socialism

‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

By Erik Rush

While substituting for radio talk-show host Glenn Beck last week, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David Clarke pointed to the manifestly unsuitable presidential candidate that was Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and compared the reaction of Obama detractors to his election with leftists’ response to the recent election of real estate mogul and media personality Donald Trump to the presidency.

Despite deep concerns many had over Obama’s political deficiencies in 2008, Clarke noted that when Obama won the presidency, his political opponents did not claim that Obama had somehow stolen the election. They did not whine about shadowy foreign groups having helped him win, even though a very compelling case could be made that this did in fact occur through the influence of certain Saudi agencies at particular stages of his career. They did not protest in the streets. They did not produce fearmongering public service announcements asking Democratic electors to flip their votes or refuse to certify Obama’s victory. They did not appear on television and radio news and talk shows presenting entirely baseless, utterly preposterous charges against the new president-elect, though the truth about his lack of fitness to hold any high office would have horrified a preponderance of the voting public had they been aware of it.

For my part, I don’t recall any of that occurring either, nor do I remember Obama supporters being beaten at rallies by supporters of John McCain in 2008, or college freshmen being driven out of school by bullying over their support for Obama, (as was Bryn Mawr College student Andi Moritz over her support for Donald Trump).

In the case of Trump’s recent election, Sheriff Clarke opined, leftists engaged in each and every one of these craven acts. As most readers know, Sheriff Clarke is a black man; while this ought not matter in terms of his articulating the truth, it is significant in light of the fact that most black Americans have been so brainwashed by progressives that their cognitive processes with regard to political, social and cultural issues often suggest a sort of mental retardation.

Also last week, a few conservative pundits commented on recent remarks made by another black American, our outgoing abysmal excuse for a first lady, Michelle Obama. Addressing Trump’s impending presidency and her perception of our nation without her husband at the helm, Mrs. Obama’s statements came off as boilerplate sour grapes on the part of a racialist who is incapable of admitting that conditions are appreciably better for blacks today than they were in 1955.

The woman who once said that she’d felt no pride in being an American until her husband was nominated for president is singing the same song again now that her gravy train ride is about over, whining about blacks’ ongoing struggle against alleged institutional racism. This despite her family having lived lives that few Americans of any color ever get to live.

The fact is that “enough” is never enough for those on the left. This mental modality has been imparted to nearly everyone in that region of the political continuum, even those who do not understand the stratagem behind their socialist overlords having employed it.

For example, nearly all of the black Americans who still vote for Democrats in the 90 percents, from celebrities to welfare queens, hold to Michelle Obama’s viewpoint to varying degrees. At this juncture, one could gift each and every black American with $1 billion, tax-free (due reparation, some would surely argue), and they would continue citing their alleged oppression. Partying in rarified venues with rap stars and other liberal billionaires, they would claim that their lot in life could be just a little bit better if not for the pernicious institutional racism that still exists in America.

So what’s the beef? It’s obviously not about money. Despite being ostensible haters of capitalism, leftists are among the most money-grubbing individuals on the planet – but if it were truly about money, their vociferousness would abate once they’d achieved material success. If it were about money, Bill and Hillary Clinton, former Vice-President Al Gore and even billionaire currency manipulator and former Nazi collaborator George Soros would have ceased whining once their own economic security was assured.

But they never do …

So it’s not money they really crave – it’s power. The profoundly narcissistic concept that their worldview is superior to all others and that they have the right to impose it upon everyone else has very little to do with any intellectual appraisal of socialism; in the absence of such a system, they would have gravitated to some other political philosophy, probably equally as odious, and attempted to impose that one upon the populace. Even many rank-and-file liberals subscribe to socialism’s unethical and intrusive doctrines because of the power they envision sharing, and we’ve seen them revel in components thereof that have been implemented to one degree or another: telling their fellow citizens that they may no longer speak or worship freely, own guns, smoke tobacco, or consume what their leaders have deemed is too much sugar for one’s own good.

The desire to ruthlessly wield such power not only runs counter to the long-established law of our land (namely, the Constitution), it is a pursuit that bespeaks a character that is fundamentally evil.

Moving forward in the spirit of America’s rage against the socialist political machine (which led to Donald Trump’s election), I will continue to point out that having set us on this path is not a First Amendment right to which liberals and socialists are entitled. It is amoral, and it is treason. This must first become recognition on a popular level, and finally, conventional wisdom.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

by Erik Rush

One of the most important take-aways from the recent election which resulted in real estate mogul Donald Trump becoming President-Elect did not coalesce until after Trump was declared the winner. While the election cycle certainly gave rise to more than its share of subterfuge and illegal shenanigans (they don’t sound quite so threatening when you call them “shenanigans”), it has been the post-election reaction on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters and the political left in general that is most noteworthy.

I dearly hope that all of those who voted for Donald Trump for the reasons we’ve been discussing throughout the campaign have taken note of the truly toxic, juvenile response that the left has offered to his election. Demands for the electoral college to change its vote as though the result was a bad call at a Little League game, fake news stories about Trump’s potential cabinet picks, and the possibility of a radical Muslim being tapped for the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee are among the inane institutional responses, but some of the individual rejoinders have actually been rather frightening.

For example, it is nearly incomprehensible that certain prominent entertainers who are in the public eye continually and whose audiences often include young people and children, opted to the use of some of the most odious and disempowering verbiage to accentuate their displeasure with Trump’s election. There’s certainly a place for irreverence in entertainment, but the tsunami of profanity, threats of suicide, and portends of imminent doom issued publicly by dozens of Hollywood celebrities and music industry icons evidenced not only a childish worldview, but fundamentally infantile mental processes that ought not be envied nor emulated by any thinking individual.

The thousands of inarticulate babies who took to the streets in some American cities when Clinton’s loss became apparent may seem par for the course to those familiar with the character of the left, but to many of the millions who voted for Trump for practical rather than political reasons, those demonstrations and the moronic rhetoric of dejected, infantile left wing brats should be a wake-up call regarding the decidedly base, puerile level at which these people operate.

Then, there is the fact that mobs of dejected, infantile left wing brats seldom do much of their own accord. Their passion is usually ginned-up by some group of individuals or organization with an agenda, and this has been no different.

Among the pre-election Wikileaks high-level document dumps were emails which revealed strategies involving the left wing organization MoveOn.org. This outfit is a major vehicle for the Hungarian-born billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros, who has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image.

MoveOn.org has made no bones about its efforts to foment unrest in the wake of Trump’s election. Last Wednesday, the organization issued a press release announcing the multi-city demonstrations. “The gatherings—organized by MoveOn.org and allies—will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible,” the statement read in part.

Utterly baseless charges aside, at this point it should be clear that the America which these reprobates still believe is possible – a morally ambivalent, Balkanized, insolvent, neutered America – is only the desire of a miniscule faction of deviants, George Soros and his ilk, Beltway elites, and their corps of celebrity morons.

One aspect of the post-election controversy has been rather gratifying, and I hope that this also is not lost on those Trump voters who are anxious about the nation getting its bearings as a new administration takes power. I refer to the many conversations that concerned citizens are now having on social media, talk radio, blogs, and amongst themselves regarding issues that are symptomatic of the reasons they voted for Trump in the first place. These go beyond what were major talking points during the campaigning, but which are all-important as they relate to the corruption, greed, and power-brokering that’s been the hallmark of our government for too long.

Over the past few days, I’ve heard more questions such as these from average Americans than I’ve heard over the course of several years. Although I am paraphrasing, it doesn’t get any more germane than this when one considers the sort of promises Donald Trump made as a candidate:

Why, for example, do we have a Hungarian-born former Nazi collaborator who, naturalized citizen or not, has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image?

By extension, why do we allow the openly subversive to freely act to the detriment of constitutional authority on the basis of perverted interpretations of the First Amendment when we should be prosecuting, imprisoning, and in some cases, deporting such entities?

Why do we have expansionist federal agencies that have increasingly and unilaterally exercised powers not bestowed upon them by the Constitution, such as the seizure of property and assets, and the unlawful imprisonment of American citizens?

Why do we allow incestuous and detrimental relationships to exist between certain federal agencies and those in the private sector, such as key industries and banking, or allow members of Congress to engage in activities like insider trading, which would land the rest of us in prison?

Wouldn’t now be a very good time to consider an investigation of the current administration given the Cyclopean heap of evidence that its principals committed not only treason, but war crimes and crimes against humanity?

These questions and others are the ones we should be asking of the nascent Trump administration going forward, rather than engaging in echo chamber discussions around what the new President might do about jobs, trade, and national security.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 2 comments
Journalist’s Admission is One Step Closer to Legitimizing Pedophilia

Journalist’s Admission is One Step Closer to Legitimizing Pedophilia

In my youth, I tended to devour any popular fiction (books, films, etc.) that depicted themes so bizarre and personally challenging that they defied the protagonists’ ability to retain any semblance of humanity throughout the course of the story. Such fare was all the more plausible when the story’s hero was a young person who was still in the process of developing his or her value system.

When such circumstances materialize in the world in which we actually live, I cannot say they hold quite the same allure.

About a month ago, I wrote a column detailing a prediction that in its ongoing efforts to debase society, the political left would soon see fit to begin legitimizing pedophilia. To this end, pedophiles would form activist groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association did in the 1970s and 1980s – but this time, they would have prominent, deep-pocketed supporters.

Those who believe that child molesters should be fed into the handiest wood-chipper will be characterized as bigots by snarling liberals – just as occurred when citizens tried to prevent other sexual deviants from running roughshod over individual liberties. In my commentary, I maintained that just as the “rights” of transgendered people came to supersede the privacy rights and safety of our women and children, the “rights” of people who include sex acts with children among their lifestyle choices (which a panel of scrawny, pony-tailed university professors will declare are hardwired into their DNA and therefore “normal”) will supersede the rights of all American children to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Ever talk to someone who was repeatedly raped as a child? I have. A lot of them. “Happiness” tends to be a tad elusive in their experience.

In my previous column, I cited several examples of recent news stories indicative of trends that could aid in bringing about this abomination. Among them were the Obama administration’s Department of Defense facilitating the homosexual abuse of young boys at the hands of Muslim allies in Afghanistan, the American Psychiatric Association’s attempt to reclassify pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness in 2013 and instances of British children being kidnapped – in Britain – by Muslim men for exploitation as child prostitutes and sex slaves.

The response on the part of some on the left to my commentary was utter apoplexy. What kind of twisted person could fabricate such unfounded paranoiac drivel, let alone publish it? How dare I equate homosexuals and transgendered people – who are biologically normal, don’t ya know – with someone who would rape a kid?

And pedophile advocacy groups? What utter twaddle! Those simply don’t exist, one seething individual said, despite clear indications to the contrary. And besides – it’s been proven through a study done by a panel of scrawny, pony-tailed university professors that the prevailing sexual orientation of child molesters is straight, not homosexual. They’re probably registered Republicans, too.

Well, in an almost made-to-order elucidation, Breitbart reported last week that Todd Nickerson, a writer for Salon, recently released a video wherein he admitted his sexual attraction to a 5-year-old girl and attempted to justify those feelings to his audience. The video also promotes an online forum for pedophiles, which supposedly attempts to explain the “morality” of pedophilia.

It is eminently important to take note of the language being used here, because it is typical of many malignant liberal policies: Nickerson’s feelings are referenced as “love for” the girl, rather than “sexual attraction” to her.

In his video, Nickerson describes the deep compulsion that arose when as a teen, he babysat a 5-year-old girl. While most of us would have immediately run screaming to the nearest neuropsychiatrist after the experience, apparently Nickerson – although he claims to have never touched a child – opted to either ignore or nurture his sick fantasies to the point where he would have to dash off to the bathroom to masturbate during his subsequent babysitting stints, lest he transform into a hare-lipped, hunchbacked, raving pedophiliac lycanthrope and actualize these fantasies.

Replete with the innocuous language calculated to assuage our fears and concerns, Nickerson’s video sets the stage for pedophiles to be characterized a “just folks” who genuinely care for the welfare of the children they damage. Nickerson says that society must “find some sort of middle ground” when it comes to pedophiles – whatever the hell that means – or these poor unfortunates may be consigned to depression, self-loathing and suicidal tendencies.

So, what’s really the problem here? Well, I will say that it lies more with us than with people like Nickerson. Why? Because collectively, Americans have universally capitulated to the agenda of the left with regard to promoting sexual deviance, whether that means the promiscuity of the 1960s, or the “gender fluidity” of 2016.

The smoking gun is that we have a journalist who feels perfectly comfortable attempting to normalize his sexual attraction to a child in a very public forum. Years ago, when I was a molestable young lad, a guy like that would have kept his feelings to himself at all cost, rather than run the risk of his neighbors or perhaps his own family caving his head in with baseball bats.

The slippery slope down which the nation of Britain is still sliding has now come to America. There, the rape of children has been effectively legalized, since law enforcement isn’t allowed to identify Muslims as the perpetrators of crimes against children out of political correctness. Rest assured that the power structure of the left, as it has sponsored homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenderites, will similarly come to the aid of pedophiles, summarily decreeing that the rape of children is a normal and harmless sexual expression.

Today, my public declaration that a pedophile should have his head caved in with a baseball bat would give rise to far more outrage in the press than if I actually molested a child.

And that, ladies and gendermen, is the real problem.

 

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The Left’s Compulsion to Destroy

The Left’s Compulsion to Destroy

Recently, I had occasion to peruse the transcript of a speech I’d seen before, and with which a lot of political Internet prowlers are familiar. It was made in 2004 by Richard D. “Dick” Lamm, who was the governor of the state of Colorado from 1975 to 1987. I find this bit of oratory interesting not only because I relocated to that state in 1986, but because Lamm is a Democrat, and was fairly popular even among Republicans and conservatives (there being a marked distinction between the two).

The speech, which has become an almost iconic indictment of multiculturalism, was delivered at an immigration conference in Washington, D.C., and its focus was the downside of immigration in America, particularly the illegal variety. Lamm’s cynical message postulated how America might be systematically destroyed via multiculturalism.

“Here is how they do it: Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country.”

– Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm

Lamm went on to enumerate the components of a plan that he said would ensure America’s destruction. This included, among many other elements, encouraging immigrants to maintain their culture, ensuring that the fastest-growing demographic groups were unassimilable, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population; enrolling large foundations and businesses in subsidizing these efforts, and establishing the cult of victimology.

Finally, the former governor detailed two of the most important (and perhaps familiar) components: Making discussion of anything contrary to “cult of diversity” sensibilities off limits, and making it impossible to enforce America’s immigration laws.

Gov. Lamm said that such a plan should also “make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, that there are no cultural differences.” I’ve never been reticent to state that some cultures are manifestly inferior to that in the West, which positively enrages leftists. I am confident in this assertion because it is invariably undesirable elements of their culture that compels so many people to emigrate to the West. In times past, their goal was to assimilate – to divest themselves of those undesirable elements of culture – and we encouraged them to do just that. As we can see, the opposite is occurring now in America, just as Lamm proscribed.

Writing for Breitbart, former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo cited a recent Forbes article which revealed that the Internal Revenue Service has been encouraging illegal aliens to steal or fabricate Social Security numbers for years. Their rationale, if you can believe it, was to ensure that they would file tax returns. This has resulted in billions of dollars in bogus tax refunds being collected by illegals, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Congressional efforts to initiate an investigation into this abuse were blocked by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which threatened massive

protests against “discriminatory practices” if such an investigation went forward.
Which effectively makes the Congressional Hispanic Caucus an enemy agency with a primary allegiance to something other than that to which its members pledged allegiance when they were sworn in as members of Congress.

On April 17, the New York Post related an account of how those at the highest levels our government conspired to cover up the kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Many have suspected that this was the case for some time, but now proof has been offered. These actions were outright treason – far worse than government officials in Germany warning the press off of reporting on the rape sprees carried out by Muslim men this past New Year’s Eve – but they were consistent with the whorish diplomatic policy American officials have carried on with that Islamic nation for many years.

It is practically common knowledge amongst conservatives that Barack Hussein Obama is a stealth saboteur who has situated members of the Muslim Brotherhood (an Islamist organization that has been plotting Islamic ascendency in America since 1928) in sensitive positions in our government. We’ve also learned over the last few years that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been selling America out piecemeal to the Muslim Brotherhood for decades. Other less prominent politicos, both Democrat and Republican, have engaged in similar practices with unfriendly nations and organizations which have compromised our sovereignty and national security – essentially conducting espionage under the guise of diplomacy.

Writing for the American Enterprise Institute on April 1, Leon Aron stated that an obscure “cultural” difference in perception between Western elites and citizens in their nations is causing the rift between those governing and the governed, driving the latter to embrace nationalistic tendencies and “populist demagogues on both the right and left.” He advised the community of Western leaders to start “adjusting its vocabulary and values to the point where it can talk to its people in ways that the latter will find credible, respectful, and understandable.”

I remain at a loss as to how Western leaders might package their betrayal, treason, and delivery of their constituents into chaos, poverty, and squalor in a way that they will find “credible, respectful, and understandable.” Given the deportment of Western leaders – particularly over the last decade – it would seem that they are being driven by a compulsion to destroy, rather than by a twisted ideology or even simple greed.

All of the foregoing gives rise to the question: How do these American would-be lords and ladies of the global elite expect to carry on, let alone preserve their power, once they have succeeded in destroying America?

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

Perhaps it’s my twisted imagination, but I can’t help observing current geopolitical machinations and wonder what individuals from another juncture in history or even a non-Earthbound civilization might conclude about our society and, more importantly, those who currently hold power and preeminence among us.

There are things occurring on the geopolitical scene that simply do not merit debate over what is actually transpiring, yet on a daily basis, these are being misrepresented by political leaders, media, the press, and even religious leaders to such a degree that it is surreal beyond description.

One of the most noteworthy examples of this phenomenon has been our scurvy knave of a low-born, treasonous scoundrel president, Barack Hussein Obama, as he attempts to characterize Muslim populations as benign and assimilable. Specifically, I refer to Obama’s recent rhetoric in light of the massive uptick in terror attacks by Muslims over the last several years. He’s found it necessary to admonish Americans not to hold animosity nor suspicion toward “America’s Mooslims” as a result of their worldwide terror attacks, their ongoing invasion of Europe, and the tinderbox that they have made of the Middle East and parts of Africa. Presumably this is toward strengthening his argument for allowing untold numbers of Muslim “refugees” into the United States.

It bordered on hysterical (as in outrageously humorous) a couple of days ago when Obama reminded us once again of the “many contributions” that Muslims have made to the rich history of our country. I defy anybody to name one significant contribution that Muslims have made to this nation – with the qualifier that it is a positive contribution.

To the east, European socialist leaders refuse to acknowledge the damage to life, limb, and their economies being done by over a million invaders who should have been strafed as their raggedy columns approached the borders of prospective host nations.

“All of us together, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Copts, Evangelical brothers and sisters — children of the same God — we want to live in peace, integrated…”

– Pope Francis’ Easter Address, March 27

All want to live in peace, integrated? I beg to differ, since the Muslim faction included in Pope Francis’ Easter Address clearly have no desire to integrate.

I’ve always had a great respect for the Catholic Church, and I understand the reality of modern popes being political as much as spiritual leaders, but I am about a hair’s breadth away from declaring this pontiff an apostate Christian. In both his Christmas and Easter addresses, Pope Francis excoriated those who wish to prevent migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from entering Europe, even as they run roughshod over the nations of that continent. He has paid gratuitous, embarrassing deference to the world’s smirking, treacherous Muslim leaders, and although the pope has condemned the recent persecution (rape, maiming, murder, enslavement, etc.) of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, he has spent just as much time misrepresenting Islam as benign as his contemporary political leaders have.

So is this pope stupid, naïve, or evil?

Last week, the Detroit Free Press reported that Muslim parents of elementary school students in Dearborn, Michigan became upset after their children received flyers promoting an Easter Egg hunt at a local church. While attending public elementary schools in New York during the 1960s, I cannot count the number of handouts I received for events celebrating religious holidays that my family did not celebrate. No one got intimidated, no one got offended, and no one went crying to The New York Times.

But you see, Muslims have made significant inroads into politics in Michigan, so they can afford to be uppity in that state. They’ve also become savvy to the practices employed by every other special interest group in the American left’s big tent: Claim persecution, gain sympathy, secure genuinely unconstitutional protections under the law, and then you’re free to persecute your political opponents.

So, the poor, intimidated little Muslim parents went to the press, complaining that their childrens’ virgin eyes falling upon these horrid, blasphemous Easter flyers was somehow a form of religious persecution that naturally violates the Constitution.

Clever, aren’t they? Well, that’s how it starts. Give it a decade or two, and Muslims in America will have earned the right to Sharia courts, to rape non-Muslim women at will, to kidnap non-Muslim children for use as sex slaves, and to behead American servicemen in broad daylight, just as they have in Britain, Europe, and Scandinavia.

For the record: Although a link to the Detroit Free Press story now defaults to the publication’s home page for some unfathomable reason, other online news outlets did pick it up.

Where those whom we have trusted with our governance and safety should now be ever more committed to the support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, it is apparently more important that they show solidarity with the miniscule number of Americans who oppose an obscure state law blocking individuals from using public bathrooms that don’t match their biological gender, and campaign against the scourge of microaggressions.

What might those from another time in history or some exotic, off-world civilization conclude about us? Clearly, that we in the West are suffering from a form of mass insanity manifesting in a compulsion for societal suicide.

Why any society, in any age, or on any conceivable world, would choose such a path is, I’m afraid, a question that’s above my current pay grade.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
The Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The speed with which socialism can take an economy or government from viability to ruin is nothing short of astounding. When socialist regimes have widespread support or a mandate (or perceive that they have one or both), they enjoy the latitude to bring about this destruction even more quickly.

Last weekend, around 3.6 million Brazilians took to the streets to demand that socialist President Dilma Rousseff resign or face impeachment. Both Rousseff and Brazil’s former president – Lula da Silva, another socialist – have been implicated in a $3 billion ripoff of public funds engineered through Petrobras, the state-run oil company.

In Venezuela, another South American socialist paradise, the specter of corruption looms closer to home, with the everyday nightmare of grocery shopping making international headlines on a fairly regular basis these days. Between falling oil prices hobbling the oil-rich nation’s economy and the fact that socialists don’t know how to run anything other than into the ground, Venezuela’s supermarkets are usually empty, or have such long lines that patrons can literally spend an entire day shopping for food.

To add insult to injury, ID cards, birth certificates and fingerprint scanners are the methods by which an intrusive State ensures that only authorized shoppers are purchasing groceries in the right amount, and on the right day. In these state-run supermarkets, food is extremely inexpensive – unfortunately, it’s also extremely scarce. Black market food abounds, but it is ridiculously overpriced – a week’s pay for a steak, by one account.

Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, successor to the late proto-human socialist champion Hugo Chavez, explains away the endemic scarcity with the usual boilerplate leftist bilge: Smugglers who resell Venezuelan goods abroad, thieves and black market operatives have somehow managed to abscond with most of Venezuela’s food.

Tyrants, oligarchs, low literacy and the influence of Soviet-backed communist revolutionaries in the last century led to more popular acceptance of socialism in Latin American nations than in other parts of the hemisphere. In fairly well-developed countries such as Brazil and Venezuela, which began to come into their own economically over the last few decades, citizens have seen a curious trend of economic stultification that can be traced largely to their affinity for electing socialist politicians.

Socialists are cool, you see; they care about people, unlike those me-firster capitalist types. This argument plays well the younger and dumber one happens to be, on any continent.

Not to intimate that people in Latin America are stupid, but in some of these nations, centuries of the aforementioned tyrants and oligarchs maintaining a Napoleonic paradigm of governance deliberately sustained peasant castes and fostered poor education. Rigid class systems and vast chasms between impoverished majorities and entrenched, wealthy dynasties are among the reasons that this region was ripe for the insinuation of socialism and communism.

So, through no fault of their own, many in Latin America were far more susceptible to the con that is socialism than their neighbors to the north. They’re the region’s low information voters, and they were quite receptive to the socialist message, which promised them a way out from under the yoke of the oligarchs. It was an empty promise, but for ascendant socialist regimes, it’s all about securing power. Once that’s done, they renege on their promises and blame the international capitalist community – or smugglers, thieves, and black market operatives – for thwarting their noble designs.

In the United States, and Europe to a lesser extent, socialists simply dispensed with calling it “socialism.” Although Americans retained a healthy fear of communism throughout the 20th century, by the early 1900s, the framework for statism (socialism) was already being laid by monumentally conceited progressive politicians who had decided that their intellect and insight surpassed that of America’s founders. Today, while few of our elected officials would label themselves socialists, nearly all are effectively socialists based on their allegiance to the pantheon of bipartisan oligarchs. They sold phony altruism to the middle class, class envy and entitlements to the disaffected. Politicians threw restraint to the wind and began promising voters everything short of immortality.

While it may not appear so on its face, a rejection of socialism is the central issue of the present election cycle. The anger, outrage and disgust being expressed by voters is in response to pain; after several decades of encroaching socialism, the results of its attendant policies are now placing startling numbers of Americans in real adversity. If I were to make a list, I would probably start with the 96 million people – around half of the American workforce – who are out of work. (To me, this appears to exceed the government’s reported 5 percent unemployment rate, but I’ve never been that good at math).

While the two current GOP front-runners may not be articulating the evils of socialism and detailing how it has brought America to this unenviable juncture, what they are saying speaks to the symptoms, and this is why their words resonate with so many voters.

Last week in this space, I expressed frustration that no one among the GOP field is putting the name (socialism) to our pain. The fact that I am not a campaign strategist aside, I believe that this sorely needs to be done, because too many voters couldn’t even summarize what socialism is if asked. As in Hosea 4:6, Americans “perish for lack of knowledge.”

It isn’t enough to bray about the need to return to constitutional governance; if we are to extricate socialists from government, rank-and-file voters must know how to recognize them, and recognize the con. Only when Americans understand why socialism is antithetical to the rule of law and why it necessarily elicits a putrefactive effect on societies can they implement the necessary measures against it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Look to Britain – And Be Afraid

Look to Britain – And Be Afraid

In my youth, British television was all the rage among many of my peers. Perhaps the fact that there was a limited amount of swearing and nudity in the programming had something to do with it, but some of us were just as devoted to following “I, Claudius” and other ostensibly refined dramas as “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” or “Doctor Who.”

Since this was pre-Internet, altogether too many cable channels and a market that brings programming from pitch to premiere in a few hours, my peers and I didn’t know right off the bat that a lot of our beloved British shows had actually been aired for the first time some 12 to 15 years prior, and had long since ceased production.

Something odd that I noted about British TV’s serial dramas and comedies was a sense of grim resolve and even hopelessness many characters held with respect to their lot in life, their futures and an ever-intrusive government. I saw this as being in conflict with American sensibilities since, at that time, we still viewed ourselves as upwardly-mobile, quite hopeful and with at least some handle on our government.

Perhaps it was a “British thing,” I thought, owing to their history with a monarchy. Despite a few notable real-life British rags-to-riches stories, many Brits seemed reconciled to “their station,” something that was confirmed later as I personally encountered more and more British people.

I also noted something else, and that was the proliferation of people from central Asia, Africa and the Middle East on British TV. There were tons of Puerto Ricans on America’s East Coast where I was raised, but Puerto Rico was a commonwealth of the U.S., so it made sense that they would be represented in media. Slavery explained the millions of blacks, as did sharing a border with Mexico explain all the Chicanos.

But what motivation did the U.K. (and other European nations, I would later learn) have for importing vast numbers of unskilled people from the Third World into their major urban areas?

Well, silly, ignorant me. I guess I couldn’t be blamed given my tender age at the time. The grim resolve and hopelessness I’d seen among average British citizens wasn’t merely their stiff-upper-lip tradition. Nor was their acceptance of the deluge of Third Worlders merely guilt over their history of colonialism.

These were reflections of socialism. Although guilt over colonialism was indeed used as a propaganda tool to sell the malignant socialist agenda to European citizens, much of the same social justice propaganda as is being fed to Americans at present was fed to Europeans from the 1960s on: We’re wealthy compared to this lot, and if you don’t think we should extend our hospitality to them well, you’re just a big, fat racist.

At this point, I have to ask: Would you intentionally take millions of parasitic organisms into your body?

I didn’t think so …

Recently, police in Scotland arrested a man, charging him with “offensive” Facebook posts about Syrian “refugees” in Britain. The individual is being held under Britain’s Communications Act, which conveniently criminalized politically incorrect public statements and publications some years back.

Now that Europe is overrun with Muslim rape gangs, Muslim pedophilia rings and Muslim professional welfare cheats, we know how governments there respond to the chaos their grand, Utopian designs have wrought: They simply deny the problems exist, deny the causality with respect to their magnanimous inclusiveness, cry “racist!” at any who draw attention to the chaos – or simply have them arrested.

Those who have addressed the debate over America’s lax immigration policies and calls to admit untold numbers of mostly Muslim “refugees” into the country with contentions that entry into the U.S. is a “basic human right” need a serious debriefing on the constitutional roles of our federal elected officials and the concept of what constitutes a nation in the first place. I’m not going to identify any of these parties specifically, because my favored disposition where they are concerned is unprintable, so we know what that’s likely to get me.

One can understand how international socialists in Britain were such effective brainwashers since up until recently, the state-run British Broadcasting Company (BBC) produced all of the television programming in the United Kingdom. Now that we can see the brazen coalescing of these political influences in America among entities in government and business, it’s no surprise that our entertainment media are now rife with social justice themes, homoerotica and other subversive material.

There’s a key difference between Europe and America in this case, however: Europeans did not have the benefit of witnessing the rapid societal decline and loss of personal liberties socialist policies brought with them in nations other than their own. Despite ongoing denials on the part of European governments that Muslims had anything to do with the hundreds of rapes that took place in Cologne, Germany, and other cities this past New Year’s Eve, the reports of these occurrences – as well as countless other recent examples of socialist-fostered rot – are readily available for all Americans to see.

I seriously doubt that I could goad many WND readers into ingesting slow poison, arguing that failing to do so would demonstrate a horrid lack of compassion on their part for some obscure minority group. Speaking figuratively, this is precisely what international socialists accomplished with populations in Europe, and are attempting in America.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment