Cultural Superiority isn’t Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best Countries

By: Sam Jacobs | Ammo.com

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best CountriesElements of the left and their allies in the media are constantly driving this point home: White people are bad and so is the culture that they have created. Everything we value as a society is bad and, more than that, little more than an ex post facto justification for the subjugation of non-whites. Western culture is white culture, and all things white are bad.

But as with everything else which these elements of the left and their allies in the media push, this is simply false. While the overlap between white people – that is, people of European descent and some Christian populations in the Caucasus – and Western culture is undeniable, it is likewise undeniable that Western culture is no longer the exclusive domain of whites. What we can call, without the slightest bit of stretching the truth, Western culture is present not just in Western Europe, North America, and Australia, but also in former British colonies such as Israel, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

What’s more, a country simply being part of Europe does not make it “Western” in any meaningful sense. While there is a certain Western cultural continuum-based around Christianity that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok, it would be overly simplistic (and indeed, a bit demeaning) to label the post-Soviet countries as “Western.” They have a similar set of cultural values rooted in Christianity, however, even the introduction of democracy has not made many post-Soviet and post-colonial nations more liberal in the true sense of the word – open markets, an emphasis on free speech, strong private property rights, an independent, impartial judiciary, and the primacy of the individual over that of the group.

Throughout this article, we will provide some terms to define what we mean by “Western culture.” We will also make the case that Western cultural values have a universal aspect in the sense that they can be applied with success anywhere in the world, that these values are objectively superior to other value sets at maximizing human freedomquality of life, and potential, and that the belief in this superiority has nothing to do with “racism” in the sense that it is commonly understood by ordinary people.

One demonstration of the proof that these values are objectively superior is that “people vote with their feet”, as Dr. Jordan Peterson points out: “The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid. Here’s how you know: Which countries do people want to move away from? Not ours. Which countries do people want to move to? Ours! Guess what, they work better. And it’s not because we went around the world stealing everything we could get our hands on. It’s because we got certain fundamental assumptions right – and thank God for that.”

What Are Western Values?

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best CountriesBefore going any further, it is necessary to define what we mean by “Western values.” Indeed, what we mean by this is very specific and has a basis not in the West at large, but specifically in the Anglo-Saxon culture. Virtually all of the values that we will identify in this article as being “Western” are perhaps more accurately termed “Anglo-Saxon values.” However, as the former term is more concise, succinct, and in greater general use, we will use “Western values” throughout this article.

So what are these values? What is their origin? Where do they come from?

Again, it is our belief that what we call “Western values” are rooted firmly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition above all else. The formalization of these values can be found in the Magna Carta, but this simply codifies values that had been practiced in long-standing in post-Anglo-Saxon Britain and likely long before it in some sense, going back to the days when the Angles and Saxons roamed the border regions between what is now Germany and Denmark.

While the Magna Carta is a complicated document, for our purposes it means something succinct and simple: it means that the king is not above the law.

There are a number of principles that flow from this general recognition that form the bedrock of Western civilization: Legal norms apply to everyone regardless of social class. The right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers and the right to face one’s accuser in open court. The right to one’s own property and the right to defend that property using deadly force. While these rights have all been hemmed in – in extreme ways in some cases, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001 – the point is that they form the bedrock of our legal structure and value culture in the West.

To boil this down to a single sentence: the West believes that men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that these rights can only be deprived through due process of law. Both national constitutions and prevailing moral attitudes prevent angry mobs or powerful oligarchs from systematically depriving unpopular and powerless minorities of their rights.

Are Western Values Universal?

Western values are not universal in the sense that they will eventually be arrived upon by all cultures given enough time. They are not, contra Francis Fukuyama, an endpoint of history, a teleological goal post that all of humanity has been moving toward for its entire existence. It comes out of a very specific lineage, the Anglo-Saxon culture of yeoman farmers, freeholding lords, restive barons and, more than anything else, a total rejection of the notion of authoritarian kings who could rule at their whim without, at the very least, the consent of the men providing armed bodies for their war efforts and paying the lion’s share of taxes.

But perhaps Western values are universal in another, different respect. Consider what we said earlier: These values are by no means limited to the Anglosphere, though they do seem to be strongest in former British colonies – North America, Australia, Israel, Singapore, Hong Kong. These values manifest in different ways in each of these places and it would be more than a little odd if they didn’t.

Property Rights

However, the basic notion that there are a set of legal norms applying to everyone and, perhaps more importantly, that property rights are as important as other rights such as free speech, seems to have a universality about them. By this we mean that everywhere they have been put into practice, they have yielded impressive results in allowing human society to reach a greater potential while also providing better results for greater numbers of people.

Why does this matter? Well, Communist nations have historically raised living standards dramatically. Compare Russia during the waning days of the Romanovs to the Soviet Union in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, or China today to China 70 years ago. But this is only impressive if you ignore the failure of Communism with regard to the rights of the individual and the rather sterile record of Communists with regard to innovation and invention. Sure, the Soviets beat America in the space race by putting a few dogs and satellites in the air – and then promptly did nothing else. Similarly, China is known far more for stealing Western intellectual property than it is for innovating its own.

Quality of Life

Innovation is necessary for both maintaining quality of life for large and growing populations, and for increasing quality of life. Again, China presents an important test case in what happens in a growing economy without transparency, and an emphasis on the rights of the individual and the freedom to innovate that comes with an open, liberal economy: China’s one-child policy, which has been demographically disastrous beyond the humanitarian considerations, as well as its environmental degradation are both symptoms of a society that has become aggressively anti-liberal, stifling innovation.

Indeed, the results are plain to see: Of the ten countries in the world with the best quality of life, three of them are former British colonies – Canada came in at number one, Australia and New Zealand. One was in personal union with Britain (the Netherlands), four are Nordic countries with a similar emphasis on the rights of the individual and due process (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland), and one is arguably the country in the world with a value system most closely resembling that of the Anglo-Saxons (Switzerland). Former British colony Singapore comes in at number 20, behind only Japan and China (which includes Hong Kong – and we wonder how much lifting that former British Crown Colony is doing for the People’s Republic) in Asia. Malaysia and India, both former British colonies, come in the top 30, beating out even a number of European countries outside of what we have defined as “the West,” such as Russia, Bulgaria, and Slovakia.

Quality of life is an important metric because it includes non-material and non-economic factors. How subjectively happy are people? Are they satisfied with their lives or are they simply awash in money? Do they want to have children? Are they invested in society through mechanisms such as homeownership? All of these questions will yield a far more accurate picture of a country’s quality of life than simply looking at their GDP or per capita income.

Nobel Laureates

There are other ways of demonstrating the kind of cultural superiority that we are talking about. One of these is by looking at the countries who have produced the most Nobel Laureates: Despite the prize being of Norwegian extraction, two Anglosphere countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, absolutely dominate the rest of the world with regard to winning Nobel prizes: Of the 866 individuals who have received Nobel prizes as of 2020, 516 of them (nearly 60 percent) have been from these two countries.

All five of the top five slots are occupied by Western nations, with these five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Sweden) making up a whopping 83 percent of all recipients. Within the top ten, we see an additional three Western countries (Switzerland, Canada, and Austria) and the share of Western countries in the top ten expands to fully 92 percent of all Nobel prize recipients.

This achievement is so lopsided that it must be discussed by anyone seriously considering this topic.

Technological Achievements

Technological achievements are difficult to quantify. What one considers to be an important technological achievement might be rejected by another as insignificant. However, this list created by The Atlantic is not a terrible representation of the most important technological achievements since the invention of the wheel. While nearly all of these were invented somewhere on the continent of Europe, what is more striking and important is how many of them were created in the West in the way that we have defined it – i.e., those cultures most embracing the values summarized in the Magna Carta and its extrapolations.

