Let’s look at the latest garbage about Israel from Politico, as it is illustrative of the “reporting” by the corrupt, know-nothing media and their surrogates.
First, read Politico’s headline and the attack on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his judicial reform effort: “Israel’s Supreme Court overturns a key component of Netanyahu’s polarizing judicial overhaul.”
If you know nothing about this subject, the headline alone suggests Netanyahu is undermining Israel’s judiciary. “Polarizing”? The truth is that since the 1990s, Israel’s Supreme Court has been seizing power from the elected parts of Israel’s government — their Knesset and the prime minister — without any legal authority. That’s polarizing.
Israel does not have a constitution. Therefore, in this void, over time an all-powerful judicial oligarchy or politburo, if you will, has been born. As you can imagine, this judicial politburo is populated with left-wing lawyers.
In fact, so undemocratic and incestuous is this judicial politburo that it has majority control over the appointment authority for its own court, thereby ensuring that the leftists on the court are always in control and can never be displaced with a conservative or even non-leftist majority.
Israel’s judicial tyranny is as bad and pernicious as any other form of governmental tyranny.
So powerful has the judicial politburo become that standing is not even required for any party — person, group, or whatever — to raise any issue. In other words, a party is a legitimate petitioner even if it has no substantive, personal connection to any facts or events in the matter being raised with the court. Nowhere else in the Western world is such a practice permitted because it allows a court to delve into areas of governance where it does not belong.
But for Israel’s judicial politburo, this is purposeful because it enables these left-wing judges to pick and choose among tens of thousands of matters brought before it to legislate on any matter they wish. And the people who bring cases to judicial politburo know it.
The only limitation is the judicial politburo’s own discretion. In a hilariously absurd justification for its tyranny, the judicial politburo calls this “the reasonableness test.” And they’ve gotten away with it for the last 25 years or so.
This judicial politburo is so antithetical to enlightened democratic government and republicanism that it has been condemned by several top legal and judicial scholars, including in our country. It is a judicial tyranny as bad and pernicious as any other form of governmental tyranny. In fact, our own hideous Woodrow Wilson wrote often about controlling and lording over the will of the people and the popularly elected parts of our government through the judiciary by secreting like-minded ideologues into judgeships.
After years of tolerating the increasing authoritarianism of the court, and its constant intervention in and overruling of the Knesset, in matters as wide-ranging as national security and military decisions, religious practices, and anything one might imagine, the Likud Party and smaller conservative parties ran, in part, on an agenda of reforming the most egregious abuses of the judicial politburo.
Having won a significant majority in the election, and after much discussion and negotiation, Prime Minister Netanyahu ultimately endorsed a fairly moderate reform plan that looked much closer to the judicial system in our country. It passed the Knesset but was taken up for review by — you guessed it — the judicial politburo.
Throughout this process, Israel’s hard left, supported by groups not only in Israel but in the United States and Europe, worked against any judicial reforms. And they raised millions of dollars, including dark money from overseas, to kill it. They held huge, organized protests, supported by Israel’s notoriously leftist and anti-Netanyahu media, and enlisted all parts of Israel’s society. In fact, certain military and intelligence groups were urged to participate in the opposition and asked to defy any orders given by Netanyahu as an act of defiance.
The judicial politburo is the only way Israel’s hard left can control governance because it represents roughly 25% of the voters. Hence, it brought Israel to a near civil war to protect judicial corruption. And, of course, it positions itself as defending democracy!
The same sort of propaganda is used in our country when Joe Biden and his regime issue dictatorial fiats or a rogue court abuses its power — for example, denying Donald Trump a ballot position or depriving him of attorney-client privilege.
The campaign in Israel has been led, in part, by the likes of Ehud Barak, an unpopular and discredited former prime minister who had negotiated the horrendous deal with Yasser Arafat to surrender nearly 100% of Judea and Samaria, the ancestral Jewish homeland, as well as significant parts of the Jewish capital of Jerusalem, to the PLO.
But for Arafat pulling out, Israel would not be modern-day Israel. It would be a besieged nation with undefendable borders, among other things. Barak is celebrated in American, Israeli, and European media, as well as by Democratic Party politicians (Biden among them) and operatives, as some kind of defender of democracy and judicial independence. At the same time, Netanyahu is smeared as a dictator and an opponent of the people.
Thus, Israel’s judicial politburo, in a monumental act of judicial autocracy — and in the middle of a war for Israel’s survival, no less! — has done more to destroy Israel’s democracy than any other foe. No wonder it’s being celebrated by Israel’s hard left, their media, our hard left, our media (like Politico), and other societal and cultural entities that hate Israel and America.
Civil rights groups are suing under US law in behalf of immigrant-invaders who are not US citizens and have no protection of US civil right laws. The issue is a Texas state law that permits Texas authorities to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. The claim is that illegal immigrant-invaders are protected from Texas law by federal civil rights law, a nonsense claim that destroys the concept of citizenship.
Remember the “Covid pandemic” when New York was restricting entry of US citizens into New York? How is it that New York can control the entry of US citizens into New York by such measures as imposing a two-week quarantine on arrivals, but Texas can’t control the entry of non-US citizens into Texas? Under the 10th Amendment, Texas has the power to control entry just as northern states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois passed laws designed to prevent free blacks from entering the states to settle.
Those who prefer federal over state power claim that the 10th Amendment is a dead-letter Amendment overturned by the federal government’s assumption of powers not granted to it by the Constitution. A more accurate way to describe this is to say that the federal government’s assumption of powers granted to the states is unconstitutional and must be overturned by the Supreme Court. The only constitutional way an Amendment can be overturned is by repeal. What has happened is a coup against the US Constitution by the federal government. The 10th Amendment has not been repealed. It is still a part of the Constitution. It is simply ignored as all other Amendments increasingly are.
Counts will decide the issue between Texas and the US Department of Justice (sic) on the basis of whether state or federal government has the power to control immigration. As the record shows, northern states prohibited black immigration from the South. Were free blacks considered in the North to be US citizens? The answer seems to be partly but not wholly.
The knee-jerk response of almost every jurist is that the 10th Amendment is no longer part of the Constitution. The ruling is expected to go against Texas. But the question remains why the federal government insists on its unique responsibility for immigration laws that it refuses to enforce.
The greater threat is the claim of some immigrant-invader advocates that the illegal non-citizens have the right under US civil rights laws to residency in the US.
The effort by Democrats in Colorado (and other states) to prevent Donald Trump from being on the ballot in the 2024 election shows a total absence of legal comprehension on the part of the non-diverse 100% Democrat Colorado state supreme court. One wonders where they get these “judges.”
The legally illiterate Democrat judges ruled that Colorado could ban Trump from being on the ballot in Colorado in 2024 for the reason that he engaged in insurrection against the United States. The legally illiterate Colorado Secretary of State said that “Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and was disqualified under the Constitution from the Colorado Ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court got it right.”Viva Naturals Organic …Buy New $12.09 ($0.76 / Fl Oz)(as of 09:50 UTC – Details)
Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has taken it upon herself alone to remove Trump from the ballot for insurrection.
Think about what this means. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. Every member of the Colorado entirely Democrat supreme court and Colorado’s and Maine’sDemocrat secretaries of state assumes that assertion alone is proof of guilt. Clearly, Democrat Colorado and Maine are not states whose officials and judges understand law or are capable of serving justice.
Neither do the Colorado Republicans understand. In their appeal to the US Supreme Court for a ruling on the Colorado state court decision, the Republicans argue that the President is not an officer of the US under the meaning of the provision in the 14th Amendment, that only Congress has the power to apply the insurrection provision, and that Colorado’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would violate the people’s ability to select candidates in primaries. Little doubt this is correct, but why not simply point out that the Colorado supreme court’s ruling is total nonsense, as Trump has not been convicted of insurrection?
The persecutions of Trump are not legitimate. They are weaponizations of law designed to keep power in the hands of the ruling establishment. That these persecutions are not denounced by bar associations, law schools, politicians, media and the American people indicates that the weaponization of law is generally accepted as a legitimate tool in the struggle for power. The Democrats who falsely accused Trump of election interference are now interfering themselves. With the public alerted, the Democrats are unable to steal a third election in a row, and have resorted to the desperate attempt to claim authority they do not have to prevent Trump from running for president.
Democrats have proven that they are tyrants. The acceptance by the American establishment of the obvious use of weaponized law associated with Joseph Stalin indicates that the rule of law is dead in the United States. As time passes, Americans will understand that they are prisoners, and not a free people.
In 2020, the early Democratic primaries were disastrous for former Vice President Joe Biden. He lost the first few states and there was real concern that socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would become the party’s presidential nominee.
At that point, a major party leader, U.S. Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) stepped forward to single handedly save the Biden campaign and deliver the state of South Carolina to Joe Biden. His endorsement was powerful and effectively ended the nomination contest. After South Carolina’s victory, it was clear sailing for Biden toward the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Democrat voters were told that Biden was “solid,” a “moderate” and “reasonable.” If elected, it was promised, Biden would deliver traditional Democrat policies, within the mainstream.
In the 2020 general election versus President Donald Trump, Biden was promoted to the American people as an “adult” who would restore America’s standing and leadership in the world. With Biden as President, America would rebuild our relationship with allies that had supposedly been tarnished by the “unhinged” and ‘unpredictable” Trump.
Of course, the reality of the last three years has shown the American people the Biden campaign’s promises of 2020 were complete lies.
As President, Biden has supported policies as destructive and progressive as any in American history. Most progressives, like Senator Sanders, are supportive of Biden’s agenda and surprised that the “moderate” President never materialized.
As President, Biden has rarely collaborated with Republicans on bi-partisan legislation as he promised. In his first year, he issued 77 executive orders, more than any of his recent predecessors.
While Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, Biden worked to pass gargantuan pieces of legislation. The American Rescue Plan cost $1.9 trillion, the Infrastructure bill cost $1.2 trillion and the ludicrously named Inflation Reduction Act cost $1.2 trillion.
Not surprisingly, such an explosion of federal government spending has led to a huge expansion in the federal debt to $33.96 trillion, an increase of $6.2 trillion since Biden took office.
The rapid surge in spending also caused a steady increase in inflation throughout the first two years of Biden’s term, reaching as high as 9.06% in June of 2022. Today, the inflation rate is 3.14%, still much higher than the 1.4% level at the end of the Trump administration.
To combat the skyrocketing increase in inflation, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates 11 times, to the highest levels since 2001. This effectively boosted mortgage rates outside of the price range of many families trying to buy a home and enjoy the American dream. In just one year, mortgage payments soared 19% for homebuyers
Without question, President Joe Biden’s economic policies created financial chaos for American families. The impact of “Bidenomics” has been incredibly negative, which is a major reason Biden’s poll numbers are so horrific. A recent Monmouth University poll showed Biden’s approval rating at a record low 34% level.
Biden is also unpopular because he created chaos at our southern border. Instead of maintaining President Trump’s successful policies, he decided to roll out the welcome mat for the world.
He ended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, reinstituted “Catch and Release,” and stopped construction of the border wall. The result has been an influx of millions of undocumented migrants into our country.
Border states and major cities are overwhelmed with migrants and are looking for more federal assistance to deal with the influx. Our border patrol is understaffed and unable to do more than process the tremendous surge of migrants crossing into our country.
Instead of making improvements, the Biden administration is only making the problem worse. Over the past month, 300,000 migrants crossed the southern border into the country. This is a new record, surpassing the September 2023 total of 270,000 border crossings.
Under Biden, our immigration system is totally broken. Most migrants are allowed into the country with no asylum screenings and court dates for several years in the future. It is so ridiculous that less than 800 immigration judges are supposed to oversee a backlog of 3 million cases.
Worldwide, Biden has also created tremendous chaos in the last three years. His withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan in 2021 was the biggest foreign policy debacle in recent United States history.
In our hasty exit, thirteen military service members were killed in a terrorist attack, and we left behind American citizens and Afghan allies. We gave a terrorist group, the Taliban, control of the entire country, including all the military equipment we left behind and the enormous Bagram air base.
The embarrassing exit and resulting damage to our international reputation undoubtedly encouraged Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine in February of 2022. The war is still raging, almost two years later, despite $113 billion in American military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.
There is also the Israel-Hamas war, largely caused by the Biden administration’s soft policy toward Iran, which lessened sanctions and enriched the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism.
Along with the two ongoing wars, North Korea is saber rattling and “preparing for war” against the United States. It just launched its first successful spy satellite into space.
In addition, China is continuing to threaten Taiwan, after successfully sending a spy balloon across our country. Venezuela is also threatening to invade the neighboring country of Guyana.
While Donald Trump was President, none of this domestic or international chaos was occurring. In fact, there was prosperity at home and peace abroad.
Trump engaged the North Korean dictator in three successful summits. While Trump was President, Putin invaded no countries and Hamas did not have the resources to invade Israel because of the considerable sanctions he placed on their major benefactor, Iran.
During the Trump presidency, our southern border was secure, and our economy was strong.
In this upcoming election, the choice for the American people will be chaos (Biden) versus stability (Trump).
After the debacle of the Joe Biden presidency, is there any doubt which choice the American people will make in November?
Back on July 23, the Obamas’ personal chef Tafari Campbell “disappeared while paddleboarding in the waters of Edgartown Great Pond on Martha’s Vineyard.” The death of the 45-year-old was “ruled an accident,” but troubling questions failed to float away.
Campbell had posted videos of himself swimming laps, so it was strange that an able swimmer perished in eight feet of water, in a pond for the most part half that depth. Several reports mentioned another paddleboarder who saw Campbell go under. According to the Daily Mail, the observer was a 26-year-old female who worked for the Obamas, but the eyewitness remained unidentified.
It was also unclear who had called 911, but the dispatch was directed to the Obamas’ estate. The official police report is heavily redacted but does reveal that the medical examiner found a “small ½ centimeter abrasion” on Campbell’s upper lip.
Any personal chef is in a position to gain intimate details about his employer, especially a chef regarded as a beloved part of the Obama family. Tafari Campbell could easily have seen or heard something he wasn’t supposed to see or hear.
Like Luca Brasi in The Godfather, the chef now sleeps with the fishes, and like Paulie Gatto the Obamas aren’t going to see him anymore. A week after Campbell’s death, more realities about the former president came to the surface.
In Tablet’s August 2 “The Obama Factor,” David Samuels interviewed Pulitzer Prize winner David Garrow, author of the massive Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. On page 538 readers learn:
Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction. It featured many true-to-life figures and a bevy of accurately described events that indeed had occurred, but it employed the techniques and literary license of a novel, and its most important composite character was the narrator himself. (Garrow’s emphasis)
The composite character didn’t like Garrow’s revelation. “He wants people to believe his story,” Garrow told Samuels. “For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction—oh God, did that infuriate him.” A reporter also told Garrow that Obama’s staffers were “terrified of people poking around Obama’s life. The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it’s not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels.”
For David Samuels, the fictitious character of Dreams is responsible for “the disaster we are living through now.” The Tablet editor provides a roster of Obama officials still running White House policy to this day.
The composite character would surely like a fourth term through wife Michelle, whose books also bear the auto-hagiographical style of “Obama’s narrator” David Axelrod. A fourth term would give the Dreams author, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, the opportunity to fulfill his transformative role as national undertaker. While the election awaits, other events portend what the people might expect in 2024.
Last January, China’s spy balloon crossed the United States surveilling military bases and wasn’t shot down until it reached the east coast. Under Joe Biden, the Chinese can do pretty much anything they want, so expect more Chinese incursions in the new year.
On March 27, in the run-up to “Trans Day of Vengeance,” Audrey Hale murdered nine-year-olds Evelyn Dieckhaus, William Kinney and Hallie Scruggs and also shot dead adults Mike Hill, Katherine Koonce and Cynthia Peak. The Biden White House failed to condemn the shooter or name the victims, and portrayed the “trans community” as “under attack.” Expect more trans murder sprees in 2024.
On August 9, the FBI shot and killed Craig Robertson a 75-year-old woodworker who had allegedly made online threats against Joe Biden. The FBI now regards anyone less than worshipful of Biden as a domestic terrorist or violent extremist. Expect more deadly violence from the FBI in 2024.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists committed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, launching a tsunami of Jew hatred on American campuses. Harvard president Claudine Gay tries to see anti-Semitism “in context,” and gets support from the composite character as she faces charges of plagiarism. Expect more plagiarism and anti-Semitism on Ivy League campuses in 2024. There could also be more mysterious deaths like that of Tafari Campbell.
According to the police report, his case is closed “pending any future information that would warrant it being re-opened.” Investigative journalists should look into it. As David Garrow confirms, when you poke around the composite character’s life, there’s no telling what you’ll find. Happy New Year everybody.
As 2023 comes to a close, two stories are receiving renewed attention: the unprecedented immigrant invasion at the Southern border and Democrats’ ongoing legal efforts to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Neither story is a surprise, since Democrats depended entirely on the importation of new voters from foreign lands (usually third-world indoctrination mills for some form of Marxist socialism) and a series of partisan judicial rulings that legalized mail-in ballot fraud in 2020 to make habitually unpopular Joe Biden the most popularly “elected” president in American history. In risible contrast to Democrats’ effusive public adoration for “democracy,” judicial fiat has always been their preferred method for “ruling.” Those who prattle most about “saving democracy” desire nothing more than for black-robed authoritarians to “fix” elections before the public has even had its say.
Professor Victor Davis Hanson has written an excellent essay about how today’s Democrat “ballot banishers” emulate nineteenth-century Democrat efforts to ban Abraham Lincoln from the 1860 election — before their subsequent loss led them to reject that election’s results (which they had attempted to rig) and form a breakaway Confederacy. In comparing the Democrats’ election-riggers of today with those in the lead-up to the Civil War, Hanson finds no shortage of similarities. Just as antebellum Democrats rejected federal tariffs that affected the profitability of King Cotton and later nullified federal laws enacted to end racial segregation, Democrats today insolently repudiate federal immigration statutes by establishing unlawful “sanctuary cities.” Just as nineteenth-century Democrats obsessed over skin color, today’s Democrats do, too. Just as post-Civil War Democrats fought to segregate people by race, today’s Democrats embrace a “woke” collection of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” initiatives (further evidence that we have entered Orwell’s dreaded dystopia where words mean their antonyms) that segregate campus dorms, graduations, holiday parties, and “safe spaces” and reward people not for their meritorious achievements but rather for their racial composition.
Finally, Hanson takes a look at the Big Tech-dominated economies of today’s Democrat strongholds and sees a mirror image of nineteenth-century Democrats’ plantation society centered around cotton and slavery. While Democrats once expected the riffraff to call them “master,” today’s Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Bank “masters of the universe” are slave-owners in every way but name. Within the new technocratic plantations that Democrats have constructed, an extremely small class of elites possess wealth and political power, while everyone else struggles to stay above abject poverty.
Welcome to the Democrats’ “Great Reset” (or as Dementia Joe calls it, Bidenomics) — where you own nothing and better look happy about it (Dems won’t tolerate uppity Bible-thumpers and freedom-minded folk!), and the racial segregationists own everything and expect the peasants to obey. Or, as Hanson concludes, the policies of today’s Democrats are identical to those who attempted to rig the 1860 election against Lincoln: “erasing ballots, defying federal laws, fixating on race and racial privileges, and catering to a one-dimensional medieval economy and caste, amid a growing underclass struggling with neglected infrastructure, poor schools, and growing poverty.” On the Democrat plantation, the more things change, the more they stay the same!
Hanson’s dissection of Democrat behavior sure does put Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (a corporate club for global governance) and all the Western politicians who sing the same “build back better” tune into proper perspective, doesn’t it? Oligarchs didn’t just begin conquering the world yesterday; global empire has always been their focus. Democrat plantation owners told their slaves that they’d “own nothing and be happy,” and Klaus and his Marxist globalist pantheon of central bank thieves, propaganda-spouting bureaucrats, and transnational corporate parasites have retooled those same antebellum policies in order to resurrect a future of financial masters and debt-controlled slaves.
is worth remembering that many global observers believed Confederate Democrats would be victorious in the Civil War. They had wealth, status, privilege, and a valuable crop exported around the world. They had the backing of international merchants whose fortunes depended on American slave labor (much as international corporations depend on Chinese slave labor today). They had a sophisticated and aristocratic culture that haughty elites preferred over the bourgeois attitudes naturally incubated in the manufacturing towns of the industry-laden North. They had transnational bankers willing to back their play for secession and independence (in return for a new financial foothold on the North American continent).
Furthermore, Confederate Democrats were steeped in esteemed history, social traditions, and political power. After all, one of the principal justifications for the creation of an Electoral College in the Constitution was to mitigate Southern political power (four of the first five American presidents were from Virginia, analogous to how politicians from California and New York dominate national leadership positions today). Putting all these factors together, the odds that nineteenth-century Democrats’ plantation system (or what the WEF globalists call their “Great Reset” new world order) would prevail during the Civil War were quite high. 
Ultimately, nineteenth-century Democrats’ “plantation world order” collapsed because it could not keep pace with the capital-accumulating effects and technological innovations unleashed by the wealth-creating dynamo of private property and free markets. When the Industrial Revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries took hold in the United States, Americans’ work ethic, rejection of aristocratic privilege, and embrace of private property regardless of class combined to propel the working poor into middle class trades. From there, the possibilities for economic advancement were limited not by one’s academic degree or family pedigree but rather by one’s frontier daring, penchant for hard work, and willingness to keep struggling.
If you ever find yourself in a rare books library that contains the travel diaries, economic notes, and social observations of visitors to America from its days as a collection of colonies all the way through the first part of the twentieth century, a common refrain you will notice is this: no other nation on the planet produced such astounding intergenerational social mobility. Only in America could the descendants of indentured servants become farmers, millers, shopkeepers, factory owners, industrialists, bankers, and statesmen in the course of a few generations.
What happened? Marxist socialism and other pre-“woke” mind viruses gutted the broad wealth-generating effects of private property ownership and its attendant rise in social mobility. A hundred and ten years ago in 1913, President Wilson (a Big Government socialist) and Democrats (along with “progressive” Uniparty Republicans) succeeded in legalizing a national income tax (through ratification of the 16th Amendment) and granting a private bank (the Federal Reserve) the centralized power to print and devalue American currency. It is no accident that oligarchs had to first legalize the theft of Americans’ incomes before they could then erect an inflationary system that enriched financial and political elites by draining wealth from poor and middle class Americans. America’s once-vaunted intergenerational social mobility subsequently collapsed. The Democrats lost the Civil War only to succeed in establishing their “plantation world order” nonetheless.
Ultimately, nineteenth-century Democrats’ “plantation world order” collapsed because it could not keep pace with the capital-accumulating effects and technological innovations unleashed by the wealth-creating dynamo of private property and free markets. When the Industrial Revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries took hold in the United States, Americans’ work ethic, rejection of aristocratic privilege, and embrace of private property regardless of class combined to propel the working poor into middle class trades. From there, the possibilities for economic advancement were limited not by one’s academic degree or family pedigree but rather by one’s frontier daring, penchant for hard work, and willingness to keep struggling.
If you ever find yourself in a rare books library that contains the travel diaries, economic notes, and social observations of visitors to America from its days as a collection of colonies all the way through the first part of the twentieth century, a common refrain you will notice is this: no other nation on the planet produced such astounding intergenerational social mobility. Only in America could the descendants of indentured servants become farmers, millers, shopkeepers, factory owners, industrialists, bankers, and statesmen in the course of a few generations.
What happened? Marxist socialism and other pre-“woke” mind viruses gutted the broad wealth-generating effects of private property ownership and its attendant rise in social mobility. A hundred and ten years ago in 1913, President Wilson (a Big Government socialist) and Democrats (along with “progressive” Uniparty Republicans) succeeded in legalizing a national income tax (through ratification of the 16th Amendment) and granting a private bank (the Federal Reserve) the centralized power to print and devalue American currency. It is no accident that oligarchs had to first legalize the theft of Americans’ incomes before they could then erect an inflationary system that enriched financial and political elites by draining wealth from poor and middle class Americans. America’s once-vaunted intergenerational social mobility subsequently collapsed. The Democrats lost the Civil War only to succeed in establishing their “plantation world order” nonetheless.
For the first time in over a century, a majority of Americans realize that they have been hoodwinked and that today’s “climate change” communism is just another iteration of a King Cotton economy. The “woke,” “progressive,” “DEI”-obsessed coalition of Marxist globalists are nothing more than plantation masters who hide behind “politically correct” platitudes while buying and selling slaves.
The question for 2024 and beyond is this: will we continue to see a resurgence of popular support for the very things that were once taken for granted in the United States — private property ownership, dependable forms of money immune from central bank manipulation, impartial due process, and respect for free speech? If so, then we have a real chance to end the Democrats’ “plantation world order” once and for all. That is what makes this “awakening” great.
The Republican Party has a problem. Okay, so they have a lot of problems, but the most glaring problem affects them from both the electoral perspective as well as on the policy side.
As independent conservative journalist Emerald Robinson pointed out, the GOP has a problem with picking who is going to represent the “future” of the party, especially with their presidential candidates..
The GOP thinks Nikki Haley is the future of the party.
In 2016, the GOP thought Jeb Bush was the future of the party.
In 2012, the GOP thought Mitt Romney was the future of the party.
In 2008, the GOP thought John McCain was the future of the party.
But to be fair, the “party” she refers to is really just one portion of the GOP. MAGA patriots and America First lawmakers do not align with the choices of the Republican Establishment. And there are more MAGA patriots than not among GOP voters. Unfortunately, the power-brokers and mega-donors in the GOP generally embrace the crony capitalism that not only infects the party’s leaders, but also does great harm to the nation. This is why there are so few America First lawmakers despite a majority of Republican voters who want better.
When the money and the GOP insiders align to put forth RINOs, NeoCons, and compromised candidates, the MAGA base is often forced to choose between milquetoast moderate Republicans or radical Democrats in the general election.
This, above all else, is why I firmly believe the primaries are far more important than the general election. Even an America First president like Donald Trump could not force the Republican Establishment to pass an Obamacare repeal or build the wall when they had a majority during the first two years of Trump’s first term.
We need an America First presidential candidate in 2024, but that’s not enough. We also need America First lawmakers on Capitol Hill and we need America First leadership at the RNC. It all comes down to the primaries.
The battle to nominate real patriots instead of RINO puppets of the UniParty Swamp is already in full swing. It’s time for the MAGA majority among GOP voters to stop watching Fox News, stop listening to NeverTrump radio, and put their efforts toward nominating America First candidates.
Colorado appears to be backing down from its promise to take Trump off the ballot for 2024.
Good news is so rare these days … I will take it. But why did the leftists blink? Leftists don’t blink. There is more to this, I promise you. My theory: They’re confident the fix is in. With zero legal or media push back, repeating 2020 will be easy. And they’re pretty confident they will get Trump behind bars. I am too. But will that be enough to defeat him? It’s going to be an interesting, though not necessarily uplifting, year in world history. Fasten your seat belts.
The West shares an old problem with the rest of the world: the constant menace of totalitarian zealots determined to interfere in the lives of others, however they brand themselves ideologically, citing religious or political dogma.
What sets the West apart is that it has actually been the home of free thought since the Enlightenment. However, the pressure on freedom worldwide has been growing; there is no such thing as eternal peace. Civilization depends on solidly founded institutions for its lasting protection against barbarism—and as always, the Jews are the canary in the coalmine. Totalitarianism, whether it marches under the banners of fascism, socialism, or Islamism, has the Jews and free society as its enemies.
Increasing its vulnerability to totalitarianism, the West has a tendency to melancholic self-torment that has weakened morality and social cohesion, and without warning, it reached a peak three years ago, prompted by controversial police business. On the tarmac of a Minneapolis intersection and under the knee of an officer, a career criminal died, as upset bystanders filmed the incident. Both the main officer and his colleagues were convicted in court, and it would seem that justice had thereby been served. Even before the legal proceedings were over however, things unraveled.
Leftist news outlets and social media unanimously canonized the deceased. Straight away, his death became the symbol of an alleged social phenomenon called “structural racism.” Posthumously, the 46-year-old man, a rapper wannabe, but without any real success in life, rose to fame, presented as the very epitome of a victim in the equally destructive and mendacious oppressor-oppressed narrative of our time.
Subsequently, riots broke out across the country. For a start, the street protests may have evoked nostalgic memories of the 1960s civil rights battles—however, the agenda was completely different this time. Marches led by political activists, who instantly scented the morning air of untapped opportunities, though typically characterized as “mostly peaceful,” deteriorated into random vandalism and Haitian-style mass lootings. Not humility, but vengeance, characterized the attitude of the ravaging crowd.
As the protests spread, it became clear that they were set on crushing the institutional framework of the Western world. That was the true scope of the conflict. In short, the protests challenged a social order resting on freedoms and the rule of law. Under the guise of moral outrage, implacably anti-democratic forces in the midst of our society, “anti-racist,” “anti-colonialist,” or plainly “socialist” by name, succeeded in seducing public opinion.
Held back by indecision, authorities allowed a general atmosphere of anarchy to paralyze large parts of society, notably in cities like Portland, Los Angeles, and Seattle. At the time, slogans such as “defund the police” echoed in the streets. Revolution was in the air. A motley crew of self-styled “leaders,” who all had issues with the present society, mingled with the crowd and called for a fight against “capitalism,” “colonialism” (past and present), “Zionism,” and “moral traditionalism,” which included “sexual conventionalism.” The perception that the most savage attacks on social order were somehow legitimate, combined with the absence of law enforcement, emboldened every resentful maladaptee. Now was the chance to take revenge on the world.
Like socialist agitators of the past, the leaders of Black Lives Matter (BLM) knew how to play the game—they were “trained” Marxists after all. Impatient to exploit the momentum and rally the protesters around a common cause, they leaned towards conspiratorial rhetoric. It represents a strategy well-known from the recruitment of the street mob: Blame everybody but yourself for the misfortunes of your life (e.g. “white bigots,” “capitalists,” or “Jews”—depending on the political season). Rather than having to account for anything, the terrifying brigades of covetous, envious, and maladapted souls could now, inspired by BLM, plead their victimhood.
Obvious distortions of historical realities (the 1619 Project), set the ideological agenda. Being rewritten from the revisionist perspective of identity politics, history turned into a single indictment against people of European descent for racism—and, implicitly, a colonialist view of the rest of the world. At universities, a witch-hunt for academics unwilling to sacrifice truth for political orthodoxy cost unknown numbers of employees their livelihoods. Undocumented, grotesque claims of such a nature that they ought to embarrass the scientific community, conflicting with common sense, principles of civilized reasonability, and the spirit of the constitution, gained access to the classrooms, creating distrust and division between population groups.
Alienated from the spirit of the founding fathers, by the looks of it, the nation that heroically saved the world from totalitarian rule during World War II and the Soviet era now approached a state of perplexity. The absence of organized, assertive resistance from a great nation, whose freedom-loving constitution and democratic institutions have been ideals for the rest of the world, was at least as disheartening as the pure savagery of the protesters.
Not least the vulnerability of honored academic institutions, like the universities of Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, to the wildest whims of wokeism (e.g. the toe-curling “teachings” of philosophical impostors such as Ibram Xolani Kendi) and anti-Semitic activism is deeply shameful; it shows a disturbing degree of intellectual cowardice.
The universities, if any, should stand together in these times of crisis and issue a call to arms, protecting the nation from the enemies of civilization. However, it is as if the academia of the West, in the absence of Christianity, has no real resilience to show for it, but falters before a determined enemy; hoping to appease the totalitarian beast it is willing to submit to irrationality and barbarism. It has allowed the uncivilized, violent street fighters to storm the gates and conquer the campus and auditoriums with intolerance, hate speech, and cancellation.
The development in our society is reminiscent of the ravaging behavior of Nazi thugs in the streets of the Weimar Republic, culminating in Kristallnacht, and at German and Austrian universities in the late 1930s. Millennia-old nations of culture then fell without any appreciable resistance in the fight against barbarism. Neither as individuals nor as a group, unprotected by the rest of society (which barely recognizes the existential threat to free thought), do the present-day academics have the courage to go against the violent activists rampaging the streets. To survive as private persons, they can choose to go along with it, feigning sympathy for the subversive agenda, or withdraw from public life altogether.
Who, then, might come to our rescue and resist the toxic propaganda of wokeism (and socialism)? Who will safeguard our way of life? To whom can we ultimately entrust the responsibility of protecting our precious institutions from degradation by totalitarian forces in society?
English professor emeritus Mark Weightman Bauerlein has been a relentless critic of his contemporaries. In books and lectures, he has chronicled the intellectual decline at American universities, warning against the effects of undue politicization, like anti-meritocratic initiatives under the heading of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). Making a mockery of academic excellence, it is a disturbing tendency that has the potential to undermine our civilization.
Originally, Bauerlein portrayed the generation named “millennials.” With unwavering faith in the future, sociologists and others from the progressive elite had self-assuredly predicted these people to become the best educated of all generations in history. However, Bauerlein argues that the millennials, which should take over the world and make it at better place to live, have disappointed terribly. The same, for that matter, generally applies to their successors, the so-called “zoomers,” who occupy campus in 2023. Too self-absorbed, complacent, and lazy to make the necessary sacrifices of scientific commitment, they follow the whims of political fashion, susceptible to sentimental, dramatized evidence and the machinations of pseudoscience, e.g. sociological and environmental.
Strangers to history, classical literature, and natural sciences, the young students evade the comprehensive reading (and disciplined, meticulous learning) of previous generations, and are largely ignorant. Accordingly, they are incapable of the critical, independent, and balanced assessment of facts that should characterize an academic. They are helpless kids swayed by propaganda based on distorted notions of victimhood, the intrinsic evil of the West, and the unlimited right to reparation of the oppressed.
BLM took advantage of an unfortunate death to step up its fight against Western society. The movement exploited the sympathy that rightfully belonged to the civil rights movement, took the fight a step further, crossed the line, and ultimately joined the enemies of freedom; the policy makers did so because they are socialists at heart. In the wake of the “10/7” atrocities, the organization of BLM showed its true colors by siding with Islamists in the Middle East.
A black man expired under the knee of a white man, and his death was a gift to leftwing political activists—the extremists. To the enemies of freedom, death does not mark tragedy, but opportunity; death serves as the fuel of political zealotism.
Many keep wondering about the alliance between socialists and Islamists. What could they possibly have in common? Well, a common enemy, stupid! And that enemy is the West, the open society, enlightenment, and freedom. America, ultimately.
Lars Møller holds the position of chief physician at a psychotherapeutic clinic for patients with severe personality disorders, PTSD etc.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
Thank you.$5$10$50Other
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.
Then the Lord said unto me, Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land. – Jeremiah 1:13-14
Strictly speaking, Israel’s Gaza war is not a tragedy, but rather a hideous accident. Many wars wait for years to happen until they can’t be stopped. Those are the tragedies. This one never should have happened. Israeli intelligence had the plans for the October 7 Hamas attack a year in advance, as well as urgent warnings from lower-echelon officers just before the event. But the top military and political leadership brushed them off.
This fits a venerable pattern. Stalin had the plans for Operation Barbarossa from his spy Victor Sorge; U.S. Naval Intelligence had warnings about the attack on Pearl Harbor; and the FBI had the jigsaw-puzzle pieces of 9/11, but failed to fit them together. Intelligence services are not rewarded for timely warnings, but for serving their masters’ political agendas, and Israel’s fabled spies turned out to be no different than their counterparts in other countries. Believing that $40 million a month in subsidies from Qatar and other economic concessions would keep Hamas quiet, the Israeli government refused to consider anything else.
There simply is no contest between 300,000 regular troops from the Israel Defense Forces and 30,000 to 40,000 lightly armed Hamas irregulars, any more than there was a contest between ISIS and the American army and its proxies. Whether Hamas is entirely or largely extirpated from Gaza depends on the extent to which Israel can resist American pressure to vitiate its operations. The outcome will not be much different in any case. Whatever happens, most of Gaza’s two million residents will spend the next couple of years in tent camps while the rest of the world dickers about what to do with them. Their living conditions will be similar to those of the more than 200,000 Jewish refugees who lived in tent cities for up to two years after they were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 war.
For all the horrors of the October 7 attacks, they did not constitute an existential crisis for a country with the region’s most powerful military and an extraordinary capacity for national solidarity in the face of external threat.
The existential danger to Israel comes not from its southern border, but rather—as in Jeremiah 1:13-14—from the distant north, specifically Ukraine. The Biden Administration previously imagined that it could force regime change in Russia through crippling sanctions. Instead, a large part of world trade and financial currents skirted American sanctions, leaving Russia with barely-diminished oil revenues and a steady supply of high-tech components from China, directly and through such intermediaries as Turkey, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Armenia. Rather than collapsing by 50 percent as President Biden predicted, Russia’s economy grew by 3 percent in 2023 after contracting by just 2.1 percent in 2022. Putin had an 80 percent approval rating as of October 2023. The Biden team is responsible for the grossest blunder in the checkered history of American foreign policy.
America’s strategic position is about to suffer a blow on par with, and perhaps more devastating than, the 1975 collapse of Vietnam. With a resident population of less than 30 million against Russia’s population of 147 million, Ukraine cannot put enough men in the field to hold the line against a Russian army with comparable technology and much greater firepower. The West can’t produce enough artillery shells, so Ukraine is firing hundreds of howitzer shells daily while Russia fires thousands. Both sides have lost 70,000 to 100,000 and three or four times that number wounded, but Russia has several times more people. None of the West’s Wunderwaffen have made a difference, and the Russians have some nasty weapons of their own, as well as clear air superiority.
Attempting to move NATO’s boundaries to the Russian-Ukraine border may have been the stupidest act in the sorry drama of American foreign policy, and President Biden’s declaration on March 26, 2022 that Putin cannot be allowed to remain in power may be the emptiest boast ever by an American leader. With few exceptions, the American foreign policy establishment has wagered its credibility on the outcome of this war. Although a few establishment stalwarts like Richard Haass talk of “redefining success in Ukraine,” i.e., declaring victory and going home, most of the Establishment has closed ranks. The professional penalties for doing otherwise are severe.
Making Enemies
The atmosphere in Washington resembles Vienna in the Spring of 1914 as depicted by Robert Musil in The Man Without Qualities (1930): The reader, but none of the protagonists, knows that their world of illusions is about to come to a horrible end. The American Establishment refuses to know this, but Russia knows it, as do China, the Gulf States, and everyone else. The change in the world balance of power after the collapse of Ukraine will be so dramatic that all the players in this global game are cautious about their next step. But Russia and China are probing American weaknesses in ways that remain well below the threshold of a casus belli, testing American responses.
Israel will suffer collateral damage. It needs American weapons, ammunition, and spare parts, especially with ammunition stockpiles depleted by the Ukraine war. It also depends on America’s veto at the U.N. Security Council. It does not help that the Biden Administration, with a view toward the pro-Palestinian sympathy of its progressive base, is doing whatever it can to hold Israel back from the military actions required to mop up Hamas. Although the American alliance is indispensable for Israel in the short term, the decline of American power will contribute to the strategic encirclement of Israel over time.
The late Henry Kissinger was asked on October 20, in his last published interview: “Is there the possibility for Russia to show greater involvement in the Middle East?” He answered: “Before the Ukrainian war, Russia was generally in favor of Israel in the confrontation with Arabs. If Russia now would intervene, it has two options: to engage on the side of the Arabs or to appear as a mediator in the crisis—which would be strange in light of the Ukrainian war.”
Since Russia intervened in the Syrian civil war in 2015 to prevent the Sunni jihad against the Assad government from creeping into the Russian Caucasus, Israel and Russia have maintained correct if not cordial relations in the Syrian theater. The Russians stood by while the Israeli Air Force flew thousands of sorties against Iranian-backed militias in Syria. That is critical for Israel’s security on its northern flank, where it faces a Hezbollah force three times as large as Hamas, armed with perhaps 150,000 missiles, including many modern models that may be able to evade Israeli defenses.
Now Russia’s turn toward Iran is cause for serious concern. At the end of November, Iran announced that it had “finalized” a deal to buy Russian SU-35 fighters from Russia, an airframe roughly comparable to the F-15s flown by the Israelis. It is not known whether the Russians will sell fully-loaded warplanes with advanced avionics and air-to-air missiles, or a less potent export version. Presumably, that is a matter for negotiation.
The Russians play chess while Americans play Monopoly, and the obvious Russian move in response to an American attempt to control the center of the board in Ukraine is to open a fianchetto with Iran.
If Washington chooses to demonize Russia, the likelihood is that Russia will become a spoiler with respect to American strategic interests in general, and use the Iranian problem to twist America’s tail. That is a serious risk indeed, for nuclear proliferation is the one means by which outlaw regimes can pose a serious threat to great powers. Russia confronts questions not of expediency, but of existence, and it will do whatever it can to gain maneuvering room should the West seek to “punish” it for its actions in Georgia.
One irony of the present crisis is that Washington’s neo-conservatives, by demanding a tough stance against Russia, may have harmed Israel’s security interests more profoundly than any of Israel’s detractors in American politics. The neo-conservatives are not as a rule Jewish, but many of them are Jews who have a deep concern for Israel’s security—as does this writer. If America turns Russia into a strategic adversary, the probability of Israel’s survival will drop by a big notch.
Putin’s state visit to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, complete with military aircraft streaming the Russian colors, was “nothing less than Putin’s return to the world stage,” Germany’s DieWelt wrote Dec. 12. Later that week Putin received senior Iranian officials in Moscow.
Knives Out
Iran evidently decided to sit out the present Gaza conflict, rather than (as many feared) opening a second front against Israel in the north. But it is probing through its cat’s paw militias, testing Western responses. Hezbollah fired about 50 rockets at Israeli positions in November, compared to 4,000 rockets during the 2006 Lebanon war. The Houthi militia of Yemen has fired anti-ship missiles and drones at civilian ships, effectively diverting freight traffic out of the Red Sea. On December 18, the Pentagon announced a ten-country coalition (with the glaring absence of the Gulf States) to protect shipping.
In Asia, meanwhile, China’s navy Dec. 10 staged a minor standoff with Japanese vessels near the disputed Senkaku Islands. Chinese ships have harassed Philippine vessels with water cannons as they attempted to resupply Philippine forces in the South China Sea.
These are probes rather than preparations for war. The reading that China drew from Xi Jinping’s mid-November summit with President Biden is that America is frightened by the prospect of military engagement with China. The main American ask in San Francisco was the restoration of the hotline between the two militaries, which China suspended after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. China also extracted an unambiguous statement from the White House that “we obviously don’t support independence for Taiwan.”
The U.S. Navy is outgunned within 1,000 miles or so of China’s coast. “The [People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s] ground-based missile forces complement the air and sea-based precision strike capabilities of the PLAAF and PLAN,” reported the Pentagon’s on November 29, 2022. “The PLARF continues to grow its inventory of DF-26 IRBMs, which are designed to rapidly swap conventional and nuclear warheads. They are also capable of precision land-attack and anti-ship strikes in the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and the South China Sea from mainland China.” Like the Battleship Lobby of the 1930s, the Pentagon built the wrong kind of fleet: Too many aircraft carriers, now as vulnerable as battleships in 1940, and not enough submarines. To call attention to this fact is career suicide, which explains why the public debate focuses on cheap, quick fixes—more 155mm shells and HIMARS rockets for Taiwan, for example.
A Ukrainian defeat in the form of a significant loss of territory and a long-term ceasefire would remind the rest of the world of Kissinger’s quip that it is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but fatal to be our friend.
Israel will have to deal with a less cooperative Russia that dallies with Iran, a China that seeks to exploit anti-colonial resentment in the Global South against Israel, a more assertive and better-armed Iran, and a vitiated American commitment to Western Asia. Its immediate problems are less dire than they appear: Except for Qatar and possibly some parts of the Turkish political spectrum, the rest of the world is happy to see Israel destroy Hamas. The Sunni jihad to which Hamas declares its allegiance is a persistent security problem for both Russia and China. Iran has armed and funded Hamas, but it does not want a Sunni entity to emerge as the main opposition to Israel. Israel’s long-term problems, though, are worse than they appear, and will come to the surface when the dust settles in Ukraine.
The event most likely to mitigate Israel’s strategic predicament would be the election of Donald Trump to a second term in 2024. Unlike the neoconservatives and global liberals presently in charge, Trump has no interest in regime change in Russia, and has no reason to perpetuate the blunders of others. He has pledged to end the war in Ukraine, which means cutting America’s losses. He is likely to maintain strong American support for Israel while limiting damage to America’s position abroad by conflict avoidance with Russia and China. Unlike the Biden foreign policy team, Trump has little interest in how other countries manage their affairs: his concern is the best deal for the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.Free Republic Browse · SearchPings · MailNews/Activism Topics · Post Article
Ah, the grand old art of making people hate one another. It’s as easy as telling Group A that Group B think they’re a bunch of lowbrows who wouldn’t know culture if it came up and bit them on their mass-market jeans. Then you flip the script and inform Group B that Group A look down on them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for unflushed toilets. Don’t even try to use logic; we’re dealing in the commodity of raw, unrefined emotions here. Groups C, D, and E may also get involved, depending on the size of the conspiracy theory you’re spinning. You can stir the pot or set the whole kitchen on fire.
Why make people hate one another? Well, it’s either because you’re the type of person who believes that “divide and conquer” is a great strategy for a Tuesday afternoon, or you’re nursing a grudge against society so big that it needs its own ZIP code. Sure, real conspiracies are out there, playing hide and seek. But why not toss a few faux conspiracies into the mix? It’s like adding a little glitter to the dust — distracts the eye while the real dirt gets swept under the rug.
Now let’s take Marxist ideology for a spin. This is a conspiracy theory on steroids, jazzed up with academic jargon. It’s a long and winding tale of how, since Adam and Eve decided to binge on a fruit diet, the rich have been conspiring against the poor, inventing such devious instruments of oppression as gods and religion, private property, family, the rule of law, and that pesky thing called morality. Modern remixes include gender, race, ethnicity, and even flipping the bird at different species, climate, and the environment.
What’s the endgame? You chop up society into neat little groups — A, B, C, and so on. Feed them a steady diet of bile to turn them against one another, with each faction glaring suspiciously at their neighbors, as if everyone’s scheming to pilfer the biggest slice of the communal pie. And then, with a flourish, you step in as the hero, promising to turn off this horror show if — and only if — they hand you the keys to the kingdom. Classic.
The good old USSR wielded a playbook of divisive tactics so cunning, it could’ve made Machiavelli blush. They weren’t just the masters of the “us vs. them” narrative; they were the grand puppeteers, pulling strings from the IRA to FARC to the PLO. Every terrorist mob and communist outfit — the original “hate groups” — was their marionette. When hate and violence around the world reached the boiling point, they’d point the finger at capitalist societies and say, “Look, they started it!”
Putin’s Russia not only inherited this delightful bag of tricks from the USSR, but also gave it a tech-savvy makeover. Behold the infamous “troll factory“ in St. Petersburg, a veritable hive of digital discord, with subsidiaries in Venezuela and other client states in various geographical regions. Picture hundreds of thousands of inflammatory social media posts, in every language under the sun, all crafted to whip up a frenzy of hate. To land a gig at that illustrious establishment, you must be able to pretend you’re someone you’re not and cook up the juiciest, most divisive tales you can think of.
Remember the 2016 presidential elections? Those trolls were like party-crashers on all social media platforms, posing alternatively as Trump- and as Hillary-supporters, with a mission to paint each side as so utterly ridiculous, so thoroughly despicable, that hate seemed like the only logical response. And let’s not forget the cherry on top — the largest and most active BLM page on Facebook, also a Russian troll production. If you thought they called it a day after the election, guess again. These guys are the Energizer bunnies of social strife.null
The internet and social media once seemed like places where everyone would hold hands in digital harmony. But that utopian dream machine quickly devolved into a creepy masquerade, where everyone is invited, but nobody knows who’s behind the mask. Take Quora.com, for instance. It used to be this cozy global campfire where anyone could toss in a question, and the rest of the world huddled around to offer answers. — a digital kumbaya moment, providing hours of delightful, informative banter. Ah, the good old days.
Enter Russian trolls, the ever-enthusiastic interlopers in our global conversation. They are paid to turn even the most innocuous platforms into battlegrounds by planting fake stories and allegations that could start a bar fight in a monastery. They pit whites against blacks, women against men, Europeans against Americans, Christians against atheists, Hispanics against English-speakers, homo against hetero, and everyone against the Jews. It’s like a twisted game of societal Jenga, where the aim is to pull out the right block and watch everything collapse.
For example, there is one user named “Siayox,” with a profile picture right out of Central Casting for “Hipster You’d Least Like to Have a Beer With.” This supposedly English-speaking dude describes himself — using his original spelling and grammar — as “Writer, and proud white-man who care about science and logic. With out white-men you wont able enjoy around fancy and save places.”
The grammatical horror show aside, he poses alternatively as a black boy, a white woman, or a Germanic neo-Nazi, with questions meant to incite anger and contempt. These queries also serve as a place for fellow trolls to spew fake tales of oppression and hurl insults while masquerading as members of various ethnic and religious groups.
What’s the telltale sign of the Russian connection? Amid the posts meant to demoralize Western societies, there’s a recurring theme, a narrative that is as subtle as a sledgehammer and about as nuanced. Of all the world conflicts, and out of the 195 recognized countries in the world, these supposed “Americans” and “Europeans” chose to focus on Ukraine, praising the Russian invasion and branding the dispossessed Ukrainian refugees as “racist Nazis.”null
Below is a shortened list of Siayox’s greatest hits. The full roster is here — a reminder that in the world of online manipulation, nothing is as it seems, and the person behind the keyboard could be anyone, anywhere — churning out discord like it’s going out of style.
I’m a black kid. Do white people hate me?
I’m white and I definitely believe that Cleopatra was African American. Why do we get angry about this?
Why don’t women just go back to the kitchen?
I’m a black man. I believe that Richard III was an African American. Why are white people denying this?
I’m white and I dont like Jewish people. Am I racist?
I’m black and I wonder when will we get our reparations from white people?
I’m a black girl and I believe that Richard III was African American. Why do British people deny this if they have evidence supporting this claim?
Why do people say that there’s no Nazi and racism in Ukraine while my self as a black person living in Ukraine faced the most disgusting treatments you can ever imagine as a human?
Why are many anti-Nazi and non-white countries siding with Russia against “racists” in Ukraine? Why is that? Is it true that Ukrainians are Nazis?
As a white Ukrainian refugee, I don’t want to live with blacks. Do you think that the British government should deport them into their countries?
I’m a Ukrainian refugee but I don’t want to be around blacks and other inferior ones. Does that make me racist?
I’m a white supremacist and support Ukraine. What is wrong with that?
Is it appropriate to leave my fourteen-year-old daughter alone with her black stepfather when I go out?
I’m a white woman and I’m so sorry, but why do I feel so disgusted when I see someone of another race?
I’m a white boy and I feel some kind of superiority over my black mates in school. Where is this coming from?
Why do people still deny white superiority with all actual scientific evidences around them?
I’m proud being Germanic, man, gentle, and white. Does that offend other races?
This is just one troll. Therearemanymore in this circus, where the clowns change masks faster than a chameleon on a kaleidoscope. Some have a better command of English than others, but all of them tend to switch their race, sex, age, or political views depending on the topic. Now he’s a conservative grandpa lamenting women in the military, and moments later he’s a woke college feminist blaming all historical atrocities on white males.
The same spectacle unfolds on Facebook, X-Twitter, and other platforms. Some trolls pose as “crazy liberals,” others as “angry conservatives.” Spotting these shape-shifters isn’t always easy, especially when they occasionally echo your own thoughts. A surge of blinding anger upon reading a post is usually a red flag. These posts are crafted to dehumanize, to stir the pot of hatred with a big, invisible spoon. It helps to check their profiles before sharing their musings.Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet for trolls — even if there were, they’d change their pattern, and we’d be left guessing again.
Reading this article may not turn you into a troll-resistant superhero, but it should at least boost your immunity. The next time you see trolls singing your tune, remember that they’re not in your fan club. Their mission is to weaken and split us apart as a nation. If they can’t be as good as us, they’d settle for dragging us down to their level. And yes, this is a real conspiracy — not to be confused with the fake ones, often spread by the same trolls.
For an ultimate piece of advice, let’s time-travel to pre-internet Tibet and consult Milarepa, a 12th-century yogi who lived without a smartphone or social media. He warned not to be like the dog that chases every stick thrown its way. Instead, be more like a lion, who goes after the thrower. In the world of trolls, being a lion means seeing through the charade and refusing to play the game. Don’t get caught up in every provocation, but focus on the source and understand the intent. Nobody throws a stick at a lion twice.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
Thank you.$5$10$50Other
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
