Tucker Carlson demonstrates some of the monstrous lies that Democrats and presstitutes tell with a straight face. These extraordinary lies reveal the great extent of collapse in the moral fabric of our society. Such blatant lies demonstrate that power is the only political virtue for Democrats and that power has crowded out integrity, of which not one ounce can be found in the Democrat Party except for Tulsi Gabbard whose honesty the Democrats reject. Politicians have always been prone to exaggerate, overpromise, and stray from the truth, but today the lies are so fantastic that I doubt even dumbshit Americans fall for them. For example, until a couple of days ago Democrats and presstitutes standing in front of burning buildings would report that there was no evidence of violence or rioting, just peaceful protests. They damned President Trump for lying and calling peaceful protests riots. Suddenly their tune changed. Yes, there is violence and rioting and burning, but it is all Trump’s fault. It is Trump’s supporters who are looting and burning the stores, and the racist Trump supporters are blaming the blacks.
The Democrats know that half of the American population is stupid. The stupid ones are the voters Democrats rely on to get into office. The presstitutes think all of us are stupid. That is why it never occurs to the presstitutes that for each and every one of them to say the same thing on all the TV stations, NPR, and all newspapers hour after hour day after day reveals a propaganda ministry, not a news media.
Neither does it occur to the presstitutes that to spend four years leveling one preposterous accusation after another at Trump makes them, not Trump, look bad. The daily insults that the presstitute media hand out to Americans who voted for Trump casts the presstitutes as enemies of the American people. And they are. America’s worst enemies are not in Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. America’s worst enemies are CNN, MSNBC, Fox News with the exception of Tucker Carlson, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of the press prostitutes.
The American media is racist against white people and it is anti-American in every sense. The media allege that it is racist not to be against white people because white people are racist. The presstitutes have redefined anti-American to mean all who oppose dispossessing white Americans of their property, their rights, and their self-respect. “Whiteness has to be stamped out” is their demand, and it is a non-negotiable demand.
If you are a white American, you are in a dwindling majority. Indeed, you have lost a large percentage of your strength to brainwashed white Americans who believe you are a racist plague on society. Some of your white fellow citizens wish not only to dispossess you in the interests of “people of color” but also to kill you, and they do not hesitate to express this view. As it is directed against white people, it does not qualify as hate speech or a hate crime.
The attack on white people is not limited to the US. For example, a new black movement has arisen in England in which the leader says the goal is to make white men their slaves. Try to imagine the uproar if a white movement arose saying that the uncivil behavior of black looters means blacks must be returned to slavery.
The November election is about whiteness. Trump stands up for white Americans. This is why the Democrats and the presstitutes hate him and hate those who voted for him. The Democrat Party is the anti-white party. The Democrats and presstitutes have driven this point home by their refusal to condemn the rioting, looting, and burning of the cities that they misgovern, by their refusal to protect businesses from looting and destruction, by their refusal to indict those responsible for massive property damage or even to criticize them. Instead we have had justification for the looting, rioting, and burning, and even a book—In Defense of Looting–and glorified by NPR. It is white Americans who have attempted to defend their property and their lives who have been indicted, not the looters and rioters.
If you are a white American and you voted for Democrats to misgovern your town or city, you are too stupid to justify your existence. You are so utterly stupid that you are a dire threat to white ethnicities.
Today white Americans are demonized far worse than Jews were demonized in Nazi Germany. But the situation is far more extraordinary in America than the situation in Germany 80 or 90 years ago. In Nazi Germany Jews did not demonize themselves, but in the US today white Americans are demonized by their fellow white Americans. Those who are demonizing patriotic white Americans are the white liberals who vote Democrat.
These white liberals are perhaps too stupid to comprehend the consequences of their demonization of white Americans, but to be murdered by stupidity is still murder.
America is so far gone that it is impossible today to have a debate at an American University other than one such as “who hates white people the most with the most justification?” Debate, even a moderate speech by an accomplished American, is no longer possible at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, or even a local college. The position of the liberal-progressive-left is that you agree with us or you are cancelled.
Cancelled means not only your speech at the college but your access to Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple. Your website ceases to appear in Google searches. If your livelihood is dependent on an employer, you are fired. Mobs might show up at your house or at your child’s school. In some cases spouses have lost jobs, because the mob disapproved of their husband or wife. White Americans, unless they express anti-white sentiments, do not have freedom of speech and the freedom they have is only to denounce whites. The mob has tried, so far without success, to shut down Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Indeed, well known white corporations have withdrawn their advertising from Carlson’s show. This is how powerfull the anti-white movement is. It demonstrates how weak is the position of white Americans who are not self-hating whites. The dumbshit white Americans continue to support the corporations that are negating their freedom of speech. This is stupidity and self-destruction beyond belief.
If white Americans do not wake up, become realistic, and find the confidence to defend themselves, they are going to be annihilated. This is true also for all white ethnicities in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. White people are a tiny percentage of the world population. They are greatly outnumbered.
In Sweden insane Swedish governments imported huge numbers of non-whites in a display of support for multiculturalism. One consequence is that a large percentage of ethnic Swedish women, that is, white women, are afraid to go outside their homes. Why? Because they are raped in public. Ethnic Swedish men are too intimidated or fearful of being arrested for a hate crime for assaulting a black rapist of a Swedish woman to interfere. Swedish police who point out that ethnic Swedish women have no protection from the government and that 90% of all rapes are committed by black men are put on administrative leave and then fired for racism. The raped women themselves fear to report their rapes because they can be accused, even arrested, for hate speech. In Sweden, a white Swede who complains of black misbehavior has given a demonstration of his or her racism and will be more seriously punished than the black criminal. Of course, the Swedish government will deny this, but the facts I report are in their own newspapers.
This same situation, to a lesser degree, characterizes Norway, Germany, Italy, and the UK, and all of Europe with the exception of Hungary and Russia. Probably also in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand it is impossible for a white citizen to say anything unfavorable about a preferred minority without being in deep trouble.
If the United States and the European countries still had an educated and aware, instead of indoctrinated and brainwashed, population, opposition would arise to the decimation of white civilization. But there is nothing there to defend Western White Civilization but wet paper bags that even ignorant dumbshit barbarians can walk through.
The fall of the West is going to have much greater consequences than the fall of Rome.
They say, “Never forget”. Well, anyone now prepared to vote for Biden and his Communist cohorts clearly forgot. Perhaps they never had a clue, in the first place.
I remember 9/11 well. It temporarily united the country. The country wasn’t nearly as divided in 2001, but it was divided. Not in the weeks after 9/11. I remember Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, even making a comment that we had to go over to the Middle East and blow up those terrorists. Today, MSNBC routinely and approvingly talks of a coup — not just against the President of the United States should he win reelection, but against the millions and millions of Americans who do not want what MSNBC wants: global Communism.
9/11 was a shocking display of terrorism by foreign individuals with a brutally anti-freedom agenda. Yet today’s growing mayhem in our own cities represents the same kind of terrorism, brought about by AMERICAN individuals who wish to replace freedom with wildly insane anarchy followed by totalitarianism. What happened to you, America?
The 20th century was the century of total war. Limitations on the scope of war, built up over many centuries, had already begun to break down in the 19th century, but they were altogether obliterated in the 20th. And of course the sheer amount of resources that centralized states could bring to bear in war, and the terrible new technologies of killing that became available to them, made the 20th a century of almost unimaginable horror.
It isn’t terribly often that people discuss the development of total war in tandem with the development of modern central banking, which — although antecedents existed long before — also came into its own in the 20th century. It’s no surprise that Ron Paul, the man in public life who has done more than anyone to break through the limits of what is permissible to say in polite society about both these things, has also been so insistent that the twin phenomena of war and central banking are linked. “It is no coincidence,” Dr. Paul said, “that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.”
He added:
If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
For now I take it as uncontroversial that central banks perform three significant functions for the banking system and the government. First, they serve as lenders of last resort, which in practice means bailouts for the big financial firms. Second, they coordinate the inflation of the money supply by establishing a uniform rate at which the banks inflate, thereby making the fractional-reserve banking system less unstable and more consistently profitable than it would be without a central bank (which, by the way, is why the banks themselves always clamor for a central bank). Finally, they allow governments, via inflation, to finance their operations far more cheaply and surreptitiously than they otherwise could.
As an enabler of inflation, the Fed is ipso facto an enabler of war. Looking back on World War I, Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1919, “One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier.”
No government has ever said, “Because we want to go to war, we must abandon central banking,” or “Because we want to go to war, we must abandon inflation and the fiat money system.” Governments always say, “We must abandon the gold standard because we want to go to war.” That alone indicates the restraint that hard money places on governments. Precious metals cannot be created out of thin air, which is why governments chafe at monetary systems based on them.
Governments can raise revenue in three ways. Taxation is the most visible means of doing so, and it eventually meets with popular resistance. They can borrow the money they need, but this borrowing is likewise visible to the public in the form of higher interest rates — as the federal government competes for a limited amount of available credit, credit becomes scarcer for other borrowers.
Creating money out of thin air, the third option, is preferable for governments, since the process by which the political class siphons resources from society via inflation is far less direct and obvious than in the cases of taxation and borrowing. In the old days the kings clipped the coins, kept the shavings, then spent the coins back into circulation with the same nominal value. Once they have it, governments guard this power jealously. Mises once said that if the Bank of England had been available to King Charles I during the English Civil War of the 1640s, he could have crushed the parliamentary forces arrayed against him, and English history would have been much different.
Juan de Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit who wrote in the 16th and early 17th centuries, is best known in political philosophy for having defended regicide in his 1599 work De Rege. Casual students often assume that it must have been for this provocative claim that the Spanish government confined him for a time. But in fact it was his Treatise on the Alteration of Money, which condemned monetary inflation as a moral evil, that got him in trouble.
Think about that. Saying the king could be killed was one thing. But taking direct aim at inflation, the lifeblood of the regime? Now that was taking things too far.
In those days, if a war were to be funded partly by monetary debasement, the process was direct and not difficult to understand. The sequence of events today is more complicated, but as I’ve said, not fundamentally different. What happens today is not that the government needs to pay for a war, comes up short, and simply prints the money to make up the difference. The process is not quite so crude. But when we examine it carefully, it turns out to be essentially the same thing.
Central banks, established by the world’s governments, allow those governments to spend more than they receive in taxes. Borrowing allowed them to spend more than they received in taxes, but government borrowing led to higher interest rates, which in turn can provoke the public in undesirable ways. When central banks create money and inject it into the banking system, they serve the purposes of governments by pushing those interest rates back down, thereby concealing the effects of government borrowing.
But central banking does more than this. It essentially prints up money and hands it to the government, though not quite so directly and obviously.
First, the federal government is able to sell its bonds at artificially high prices (and correspondingly low interest rates) because the buyers of its debt know they can turn around and sell to the Federal Reserve. It’s true that the federal government has to pay interest on the securities the Federal Reserve owns, but at the end of the year the Fed pays that money back to the Treasury, minus its trivial operating expenses. That takes care of the interest. And in case you’re thinking that the federal government still has to pay out at least the principal, it really doesn’t. The government can roll over its existing debt when it comes due, issuing a new bond to pay off the principal of the old one.
Through this convoluted process — a process, not coincidentally, that the general public is unlikely to know about or understand — the federal government is in fact able to do the equivalent of printing money and spending it. While everyone else has to acquire resources by spending money they earned in a productive enterprise — in other words, they first have to produce something for society, and then they may consume — government may acquire resources without first having produced anything. Money creation via government monopoly thus becomes another mechanism whereby the exploitative relationship between government and the public is perpetuated.
Now because the central bank allows the government to conceal the cost of everything it does, it provides an incentive for governments to engage in additional spending in all kinds of areas, not just war. But because war is enormously expensive and because the sacrifices that accompany it place such a strain on the public, it is wartime expenditures for which the assistance of the central bank is especially welcome for any government.
The Federal Reserve System, which was established in late 1913 and opened its doors the following year, was first put to the test during World War I. Unlike some countries, the United States did not abandon the gold standard during the war, but it was not operating under a pure 100 percent gold standard in any case. The Fed could and did engage in credit expansion. On Mises.org we feature an article by John Paul Koning that takes the reader through the exact process by which the Fed carried out its monetary inflation in those early years. In brief, the Fed essentially created money and used it to add war bonds to its balance sheet. Benjamin Anderson, the Austrian-sympathetic economist, observed at the time, “The growth in virtually all the items of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System since the United States entered the war has been very great indeed.”
The Fed’s accommodating role was not confined to wartime itself. InAmerica’s Money Machine, Elgin Groseclose wrote,
Although the war was over in 1918, in a fighting sense, it was not over in a financial sense. The Treasury still had enormous obligations to meet, which were eventually covered by a Victory loan. The main support in the market again was the Federal Reserve.
Monetary expansion was especially helpful to the US government during the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson could have both his Great Society programs and his overseas war, and the strain on the public was kept — at first, at least — within manageable limits.
So confident had the Keynesian economic planners become that by 1970, Arthur Okun, one of the decade’s key presidential advisers on the economy, was noting in a published retrospective that wise economic management seemed to have done away with the business cycle. But reality could not be evaded forever, and the apparently strong war economy of the 1960s gave way to the stagnation of the 1970s.
There is a law of the universe according to which every time the public is promised that the boom-bust business cycle has been banished forever, a bust is right around the corner. One month after Okun’s rosy book was published, the recession began.
Americans paid a steep cost for the inflation of the 1960s. The loss of life resulting from the war itself was the most gruesome and horrific of these costs, but the economic devastation cannot be ignored. As many of us well remember, years of unemployment and high inflation plagued the US economy. The stock market fared even worse. Mark Thornton points out that
in May 1970, a portfolio consisting of one share of every stock listed on the Big Board was worth just about half of what it would have been worth at the start of 1969. The high flyers that had led the market of 1967 and 1968 — conglomerates, computer leasers, far-out electronics companies, franchisers — were precipitously down from their peaks. Nor were they down 25 percent, like the Dow, but 80, 90, or 95 percent.
… The Dow index shows that stocks tended to trade in a wide channel for much of the period between 1965 and 1984. However, if you adjust the value of stocks by price inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, a clearer and more disturbing picture emerges. The inflation-adjusted or real purchasing power measure of the Dow indicates that it lost nearly 80% of its peak value.
And for all the talk of the Fed’s alleged independence, it is not even possible to imagine the Fed maintaining a tight-money stance when the regime demands stimulus, or when the troops are in the field. It has been more than accommodating during the so-called War on Terror. Consider the amount of debt purchased every year by the Fed, and compare it to that year’s war expenditures, and you will get a sense of the Fed’s enabling role.
Now while it’s true that a gold standard restrains governments, it’s also true that governments have little difficulty finding pretexts — war chief among them — to abandon the gold standard. For that reason, the gold standard in and of itself is not a sufficient restraint on the government’s ambitions, at home and abroad.
As we look to the future, we must cast aside all timidity in our proposals for monetary reform. We do not seek a gold-exchange standard, as existed under the Bretton Woods system. We do not seek to use the price of gold as a calibration device to assist the monetary authority in its decisions on how much money to create. We do not even seek the restoration of the classical gold standard, great though its merits are.
In the 1830s, the hard-money Jacksonian monetary theorists coined the marvelous phrase “separation of bank and state.” That would be a start.
What we need today is the separation of money and state.
There are some ways in which money is unique among goods. For one thing, money is valued not for its own sake but for its use in exchange. For another, money is not consumed, but rather is handed on from one person to another. And all other goods in the economy have their prices expressed in terms of this good.
But there is nothing about money — or anything else, for that matter — that should make us think its production must be carried out by the government or its designated monopoly grantee. Money constitutes one-half of every non-barter market transaction. People who believe in the market economy, and yet who are prepared to hand over to the state the custodianship of this most crucial good, ought to think again.
Interventionists sometimes claim that a particular good is just too important to be left to the market. The standard free-market reply turns this argument around: the more important a commodity is, the more essential it is for the government not to produce it, and to leave its production to the market instead.
Nowhere is this more true than in the case of money. As Ludwig von Mises once said, the history of money is the history of government efforts to destroy money. Government control of money has yielded monetary debasement, the impoverishment of society relative to the state, devastating business cycles, financial bubbles, capital consumption (because of falsified profit-and-loss accounting), moral hazard, and — most germane to my topic today — the expropriation of the public in ways they are unlikely to understand. It is this silent expropriation that has made possible some of the state’s greatest enormities, including its wars, and it is all of these offenses combined that constitute a compelling popular brief against the current system and in favor of a market substitute.
The war machine and the money machine, in short, are intimately linked. It is vain to denounce the moral grotesqueries of the US empire without at the same time taking aim at the indispensable support that makes it all possible. If we wish to oppose the state and all its manifestations — its imperial adventures, its domestic subsidies, its unstoppable spending and debt accumulation — we must point to their source, the central bank, the mechanism that the state and its kept media and economists will defend to their dying days.
The state has persuaded the people that its own interests are identical with theirs. It seeks to promote their welfare. Its wars are their wars. It is the great benefactor, and the people are to be content in their role as its contented subjects.
Ours is a different view. The state’s relationship to the people is not benign, it is not one of magnanimous giver and grateful recipient. It is an exploitative relationship, whereby an array of self-perpetuating fiefdoms that produce nothing live at the expense of the toiling majority. Its wars do not protect the public; they fleece it. Its subsidies do not promote the so-called public good; they undermine it. Why should we expect its production of money to be an exception to this general pattern?
As F.A. Hayek said, it is not reasonable to think that the state has any interest in giving us a “good money.” What the state wants is to produce the money or have a privileged position vis-à-vis the source of the money, so it can dispense largesse to its favored constituencies. We should not be anxious to accommodate it.
The state does not compromise, and neither should we. In the struggle of liberty against power, few enough will oppose the state and the conventional wisdom it urges us to adopt. Fewer still will reject the state and its programs root and branch. We must be those few, as we work toward a future in which we are the many.
This is our mission today, as it has been the mission of the Mises Institute for the past 30 years. With your support, we shall at this critical moment carry on publishing our books and periodicals, aiding research and teaching in Austrian economics, promoting the Austrian School to the public, and training tomorrow’s champions of the economics of freedom.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
WHAT IS THE MISES DAILY
The Mises Daily articles are short and relevant and written from the perspective of an unfettered free market and Austrian economics. Written for a broad audience of laymen and students, the Mises Daily features a wide variety of topics including everything from the history of the state, to international trade, to drug prohibition, and business cycles.
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) unless otherwise stated in the article.
Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436https://s7.addthis.com/static/sh.f48a1a04fe8dbf021b4cda1d.html#rand=0.5106790950952418&iit=1600011858386&tmr=load%3D1600011858295%26core%3D1600011858355%26main%3D1600011858375%26ifr%3D1600011858394&cb=0&cdn=0&md=0&kw=&ab=-&dh=mises.org&dr=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Flibrary%2Fmises-daily-articles&du=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Flibrary%2Fhow-central-banks-fund-our-age-endless-war&href=https%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Flibrary%2Fhow-central-banks-fund-our-age-endless-war&dt=How%20Central%20Banks%20Fund%20Our%20Age%20of%20Endless%20War%20%7C%20Llewellyn%20H.%20Rockwell%20Jr.&dbg=0&cap=tc%3D0%26ab%3D0&inst=1&jsl=17&prod=undefined&lng=en&ogt=image%2Cimage%2Cdescription%2Curl%2Ctype%3Darticle%2Ctitle%2Csite_name&pc=men&pub=ra-5c464f0891517916&ssl=1&sid=5f5e3e52d9f1e4ad&srf=0.01&ver=300&xck=0&xtr=0&og=site_name%3DMises%2520Institute%26title%3DHow%2520Central%2520Banks%2520Fund%2520Our%2520Age%2520of%2520Endless%2520War%2520%257C%2520Llewellyn%2520H.%2520Rockwell%2520Jr.%26type%3Darticle%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmises.org%252Flibrary%252Fhow-central-banks-fund-our-age-endless-war%26description%3DIt%2520is%2520no%2520coincidence%2520that%2520the%2520century%2520of%2520total%2520war%2520coincided%2520with%2520the%2520century%2520of%2520central%2520banking.%26image%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcdn.mises.org%252Fstyles%252Fsocial_media_1200_x_1200%252Fs3%252Fsocial-media%252Ffedpuzzle.PNG%253Fitok%253D9ei4krte&csi=undefined&rev=v8.28.7-wp&ct=1&xld=1&xd=12.1KSHARES
I have never seen a “closet” like the closet full of Trump supporters. Gays and lesbians never knew a closet like the one reserved for non-leftists in 2020 America. The hatred and hostility greeted toward non-dissenters — “deplorables”, they call us — is remarkable. The people who used to drive gays, lesbians and others into their “closets” at least made no pretense of their actual love of others, most of the time. The haters who favored racial segregation at least didn’t pretend to do it in the name of love; today’s haters who burn down businesses are full of pretense. Ironically, today’s Communist Democratic leftists really, truly are the most hateful people alive. I’m not just talking of the high profile ones — the sinister figures in the swamp, the media and all the rest. I’m talking about the typical person who’s a leftist, who assumes that everyone else of course must be one, and, if you’re not, well then — well there’s hell to pay. At least in their minds.
I think this shows how people of the socialist ideological persuasion are on a power trip. Whether they make it to the level of a Hillary Clinton or a Nancy Pelosi, or whether they’re just an average person, the appeal of leftism is a desire for power over others. That really became clear with the whole COVID overreaction and subsequent mask mandates, social distancing rules, etc. That was when we finally started to see how the “Karens” of the world really crave that power, and they’re going to get it any way they can. To them, it’s literally paradise on earth to be able to socially and morally shame others — with the power of a Governor behind them, no less!
That’s how such people get their crudely defined self-esteem: Intimidating others into doing what they want them to do. That’s what Communism is, after all. It’s a creepy, sinister and utterly evil philosophy based on the idea that nobody owns his or her own life; that nobody is sovereign over his or own individual self. And yet YOU, the Communist (the leftist, the Democrat, the “Karen”, it’s all the same) are permitted to sit in judgment on those whom you will compel and control. I always suspected it, but never having lived in a totalitarian country, I could never be sure. Now I’m sure, because now I AM living in the beginning stages of a totalitarian country. COVID and the terrorist takeover of cities is just the start.
Which brings us back to the closet: The people who detest what’s happening and are afraid to say so publicly, who are afraid to put up Trump signs in their yards, who are afraid even to disagree with their big-mouthed, arrogant, pushy, bossy friends or relatives who are on the side of all things statist and authoritarian … THEY, the closeted deplorables, are the ones who deserve to be in control of the country, because they don’t seek to control people. They simply wish to preserve their freedom.
And it’s freedom that the Karens of the world, the socialists and Communists, simply cannot stand. It’s dangerous and shameful to let them win, or to let them even enjoy two seconds of psychological power over anyone.
Michael J. Hurd
Karen is a pejorative term used in the United States and other English-speaking countries for a woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is appropriate or necessary. A common stereotype is that of a white woman who uses her privilege to demand her own way at the expense of others.
We are in a period in our lives when the culture of not communicating and not listening to others has become a pathological norm, and “cancel culture” has become an everyday term. Unfortunately, it is being exploited by too many self-serving operatives who exploit this situation to their own advantage and to our detriment.
For example, look carefully with open eyes and ears at the situation within the educational system, the political system and within the printed and electronic media; you will be astonished at what you discover.
We are indoctrinated to believe that the information we are receiving from certain outlets is the only valid input that we should consider, while we should actively ignore or disparage any other source of information. This situation has become even worse, when some people force others to shut up unless you agree with them. You will find these situations in schools, universities and even in regular conversations between ordinary people. The situation has become so sad that even within the same family people are enticed to play one against the other. Too often, we are not allowed to have conversations addressing controversial topics, even if during the interaction, we may educate each other or agree to disagree about certain issues.
Dealing with objective information is very important and it should be properly addressed in a wise way. This search for truth was taken recently to a different level. I witnessed a bizarre new phenomenon among private people who have finally decided to engage in conversation, but will fact-check their opponents as they speak. This is very significant, because it shows that they are not really listening to each other, but instead are trying to debunk each other’s arguments. To add to this, even the fact checkers themselves sometimes have their own agendas, and therefore will be inaccurate.
It is obvious that people may make mistakes or say or do some inappropriate things throughout their lives. One of the disturbing problems about this is that sometimes, similar situations will be judged differently, based on who the person is. As a consequence, when we look at certain situations objectively, we may be hitting a wall of resistance by those who have their own agendas. Obviously, this cannot be explained rationally, unless we bring into the equation some of their self-interests or other sinister motives.
Take for example the situation at Charlottesville, where President Trump’s comments about “fine people on both sides” were taken out of context and used to call him a racist, even though there is clear evidence that he did not mean it the way it was manipulated by some self-serving individuals.
Another very important example is the way that the recent vicious riots in multiple Democrat-led cities were described in most media outlets. These violent riots were largely ignored until polling data started to show that they had a negative effect on the ratings of the Democrat party.
At that point, the tone of the message changed and the media started accusing the President of being responsible for these events, even though the absolute majority of the riots occurred in traditionally Democrat-run cities with Democrat mayors and governors. The fact that the President offered to send federal help to those cities was ignored by most of the local leaders, who would not even allow their own police forces to effectively respond to the riots.
One of the most recent tactics used against the President is the claim that he was inciting violence, which ignores the fact that he offered the local authorities aid with various federal agents and national guards to restore law and order. Unfortunately, these local leaders refused to receive the President’s offer to help.
From listening to many Democrat politicians and their supporters, it is obvious and very disturbing to note that they personally were at the forefront of encouraging violence. And unless it is blocked by Twitter, watch the video with Pelosi wearing her blue suit HERE.
We must look also at the big picture. Black Lives Matter and Antifa organizations make me nervous and concerned about the eventual unintended consequences to our liberty and freedom, that will have a serious effect upon our future should they prevail.
There are many legitimate disagreements within the population about multiple topics which should be addressed in a civilized manner. Taking the opposite positions of your opponents just to make them look bad, or using the same position of your opponent while accusing your opponent of not taking adequate action, is another common inappropriate practice.
When I need to go to a surgeon, my biggest concern is whether he or she is a competent surgeon with a good track record. Considerations about the doctor’s bedside manners are important, but probably will not affect the overall quality of the care that I will receive, nor the expected results of the treatment. Therefore, the doctor’s personal attitude will not be at the top of the list in determining if I would trust this doctor with my life. The same notion applies to Trump.
When considering important decisions at the ballot box, multiple questions must be considered very seriously, such as:
Do we want “open borders”?
Do we want irresponsible immigration policies?
Do we want to pay higher taxes?
Do we want to limit the ability of the police to protect the citizens?
Do we want to live in a country with out-of-control unrest?
Do we want to live in a racially divided country?
Do we want to relinquish our right to bear arms to protect ourselves?
Do we want sanctuary cities to protect criminals?
Do we want to renew the dangerous Iran deal?
Do we want to limit our healthcare options?
Do we want to have higher medication prices?
Do we want to undermine American workers?
Do we want to prevent parents from having a say about what is being taught to their children?
Do we want to deny parents’ choice on which school to send their children?
Do we want to be energy dependent on foreign sources?
Do we want to pay more for our energy needs?
Do we want to be disadvantaged in international deals?
Do we want to be exploited economically by self-serving big interest groups?
Do we want to keep our economy closed artificially, ignoring sound scientific recommendations?
Do we want our voices to be silenced by self-serving media outlets and others?
Do we want to shrink our Military?
As it stands today, if you answered NO to all, or even to most, of the above questions, you are most likely a principled conservative who understands that America stands at a precipice. We cannot allow ignorance and complacency to cost us our dignity, liberty and freedoms.
In the two centuries or so of our history, it has happened that a few of our leaders — a very few — became symbols of some powerful idea, one that left a permanent imprint on the life of our country. Thomas Jefferson is one such symbol. With Jefferson, it is the idea of a free, self-governing people, dedicated to the enjoyment of their God-given natural rights, in their work, their communities, and the bosom of their families. Abraham Lincoln symbolizes a rather different idea — of America as a great, centralized nation-state, supposedly dedicated to individual freedom, but founded on the unquestioned authority and power of the national government in Washington.
And now Franklin Roosevelt, too, has come to represent a certain conception of America, one that is worlds apart from Jefferson’s vision, and different from anything that even Lincoln could have imagined. Roosevelt stands for the national government as we know it today: a vast, unfathomable bureaucratic apparatus that recognizes no limits whatsoever to its power, either at home or abroad. Internationally, it gives every evidence of intending to run the whole world, of extending its hegemony — now that the Soviet Union is no more — to every corner of the globe.
Domestically, it undertakes, through an annual budget of close to $2 trillion, to assuage every real or invented social ill and thus enters into every aspect of the people’s lives. In particular, it is engaged in what even a couple of decades ago would have seemed fantastic — a campaign to annihilate freedom of association, subjecting the American people to a program of radical social engineering, in order to transform their voluntarily held traditional beliefs and values and way of life.
More than anyone else, Franklin Roosevelt is responsible for creating the Leviathan state that confronts us today.
In his own time, FDR had many influential enemies in business, politics, and the press, men and women who recognized what he was doing to the republic they loved and who fought him tenaciously. They were proud to be known as “Roosevelt haters.” Today, however, practically the whole of the political class in the United States has been converted into idolaters of Franklin Roosevelt.
This state of affairs was epitomized last May, when the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial was dedicated in Washington, DC. Situated on a 7.5-acre site by the Tidal Basin, it includes an 800-foot wall, six waterfalls, outdoor galleries, and nine sculptures. Congress voted $42.5 million to fund the memorial, Republicans (those wild revolutionaries) joining Democrats with equal enthusiasm. No one breathed a word about Roosevelt’s failure to end the Depression, his lying us into war, his warm friendship with Joseph Stalin, and similar milestones in his long career — the major controversy was over whether or not he should be shown with his signature jaunty cigarette-holder. (In deference to the forces of political correctness, he wasn’t.)
Most revealing was that self-styled conservative organs such as the National Review and the American Spectator joined in the hosannas. It is a sign of how far things have moved that abject adulation of Franklin Roosevelt is now the order of the day even at the Wall Street Journal. The Journal has long been supposed to be the voice of American business, a quality paper that stood for the market economy and limited government, and so was the counterpart to the New York Times in the American press. On the occasion of the dedication of the FDR memorial, the Journal expressed its opinion through an article by one of its editors, a certain Dorothy Rabinowitz (who used to review movies). Rabinowitz was outraged that Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, had dared to refer to her hero as “a lousy president.” No, she insisted, Roosevelt was a great one.
Why? Well, because of “the depth of his hold on minds and hearts,” because in the midst of the Depression he gave the people hope, because he stood firm against Hitler, because when he died even Radio Tokyo called him a “great man.” Roosevelt’s many enemies, in his time and even now, never had any good reason to condemn this man who changed America so radically; they were merely “maddened by hatred of him.” In all of Rabinowitz’s effusion there were no hard facts, no analysis, no argument (and certainly no mention of FDR’s great friend Joseph Stalin). It was all sentimental gush. And so the Wall Street Journal enters the age of Oprah Winfrey journalism.
Such productions by FDR’s devotees are by no means mere exercises in historical myth-making. They perform a vital political function for the antifreedom forces in contemporary America. Simply put: the glorification of Franklin Roosevelt means the validation of the Leviathan state. Thus it is of great importance to those on the side of freedom to understand who this man really was, what he really stood for, and what, as a matter of historical truth, he inflicted on the American republic.
Franklin Roosevelt was born in 1882, in the family mansion overlooking the Hudson River, on the 1,300-acre estate that came to be known as Hyde Park. On his father, James’s, side, Franklin could trace his ancestry back to the middle of the 17th century, when a forebear immigrated from Holland to what was then New Amsterdam. Part of the family settled in Oyster Bay, Long Island, eventually producing Franklin’s distant cousin, Theodore.
The Hudson Valley Roosevelts tended to marry well, mainly into affluent families of English descent — by the time Franklin came on the scene he was, despite his name, of nearly purely English heritage. His mother, Sara, was from an equally prominent family, the Delanos. Franklin was his doting parents’ only child. While by no means fabulously rich, the family was of the sort that mingled freely with the Astors and the Vanderbilts and the rest of the high society of nearby New York City.
Until the age of 14, Franklin was tutored at home. Not at all a bookish boy, he loved nature and, above all, boating on the Hudson and at the family summer home in Campobello, Maine. He developed a passion for stamp collecting, which he pursued all his life. His admirers later claimed that this hobby gave him great insight into the geography, resources, and character of all the world’s nations — more pro-Roosevelt blather. He often visited New York and toured Europe every year with his parents. The inevitable word to describe the Roosevelts and their lifestyle is patrician.
Franklin’s prep school was Groton, near New London, Massachusetts, as close to an English “public” (i. e., private) school as one could get on this side of the Atlantic. The whole ethos of the place was “Old English,” an attempt to copy the educational experience of schools such as Eton and Harrow, whose job it was to shape the future ruling class of the great world empire. At Groton, Franklin lived and studied among the progeny of his own class, those who felt themselves to be the fated future leaders of American business, education, religion, and, above all, politics. Ironically, a fellow Grotonian in Franklin’s day was the young Robert McCormick, whose father owned the Chicago Tribune — ironically, because Colonel McCormick, as he was known in later life (after his service in the First World War), went on to become the greatest and best-known “Roosevelt hater” of them all.
Franklin was a mediocre student at Groton in every respect. His top grades were no better than B; he did not stand out in debating or sports, nor was he particularly popular with the other boys. In 1900, he went on to Harvard, where he showed as little interest in studies or ideas as he had at prep school. Franklin coasted through college with the traditional “gentleman’s C” average that was perfectly acceptable in the sons of the elite at that time.
His social life, however, improved dramatically. Franklin was already beginning to display the affability and charm that so bedazzled politicians and the press in the years ahead. Of course, his popularity was helped along by his family name. Cousin Theodore had been elected vice president, and then, in 1901, through the assassination of William McKinley, had become president of the United States.
It was only natural that Franklin, already toying with the idea of a career in politics, should pay close attention to the doings of his presidential relation. Theodore was the first president in the distinctively modern mold: he had a sense of drama and timing and a natural grasp of how to exploit the press to create a persona for himself in the eyes of the people. Beyond that, TR, as he was commonly known, had a rare ability to make personal use of popular causes and resentments. It was the age of “progressivism,” a vague term, but one that connoted a new readiness to use the power of government for all sorts of grand things. H.L. Mencken, the great libertarian journalist and close observer and critic of presidents, compared him to the German kaiser, Wilhelm II, and shrewdly summed him up: “The America that [Theodore] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within.”
Particularly fascinating to Franklin must have been the way TR was able to turn his patrician background to his advantage. After all, in the past, the Americans had shown themselves wary of upper-class leaders, who were suspected of being insufficiently “democratic” and not in tune with the people. What TR did brilliantly was to introduce caesarism into American politics. This term refers to the political strategy adopted by Julius Caesar to gain power. Although himself from a wealthy and high-born family, Caesar castigated his fellow patricians and appealed instead to the lower classes for support. They, in turn, loved the favors they received from on high, and, perhaps even more, the sight of Caesar trouncing and humbling his fellow blue bloods.
Julius Caesar was thus one of history’s great demagogues; and ever since his time the tactic of a politician from society’s elite pandering to the “have-nots” against the upper classes has been known by his name. In fabricating his persona as the great “trustbuster,” Theodore Roosevelt’s form of American caesarism proved wildly successful.
Ralph Raico (1936–2016) was professor emeritus in European history at Buffalo State College and a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He was a specialist on the history of liberty, the liberal tradition in Europe, and the relationship between war and the rise of the state. He is the author of The Place of Religion in the Liberal Philosophy of Constant, Tocqueville, and Lord Acton.
A bibliography of Ralph Raico’s work, compiled by Tyler Kubik, is found here.
Psalm 133: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in unity.”
I urge you to read the whole psalm. You’ll see it expressing David’s point deeper through powerful metaphors: “Like dew on the mountains; giving the blessing of life everlasting. Like a joyful ceremony anointing you with oil that thrills your whole being.” This is what we want with our unity: the best. This is a wonderful and true insight.
It’s a principle in life difficult to describe. Most of us have experienced it to one degree or another. Some experience it in sports; some experience it in their profession, business, faith, hobby niche, or in the life you live. Some call it the pursuit of excellence, but it’s much more.
It can be individual, but more often than not it is in the unity of purpose between people. Examples: a successful sports team, a business group that is greater than the individual parts. It can be in your church or your trade group. Excellence drives a team to be better. Each member doing his part enhances the effort. Good teams of people simply can make each other better, lifting each one to exceed what they might think they can do.
This is a real phenomenon; I have had the good fortune of experiencing it many times. I have seen it in groups from all niches in our culture. Historically, it is something you can read about in other times and places.
The “special unction” of great movements is paramount: they excelled, had unity of purpose, and they harnessed great life-giving principles, or something that offers great exaltation of what I am going to call our better angels — great affirmation of life that lifts the human spirit in the best of ways. A few examples: the miraculous spread of the early Christian Church. The miraculous founding of America, its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. The incredible story of ending slavery in England, and the subsequent ending of slavery through the Civil War in the U.S.
It’s all Psalm 133 come to life.
Where is the conservative movement in all of this? If you ask the left, as is well known, Trump is Hitler, case closed — the problem being that there is no political imprisonment; brown-shirt violence; or actual racism, anti-Semitism, or world conquest the hard left and its media shills can point to.
Au contraire, the Trump movement has zero Hitler and a lot of greatness to it. He has often expressed awe at the movement that won him the presidency. He didn’t start it; it is not his. Its principles preceded him and will outlive him. He did, however, help unify the movement, help define a few things about it, and certainly helped it win.
Just look at who the movement’s enemies are:
– The NeverTrumps. Such frauds, such disingenuous grifters. Virtual parasites on the conservative movement for decades.
– The Clintons. Power-mad. Greedy. Bitter.
– The Deep State. Under the guise of “a higher loyalty,” these people lied about Russian influence, ruined the lives of innocent people, and tried to undo a fair election by colluding and using their powers illegally and immorally. Then they covered up their own wrongdoing.
– Antifa and BLM. Two of the most violent organizations in our history.
– The communist Chinese. A bigger threat to real freedom cannot be found. Just ask the citizens of Hong Kong and the displaced factory workers in the Midwest.
– The globalists. Those who want to use American foreign policy to enrich themselves at the expense of average Americans, who tried to give everything good about America away to its enemies.
– The hard-left media. Nuff said.
There are many more, but that’s an astonishing core group of enemies — all rotten influences and corrupt to the core. Their enmity counts for a lot. Being their targets means we have become effective in dealing with their ilk. These are the enemies you can take pride in. Unfortunately, they’re amplified too much by our hard-left media, making it impossible to see Trump’s clear accomplishments.
What he has accomplished (and stands for) is incredible. Here in these accomplishments and aspirations are the best reasons for all Trump-supporters to be proud — happy warriors, proud of their president and proud of their movement.
Make America Great again. As someone suggested, it’s not a slogan; it was an intention. It was removing the shackles that allowed our economy to boom. It was that high tide, lifting all boats — one great accomplishment, and one that, if re-elected, will come again.
The movement calls Americans back to the vision of Martin Luther King, where skin color won’t matter, but accomplishment and character will. When I listen to MAGA people, I hear the invitation for all to participate. When I see such visionaries as Candace Owens, Dennis Prager, Steve Cortes, and Brandon Straka, it warms my heart to see them triumph over the race-hustlers and those on the hard left who foment race war and division. Now we can all walk through that door of a better, more perfect union. For that, I am proud to be a Trump-supporter.
The creativity of the Trump team: It’s something we can all cheer. He hasn’t always made good hires, and he hasn’t always been able to run smoothly, but it’s quite clear that his knowledge of how to get things done in the long run, despite his enemies, is one thing that sets him apart. The genius of fixing the New York ice rink long ago is what America is experiencing with his list of accomplishments in all areas. If something isn’t going well, the team changes direction. If something isn’t having an excellent outcome, tweaks or wholesale changes are made to fashion the best possible outcome.
His team is genuinely a great team now — in trade, the economy, foreign policy, correct treatment and use of the military, in racial healing.
This bodes well for his second term. We can expect the best economy and the lowest unemployment figures ever once again. It will happen. We can expect Antifa and its violence to be pulverized. We can expect real racial progress to overcome the dishonesty of BLM. Leftists underestimated the ability of capitalism and freedom to bring nonwhite people deep into the melting pot of American exceptionalism. That nonwhite people would choose freedom, a better life, and deeper character, as most anyone will. Frederick Douglass understood — Trump as well.
We can expect China to begin losing, as the Soviet Union once did. We can expect the vision of space exploration to capture the hearts of Americans once again. We can expect the creative genius of capitalism to flourish, and bring new and better things for our country, and its people. We might even expect more Millennials to join as they see how they have been fooled by the left.
The best is yet to come. And it won’t just be the happy few (Shakespeare) who will rejoice. It will be the walk-aways, the liberals who saw the truth, the conservatives who likewise changed direction to bring back freedom. It will be the libertarians who understood the threat from the hard left, and that Trump would allow liberty they can cherish. It will be the entire “movement,” happy warriors all.
Bring on the second term. Sweep out the hard left. Fight as though the next generation is at stake — because it is.
A Dumbshit Judge in Detroit Has Ruled That Police Are Not Permitted to Control Black Rioting
In fact, the dumbshit judge has no such authority, but the revolution has proceeded beyond the bounds of law.
Obviously, the revolution under way against “white America” has support not only from Democrat mayors, city councils, governors, Speaker of the House, Biden and Kamala—all of whom refuse to support law and order—but also from members of the judiciary. To spell it out for you, the revolution in process is supported by the Democrat Party. If you are a white person and you vote Democrat, you are voting against yourself.
The revolution is directed against “white America.”
The Revolution Against White America is supported by the Democrat Party, the media, global corporations, the foundations, self-hating whites, the Israel Lobby, and the military/security complex. Trump is supported by “the Trump deplorables” whose only power is the vote, which no longer counts in America.
The Democrats know that they have no chance of winning the election. They intend a coup as they themselves recently revealed— https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/06/sounds-like-the-democrats-are-planning-a-coup/ . The Democrats have made it clear that they will not respect the vote count. Democracy is out, because democracy supports white racism. This makes democracy itself racist.
The vast majority of Americans are too insouciant to know or care what is happening to them. Consequently, there is nothing in the way of the anti-white revolution.
Indeed, Americans are so unaware of what is happening that they will regard this warning as a joke or the ranting of a conspiracy theorist or a racist, one of those terrible white people who do not believe in the indictment of white people for their “systemic racism.”
The situation in America is so far gone that it is not even possible to inform people what is happening to them. They are brainwashed and indoctrinated to their own destruction.(
Most anniversaries of September 11, 2001, I have written an article presenting yet again the enormous evidence that the official story of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are so obviously false as to be unbelievable. Yet Americans believed the transparent lie.
The military/security complex was desperate for enemies. In 2001 Russia was under the US thumb. China’s rise was predicted to be 50 years away. Where were the enemies to keep the military/security budget and power growing?
The neoconservatives who dominated the Cheney/Bush government identified the Arab Middle East as the enemy and said a “new Pearl Harbor” was needed to provide wars to overthrow 7 countries in 5 years.
The Zionist neoconservatives wanted to remove opponents of Israel’s expansion into the West Bank and Lebanon. Cheney wanted to continue the enrichment of the military/security complex of which he is a beneficiary.
To provide the “new Pearl Harbor,” Cheney, the neoconservatives, and Israel orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a number of similar organizations, together with a number of documented books by people of known expertise and integrity, have demolished the official story. We now know that 9/11 was a Deep State operation to provide America with an enemy—the War on Terror— so that the military/security budget, on which so many fortunes rest, would not be threatened.
The American Deep State is so corrupt, so self-serving, and so unaccountable that it will not bat an eye as it overthrows Trump’s reelection.
Critical Race Theory is the “remedial” lens through which America’s race reality is refracted.
Look hard enough and the need for this subintelligent theoretical concoction becomes abundantly clear:
It’s on the playground and in the classroom. Watch for the bossy white kids.
It’s in businesses and boardrooms, where microaggressions tumble from the mouths of their white mothers and fathers.
It’s in government departments, brought about by the few whites who haven’t been weeded out by quotas and set-asides for “oppressed” minorities.
There, this irredeemably uppity demographic persists in strutting its “oppressor stuff,” emitting up to 15 “microinequities” per minute, by the estimation of the subintelligent social “science” of human-resource department sickos.
It’s in the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), wherein workshops on intersectionality only just keep the plague of white privilege at bay, among bureau agents who haven’t yet been deluged by Trump derangement syndrome.
Critical Race Theory, reports Christopher Rufo, contributing editor at City Journal, has even reached the battle field—on a mission of mercy.
Introducing the Critical Race Theory chimera to the U.S. military falls within the mission of this vast, global welfariate. The military must keep the enemy in good mirth during the COVID lockdown.
And, there is nothing that makes swarthy Jihadis laugh harder than the idea of white soldiers—a mere 55% of the force—walking meekly. The U.S. Military might no longer know Matthew 5:5, but to the enemy, they look like they know who’ll inherit the earth. “Ha, ha.”
This Cultural Marxism of a theory is an ill-founded, purely political, symbolic figment that appeals not to empirical evidence, reason and morality, but to the roiling, base emotions of rage and resentment against anyone with a white face.
Say it! A “white” face: The words media conservatives cannot bring themselves to utter.
Not even Mr. Rufo. The aforementioned path-blazing investigator into, and crusader against, Critical Race Theory in the U.S. concludes his inquiry thus:
“Let me say it plainly: critical race theory is a toxic, pseudoscientific, and racist ideology that is taking over our public institutions—and will be weaponized against the American people.” [Emphasis added]
Yet, the only Americans Critical Race Theory targets with ethnocidal animosity are white Americans.
That’s also the main reason white women like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black: In America, white is bad and black is beautiful.
Contra Tucker Carlson: More than they long to join the “booming racial grievance” industry—as a guest on the Fox News show contended—these pitiful poseurs want to be included in black supremacy’s mythology.
Like black Americans, these women simply want to be looked upon as carrying the heaviest historic baggage; nobler and more righteous than the rest.
The words “preordained and predetermined” are key to understanding Critical Race Theory, according to which power relationships in society are proscribed—and statically fixed for posterity.
Consequently, Critical Race Theory always inveighs against whites and for other, more exotic identities.
Over and above seeking to invert and eviscerate bourgeoisie morality—and instantiations of it like American suburbia—Critical Race Theory does away with reality.
For no matter how impoverished and drug-addicted white America becomes—never mind how often white men are passed over for promotions, opportunities, job placements and positions; no matter the white-hot hatred etched upon pale bodies by knockout gamers—Critical Race Theory has designated the country’s founding demographic as oppressive. Forever.
It’s as evil and atavistic as all that.
By all metrics, one of the most profound early warnings against such postmodernism was sounded by Pope John Paul II in his 1998 encyclical “Faith and Reason.” With unhectoring clarity, the Holy Father spoke, in a postmodern religious wilderness, against the errors of relativism in modern thought.
Who other than Pope John Paul, back then, had pointed to how “a legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism”? And who among men of cloth had the intellectual alacrity to forewarn that inherent in the error of relativism is a rejection of the search for truth, and, with it, reason?
If we accept that all positions are equal and no one position better than the other, we have forfeited our ability to discern, and forthwith our Judeo-Christian heritage, cautioned the pontiff.
Little did John Paul know that one postmodern error—faith in a plurality of equally weighed truths—would spawn an even greater evil: Critical Race Theory, according to which there is only one immutable truth, and it is that white is evil incarnate.
Little did Pope John Paul know that in the hands of the Church’s cherished masses, Critical Race Theory would become a political power tool to exact retribution—and worse—against the pigmentally challenged.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 