennsylvania where that’s not even possible.

What is about to happen could possibly cause a civil war.

Jilted Jill is aiming high for that recount
The Alexander Higgins site confirms Soros’s involvement as Jill Stein’s sugar daddy.

According to the post a donations to Jill Stein’s election recount campaign are being made at a steady rate of $160,000 on the hour every hour of the day.

The constant rate of donation, 24 hours a day, suggests that a computer program is being used to post the donations as opposed to real people making grassroots donation.

However, the donations are being reported as grassroots donations from a myriad of online supporters to help her verify the integrity of the election.

However, if real individuals are in fact making the actual donations the rate of the donations should drop over night when internet traffic is low.

The rate should then steadily pick up during the course of the day up and then culminate during the “internet rush hour” when usage peaks, which is usually between 7 and 11 PM.

So, what is he after that is of paramount importance to him, that George Soros is willing to invest multiple fortunes to guarantee the triumph of politicians amenable to the emasculating of America? Power? The monster is worse than any fictional character people may be familiar with, such as Frank Underwood of The House of Cards, the long-running political series. While Underwood is a monster who wants to achieve power in a Washington, D.C. we are of familiar with, thanks to the MSM and their antithesis, “real news” sites

Soros is a worse monster who wants to reduce America into a third-rate nation that would have no specific identity. Progressivism would eradicate the individualistic character of the country, would make everyone dependent on the state of sustenance, and would divide the whole country into a “diversity” of ethnic and “cultural” satrapies governed by subservient Gauleiters. “White” satrapies would be at the bottom of the heap. 

While Frank Underwood wants to rule over a country that still exists, George Soros wants a country that no longer exists. He is especially hateful – a rather mild term to describe his pathological state – of Israel, and wishes, together with Iran, to see it destroyed. He is not afraid of Islam. It is a tool of conquest and destruction that serves his purposes. He is happy to see Europe succumb to Islam.

Soros has funded the invasion of Europe by savages and “migrants” in order to see Europe as we know it destroyed and governed by savages. It is Soros who last year and the year before paid for thousands of “migrants” to have cell phones, route maps to countries to invade, money to spend, and clothes and shoes to wear.

Nick Hallett in his November 2nd Breitbart article, “Soros Admits Involvement in Migrant Crisis: ‘National Borders Are the Obstacle,” observes

Billionaire investor George Soros has confirmed he wants to bring down Europe’s borders, following the accusation made last week by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Last week, Mr. Orban accused Mr. Soros – who was born in Hungary – of deliberately encouraging the migrant crisis.

“This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by those (human rights) activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state,” Mr. Orban said. “This Western mindset and this activist network are perhaps best represented by George Soros.”

Mr. Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr. Oban’s actions in strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx “undermine those values.”

“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

George Soros is not particularly concerned about the “refugees.” They are merely tools in the destruction of the West, in Europe and in America. He would not have any of them living next door to him.

Nor is Soros particularly concerned about facts and “fake news.” Soros has a reverse “Midas touch” by which anything he pours money into begins a process of irreversible rot. If something comes to his attention that he frowns upon, he will give it money. Lots of it. Now that the “fake news” issue has arisen – chiefly after Hillary Clinton lost the election because, as her supporters in and out of her campaign have alleged, her conservative opponents spread damaging “fake news” about her and her political record and congenital lying – George Soros has become involved in scouring the Internet of “fake news” that the Internet’s left-wing doyens do not like. Breitbart reported December 16th, in Aaron Klein’s article “George Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed Stories,” that

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with “third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.

Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine that a certain story is fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”

IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Poynter’s IFCN is also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.  Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the U.S.

Klein’s article describes what can only be called an alliance of Soros-connected organizations poised to filter out and report facts the leftists who populate these “charities.” They comprise a kind of “super Snopes” cabal, when Snopes itself has been discredited as a “fact checker” after having been caught in a series of bias-loaded denials of facts and truths.

George Soros wishes to demolish European values, not preserve them. He wishes to demolish ALL Western values, and to see Europeans and Americans swamped by migrants and “refugees” who bring their primitive “customs” and practices to civilized countries to see them elevated to positions of “superiority” over Western values precisely because they are primitive. He wishes to see Westerners defer to and bow to savages and thus enable their own destruction. That would be with the assistance and encouragement of Western cultural relativists and Marxists. The “refugees” and “migrants” – aka invaders – would become a new protected class, while Westerners would not be protected, because that would be “white privilege” or “cultural imperialism.”

What George Soros is after, is not anything so innocent or banal a thing as power. The fictional Frank Underwood is a mere villain. The very real George Soros is after the satisfaction of destruction for destruction’s sake. That makes him a nihilist. George Soros is, to borrow a biblical and literary reference, the spawn of Satan.

Standard villains pursue material values. George Soros pursues the non-material value of nothingness, of desolation, of the skeleton of a civilization he never contributed to, and is dedicated to destroying.