Elements 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 freedom, quality 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?

Before 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?

Whether 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?

“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.

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.

“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?).

EXAMPLES ABOUND

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.

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.

THE LEGACY OF PERSECUTION

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.

TO ASK THAT QUESTION TODAY

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.

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.