Balkanization in the United States

The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.

We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.

Rebloged with permission
Rights are not gifts from government

Many people, the opinions of whom I greatly respect, have written on the state of politics and society in the US in such a way as to suggest the possibility of the US moving into a period of similar to what was seen in the former republic of Yugoslavia from the mid 1980’s through to the late 1990’s, referred to by many as Balkanization. I’m certainly in agreement with these bloggers and writers, Matt Bracken being just one example.

The political, sociological, ethnic and racial trajectory in the US is eerily similar to that of the former Yugoslavia in many ways. In the coming years, this could even expand into the sphere of religion, though for now there doesn’t seem to be such widespread religious friction as much as there is racial/ethnic and political.

The similarities begin where Yugoslavia’s end did: With the economy. It’s always the economy. Yugoslavia was totally socialist in their economic model. For you on the left, yes, it was indeed “real” socialism, complete with the never-ending litany of financial Band-Aid’s designed mainly to keep the rigged carnival game going for as long as possible for whomever was sitting at the top getting rich. The US economy may not appear to be socialist in the same way, for whatever reason many Americans maintain the idea of some bastardization of capitalism corrupted by, well, socialists.

Both Yugoslavia and the US endlessly investigated and studied how best to fix the economic woes, and some decent ideas, even some great ideas, were formulated… And then were largely ignored, either due to a lack of will to implement them or a lack of ability. Probably it was lack of political will, since in both country’s cases, the ideas that would have worked best included laundry lists of major money cuts and reductions of federal power. The politicians in power are generally never going to go for a plan like that. They’d rather drive the train straight off the cliff themselves before letting someone else drive it to safety.

The idea so far is that the economic system in the US is simply not sustainable. The Band-Aid of borrowing more money from the US public, China, Japan, etc. and periodically raising the debt ceiling to allow it is not going to work forever, and it doesn’t require one to have any advanced understanding of economics to grasp this. You don’t need to be an expert economist to realize that $20 trillion in debt and hundreds of trillions more in unfunded liabilities is virtually insurmountable at this point. The fact that the US dollar is the currency of the world is not going to shield us from the inevitable forever. The economic problems that Yugoslavia faced in the early 1980’s, and that the US now faces, are like a lit match being held over a barrel of gasoline.

And that leads me to discuss that gasoline.

Yugoslavia had an extremely diverse country racially, ethnically and religiously. The geographic location and the early economic prosperity (or the illusion of it) attracted a lot of people from all sorts of backgrounds. After a while, the government began to show heavy favor toward certain ethnicities at the expense of others. Rigorous controls were put on employment and educational systems, favoring one ethnic group over the other with claims that there was history of abuse that needed to be atoned for. Criminal behavior by members of certain ethnic or racial groups were largely ignored by the media and law enforcement apparatus, while even the most benign actions of other groups were seized upon and used for narrative building.

Does any of this sound familiar? In the US we have a long list of “protected” groups who are favored with advantages in employment, educational and entitlement systems. Race alone is often used by the media and government, often one and the same, to build a narrative of victimization.

In Yugoslavia circa 1980’s, and in the US today, you’d see a very socially diverse people from numerous ethnic, racial, economic and religious backgrounds. When these diverse groups mingle and mix, everyone has to accept that different cultures will have friction arise when the “negative” aspects of a particular culture become unacceptable to another. In times such as those, it’s necessary for the opposing cultures to have the freedom and ability to separate for a peaceful outcome. Problems arise, always, when incompatible cultures are forced to mix in society with no avenue for voluntary separation, and these problems are heavily exacerbated when government and media get involved to force one culture to accept and integrate what they feel are the “negative” aspects of the opposing culture. An obvious and perhaps overly-simplistic example is when white, Christian American citizens are forced to accept and live alongside immigrants who wish to practice Sharia law and alter their own lives and habits in order to accommodate some of these sensitivities. A very basic example, yes, but I think it makes the point.

We are meant to swallow the lie that says “diversity is our strength” without consideration for merit, performance, ability, intelligence or actual results.

This is not meant to be an indictment on any specific culture or ethnicity, but more of a history lesson, a social observation and a dire prediction.

The history lesson is the continued failure of all socialist based economic models, whether we want to consider them “real” socialism or not. The sort of hard socialism seen in 1980’s Yugoslavia and the crony-capitalist soft socialist version seen in the US today are both examples of that failure system. As I stated earlier, it does not take any level of economic expertise to understand that our current system is insolvent and that we have passed the point of no return on a future crash of our financial system. Now that less than half of the people in the US are net-taxpayers and over half of the people in the US are receiving some sort of government assistance simply to survive, we have become a welfare state, with only decreasing numbers of producers with increasing numbers of consumers. Mathematically, it is not sustainable. Historically, it is disastrous.

The social observation is that such a mass of diverse peoples must have a voluntary pressure outlet in order to maintain peace. We must accept reality that not all cultures are able to be forced together with peaceful results. Forced proximity, with advantages, disadvantages and blame doled out to certain peoples, with a lack of opportunity to separate peacefully will always result in strife and eventual violence.

The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.

We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.

My advice? Stay out of Sarajevo.

The Gray Man is a Southern born and raised Christian American, Army combat veteran and former intelligence collector. He has worked in many foreign locations, including Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany. He has deployed with or worked alongside US Army special operations units and Cav LRS units. He is currently working as an ER nurse living in the rural Deep South, preparing for whatever man and nature can dish out.


available at amazon.com

“A Republic, if you can keep it”                   “A Wake of Vultures”

Viral Outrage-front


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Creepy Normalization of Bulverism

The standard trope of leftist identity politics is the weaponization of victimhood. Thus, if you belong to a class of people recognized as historically oppressed—such as women, people of color, or homosexuals–then you are assumed to have a claim on people who do not belong to such a class—especially white Christian men.

Republished with permission from Intellectual Takeout

The Creepy Normalization of Bulverism

At some point you’ve probably heard an opinion of yours about morality, religion, or politics summarily dismissed with a reaction like: “You only say that because you’re a _____!” or “That’s just an excuse for _______.”

Frustrating, isn’t it? If you’ve supplied reasons for your position, they don’t tackle those reasons. They just assume you’re wrong and purport to explain, usually in terms unflattering to you, why you make your error.

What many might not realize, however, is that this action is a fallacy known as Bulverism. The name was coined by C.S. Lewis in an essay included in his widely read collection God in the Dock. In essence, Bulverism is a toxic hybrid of two better-known fallacies: petitio principii (begging the question) and ad hominem (impugning one’s opponent’s character without addressing his argument).

For reasons that should alarm critical thinkers, Bulverism has become so common – especially in politics – as to approach the status of a rhetorical norm. I shall explain that shortly, but first a caveat.

Not every criticism that sounds like Bulverism is a fallacy. For instance, if somebody denies a basic principle of logic, such as that of non-contradiction, it’s usually pointless to address her argument because she’s already abandoned an indispensable “first principle” of argument. It makes sense in that case to seek an explanation for her position other than the one she gives, if she bothers giving one. Or if somebody denies a well-established fact, e.g. that the shape of the Earth is roughly spherical, it’s often useless to address his argument and probably more useful to seek to understand his psychology.

But Bulverizing people about their positions on controversial matters has become all too common these days. You know the sort of thing I mean:

“Conservatives only want to rein in ‘entitlements’ because they hate the poor and the sick!”

“Liberals only talk about women’s ‘reproductive health’ because they think killing a baby in the womb is like breaking an egg to make an omelet!”

“You only believe in God because you can’t face life without an imaginary Big Daddy to turn to!”

“You only disbelieve in God because you want to get away with doing whatever you like!”

In essence, what’s always been an occasional rhetorical trope now seems to dominate public discourse.

That, I submit, is ultimately because Bulverism has become philosophically respectable. The permission real thinkers have given themselves to Bulverize has trickled down to the masses.

This trend seems to have started with Karl Marx. He defined religion and morality in general, and especially political positions other than his own, as “mystifications,” or rationalizations of the self-interest of whatever the economically dominant “ruling class” happens to be.

A few generations later, Sigmund Freud purported to explain nearly all human behavior as expressions or distortions of two “drives”: the sex drive and the death drive.

More recently, this kind of thinking is represented in the thought of Jacques Lacan, whose work is widely studied in humanities departments. The Frankfurt School that arose toward the end of Freud’s life produced a powerful tool, “critical theory,” that proposed to examine all human phenomena in terms of power relations. Its default tendency was to ask: “Who has the power here, and how do they benefit?”

In the late 20th century, such thinkers as Jacques Derrida (and, more broadly, those called “post-modernists”) extended that tendency of critical theory to consideration of the very structure of language itself.

Today we confront the phenomenon of “cultural Marxism.” Often defined too broadly, it simply means the extension of Marx’s critique of false consciousness from economics alone to race, gender, and even sexual orientation.

Cultural Marxism finds its characteristic expression in leftist “identity politics.” (There’s a sense in which all politics is identity politics, but I made the necessary distinction here.) The standard trope of leftist identity politics is the weaponization of victimhood. Thus, if you belong to a class of people recognized as historically oppressed—such as women, people of color, or homosexuals–then you are assumed to have a claim on people who do not belong to such a class—especially white Christian men. The motives of the “oppressed” are assumed to be good; the motives of the non-oppressed are assumed to be bad. People of even moderately conservative views are thus seen as fair game to be Bulverized. And they are, regularly. Thus: “You only say that because you’re (white) (Christian) (a man) (cis)!”

The only solution to widespread Bulverism is widespread rejection of the sort of philosophizing that makes it respectable. We might have to wait a long time for that. In the meantime, I heartily recommend a read of Lewis’ essay.

This post The Creepy Normalization of Bulverism was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Michael Liccione.


available at amazon.com

 

“A Republic, if you can keep it”                    “A Wake of Vultures”

Coming soon

Viral Outrage-front


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. 
As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without 
independent verification. Think for yourself. 
Fair Use is relied upon for all content. 
For educational purposes only. 
No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

 

Was the Entire Blasey Ford Episode a Sham?

There are recent indications that Ford and her lawyers know what’s coming. Almost immediately after Kavanaugh was sworn-in to the Supreme Court, Ford’s attorneys announced they were ending all matters pertaining to his confirmation. Subsequent to this announcement, both Ford and her attorneys have been out of the public eye.

Christine-Blasey-Ford-for-Ray-column

By Terry Ray

If you’ve gone home-shopping, I’m sure you have had the experience of leaving a house thinking it was wonderful but the next morning, after your brain had distilled the memory, you realized it actually wasn’t that great.

I had the same experience with Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Right after she had finished, I thought she was very credible and deserving of my sympathy.

By the next day, however, I began having “buyer’s remorse” on Ford’s story. The whole thing began to feel, just not right, and the more I thought about it the more I began to feel it was fabricated.

I started looking at her story in the entire context of the hearing – and it just didn’t add-up.

Just when all seemed lost for the liberal senators on the committee – their staged interruptions of the confirmation committee hearings having not worked as planned – they had to go to a Plan B. It had to be something that wouldn’t just disrupt the hearing – it needed to completely blow up the whole process.

It had to be just right for the moment or it would fail, like their interruption ploy. And it was just right — and it came within a whisker of succeeding.

It you break down what they needed to accomplish in Plan B, you will understand what they had to do.

The “Me Too” movement was in full force during the hearings. Many very powerful men were being brought down, one after another, by the sheer force of a bald accusation of sexual harassment.

The movement had become so powerful that no denial by the accused man was strong enough to overcome the assumption that the woman was right.

“MeToo” had become a type of social hysteria, like Arthur Miller portrayed in his play (and movie) “The Crucible.” Hysterical young women were accusing village members of practicing witchcraft and these bare accusations were enough to get them burned at the stake.

With the “Me Too” hysteria pervading every aspect of American society all the liberal senators had to come up with was a sexual assault claim. It didn’t need to be provable, it just had to be made and made well. With this objective in mind, they set out to create Plan B.

To make the claim powerful and emotional they decided to use an accusation from a 15-year-old girl. To preclude any possible way of disproving it, they decided to use the timeframe of Kavanaugh’s high school years. Who could disprove a story that happened over 30 years ago?

They settled on using a story of a teenage high school girl claiming the teenage Kavanaugh tried to rape her – to the extent she feared for her life.

Their first task was locating the right woman for the part. They put together a list of all the girls who were in high school at the same time as Kavanaugh and that could have been in the same social group as Kavanaugh’s all-boys’ high school.

The list then had to be pared-down to women who were left-wing zealots and willing to commit perjury in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The woman had to be well educated, articulate and hold a very respectable position in society.

By the end of the screening process, they had settled on Christine Blasey Ford – a Ph.D. psychologist and university professor. She was a perfect fit.

Their goal with Ford was to create a character who was brave but frightened, and who would induce believability, credibility, and sympathy for herself, and disgust and hatred toward her attacker. They constructed a process to do just that and we watched it play out before our very eyes.

It worked-out just as planned – with an Academy Award-worthy performance by Ford. The liberal conspirators were almost giddy with what they had just pulled off, but were forced to maintain their alternating poses of sympathy and anger for the need of victim justice.

After the Ford performance had played so well, no Republican senator — all men — would dare question this fragile, brave, sympathetic, credible victim. Doing so could run the risk of ending their careers. Given their predicament, they were forced to hire a female sex-crime prosecutor who proved to be a disaster.

Plan B was working perfectly.

Ford’s performance was nearly perfect. Her testimony had been rehearsed to the point that she delivered it with compelling conviction and authority. She had rehearsed the answer to every question the liberal senators were going to ask her – including the “100% certain,” answer.

Ford was also totally prepared for the inept proxy questioner. In response to each question she asked, Ford read, verbatim, the canned response her attorneys had written for her.

For any question that might be problematic, her two attorneys would advise her not to answer under their exceedingly wide definition of the attorney-client privilege.

The most remarkable part of Ford’s performance was her voice. She was somehow able to affect the high-pitched voice of a frightened little girl and was even able to mimic the rising tone at the end of her sentences.

When I first heard this voice coming from a seasoned, middle-aged woman, I was speechless. I couldn’t believe that tiny voice with a juvenile cadence was emerging from her mouth. It was incongruous to the point of classic irony, and I was astounded that her handlers had the audacity to try to pull this off – but they did. And they did it successfully.

I finally realized why they had her do this. She was telling a story about being sexually assaulted when she was a child, so to support this illusion, they had her deliver the story in the voice of a child, as though she were that abused child on the witness stand. It was another stroke of theater genius – outrageous but brilliant. And everyone bought it.

But as I wrote earlier in this article … Ford was almost perfect in her testimony because she made some fatal mistakes. These mistakes will very likely lead her to a long, all-expense-paid stay in a federal penitentiary.

Ford’s liberal handlers had prepared her well – but not quite well enough.

Ford’s entire story was, of course, pure fiction and thus perjury, but it was so carefully constructed  that no prosecutor could possibly convict her of perjury.

But there were other lies for which she could very likely be prosecuted and convicted.

1) The lie detector testimony.

Ford was directly asked if she had ever been instructed on how to pass a lie detector test or had instructed anyone else on how to do it. She unequivocally answered, “No.”

Apparently her handlers didn’t know about a former boyfriend of Ford’s who could prove she was lying. A man who Ford had dated and lived with for several years as an adult, submitted a detailed sworn statement after the hearing that Ford had instructed a friend of hers, who was seeking a federal job, on how to pass a lie detector test. That is perjury.

2) The testimony on her fear of flying and small enclosures.

The same man who submitted the sworn statement on the lie detector issue also detailed that Ford flew on airplanes frequently and had no fear, whatsoever, of flying. He also detailed that she had no fear of small enclosures and had, in fact, lived in a very tiny apartment for a long period of time. He also added that Ford had never once mentioned anything about ever being sexually assaulted and certainly never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh.

Ford testified under oath that she was reluctant to fly to Washington to be questioned because of her profound fear of flying. She also testified that she had argued with her husband about her wanting two front doors on their house because of her profound fear of being enclosed.

Both these statements are lies and constitute perjury.

3) The testimony that her attorneys did not tell her that the Senate committee investigators were willing to fly to her to conduct an interview.

This is an outrageous statement and cannot possibly be true. No attorney would ever do this – even the cretins who represented her. She was lying and prosecutors could easily ferret out the real story. It’s perjury.

4) Ford’s testimony that she had a therapy session in 2012 where she “recovered” the memory of Kavanaugh’s assault.

Ford steadfastly refused to turn over the therapist’s notes on the alleged “recovery” session to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The only logical reason she would do this would be if the notes contradict her testimony — or perhaps there never was a therapy session in the first place and, thus, no notes.

There are recent indications that Ford and her lawyers know what’s coming. Almost immediately after Kavanaugh was sworn-in to the Supreme Court, Ford’s attorneys announced they were ending all matters pertaining to his confirmation. Subsequent to this announcement, both Ford and her attorneys have been out of the public eye.

Although Ford’s story was like a page out of Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible,” the end of her story will very likely resemble Dostoyevsky’s novel, “Crime and Punishment.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.


Available at amazon.com

“A Republic, if you can keep it”                  “A Wake of Vultures


Coming Soon

Viral Outrage-front


 

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Salty Sailor and the Fireman

This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation

Fireman Trump

This was written by the mother of a Navy Seal who was KIA

THE SALTY SAILOR and the FIREMAN”

The views this mother has about Donald Trump are much like many other people. Her characterization of Trump as the “Salty Sailor” or as “The Fireman” paint an excellent picture!! She has written many great books about her son and family. This is a Comment from KAREN VAUGHN, Mother of Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal.

Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done. Appreciating what the man is doing doesn’t mean we worship the salty sailor or even desire to be like the salty sailor. It doesn’t even mean God admires the salty sailor. Maybe He just knows he’s necessary for such a time as this.

I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House to give this nation one more chance in November 2016. Donald Trump is what he is – and he is still the man he was before the election – and without guilt. I very much admire what that salty sailor is accomplishing.

He’s not like me. That’s okay with me. I don’t want to be like him. I will never behave like him. I know we’ve NEVER had a man like him lead our nation before. It’s crazy and a little mind blowing at times. But I can’t help admire the stamina and ability he has – acting with his heart rather than a calculated, PC, think tank-screened, carefully edited script. I still believe that is WHY he became our President and WHY he’s been able to handle a landslide of adversity and STILL pass unprecedented amounts of good legislation for our country AND do great works for MANY other nations, including Israel.

I’m THRILLED with what he’s doing for my nation, for the cause of Christ (whether intentional or unintentional, doesn’t matter to me), and for the concept of rebuilding America and putting her FIRST. I will not be ashamed of my position because others don’t see him through the same lens.

Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he’s pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no! I’d CARE about what he was DOING. He wasn’t sent there to save my soul and I’m not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I’m thinking in those moments is, “Thank you, GOD, for sending the fireman.” AND DONALD TRUMP IS OUR FIREMAN.

I’ll soon post this article again for those who still might not understand me. This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation my son died for… the nation I feared was on a fast track to becoming a hopeless cause.

Forgive me if I’m smiling.”
Written by KAREN VAUGHN


Available at amazon.com

“A Republic, if you can keep it”                  “A Wake of Vultures”

Coming Soon

Viral Outrage-front


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy

What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy.

Reposted from Americanpartisan.org

khashoggi

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told

On 2 OCT 2018, Washington Post journalist and middle eastern political activist Jamal Khashoggi went missing after entering the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Some in the course of the last news cycle has alleged this to be a much deeper incident than it appears on the surface; a vanished journalist, murder, international intrigue, a Saudi administration in conflict with Turkey; both jockeying for power in a region bound for widespread war in the coming years. Over a year post-living in exile after being banned from the Kingdom of al Saud, Khashoggi returned to the assumed security of the nation of his familial ancestry while continuing a career of revolutionary praxis through media in the mideast region. Needing a legal certificate of divorce from the Saudi government, Khashoggi felt safe approaching the embassy- in and out, no harm, no foul.

How wrong he was.

Embassies and consulates are nerve centers for declared spooks of a nation. Formal intelligence officers working in a nation must be declared. Journalists, on the other hand, can get placed into positions of unique access and are often conduits for sensitive information. In any country where intelligence operations are being run (and that’s all of them) a nation’s embassy serves as the hot spot for intelligence and in turn, counterintelligence. With Khashoggi, we find an example of split loyalty divided between revolutionary Marxism and a convenient ally found in the politics of revolutionary Islam. Possibly best examining this juxtaposition is his quote from a WaPo piece in late August:

The United States’ aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is more apparent in the current Trump administration, is the root of a predicament across the entire Arab world. The eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing less than an abolition of democracy and a guarantee that Arabs will continue living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes. In turn, this will mean the continuation of the causes behind revolution, extremism and refugees — all of which have affected the security of Europe and the rest of the world. Terrorism and the refugee crisis have changed the political mood in the West and brought the extreme right to prominence there.

He goes on:

There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it. A significant number of citizens in any given Arab country will give their vote to Islamic political parties if some form of democracy is allowed. It seems clear then that the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political representatives.

There are efforts here in Washington, encouraged by some Arab states that do not support freedom and democracy, to persuade Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If they succeed, the designation will weaken the fragile steps toward democracy and political reform that have already been curbed in the Arab world.

The point made by that last paragraph is critical. “Freedom and Democracy” is a common phrase touted by Marxian-inspired revolutionaries. And Islamist revolutionaries are exactly that. Thriving in the swamp of Washington DC, Khashoggi no doubt not only found himself among willing peers but cheerleaders among the Deep State apparatchik, with those ties neither recent nor random. His tale is one of deep alliances with what we now know of as the Deep State, made of the Marxist-inspired and academia-groomed bureaucracies of the Washington elite. The Muslim Brotherhood to which he refers is the revolutionary party of Egypt, spearheading the so-called “Arab Spring” which plunged the stable nation into chaos and directly endangered the control of the Suez Canal, keeping fuel prices affordable, in the hands of Islamists. Mohammed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, found a quite inviting home in the White House and among the leftist administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Wasting no time eliminating political rivals and religious minorities, most notably Coptic Christians, the Egyptian Army stepped in to remove the leftist cancer that had been installed as a proxy of the Obama administration.

Tracing the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization gets its guiding philosophy from Sayyid Qutb, a Western-educated Islamic cleric who came to seek strict reformation and removal of Western influence from the Islamic world. It is from Qutb that many early Islamic movements sprang and later ones would thrive; al Qaeda being most notable. And Khashoggi would find himself comfy bedfellows with al Qaeda’s revolutionary leader and fellow Saudi, Osama bin Laden. Traveling to Afghanistan to support bin Laden in the 80s, the New York Times notes:

…the war’s failure to put Afghanistan on sound footing haunted Mr. Khashoggi, as did Bin Laden’s later turn to terrorism.

“He was disappointed that after all that struggle, the Afghans never got together,” said a Saudi friend of Mr. Khashoggi’s who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Mr. Khashoggi’s trips to Afghanistan and his relationship with Prince Turki al-Faisal, who headed Saudi intelligence, made some of Mr. Khashoggi’s friends suspect he was also spying for the Saudi government.

His connections with not only the Saudi intelligence apparatus but the larger revolutionary movements of the region becomes clear when examined further:

The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.

The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, “Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah”.

And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.

After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others,  Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.

When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.

“Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy,” he declared.

“A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century.”

The suspicion of him being a spy was likely true. The espionage of Khashoggi would be one of convenience and serving multiple masters however; living and working for that same revolutionary praxis, diverging only where he saw fit all the while running afoul of the established order of his nationsake. For Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman, his activities had not only grown counterproductive but a direct threat to the Kingdom- once there was a changing of the guard in Washington. As recently as 2016, Khashoggi was criticized for his close ties to both the Saudi intelligence apparatus and that of the Turkish government, with Bahraini media commenting on the issues in Cyprus noting,

Khashoggi seizes every opportunity to confirm his complete support for the Turkish role in the region. He is one of the public opinion makers having close ties with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, who vigorously worked, through the media, on narrowing the Saudi-Turkish difference following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, as well as promoting a partnership between the two countries based on leading the Sunni Muslims and supporting “Islamist Jihadists” in Syria. He is almost a frequent visitor of Turkey and his personal Twitter account is full of news about his meetings with Turkish Justice and Development Party officials and statements praising them and their policies in the region.

Post Saudi anti-corruption purge of 2018, Khashoggi likely had too many friends running counter to the intent of the Kingdom and thus became persona non grata. His troubles however surfaced early in the newly-minted regime of bin Salman’s father. After directly criticizing then President-elect Trump, Khashoggi was effectively muzzled before departing the nation in 2017, all the while not diverting from his revolutionary path and defaulting to his Deep State allies in the West and in Turkey. Suspected of being an agent for the failed Saudi ‘Arab Spring’, such a destabilization could not be tolerated.

This begs the question of just who would benefit from chaos in Saudi Arabia. Iran would for one, exploiting the blood feud between Shia and Sunni Islam while simultaneously uniting under one banner of Sharia; a prerequisite goal satisfying Tawhid, or unity under Allah before the Islamic Day of Return. Khashoggi did not share common ancestry nor ideology with the Persians however; he was at home with the restorationist Ottomans of Erdogan and the Turkish government. Vowing he is “he is personally “chasing” the investigation”, Turkish President Erdogan has taken personal issue with a matter among Saudi nationals. Turkey, seeking to expand their sphere of influence away from the Whabbism of the House of al Saud, would benefit most from destabilization of the Saudi Kingdom and thus explains their complicit support of many elements of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan and John Kerry’s failures in regime change.

What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy. Leftist in both origin and ideology, Khashoggi’s role was change in the middle east assured by the hubris of aligned media outlets; a common home for burned spies with too much baggage. He was not protected as he so thought, he was not untouchable, and his story should not be the October surprise that drives a wedge between Trump and an otherwise strong economy through a rise in gas prices. Rogue operation or not, Khashoggi was an agent of the worst actors of the West and perished by the idiotic game he played. He should neither be mourned nor exalted as a martyr- he was nothing more than a pawn to those playing in the affairs of other nations. What is likely however may be a different issue altogether, signaling a larger power struggle throughout the Middle East. Erdogan is on the rise and seeking to expand his influence not only in the middle east but in Europe; he will no doubt use this to his advantage as the Turkish government already has done. Taking into account his strategic point into Europe and the Middle East, uneasy times are following.

My thoughts:

The media and uninformed politicians are beating the “punishment drum” regarding Saudi Arabia and the death of Jamal Khashoggi.

He is being portrayed as a “journalist”, a rather disingenuous description of the man.

There’s no justification for his murder. But don’t whitewash what he believed – his commitment to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, his long-standing association with Osama bin Laden and continuing connection to Islamic extremists.

In August, Jamal #Khashoggi wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood and the need to accept political Islam. The U.S. is wrong to ignore the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Arab world is suffering for it. Muslim Brotherhood! The same group led by Qaradawi who is advocating suicide bombers. Yeah sure, that is exactly what we need in the world and exactly why #Khashoggi is being be canonized by his fellow “Deep State” actors.

Khashoggi was a journalist like Jeffrey Dahmer was a chef.

There is more to this story.

Why grab him inside the embassy, when you could grab him on the street? Or in his hotel. Why dismember him inside your embassy, when you could do it inside a thousand different abandoned buildings?

Why would you fly the hit squad into Turkey on a business jet?

Either this is the most poorly planned hit of all time…or there is more to the story.

I smell a rat, or at least a very sinister mouse. But probably not the CIA rodents.

Brennan in particular would never push anything like – he’s a Muslim Brotherhood BFF. Nor Hillary. Her agenda was also pro-M.B., because that’s where the money was from her POV. Arms deals, from what I remember reading about the time of Benghazi.

Most of the info in our MSM is coming through Turkish news processors, which are very much pro-Brotherhood and anti the new Saudi regime. How much is true?

Could the Saudis be that crude about an assassination? I don’t want to think so, but the latest meme I’m seeing is that it was not authorized by the Prince. Apparently some underling is taking the fall for it, and it might actually be true that somebody went off the reservation.

Right or wrong, at this time the Saudis and the Egyptian military are the only sane Islamic actors in the M.E., so far as relations with the USA and Israel are concerned. Trump will have to make some noise to satisfy the jackals in our media corps, but nothing substantial will change, nor should it.

Listen to Brennans comments on the issue. “US govt fabricating story”. If no action by Saudi, US will have to act. MSM fed by CIA, FBI, all the rest.

Key words: Trump-“who ever” is behind this (Saudi not mentioned) will suffer severe consequences.

Most likely he knows who/what is. Hopefully he is just biding his time.

 


available at amazon.com

“A Republic, if you can keep it”              “A Wake of Vultures”


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

How to play Trump 5-D Chess

But make no doubt about it, the object of chess is ALWAYS to capture the opponent’s King and placing the King into check is a powerful offensive move that limits the opponents choices, they Must move out of check, no other choice.

Chess checkmate

FROM A FORUM I FREQUENT:

” How To Play Trump 5-D Chess…..Rules of the Game!

I think many people who support President Trump are aware he is playing “5 D Chess”, however they do not understand how this sophisticated game is actually played. They just know it is complicated.

I play chess; so allow me to explain a few key principles.

1. You have to understand the mind of your opponent. How they think, act and behave.

In this case, the typical liberal-Democrat is a highly emotional person, easily “triggered” and while “triggered” they act foolishly and make stupid mistakes. Plus, these Dems have no moral/ethical code of conduct, so lying and cheating comes very naturally to them. In fact it is an essential aspect of their character. They are easily “triggered” and behave in predictable ways once in this state of mind (which is often).

2. The entire swamp we know as D.C. has been a happy home for Dems and Republican traitors for a very long time.

They have become very accustomed to their corrupt environment which suits them very well. But now the swamp is being drained (and that takes time) but their happy/filthy environment is changing rapidly…and they don’t know how to adjust. In fact, they cannot adjust. They are not designed to function in clean, dry environments. And as we see in the animal kingdom, when the environment changes rapidly (forest fires, swamp draining) the animals panic, and flee for any cover they can find. Combine this with being “triggered” and the Dem is in complete panic while making stupid mistakes.

3. The Dems in D.C have also acted like squirrels, collecting nuts and burying them in secret stashes to be retrieved at a later date.

Of course, the Dems (like squirrels) are deeply concerned someone will find their stashes and take what they have hidden. But when points 1 & 2 from above are happening, the squirrel is now preoccupied and essentially forgets about the nuts. Big mistake. Because the 5D chess player wants to find and capture all those hidden stashes, therefore removing the contents from the playing field (think: bank accounts, weapons, drugs, contraband).

4. Dems are very good at pulling scams, because that is what they have been free to do, without any resistance, for a very long time.

The Dem, has not had to play against a chess master…ever! They are like the intermediate chess player who enjoys winning against amateurs and beginners who have little skill and no experience. Only the bully-type personality actually enjoys such a game (con-game) but Dems have enjoyed this advantage, and don’t know what losing really feels like. They are unaccustomed to not getting their way. When this happens, take the points from above and multiple the effect by a factor of 2x.

5. Finally [here we will limit the lesson to 5 points]
The chess master understands how the game is played, has years of experience playing the game, has the intellectual capacity for thinking multiple moves ahead, has studied the game and opponent and therefore knows the history, and the master takes the game seriously, professionally, and with confidence. The master does not display emotions, is not effected by unforeseen events and moves, and has had to play the game from a losing or weak position yet in the end manages to overcome these obstacles and challenges to win the game.

If you are familiar with chess, you recognize that games can take a long time to play. This is why a chess clock is often used, forcing each side to play within their allotted time. If the clock runs out, that player automatically loses, because they are out of time! In this way, as the clock ticks down, there is less-and- less time to think, strategize, and make the tactical moves necessary (rush rush rush = missing opportunities, and coming threats). This is when a sudden, unexpected, move (by the master) can throw any well laid plans to waste. But, the clock is still ticking, and the strategy that had been working is now useless or needs to be revised drastically.

Many players with experience will simply quit (in chess called resign) by knocking over their own King and surrender. Why continue to play a futile game that you can see will finally end in defeat? But Dems don’t think this way; they don’t know how. They can’t imagine losing. They fail to see that if they were to resign this game, they will save their energy. Because a difficult chess match requires intense concentration and is actually very tiring {the brain burns vast amounts of fuel when thinking hard} and over many hours, it continues to become more difficult to concentrate…leading to more mistakes.

And this is where we are now.

In chess, the opening moves are very standard and well established. Not much exciting happens in the opening, and there are many pieces cluttering up the playing field, and key pieces which require more room to operate have not been activated yet. Then the game begins to transition into the mid-game.

The mid-game is when the first exchange of pieces start taking places, normally even trades {Pawn for Pawn…Bishop vs. Knight) and the field opens up for the activation of Rooks and the deadly Queen. Now the game starts to really get exciting, and plans change quickly requiring constant focus and thinking many moves ahead. If this happens, that will happen, and then this is next, and they will be forced to do that, and then I do this, and they will probably do that, and then I gain an advantage with a this! Bang. In chess pieces are captured {not killed}. But in real life it is kill and capture. By necessity of the game, both sides will lose pieces, it is part of the game. Hence, soldiers will die.

When the End Game starts is a bit blurry. At some point, the playing field has thinned out enough, and out come the power pieces. Also by now, the King has been Castled, a special move that significantly protects the King from open attack, as well as activating a rook.

Trump has had enough time to open with a slow, and predictable opening. Some people are impatient, wanting to see the “good stuff” start happening. Trump has had the time to Castle (he needs a solid protective service of loyal guards and outfit his location with defenses) and that is done. The U.S. Marines have the Presidents back. And the mid game is going to go hot…right about now {Oct. 3rd EWS test?}. The End Game will not start anytime soon, unless the Dems make a Massive mistake, and they might. But that should not be expected. This will play out most likely.

But make no doubt about it, the object of chess is ALWAYS to capture the opponent’s King and placing the King into check is a powerful offensive move that limits the opponents choices, they Must move out of check, no other choice. But checks only start happening in the mid game and later.

How this translates into politics? The Supreme Court placements by President Trump will be the first powerful check in this game. It will suddenly prevent the Dems (and traitor Repubs) from doing anything they want. They will be forced to limit their moves until the checking stops. The Dems are highly emotional (but they are book smart) and they can see this is what is about to happen to them, and they can’t do anything about it except attempt to stall the inevitable. Once the Supreme Court is filled, it will no longer be an option for Dems to manipulate to their advantage and thwart Presidential actions. They are ****ed, and they know it, but they can’t quit, they won’t resign until CHECKMATE!

P.S. When the Republican Senator was asking Kavanaugh about U.S. Military Law, and Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens abroad…wasn’t that curious? And 9/11 was brought up in that SAME line of questions. This folks, signals we are moving into the mid game. Now, it gets exciting!


Now available on Amazon.com

A WAKE OF VULTURES                  A Republic, if you can keep it

Check out Pat’s Amazon Author Page


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Fences Keep Closing In

I think if you’re honest, you will see movements like Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, along with white racialist groups and Islamist organizations as nothing more than violent cults. And they have a lot in common.

They want our minds narrowed. Focused. Stripped down, purged, blinkered and honed to obsession. Punished, bribed, and conditioned to perfect obedience.

REPOSTED FROM PJ MEDIA

There’s an old expression, we’ve all used it: “It’s a free country!” Now, sometimes people abuse it. If you catch somebody spraying graffiti on the side of your house, he might just say that. Which, of course, is stupid.

But people only hijack an expression because it’s powerful and true. This is a free country, that’s what defines it. It’s what made America great.

But will America stay free? Or are powerful forces eating away at our freedoms? I won’t say nibbling, because they’re tearing off great big chunks of it at a time. Our freedom of speech, of religion, our right to back political candidates and stand up for what we believe in. All that’s now threatened. I think you know that.

Would you feel comfortable wearing a MAGA hat? Or would you worry you might get assaulted? That happened to 16-year-old Hunter Richard in Austin, Texas, last month. An adult man confronted him, ripped the hat off his head, screamed profanity at him, and threw a drink in his face.

But don’t worry, Austin is on it. They’re getting ready to change the name of the city because Stephen Austin owned slaves. I wonder how long it will be until the Washington, D.C., city council gets around to renaming our capital. Seriously, I think we should start a pool. Ten years? Five? Maybe two? That slope’s getting pretty slippery. If you ever want to see Mount Rushmore while it’s still intact… I think you should book your tickets now. Be sure to take lots of pictures, so you can show your children. The same with the Jefferson Memorial, Monticello, and most of the statues in Richmond. They’re on the List. You know they are.

The Democrats are now embracing “democratic socialism.” Their activists are dressing up in hoods and masks and terrorizing citizens. Assaulting cops and reporters. Trashing government buildings in Portland and occupying them for weeks. Lawmakers are actually having to use old anti-Klan laws to stop the violent radicals of Antifa from terrorizing Americans.

But we’re not supposed to complain about it. It’s getting dangerous to speak your mind. Dangerous to your career, and even to your safety.

What’s fueling outrages like that? Maybe it’s statements like the one from Rep. Maxine Waters. Just three days before the mob harassment of Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ family she told an angry crowd of Democrats:

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.

Violent mobs of hooded extremists can storm the offices of ICE in Portland. Can stop their crucial work of arresting drug dealers, human traffickers, child smugglers, and killers. And the Democrats treat them like heroes, like members of the Resistance. And those faithful, blue-collar Americans of every race just trying to do their jobs? Well, by this logic they’re the Nazis. One leftist hacker even published the names and addresses of ICE employees so that members of MS-13 and other cartels could find them and target them. Would you still want to work for ICE after that? That’s okay, because the leaders of the Democratic Party want to abolish that agency. To leave all of us defenseless, and our borders open.

I worry about how free America still will be in six years because the Democrats … they’ve got an agenda. They want to narrow the range of acceptable opinions. To cow us, restrict us, make us scared to speak. From day to day, Americans are getting bullied, browbeaten, and herded like sheep. The Democrats are driving us into the narrow, reeking pen of political correctness. Its fences are constantly moving, and in only one direction. They are closing in on us.

Questions that were open to free debate ten years ago, or five years, or even one year ago? Now they’re suddenly “settled” for us by tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg. Or the opinion police at Google.  Did you know that YouTube has purged hundreds of straight-ahead Christian videos by pastors? Just for teaching traditional Christianity. It has purged or demonetized dozens of mainstream conservative videos by Dennis Prager.

Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein once defended national borders. Now they play along as their party increasingly pretends that controlling our borders is “racist.” Or “hateful.” Is that what they always secretly believed?

The fences keep closing in.

Billion-dollar tech corporations collude with dubious civil rights organizations to blacklist people. Look at the Southern Poverty Law Center. It once did valuable work forty years ago. Now it’s a fundraising scam that goes around libeling people. In fact, it had to settle several cases with innocent people it smeared, including a Muslim reformer it labeled as a hatemonger.

But Amazon still uses that organization to report on which churches or conservative policy thinktanks to smear as “hate groups.” So the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom get lumped in with deranged and hateful extremists. And banned. And silenced. And banished from “neutral” platforms. You know who used to do things like that? The Apartheid regime in South Africa. They’d smear their mainstream opponents as communists and try to silence them.

The fences keep closing in.

Born as free Americans, you are being treated as sheep.

Raised as proud Americans, you are learning the lessons of shame.

Schooled as thinking Americans, now you’re told to abandon open debate, objective truth, even the scientific method and mathematics. They are somehow “racist.” They’re the products of “privilege.”

What do the brilliant minds in the Democrat Party want to replace them with? A set of stern, angry dogmas that have taken over our colleges and our corporate human resource departments. And dogmas like “intersectionalism,” which demonize whole groups of people such as Christians and conservatives. They want to say that their voices shouldn’t be heard and they shouldn’t be protected from hate and discrimination. You should be able to spew hate about them for years, as tech reporter Sarah Jeong did and then still get hired for the editorial page of the New York Times. Andrew Sullivan, a liberal gay writer, warned us in New York magazine that the Democrats have been hijacked by a new, puritanical cult, and it’s already running witch hunts. So Sarah Jeong called him a racist and tried to get him fired. If that can happen to famous, liberal, gay writers, what do you think they’re planning for your pastor? For conservatives who teach school? For you and your children?

The witch hunters can’t afford to let you question them because their excuses will fall apart. So they impose them instead by legal action, by harassment, by collusion and blacklisting. Unable to defend their new creed with reason, these ideologues instead forbid our questions. They isolate, target, and try to destroy dissenters. They spray them with social and professional plutonium as “an example to the others.” That tactic is straight from the playbook of totalitarian movements. We have seen all this before.

Historians remind us how Stalin would give a speech and the first person who stopped clapping went to the Gulag. Or they just shot him in the back of the head. So the Party members applauded, sometimes for more than an hour, till their palms cracked and bled. I think anyone who writes off the extremism that’s being unleashed should try that some time. Stand up, set a timer, and try to clap for one whole hour.

That is the level of compliance expected of Americans today. If you don’t believe me, look at what happened to singer Kanye West. He said that he was open-minded about President Trump. He recognized the explosion of jobs in minority communities and the record-low unemployment numbers for black and Latino Americans. The outrage mob went wild. The media, filled up with denunciations, calls for boycotts of his albums — with racist abuse, in fact. To Mr. West’s credit, he stood strong. And his next album broke sales records. But how many of us have the resources of Kanye West?

Not Candace Owens. She’s a young, brilliant black conservative who’s a leader in Turning Point USA. She tried to have breakfast with her colleague, Charlie Kirk, and a flash mob of angry white men linked to the hood-wearing thugs of Antifa surrounded her. They dumped water over Kirk’s head and the pair had to flee the restaurant. Who protected them? Mostly black policemen. Then Antifa came after them, and sprayed the cops with racist abuse.

The fences are closing in.

Do you want to protect unborn children? Stop Planned Parenthood from cutting them up and selling them as baby parts? To save viable infants from abortion, right up to the moment of birth? Then you are bigoted against women.

Do you want to offer women and girls privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms? Then you are a “transphobic” bigot. Deny that men menstruate, or women have penises? You are just another hater. The Southern Poverty Law Center will lump you in with Holocaust deniers and white supremacist cranks. In 2016, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) denounced Vice President Pence as a bigot for supporting normal safe spaces for women. Even the ladies’ room isn’t safe anymore.

The fences keep closing in.

Maybe you’re worried when you hear that 147 million adults want to immigrate into America. That’s what they told the Gallup poll. You realize that we don’t have jobs to offer them, that our machine for assimilation is broken. Then you, too, are a hate-monger. Our new high priests will teach you what you should really be afraid of: The annihilating wrath which they will bring down on your head. The fear of Facebook is the beginning of wisdom.

The fences keep closing in.

Do you still love your country? Do you consider America as an exceptional nation, one with an imperfect, and all-too-human history, but nevertheless quite special? Are you proud of our nation’s Founding? Attached to the symbols and monuments of men who struggled, disagreed, and made mistakes, but who nevertheless made AMERICA? Do you think that we should preserve the markers of that history, including those mistakes, so the next generation can learn from them and argue about them?

That is what I believe. And that is why I defended and will continue to defend the historic monuments that grace so many Virginia cities and towns. I won’t let this deranged and self-righteous generation do to our history what Hillary Clinton did to her email server. Doing so doesn’t help anyone, and in fact, it makes things worse. Instead of confronting history, we sanitize it.

All across America lovely historic statues of men who fought bravely in a partly misguided cause still stand. Should we tear them all down? Let angry mobs deface them, behead them?

Absolutely not. Instead, we should make room nearby for equally prominent, beautiful statues of civil rights workers, African-American war heroes, and others whose real achievements were once obscured by racism.

Let those monuments complement each other. Let them stand in tension. We should look at all sides of the history. We should learn that good and great men, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee, could also do wicked things like owning slaves. That should remind us that we in our modern righteousness are also quite imperfect. What will our descendants be ashamed of us for allowing?

How about the abortion clinics run by the racist-founded organization Planned Parenthood? Its founder, Margaret Sanger, boasted about speaking to the Ku Klux Klan. Those who carry on her legacy now target African-American babies. But Sanger’s statue still stands at the Smithsonian Institution. I don’t want to tear that down. I don’t want to tear anything down. But I want us to learn from it.

The angry activists and elitists who drive the Democrat agenda? They don’t want us to learn from history. Like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, they want to hit the “reset” button. To start the calendar again at Year Zero. To paint the past as a dark and appalling void from which we can learn absolutely nothing, except the pre-cooked and pre-packaged mini-lessons that our new masters distribute to us. They’ve read their George Orwell. They know that to control the past is to dominate the future.

They want to shove the past, the entire past, into the memory hole. To delete it. To leave the pedestals empty, the statues beheaded or wrecked, the inscriptions sandblasted and vacant. In that bleak empty space where history once stood, they’ll scrawl instead the crude and easily memorized slogans they would force us to live by.

Tradition is the “democracy of the dead.” It calls on us to learn from our ancestors and to take thought for our descendants. The power-hungry zealots, the puritanical witch-hunters … they know that. And they hate it. They won’t allow any locus of loyalty outside their movement. They’re like cult leaders.

I think if you’re honest, you will see movements like Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, along with white racialist groups and Islamist organizations as nothing more than violent cults. And they have a lot in common.

They want our minds narrowed. Focused. Stripped down, purged, blinkered and honed to obsession. Punished, bribed, and conditioned to perfect obedience.

In the end, if they have their way, it will be like Winston Smith at the end of 1984. We really will “love” Big Brother.


 Available on Amazon.com

A Wake of Vultures (Tales from the Deep State Book 1) Kindle Edition

Wake of Vultures-Front


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Frankly my dear…

We’ve never stood in your way but we don’t really care if you have good neighborhoods or not.

woodpile report

The following is a Guest Post from Ol’ Remus of the late and greatly missed Woodpile Report.

With all the recent troubles we’re again being invited to an honest and open conversation about race, or said differently, the browbeatings will be resumed. Try this for honest and open: many of us, probably most of us, are tired of your whining, your so-called grievances, your violence and crime, your insults and threats, your witless blather and pornographic demeanor—all of it. You’re not quite 13% of the population yet everything has to be about you, all day, every day. With you, facts aren’t facts, everything’s a kozmik krisis, and abusive confrontations are your go-to.

Here’s the thing: some of us despise you, although fewer than you believe, but most of us plain don’t care about you or your doings. There was a time when we did care, but you betrayed our good will and played us for fools. We laugh about it now, but we actually believed you wanted equal opportunity and mutual respect and to live in harmony—all that stuff. Ain’t it a hoot? Imagine our embarrassment.

We talk among ourselves just like you do. It’s true, we have “frank and open discussions” when you’re not around. Why? Partly because it’s exhausting to tippy-toe around you. Partly because you think it’s your celestial right to tell us what we can say. And partly because you’re alarmingly aggressive or painfully dim-witted by turns. We never know which “you” will pop out of the box, or when. But mainly because you’ve revealed yourself as grasping opportunists without honor or principle. There’s your deal-breaker. There’s more.

During the recent riots you expected us to believe heisting snack food then torching the place was “standing up for justice”. When we didn’t buy it, you told us the looting and arson wasn’t done by the rioters after all, no, all the bad stuff was done by rioters from out of town. Apparently you think it makes a difference to us. And if we don’t fall for that one, you tell us you’re the real victims, you’re the ones “hit hardest” because the neighborhoods you looted and burned are, um, looted and burned.

We’ve never stood in your way but we don’t really care if you have good neighborhoods or not. The evidence says you don’t care either, unless we build and maintain them for you, what your enablers call “investments in urban communities.” They don’t mention the return on our past “investments”. Our former neighborhoods weren’t improved by your arrival. Your contempt for ordinary civility tells us no level of “investment” would make a difference. Listen up. It’s simple. Just like our neighborhoods are our responsibility, so are your neighborhoods your responsibility, not ours. Your clownish leaders will tell you otherwise but they’ve always been your responsibility and they always will be your responsibility. Accept it or don’t, you’re the ones who live in them. There’s more.

Your air conditioned, smart phone equipped, EBT-financed “poverty” doesn’t wash to begin with, yet you’d have us believe poverty causes crime. There’s no payday for assault and rape and random killing. Police say 20% of your criminal violence is related to dope-dealing, okay, business disputes of a sort, but it says the rest of it is largely pro bono. We also notice you have a working knowledge of jury nullification and take pride in not “snitching”, typical gang behavior.

We say “what you think, you do. What you do, you are.” We know what you think—we hear it every waking minute. We know what you do. How could we not know what you are? Just so it gets said, crime causes poverty. It drives away productive people, their businesses and the opportunities you said you wanted. More bad news: you’re free to accuse them of anything you wish but they’re not coming back.

Schools haven’t been educating our kids for a long time. They’re too busy conjuring up new ways to teach yours, in fact, we’re beginning to think yours are the only ones who matter. There’s always some new scheme claiming dazzling success which, in the end, amounts to handing out the answers with the tests, or taking the annoying hard stuff out of the coursework, or entering unearned grades by hand. Whatever they’re doing they’re doing it wrong. Your kids are telling us, in every way they know how, they have neither the interest nor the inclination for academics. Perhaps we should listen. If what they want is “out” it’s worth considering and probably worth encouraging.

You tell us the schools have “failed to meet their needs.” And what are their needs, pray tell? Higher standards and tougher tests? Stricter rules and a dress code? Or some alternate universe where credit is earned for putting teachers in the ER, or for a string of abortions before the tenth grade? If you’d tell us what their needs are we’d at least know what needs we’re failing to meet. Until then we’ll mark it down for what it is, another lame excuse. They’re supposed to be schools, not day care or orphanages or theme parks.

You pester us with the “civil rights movement” of fifty years ago as though it happened last week, with tedious 1960s footage and cloying voice-overs, in an endless loop, like Groundhog Day, decade after decade. It’s understandable, you haven’t met any real resistance since those days. Breaking news: none of it matters any more, it all devolved into just another swindle, an extortion racket, “pay up or we’ll make a stink—and the bad optics are on you”.

Schools now teach something called White Privilege, which claims no overt act is necessary for us to be racist, in fact, absence of such acts is said to be direct evidence. It’s the “original sin” concept in a different wrapper, meaning our putative racism is bone deep and can’t be discharged by good works. Even so, they say we must atone in perpetuity for being white. They suggest we devote our lives in selfless service to you. No. Sorry. Whatever white privilege there may be, it isn’t enough. In fact, being subjected to White Privilege prattle is worth a couple of privileges.

Speaking of privilege, 60% of your college grads—and 20% of all of you—are employed by government. The intent is to create an artificial middle class of course, hence the trivial positions with imaginative titles and weighty salaries. In the lower reaches it’s the quota hires, typically unqualified. It’s a great offer. You pretend you’re doing something useful and we pretend to believe you. The rest of your grads are largely diversity directors, window dressing, teachers of dubious “studies” and improbable “histories”, and similar warehousing schemes for the otherwise unemployable. It’s as good as it’s ever going to get, except for those on the skinny end of the bell curve—for whom we have genuine, i.e., earned respect. You’d be a fool to leave it on the table, for as long as it lasts.

So here’s the deal. If you want to know what we really think of you, the answer is we don’t, unless you’re making yourself unavoidable or we’re cleaning up your latest mess. We can safely rely on you to make astonishingly irresponsible choices and blame us for the consequences. And you’ll demand we make good on them for you. We won’t take a chance on your sincerity ever again. Take it somewhere else, you have no credibility left with us. You’re a net liability, predictable to the point of surety. So we attend to our own lives and our own problems. It’s as it should be. We recommend it. As for you, frankly my dear, we don’t give a damn.


Available at amazon.com “A Republic, if you can keep it”

A Republic-front cover


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Newspeak

When Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the Department of Justice if the Obama administration was truly arguing that, according to the Constitution, book sales could be prohibited, the Justice official replied, yes, “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”

Its fake news

Reblogged from Front Page Magazine

We’re rightly upset at the censorship of the big social media platforms, and our morale wasn’t improved when something north of three hundred newspapers wrote editorials in virtual unison, or when Mastercard, in cahoots with the Southern Poverty Law Center, attempted to shut down our Center.  Thankfully, we won and they lost. But the efforts to silence conservative spokesmen seem to be intensifying, which makes strategic political sense to me.  If you can’t win an argument on the merits, then either discredit or silence your opponents.

The Left has lost most of the substantive arguments—from health care to taxation, from foreign policy to defense spending–and their best political chance is to silence the opposition.  This campaign rages throughout the society, from social media to the educational system, from publishers to movie makers.

There is seemingly no limit to their zeal in silencing their opponents, even to changing our Constitutional system.  Did you know that the Democratic Party is on record against the First Amendment?  Officially, publicly, and, in the United States Senate, unanimously.  They tried to rewrite it in 2014, and introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would have enabled federal and state governments to prohibit various kinds of political spending, broadcasting or publishing.

This remarkable measure, which flew in the face of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, had no chance of being approved by the requisite majorities in Congress and the states.  It was, therefore, a purely political maneuver, laying down a marker for voters and opinion-makers.  Still, the numbers are astonishing:  49 Senators voted for it, and not one—not a single one—voted to preserve the First Amendment.

It gets worse.  Outraged by the Democratic stance against freedom of speech and press, Senator Ted Cruz introduced his own amendment, which consisted of the First Amendment itself.  Once again, the numbers were remarkable.  Not a single Democrat voted for it, either in committee or in the full Senate.

So the Democrats have put us on notice:  they are fully prepared to undo the First Amendment if they gain enough political power to accomplish it.  Cruz aptly calls them “Fahrenheit 451 Democrats,” after the book by Ray Bradbury featuring book-burning “firemen,” and one couldn’t ask for a better label.

As Senator Cruz observed:

When Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the Department of Justice if the Obama administration was truly arguing that, according to the Constitution, book sales could be prohibited, the Justice official replied, yes, “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”

That was a shocking exchange. The government made an unabashed argument for the government being able to stop a book from being sold.

That’s what silencing your opponents is all about.

Did you expect them to engage in an open debate?  They regard that as a sucker’s game, because they invariably lose.  Far better, if your mission is to win elections, to peddle your ideology without fear of contradiction.

Most Americans don’t realize that the Democrats are quite willing to undo the Bill of Rights, ban books, and block conservative ideas in all possible ways.  It seems preposterous in a society as wide open and enthusiastically contentious as ours, and yet, in many ways, they are succeeding.  Silencing dissent is blatantly rampant in the printed and virtual media, the schools, the movies, even book publishing.

What to do?  My impression is that the tide is turning, as censorship becomes more visibly absurd.  When an 8-year old gets punished in a schoolroom for calling his teacher “ma’am” the censors have crossed a line—good manners are now banned—I believe most Americans want preserved.  The remedy is political, and therefore local:  replace the censors, throughout the society, and at all levels, with tolerant people.  We need new school boards, new directors at universities, new directors and managers at social media companies, and new representatives in Congress and the Senate who will reject the calls of the Fahrenheit 451 Democrats.  Turn the November elections into a referendum on the First Amendment.  Throw out the anti-American censors, let’s vote for a free society.

Or lose it.

Yes, this sounds like the Tea Party all over again.  As well it should.  The censors shut down the Tea Party when they saw their domination challenged, and used the instruments of power—notably the IRS—to paralyze the movement.  I don’t think Trump’s IRS would do the same (although his inability to properly staff his administration is often very unsettling).  So it’s a good time to challenge the censors, restore free speech to its rightful place, and restore real debate, on the urgent matters that we must deal with, to the mainstream.


Available at amazon.com “A Republic, if you can keep it”

A Republic-front cover


Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

ReBlog Silent Sam and Me

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never contemplated the destruction of historic monuments or the removal of historic symbols. His entire thrust, reiterated again and again, was for Southern white and blacks to “dine together at the table of brotherhood.”

Ben “Cooter” Jones is an actor, author, playwright, comedian, musician, and former United States Congressman from Georgia.

silent-sam

In September of 1961, I left my job at a basket factory in Wilmington, North Carolina and hitch-hiked up to Chapel Hill to become a student there. I followed in the path of UNC’s very first student, a boy named Hinton James, who had famously walked those roads up from Pender County back in 1789. As befits the first student at the first State University, he did not come by carriage.

My last ride was in the cab of a well-weathered farm truck. The grizzled driver wished me well and let me out in the middle of town. “You’ll like it here,” he told me with pride. “My little grandbaby went here and she became a schoolteacher!”

I was pointed the way to Battle Dormitory which faced Franklin Street, Chapel Hill’s “main drag.” My room, 8 Battle, looked out over McCorkle Place, the “upper quad” of the campus.

It was from there, over the next two years, that I watched the changing of the seasons on the campus grounds, the blazing autumn hardwoods and those seductive dogwood and magnolia spring-times, not to mention the passing coeds with their skirts, far too long in those days.

I was told that Thomas Wolfe, the author of Look Homeward, Angel had lived in that room, next to that same window back in 1916. I could not believe my good fortune in having landed in this “Southern Part of Heaven.” Like Wolfe, I was overflowing with ideas and dreams and confusion. And like him I chased the elusive girls of the night and drank the last drop that was to be had.

The one constant outside that window, in every season, was the noble statue of “Silent Sam,” the Confederate soldier who stood vigilant watch over the campus. “Sam” represented those young students who had left the campus when “the War” came, and who went off to do their duty. It was said that UNC gave more students to the Southern Cause than any other school. It is “likely” true.

Just a few weeks after my arrival, I joined thousands of other students as we tramped through the campus to Kenan Stadium, to listen to a speech by the nation’s young President, John F. Kennedy, on the occasion of the University’s Founders Day. Then in his first year in office, JFK was in full form, at his handsome, youthful and charismatic best.

And here is how he dealt with the South’s past and the War Between the States. Here is what this liberal Democrat from Massachusetts said then of the Tar Heel State:

“There is, of course, no place in America where reason and firmness are more clearly pointed out than here in North Carolina. All Americans can profit from what happened in this State a century ago. It was this State, firmly fixed in the traditions of the South, which sought a way of reason in a troubled and dangerous world. Yet when the War came, North Carolina provided a fourth of all of the Confederate soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice in those years. And it won the right to the slogan, ‘First at Bethel. Farthest to the front at Gettysburg and Chickamauga. Last at Appomattox’.”

I was still a student at Chapel Hill when, a little over two years later, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. It had a profound effect upon me. He had asked at Chapel Hill, echoing Goethe, “Are you going to be a hammer or an anvil?” Within days I was marching and demonstrating in the Civil Rights Movement. It was my way of dealing with his death.

The “Movement” was dangerous and heady. In the next few months, I was sucker punched, shot at, threatened often, and spent more than a few nights in jail during the sit-ins.

In the end, the Public Accommodations Act settled the issue, but those heady times were always a point of pain and pride when we all reminisced about the “the Sixties.”

I had grown up in a railroad “section house” without electricity or indoor plumbing. The folks around us were in the same shape, except that they were all black. So I guess I felt I owed this to them, to those neighbors who got the short end of things.

That idealistic leap into political reality was the beginning of something else that was pushing to the front of my passions. During the summers of 1962 and 1963, I had a job on a work train clearing right-of-way along the railroads in the deep South. I loved it, every second of it. I began to realize that my Southerness was more than just a birthright. I came to believe that it was an honor bestowed upon me by my Maker. I still feel that way.

The period just after the Civil Rights Movement was critically important to the South. I remember how proud I was when a group of kids from Charlotte went up to Boston during that city’s violent busing crisis to show the kids up there how to get along with one another. It seemed to me that left to ourselves, outside of any political climate, Southerners would get along as Southerners. For we had always shared a culture, that whole cultural menu of language and weather and food and music and work and laughter. We have far more in common than that which would separate us. That shared culture is being forgotten in these radical times.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never contemplated the destruction of historic monuments or the removal of historic symbols. His entire thrust, reiterated again and again, was for Southern white and blacks to “dine together at the table of brotherhood.” He longed for the “integration” of our different “histories” as essential to our common future. A simple acceptance of the past is all that is necessary. With that comes forgiveness. It may not be easy, but it is necessary.

Fifty plus years ago I would look out at Silent Sam from my window in Battle Dorm and try to imagine what it must have been like to have gone off to war in those days. I thought of Sam as maybe a youth from somewhere like Tarboro or Clinton or Hickory. He was of good heart, I figured, maybe 18 or 19, a bit thin, a bit afraid. He was of that tough North Carolina stock, that “salt of the earth” fellow whose character is reflected in the State’s motto: “Esse Quam Videre.” To be rather than to seem.

He could have been my great great Uncle Gabriel Jacobs, who was killed at Fraysor’s Farm pursuing McClellan in his escape to the river. He was 21. He, in turn, was named for his great great great grandfather Gabriel Jacobs, a slave who was freed by his master John Custis in Northhampton County, Virginia in 1695.

Our South is a land of many secrets and many truths.

The radical trash who tore down Silent Sam and those academic idiots who enable them are not worthy to walk on the same ground as Gabriel Jacobs. Silent Sam will rise again, and we, not they, shall overcome.

Now available at amazon.com; “A Republic, if you can keep it”

A Republic-front cover

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

error: Content is protected !!