“Juneteenth” Was Not the End of Slavery



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As President Joe Biden was only able to sign into law the observation of “Juneteenth” (June 19) as an official holiday of the United States two days before the date last year, this year was the first year that the holiday was fully observed across the country. While Juneteenth is often celebrated as the end of slavery, slavery did not actually end in the United States until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution several months later.

Like other federal holidays that fall on Sunday, this holiday is observed today, the following Monday.

In addition to this historical inaccuracy, the new holiday has several other problems, perhaps chief of which is its official name of Juneteenth National Independence Day. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of only 14 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the new holiday, and he explained his principal objection: “(N)aming this day ‘national independence day’ will create confusion and push Americans to pick one of those two days as their independence day based on their racial identity. Why can’t we name this ‘emancipation day’ and come together as Americans?”

Representative Chip Roy of Texas expressed it similarly. “This name [of national independence day] needlessly divides our nation on a matter that should bring us together by creating a separate Independence Day.”

The Emancipation Proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln is what has caused the confusion as to when slavery came to an end in the United States. It is commonly believed today, contrary to the historical evidence, that the North and South simply lined up and fought a four-year war to settle the issue of slavery, with Union soldiers fighting a grand crusade to end slavery and Confederate soldiers ready to die to keep their slaves.

In reality, the war was fought over the question of whether a state had a legal right to secede and leave the Union. Both Lincoln and Congress explicitly said early in the conflict that the war was not being fought to end slavery, but rather to keep the southern states from leaving the Union. When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to enforce the tariff in the South, he did not call for an invasion to free any slaves. When Lincoln issued his call for volunteers, which did lead to the Civil War, more states where slavery was legal were still in the Union than were out.

So why do so many people — probably a majority — believe that the War was fought to end slavery?

When the War dragged on for several months, with the Confederates winning more battles than they lost, it began to look as though the Confederate States of America would become an independent nation. By the fall of 1862, Great Britain (and France) were poised to recognize the new nation. In desperation, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to prevent that possibility.

But had he proclaimed the freedom of slaves in states that were still in the Union — Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky — those states might very well have seceded, as well. So Lincoln “threaded the needle,” so to speak. He ordered slaves freed in states that did not recognize his executive authority (i.e., the Confederacy), while leaving them enslaved in those states that recognize him as their president.

Even if Lincoln’s executive order had been legal — which it was not — it would have freed no one.

But it was enough to keep Britain and France out of the War since they did not want to be seen as supporting slavery.

Despite these historical facts, many today believe that the Civil War was fought to abolish slavery and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation completed that objective. (The absurdity that the War was fought to end slavery should be clearly seen by the Emancipation Proclamation itself. After all, if the war was being waged, from the beginning, to end slavery, why issue the Emancipation Proclamation a year and a half into the war?) This falsehood has slandered the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought in the war, with many of their own descendants damning them for supposedly fighting to keep human beings in bondage. The reality is that only a tiny minority of soldiers had any slaves at all.

If Lincoln had no legal authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the war was not fought to end slavery, then just what did end it?

The legal end of slavery was a result of the 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, months after June 19, 1865 — the date now celebrated in American law as Juneteenth National Independence Day.

So what did happen on June 19, 1865? That was the day that General Gordon Granger led his Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Civil War was now over and the slaves were free, basing his decree on the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation.

When Granger arrived in Galveston, the slaves there were apparently unaware of Lincoln’s executive order. Slave owners living in the Confederate States of America, in which Lincoln was not recognized as president, had mostly ignored the order until federal troops implemented it by force.

Following Granger’s announcement, some ex-slaves continued working on the farms of their former masters, only now for wages, or for room and board. Many eventually became — along with poor whites in the economically devastated post-war South — “sharecroppers,” in which a portion of their crops was used as a substitute for rent payments (money being exceptionally scarce in the former Confederate States). Most probably fled the farm on which they had been enslaved, taking employment elsewhere — if they could find it.

But at least they were free, and that is no doubt something to celebrate. As former slaves and their descendants spread out across the South, they would spread the story of General Granger’s proclamation on June 19. Combining the two words led to the term Juneteenth. The day was celebrated with church picnics, speeches, and reminiscences.

Certainly, the end of slavery in the United States is something to celebrate. But it should not detract from the great principles of liberty enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, which made the freeing of American slaves even possible and has led to greater freedom for all Americans.

Hopefully, the celebration of Juneteenth will not lead to any de-emphasis on America’s Independence Day on the Fourth of July.

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY: America Is Desperate for Better Masculinity

Today we're going over the atrocious events that took place in Uvalde, Texas, last week. We discuss what happened and how we as Christians should view these horrific situations. We also talk about the political response coming from the Left, which is, unsurprisingly, calls for more gun control. This completely misses the most important part of the issue, which we explain is cultural problems like fatherlessness and moral decay.

They Want to Destroy Us~Our war with the Hate-America Left.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

[Make a donation to the Center's Legal Defense Fund! CLICK HERE.]

Introduction by David Horowitz:

America is under siege. Our founding principles are under attack as they have never been before. Not even the Confederates trashed the Constitution or attempted to set up a Ministry of Truth to censor every idea they disagreed with. But today’s internal enemies regard no American institution or tradition as sacrosanct, whether it is an independent judiciary or a government of laws, not men. When they start pulling down monuments to the Founding Fathers, obviously nothing is off-limits to their attacks. 

Today we have a lawless government in Washington and a pathological liar in the White House who claims that America is “systemically racist” in every aspect of its public life -- in other words, “evil.” This presidential claim is a malignant fiction: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws systemic racism in so many words. If any American institution -- any one of the 18,000 police departments, for example -- is systemically racist, why aren’t Biden and his Justice Department suing them for violating the law? The answer is simple: there is no systemic racism. The president’s lie is solely designed to demonize his political opponents.

​Anyone who stands up in defense of America and its fundamental principles today is the target of shameless smears by the Democrat Party and its supporters. Like the president’s lie, these smears are designed to demonize and silence America’s defenders. From its inception, the mission of the David Horowitz Freedom Center has been the defense of American freedoms which are under attack from a party of hate, which calls itself “progressive” (another lie). Consequently, the Freedom Center has been the target of hateful smears ever since it was created in 1988.

​Because a misguided Supreme Court majority eviscerated the libel laws in New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures – i.e., anyone who offers public opposition to the party of hate – is pretty much defenseless against these malicious attacks. The attacks are designed not to refute our views, but to deprive us of financial support and public access. 

This year, for example, the Center was told by the Breakers Hotel and Resort where we have held our Restoration Weekend gathering for 28 years that we were being canceled because suddenly we were “controversial.” In fact, at these events, we hosted among other national figures, three U.S. Attorneys General, scores of U.S. representatives and senators, governors, international figures like Natan Sharansky, and even Democrats like Alan Dershowitz.

​So who made us “controversial” – a sinister excuse for banning us, in any case? The directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center identified us as “hate mongers,” without a shred of evidence. The SPLC’s leaders were so corrupt they were expelled from the organization a couple of years ago for racism and sexual harassment. The person in charge of their hate list, which has included Ben Carson, has publicly admitted that his goal is to destroy conservative groups.

All this is a preface to explain why we are publishing the following letter written by our lawyer as a response to a recent attempt to destroy us by deploying disgusting lies about our alleged attitudes towards Muslims. These lies were not fabricated to win a political argument but to bully a large investment firm to restrict its clients' ability to contribute their money to us in an attempt to destroy us. The lies were contained in a “report” published by a group calling itself “Unmasking Fidelity Coalition.” The immediate target was Fidelity Investments and a program called “Fidelity Charitable," which is a “donor-advised” fund that allows contributions to pass through to the Center. The hate America left has a whole panoply of such funds, like the Tides Foundation which underwrote the mayhem, arson, and violence launched against 220 American cities by Black Lives Matter in the summer of 2020. All this money posing as charity funds.

