Over the past 90 years, virtually all potential oligarchs or tyrants have utilized the following six political stratagems, which do not require armed conflict, in order to permanently obliterate any opposition. They were first employed by Adolf Hitler and documented by renowned American psychoanalyst Dr. Walter C. Langer:
the public in a state of constant turmoil. Pre-identify favored
groups by race, economic status, ideology, or religion and, through
constant repetition by allies in the media and entertainment cabal,
establish that any perceived disadvantage within those assemblages
is solely the fault of another pre-identified and isolated group,
particularly Jews, traditional Christians, and the capitalists.
concede that there may be some good in your political enemy. State
loudly and often that they are a permanent adversary because they
are determined to oppress the favored groups identified in 1) above
as well as being racist, avaricious, treasonous, etc. (i.e., the
worst people on Earth). Thus, abrogation of their free speech
privileges and their right to own firearms and to freely assemble is
not only acceptable, but a necessity.
miss an opportunity to repeatedly and loudly blame one’s political
enemy for anything that goes wrong, regardless of how inane or
unreasonable. Faux crises must be orchestrated as often as possible
in order to blame the other side. Further, any natural disaster or
any aggressive action by a foreign adversary must also be attributed
to one’s political adversary.
acknowledge or divulge that your side is at fault or wrong,
regardless of the situation or issue.
under any circumstances, leave room for civil discourse regarding
alternative societal or governmental policies by proclaiming that
those promoting any alternative have a hidden treasonous agenda.
Continually maintain the assertion as being irrefutable that a
central government, in the hands of the enlightened, can resolve any
issue and make life better.
always utilize the ultimate tactic in promoting dogma or denigrating
one’s opponent: the Big Lie. People will believe a big lie sooner
than a little one, and if it is repeated frequently enough, people
will sooner or later accept it as the truth. The fabricated dire
consequences of so-called climate change, the contrived narrative of
Donald Trump colluding with Russia, the myth of rampant white
nationalism, and the illusion that this is a virulently racist
nation are recent examples of this stratagem.
the least politically involved Americans can see that over the past
two decades, the hierarchy of the American Left and its appendages as
well as many elected officials in the Democratic Party have been
shamelessly utilizing all these tactics.
Modern liberalism gets its name from Liberalism. Today, we call those who follow the original tenants of Liberalism, libertarians.
Classical Liberalism (or libertarianism) stands upon the divine right of every person to certain inalienable rights – rights that no other human can violate.
Most of the mainstream Modern Liberalism Is Fascism, Barely Disguised.
Many people identify modern liberalism as the open-minded, tolerant political philosophy. And for good reason. They certainly don’t think of themselves as fascists. Modern liberalism rails against social injustices and seeks to move the world into a better era. It stands for marriage equality. It is race and gender blind. And it believes people should not be unfairly barred from the resources they need to succeed (education, medical care, etc…). And for this modern liberalism is commended by many.
Behind this ideology, lies a secret, hidden intolerance of which most are unaware. It’s not so much in what modern liberalism seeks to accomplish that is the problem. It is how it tries to make those changes. In fact, if people truly saw what this worldview meant… I think they would be appalled and abandon the system.
Many Americans – have accepted a worldview that at first seems the pinnacle of western civilization… but they don’t see the hook at its heart. I want to propose that modern liberalism – though its aims are noble – actually produces the very opposite of its goal. And that it is more similar to fascism than it is to liberty and freedom.
How is modern liberalism anything like fascism? I’m glad you asked… Modern Liberalism & Fascism are closer than you think. Meriam-Webster defines fascism as such: “A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government” We may not have a single dictator, but the rest of this definition applies. Let me explain.
Most believe libertarians are just more hardcore conservatives. But this could not be further from the truth. In order to understand how modern liberalism is similar to fascism, we need to understand liberalism, it’s parent ideology:
God (or nature) created every person Because of this, He alone has authority over our lives Thus, in relationship to each other, we are utterly equal. Since I did not create you, I have no authority over your life That equality gives us certain rights in relationship to each other: 1. You have the right to your life (no other human has the right to end your life). 2. You have the right to live your life how you see fit (No other human has the right to enslave you or dictate your life). 3. You have the right to the fruit of your life and labor (No other human has the right to steal from you). But not everyone accepts this equality. Some people believe they have the right to steal from you… rape you… or kill you. Therefore, for the sake of peace and tranquility, people give up some of their equality to establish the government as an objective third party that enforces these rights (the police, army, and justice system). Government only exists because we want it to make our inherent rights as individuals a reality. Here is an important take away: Without government, our inherent rights as individuals are not real. Anyone could come along and violate them. They could be thieves, thugs, or an invading army. In theory we may have equal rights, but not in practice.
We therefore empower the government to establish and protect those rights. This way we can be truly free. Even though we have to give up a little bit of our theoretical freedom to do this, we gain an immeasurable amount of practical freedom. And that is the sole moral reason for the government to exist.
If the government tries to do more than this, it must by nature violate the inherent rights of every individual.
Modern Liberalism Is GREAT, Except For This One Thing… And this is where modern liberalism errs… and partners with tyrants. To accomplish its high and lofty goals, modern liberalism must use the government as its instrument of social change.
Lets look at healthcare as an example. If people don’t have access to healthcare, modern liberalism uses the government to make it so. But in order to do that, it must tax some people to pay for the healthcare of others. We are in essence, forcing someone to pay for another person’s medical bills. It is no different in principle than going door to door and holding people at gunpoint to make them pay for another person’s doctors visit.
We may like the idea of universal healthcare, but when we use the government to achieve it, we have violated the inherent rights of all people to do so. We have legislated theft. This is true for most of the political agenda for modern liberalism. To achieve its noble goals, it must become tyrannical in nature. It must decide that it has the right to people’s money and their lives… as long as it is for a good purpose. In this type of government there are no safeguards.
The majority decides what rights the government can violate and to what end. As long as enough people believe it is right, anything can become law. What happens when a new majority takes power? One that believes you have no rights whatsoever? What if they decide where you work, when you work, and what happens with your money? This may seem extreme, but this is the ideological foundation modern liberalism lays.
It opens the door to this kind of state control. More Intolerant Than Tolerant… And even though modern liberalism touts itself as the most tolerant worldview, by nature it is the least.
To illustrate my point, consider this… Modern liberalism cannot tolerate the existence of a Libertarian community. Whereas a libertarianism can tolerate the existence of a modern liberal community. Remember, libertarianism believes that every person as the right to live their lives however they see fit. And the only moral grounds for government is the protection of those rights.
Anything beyond that would be a violation of people’s divine rights as individuals. In a libertarian world, if a group of modern liberals wanted to build a community that socialized healthcare and education, they could – so long as they didn’t force people to be a part of their system.
They could tax themselves heavily to build a robust and strong medical system. They could equalize education by funding it through tax dollars. They could do all the things modern liberals want to do. And the greater libertarian community wouldn’t care.
We would say, “Good for you! I hope it works well. Who knows, maybe I’ll want to join that system!”
A modern liberal community could not do the same. The modern liberal worldview requires that everyone pay into the system. It needs everyone to participate for it to even function. It doesn’t just want everyone to participate. It needs it. If everyone isn’t a part of the system, the system can’t work (at least in theory).
This is because wealthier people must pay more into the system so that the needier people have equal access. If it was an “opt in system,” it wouldn’t work because there would be more need than supply. That is the nature of the system. So, modern liberalism can’t have a group of people “opt out.”
If some libertarians said, “No thanks, I want to be responsible for my own healthcare, education, retirement, etc…,” the liberal state couldn’t allow it. Do you see how liberalism is secretly a very intolerant system? And similar to fascism? Fascism forces the people to obey the government, and the people cannot disagree with it.
In modern liberalism, people are forced to participate in the system – even if you disagree. Where as real liberalism (libertarianism) has no such requirements. As long as you don’t violate another person’s life, you can do whatever you want.
Noble Goals Achieved At Gunpoint Are Not Noble, They Are Wrong.
In modern liberalism, good and noble social reforms are achieved at gunpoint. Some people do not like that language. “No, it isn’t by gun point. It is through taxes.” But let me ask you this… If I said, “No thank you, I want to pay for my own services. I want to take care of my own retirement (Social Security). I want to handle my own healthcare (ACA, Medicare, Medicaid). And I want to handle my own savings and job security (Unemployment, etc…), so I’m not going to pay those taxes,” what do you think would happen? At some point the feds would come to collect my taxes. If I refused to pay ( because I saw it as theft), they would throw me in jail. If I tried to defend myself (because I saw it as assault), they would draw guns. And there you have it. Cooperation at gunpoint. Modern liberalism can’t tolerate true individual freedom.
It is sad because it is a forward looking, hopeful worldview. It believes we can change the world for the better. But it has partnered with the devil to do so. It forces me to fund charity services with which I may or may not agree. It forces me to invest in my retirement in a way I may not approve. It makes me pay into savings and job security in a way that I may not like. It makes me pay for someone else’s medical expenses. It assumes it knows best and forces me to play along.
That is not freedom. That is barbarism wrapped in modern ideals. That is fascism. Here’s the definition of fascism once again: “A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government” We may not have a single dictator, but a government built on modern liberalism is dictated by the masses. Modern liberalism says that it is an advocate for minorities. Racial minorities. Gender minorities. Income minorities.
It refuses to recognize the smallest minority of all: the individual. Modern liberalism has ambitious and noble aims. But I believe that if most people truly understood how modern liberalism achieved these goals… and saw where it could end up… they would be appalled.
There are better ways to achieve social change than through legislated thugary. I don’t believe anyone wants to force charity at gunpoint. I believe democrats and liberals want good things for this country. I would just ask them to look at the system they have adopted. Really look at it. Study its philosophical roots. And ask themselves: Is this what I really want? Is this how I want to affect change in the world? So, I ask you… how do you want to change the world? Through freedom and respect for the inherent rights of all? Or through cloaked intolerance that forces people at gunpoint to live by your rules? Don’t be a fascist. Be a libertarian.
KAVANAUGH HAS ALREADY HAD AN IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT, STARTING
WITH GUN RIGHTS
proof of the newest Supreme Court justice’s influence, look to a New
York gun rights case.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh took his seat on the Supreme Court in
October, following a tumultuous
confirmation process and
allegations of sexual assault, discussions turned to the future of
the court. Pundits and experts across the political spectrum mined
Kavanaugh’s record in an attempt to predict the outcome of
potentially landmark cases.
after the newest justice joined the court, we have gleaned the first
tangible evidence of his influence: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court
decided to hear its first major gun rights case in nearlya
decade—a decision that many attribute to the added vote of the
court’s newest member. And if Kavanaugh’s record is any indication,
it will not go well for gun-control advocates.
to University of California–Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler,
a specialist in constitutional law, the case (New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York)could
have far-reaching impact, possibly creating a constitutional right to
public carry that would undermine gun-control legislation across the
taking this case marks a reversal in trend for the court under Chief
Justice John Roberts, which has traditionally ignored Second
Amendment questions. This suggests that the new conservative majority
has bigger plans— Kavanaugh in particular. Unlike some of his
colleagues, Kavanaugh has been vocal about his support of gun rights
and the court’s role in upholding them.”When
Kennedy was on the court, the justices declined to take numerous
Second Amendment cases,” Winkler says. “Now, Kavanaugh is
on the court, and the court jumps on one very quickly. Given what we
know about the other justices, it seems clear that Kavanaugh’s
confirmation has reinvigorated the justices’ appetite on the Second
Amendment question.”Winkler calls Kavanaugh’s views on the gun
rights “extreme and well-articulated”; others have
pointed to the justice’s 2011 dissent in
a case upholding a Washington, D.C., assault weapon ban, in which
Kavanaugh deferred to “text, history, and tradition”
(tradition that protects the right to bear arms).This new challenge
comes from gun owners who have called New York City’s ban
on transporting guns outside city limits “draconian,” Amy
Howe reports for
SCOTUS Blog. If the court rules narrowly—striking down this law
alone—it would be a lesser blow. But given that the justices have
already broken with tradition in taking the case, experts expect a
wider ruling. As Winkler puts it, “The case could go out with a
whimper or a bang, but a bang is more likely.” In this case, a
“bang” means that the right to bear arms would apply not
only in the home and for personal protection (as established
of Columbia v. Heller),
but also in public. Experts say the opinion may take until 2020,
since the court will hear the case this fall.
It is my thought that while Mr. Kavanaugh is a capable Jurist. He will be attacked again, concerning matters involved in his confirmation. It might behoove the Liberal Agenda to consider provoking the newest Jurist on The SCOTUS as a move that can hinder their pursuit of Gun Control.
You can’t start an argument, about something that you should ignore anyway, then use a gun against an unarmed person.
Instead of highlighting the law’s issues, the narrative is armed white guy shooting unarmed black guy.
AUG 24, 2019 / 10:13 AM /A white Florida man was found guilty of manslaughter Friday for the July 2018 shooting death of an unarmed black man. Michael Drejka claimed he acted in self-defense in the dispute over a handicapped-accessible parking spot at a Clearwater convenience store.
Prosecutor Scott Rosenwasser told jurors during closing arguments
that Drejka, 49, provoked Markeis McGlockton, 28, to shove him by
yelling at McGlockton’s girlfriend because she was parked in a
handicapped space and then fired as McGlockton started to flee.
Drejka said during a with Pinellas County sheriff’s detectives five hours after the shooting that illegal parking in handicapped spots is his “pet peeve,” so he will frequently walk around such cars and take photos, messing with the drivers.
Drejka described the moment he drew his gun after being shoved to
the ground by Markeis McGlockton last year, during an argument over a
handicapped parking spot. “The way I was able to draw it, I
couldn’t level it with one hand, so I eventually try to bring my left
around for support and he made this step towards me and that was
that,” Drejka said.
When asked how many steps McGlockton took towards him, Drejka said
“just one step.”
But prosecutors said surveillance video from the Clearwater,
Florida convenience store shows McGlockton, who was unarmed, actually
Drejka’s attorneys said in closing arguments that McGlockton
caused his own death by shoving the defendant who was put in a
vulnerable position on the ground and fired his gun to protect
The jury deliberated late into the night Friday, more than six
hours after they got the case.
After more than five hours, the six-member panel sent out a note
saying they were confused by the state’s self-defense law. Circuit
Judge Joseph Bulone told them all he could do is reread it for them.
The lengthy statute generally says Drejka could shoot McGlockton
if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they
are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the
shooter could not have instigated the altercation.
Drejka appeared to show no reaction as the verdict was read. He is scheduled to be sentenced on October 10 and is being held without bond.
Shooter was CORRECTLY charged with manslaughter, due to creating a scenario in which an unarmed man was killed.
In the LIBERAL parlance.“In this country, citing religious or spiritual convictions is often a surefire way to get out of doing something you’re required by law to do.” This is a common framing on the left. Essentially, it’s an argument that religious freedom is an intrusion into the law and that religious people are engaged in a form of special pleading — seeking rights and exemptions unavailable to other Americans.
In reality, the First Amendment is supreme, and when states seek to intrude on religious liberty, they’re trying to get out of something they’re required by law to do. Respecting the First Amendment is the default obligation of the federal government and every state and local government in the United States. When people of faith appeal to the First Amendment, they’re appealing to America’s highest law, and while Employment Division v. Smith weakened the Free Exercise Clause, multiple subsequent cases have restored at least some of its vitality, and most religious freedom claims are also grounded in the very robust free speech clause of the First Amendment.
SO… When a person of faith, ‘says I never have made a cake for Halloween, Bar-Mitzvas or, same sex unions, I don’t feel that’s in keeping with my beliefs.’ He’s a violator of Civil Rights.
So the guy’s been this way for 20 yrs.
He did not suddenly use Jesus as an excuse to hate on Greg and Steve wanting a Wedding Cake.
Greg and Steve singled out the baker, in order to create a court case, in order to get a legal ruling. The Deep pockets in this, orchestrated the situation with extensive planning and coordination.
The accusation is that Christian Gay Hater is using Religion to assault the Civil Rights of the offended, grieving couple.
The ruling has been, for like more than a century, that Government cannot intrude on the right to express, or act on a sincerely held Religious Belief.
The State of Colorado was so hostile to the faith elements in the lawsuit, that the SCOTUS felt the need to throw the civil rights allegations out, due to the blatant hostility to a person of Faith.
It was not acceptable, to the couple, to be referred to another business that would have been happy to make the cake.
The couple, greased by Deep Pockets, felt that they could sic the State on this guy. So the Court was given a way out of ruling on the Civil Rights aspect of the case.
The Left is inside out on their Narrative. Steve and Greg were not denied a service because they were gay. They were refereed to a service provider that was willing to be sure they had a cake for their celebration.
The case was so poorly presented to the SCOTUS, that the court had excuse to defer.
Steve and Greg, and the huge, deep pockets couldn’t force someone to act against their conscience.
Some will be quite surprised that the famous Fox barely made the top 20. It is still one of the most visited sources for political news but has increasingly bowed to establishment thinking. However, in terms of getting the news out fast and providing solid analysis, it still rates as a good site.
This site will educate, inform and guide readers through the history of the Second Amendment and the battles across the US – in each state – to protect the right to bear arms. It covers gun culture, from providing firearm education to exposing attacks on the Second Amendment to assuring that stories of guns saving lives see the light of day.
WSJ represents the best of establishment thinking. Covering U.S. and international news, and governed by a strict code of ethics, it does not sugar-coat content and stays firmly rooted in capitalist, conservative ideology.
It is not the easiest site to navigate, but the Wire offers solid commentary and the occasional analysis piece that sheds light on unexplored areas — a great place to get the initial take on breaking news.
This libertarian site tied to Reason Foundation covers politics and culture – and a good deal of comedy in their videos – through an ideologically consistent lens of individual liberty and the free market.
Despite the infamous “Against Trump” edition of its magazine during the 2016 campaign, NR remains a classic source of conservative news, with a variety of viewpoints on a wide range of issues. No frills, just old-fashioned nuts and bolts commentary – especially for foreign policy wonks.
No organization works harder, or more effectively, at exposing rampant leftist media bias than MRC. The site offers great reporting and analysis of how the media characterizes and responds to the big stories of the day.
A unique entry on the list, RCP is a truly bipartisan site offering the best-written and most thought-provoking articles from both the right and left in virtually equal measure. A major bonus is their exhaustive election and polling information, including the much-cited RCP rolling average of polls.
Just short of its second anniversary, LN is the youngest site on this list. It has experienced a meteoric rise, with readers praising it for fresh and bold conservative, libertarian, and populist content.
Though it offers substantial opinion-based content, this site is known primarily for its superb investigative work. They are willing to deep-dive where others fear to tread and have thus penetrated the world of establishment media.
This site offers some of the most intelligent writing in the conservative realm. It is a thought-provoking source that dissects left-leaning news stories in an old-school style, stoking debate with its point/counterpoint arguments on religion, culture and politics.
Best known for its aggressive pursuit of official wrongdoers, this is perhaps the best example of a site that does not necessarily attract the most viewers but offers exceptional content which readers rated very highly because of its unparalleled investigative work on government corruption.
King of the hill, top of the heap in the collective view of LN writers and readers. AT is a triumph of substance over style. Described by one LN evaluator as “the MENSA of conservative websites,” it examines the meaty aspects of American politics and the players in the game, with no-holds-barred deep dives into interactive topics of national security, diplomacy, economic policy and more. Be prepared to accept an Ivy League education in 1,500 words or less when you hit American Thinker.
If you can’t find truth here, you won’t find it anywhere. Relentless in its pursuit of the best content from dozens of conservative sites, WF has seen its popularity soar as an alternative to the increasingly squishy, establishment-oriented Drudge Report.