Corruption and Transparency

Finally, there is the matter of corruption and transparency in government. The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks 180 different nations around the world in terms of transparency, accountability, general fairness, and other important factors. Of the top ten countries for 2019, nine are in Europe. The one that is not is the former British colony of Singapore, a country that is light on democracy but heavy on freedom, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. Former British crown colony Hong Kong – thankfully ranked separately from the People’s Republic of China – comes in at number 16, ahead of Japan, Ireland and Belgium. Indeed, the two Asian former British colonies come out ahead of the United States according to the terms established by the Corruption Perceptions Index.

One of the reasons for America’s low rank among Western countries is because Americans often watch in disbelief as top government officials leave public service and cash in on their expertise in the private sector, regardless of the crimes they committed while in office – whereas in a place like Sweden, when a politician is caught violating the public’s trust for even minor infractions like drunk driving, they immediately resign. Consider how Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are fugitives facing charges while General David Petraeus (who provided his illicit lover and favorable biographer information so secret it defied classification, including the names of covert operatives and the president’s private thoughts on matters of strategic concern), former director of the NSA General Keith Alexander (who lied under oath to Congress and the courts about the NSA spying on U.S. citizens), and former CIA Director James Clapper (who also lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee in order protect his agency from oversight) all breathe free air.

Are Western Values Superior to Other Value Systems?

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best CountriesWhether or not Western values are “superior” to other value systems is entirely reliant upon what one considers to be the ideal result for society. Honest and good people have disagreements on this topic. However, we believe that in the West, there is a general, broad agreement on what constitutes a “good” result for society best summed up by two principles: freedom and fairness.

Freedom and fairness are, in fact, two ideas that are in tension with one another because they are often mutually contradictory. What makes one man free might be unfair in a meaningful sense to another. Indeed, the left-right spectrum in the United States and the Anglosphere might be described as the Party of Freedom (for example, the Republicans) versus the Party of Fairness (in this case, the Democrats).

Both of these values are important to everyone to varying degrees. The resolution of this tension – drawing the line at some point between fairness and freedom – is effectively what our entire civilization is about. It is about maximizing results for the greatest number of people, creating a society that is as fair as it can possibly be while minimally infringing on the rights of individuals.

In a word, Western values can be described as “liberalism” in the sense that John Stuart Mill and John Locke would have understood the term. While there are coherent and important arguments about the limitations of liberalism on both the left and the right, both sides of the political spectrum have thus far failed to offer an alternative to classical liberalism that provides the same degree of generalized prosperity and individual liberty that Western civilization has provided using classical liberalism as its de facto political ideology.

If one believes that freedom and fairness are not important, this doesn’t mean much. However, most Americans and most Westerners believe, whether they are aware of this specific description or not, that freedom and fairness are important, and perhaps the most important values that a society can aspire to.

What’s more, we believe that these values are directly responsible for the material prosperity and plenty that characterizes these societies. Individuals are able to pursue happiness in their own way and, for the most part, retain the fruits of their labor. This creates motivation for innovations that raise the standard of living across the board, from top to bottom.

Is It Racist To View Western Values As Superior?

When the superiority of Western values is touted, the retort is often that prizing these values above all others – indeed, recognizing them as “superior” in some way – constitutes “racism.” We believe this is not an unreasonable response to the claims that we are making and that it requires specific attention. Ultimately, however, we find that the argument that Western cultural superiority is racist to be lacking.

Before we go any further, we wish to clarify that we will only use the terms “racist” and “racism” in the sense that they are commonly understood by the average person: racially motivated hatred, domination, and subjugation. We will not use the Marxist-influenced definition, which effectively defines entire groups of people as “racist” regardless of their views, actions, or motivations.

We have already discussed above that there are a number of countries that have adopted Western cultural values outside of Europe. This is not an insignificant point when it comes to defending the viewpoint of Western cultural superiority against racism. There is also the small matter of generalized racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance that characterizes the West. Western nations have, on average, the greatest degree of tolerance and pluralism in the world. Much of our public discourse in the West is about how to best balance tolerance with the above-mentioned principles of fairness and freedom.

Western nations often include in the upper echelons of their academic, cultural, economic, and political structures, prominent members who are of non-European extraction, either the descendants of African slaves or more recent immigrants from other parts of the world. This is not to be hand-waved away – can, for example, Arab nations boast of black politicians, entertainers, and entrepreneurs? Is there a similar phenomenon of Asian achievement within the African cultural sphere? Put simply, there is no equivalent to the social mobility that Western nations offer diasporic, immigrant, and formerly enslaved populations anywhere else in the world. This speaks to the universal quality that we mentioned previously – Western values do not advantage or disadvantage any specific group.

We would also be remiss if we did not recognize the institution of chattel slavery and the degree to which it has largely been ended in the West – and indeed, throughout the world, thanks to the efforts of Western nations. Chattel slavery is flagrantly incompatible with Western cultural values, which is why it has largely been eradicated in the West and its former colonies. It’s largely a legal non sequitur throughout the world today. And while there are forms of bonded and unfree labor, they are aberrant and concentrated in areas where Western influence is at its weakest. Enslaving another human being is generally seen as the worst crime a person can commit, dwarfing even rape and murder in its magnitude, being in roughly the same category as war crimes and genocide.

The role of slavery in the West is a complicated one, but it is worth noting that while Western nations did not invent slavery, an institution as old as recorded history at the very least, they have done more than anyone else to end it. The British Empire abolished slavery throughout the empire in 1833. The United States fought one of the bloodiest wars in human history to end bonded labor within its borders. Each of these together acted as a one-two punch that effectively ended slavery in the West. Where slavery persisted in Europe, it did so largely under the auspices of the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the Orthodox Russian Empire.

Finally, a significant portion of Western discourse in the intervening years has been about how to increase participation, toleration, and pluralism throughout Western societies. Greater and greater inclusion is a hallmark of Western civilization as part of its generalized emphasis on freedom and fairness. None of this is representative of Western civilization being “racist,” thus prioritizing the values of Western civilization above that of other cultures is not racist.

What of Multiculturalism?

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best Countries“Multiculturalism” is one of those words that is often bandied about with very little thought as to what it actually means. Being a multiculturalist does not mean that one finds something of value in other cultures. It means that one considers all cultures to be of equal merit and that cultural values and practices become beyond reproach simply because they are cultural practices.

Like many things that the left pushes, multiculturalism is not a good-faith position. No one, for example, argues in earnest from a position of multiculturalism that Confederate monuments ought to remain standing because they are a part of Southern culture. Indeed, those most loudly touting the multiculturalist line are those least respectful of the cultural norms and mores of Appalachia, South Boston, or Deer Lodge, Montana. Multiculturalists are quite vocal about their distaste for the cultural practices of unwoke whites, and this distaste is by no means limited to outbursts of violent racism. See, for example, the current cultural jihad against debutante balls in the American South.

What’s more, the multicultural appreciation of other cultures tends to be very shallow and performative. The affluent and educated like to “travel,” but largely spend their time cooped up on resorts or at pubs and restaurants catering to tourists such as themselves. One can scarcely get ten seconds into a conversation about immigration without hearing a multiculturalist moan about who will make our tacos. Much rarer is the person who speaks Arabic, has read Proust in the original French, or has spent a summer living with a Cuban family in Havana. The average multiculturalist generally doesn’t even know the capital of Zimbabwe or the chief export of Vietnam.

There is certainly much to appreciate about and learn from other cultures, but the same types of people touting multiculturalism are generally opposed to this, lambasting it as “cultural appropriation.” Whites, we are told, are not allowed to have dreadlocks or wear hoop earrings. No word on whether or not non-whites are allowed to get vaccines or fly in airplanes, but we do see a growing consensus among the left that “there’s no such thing as white culture.”

Multiculturalism must be understood for what it really is: it is a form of weaponizing the Western sense of “live and let live” and fair play for the purpose of subverting and attacking that culture. One manifestation of this phenomenon is the No Go Zone, a place where law and order have broken down and the area is effectively governed by parallel powers openly hostile toward Western cultural norms.

No Go Zones happen because those in power don’t believe in the primacy of Western cultural values, and don’t want to insist on those values being “imposed” on newly arrived immigrants from other cultures. They selectively celebrate multiculturalism in their own country, even when those cultures are acting in ways they find abhorrent in their home town.

Against Western Cultural Cringe

So what does all of this add up to? A call for pride in the West?

Not necessarily. But consider the inversion of pride – shame and guilt. White guilt is a popular sentiment in the United States and the West, whereby one is supposed to feel directly responsible for any crimes committed by or in the name of Western civilization. This is a patently absurd view. If one is responsible, for example, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, then one is equally responsible for vaccines, toilets, and antibiotics.

What we would call for rather than Western cultural chauvinism is, instead, a call for Westerners to end their cultural cringe against Western values.

Cultural cringe is where one feels embarrassed or uncomfortable about their culture, seeing it as somehow “less than” others or emphasizing its shortcomings over its achievements. The West as a whole seems to be suffering from widespread cultural cringe, though it is worth noting that this sentiment is largely inorganic. Rather than being a natural outgrowth of prevailing cultural attitudes, it’s instead manufactured by the media and academia, which incessantly propagandize about the evils of white men, the nuclear family, Christianity, and Western values.

The assault on our cultural institutions is largely successful because of historical illiteracy. While many Americans are embarrassed about America’s slaveholding past, few know how limited slave ownership was throughout the country, the degree to which it was opposed while it still existed, and barely think about how slavery is an institution extending all the way back to the dawn of human history and is thus not a uniquely American invention. America simply did what the rest of the world did at the time and what virtually all of the world had done since the beginning of time.

Lacking a proper historical context, it’s easy to convince anyone of anything.

One need not become a braggart about Western culture to combat this. Indeed, doing so might well be counterproductive. However, one certainly should refuse to feel guilt about the color of one’s skin or the broader values of Western civilization. It is important to remember that the people who seek to weaponize guilt about historical crimes of the West – which are certainly a matter of historical record, but by no means exclusive or unique to the West and, as we have pointed out above, have been aggressively combated by the West more than anyone else – do so out of a position of bad faith. They are not seeking to make the world a better place or reflect thoughtfully on the sum total of the West’s history. They simply seek to weaponize your guilt for their own personal political gain.

It is the West’s insistence on equal treatment and fair play that makes this so easy for anti-Western leftists. Because, as a culture, we strive to make men equal before the law, it is easy for us to be guilted and shamed when we fail to live up to our values. Leftists do two things when they attack Western culture: First, they say that because we have not always lived up to our stated values, that we have failed as a society. But then they commit a rhetorical sleight of hand, declaring that because of this, our values must be bad, then attempting to substitute a radical, alien, and totalitarian set of values in their place – the values of radical equality and social leveling.

This is the most important part to remember: virtually none of the people demanding that you hate yourself and your culture’s values have anything better to offer in its place. Replacing cultural cringe with honest cultural confidence does not require looking down on other cultures. It simply requires you to acknowledge that, when compared to all of human history, the West has done a great job of increasing human freedom and human prosperity, as well as encouraging an overall sense of fair play.


Glenn Greenwald’s Half-Truths About the Intelligence Agencies

By: Cliff Kincaid

Glenn Greenwald is making headlines on Fox News about the CIA dominating the American media. The other more significant part of the story is that the CIA is doing Russia’s bidding. That’s why the CIA’s role in facilitating the Russia-supplied dossier on President Trump is being covered-up by CIA Director Gina Haspel.

A true leftist, Greenwald understands that Joe Biden is a front man for U.S. intelligence operations that use organizations like NATO and the United Nations, meddle in the affairs of other countries, and get the U.S. involved in foreign wars. Faced with evidence that Biden and his family were involved in corrupt business dealings with Russia, China, and other countries, he says he couldn’t take it anymore and had to write about them. His proposed article for The Intercept was apparently vetoed.

In a bizarre twist, Greenwald says he resigned from an organization he founded and which was financed by billionaire Iranian-American and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

All of this sounds heroic until one recalls that Greenwald collaborated with Edward Snowden, the former CIA contractor and NSA analyst who fled to China and now lives in Russia. The charges against Snowden include violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property (18 U.S.C. 641), and the unauthorized communication of national defense information (18 U.S.C. 793 d).

Snowden gave much of the stolen material to Greenwald.

My 2015 book, Blood on His Hands: The True Story of Edward Snowden, examines how Greenwald may have broken espionage laws by reporting Snowden’s disclosures about the National Security Agency (NSA). But he was never prosecuted.

To be sure, the NSA was caught spying on Americans. But the agency also once did some valuable work catching Russian spies. The Venona program of the U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service, the precursor to the NSA, monitored Soviet messages to intelligence agents in the U.S. That program confirmed the guilt of nuclear spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were executed.

Snowden’s disclosures led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rise of ISIS, and cyber-attacks from China.

Snowden also made it part of his espionage mission to expose how U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies sometimes cooperate. For example, he talked openly, in violation of his secrecy oath, about the U.S. and Israel developing a computer virus to cripple the Iranian nuclear program.

Former Republican Senator Jon Kyl called Snowden “this generation’s Alger Hiss,” a reference to the former State Department official who was convicted of perjury in 1950 for denying he was a Soviet spy.

Hiss served 44 months in prison. By contrast, Snowden is now being granted Russian citizenship.

Greenwald’s self-serving statements on Fox News ignore the need for a discussion of how enemy intelligence agencies in Russia and China actually operate behind the scenes against America – and sometimes collaborate with the CIA, such as in the case of Trump.

Decades before Russia-gate was concocted as a “scandal” to use against Trump, CIA counter-intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton understood that the headquarters of the Deep State was in Moscow, not Langley. The CIA gave us the phony Sino-Soviet split, which worked to the advantage of China and Russia. It, too, was Russian disinformation.

For his part, Greenwald has worked hand-in-glove with the international Marxist movement against the United States and its allies, including collaborating with Leninist groups such as the International Socialist Organization, and Islamist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He proudly accepted an award named in honor of Soviet agent and left-wing journalist I.F. Stone.

Greenwald has spoken publicly in favor of “weakening” America, saying that al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist attacks on America were “very minimal in scope compared to the level of deaths that the United States has been bringing to the world for decades—from Vietnam to illegal wars in Central America…” He described Anwar al-Awlaki, the American al-Qaeda leader killed in a drone strike, merely as “someone who the U.S. government hates because he speaks effectively to the Muslim world about the violence that the United States commits regionally, and the responsibility of Muslims to stand up to that violence.” Al-Awlaki inspired the Fort Hood massacre, in which 13 were killed.

An American who is gay and lives in Brazil with his “husband,” Greenwald was in the gay pornography business before going into journalism. He opposes Trump’s America-first policies and the right-wing government of Brazil, headed by Jair Bolsonaro.

But none of this has been highlighted on Fox News. Strange.

Referring to the CIA and other American intelligence agencies, he told Tucker Carlson, “They have infiltrated the means of communication domestically. They do it through leaks, clandestine operations, and through lies.”

“You are telling the truth,” said Carlson. But not the whole truth. The remnants of the old KGB collaborated with the CIA and the FBI, such as by spreading the Russian dossier on Trump. As we all know by now, Hillary paid for the Russian propaganda and the late Senator John McCain peddled the document to the FBI.

In his 2015 book, Worthy Fights, Obama CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked openly about an “occasionally candid relationship” he developed with Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR. He writes that Fradkov wanted “to share information and collaborate on some common operational activities.” It appears that Panetta complied. He also wrote about a meeting with Alexander Vasilyevich Bortnikov, the head of the secret police, the FSB, which was held in a building that still contained a bust of Vladimir Lenin. Panetta wrote about having dinner and drinks in Moscow with Fradkov and discussing how the U.S. and Russia “could share intelligence on issues of common interest.”

Hence, we have clear-cut evidence of an alliance of intelligence agencies that was set in motion under Obama, whose mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was himself suspected of being a Russian agent. The objective is a New World Order, something Joe Biden wrote openly about in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

None of this ever got the attention of Glenn Greenwald. Now, all of a sudden, he’s a hero for daring to write a critical article about Biden at a time when it is too late to make a difference. Where has he been?

Greenwald recognizes the roles played by the CIA, NSA, and so forth. But he has a true blind spot about how the Russian intelligence services work. He has his own far-left agenda that Tucker Carlson seems not to grasp.


Open Letter to Al-Azhar Institute’s Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

A few days ago news reports stated that you called a meeting of the Muslim Council of Elders in Cairo in order to plot a legal response against the French government over the recent issue of free speech in France that led to the murder of a French school teacher on October 16. You have accused the deceased of using “hate speech” in regard to a lesson he taught on the freedom of speech.

“Hate speech” is the term used around the world to shut down free speech by those, in particular, who wish to limit others from threatening their sinister agendas. However, in this case, “hate speech” actually fosters the agenda of jihad in that cold-blooded murder of the infidel is a justifiable reaction.

An eighteen-year-old Muslim man slaughtered his teacher because the teacher showed the famous picture published years ago by Charlie Hebdo, another victim of justified jihad. I have no doubt that you are deeply distraught over any words or a picture disrespecting the Islamic prophet just as the jihadist was who decapitated the school teacher. For this, you have my sincerest sympathies.

According to reports, the Muslim Council of Elders condemned “freedom of speech and expression,” calling it a slogan for a “systematic campaign” to undermine the prophet and mock Islamic sanctities. The Council has now affirmed its intention to resist this “hate speech” through legal means using the judicial system to deal with this matter.

As you seek to limit free speech in a Western nation, Al Azhar Institute, under your leadership, remains silent in Egypt and never attempts to limit violence or “hate speech” against Christians. As a Copt born in Egypt, I have never recalled your condemnation of the destruction of Coptic churches, violence against the Coptic congregation and clergy, or the kidnapping of Coptic girls. Could it be so because every one of these actions can be attributed to religious Muslims practicing jihad, which is promoted by freely spoken slogans?

Thankfully, no Egyptian Muslim is ever slaughtered for the sentiments of jihad spoken freely, which you completely condone by your silence. As well, you are silent regarding the slaughtered — the Coptic Christian — because it is the fulfillment of that spoken word. Now, you propose an action that serves to restrict freedom in another nation on behalf of Islam and Islam alone, similar to Egypt.

Unlike Egypt, France has a secular constitution that does not include Sharia. This means that everyone’s speech is protected, not just Muslims. You seek redress in the courts of France because you have no respect for this equality. You would like Islam to have special privileges that all others do not have, as in Egypt. You are accustomed to the second amendment of the Egyptian constitution designating Sharia law as the only source of Egyptian laws.

As your Council convenes to deal with the recent tragedy in France, which requires no intervention by a religious body in a separate nation, your intentions speak loud and clear that Egyptians have little hope for the future and will remain ensnared by the authoritarian trappings of religious fundamentalism.


1619: A Date for Disunity

By: Tabitha Korol

Nicole Hannah-Jones chose the year 1619 as when African slaves were first brought to this country. Many leading historians say this is a false narrative, a version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, yet we are told to reevaluate our supposed racist past and accept the destruction of our values, history, laws, statuary, institutions, and terminology/names.  This is the cancel culture that has overtaken more than 3,500 classrooms across our country, a globalist war being waged against America to destroy America.  To paraphrase a Soviet joke, “We know the future, but it is the past that must be changed.”


I was pleased to be invited to a virtual meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education in early October, to give testimony about the implementation in Ohio schools of The 1619 Project, the reframing of America’s history on slavery.  I prepared the requisite five-minute speech to include the Common Core Standards because they prepared the foundation for destroying our culture and morality.  From the beginning, the children have been divided into groups or tribes, each taught to feel victimized by the others, humiliated, intimidated, and to loathe our country.  With each new idea, they are encouraged to disregard our laws, accept our disintegration, and do the bidding of our leftist enemy.  The Common Core became the propellant for any replacement narrative, and it was all intentional.

The preparation begins as early as Kindergarten, when the very young are prevented from connecting with best friends, inhibiting their natural desire to bond with their peers and, later, with spouses.  The inability to share mutual comfort and security leads to the destruction of the family and the tyrannical population control, loneliness, and isolation that evolves into a fused ideological group, a group-think mentality dominated by a principle rather than by healthy alliances.  They are made aggressive and destructive, the perfect dupes for conducting today’s riots, a militia-in-waiting to enforce tomorrow’s global socialism.

Keeping children on computers for most of the day has them bonding with “hard objects,” and indoctrinated with academia’s agenda.  Deprived of opportunities to be sociable and conversant, they are unable to think, analyze, and debate – incapable of individual thought.  Interestingly, Islamic jihadis bond with “hard objects” (weapons), rather than with people.

To further demolish our culture, students as young as age four are being sexualized with in-class lessons of masturbation and exposed to extremely pornographic information.  Syntero, Inc., a self-defined counseling group supported by our tax dollars, is described by Ohio Value Voters as “deeply disturbing, dangerous, even possibly criminal.”  They report that Syntero introduces children to perversions of homosexuality and sex changes, and appears to be “grooming children for the sex trade.”   Deborah DeGroff’s book, Between the Covers, documents the extraordinarily foul language and sexually explicit situations in children’s literature.  My own book, Confronting the Deception, reveals the manipulation and indoctrination of children for political purposes.

Academics shame boys for “toxic masculinity” and coach girls that the boys are robbing them of career opportunities, intruding into girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms, and winning their trophies on sports teams.  The boys are shamed with feelings of guilt, disgrace, and lost esteem – mind control and exploitation for outright group adherence.

Accusations of “white supremacy” contribute to willing subservience and acceptance of the 1619 narrative, their undermining, and emasculation, the hard evidence being a dramatic drop in testosterone levels.  Unable to overcome the constant barrage of denigration, they are engineered into resenting society’s alpha males and made unsuitable for military and police forces.  Confused and frustrated, they develop a penchant for property demolition and wanton theft and harming – even killing – those who think differently, whether neighbors or law enforcement.  Socialism demands disrespect for personal property.  Those who do not lash out this way but still cannot cope with society may become fearful, seek safe spaces, fail in the classroom, and escape to drugs, and more.  The suicide rate has doubled for boys, tripled for girls.

Multiculturalism is socialism repackaged – the division and victimization of everyone.  Of course, we accept differences in ethnicity, religion, and race, but our culture must be exclusively American in America, governed by American laws.  The children must have a sense of commonality and acceptance, yet white children are made to feel guilty of crimes they did not commit, and children of color are made to feel abused and stateless, a sense of not belonging anywhere. The 1619 Project divides further, the result being that our social cohesion is being ripped to shreds. 

Using race as justification, our children are deprived of reading the classics by “old white men,” which is foundational to improving language skills, reading comprehension, and imagination.

They are reading dystopian stories.  With every new opportunity to wallow in a victimized past, they are consequently robbed of future success in the adult world.  Twenty percent of high school graduates haven’t attained basic reading proficiency by graduation.  The average American reads at the 7th– to 8th– grade levels; 4% are nonliterate.

Disguised as a compassionate accommodation, academia is launching a program for children of color that will actually diminish their language skills, keep them unqualified and unsuitable for better employment and success, fulfilling the claims of systemic racism.  This will further disunite and divide them, impede communication between the races and other nationalities, isolate them further and harm them psychologically.  These are American children who must share the same culture and language.  Instead of falsely adjusting grades, teachers must improve their own skills to fulfill their obligations, perhaps through music, returning them to the classics, and inviting parents and neighbors to participate.  Already experiencing ostracism, some children of color are demanding separate dormitories – a very destructive, self-imposed apartheid.

The overall results of this education, further exacerbated by The 1619 Project, have been disappointment, anxiety, depression, increased sexual activity, anger, and violence.   They are trained to disrespect the family, their neighbors, their country, and property; they also disrespect themselves.  This is truly devastating.

Against this background, we now have Nicole Hannah-Jones, described as a Marxist-trained, rabid racist, responsible for the implementation of The 1619 Project. She alleges that she does not seek to erase the Declaration of Independence and our constitutional republic, but her followers are further along in their thinking.  The year 1619 is purported to be when the first African slaves were brought here through the Muslim slave trade, but slavery has been humanity’s established institution as far back as 3500 BCE and based primarily on armed conflicts with populations that were vulnerable because of weakness or contiguity.

A nation’s birth is not established because of mere residency or migration – not for the Paleo-Indians who arrived during the last Ice Age, not for the Vikings who came around 985, not for the Portuguese Jews who arrived in 1542, not for the Filipinos who arrived in 1587, not for the Chinese who arrived in the 1850s, and so on.  Rather, our founding fathers created this nation for the good of all, with the groundwork that allowed for advancement, and when our laws were declared, agreed, signed, and instituted.  That was 1776.

Hannah-Jones’s imaginative document, eagerly published by The New York Times, awakened the enemies of our treasured freedoms.  It built upon the already existing victimization, violated our laws, and unleashed unbridled crime that resulted in explosive behavior heretofore unseen in America.  It gave the green light to BLM (Black Lives Matter) Marxists/communists, the globalists, Antifa fascists, neo-Nazis, Islamists, and the underinformed group-thinkers, to riot against America, setting fires, causing property destruction in the billions of dollars, harming our police forces.

Instead of learning respect for and allegiance to America and their fellow Americans, children are repeatedly assaulted with negativity, and The 1619 Project belittles the white students with charges of racism while angering the students of color for what their ancestors may have endured – without explaining that slavery is human history – and based on proximity, weakness, color, religions, wealth, and the ideology of expansionism.  Contrary to the narrative, there are many paintings that verify the Arab enslavement of white women, but this aspect of slavery is not discussed.

Despite all the hardships, opposition, adjustment difficulties encountered by the many new migrant groups by an unwelcoming society, we reject the accusations of “systemic racism.”  Our laws guarantee the freedoms decreed in 1776.  Rather than dwell on the negativity that greatly harms our children, it is best to celebrate the hope and beauty that is America.  The American Dream is alive and well for 41% of Americans, and another 41% who believe they are on their way.

Project 1619 teaches disrespect and hate for America.  Our youth are not only burning flags and destroying statuary that represents American history, but they are now advocating the elimination of the Star-Spangled Banner and changing cities named for the figures we have revered historically.  They will not thrive in their adulthood with this concentration on misery.  They cannot be expected to read, learn, study, and excel in anything if their minds are riveted on victimization, false social justice issues, and the unproven climate change hoax. The emphasis on resentment emerges as violence because they are robbed of a decent education, creativity, and other means of expression.

When I completed my five-minute talk, one person asked how I would reverse the damages I cited.  I suggested that we must remove Common Core, the divisiveness and discord, and propagandist textbooks, and return to pre-Obama days when the children aligned with each other, their school, their state, their country – E Pluribus Unum.  Another member said he hoped people listened and heeded what I had to say.  Nevertheless, within a brief time, another invitee was asked to testify, and I felt as though I had not been challenged sufficiently.  Was I inadequate?  Had I not inspired more questions?

By three o’clock in the morning, I awoke with a realization that the Board members did not challenge me because they were aware and in accord with the points I had made.  These teachers and educationalists did not challenge my accusations because they knew these ills abounded, but they were doing nothing.  I concluded that academia is very aware, but that the teaching staff is obliged to comply with the leftist Board of Education.  Their job is to agree and follow their instructions.

If the parents will not rise in opposition, their children – and our country – will fall.


The Odd Couple: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

By: Linda Goudsmit | pundicity

We all know couples whose attraction to each other is confounding. We wonder, what do they see in each other? How do they find each other attractive? Often, marriage is a business arrangement. So it is in politics.

Presidents and vice-presidents are often selected by the constituency they bring to their party’s ticket. The 2020 election is no exception. The Biden/Harris ticket is an odd coupling. Biden is a corrupt, career politician, and dedicated globalist. His family financial dealings in Russia, Ukraine, and particularly communist China make Joe Biden a national security risk and a threat to American interests worldwide.

Joe Biden is a 47-year swamp dweller whose diminished capacity is undeniable. Kamala Harris is a radical leftist Democrat who makes Bernie Sanders look like a conservative. So, what gives? Why did Biden choose Harris as a running mate?

The Biden/Harris ticket is a marriage of convenience—a political business arrangement.

The senior, corrupt, career Democrats in the party are being challenged by a radical leftist cohort of young American Marxists determined to destroy America from within, and replace our constitutional republic with socialism. WHAT?? Oh yes. The 2020 presidential election does not represent traditional Democrat/Republican differences of opinion between American patriots, whose vision for what is best for America is in conflict.

The 2020 election is a revolution without bullets! It is the consummation of the war on America, and the final battle between globalism and Americanism. Let me explain.

Senator Kamala Harris is the most extreme, radical leftist democrat in the U.S. Senate. Throughout her political career, Harris has demonstrated her contempt for America and Americans. She is anti-America first, anti-constitutional governance, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. Consider what will happen if the Democrats manage to steal this election for Joe Biden—their corrupt, mentally deficient, globalist candidate. VP Kamala Harris will immediately replace Biden and become president.

Nancy Pelosi has already introduced a bill to implement the 25th Amendment that expedites the process. A President Harris will be empowered to keep Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America. Harris will dismantle our glorious 245-year constitutional republic, and restructure America into socialism.

In my 2020 release, The Book of Humanitarian Hoaxes: Killing America with ‘Kindness’, I examine the sinister leftist, Islamist, globalist attacks on America. Chapter/Hoax 13: The Humanitarian Hoax of Socialism, describes how the enemies of America are attempting to “fundamentally transform America.”

Leftist radical socialist Barack Obama, the quintessential humanitarian huckster, politicized every American government institution during his two lawless terms. Activist judges, activist lawyers, activist politicians, activist teachers, activist curriculum developers, activist administrators, activist IRS, CIA, FBI, CDC. Activists are not just a bunch of out-of-control college students; they are also men and women in positions of power intent on destroying American democracy and replacing it with socialism.

Activists are a broad, seemingly disparate genus joined by their activist ideology. The reason they are so dangerous is that they embrace a lawless, ends-justify-the-means mentality. So, now the country is confronted with whole institutions that lawlessly pursue a political agenda antithetical to American democracy. The censorship and disabling of accounts on social media are particularly disturbing examples.

In his famous 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned America against the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex. He advised the public to “guard against the grave danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Eisenhower understood how the increasing power of the military-industrial complex could threaten the decentralized power-sharing arrangement of the U.S. government. His words echoed the words of English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society. Eisenhower’s words were a warning; Russell’s words were a promise of the New World Order and a one-world government.

Both men anticipated the power of the scientific-technological elite. Both could imagine industry (means of production) being consolidated into the hands of fewer multinational conglomerates. But neither could have imagined the application of science and technology in a digital age of information wars, where manipulating and censoring information could direct public opinion worldwide and destabilize governments, including our own, via the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Neither man could have imagined the globalist elite being in control of both the means of production AND a weaponized, politicized worldwide information industry. Globalism is a clear and present danger to the United States of America today. It is the existential threat of the expanded military-industrial complex capable of creating a worldwide echo chamber that controls public opinion completely.

Leftist radical socialist Barack Obama opened the door to the globalist elite by soft-selling socialism to America. Globalism requires socialist nations that manage the means of production in order to internationalize them into their New World Order of a one-world government. p. 45-46

Here is the secret of the secret, and the root of Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America. Obama and his radical leftists, including Kamala Harris and those she represents, are the useful idiots of the globalist elite. The hallmark of useful idiots is that they are too arrogant and too narcissistic to realize that they are participating in their own destruction.

Radical leftists, including Marxist organizations Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, are entirely dispensable as soon as they deliver America to the globalist financiers of the Biden/Harris 2020 ticket. Radical leftists will be eliminated in the globalist New World Order. There is no place for agitators in the binary feudal structure of rulers and ruled.

Oligarchy is the opposite of representative government. Oligarchy is government by the few, a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or a dominant class. In 2020, the globalist elite and the Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook technocrats who partner with them, are attempting to become the dominant class through the election process using the odd couple Biden/Harris ticket to represent them.

Americans must reject the odd couple and their destructive marriage of convenience. Tell corrupt, career politician Joe Biden and his radical leftist partner, Kamala Harris, that America refuses their anti-American hope for change. Donald J. Trump will never accept socialism, globalism, communism, or any other tyrannical oligarchical system of rulers and ruled. Your vote is your voice!


Heads up, liberal Jews––Don’t be Jews with trembling knees

By: Joan Swirsky | RenewAmerica

“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”

Those words were spoken by Menachem Begin in June of 1982, directly to the Democrat senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, who had confronted the Israeli Prime Minister during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony by threatening to cut off aid to Israel.

That’s right, only 32 years after the establishment of the tiny Jewish state, which was surrounded by 22 war-mongering, Israel-loathing Arab states, and only 35 years after the Holocaust savagely murdered––tortured and gassed-to-death––six-million Jewish men, women, children, and infants, Senator Biden was once again terrorizing the Jews of the world with his menacing ultimatum.

Not a fluke, not a misstatement, not an error in judgment, but vintage Joe Biden, whose longtime antagonism and belligerence toward Israel have been exhaustively documented, most recently by Shmuel Klatzkin (Biden’s Hostility to Israel––read the whole article) and Janet Levy in AmericanThinker.com (Is a Vote for Joe Biden in the Interest of American Jews?).


Levy reports a number of the Obama-Biden regime’s consistent anti-Israel policies:

  • They interfered with the 2015 Israeli elections with the goal of defeating the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu;
  • Their State Department granted $350,000 to OneVoice, a radical anti-Israel organization that supports the terrorist group Hamas;
  • They fully supported the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement to destroy Israel economically;
  • In 2016, Biden pressured Ukraine, an abstainer, to vote for UN Security Council measure 2334, which claimed that ancient and historic Jewish sites were “illegally occupied”;
  • They approved the same UN measure, which condemned Israelis building settlements––emboldening the Palestinian Authority to call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea, Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter, reversing decades of U.S. vetoes against such moves.

Today, candidate Biden pledges to reopen the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) mission in Washington, D.C. And he vows, incomprehensibly, to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, in which the most dangerous terrorist state in the entire world has vowed to exterminate the State of Israel.

In addition, Levy points out that while Biden has given lip service to repudiating anti-Semitism, he has been thunderously silent when his fellow Democrats Reps. Ilhan Omar (MN), Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ayanna Pressley (MA), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—and simpatico Jew-hating activists Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and others––spew their undisguised anti-Semitic bile for all the world to hear.


Biden said he could never be silent on anti-Semitism,” Levy writes, “but raised no objections, as vice-president, to more than 60 White House visits by Al Sharpton, who [had] incited anti-Jewish riots in New York City in the 1990s.” That’s the same Al Sharpton, I might add, who writer John Perazzo documents as being responsible for the horrific Tawana Brawley racial hoax, called the first black mayor of New York City a “ni—er whore,” and delivered a speech at Kean College saying: We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was…. [W]e taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

You get the picture of one of Joe Biden’s favorite pals.


I was a very little girl––younger than six––when I first asked my parents why they were running frantically to meeting after meeting every evening, opening their checkbooks, delivering impassioned speeches, wringing their hands, and shedding copious tears.

They told me what few American-Jewish parents ever told their children, so numb were they from disbelief and so eager to protect them from the ghastly truth, which was that adults and children just like them, just like us––six million of them––had been savagely murdered by Adolph Hitler and his “willing executioners” in Germany, Poland, all over Eastern Europe, and even in “civilized” countries like France, simply because they were Jewish.

Jews who managed to flee Europe and come to America before the Holocaust––like my own and my husband Steve’s grandparents––and those who survived the killing camps and landed on our shores by sheer good fortune thought they died and went to heaven on earth. For the first time in their lives––in fact, in Jewish history––they were free to breathe, to create, to pursue their dreams, to worship, and to raise their children without fear.

Yes, there were things like quotas in colleges and graduate schools, Holocaust denial, and today an upsurge in Jew-hatred, but nothing stopped Jews from succeeding and excelling and contributing disproportionately to American society and to the world, just as the Jews in the state of Israel––only 72 years old––do today.


But over 3,500 years of persecution exacts a heavy price. To understand, just think about the long-lasting toll the following events take:

  • A one-minute gunshot,
  • A two-hour bout of chemotherapy,
  • A three-week recovery from open-heart surgery,
  • A four-month lay-off,
  • An eight-month (so far) pandemic lockdown
  • A five-year recession.

All of the above are life-changing, diminishing, often devastating, sometimes annihilating.

Yet Jews continued on, their survival instinct stronger than the most crushing circumstances of their long and besieged history of being haunted, hunted, and often destroyed in, among other cataclysmic events:

  • The Crusades.
  • The Inquisition.
  • The expulsion from Spain.
  • The Holocaust.
  • And always, the diaspora.

After the Holocaust, American Jews who followed politics––most did and still do today––were forced to ask themselves, and taught their children to ask: Is it good for the Jews? Meaning, will this or that statement or policy or law lead to another Holocaust?

After all, the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and ‘40s enjoyed tremendous success––in business, academia, the arts and sciences, society in general. Unlike the United States today, every college and university did not feature violent anti-Jewish protests or professors who taught anti-Jewish propaganda. Until the rise of Hitler, there were no elected officials––as there are in the U.S. today––spewing Jew-hatred, not only with no disapproval from the powers-that-be but with total impunity.


Is Biden’s candidacy good for the Jews? I can say unequivocally and without hesitation that scandal-plagued Joe Biden, his inexperienced and effortlessly alienating VP pick Kalamity Harris, and the truly regressive Obama-clone platform he’s running on––including high taxes, a weakened military, the support of terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, an anti-fracking return-to-energy-dependence, open borders, confiscation of your guns, and a viciously contentious relationship with Israel––would be terrible for America and disastrous for the Jewish state.

If you’re a liberal American Jew determined to pull the lever or mail a write-in ballot for Biden—don’t!

Don’t be a Jew with trembling knees. Your very survival and that of your family are at stake!


The Perverts and Those Who Protect Them

By: Cliff Kincaid


Before Joe Biden committed a major gaffe by urging the eventual abolition of the oil and gas industry, he endorsed the idea of 8-year-old transgenders. This went beyond gaffe status to outright insanity. What’s more, it was part of his appeal to the transgender “community.” In this case, he called for “zero discrimination” against kids who want to parade around like members of the opposite sex. He didn’t rule out these confused kids getting sex-change operations.

Ignoring this form of child abuse, Savannah Guthrie of NBC News asked Trump during a televised town hall about the belief by some of his supporters in “a satanic pedophile ring” operating behind the scenes.

The president said he understands that people are opposed to pedophilia. He could have brought up the evidence of a high-level pedophile network involving Jeffrey Epstein, kicked out of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club by Trump himself for trying to procure young women. Or Trump could have brought up the devilish blood-soaked “spirit cooking” demonstration that came to light four years ago in one of the Hillary campaign emails.

Epstein, a member of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, was said to have sex videos of America’s elites for blackmail purposes.

Attorney General William Barr has failed to explain how Epstein died in federal prison when he was supposed to be under close observation.

On “The Evening Edit” show of Elizabeth MacDonald on the Fox Business Network on Tuesday night, viewers were told that the federal U.S. Marshalls Service has been busting human trafficking rings. In operation “Autumn Hope,” the Marshalls recovered 45 missing children.

Whether this is a “Q” conspiracy theory or not, the victims are real. They are just as real as the victims of the China virus.

In another case, .a 10-count indictment charges a priest in the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio, Father Michael Zacharias, with human trafficking and coercion. Court documents reveal that “from approximately 1999 to July of 2020, the defendant is accused of engaging in the activity of sex trafficking of a minor victim and using force, fraud, or coercion to sexually traffic other minors and adults.” That’s a period of 21 years.

It appears the FBI has been doing some good work, at least in the Zacharias and other cases, on a local level. But does the FBI’s interest in such matters stop when top Democrats are implicated in alleged wrongdoing? It’s clear that the media, despite what we know about the Epstein and Catholic pedophile networks, do not believe there is something evil or Satanic going on.

Many Catholics are sickened by the role of the Roman Catholic Church, here and abroad, in pedophile rings. The new Catholic film on EWTN, “The Gender Agenda,” looks at homosexual and communist infiltration of the church, including the notorious Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.  The McCarrick case “demands a thorough report as to how such a man with his sexual abuse history could have risen to such positions of power within the Church,” says the film. “The Church has a problem with male-on-male predation by priests.”

“The church is now engaged in a cover-up of the predatory sexual activity and corrupting practices of Theodore McCarrick, who once served as our archbishop, who has now been thrown out of the priesthood,” says one Catholic priest. “But who promoted him? Who protected him? Who he paid off? None of that has been revealed though it is known; it is in a report. But the Powers of Darkness in Rome keep us from knowing and it is not right.”

As a prosecutor and Attorney General in California, Biden running mate Kamala Harris refused to take on sexual abuse by priests.  I interviewed a victim of such abuse, noting that Harris appears to have a two-faced approach to the Catholic Church – one of scorn toward ordinary Catholics who follow traditional church teachings, such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality, and the other of deference to officials of the hierarchy who get caught in cover-ups of sexual abuse of children.

Diverting attention away from this scandal, Pope Francis has just issued an encyclical, Fratelli tutti, described by anti-communist Professor Renato Cristin as representing the theological-political adaptation of the chilling Marxian motto “Proletarians of the world unite.” The encyclical on “fraternity and friendship” attacks the greatest economic system the world has ever known – capitalism. “The fragility of world-systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom,” says the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He calls for building “the alternative social structures we need,” code for socialism.

What he’s proposing for the world is what Biden seems to want for America – a semi-permanent lockdown, based on the pretext that fighting the China virus requires it.

The pope’s embrace of Marxism helps explain why Democratic Party leaders, including “Catholic” Joe Biden, embrace Pope Francis, and why Republicans are reluctant to take on the Vatican.

This is a time for all Christians to uncover the complete truth about the pedophile rings operating here and abroad, sometimes with the protection of Catholic church officials and sometimes with the connivance of other members of the elite. It’s what Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1947 called “Signs of Our Times.” He referred to the emergence of “a counter-church” with “all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”

Catholic writer Vic Biorseth argues, “When organized, conspiratorial criminal activity crosses state lines, as do all the organized sexual abuse crimes, predominantly of a homosexual nature, committed by Catholic Clerics of all ranks and systematically covered-up by them, the situation calls for a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] investigation.”

There is the Deep State, the Swamp, and what Biorseth calls the homosexual cabal now running the Catholic hierarchy. On November 3, they are all backing Biden for president. President Trump stands in the way of their grab for total power.


Liberty is the Key Issue of the US 2020 Election

By: Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) | CCNS

Over many decades, the United States has become an oligarchy, a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

The oligarchy is primarily composed of the Democrat Party, the media, academia, the permanent federal bureaucracy, and the multinational interests that provide its financial support.

Republicans like Mitt Romney are also members of the oligarchy as well as the greedy political operatives, who profit from candidates like him.

Such Republicans falsely claim to be putting “country over party,” but are actually putting oligarchy over democracy.

They do so because of their private dislike for Donald Trump or simply for their own power and profit, often both.

The “damage” Democrats and the anti-Trump Republicans claim he has done, has not been to the country, but to the power of the oligarchy and its growing attempts to control and exploit the American people for personal gain.

The oligarchy rejects democracy, preferring authoritarianism or, increasingly in the Democrat Party, the totalitarianism of Big Tech, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter.

Like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is the candidate of the oligarchy.

In a September 6, 2016 article in The Hill entitled “Why Donald Trump appeals to ordinary Americans,” I wrote:

“This election is not simply a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the freedom and well-being of the American people.”

Compared to four years ago, the threat to individual freedom, the Constitution, and the rule of law emanating from the oligarchy is both greater and imminent.

In 2016, I said:

“The federal government and the media are, as institutions, hopelessly corrupt and, although we have elections, we no longer have representative government.”

Yet, even the most cynical among us, could not have imagined that politically-motivated elements within the federal government would use its immense law enforcement power in a coordinated attack with the media to destroy the lives of innocent citizens and patriots like General Michael Flynn and organize what amounted to a coup d’état against a sitting President.

Like what I stated in 2016, most of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in our Democrat-run cities is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, radical, leftist agenda.

It is the direct consequence of educational and media political indoctrination coupled with the divisive rhetoric and destructive policies of the Democrat Party.

In the face of the present turmoil, many in the Republican Party have chosen to stand idly aside, unwilling to defend the rights, liberties, and well-being of American citizens.

Those anti-Trump Republicans have chosen to no longer represent the Americans who had once been their constituency, but, instead, have adopted the identity of junior partners in a ruling class.

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that the efficiency and effectiveness of government are directly dependent upon the trustworthiness of government officials as representatives and executors of the views and desires of the people.

Americans now believe that we are not citizens of a republic, but subjects of an elected aristocracy, composed of a self-absorbed permanent political class, which serves the interests of international financiers at the expense of the American people.

The oligarchy maintains its authority by an ever-expanding and increasingly intrusive government and uses a compliant media to manipulate public opinion in order to sustain the illusion of democracy.

Three years before the start of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said a government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free — that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Likewise, a government separated from the people cannot stand.

There remains a winning coalition in America, one which Donald Trump represents, one inclusive of all Americans, and one for all those who believe in a simple proposition — honest, representative, and effective government.

This column was originally published at WION.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is retired from an international career in business and medical research with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security. His email address is [email protected].


Brace for Impact by Facebook Around Election Day

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

FB: As the U.S. braces for election-related unrest next month, Facebook executives are implementing emergency measures reserved for “at-risk” countries in a company-wide effort to bring down the online temperature.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the social media giant plans to limit the spread of viral content and lower the benchmark for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts using internal tools previously deployed in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.


The tools, now a key component of Facebook’s strategy to prepare for the contentious U.S. election, would only be activated in “dire circumstances” and instances of violence, people familiar with the matter told the Journal.

The measures would loosen the threshold previously established for content deemed dangerous on the platform, and would slow down the dissemination of specific posts as they begin to gain traction, the Journal explains. An internal adjustment would also be applied to news feeds to control the content available to users.

“Deployed together, the tools could alter what tens of millions of Americans see when they log onto the platform, diminishing their exposure to sensationalism, incitements to violence and misinformation, said the people familiar with the measures,” the Journal writes. “But slowing down the spread of popular content could suppress some good-faith political discussion, a prospect that makes some Facebook employees uneasy, some of the people said.”

Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told the Journal that the company has  “spent years building for safer, more secure elections,” and that their strategy is based on “lessons from previous elections, hired experts, and built new teams with experience across different areas to prepare for various scenarios.”

The move comes days after Facebook censored a story from The New York Post detailing allegedly corrupt business deals by Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden — which prompted harsh backlash from President Trump and Republicans who have long criticized the platform’s role in regulating content.

At the time, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company would impose fewer restrictive rules on content following the conclusion of November’s election, but that they had implemented policy changes to address any uncertainty and the perpetuation of disinformation for the time being, according to BuzzFeed News.


“Once we’re past these events and we’ve resolved them peacefully, I wouldn’t expect that we continue to adopt a lot more policies that are restricting of a lot more content,” Zuckerberg said.

Facebook: Russian ads sought to sow political division ...

Adding more details:

Company higher-ups have said these tools are the nuclear option and will only be used in the event of election-related violence or other dire circumstances, people familiar with the planning told the outlet. Some employees at the company said they were uneasy about these measures and particularly concerned that they could suppress legitimate political discussions and viral content, according to the Journal.

Mark Zuckerberg Promises That Facebook Will Not Interfere ...

Facebook established its toolkit for humanitarian intervention after facing widespread criticism for mishandling violent hate speech against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. As far back as 2014, human rights activists implored Facebook to crack down on inflammatory rumors and calls for violence against the minority Rohingya population. After years of violence, mass exodus, and thousands of deaths, Facebook admitted in 2018 that it had been “too slow to act” and wasn’t “doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” The company pledged to better prepare for future crises and promptly banned several high-profile figures that were named by the United Nations as complicit in the genocide.

Facebook announced last month that it would not accept new political ad submissions a week before election day and plans to ban all political ads indefinitely once the polls close. It also said it will label any premature declarations of victory by either candidate (though, really, we all know which one they’re worried about) and include “specific information…that the counting is still in progress and no winner has been determined.” Facebook’s VP of global affairs and communications, Nick Clegg, recently said that, to date, the company’s rejected 2.2 million ads and withdrawn 120,000 posts in total across Facebook and Instagram that were trying to “obstruct voting” in the 2020 presidential election. More here.


Trump’s Re-Election Could Bring Several New Cabinet Secretaries

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Axios reports:

If President Trump wins re-election, he’ll move to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and also expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, two people who’ve discussed these officials’ fates with the president tell Axios.

The big picture: The list of planned replacements is much longer, but these are Trump’s priorities, starting with Wray.

Wray and Haspel are despised and distrusted almost universally in Trump’s inner circle. He would have fired both already, one official said, if not for the political headaches of acting before Nov. 3.

Why it matters: A win, no matter the margin, will embolden Trump to ax anyone he sees as constraining him from enacting desired policies or going after perceived enemies.

Federal Agencies Struggle To Quantify Data Consolidation ...

Trump last week signed an executive order that set off alarm bells as a means to politicize the civil service. An administration official said the order “is a really big deal” that would make it easier for presidents to get rid of career government officials.

There could be shake-ups across other departments. The president has never been impressed with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, for example. But that doesn’t carry the urgency of replacing Wray or Haspel.

The nature of top intelligence and law enforcement posts has traditionally carried an expectation for a higher degree of independence and separation from politics.

Be smart: While Trump has also privately vented about Attorney General Bill Barr, he hasn’t made any formal plans to replace him, an official said.

Trump is furious that Barr isn’t releasing before the election what Trump hoped would be a bombshell report by U.S. Attorney John Durham on the Obama administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.

Durham’s investigation has yet to produce any high-profile indictments of Obama-era officials as Trump had hoped.

“The attorney general wants to finish the work that he’s been involved in since day one,” a senior administration official told Axios.

Behind the scenes: “The view of Haspel in the West Wing is that she still sees her job as manipulating people and outcomes, the way she must have when she was working assets in the field,” one source with direct knowledge of the internal conversations told Axios. “It’s bred a lot of suspicion of her motives.”

Trump is also increasingly frustrated with Haspel for opposing the declassification of documents that would help the Justice Department’s Durham report.

A source familiar with conversations at the CIA says, “Since the beginning of DNI’s push to declassify documents, and how strongly she feels about protecting sources connected to those materials, there have been rumblings around the agency that the director plans to depart the CIA regardless of who wins the election.”

As for Wray, whose expected firing was first reported by The Daily Beast, Trump is angry his second FBI chief didn’t launch a formal investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business connections — and didn’t purge more officials Trump believes abused power to investigate his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia.

Trump also grew incensed when Wray testified in September that the FBI has not seen widespread election fraud, including with mail-in ballots.

A senior FBI official tells Axios: “Major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents as well as police and sheriff’s departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray’s leadership of the Bureau.”

Trump soured on Esper over the summer when the Defense secretary rebuffed the idea of sending active-duty military into the streets to deal with racial justice protests and distanced himself from the clearing of Lafayette Square for a photo op at St. John’s church.

Trump indicated to Axios then that he “really wasn’t focused on” firing Esper. One senior official cautioned that others who want the Pentagon job could be driving speculation to undercut Esper. But one source, who discussed options with Trump, told Axios he urged the president to wait until post-election to replace him.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement that Esper “has always been and remains committed to doing what is best for the military and the Nation.”

Trump 2.0 would bring more loyalty tests

Chris Liddell, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy coordination, is heading the White House’s transition effort, including vetting potential new Cabinet officials, two White House officials told Axios.

He’s working closely with White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Johnny McEntee, who runs the Office of Presidential Personnel and has been conducting “loyalty tests” to weed out “Never Trumpers” from the administration.

In 2016, Trump famously blew up his own transition process. The officials said Liddell is determined to avoid a repeat. Liddell declined to comment.
Politico first reported on Trump’s transition team.

Don’t forget: The transition between first and second terms is traditionally a time when presidents who win re-election accept resignations and switch out their teams.

Former chiefs of staff to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, speaking on David Marchick’s “Transition Lab” podcast, said their administrations didn’t prepare enough for a “robust transition” between terms.

Bush’s former chief Josh Bolten said he’d advise Trump to “rethink all of your personnel and know what your priorities are.”

White House spokesman Judd Deere told Axios: “We have no personnel announcements at this time nor would it be appropriate to speculate about changes after the election or in a 2nd term.”