The truth about Liberals.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “ Evan Sayet“, posted with vodpod

Advertisements

26 Comments

  1. Took me a while to watch it all last night, but he nails it pretty well doesn’t he. I’ve seen him before on the net and he really sticks it to them. I’m sure they hate him with an immense passion. Which is always a good measure of a conservative.

  2. Why does he keep saying “Democrat” when he’s supposed to be discussing “liberalism”?

    More than half the Republicans are socialistic, liberal, multikultis.

    Typical moronic liberal liar:

    “Acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

    “The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.”

    “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

    [I wonder who said that … ?]

  3. Islam isn’t peace and I don’t care who said it, and if you are talking about Bush I called him an ass for saying it when he did. It was politically motivated BS, woohooo.

    “Why does he keep saying “Democrat” when he’s supposed to be discussing “liberalism”?”

    It’s because the Democrats are the purely socialist party, they might not say it but most of their platform does, while only half (well maybe more) of the Republicans are (we call them RINOs) and the main ideals of the Republican party aren’t about socialism, no matter how fare many of them stray. Yeah, the Republicans are screwed up and half the Libertarians are crazy so what are you going to do? What we need is to get the sane parts of the Libertarian party and the sane parts of the Republican party together and vote for them because we don’t have any better options right now.

    P.S. If anyone knows how to get this video to only work when you press the play button rather than all the time I’d like to know.

  4. Yes, ” the Republicans are screwed up and half the Libertarians are crazy so what are you going to do?”

    I just meant that his point would be better made if it were non-partisan, and not just designed to get people to vote Republican (esp. when there’s no election in the near future).

    People get away with a lot by constantly saying, “Yeah, but we’re not as bad as THEY are!”

  5. I understand, but I think it was more a slip of the tongue rather than intentional, or at least that’s how it sounded, and he did correct himself a couple times.

    I do agree with you on the last point, but I’m not going to try and say I haven’t even done it.

  6. It works for the Dems too.

    They get votes from sincere pacifists [I mean not the hypocritical ones who are only opposed to military action ordered by Republicans] who get disillusioned when they realize that people like Obama talk about closing US bases only in Iraq, and then don’t even do that, and increase the Afghan mission, and he gets away with it after portraying McCain as a bloodthirsty warmonger.

    Same with all these gay “marriage” supporters who voted for Bill “Defense of Marriage Act” Clinton and BH “Marriage is a Man and a Woman” Obama, just because the Dems made them think McCain or whoever was going to have gays rounded up and shot.

  7. I don’t trust pacifists, it goes against human nature not to fight for your own survival. I’m not saying war is a good thing and peace is bad, but I don’t trust anyone who would refuse to save their own life or the life of others.

    “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill

  8. Actually I’m sure Sayet is a flaming liberal, as far as I’m concerned; I used to always listen to Shire Network News, which was made up entirely of Jewish commentators except Damien Penny who they even called their “token gentile” and got increasingly frustrated when they’d constantly go on about how “the left” hates Jews without ever even dealing with the fact that most Jews are lefties.

    And every one of them (except, as far as I remember, Penny) said that they “used to be liberals (Dems, Communists etc) until 9-11”, but they would be opposed to “Islamism” because “it’s opposed to our Western values” which as far as they were concerned means buggery, abortion, porn, secularism, atheism, whatever … and would criticize “rigid” Conservatives who’d “get hung up” such things.

    Notice how in the video he only deals with the matter of most Jews being liberals after it was asked of him by an audience member. And his answer is wrong. He says that Jews are liberal because as oppressed people they feel an obligation to support progressive or liberal movements, even if those movements are full of Jew-haters.

    The fact is that modern Jew-hatred and antisemitism, meaning wishing for the obliteration of Judaism altogether [as opposed to pre-“enlightenment antisemitism which was more like “Not In My Backyard — just move along” (and Medieval Jews would have the keys to their Ghetto gates as a way of keeping non-Jews out, not non-Jews keeping Jews locked away. See: Salo Baron, “Ghetto and Emancipation” Menorah Journal, 1928] was predominantly a Jewish phenomenon.

    Marx (an Atheist Lutheran Jew, in case any historical beginners are tuning in here) “solved” “The Jewish Problem” by calling for an end to Jews. And the Jewish militant Communists like Rosa Luxembourg, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, Moisei Uritsky, Grigory Sokolnikov, Adolph Joffe, Mikhail Lashevich, Semyon Dimanstein, Lazar Kaganovich, etc etc etc etc all across the Communist world in the USSR, Poland, Austria, the US, the UK, France. There is an undeniable staggeringly disproportionate Jewish membership in every pre-Stainist Communist Party and even after the MJewish Doctor’s Plot trials and Stalins creation of a Jewish “Homeland” in Siberia, there was still a disproportionately high Jewish membership. These are undisputed facts.

    According to the 1922 CPUSSR party census, there were 19,564 Jewish members of the Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total. Of the 12 members of the Cheka Counter-revolutionary department in 1918, 6 were Jewish. In the mid-1930s, under the leadership of Genrikh Yagoda, the Jewish presence in the secret police was 38.5%.

    Here at Jewish Achievement they boast about how “Jews have always been in the vanguard of every progressive movement”. Notice the relevance of the following to the modern Democratic Party of Obama, Soros, Axelrod, Emanuel:

    “Student protests and the Free Speech movement: The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was America’s most strident student movement of the 1960s and 70s. It spawned an even more radical sibling, the violent Weather Underground. In 1979, Arthur Liebman wrote his influential Jews and the Left, one of several scholarly books written by Jews to explore the disproportionate representation of Jews among leftist student activists. Liebman concluded that Jews were 46 percent of the delegates at the 1966 SDS convention. They were equally important in the movement’s leadership including Richard Flacks, Al Haber, Robb Ross, Steve Max, Mike Spiegal, Mike Klonsky, Todd Gitlin, Kathy Boudin, Bettina Aptheker, and Mark Rudd, (who came to national prominence as leader of the student takeover of the President’s office at Columbia University.) Between 1960 and 1970, five of the nine SDS presidents were Jewish (Haber, Gitlin, Spiegel, Klonsky and Rudd.)

    “Liebman also concluded that the majority of the Free Speech Movement steering committee at University of California, Berkeley, was Jewish, as were 50 percent of the California Peace and Freedom party, according to David R. Schweitzer and James Eden.

    “The most radical group was the Weathermen, so named for Bob Dylan’s line “You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.” The name was later changed to Weather Underground. In today’s terms the Weather Underground would be classed as “terrorist.” Frustrated by the Viet Nam War, disaffected by failures in the civil rights movement, and opposed to capitalism, the group intended to take over the government. They freed Timothy Leary from jail, bombed two dozen public buildings, including the Capital Building and Pentagon, and lost three of their members to a premature bomb explosion in Greenwich Village. One member was also later implicated in the death of two police officers as the result of a Brinks truck robbery. Among its leaders were, Mark Rudd, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Naomi Jaffe, David Gilbert, Laura Whitehorn and Brian Flanagan. Of the seven, only Ayers and Flanagan are not Jewish.”

    http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/social.html

    Anyway, clearly all these Jewish people created and supported the modern Jew-hating leftist movement as a way of obliterating nationalism and trying to overthrow Christianity, as their “solution” to “the Jewish Problem”.

    Which is why Sayet has it completely backwards. Jews are not “drawn to the Left” but were integral to the Communist movement and actually overwhelmingly contributed to the creation of the Left and then drew others to it.

    And it’s hard to respect liberals like Sayet (who considers himself a Conservative just because he supports the US military and says he wants lower taxes) when they pretend to demand that people “wake up” and “face reality” but they themselves are still wed to typical Leftist historiography.

  9. Re: “I don’t trust pacifists, it goes against human nature not to fight for your own survival. I’m not saying war is a good thing and peace is bad, but I don’t trust anyone who would refuse to save their own life or the life of others.”

    I understand. I meant that regardless of the merits and faults of Pacisfsm, the Dems con pacifist into voting for them, against their own (i.e. pacifists’ own) interests and conscience by making them fear the “warmongering” Reagan, Bush, McCain etc, completely dismissing the validity of the idea that “si vis pacem, para bellum”. And then the Dems go to war with the USSR (in Afghanistan), Sudan (Clinton’s missile attacks), Yugoslavia/Bosnian Serbs/Serbia, etc.

    I meant that’s the same as Republicans getting Conservative votes by talking up capitalism and nationalism and then betraying much of what they pretend to support.

    I’m really sick and tired of people being dishonest (or, to be polite, confused) about what they believe. That’s why I called my site “What Do You Believe?” And I’ve found out few people (you’re one of the few exceptions) even know or are honest about what they believe.

    [BTW, that’s why i can’t stand phonies like “Muslims Against Sharia”]

  10. Also contradicting Sayet’s facile idea that Jews are “drawn” to the Left because of their history of being oppressed:

    “Salo Wittmayer Baron’s most important was his June 1928 article in the influential publication Menorah Journal entitled “Ghetto and Emancipation: Shall We Revise the Traditional View?”

    “The essay challenged head-on some of the cardinal premises of his predecessors by arguing that the history of the Jews was not, as Heinrich Graetz, the greatest Jewish historian of the nineteenth century, had memorably put it, a Leidens-und-gelehrtengeschichte — a history of suffering and scholarship. In fact, Baron insisted, the notion that the Jews were persecuted more than any other group throughout history was simply wrong.

    “During the Middle Ages, for example, the Jews were far better off than the peasants who made up the bulk of the population, he argued. The periodic pogroms and persecutions that did indeed afflict the Jews were horrific, but not constitutive of Jewish history or Jewish self-consciousness. On the other hand, the emancipation that began after the French Revolution was won at a price — the loss of the millennia-long autonomy of the Jewish communities.”

  11. You make it sound like there is some big Jewish conspiracy out there when there isn’t.

    In regards to the Soviet Union yes many of the early leaders of the Bolsheviks were of Jewish ancestry but they where not Jewish in any religious sense. Sayet does make the distinction in his remarks about a religious Jew and a person of Jewish ancestry who is not religious. The Jewish people you refer to did not try to start a revolution to overthrow Christianity but to overthrow the governments of the world as well as all the religions of the world in order to make way for a communist revolution. You are forgetting that the communists where atheists and religion of any kind was considered a threat to their ideology and they control since it didn’t go along with the party line. Blaming the Jewish religion on the actions of people who are religiously atheists but from Jewish ancestry is inappropriate , It’s the same when people call Nazi Germany a Christian nation when the Nazi ideology was Atheist with some mild references to the ancient Teutonic religion. Hitler’s family and ancestors were Christian but he by no mean was, so you can’t blame Christianity for Hitler since he was an Atheist, just like most of the Left-wing Jews you are talking about. Both the Communists and the Nazis wanted to overthrow the Judeo–Christian value system, it wasn’t Jews against Christians it was Atheists against both Jews and Christians as well as Capitalism and and any sort of traditional liberal values.

    Historically the Jewish Ghettos where a way for them to live in peace and stay away from others out of fear due to oppression and such things like the Spanish Inquisition. Also remember that Jews had been oppressed under Tsarist Russia so naturally even the religious Jews would in that case gravitate to the Bolsheviks who wanted to remove the Tsar. It was only later the Religious ones would find out that they would be just as oppressed under the Bolsheviks and the religious Jews ended up being rounded up by the Soviets and murdered en mass.

    I think you also to a point miss the differences between religious conservatives and secular conservatives, the secular conservatives are less likely to worry about some of the moral issues that religious conservatives do and pay more attention to economic and social liberalism (in the original definition) while religious conservatives are often times less worried about personal freedom.

  12. Re: “You make it sound like there is some big Jewish conspiracy out there”

    1. I never said anywhere in any way that there was “some big Jewish conspiracy” out there, implying that “they’re all in on it” or anything like that.

    2. Groups of Jewish people can and have conspired for all sorts of things.

    Re: “In regards to the Soviet Union yes many of the early leaders of the Bolsheviks were of Jewish ancestry”

    Not simply “many” but phenomenally many, considering they were 1-2% of the population and 1/3 – 1/2 of some state organs.

    Re: “But they where not Jewish in any religious sense.”

    That’s what I said, when I said their solution to the “Jewish Problem” was to demand the obliteration of all religion and nationalism as in order to all destroy Judaism and the “jewish identity”. This is a Jewish invention or technique, unknown before Marx.

    Re: “The Jewish people you refer to did not try to start a revolution to overthrow Christianity but to overthrow the governments of the world as well as all the religions of the world in order to make way for a communist revolution.”

    In Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, overthrowing religios means most of all destroying faith in Christ. And destroying “The Russia Nation” in particular means destroying the Orthodox Christian faith that has defined the Russian people since the 10th century. [The same is rue regarding the Churches of Romania, Moldavia, Serbia, Bugaria, Ohrid, Bukhovina etc]

    Re: You are forgetting that the communists where atheists and religion of any kind was considered a threat to their ideology and they control since it didn’t go along with the party line.”

    But Communism is basically a Jewish invention, it’s main goal was to destroy the distinctions definng individual human identity beginning with Judaism, Jewishness and Christianity. The Christian faith and Church was from the beginning the primary target.

    Re: “Blaming the Jewish religion on the actions of people who are religiously atheists but from Jewish ancestry is inappropriate”

    I never anywhere blamed Judaism for anything.

    Re: “It’s the same when people call Nazi Germany a Christian nation when the Nazi ideology was Atheist with some mild references to the ancient Teutonic religion. Hitler’s family and ancestors were Christian but he by no mean was, so you can’t blame Christianity for Hitler since he was an Atheist, just like most of the Left-wing Jews you are talking about.”

    Right, but Sayet himself points out that irreligious or atheist Jews are still Jews.

    Re: “Both the Communists and the Nazis wanted to overthrow the Judeo–Christian value system, it wasn’t Jews against Christians it was Atheists against both Jews and Christians as well as Capitalism and and any sort of traditional liberal values.”

    Most of that is true, but in fact Soviet records of many Jewish Soviet leaders speeches and rulings show quite clearly that they were at war with Christ above-all, correctly identifying Christian faith as the defining factor in Russian Polish, Georgia, Ukrainian, Armenian identity.

    Re: “Historically the Jewish Ghettos where a way for them to live in peace and stay away from others out of fear due to oppression and such things like the Spanish Inquisition. Also remember that Jews had been oppressed under Tsarist Russia so naturally even the religious Jews would in that case gravitate to the Bolsheviks who wanted to remove the Tsar. It was only later the Religious ones would find out that they would be just as oppressed under the Bolsheviks and the religious Jews ended up being rounded up by the Soviets and murdered en mass.”

    Yes. The Soviet turning against the Jewish Bolsheviks was also motivated by the realization that the most fanatical and anti-Russian (etc) Bolsheviks were disproportionately Jews, and where threatening Soviet stability or social harmony with the increase in antisemitism even unknown during Tsarist times, as White Russians, Ukrainians Armenians etc came to view the Moscow rightly or wrongly as a Jewish Occupied Govenment.

    Particular famous figures symbolized everything patriotic Russians saw in what they came to view as a Jewish-inspired tyranny, such as the fact that the very person who executed the now-sainted Romanovs was Yakov Mikhailovich Yurovsky, a Jew, acing on the orders of Yakov Mikhaylovich Sverdlov, another Jew (who became a Soviet Saint), with the assistance of a predominantly Jewish cadre.

    Note how Lenin in this recording praises SVerdlov for his essential role in the revolution without daring to mention [yes, it’s a conscious ommission] without even daring to mention the particular act, which has already gone down in history as an anti-Christian and foreign attack on the Russian nation equalling the martyrdoms of Sts Boris and Gleb at the hands of Sviatopolk the Damned, or of St Michael of Tver or of St Alexander Nevsky.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x54na3_in-memory-of-comrade-yakov-sverdlov_news

    Perhaps you have trouble imagining the enormity of this for the Russian people. Imagine if after the US invasion of Japan, MacArthur had left the Emperor in the custody of a unit of Korean-AMerican soldiers (I know…I said imagine), and then one night they took the entire Royal Family into a dingy basement and ran them through with bayonets, shot them, smashed their skulls in and then drove around all night dragging their bodying into and out of various makeshift graves in mucky ground before finally pissing on their secret graves.

    Do you think that might have some effect on Japanese-Korean relations?

    I’ve been trying to make the point that just about any non-Jewish victim of Europan Communist tyranny would have been shaking their heads when Sayet tried to say that Jews, as an oppressed people, naturally “drawn” to the Left, and would be likely cursing him as much as they curse any German who tried to justify Germans just being “drawn” to Nazism in response to Versailles etc as if Germans had no part in the invention and propagation of Nazism.

    Re: “I think you also to a point miss the differences between religious conservatives and secular conservatives, the secular conservatives are less likely to worry about some of the moral issues that religious conservatives do and pay more attention to economic and social liberalism (in the original definition) while religious conservatives are often times less worried about personal freedom.”

    I don’t miss the point at all, but actually dispute your definition, since religious conservatives tend to be more concerned with religious freedom precicly because it is at the heart of all human freedom.

  13. I don’t want to get side-tracked from my main point, which is that people like Sayet are ignorant or are dissembling when they try to say that Jews are predominatly liberal becasue they are “drawn to” the Left, which unfortunately is antisemitic.

    In fact, the antisemitic character of the Left is a Jewish contribution. It was Jews who identified Judaism as anti-human.

    As far as I can tell this is the first time in all of human history that anyone is recorded as saying that anyone argued that the elimination of Judaism was necessary for the salvation of humanity, on the grounds that the Jewish God is Money and the basic Characteristic of the Jew is to lie and cheat for profit (“huckstering”). Christian teaching has always been, as Christ said “I came not to overthrow the Law but to fulfill it. All European anti-semitism was at heart a problem of a minority being out of place in a Christian world. No Church teaching besides the anti-Jewish rantings of Luther after he failed to “convert the Jews” — no Church teachings ever demanded an end to Judaism, even amongst those who saw the Church as a replacement of Israel.

    The first to demand an end to Judaism (which naturally came to also mean an end to Christianity, since the majority of people in the world both then and now who ppraise the fore-runners of Christ were and are Christians) — he first to demand an end to Judaism, and to identify it as by definition an evil materialist cult — were all Jews, and all socialists or Communists, and were ispired predominantly by Marx:

    QUOTE

    “Let us not seek the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us seek the secret of the religion in the real Jew. What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.

    “Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself.

    “An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions and thus the very possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would evaporate like some insipid vapour in the real, life-giving air of society . . .

    “We discern in Judaism, therefore, a universal antisocial element of the present time, whose historical development, zealously aided in its harmful aspects by the Jews, has now attained its culminating point, a point at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

    “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

    UNQUOTE

  14. “Right, but Sayet himself points out that irreligious or atheist Jews are still Jews.”

    It sounded more to me that he was trying to make that notion look silly, in that they are not really Jews because of the fact that they are not religious, but people want to refer to them as Jews anyway.

    “That’s what I said, when I said their solution to the “Jewish Problem” was to demand the obliteration of all religion and nationalism as in order to all destroy Judaism and the “Jewish identity”. This is a Jewish invention or technique, unknown before Marx.”

    These people would be better described as ex-Jews or anti-semites of Jewish Ancestry , these people are not Jews in any sense other than they may have Jewish ancestry and now seek to destroy anything that has to do with their ancestors culture as well as the culture in Europe, just the same as how people of Christian ancestry seek to destroy Christianity and overthrow the national culture. It’s unfair to real Jews to call these other people Jews, such as it is unfair to refer to Christians to call ex Christians, Christians when describing them when they do something terrible. Plus while these “Jews” you refer to where very big in the communist movement other people where as well but you don’t refer to these people as Christians even though it was part of their cultural heritage.

    The reason Christianity was the main target is that Christianity was the most common Religion in Europe and could be considered more powerful of a force so it had to be dealt with first. So naturally if you want to destroy all religion in Europe you would have had to go after Christianity the most since it was like I said the most common religion. In China where Christianity was a small minority it was Buddhism and Taoism that was attacked under the Cultural Revolution, and in North Korea all religion was attacked and replaced with the Juche, a quasi religion/philosophy of the State based on Marxism-Leninism and the idol worship of the Kims, although since in Korea Christianity was very popular it was much more heavily attacked than in China where it was not. Also consider that China is much more worried about the Dalai Lama than any Christian church, it’s because the power of the Tibetan style Buddhism over the the people that is looked on as a threat to the power of the Chinese Communists.

  15. Actually Christianity was more attacked by Mao Zhou En-Lai etc than Budhhist were before the “Cutural Revolution”.

    The preamble to the PRC constitution is to a large extent an attack on Christian charity.

    Only Orthodox Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church are labelled as enemy alien Churches in the PRC.

    Mao Deng etc understood very well that Communism is essentially Christianity without Christ, and is a product or perversion of Jewish and Christian civilizations,’ they knew very well (even if modern Chi-Coms likely don’t) that Communist symbol they put on the Chinese and CPC flags was a Jewish and Christian symbol, and was intended as part of the Communist plan to destroy Christ and worship Man.

    http://www.daylife.com/photo/05fmdss31hakc

  16. Of course communism is an attack on Christianity it’s an attack on all religion, however since communism came from nations that where predominately Christian it’s just their frame of reference when thinking about religion, had communism started in India it would be Hinduism that was the main target at the outset. In China the missionaries were part of the “imperialist forces” from other countries so naturally as communism developed in China they would go after foreign forces first, since ethnic and national pride are easy things to use against people, before they turned on domestic forces that ended up being the Cultural Revolution.

  17. In promoting Allan Bloom, Sayet is just taking the side of one form of liberaliam against other forms.

    Bloom was a student and promoter Marxist Kojeve and Neoconservative Strauss.

    Following Strauss especially, he believed in the necessity of “utilizing” belief in God as a way achieving political power just as his disciples advocated the infiltration of conservative circle as a way of empowering liberalism. Stauss’ dictum was:

    “Are political entities not compelled to use force and fraud if they are to prosper?”

    The key philosophical component at the center of Strauss’ philosophy is that God does not exist, but the intellectual elite, his “philosophers”-equivalent to Neitche’s “super-men”-must perpetrate the myth that God does exist in order that the rest of humankind have something to follow and believe in. These “philosophers” were to be, in Stauss’ words, “atheistic priests” teaching about God, but not falling prey to the myth themselves. Strauss’s Bloom inculcated this principle at the heart of his philosophy.

    Bloom and his equally anti-Christian comrade Saul Bellow (“a miserable mediocrity” – Vladimir Nabokov) did much to promote the idea that the conservativism must be purged of Christian and Judaic metaphysics. This is exactly what Marx and Feuerbach did.

    Bellow based his title-character “Ravelston” [Novel, 2000] on his Comrade, Bloom, as a conscience tribute to Bloom as the embodiment of Orwell’s character Ravelston (in “Keep the Aspidistra Flying” 1936, Ravelston was the publisher of a Leftist magazine called “The Antichrist”). These gnostics just love their allusions.

    Bloom and his acolytes are essentially pagan, and one worlders, and only promote their Muslim, Jewish and Christian idols by arguing that “all faith traditions and no at all” are alternate paths to the pagan truth.

    They are Gnostics, which is why Bloom has done so much to try to delegitimize the Gospels.

    They are from the same intellectual strain as other One Worlder atheists like fellow Straussians Wolfowitz and Perle. All of them, along with the Obamas and the Axelrods and the Gordon Browns and the Milibands and the Kissingers etc etc etc etc dream of
    a One WOrld Government, the end of nations and the “murder” of Christ. If they argue with each other, it’s only like a turf war between the Comora and the Mafia.

    Podhoretz worships Bloom, Chomskey condems him. Frankly i’m tired of what is essentially Christian civilization being defined by civil wars betweens agnostic or atheist Jews, with Christians being expected to choose their sides.

    As far as I’m concerned Communists, Socialists, Gnostics, New Agers, Neoconservatives, etc are all anti-Christians, just involved in civil wars.

    To my belief they are of necessity (necessary for their purposes) anti-Christ since I believe that Christ is the only path to God.

    However even a secularist or atheist should be able to see that Christ must be the main target of one worlders since Jesus is the most important man in all of human history(hence BC/AD) and the Christian Church is the most important and most influential organization in all of human history.

    + + +

    Just because it’s a bizarre quote:

    Allan Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind”:

    “When we Americans speak seriously about politics, we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and everywhere applicable. World War II was really an educational project undertaken to force those who did not accept these principles to do so.”

    + + +

    Out of related interest:

    Note that Bloom blamed Nazism on “Conservatives”.

    Paul Gottfired nominated of Bloom’s “Closing” book as the most dangerous book of the 19th and 20th Centuries:

    QUOTE

    When in Course of …

    by Paul Gottfried

    In the May 31 issue of Human Events a special feature appeared that has already been widely and vituperatively noted, on “The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries.” As a participant in this ranking, my name is appended, along with the monikers of other judges, to a list of this supposedly dangerous reading matter. The project-organizer also prepared a commentary for each of the books listed. No sooner had the final product gone into print and onto the internet than local newspaper editors called me to find out why I had participated in this ranking. One especially troubled critic, who is the President of the Corporate Performance Artists, deplored the “anger” that had led me and the other judges into endangering his craft. Supposedly the publication of our ratings signified an attack on artistic and expressive freedom. The President of the CPA showed his anger by exploding at my statement, that given the inquisition of political correctness the Left was unleashing, it had no “moral right” to complain about intellectual or artistic intolerance. Besides, as I explained, I had joined in the rating activity as an intellectual-historical exercise – and not as a call to ban books.

    Having stated why I find Human Event’s decision to compile such a list defensible and even commendable, allow me to explain why I strongly disagree with most of the picks for the top-ten “most harmful books.” Only two of my least favorite authors, John Dewey and Betty Friedan, made the negative hit parade, although two others, Theodor Adorno and Margaret Meade, did appear as “honorable mentions,” having garnered fewer votes than those above them on the list. Although I failed to think of either, both Herbert Croly and Alfred Kinsey deserve to be listed – and Kinsey’s fraudulent sexology has surely a justified claim to its number 4 ranking.

    In my considered opinion, and with due respect, most of my co-judges were not thinking outside the box. No one but a madman or ignoramus could believe Betty Friedan incited more brutality than Adolf Hitler, yet Hitler’s autobiography, which is sloppily written and turgid almost to the point of unreadability, had in all likelihood little to do with bringing him to power. It is entirely likely that far more people were influenced by The Feminine Mystique’s declaration of war against women’s traditional roles in the family, or J.S. Mill’s indictment of all societies that fail to enact his feminist program, than became Nazi activists after looking at Mein Kampf. Although the Nazi state made energetic efforts to distribute Hitler’s scribbling, even at weddings, it was hard to get people to read it. The present crusade by the German government and the EU to remove from circulation all available copies of Mein Kampf has zip to do with the popularity of the work being feverishly hunted down. It is an exercise in the widening thought control of Eurocrats and German “antifascist” state censors. The fact that a book is written by or ascribed to an unpleasant tyrant does not mean that it has been decisive in creating his tyranny. This might apply to the sayings of Mao and Lenin’s What Is To Be Done as well as to Hitler’s autobiography.

    Other books that appear on the list, e.g., by Auguste Comte, Nietzsche, and John Maynard Keynes, epitomize the attempt to be loyal to the “conservative movement” by appealing to its inherited demonologies. Is Keynes’s General Theory, which went into print after the New Deal was already underway and long after the introduction of European social democracy, one of the ten most harmful books of the last two hundred years? And even agreeing with Friedrich Hayek, that the faux sciences that are taught in academic social science departments are both unscientific and ideologically driven, is one of Hayek’s examples, Comte’s Introduction to Positive Philosophy, wicked or important enough to be listed as one of the most harmful books around? I doubt that Hayek would have ascribed such significance to this particular Comtean illustration of the “counterrevolution of science.” In any case by now there are legions of far more egregious examples of what Hayek called attention to, ideologues hiding behind “scientific” labels to palm off their versions of totally controlled societies.

    The attack on Nietzsche as an inspirer of the Nazis and as a moral-relativist is likewise a recycling of movement conservative dogma. One might have hoped that by now sensible conservatives would have forgotten Allan Bloom’s risible chapter from The Closing of the American Mind”The German Connection,” which blames without documentation both the academic New Left and Nazism on rightwing German thinkers. Bloom goes specifically after someone who was H.L. Mencken’s favorite social critic, and one of my favs, Friedrich Nietzsche. But a long list of scholarly works since the Second World War suggest the difficulties of portraying Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi, and it seems far from clear that the work condemned in Human Events,Beyond Good and Evil, has produced a single “moral relativist.” Although I’m not sure what “moral relativists” look like, they certainly do not inhabit the present multicultural Left. When was the last time a feminist, socialist, or gay activist made the argument that a conservative Christian’s values were as good as his/her own? Moral fanaticism and not the equal acceptance of all value-systems has become the hallmark of the cultural Left.

    The placing of The Communist Manifesto on the top of the list and the appearance of Marx’s Capitaland Quotations from Mao in the sixth and third slots and Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? among the honorable mentions point to another trip down memory lane. One of the few constant characteristics of the conservative movement since the fifties has been anti-Communism, and most of the judges might have had trouble abandoning old hates in favor of more relevant ones. As I stressed to the Human Events organizer, I was hoping (alas in vain) that the committee would look at current dangers to Western freedoms and traditional social morality rather than drag out those authors whom anti-Communists were likely to execrate during the Cold War. Although Marx in The Communist Manifesto attacked but also defended bourgeois capitalism, can one reasonably compare the poison found in this Victorian document to other later polemics, e.g., Catherine MacKinnon’s or Theodor Adorno’s expressions of hatred for normal gender roles as well as economic freedom? Beside later socialist authors, who advocate a state-enforced war on the bourgeois family, Marx was a mid-nineteenth-century sweetheart. And are Mao’s flinty aphorisms about revolution, which were distributed after Mao had become the “Great Helmsman” in Communist China, consuming today’s Western society? To all appearances, Mao did not generate a widespread Western movement against traditional social morality and constitutionally limited government – unlike our “antifascist” and diversitarian academics and journalists. I am putting these questions out as queries that movement conservatives might do well to consider. Totalitarian movements that once prospered in the Old World deserve to be condemned but it may be more useful to notice the sources of pollution in the sensitized, transformed America of the early twenty-first century and among its multicultural European imitators. At least in this case, Nietzsche was right when he urged those fixated on the past to “let the dead bury the dead.”

    June 4, 2005

    Paul Gottfried is Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of, most recently, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.

  18. I blieve you are incorrect here:

    “Of course communism is an attack on Christianity it’s an attack on all religion, however since communism came from nations that where predominately Christian it’s just their frame of reference when thinking about religion, had communism started in India it would be Hinduism that was the main target at the outset.”

    Communist could not possibly have started in India.

    Communism is a specific product of the West, of the “Enlightenment”, of the Reformation; and is at heart, in its very essence, a perversion of Christianity.

    It is Christianity without Christ.

    It is the end-product of the gradual Frankish (Franco-Germanic) process of de-Christening Christendom.

  19. It’s not incorrect because it’s true had communism started in India it would have gone after Hinduism first. Now it didn’t start in India because the Utopian Ideology that is required for the idea of communism take hold on the populace did come from the Enlightenment, something that didn’t happen in India. My point was only that if something like the Enlightenment had happened in India what the outcome would have been.

    However the Enlightenment has two different sides, on one side you have the Utopian leaders of the Enlightenment such as Rousseau and on the more rational an non-utopians such as Locke. Not all of the Enlightenment was against Christianity or even sought to overturn it. However the one part of it most enamored with the idea of Utopia did want to over turn Christianity as well as religion in general, and while many people used Christianity itself for basis of their Utopian ideologies, however most of them have faded through time being replaced by the secular or atheistic utopian ideologies such as Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The idea is if you can create a Heaven on Earth what need do you have for a Heaven in the sky with God? If you do away with God because loyalty to God takes away loyalty to the movement or the state. It was also a backlash to the Catholic Church that at times could easily be said to be rather tyrannical and oppressive. Communism was a replacement of Christianity, It was like a religion without a god but it wasn’t a perversion of Christianity any more than Islam is a perversion of Judaism and Christianity. While say Islam might have taken a few things from the other two, than changed them to fit it’s needs it’s in no relevant way like the other two, other than in the sense that it is a monotheism.

  20. I understand that “if” the socialist thinking had occurred in X-land, then the target would have been the target of X-land.

    However it didn’t. It happened in Western Europe. And I’m saying that was no accident, but was in fact a direct product of the Western inversion of Christianity.

    “Not all of the Enlightenment was against Christianity or even sought to overturn it. However the one part of it most enamored with the idea of Utopia did want to over turn.”

    Again, must disagree. It was all to different decrees anti-Christian, since, for one thing, Chritianity is Enlihjtenment “Patrick, Enlightener of Ireland” “Vladimir, Enlightener of Russia” etc. And baptism is the New Man, New Wine, Re-Birth etc etc.

    I’m sure we have a different persceptive because you probably don’t see or wouldn’t agree that te basis of the USA was anti-Christian, which it was.

    Jefferson edited “the supernatural” from the Bible. Lincoln was neber baptized. [I guess he and Obama are the only ones] Adams [Sr and Jr], Jefferson, Washington etc, were all famously anti-Christian, even if they went to Church every Sunday as was expected of them. They’re wives’ correspondence is full of concerns for their souls, and talk about how much they hated any “stupid talk of miracles” etc. They would always leave Church before Mass.

    They were all at heart Unitarians, which will be BTW the basis of the One World Government . [“We all believe in the same God or none at all…” — sound familiar?]

    It’s what people like Leo Strauss promote: “an atheist priesthood”. NGO’s, UN, EU, etc etc. “Let’s blur the lines … we’re all the same.

    This is why so-called Conservatives in the US were disarmed by Obama. He conforms to every dogmatic pose of the americanist cult. He prays at the shrines in Washington, he invokes a God without defining him. He invokes a messiah without naming him. He’d choke before he said “Jesus Christ Lord of Creation” or any normal Christian definition of Christ. He reasserts the national pieties as well as any “born-again” or “evangelical” — he even says stupid un-Christian things like “I’m PROUD to be a Christian!” and nobody points out that pride is a sin.

    You write, “while many people used Christianity itself for basis of their Utopian ideologies, however most of them have faded through time being replaced by the secular or atheistic utopian ideologies such as Fascism, Nazism and Communism.”

    I would add Americanism, and New World Order to that list.

    [Also Fascism (Italy, Croatia, Latin America, Spain) was more of a rejection of Christianity in favour of pagan Rome, but was not openly hostile to the Church and is often very strongly supportive of the Church as in Lebanese Phalangism etc. Anyway Fascism/Phalangism is not utopian nor essentially anti-Christian, but a reactionary secular movement. Jeffersonian or Emmersonian Socianism is more anti-Christian than any Fascist ever was. I’ll add that Hitler was a Socialist, not in any real non-cynical sense a Fascist.]

    You agree that Communism was/is Christianity without God and is anti-ecclesial. But it was more than that. It was a specifical, historical anti-CHRIST movement, no just anti-God. And I hope if you study closely many writings and speeches of US founding fathers you will see that they too were specifically anti-ecclesial and anti-Christ. (Which explains why only one Catholic has ever been President, and that only after a public pledge that he would not b guided by the moral teachings of his Church. This in spite of the fact that the US is about 1/4 RC) Consider, for example, they often use the word “Providence”

    So, for all these reasons, it does not surprise me that all the so-called Conservative movements of the past 2 generations have apparently failed, or why an average Conservative of today would be have been considered a flaming leftist 30 years ago, or why Obamism is so successful [I guess he’ll fail due to his shallowness and narcissism, but whoeer’s behind him fill find a pliable anti-Christian replacement [Bishop Romney, I wonder? Who was all for government bailouts on the campaign before he was against them in opposition…]

    Whatever it’s called, it’s a steady drift towards collectivism, and One Worldism. I trust you’ll see that’s the case too. It’s just taken the US a bit longer to “get on board” than was the case in post-WWI and Post-WWII Europe.

    [Again, yes Communism and Islam are inversions and perversions of Christianity, which is why they didn’t develop in Japan or Persia, but in Christian (and Jewish) territory where both faiths had been compromised by dispersion and heresy: Arabia and Germania. That’s History, Yuu-jin.]

  21. Correction:

    By “Consider, for example, they often use the word “Providence””

    I meant: “Consider, for example, they often use the word “Providence” instead of Christ or God. “Providence” is the Americanist equivalent of the Marxist God “History””

  22. Conservatives, where not disarmed by Obama, the media specifically the MSN that made sure that Obama was portrayed as the golden boy and that all of his faults thrown into the memory hole. They didn’t have the propaganda facilities that Obama had so they where easily countered no matter how bad the argument from the left really was.

    Mussolini, the first Fascist was the leading Socialist in Italy for years before he even tried to get into power, and yes Fascism is a Utopian Ideology, in Italy the used the idea of the glory of Rome as a Utopian ideal that helped them further their cause. The main difference between the leading Socialists of the day and someone like Mussolini is that the leading socialists and communists looked towards a world wide revolution and an international socialism while Mussolini concerned himself with a national form of socialism, much like Hitler’s “National Socialism”, Granted there are some differences since Hitler used both Class warfare and racial/ethnic warfare or struggle as part of his ideology wherein Mussolini only used class struggle and nationalism. This differed from the Socialists of the day who mainly used only class struggle and didn’t bother with ethnic or racial struggle because it was supposed to be an international ideology. Basically Mussolini and Hitler just took the Ideals of socialism and used them only for the narrow interests of the state rather that the higher international ideals.

    On Fascism and Christianity; Mussolini hated the Christianity and the Pope but couldn’t attack them too much because they held too much power in Italy for him to do so. Even with all his power her couldn’t afford to lose support from the Italian Catholics and religious, had he had more time, or had Italy spent a longer time as a Fascist nation they could have eventually gotten rid of the church but at the time it wasn’t a feasible option. Yes in Spain and Latin America they did use religion for their political goals and incorporated Christianity into their socialist or Fascist views, as in America where the Socialist, or progressive movement, started in some of the churches. However the use of Christianity in America faded to the point that it is antagonistic for the most part, and in Latin America where it is used only as a tool as part of a larger goal and it is viewed only as a tool and nothing more in many cases, although some things like Liberation Theology did come out of this marriage and is I admit used in both Latin America and some places in America.

    The founding father of America were of varying religious ideals, you can’t call the entirety of America a country founded off the anti-Christ. Plus remember the idea was to separate politics from religion, they didn’t want a theocracy any more than they wanted an Atheistic tyranny. You can’t call America totally a utopian ideal because while some people did use the utopian language and ideology in the founding it was still principled off of many of the non-utopian elements of the Enlightenment such as the ideals of Locke. The fact that you don’t seem to separate Christianity specifically Catholicism from politics detracts from your argument. There is nothing wrong with religion but when debating people with a different view, using religion doesn’t help your cause. I was raised in a mixture of a Protestant and Jewish household, and is for the most part could be most closely described as Christian Deist, so my frame of reference is different, I don’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope, while I can respect the current Pope as a religious leader, as I do with the Dalai Lama, but I don’t acknowledge his authority on Christianity. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with Catholicism we just have theological disagreements. The problem is that is you are debating someone about politics but you have different views on theology it doesn’t help when you us theology to help your point since it isn’t necessarily going to be considered a “Truth” by the other party.

    The NWO stuff is just the same old International Socialism that has been around since the Socialist and Collectivist ideologies first started, although half the stuff about NWO theories are just insane conspiracy theories. That’s not to say that there are not people really trying this stuff but there is to much mindless chatter in the balcony if you know what I mean?

  23. “you can’t call the entirety of America a country founded off the anti-Christ.”

    No, of course not, but the main authors of the constitution where either
    “deists”, which is not Christian, or like Jefferson where openly anti-Christian. He openly denied that Jesus was Christ/Messiah or God.

    “The idea was to separate politics from religion, they didn’t want a theocracy any more than they wanted an Atheistic tyranny.”

    That’s right. But I would say more that they wanted to use faith in a similar way to the way in which people like Alan Bloom say atheists should “use” religion to establish an “atheist priesthood”. That’s almost how i see the US Constitution (scriptures) Supreme Court (High Preisthood) the Imperial Presidency (The Great Sanctifier, the God-Emperor like Augustus). Of course all of these elements have been held in check by the anti-idolatrous teachings of the churches and synagiogues most Americans have attended, but I predict that as this becomes less the case, then the idolatrous aspects of the “Cult of America” will come to the fore.

    Just one example is the 9-12 movement of Glenn Beck that so many conservatives are supporting. I appreciate why they support it, and I like Glenn Beck a lot, but frankly it’s an idolatrous movement, that would never have had any real support a generation ago, because Beck places America above God in his list of principles. Now people say, “So what, as long as he’s conservative or whatever, that’s all that matters.” But words matter.

    “You can’t call America totally a utopian ideal because while some people did use the utopian language and ideology in the founding it was still principled off of many of the non-utopian elements of the Enlightenment such as the ideals of Locke.”

    Well, it’s not so much utopian, because the US has been very complicated and truly multi-cultural, but actually, in my view, the “Enlightenment” is a basically Utopian ideal, that Man can enlighten Man. Obviously I’m a “pre-modernist”.

    “The fact that you don’t seem to separate Christianity specifically Catholicism from politics detracts from your argument.”

    I’m not a Roman Catholic. And where in America is politics supposed to be free from Christianity? Is that constitutional. I thought the constitution was supposed to guarantee freedom of religion and conscience, not just “freedom of religion except when you talk about politics.”

    “I don’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope … I don’t acknowledge his authority on Christianity. ”

    Me neither, naturally, since he’s the head of the main schismatic sect in the world. At most he’s the bishop of Rome.

    “The NWO stuff is just the same old International Socialism that has been around since the Socialist and Collectivist ideologies first started, although half the stuff about NWO theories are just insane conspiracy theories.”

    I’d say more than half, actually, but it doesn’t mean there’s not a movement to create a World Government. In fact, I’d say the last 20 years has seen that movement expand exponentially. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s stated quite openly. It’s the goal of many people in the US, the EU, the UN, ICC, all over.

    In fact, while I agree that Obama was a pig in the way he treated Brown, I have no sympathy for Brown, since he’s a traitor and an idiot. Just the insult Obama gave to Britain as a nation was offensive. Brown as an individual should be jailed for life (if he’s lucky).

    Brown stated quite clearly the day before meeting Obama that his agenda was a New World Order, although he uses “Global new Deal” — big difference, I’m sure …

    http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/uk-pm-gordon-brown-uk-and-us-to-create-a-global-new-deal/

    So you see, it’s all coming together, happy atheist jews + happy agnostic Anglicans + happy “moderate” Muslims + new-age socialists + moderate Saudis [choke!] + supranationalists + NGOs + ecumenasists + big banks + big business + secularists + + + + + …

    I guarantee, in 20 years the debate won;’t be “A world government, yes or no?” It’ll be “What kind of world government must we have?”

    And the US president will be giving speeches like, “A world government is inevitable. Do we want to be left behind by History?”

    They’ll be telling you that being against a world government is un-American.

    You can bet on it.

    Crazy? Didn’t Pelosi just last week praise illegal immigrants for their “true patriotism” and call American immigration officials “un-American” for upholding the laws passed by the congress Pelosi is supposed to be in charge of?

    More inversion.

    This is what they do.

    Pelosi says supporting infanticide is the teaching of her Roman Catholic Church.

    Evan Sayet says that Bush says that Islam is a religion of peace because that’s what Christianity teaches.

    Podhoretz says that an American not supporting Israel is not a patriot (I don’t mean that people can’t or shouldn’t support Israel — just that it’s insane and offensive to say that’s the definition of an American patriot)

    Anglican (Episcopalian) “Bishop” Robinson says that getting buggered brings him closer to Christ on the Cross.

    So-called Conservatives say that America has a mission to build other nations.

    And on and on it goes … inversion, perversion, distortion … and constant decline.

    Sorry to be such a “downer” I guess. I call’s ’em as I sees ’em.

    + + +

    Of course Obama benefitted from his press whores. In fact, that may also be his downfall more than anything else. Then another product will take his place. Maybe the “conservative” version of Obama will come to power. That’ll be “diversity”. Just like liberals like Sayet posing as conservatives.

    But still, Obama was cynically packaged by people like Axelrod and Emanuel to hit all the notes of the Americanist cult and thereby disarm his “conservative” critics. He preached God (“In the blues states we too have a mighty God”, “I’m PROUD to be a Christian”), Family, Flag, Lincoln, Jefferson, the Civil War, MLK, Selma, balh blah blah. There’s no evidence he means any of it. In fact all the evidence contradicts it. But all that matters is that he uttered the Americanist pieties. It took him a while to get out of the Chicago mindset and think big and promote the national cult without looking ashamed of America, but now he does it like a pro. “2=2=5”

    Now you have people like David Frum — the kind of people who engineered both Bush’s rise and his fall — now saying that the Republicans have to abandon their silly old-fashioned thinking and package somebody to appeal to the Obamites. Get on board the train to progress. That’s what the Kristols said 30 years ago — drag conservatives into the modern age and make it a viable movement for Progress.

    Drip … drip … drip … so the globalist secularist water torture strips public life of patriotism, nationalism, faith in a living personal God, definition, clarity … drip drip drip drip drip day after day.

    “Like a boot ion the face of humanity, forever”

  24. “I’m not a Roman Catholic. And where in America is politics supposed to be free from Christianity? Is that constitutional. I thought the constitution was supposed to guarantee freedom of religion and conscience, not just “freedom of religion except when you talk about politics.”

    “Me neither, naturally, since he’s the head of the main schismatic sect in the world. At most he’s the bishop of Rome.”

    Sorry I thought you where, you are Orthodox, sorry, I made the wrong assumption, I occasionally forget to distinguish between the two. Anyway it’s not what I meant that you can’t talk about religion and politics, it’s that then you bring up religion to people who are not of the same religion it does not help your argument when you are talking about politics because of their theological differences.

    “I’d say more than half, actually, but it doesn’t mean there’s not a movement to create a World Government. In fact, I’d say the last 20 years has seen that movement expand exponentially. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s stated quite openly. It’s the goal of many people in the US, the EU, the UN, ICC, all over.”

    Oh I never said their wasn’t people that really wanted to do that, it’s just that of the people who talk about it the most, in the negative anyway, are insane conspiracy theorists, while the rest of us don’t bother yelling about it all the time. Yeah we don’t agree with the NWO ideals but find more constructive use of our time, instead of making tinfoil hats all day long.

    “Crazy? Didn’t Pelosi just last week praise illegal immigrants for their “true patriotism” and call American immigration officials “un-American” for upholding the laws passed by the congress Pelosi is supposed to be in charge of?”

    Pelosi is from San Francisco, the rest of the country either pretends that it’s not a part of America or truly believes that it isn’t.

    Look politicians say “Islam is a Religion of Peace” because they have to politically, you don’t want to come right out and tell the truth and say; “Islam is an insane cult created by a pedophile warlord and has absolutely no connection to reality, civilization or sanity whatsoever”. You just can’t do it, although it would be nice if they did. If you want Pakistan or Turkey to help you out in the Middle East you just can’t say it. Although I think Pakistan just shot themselves in the head but that’s a different story.

    “Podhoretz says that an American not supporting Israel is not a patriot (I don’t mean that people can’t or shouldn’t support Israel — just that it’s insane and offensive to say that’s the definition of an American patriot) ”

    Well I think he was going more on the fact it’s the only liberal democracy in the middle east and it makes sense with the founding ideas of the US, but I get your point.

    “So-called Conservatives say that America has a mission to build other nations.”

    Well that’s not all conservatives, but it does go along with the idea that if America is so good because of the traditional liberal values it should be good for other countries as well. It’s the modern liberal who looks at America as bad and that no culture can be better than another so we shouldn’t condemn other countries for doing what they do, even if it’s against everything they believe in such as well the entirety of the Middle East.

    Yeah the modern conservative movement has it’s problems, I’ll admit that, it’s not like I haven’t yelled about it before. It’s broken it’s several different factions all trying to lay claim to the title and they don’t want to agree, or every try to at least work together against to Socialists on the other side. But really I spend more time yelling about liberals because they are even more wrong and their politics are even worse, if not deadly such as in the case of abortion, or the piles of skulls that littered the world in the name of progress in the last century. So I go after the bigger evil. Anyway back to the point, Progressive dogma is inherently populist in the fact that it tell everyone that it can fix their lives for them, once again the utopian aspect, while much of conservatism basically tell people they are on their own and to solve their own problems, well people are lazy and would rather listen to someone like Obammers telling them he can lasso the moon for the then listen to Thomas Sowell tell them about personal responsibility and the intricacies of economics.

    I’ll say it like this:

    People are fucked, the Government is fucked and the World is fucked. And the less I have to deal with any of them the better.

    “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” Yeah I know…

    On another note, I was wondering if you are American? I’m not trying to pry or screw with you depending on your answer I was just curious. While I noticed your thing for Japanese music and at least the film Akira, with the name Brian I’m going to assume you were not born and raised in Japan.

    On another note your picture is gone from your comments, did you give up on it and not get another one?

  25. It’s not the economy stupid , It’s obama’s endless airhead blunders.

  26. It is the Sineurabia code of those who want to benight us with global feudalism, who yearn to whitewash and canonize the nazi pope, who see business, especially finance, as evil, who hate books and the Yehuds, Yovans and Parsis who write them. They could not even countenance a Kenyan pope or a Mormon president, but keep promoting Islamic candidates for public office and call theirs a religion of peace. On September 16, 1920, Italian terrorists blew up Wall Street. They set the precedent for 9/11 and they like it.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s