The I.R.S., which should be keeping tax-exempt foundations like Tides and Black Lives Matter spending their monies charitably and not on criminal activities, has itself become a rogue operation punishing conservative organizations for their politics. This turn took place during the Obama administration – and with its blessing -- when the I.R.S. denied over 100 conservative organizations tax-exempt status – because it could. Shutting down political debate as a method of “winning” arguments is the modus operandi of fascist governments, not democracies.

By threatening Fidelity – calling it a hate group because it funded the Freedom Center -- the Unmasking Fidelity Coalition intended to intimidate Fidelity into denying its clients the right to contribute to us. A perfectly fascist solution for when you don’t have the facts on your side.

The killer claim of the Unmasking Fidelity leftists was that I and the Freedom Center are contributing to the systematic oppression of Muslims because we are an “anti-Muslim” organization. The “cease and desist” letter below, which was written by our lawyer, explains why this is a maliciously fabricated lie.


Phone (949) 600-8889 I Fax (949) 297-3767
27405 Puerta Real, Suite 250. Mission Viejo. CA 92691

May 24, 2022

Via E-mail: [email protected]; /[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected] and First Class Mail

Unmasking Fidelity Coalition

Lee Matsueda, Executive Director· Community Labor United
8 Beacon Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 01208

Christina Livingston, Board President & Executive Director ACRE Institute
3655 S Grand Ave, Ste 250 Los Angeles, CA 90007

Tarso Luis Ramos, Executive Director Political Research Associates
1310 Broadway, Suite 201, Somerville, MA 02144-1837

Yahya Alazrak, Director Resource Generation
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001

Carolyn Chou, Executive Director Asian American Resource Workshop
42 Charles Street, Suite A Dorchester, MA 02122

Fatema Ahmad, Executive Director Muslim Justice League
711 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02111


Re: Your defamatory report regarding the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Dear Mr. Matsueda, Ms. Livingston, Mr. Ramos, Mr. Alazrak, Ms. Chou, and Ms. Ahmad:

This firm represents Mr. David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation ("DHFC"). It has come to our attention that the Unmasking Fidelity Coalition ("Coalition"), of which your organization is an admitted member, recently published a report entitled "Unmasking Fidelity: The People Disclose," in March 2022. This report contains numerous malicious and defamatory statements about my clients, without any factual support whatsoever, including the following:  

"Institutions like DHFC contribute to the systemic oppression of Muslim communities by influencing media, public opinion, and the government to create policies that limit-rather than advance-human rights."

" ...violence caused by the organizations profiled in this report [such as DHFC]."

"The ten organizations highlighted in this report [including DHFC] represents a cross­ section of tax-exempt nonprofits furthering various forms of systemic oppression in the US..."

"The David Horowitz Freedom the primary outlet for its founder [David Horowitz] to demonize Muslims, Islam, immigrants, and other perceived enemies..."

"Horowitz has played a significant role in popularizing anti-Muslim narratives and conspiracies."

There is not a shred of truth to any of these defamatory lies. As will be shown below, Mr. Horowitz and DHFC have never advocated or caused violence, oppression, or destruction of civil rights of anyone. Nor have they "demonized" any group of people, except for violent terrorists and criminals. My clients are always careful to criticize the behavior, not immutable characteristics.

The defamatory statements that my clients are "anti-Muslim", which your Coalition has repeatedly claimed in its report, is completely false. My clients are not "anti-Muslim" and they challenge the Coalition, or any member thereof, the produce a single statement that shows they are "anti-Muslim" in a bigoted sense, or in which Mr. Horowitz or DHFC has denigrated a group of people based on their identity or immutable characteristics. Mr. Horowitz and DHFC have written and published millions of words. There is not a single sentence in these writings that could qualify as racist or anti-Muslim.

You have each adopted and republished libelous claims in the Coalition's report that Mr. Horowitz and DHFC are "anti-Muslim" causing "violence" and "oppression". If you had properly investigated the Coalition's claims, you would have discovered that the statements are demonstrably false. In the last 18 years, Mr. Horowitz has written and spoken more than half a million words, including in the 2004 book Unholy Alliance, about Islam and the Islamic jihad. These are readily available in print and on the Internet. Yet no one, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, could turn up a single sentence that a reasonable person would describe as "anti-Muslim." In fact, in speeches and writings available to anyone on the Internet, Mr. Horowitz has made it clear that he is not anti-Muslim at all.

In 2009, for example, Mr. Horowitz gave a speech at USC, which is recorded on YouTube and is online at, and is available in his book, lslamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews (2014). In the speech, he says: "Here are my views concerning Muslims: There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, just as there are good Christians and bad ones, good Jews and bad Jews. Most Muslims are like everybody else; they want peace and are law­ abiding. Probably their religion is very personal to them and doesn't involve efforts to convert and subordinate or kill others. There is a difference between religious institutions and the religion of individuals. Many Catholics do not follow church doctrine on birth control and abortion, for example. The Ku Klux Klan is a Protestant Christian organization, but virtually all Protestants and their churches condemn the Ku Klux Klan." (Emphasis added.) (1)

In 2012, Mr. Horowitz spoke at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. There was a demonstration during his talk by Muslim students, who walked out in protest soon after he began. David's comment was this: "It is too bad that all our Muslim friends have left the room and did not stay to hear this; but notwithstanding the evil intentions of Muslim leaders in the Middle East, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims, and most are probably good Muslims - decent, law-abiding, desirous of peace." (Emphasis added.) (2)

On virtually every campus Mr. Horowitz has spoken at in the last ten years, he has repeated these words. Mr. Horowitz has also organized protests on more than 100 college campuses against the oppression of Muslim women. He has published booklets against the oppression of Muslim women. He has sponsored panels with Muslim speakers against the oppression of Muslim women. There are numerous videos of his campus speeches on the Internet where he can be seen saying that his efforts are not directed against all Muslims, but are conducted on behalf of most Muslims against the hijacking of their religion by totalitarian radicals who are conducting a campaign of hatred against Jews, gays, and other minority groups.

Nonetheless, his speeches have been preceded by flyers and handouts filled with slanderous lies against him, including the slander that he is "the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement in America." These kinds of lies are featured in college newspaper accounts of Mr. Horowitz's visits, reaching tens of thousands of members of the academic community. This is an experience shared generally by conservatives like Heather McDonald, Milo Yiannopoulos, and many, many others. (3)

Very few people have done as much as Mr. Horowitz to expose the ongoing oppression of Muslim women, Jews, gays, and other minorities in Middle Eastern countries, which should have been self-evident to you from news stories demonstrating large-scale murder and repression of Muslims by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Horowitz's research and exposure of the abuse of minority groups at the hands of extremist elements in Muslim countries should be a legitimate part of any dialogue on a university campus concerned with Middle East conflicts. The Coalition's utter disregard of Mr. Horowitz's long history of work on behalf of persecuted minorities and Muslims reveals your adoption of malice towards him for political reasons.

Although Mr. Horowitz and DHFC have written and published extensively, there is not a single sentence that could qualify them as "anti-Muslim" or racist. Yet your Coalition's report arbitrarily and unreasonably describes them as "anti-Muslim" without any factual basis and without any investigation whatsoever. This also shows malice on your part.

Accordingly, Mr. Horowitz and DHFC demand that the Coalition immediately apologize and retract its defamatory accusations in the above-referenced report and that the Coalition cease and desist from further publication of such defamatory claims, either online or in print. We assume you have an interest in the truth, and respect for the nation's libel laws.

Although we would prefer to resolve this matter on an amicable basis, Mr. