Tag Archives: liberalism

The Right Liberalism

And the Dead End of Illiberalism

Outsiders to Rightworld and even some insiders were mystified by the explosion of conservative commentary occasioned by New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari’s attack on our colleague David French. Both men are socially conservative Christian writers. What could occasion such fierce polemics between supporters of each? But perhaps there should have been less surprise: Debating first principles is among the oldest traditions of conservatives.

Younger conservatives may not be familiar with Ideas Have Consequences, the 1948 book in which Richard Weaver — a former socialist who became disillusioned by his technological and centralized mass society — traced “the dissolution of the West” to William of Ockham’s embrace of nominalism in the 14th century. But conservatives of all ages are acquainted with the titular phrase and the mood of the argument.

The tradition has been revived over the last couple of years, and especially in recent weeks. The current debate is not tightly focused, but its subjects include one of the most fundamental questions of political philosophy: Does liberalism need to be reconsidered or rejected outright? While the conservative debaters have rarely specified what they mean by “liberalism” — that is one reason for the lack of focus — it is clear enough that the critics of liberalism in these exchanges do not mean merely the liberalism of John Rawls, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, and Rachel Maddow. They mean to sweep in libertarians, libertarian conservatives, and classical liberals as well. Some of them even have the Founders and John Locke on their target list.

While the arguments of the critics have sometimes been confused and even noxious, they have also touched on a point — the centrality of virtue and community to the conservative vision and the American project — that the most libertarian-minded conservatives sometimes scant. It is a point especially urgent to remember at a moment of fraying social ties. A toxic individualism, and not just an overweening state, threatens the national welfare. Recognition of that point should not, however, lead to the philosophical and political dead end of rejecting the American constitutional order. On that question, the critics of liberalism have been, at best, unclear.

That may have something to do with the ambiguity of the term “liberalism”: The participants in the debate have not all been arguing about the same thing. It is helpful, then, to start with some rough definitions and distinctions.

Let us take “liberalism” to refer to a set of political ideas held in common by classical liberals, most modern self-described liberals, and most modern conservatives: by, let’s say, the early John Stuart Mill, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. It refers to the ideas that all people have rights that governments should respect and protect, that these rights include the ability to express their views, that the law should aspire to impartiality among persons, that rulers should not possess absolute and arbitrary power, and so forth.

We can then distinguish between a “progressive” and a “conservative” version of liberalism. The former sees liberalism as a set of axioms that were discovered during the Enlightenment and that should govern all of human life. For progressive liberalism, politics consists of working out the implications of liberal principles and acting to conform society to them. Conservative liberalism, on the other hand, thinks of itself as a set of practices that we have learned, through many centuries of trial and error, are pretty good at promoting human flourishing — especially when compared with the available alternatives.

The first kind of liberalism has a totalizing impulse that sets it at odds with religion, nation-states, the family, and civil society generally. The second kind of liberalism, the liberalism of Tocqueville and The Federalist Papers, does not. It tends rather to emphasize the dependence of liberal political practices on pre-liberal or non-liberal cultural inheritances. It views the nation-state as the indispensable, historically evolved home of liberal democracy. It recognizes that liberal institutions and attitudes are rooted in a Western tradition that is intertwined with the history of Judaism and Christianity and the lived experiences of nation-states.

Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine exemplify the difference between the two liberalisms. In his book on the two thinkers, The Great Debate, Yuval Levin writes that what animates the modern Left is “actually a radical form of individualism, moved by much the same passion for justice that Paine had and by much the same desire to free people of the fetters of tradition, religion, and the moral or social expectations of those around him.” By contrast, conservatives draw, or should draw, from “Burke’s focus on the social character of man, from Burke’s thoroughgoing gradualism, and from his innovative liberal alternative to Enlightenment radicalism.”

A conservative liberalism recognizes that liberal institutions are not free-standing, not enough either for a healthy society or even, in the long run, for their own survival. They require a supportive cultural environment that includes a morally grounded citizenry and a robust civil society. But they do not guarantee these goods and in some ways undermine them. They are indispensable and insufficient. So the work of preservation and renewal, the work of conservative liberals, is never-ending. Liberalism always faces the danger not only of succumbing to its illiberal opponents of various descriptions but of degenerating into its progressive form.

The immediate causes of the current debate are of course nearer to hand than either Burke or Paine. The election of Donald Trump unsettled existing political alignments and broadened views of what is politically possible. The rise of nationalist movements of the right in other countries — and especially in Hungary, where Viktor Orban explicitly differentiates his brand of conservatism from liberal democracy — has further prodded American conservatives to consider the extent to which we are, or should be, liberals.

The discussion reached a boil when First Things, the religious-conservative journal, published Ahmari’s denunciation of David French. Ahmari wrote that French’s classical liberalism, with its emphasis on neutral principles such as free speech and freedom of religion and its hostility to government action, leaves traditionalists without effective defense against today’s aggressive cultural Left.

Other conservative writers took up Ahmari’s side but followed different branches of the argument. Because French is much more critical of Trump than Ahmari is, many of the follow-on arguments concerned the president’s record and French’s writings about him. Others wrote about the degree of hostility we should direct toward the Left. Still, others largely abandoned Ahmari’s particular criticisms of French to take up the case against liberalism — and those who had already been making that case were naturally pleased to see a version of it achieve such notoriety.

Most of these arguments would have profited from attention to the distinction between conservative and progressive versions. Parts of Ahmari’s essay read like a broadside against liberalism even in its broadest view. But Ahmari later remarked that he still considers himself a sort of liberal, and other parts of his essay — the strongest parts — read like a brief for a conservative liberalism over a progressive one. Even those parts of the essay were weakened, however, by his adducing French, bizarrely, as an example of the latter.

The later commentary has sometimes added to the confusion. In particular, French’s commitment to the “neutral principles” of free speech and due process has been distorted. The principles are indeed neutral in the important sense that they apply to people regardless of whether they are deeply mistaken, immoral, etc. Supporters as well as opponents of same-sex marriage or nuclear weapons or monarchy should be able to speak their minds without any penalty from the government; blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats, deserve fair legal procedures; atheists, as well as Baptists, should generally be free to act according to their conscience, and their degree of freedom should not turn on the government’s judgment of their theology.

It does not follow, and French has never said, that government or society must be neutral with respect to the common good. It does not follow, and French has never said, that fair procedures are enough to produce a just and thriving society, or that conservatives should confine themselves to ensuring that procedures are fair, or that government can never take action to promote sound character or strengthen important institutions. Yet he has been taken to be affirming all these propositions and more.

French can take comfort in being in august company. Conservative critics of liberalism have a tendency to flatten liberalism by exaggerating the progressive elements of its history and discounting the conservative ones. Thus Locke stands accused by the anti-liberal Patrick Deneen of being a mere extension of Thomas Hobbes, among many other sins. Just as Hobbes elevated individual autonomy and rejected the natural order, so supposedly did Locke (and by extension, so did the Founders). The anti-liberals of the Right trace nearly everything they dislike about the contemporary national condition to this kind of philosophical error. It is as though Federalist No. 10 had led inevitably to demands that bakers make cakes celebrating gender transitions.

In a careful and persuasive reply to Deneen in the Catholic Social Science Review, Paul R. DeHart points out that both Locke and the Founders rejected Hobbes’s theory of unbounded sovereignty and his underlying metaphysics. “The founders and framers,” he notes in a summary of his argument, “affirmed the necessity of consent for political authority and obligation. But they also situated the necessity of consent in the context of a morally and metaphysically realist natural law, maintained that an objective good of the whole constitutes the final end of political association, and described liberty as subjection to the law of nature and the government of God.”

Joe Loconte of King’s College notes that, contrary to their critics, Locke and the Founders did care about the ends for which people used their freedoms and about duty. In Locke’s Second Treatise, he wrote that men and women were “all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business.” In A Letter concerning Toleration, Locke wrote of a pluralistic society: “Charity, bounty, and liberality must be added to it. This the Gospel enjoins, this reason directs, and this that natural fellowship we are born into requires of us.”

Yes, Madison believed that the “religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” But freedom of conscience was tightly connected to the duty that it enabled people to fulfill. “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.”

In Federalist No. 57, Madison invokes the common good: “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

The tendency on the part of most post-liberal writers to eschew necessary distinctions is compounded by an unwillingness even to attempt to spell out their alternative vision.

The few half-hearted gestures toward policy proposals point toward a populist economics. In an interview in Vox, Ahmari said an example of his ideal order is working mothers’ not having to return to work eight weeks after giving birth. The editor of First Things, R. R. Reno, plugged pro-family tax policy, “industrial policies” to raise wages, the break-up of Big Tech, taxing university and foundation endowments, and curtailing the tax-deductible donations of billionaires.

Outside of the merits of these ideas, it’s worth nothing that there’s been a robust intra-conservative debate about policies such as paid family leave, a child tax credit, and wage subsidies for going on ten years now, and none of the post-liberals to this point have made any meaningful contribution to it. Besides which, condemning the liberal order because you want, say, a larger earned-income tax credit is rather over-saucing the goose.

The overall vagueness of the post-liberals leaves it an open question what they want. Some of the current critics of liberalism may harbor no desire to repudiate Madison, or free elections and an impartial judiciary. They merely believe that conservatism has been too influenced by libertarianism and wish to pull the two some distance apart. That kind of intramural argument on the right has a history coterminous with that of the modern conservative movement. Conservatism has never simply been Milton Friedman’s libertarianism or even Frank Meyer’s fusionism. It has always had room for Russell Kirk as well.

And, for that matter, for Irving Kristol. What many of the post-liberals seem to be groping toward is Irving Kristol’s attitude of, as the title of one of his collections had it, two cheers for capitalism. Kristol acknowledged the many benefits of capitalism, but also realized that it had weaknesses, namely its lack of a lofty vision of the good life and its tendency to undermine the cultural supports upon which it depends. Yet no one, including Kristol, ever thought Kristol was a post-liberal, let alone illiberal.

Conservatives who merely want a rebalancing of our commitments — whether because our circumstances demand a less libertarian response than those of the Reagan era did, or because we have forgotten some of what Kristol knew — should perhaps avoid creating the impression they are engaged in a larger and potentially more menacing project.

Liberalism and Catholicism have, to say no more, a complicated history. Many of the anti-liberals of the Right seek to set them in opposition again. So it is worth noting that Catholics have come to the defense of liberal institutions while acknowledging their limits. The eminent Catholic conservative writer George Weigel observes that John Courtney Murray, Saint John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI all believed that the institutions of liberal democracy “were dependent on a moral and cultural foundation those liberal institutions could not generate. Democracy was not a machine that could run by itself. It took a critical mass of mechanics — mature citizens — to operate the machinery of democracy so that politics helped advance individual human flourishing and social solidarity.”

They were nonetheless liberals in the sense that they

were also convinced that there was no plausible, real-world alternative to the institutions of liberal democracy for those interested in a humane future. Monarchy, benign or otherwise, was done, and only nostalgics indulged in fantasies of altar-and-throne restoration. Various 20th-century authoritarianisms had produced either social, economic, and cultural stagnation or genocidal mass violence. Thus the real-world option — the real-world imperative — was the hard work of building and maintaining the moral and cultural foundations essential to the liberal democratic political project, while playing good defense against the temptation of the modern democratic state to impede that reconstruction by using its coercive power to impose on everyone a dumbed-down notion of freedom as personal willfulness or “choice.”

On a more mundane note, Weigel adds that the collaboration that is necessary among social conservatives becomes impossible “when those who should be allies trade smarts for snark, or go to DEFCON 1 and hurl rhetorical nukes into the blogosphere at the first whiff of disagreement.”

Passionate disagreements over small causes are a professional hazard of intellectuals, and the conservative tradition of disputation exacerbates that tendency by staying in the realm of abstraction. Today’s conservative critics of liberalism sometimes attempt to make a virtue of lacking much of a specific program. They want conservatives to reorient their thinking, not just to reshuffle their agenda. But without having a firmer sense of what the critics have in mind, the rest of us will not be able to attain a clear view of what’s at stake in their critique, where we can work together on common goals — and, not least, the extent to which we are allies.

In his attack on David French, Ahmari concludes that to recognize the enmity of the Left “is its own kind of moral duty.” The same can be said about knowing who your friends are.

Original article: The Right Liberalism

Federal Agencies Admit To $1.2 Trillion In Improper Payments Since 2004

Burning Money

Since 2004, twenty large federal agencies admit paying out an astonishing $1.2 trillion in improper payments. That amounts to more than one-quarter of President Trump’s proposed $4.7 trillion budget for 2020. Last year, these improper payments totaled $140 billion – that’s about $12 billion per month.

But what exactly is an improper payment? Federal law defines the term as “payments made by the government to the wrong person, in the wrong amount, or for the wrong reason.”

In other words, there’s a lack of basic in-house financial controls within the largest federal agencies. When people or companies receive money they don’t deserve, it erodes our trust in government, our economy and government’s ability to finance everything from defense to health care.

Improper payments in health care are especially troubling. In 2011, when President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, Congress vowed to help pay for it by rooting out waste, fraud, corruption and taxpayer abuse from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

It never happened.

In fact, the improper payments within these programs soared from $64 billion in 2012 to $85 billion today.

The biggest offenders across government include: Human & Human Services (HHS); Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Social Security Administration (SSA); and the departments of Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), and Education (ED).

What were some the ways these agencies wasted our tax dollars last year?

  • Dead people received $1 billion in benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, social security payments and also the federal retirement annuity payouts (pensions) kept flowing to dead recipients.
  • College students were overpaid by nearly $6 billion in Pell Grants and student loans. Approximately four percent of all payments were improper, and ED forecasts a worse figure in FY2019.
  • Social Security recipients were overpaid by $10 billion. Six million active Social Security numbers belong to people aged 112 and older. Here’s the problem: there are only 40 people in the entire world aged 112 and over.
  • $18.4 billion in Earned Income Tax Credit overpayments. Millions of low-income families who Congress designated as qualified recipients were overpaid billions of dollars. The program is rife with errors: the government overpaid $1 in every $4 to beneficiaries. (The IRS administers the program and responded to our request for comment here.)
  • Medicare & Medicaid improperly paid $85 billion in benefits with overpayments amounting to $67 billion. Administered by HHS, Medicaid admits to overpaying recipients $36 billion. Medicare admits to $31 billion in overpayments.
    The examples are endless.

The government paid doctors who were stripped of their medical license. Farmers were overpaid $242 million on crop subsidies, insurance, direct payments, and loans. Unemployment insurance recipients received $3.6 billion in over payments administered by the states through the Department of Labor.* The Pentagon overpaid $1.2 billion for things like civilian, military, retirement and travel pay, health benefits, and more.

uncaptioned image

Here are 10 examples of what $140 billion in improper federal payments could have purchased:

  • 10 billion Netflix subscriptions ($13 monthly)
  • 320 million fancy bicycles ($425 each)
  • 140 million root canals ($1,000 each)
  • 28 million teenagers getting braces ($5,000 each)
  • 5 million hip replacements for seniors ($32,000 each)
  • 700,000 additional doctors hired at VA ($200,000 each)
  • 23 border walls with Mexico ($6 billion each)
  • 12x updating the nuclear arsenal ($11 billion each)
  • 7x U.S. census count ($20 billion each)
  • 1x year of all Federal pension payouts ($130 billion)
  • The lack of accounting control is so bad that the $140 billion cost in bureaucratic mistakes exceeded the entire executive agency payroll. Despite this, 99.7 percent of the federal workforce is rated “highly successful,” and more than one million bureaucrats received a performance bonus last year.

The 1.3 million bureaucrats in the executive agencies earned $120 billion last year according to our data at OpenTheBooks.com. Therefore, for every $1 million in federal payroll, the agencies admitted to $1.2 million in improper payments.

So, aren’t federal agencies working to recapture these improper payments? Not exactly. In fact, outside of overpaid contractors, the Office of Management and Budget says that recapture audits don’t make financial sense. They argue that it costs too much to claw back the improper payments.

The American people need to raise our voice. It’s time to crack down. Every dollar that goes toward an improper payment is a dollar taken from a taxpayer or diverted from a critical government function. Tell Congress and the Administration to put in place better safeguards to prevent this massive waste of national resources.

Note: We requested comment from each agency mentioned in this piece.  *The Department of Labor has been aggressively working with states to address unemployment insurance improper payments, providing intensive oversight and technical assistance to states with the highest improper payment rates and providing tools and resources to help all states better prevent, detect, and recover improper payments.

Original article: Federal Agencies Admit To $1.2 Trillion In Improper Payments Since 2004

See the problem yet?

Leftist or Liberal?

A contrast between Leftism and Liberalism by American syndicated radio talk show host and writer Dennis Prager.

If one is not intellectually honest and philosophically fastened to real Truths, one will slide.

It is unavoidable.

It is inevitable.

I have friends and colleagues who fancy themselves Liberals but who have slid all the way down to Far Left ideology. They don’t even know they’ve slid as far as they have.

They claim they are Liberal and it is everything I can do not to laugh in their face. What a ridiculous and provably false claim!

Why don’t they know?

Because nothing in their world view is fixed. All mental mile markers are movable, and those markers just slide right along with them.

So, half of my Liberal friends and colleagues are actually Far Left, half of my Libertarian friends and colleagues are actually Liberals, half of  my Conservatarian friends and colleagues are actually Libertarians.

But it is odd that almost all of my Conservative friends remain genuinely Conservative.

Do you know why?

Conservatism — real Conservatism, not TV conservatives, pundits, or Republican poseurs — is ruthlessly intellectual. Conservative theory rests entirely in the pure cogency of the premise, and is never swept away by hysteria, sensationalism, emotionalism, false pity, false tolerance, opportunity, personality, charismatic proponents, or any of the other excuses offered in tolerating the seeds of totalitarianism.

And most of the people I know personally, are not intellectually honest. They will not read, they will not study, they will not learn the science, they will not experience the Divine. They are too preoccupied being hobbled by memories of domineering parents, childhood divorces, bullying, physical trauma, identity issues, betrayals, absent loved ones, sexual abuses, violence, alienation, etc.

And those emotional thorns run all the way down to the heart and are, for Man, almost impossible to remove or repair.

What someone says is largely irrelevant: it is what they do that proves who they are.

And I don’t mean some momentary indulgence, mistake, or lack of judgment. No, I mean the pathology of their pain proves they are hung on the meat hooks of trauma and sorrow, rather than bolted into place with real reason, unbreakable honesty, analytical integrity and propositional purity.

Their houses are built on sand.

Mine is built on a rock.

The Rock of Ages.

Modern Liberalism

One of the most controversial and confusing of all issues for many is, just what is the proper role of religion and morality in public life?

In search of the right answer, today, we are compelled to conclude that there “is a famine in the land,” with nearly all sides of the debate muddled up to their necks in poor history, poor politics, poor reasoning, and all too often, poor religion, having nothing better to offer than a multifaceted deliberation where few seem to know where religion and morality are appropriately involved in public life and in political circles and where they are not.

The unspoken consensus, though none dare say it, is this: ‘It is right to inject religion and morality into political debate and public policy just so long as the moral slant parallels my moral view of the universe, and it is wrong if it does not.’

Modern Liberalism is just such an example of such hypocrisy.

Favoring the relative ethics of Humanism and Socialism sprinkled ‘creatively’ with Judeo-Christian teachings, Modern Liberalism’s cardinal dogma is that “the ends justify the means,” or to put it ever so bluntly: “anything goes,” including any extreme imaginable, just so long as the political goals of the revolution are served thereby.

Thus, it is a ‘flexible,’ ‘relativistic’ creed, which turns a blind eye to any dilemma of conscience that a constant round of moral contradictions ought to evoke, one which deliberately fights against all religious involvement in public life, while aggressively campaigning for an ever broader interpretation of just what IS public. That’s troublesome, isn’t it?

Yet, and who dares point this out, the creed and its ideological high priests applaud any decidedly liberal minister of religion, campaign to insure that the most notorious among them are glorified with Noble Peace Prizes and public statues, see to it that their holy lives and hallelujah teachings are mandated for inclusion in public school curriculums and textbooks, and insist that their heaven-cloaked social and political agenda be set up as the ‘beau ideal’ at every ‘cultural awareness’ seminar, every equal opportunity briefing, every leadership training class for ‘public’ employees in the country. There’s no end to hearing their hallowed names in the halls of congresses either. They are the new generation of Saints, the only Saints for which men and women may reverently bow the knee, the only Saints for which men and women must bow the knee, if they know what’s good for them.

Recognizing the religious nature of most human beings as a fact, this creed publicly denounces religious faith as mere speculation, as the so-called ‘opiate of the masses,’ even as it employs every tool of religious manipulation imaginable, the most popular being “the parade of victims tactic,” which plays upon the moral sensitivities common to all men, hoping to create a link in their minds between the Biblical invitation to “love thy neighbor as thy self” and the Marxian mandate to “rob from the rich to give to the poor.”

Further, while this creed has banned our forefathers’ Judeo-Christian based teachings from the classroom, it has often mandated the teaching of the religious traditions of indigenous peoples in those same classrooms, especially when their traditions view property and natural resources in terms of collective ownership.

No wonder!

The truth is Modern Liberalism does not oppose moral law; no, not at all. Rather it haughtily believes that it has a fresher, higher, smarter moral perspective than that contrived by the rough and puerile rabble. Thus, the advocates of this creed feel compelled to share it, to order it, to mandate it. And with the power of the state behind them they have met with great success in decreeing their religion throughout the land.

Among this creed’s leading precepts we find more than a few moral peculiarities:

  1. Unborn babies do not possess the inalienable right to life, but fungi, fruit flies and convicted murderers do.
  2. Ranchers and farmers do not have the right to control, develop and utilize their private property as they think best, but rodents, predators and desert tortoises do.
  3. Business owners who have put their blood, sweat, tears and a great deal of financial risk into engendering an enterprise, do not possess the right to creatively manage their employees as per their best interest, but distant bureaucrats who have never produced a single product for the public to enjoy, who have never created a single job, and who have nothing to risk do.
  4. Religious fundamentalists, heterosexuals, capitalists and middle class European males do not have the moral right to be treated equally before the law, but hedonists, gays, socialists and minorities of every other stripe do.
  5. Gun manufacturers, gun dealers and parents who legally produce, sell, or own private firearms do not have the right to leniency and protection before the law for crimes committed with those weapons by others (thanks to the principle of collective guilt that Modern Liberalism borrowed from Fascism and Communism), (1) but criminals who choose to misuse those same weapons do.
  6. The children of industrious and intelligent parents who have labored a lifetime to provide property, finances, employment and education for their family members do not have the right to be eligible upon their parent’s death to inherit what is rightfully theirs, but unrelated children of indolent and ignorant parents do. (2)
  7. Finally, because this creed defends the utilitarian moral position that the good of the group and the rights of the group always exceed the good of the individual and the rights of the individual—except when the curators of this creed say they do not—no business or businessman has the right to decide its own social responsibility, no school or school teacher has the right to declare its own curriculum, no parent has the right to exercise his or her moral duty as he or she sees fit—but the state does. It is the state which must be fully trusted, fully the dictator of every fine point of moral conduct (except, mind you, deviant conduct. which must be protected at ALL costs as an unalienable right), insuring that the state and hedonistic pleasures are fully worshipped, and that free enterprise, freedom of speech, traditional family values, and freedom of religion are crushed.

That is, traditional Christians and Jews, traditional families, and add to that list traditional capitalists, do not have the right to do business as they please, to speak freely as they please, to worship as they please, but Humanists, Statists, Communists, and all of their friends (including—of recent note—Islamic revolutionaries) do. This is the ideology of Modern Liberalism – what some call dysfunctional morality and others call Statism. It is the religion most closely associated with one of our top two political parties, and the fact that roughly fifty percent of all Americans worship before this alter of state, begging for free food, unjust privileges and endless moral accommodations, stands as a sad testimony of the pathetic state of religion, morality, and education in the United States today.


Original article: Modern Liberalism

Over-Passioned Lice

As for the antagonists and bitter zealots of the superstitious Far Left, those perpetually provoked snowflakes, ever outraged, angry at sunrises and sunsets if only become some people dare to enjoy them…

Please go drown yourself in the sea.

After all, there is no reason not to feed the sharks.

I have watched former friends, colleagues, sons and daughters of acquaintances, and others all dissolve in the acid of false social justice warfare and worship – idol chasing imbeciles.

Fuming and furious over the tiniest phrase, the most harmless reference, science, and even the common tongue. Even now, some defend pedophilia, terrorism, and — if you can believe it — necrophilia along with other depravities.

These people are endangering of losing the very humanity they so claimed to cherish.

It is sad: sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty-plus years of education — all that time, all that money — and not one joule wiser.

Only profound delusion and plastic rage.

How can it be, that those who impose their “utopia” on others are always those that History remembers are genocidal maniacs?

How true it is: the devil teaches you how to tie your own noose… the very one you thought you were making for someone else.

Yesterday’s Dystopian Fiction Is Today’s New World Order

Many of the things that are happening this very moment have direct parallels in literature of the past. Whether it is an account such as the “Gulag Archipelago” by Solzhenitsyn or a work of “fiction” such as “1984” by George Orwell is irrelevant. Elements of the history or the storyline (regarding the former and the latter works) are now becoming thoroughly inculcated into the fabric of modern reality.

All of the measures taken by the Soviet Union to crush and control its population are beginning to manifest themselves today in the United States. The courts are “stacked” to reflect the decision of the regime and not to rule by law. The Military Industrial Complex contracts are still being shuffled, along with government policies that just happen to substantiate those business interests with kickbacks for all. Laws serve political and corporate interests, and the lawmakers themselves do not represent any of their constituents: they are self-serving thieves, selling out their country and its populace for money and power.

The police departments have (for all intents and purposes) been “federalized,” with budgets and marching orders becoming increasingly dependent upon federal and not local or state policies. Sheriffs who follow their appointed roles as duly-elected law enforcement officials upholding Constitutional guidelines are being “phased out” of existence. The changed demographics of “forced” insertions of illegal aliens and “refugees” into populations are rapidly negating the remainder of the two-party system to ensure that the Democratic party takes control ad infinitum.

Orwell envisioned it. His work is labeled a work of fiction, although all of the measures Oceania pursued are either currently in place in the United States or they’re being developed. There is mass surveillance, increasing by the day. The “internet of things,” as coined by former General David Petraeus, is almost primed to allow “telescreens” to watch our every movement, and a camera on every corner to back them up. Orwell hated totalitarianism, having been exposed to it in his short but accomplished lifetime, and he knew man’s propensity was to move toward the enslavement of his fellow man.

The development of new weapons by DARPA and the MIC are not toward a foreign enemy so much as the purpose of using them against the citizenry. Drones, robots, nanotechnology, and every other “gizmo” able to be employed are all being drawn from behind the black curtain to unleash upon the citizens. Also, the world’s situation is directly paralleling “1984” as three great spheres of influence — Europe, Asia, and North America — are being created by the powers that be. Global governance in “thirds” is probably the NWO end state, as outlined by Orwell for a very significant reason: control with as much ethnic and cultural homogeneity as possible.

It stands to reason that an Oriental (“Eastasia,” in “1984”) empire/totalitarian state would control the Oriental nations, rather than split it up between populations that are not as closely related linguistically and culturally. We are seeing those shifts of influence into the divisions outlined by Orwell now, as the nations jockey for position and power. Just as in “1984,” where it stated that even two of the super-states in alignment and concerted efforts could not together topple the third, perhaps the same is with our world.

The shift is toward totalitarianism, and the populations have been (and are being) conditioned to accept, if not embrace, collectivist thought and socialism. A good example was a film called “the Mutant Chronicles,” in which there were four great super-states that were organized not as nations but as corporations, that made war with one another over resources. We see the blending of government and corporation today in virtually every facet of life, with the illusion of elections and the illusion of choice upheld to keep the population around the dullard state of consciousness.

What will save us from this? Will we be able to save ourselves from it? The more and more one watches freedoms disappearing by the day, the more one must wonder if there is a way to stem the tide. Orwell and Solzhenitsyn — visionary and historian — gave us blueprints to follow — checklists with which to use as frameworks of reference for what is befalling us daily. Someday it may be that the brief period of freedom enjoyed by the American people may be categorized as a “work of fiction” in a future that may not even allow anyone to read it.

Original article: Dystopia


It is astonishing to me there is an entire political party in America, supported and financed by just under half of the American population, who continue to chase after the atrocities of former regimes in former centuries, incapable of admitting their deranged political circuses have murdered hundreds of millions of innocent men, women, and children without so much as a blush.

“This time we’ll get it right,” they promise.

Spirits don’t get tired. They are not even energy as is popularly understood. They are not comprised of protons or electrons or neutrons… but are something else entirely.

And the spirit that is driving these unrepentant minds to future chaos has done so from the beginning. And no matter how many misguided generations die in the march to yet another world war, the mad spirit behind them remains undiminished.

Just as he is willing to sacrifice uncounted millions to usher in his dark kingdom, so are his disciples willing to sacrifice uncounted millions to help him achieve it.

Is it any wonder why Jesus has to rule these degenerates with a rod of iron?