Columns

Columns

Why Opposing the LGBTQ Agenda is Not Bigotry

Why Opposing the LGBTQ Agenda is Not Bigotry

By Erik Rush •

Back in April of this year, Michael W. Chapman penned a column for CNS about Ana Samuel, Ph.D., the research scholar and pro-traditional marriage activist who warned 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg that his homosexual ideology is “dangerous to the nation.” Samuel maintains that while civility is paramount in the debate over this issue, she also asserts that her following (representing millions of mothers with traditional family values) will resist “policies that assault our values, harm our families, and hurt our children.”
Ms. Samuel is a notable figure, not only because she is dynamic and well-educated, but because she is Latina, and therefore is bucking the system to which a majority of Americans of Latin descent hold allegiance. Samuel happens to be the daughter of Mexican immigrants and her husband is an Argentine immigrant. The couple have six children.

It is a sad commentary that with the “normalization” of homosexuality in the public square, even many conservative Americans have either accepted the notion that the attendant ideology (as Samuel put it) is not harmful to society at large, or they just don’t press the point anymore.

There is a distinct difference between being tolerant of people in the LGBTQ camp and summary acceptance of every notion advanced by leftist mouthpieces ostensibly advocating for them. By the same token, there is a distinct difference between people who self-identify as LGBTQ and those who claim to represent them, i.e., politicos and activists, since these have widely divergent objectives.

As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the political left successfully inculcated moral ambivalence into millions of young people through the propaganda and so-called sexual sensibilities that came out of the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s. They simply denied the fact that sexual libertinism was harmful to society at large, and stigmatized anyone who disagreed.

Similarly, leftists have chipped away at the sensibilities of the public as regards homosexuals. Tolerance for people in the LGBTQ camp has become synonymous with the summary acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda, lock, stock and barrel—and some of it is decidedly frightening as well as disgusting.

Pre-teen “drag kids” are now being showcased in media and at LGBTQ events, and we are admonished to embrace them or be branded as bigots. We are also supposed to accept the idea that these children came up with the idea all on their own, as opposed to having been groomed by activists, media and twisted individuals around them. Finally, it is demanded that we capitulate to the preposterous idea that this lifestyle does no harm to these children.

But the left has always been duplicitous, stealthy and craven. We were told in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision that abortion would only occur in the most extreme of circumstances. Now, aborted baby parts have become a cottage industry, and leftists in some states have widened the criteria to qualify babies that are literally in the birth canal as abortable. We were told in the 1960s that sexual libertinism wasn’t harmful; it was just a lifestyle choice that we all ought to accept. Fifty years later, as I said in my earlier column, the results speak for themselves.

We were also told when “gay rights” became “a thing” in the 1970s that it was unfair, even bigoted, to suggest that homosexual men have a penchant for pederasty. Yet, now we can find preteen “drag boys” at Pride parades; when they are showcased, these are invariably surrounded by homosexual men—usually pretty skeevy-looking ones at that.

The bottom line is this: The leftist power structure, which claims to advocate for minorities of every stripe, has no such interest. Their chief objectives are to sow division amongst various groups while grooming the population at large for every manner of maladjustment they can conceive, whether drug addiction, sexual dysfunction, or the idolatry of Earth worship, to name but a few.

The danger of a guy like Pete Buttigieg (and the difference between him and his “husband” versus a homosexual couple living quietly in their community) is that Buttigieg is a socialist activist promoting the LGBTQ agenda. As such, he already knows that his ideology is dangerous—at least in the eyes of those who hold traditional values.

Do not doubt that the LGBTQ agenda has as much to do with the civil rights of LGBTQ people as the agenda of reparations for blacks has to do with the long-term well-being of black Americans—this being none at all.

Like Dr. Ana Samuel, we need to start making the distinction between people in minority groups and the socialist power structure which exploits them—and fast. Following this, we need to act accordingly. If you oppose the preteen drag queen festival being proposed at your child’s public school, you know that this is not the same thing as being in favor of shipping homosexuals off to concentration camps.

So, help to organize the protest against that dragfest, or attend it in accordance with your conscience—but be prepared to defend yourself. When words fail, leftists are very quick to resort to violence.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
What Tolerance For Sexual Deviance Has Reaped

What Tolerance For Sexual Deviance Has Reaped

By Erik Rush •

Last Sunday on Fox News’ “The Next Revolution,” referencing the effluvia of slander and histrionics being doled out by prominent leftists, host Steve Hilton stated that the Washington, D.C. political and media establishment have “lost their minds.”

While this may sound like hyperbole, some of the rhetoric coming from the left does have elements of clinical insanity. The insistence on the part of prominent Democrats that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election despite having been cleared of this charge certainly qualifies. Claims that restrictions on abortion being considered in some states will kill black women (an abject fallacy in itself) whilst ignoring the black babies being killed by abortion in the absence of such measures also qualifies.

The most bizarre and incoherent ideas currently being advanced by the left have to do with gender. Only 20 years ago, the idea of same-sex “marriage” was considered ridiculous by a majority of Americans. Similarly, biological males competing in sporting events as females would have been considered not only absurd, but grossly unfair to biologically female athletes.

Today, these “institutions” are practically commonplace, and they’ve become so largely because those who considered them ridiculous remained silent rather than being labeled as bigots.

The most recent incarnation of the left’s efforts to promote sexual ambivalence has to do with the nature of gender itself. Not only does a segment of the tiny but extremely vocal LGBTQ lobby advocate for biological males and females being able to “choose” a preferred gender with which to identify, this bunch also contends that there are multitudes of genders, perhaps even hundreds.

Who knew?

I remember quite well during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, when the political left was pushing sexual permissiveness with all the urgency of avoiding the next planetary extinction-level event, catty, mincing liberals accused those who resisted going along with the program of being prudes. As far as they were concerned, a prude was just as bad as a segregationist—and if you ran afoul of their budding doctrine, they certainly let you know it.

Also during this period, court cases and discussions in the public square arose with regard to how these “new sensibilities” would be represented in media and education. Oh, the controversy over Sex Ed in schools! Many will recall the liberal argument that sexual function and reproduction were “only knowledge,” and that keeping this valuable knowledge from our youth was simply wrong. Further, that an ignorance of sexuality and reproduction would lead to young people getting into trouble should they become sexually active.
There was a great deal of concern about sexuality being represented in films and TV, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.

In November of 1968, the first voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system took effect, not so much because the public was concerned about sexual content in movies, but because the MPAA brass deemed the Hays code (in place since 1930) archaic. Movie makers had been increasingly pushing the envelope in this area anyway; the new ratings code actually gave film makers more license to produce explicit material.

While millions of Americans possessing traditional values were alarmed at these emergent sensibilities, there was a certain congruity in the disposition of courts and regulatory agencies which decided that if a segment of the population wished to expose themselves to smut, it was not the role of the Christian majority or those or secular folks who held to traditional values to dictate mores to them.

Unfortunately, like our Constitution itself, this has become a double-edged sword. Fast-forward 50 years, and any child with a computer, tablet or smart phone can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even TV shows featuring comic book superheroes are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.

As is occurring today, back in the 60s and 70s, the perceived “rights” of individuals to engage in sexually deviant behavior superseded any consideration of how propagating sexually deviant behavior might impact society at large.

Well, at this point, I think that the jury is in, and it’s apparent that we’ve pretty much screwed ourselves (pun intended).

An interesting perspective comes from Christine Caine, an Australian activist who has firsthand experience with sexual abuse and trauma. Caine founded A21, a global anti-trafficking organization that operates in 15 countries, and which aids in prosecuting sex traffickers and rescuing victims.

Now, one could claim that the increasing incidence of sex trafficking, especially that involving children, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of an increasing sexual permissiveness in Western culture—but I think that most reading this will know better. Ms. Caine asserts that the proliferation of pornography and other sexually-ambivalent materials has fueled human trafficking, and I tend to agree. We’re human beings and, by our nature, the only ones who’ll find themselves immune to morally ambivalent materials of any kind are those who do not partake in them.

So, we have confirmation that the atmosphere of sexual permissiveness we’ve cultivated has severely compromised us culturally. Also, we can now see that the left (via the LGBTQ lobby) has no intention of exhibiting the same tolerance to people who hold traditional values as was shown them. Indeed, having been extended an olive branch, they continue to cry “oppression” amidst calls for traditional values to be relegated to criminal status.

So much for tolerance…

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Black Billionaire ‘Victims’ and Their Leftist Overlords

Black Billionaire ‘Victims’ and Their Leftist Overlords

By Erik Rush •

Norman Vincent Peale, the Christian philosopher and author of the best-selling book “The Power of Positive Thinking,” is credited with having coined several axioms that have become fairly commonplace in the American lexicon.

Among these is the phrase “We tend to get what we expect.”

While this may seem somewhat trite, many will concur, outrageous fortune notwithstanding, that there’s a lot to this saying. In general, people who expect positive outcomes tend to experience more of them—and of course, the reverse often bears out as well.

Last week on CNN, retired NFL tight end Martellus Bennett and “CNN Tonight” host Don Lemon were discussing members of the Boston Red Sox visiting the White House to celebrate their World Series victory with President Donald Trump in the context of Bennett having opted out of a White House visit when the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl with Bennett as a player.

Bennett’s responses spoke to his belief that although many white players in pro sports do show solidarity with black players who decry alleged racism, they cannot understand what black players experience as black men in America, “even though we have money.”
Pretenses to victimhood like these are a noxious political device, even if men such as the Bennett brothers remain unaware of this fact, and that they are themselves being played (pun intended).

Martellus Bennett is the brother of Michael Bennett, an activist, author and defensive end for the New England Patriots. Both are of a generation of young black men (even though the former has already retired) who grew up indoctrinated into the belief that the same system of institutionalized racism that existed in America prior to the Civil Rights Movement still exists today.

I cannot tell you what it was like to be a black man in 1935 or 1955 because I hadn’t yet been born. My direct experience, which began in the 1960s, reflects a time when there was still a great deal of inequity existing in the area of race, but also a time where there was a great deal of hope and the knowledge that things were improving—quickly—because many people were fighting valiantly for that cause.

This has not been the case for many blacks who came of age after the Civil Rights Movement. As this period came to a close, the political left increasingly co-opted the civil rights agenda, with powerful white liberals, their high-profile black lackeys and activists increasingly controlling the narrative on race. Racist white boogeymen were everywhere; blacks could count only on liberals and their largesse to save them from an imminent return to segregated water fountains and politically-sanctioned lynchings.

Naturally, blacks’ alignment with Democrats and the ensuing socioeconomic malaise blacks suffered as a result of this served to artificially “validate” the idea that blacks were still being systematically oppressed—because in the context of the previous paragraph, they were.

Black Americans were no longer being demoralized by your archetypal bigoted “white crackers,” but by the political left. Unfortunately, this was nearly impossible for them to discern, due to the carefully-crafted propaganda and systematized cultural indoctrination being imparted by the educational system, media, activists and, of course, the widespread corruption of the black church via Black Liberation Theology.
Martellus Bennett and Michael Bennett were born in 1987 and 1985, respectively. The brothers have been massively successful—which one would think quite against the odds in such a racist nation. By their words and their NFL knee-taking practices, it is clear that they’ve taken to their indoctrination very well.

The problem is that neither have a frame of reference for what real racial inequity is. Driving around in a luxury automobile in a state of self-induced, paranoid hypervigilance doesn’t count, I’m afraid.

Institutional racism and the use of excessive force on the part of police are inacceptable. It has been proved definitively however, that in most of the extremely rare cases in which white police have used deadly force against unarmed blacks in recent years, the black individuals in question were engaged in behaviors which put them at risk of contact with the police in the first place.

As I’ve pointed out previously, my nearly innumerable observations involving blacks and law enforcement evidenced that in the majority of instances in which a law enforcement officer contacts a black person, the latter invariably acts with anything from indignation to outright belligerence, whether that individual is a street dealer or a Ph.D. Considering the paramilitary modality in which law enforcement officers must operate, this is probably one of the most unintelligent deportments anyone of any color might adopt.

Conversely, I cannot count the instances in which, as a teenager and young adult, I was contacted by rude and belligerent police officers whom I knew were bigoted morons, and in which the situation was handily defused simply via my being polite.

With blacks in America lined up behind the power brokers of the political left, nothing in the way of overtures toward parity will ever be sufficient, because their socialist overlords will deem any and all measures insufficient whilst continuing to keep blacks disenfranchised. Neither reparations, increased entitlements, socioeconomic strides, legions of black multimillionaires and billionaires—not even the election of blacks to the highest offices in the land will suffice. Blacks will continue to believe and claim that they are second-class citizens, even if no one else views them as such.

Most unfortunately, they will continue to expect questionable treatment and, by their overall deportment, many will continue to get it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Americans, Stop Capitulating to Leftist Twaddle

Americans, Stop Capitulating to Leftist Twaddle

By Erik Rush •

The recent revelation of a popular children’s cartoon character as a gay male creature about to “marry” another gay male creature seemed to be a good jumping-off point for some observations on social norms in America (such as they are), and the wholesale denial and delusion which currently permeate cyberspace and the airwaves.

“Arthur” is a Canadian/American collaborative effort, an animated television series targeted at children ages 4 to 8, and aired on PBS (yes, my use of the word “targeted” is intentional). The show has run for an enviable 22 years, and was a favorite of my children when they were in that age group and we still had broadcast TV in my home.

It should go without saying that I’m glad they are no longer in that age group.

As someone who has been around for a little while, I’ve noted that people such as myself cannot take for granted that those around me are aware of our history—even those in my age group. This is obviously exacerbated by the spirited efforts toward revisionist history on the part of politicos, activists and the entertainment industry.

Thus, it would be very easy for people younger than 30 to presume that we’ve always glorified the prison lesbian lifestyle on television, one out of three Americans are LGBTQ persons and that we’ve always had politicians who succeed for no other reason than they happen to be homosexual.

Ten years ago, I penned a column for WND highlighting a disturbing phenomenon: This involved numerous occurrences of the pork tapeworm amongst members of orthodox Jewish communities. This was noteworthy in that orthodox Jews are prohibited from eating pork—so how were they being exposed to this deadly parasite?

As it turns out, the infection was being spread to these individuals by undocumented migrants whom they had engaged as domestics. These migrants had horrible hygiene, and were passing on the tapeworm eggs to their employers through fecal contamination. This was not widely reported because political correctness trumps public health; anything indicting migrants, particularly undocumented ones, is considered racist by the establishment press.

In more recent days, we’ve seen sparse media reports of diseases we haven’t encountered in America in decades. In the main, these have been reintroduced by undocumented aliens who arrived during the Obama administration’s orchestrated immigrant crisis of 2014 and afterward. In this case, not only won’t the press acknowledge the danger, they’re actually contending that disease-carrying migrants are somehow a benefit.

Yeah. And nicotine is a vitamin…

Sexual deviance and infectious diseases are not the only unwholesome things that have proliferated to alarming proportions over the last few decades, however. Discounting feeble water cooler arguments that “things have always been this bad but we just weren’t documenting it” aside, there are a number of distinctly disturbing and dangerous phenomena that have arisen recently which those who haven’t been around as long as I have (or who haven’t been paying attention) may simply not be aware.

Another distressing item I addressed in this space during Barack Obama’s presidency was the proliferation of jihadist training camps within the continental United States. This was facilitated at least in part by the solidarity Obama held with radical Muslims, and his clandestine importation of displaced Muslims from the Middle East during his time in office. Obviously, the press avoided this subject like the plague.

Now, we are beginning to see reports of truly disgusting goings-on at jihadi training camps that have been raided by law enforcement.
Through the wonderful phenomenon of globalization, we’ve become aware of the extent of such things as the international sex slavery trade and black market organ harvesting. Even more disturbing have been the increasing reports of sex slavery originating and being practiced within the U.S., and often involving minor children.

Since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, America’s been sold on the notion that moral relativism is just wonderful, and the deviant left has only turned up the heat over the last several years. Unless one intends to buy into wholesale Orwellianism however, it’s pretty clear that the trend toward moral ambivalence has carried grave consequences.

Not all are bowing to this new leftist orthodoxy, however: Recently, Arizona followed a few other states in declaring pornography a public health crisis due to the ease with which minors can access online porn. I’ve written in this space of having recalled many instances of the left’s campaign to over-sexualize children when I was a child myself—not that I recognized it as such at the tme. Given the proliferation of pornography and the ubiquitous nature of sexual material online, I shudder to think how today’s children are getting their “Sex Education.”

Finally, we have the recent school shooting in Colorado, which was quickly swept under the rug by the press for two reasons: One was that the assailants were vehement anti-Trumpers; the other had to do with the fact that one was a minor preoperative transsexual.Since this obviously does not speak to such people being particularly well-adjusted, we can see why the left (via the press) would seek to suppress such facts.

The foregoing are but a few examples of leftist social engineering to which, in the aggregate, Americans simply capitulated. Largely, they did this to avoid being called icky names. So, however all this shakes out, historians will be able to state with confidence that we nearly gave our country away in order to avoid what amounts to harmless schoolyard invective.

I, for one, cannot think of too many things dumber than that.

Obviously, I could list many more examples. We need only turn on our computer or TV to observe the ruthless vigor and extreme duplicity with which the political left is currently advancing every facet of its foul agenda.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Tech Giants’ Realm: Our Future Dystopia in Microcosm

Tech Giants’ Realm: Our Future Dystopia in Microcosm

By Erik Rush •

If one does a web search (I absolutely refuse to use the word “Google” as a verb) of the words “google facebook censorship,” the sheer volume of articles and blog posts referencing the blatant and coordinated suppression of free speech and thought on the part of the biggest tech companies is quite sobering.

It’s pretty clear at this point that Google wants to own the online environment in its totality. Not only does this company engage in a level of censorship and social engineering that border on brainwashing, but its business practices are so demonstrably unethical that it’s a wonder they’ve not been investigated for racketeering.

Google ads permeate cyberspace, and some websites that engage other ad publishers have found their sites suddenly flagged by Google as “malicious,” the pretext often being obscure issues with the non-Google advertisers’ back-end ad code. Purveyors of products that make liberals’ sphincters spasm find it difficult if not impossible to get their websites approved to run Google ads.

Thus, by definition, Google is picking winners and losers in commerce, and only the truly naïve individual believes that this could not expand to encompass individual enterprises as opposed to industries Google’s uber-lib leadership frowns upon. In fact, the user tracking protocols and algorithms used by companies like Google effectively give them the ability to engage in counterintelligence campaigns against anyone, from the conservative business owner to the outspoken Christian PTA member.

The retail giant Amazon has also become notorious for cherry-picking winners, censoring media sold on its platform and manipulating the sales statistics of books by conservative authors, for example. Like Facebook, Amazon has its own user privacy issues, and its overall business practices have come into question, even extending to allegations of criminal corruption in securing government contracts.

In the microcosm, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become stellar examples of what liberals think Americans’ sensibilities should be, and how dissenting views ought to be quashed. The inconsistencies in their application of community standards are evidenced by the thousands of reactions posted by users daily. A radical leftist, Muslim or a gay activist can post the most derisive, incendiary material and there are no consequences for such action. If a conservative, a Christian or an observant Jew mildly criticizes someone belonging to one of these protected groups however, they are summarily suspended or banned by the platform.

I suppose the rationale of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai is that in the end, it won’t matter if politicos aren’t able to impose thought or behavior; these matters will be handled in the marketplace of ideas.

It makes one wonder what went on in several meetings former president Barack Obama held with the leaders of large tech companies during his presidency. The pretext for these meetings was to address issues of emerging technologies and user privacy, but it bears mentioning that these meetings were conducted in secret.

One could speculate as to the overall tone and content of the meetings, but in light of the criminality of the Obama administration (of which some have been long aware, but which is only now coming to light), I am confident that the tech giants’ current program of censorship was substantially refined and codified during those meetings.

Even lefty journalists aren’t too happy with the effects that the policies of companies like Google and Facebook are having on their industry, but like other protected classes under the socialist umbrella, they’re willing to take a hit for the team.
This phenomenon does give rise to a certain cognitive dissonance. It’s been pointed out that in the brave new socialist world, LGBTQ individuals are to be embraced, but so are Islamists, who have a nasty habit of summarily murdering gays and lesbians. These shortcomings are routinely ignored by the left; if pressed, they simply deny that such things occur.

This is par for the course however, and ought not distract those opposed to the socialist agenda. Duplicity is the socialist’s stock-in-trade, as is the wholesale betrayal of these protected groups once they’ve attained power.

Because socialists and hardcore liberals are without honor, tech giants’ desire to extinguish free speech and independent journalism is reflected in the microcosm of their properties, wherein they enforce their “morality” without restraint. This foreshadows the ruthlessness with which our population will be handled should these odious creatures gain political ascendency.

If I’d said to you prior to 1982 that yes, AT&T cornered the market on telephone service, but it’s a sovereign business entity that can operate as it wishes, and no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you use the telephone, you would have seen the folly of that line of reasoning.

The federal government did, and determined in 1982 that AT&T had established an illegal monopoly, which led to its breakup that year. Had the company attempted to implement a malignant political agenda rather than or in addition to employing unethical business practices to capture a market, I am quite confident that its executive board members would have been tried for treason, and the company’s assets liquidated.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

By Erik Rush •

The hyperbole, histrionics and aggressive selling of socialism to the masses over the last two years belies the fact that the political establishment and those on the left are desperate and scared as hell. As I’ve articulated previously in this space (and more than once), these folks rightly arrived at the conclusion that the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 was not only a mandate against the socialist policies of Trump’s predecessor, but an indicator that the electorate is waking up to the lie of the two-party system and that it is likely to become increasingly difficult for mainstream politicians to deceive voters via the machinations and boilerplate rhetoric of the past.

As such—and because progressives don’t have much that’s real to offer—they’re pulling out all the stops; this is reflected in part by some of the proposals being made by the legion of possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. As will surprise few, these consist of some of the biggest giveaways ever conceived by political candidates. Subsidized college tuition (I won’t insult readers by using the term “free”), universal student loan forgiveness and “Medicare for all” are just a few.

These are calculated to appeal to those who could care less about the overall standard of living in America, as long as they “get theirs”—this group being a fast-growing segment of our increasingly narcissistic, uninformed society.

Among the mind-bogglingly unaffordable proposals being floated are reparations for blacks for slavery. On April 8, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill that would study the concept of reparations for descendants of slaves. Booker said that the bill is “a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country.”

The persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in America is an utter fiction (unless one takes into account the uncomfy bed progressives have made for blacks), but blacks and rank-and-file liberals have been convinced that these are endemic to our nation.

The idea of reparations for slavery has been floated before. Outside of those who summarily endorse anything proposed toward compensating blacks for their suffering, and blacks who would eagerly take a check regardless of the long-term cost to them or the nation at large, most people tended to come down on the side of the idea being demonstrably stupid.

First off, there isn’t a black person alive today who suffered under the institution of slavery, so how would one determine to whom reparations should be paid?

Then, we have to consider the basis for paying reparations. Is it “generational trauma”—the implied cultural effects of being black in a nation in which blacks were once second-class citizens? This obviously represents a perilous degree of abstraction, but if it is the case, we must then consider the question of degree: An 80 year-old black person has obviously experienced far more in the way of the cultural vestiges of slavery than an 18 year-old, so shouldn’t the octogenarian get a bigger check?

For that matter, shouldn’t I get a bigger check than the 18 year-old, since I was born at a time when there were far fewer opportunities for blacks than there are today—or does the fact that I’m of mixed race “cancel things out” and exempt me?

Would everyone in America who “looks black” be awarded reparations, or would they be required to submit a genealogy in order to establish that they were descended from a slave of record?

Perhaps blacks would be awarded reparations based upon the percentage of “black blood” they possessed. Considering Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, it occurs to me that this would open the door to a whole lotta fraud.

Would naturalized blacks from Africa and the West Indies and/or their descendants be included in this grand plan? If not, how could they be reliably excluded in a nation that can’t even keep the integrity of its voter rolls? Again, the potential for fraud looms large.

Then, where do these reparations come from? If the resources are to come out of taxpayer dollars, would all blacks then be exempted from paying federal income taxes? I mean, leaving aside the inequity attendant to paying reparations at all, I don’t see any reason why working blacks should contribute toward paying reparations to other blacks.

There’s another important question to consider: If we accept the premise that the descendants of slaves are deserving of reparations despite never having suffered under the institution of slavery, does this not open the door to the reciprocal argument—that whites should be held accountable for the actions of those who participated in maintaining the institution of slavery, despite never having done so themselves?

While the idea of reparations for slavery may be laughable on its face, it must nevertheless be taken seriously, since there are definitely enough propagandized blacks and foolish whites among us to make this a reality given the right (or wrong) combination of a Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

By Erik Rush •

They label their opponents as racists—one of the most odious things a person can be thought of in America—with absolutely no substantiation for the charge, and they do it unceasingly. When words fail, they violently attack those with whom they disagree. Indeed, they routinely countenance violence yet, in passive-aggressive stance, bleat like helpless, wretched victims when their opponents take the offensive, or even suggest taking the offensive.

In the workplace, they take improper liberties with their subordinates and engage in fraud in order to get their children into high-profile universities. Their captains of industry conspire to corner emerging markets and then scheme to marginalize vast segments of the populace and business interests in order to advance their malignant political agenda, then lie to Congress when questioned about it. They conspire to flood the country with illegal immigrants and emigrés from hostile nations in order to skew elections in their favor and to foment civil unrest.

It is quite clear at this point that the political left has determined that the ends justify the means in coalescing their political power. The rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play have been discarded.

Their leaders are aware that all of the foregoing behavior is merely a strategy: They know that their political opponents don’t merit the charges leveled against them, and that their own followers’ behavior is manifestly antisocial.

Their followers—far left voters and activists—are the true believers, however. They’ve been convinced that pretty much everyone right-of-center are so noxious and dangerous that they must be overcome by any means necessary.

The problem here is that such “true believers” can be marshaled to commit singularly heinous acts ahead of the rise of a regime that would enroll statutory stormtroopers to do its bidding. We’ve seen this occur before in countries that have been subjugated by socialists, and it never ends well. The dehumanization of political opponents inevitably sets the stage for atrocities.

So, let’s examine a purely hypothetical scenario for context: What if conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists began to operate in the same manner? Meaning that, suppose this segment determined that the ends do indeed justify the means, and that the rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play should be discarded as a point of prudence, considering that their opponents have done so.
Further, suppose that these people—who do outnumber radical leftists on the order of fifteen-to-one—reasoned that since leftists managed to murder, maim and enslave nearly a half-billion people during the last century, and that American leftists are precisely following the playbook of past and present socialist regimes, they probably ought not take any chances.

Suppose these patriots decided, given the above, that militant action ought to remain on the table; that, considering the wholesale infiltration of our government by socialists, Islamists, and assorted leftist radicals, we are at war even if our woefully-compromised federal government refuses to acknowledge it.

Perhaps such individuals would organize, as some fringe left wing groups have done. They might begin to engage in counterintelligence operations against openly seditious lawmakers and other operatives, bringing their subversive actions into focus for the general population, which the establishment press obviously will not do.

Perhaps some seasoned former military types of this mindset might organize clandestinely, and prominent leftists would begin to suffer very unfortunate mishaps. Let’s say that these individuals possessed such proficiency that there were seldom signs of foul play, and never anyone to perp walk before the eager cameras of the press.

It goes almost without saying that actions even remotely resembling these would be seized upon by the left as having been committed by right wing extremists. Concerning this question, I would offer up the fact that since those on the left have demonstrated little compunction as regards trying to frame those on the right for violence and hate crimes, right wing groups would have little trouble dismissing any accusations as potential frame jobs.

Now, leaving aside the ugly atmosphere that this kind of behavior would create and the inherent dangers involved (the potential for escalating civil unrest and blowback from law enforcement, for example), the likely result is that those on the left would become far less vocal, less confrontational, and less effective. The reason for this is because—as we have seen demonstrated time and again— extreme cowardice is in their nature. They would see the political right going on the offensive giving rise to a more level playing field, and they already know that they cannot compete on a level playing field. The knowledge that their political opponents were now willing to respond in kind to provocation would utterly neutralize the left’s ground game, which would be a decidedly good thing.

It’s probable than none of this will come to pass however, because conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists respect the rule of law, ethics and concepts of fair play. We don’t intimidate our opponents into silence, and we do not employ the last resort (violence) as a first measure, which has served us well.

My only hope is that in the long term, this deportment can survive the machinations of socialists, who clearly do not share these values with us.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

By Erik Rush •

In dealing with the general public, emotional blackmail is one of the chief weapons in the arsenal of the political left. For decades now, hyperbolic appeals to Americans’ emotions have been employed not only to sway individuals in the interest of issues and causes, but to shape our opinions and our worldview as well.

An object lesson in this phenomenon came to the fore just this week, when press reports featured a scene in the new Netflix documentary “Our Planet,” which is presented by British naturalist David Attenborough (who produced the acclaimed “Blue Planet” documentaries for the BBC). Though Attenborough has produced some great stuff, he is nevertheless a very politically-active anthropogenic climate change guru who believes that human beings should feel “jolly guilty” over the damage we’re allegedly doing to our planet.

The attention that “Our Planet” recently garnered has to do with a scene in the documentary involving walruses. Yes, walruses. In the film, there is a disturbing scene which takes place in the Bering Strait, where filmmakers captured a large group of Pacific walruses climbing high, rocky cliffs en masse, well away from their normal seaside habitats. As one might imagine, these two-ton, cumbersome creatures that don’t even have proper feet do not fare very well in this alien environment, and many of the animals wind up falling from the cliffs and perishing.

Inevitably, the first question that strikes the viewer is why these animals would engage in this behavior—and Attenborough is more than happy to tell us. The actions of these free-climbing walruses are put down to their normal icy habitat dwindling due to climate change. As their peril is detailed, we can envision hordes of nervous walruses standing atop unsteady, ever-shrinking ice sheets, then panicking and charging up the cliffs to their doom.

Considering all of the speculation that goes along with the documentary producers’ assessment coupled with their obvious agenda, I’ve a feeling that they possess no more insight into why the walruses behaved in this manner than you do—but let’s not let the lack of facts obscure the political objective here.

While this goes hand-in-hand with the invective leftists routinely employ to shame their opponents into capitulation—accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like—emotional blackmail goes beyond the pressure of mere invective. The key component here is in impressing upon the target that they are harming someone or something if they do not summarily accept whatever proposal is being advanced by the left: If you don’t buy into anthropogenic climate change, you’re harming the planet. If you don’t buy into the proposal that America is an institutionally racist nation, you’re harming ethnic minorities. If you don’t buy into open borders, you’re harming poor little Pablo and his family who only want a better life.

Get it?

With regard to people as individuals, things become even more emotionally-charged and less rational. In the world of liberals, there’s nothing worse than hurting someone’s feelings, saying or doing something that has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves. Thus, if you don’t buy into the LBGTQ agenda, you’re damaging the self-esteem of LGBTQ people. If you don’t buy into Islamophilia, you’re hurting the feelings of those who follow Islam. If you don’t buy into the idea of reparations for blacks, you’re minimizing their collective suffering, which of course will make blacks feel bad.

And so on.

Emotional blackmail has served the left very well over the years. Since few want to be thought of as the type of person who would wantonly harm another person or destroy something of intrinsic value, if the invective doesn’t get them, the prospect of a guilty conscience often does.
I am convinced that millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.

Similarly, I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former congressman Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.
Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.

In the case of Polis, there is an even more insidious and dangerous dynamic at work here: Countless Americans have accepted the notion that homosexuality does not represent one being morally compromised because they’ve been told that harboring such a belief would make them bigots (as well as hurting homosexuals’ feelings). Coloradoans’ summary denial that homosexuals are a morally compromised lot has effectively allowed a morally compromised individual to run their state.

As one may have noted, there’s no shortage of emotional engagement these days, particularly on the part of the left. Reckless accusations of “racist!” barked at pretty much anyone liberals don’t like these days, wholly unsubstantiated claims that white nationalism is on the rise and other racialist propaganda have the potential to shame voters into making some decidedly perilous decisions over the next few years.
Outside of enlightening as many Americans as possible regarding the nature of this phenomenon, there really isn’t much that can be done to combat it. I may come up with something more constructive in the future, but right now I have a walrus burger waiting.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

By Erik Rush •

Considering the media firestorm surrounding actor Jussie Smollett being charged and subsequently released for perpetrating a potentially dangerous hate crime hoax, I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in with some race-related reality to give some context.

Jussie Smollett is probably too young to understand how his actions dishonored those who sacrificed in the cause of racial equality over the course of our nation’s existence. In school, I imagine he wasn’t taught anything remotely resembling reality on the subject of history, particularly in this area. Factor in Smollett having been raised in the entertainment industry from childhood, and we can see how unlikely it is that any sense of moral obligation he might have harbored could have survived.

As distasteful as it is for me, I occasionally engage in “media slumming,” this meaning that I expose myself to media that I would never watch for enjoyment in order to remain informed as to what’s going on in media venues. I don’t have broadcast television, nor do I participate in the ripoff of cable TV, but I do have streaming services through which I can glean a fairly decent representation of what’s afoot in broadcast TV.

Similar to the inescapability of superfluous homoerotica, pro-LGBTQ messages and anti-Trump snark pervading TV and films these days, the America-as-an-institutionally-racist-nation message has also taken on new life over the last couple of years. Case in point: Over just the last year, I’ve viewed more TV dramas than I can count in which characters bemoan Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and a host of other real-life black Americans being murdered by racist cops.

Such laments are abject mythology, but when one is in that passive mode of being plugged into the brainsucker box for entertainment purposes, the ensuing effects can be quite insidious.

I was having a discussion with some people on social media the other day on the topic of how the genres of hip-hop and rap debase black people, particularly black women. I offered that while I certainly concur with this assessment, it’s only a small part of the ongoing campaign of the left—and to some extent, our government—to keep blacks culturally enslaved. This is actually a theory I began developing in my teens, when I saw the music being marketed to blacks becoming less mainstream and increasingly geared toward hedonistic and narcissistic themes. Perhaps I noticed this because I’m a lifelong musician, as opposed to being remarkably intuitive.

I paused bemusedly after having employed the phrase “cultural enslavement.” I don’t know If I coined it then and there, and I don’t need the credit, but it’s bloody brilliant regardless.

Cultural enslavement is essentially what the political left has imposed upon blacks since the Civil Rights Movement. I have written previously about some of the federal government’s efforts to keep blacks on the proverbial plantation as popular sentiment around the existing racial inequities in America began to change; these included F.D.R. and Harry Truman conspiring with unions to use entitlement programs to keep black men from taking union jobs, and of course the deleterious effects entitlement programs have had on black families in general.
It’s been said that prior to the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were probably one of the most socially conservative groups in America. Occasionally, someone will point out how stable black communities and families were prior to this period, when wholesale government intervention into race-related issues and the explosion of entitlement programs took place. This is certainly accurate, despite leftists being quick to offer catty little mincing retorts in these cases: So, are you saying that blacks were better off under Jim Crow and segregation—hmm..?

I often proffer the argument that America is not an institutionally racist nation in the sense that black activists and liberals maintain it is. America is indeed an institutionally racist nation however, in the sense that since the Civil Rights Movement (which I’m using as a temporal landmark, not a cause), blacks’ identity has been dictated by liberal whites and their black lackeys, and this has been actualized largely through the entertainment industry. I went into great detail on this topic in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”

In short, since the late 1960s, blacks in America have learned how to behave and who to be from TV sitcoms, films and the music industry.
Of even more significance is the fact that blacks have learned from these media sources how to relate to other racial groups, and how other racial groups relate to them. The worldview they adopted as a result has been extremely disadvantageous to them, and was predicated upon the desire of influential liberals to influence how blacks relate to just about everything.

More recently, young blacks have been indoctrinated en masse into the sociopathic culture of the lowest-of-the-low in the black community: Criminals. In addition to the gratuitous use of profanity, more often than not the themes of rap and hip-hop purveyors are narcissistic in the extreme, antisocial, anti-authority, misogynistic and racist. The attitudes represented within these themes have been adopted by young blacks in the same manner in which young whites assume the attitudes of their music idols.

Unlike Mötley Cruë however, which promoted the abstract if morally ambiguous “Sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ Rock ‘n’ Roll” lifestyle, in their lyrics, rappers routinely showcase their disdain for authority, multiple baby mamas, dealing drugs, and killing people—even police.

The cure? As simplistic as it may sound, like so many of the threats we face from the hard left, it’s going to come down to people waking up to the reality of what’s going on. In the case of black Americans, with so many remaining mired in the orthodoxy of the left and the Democrat Party, I see this as being a particularly difficult if not an extremely unlikely proposition.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns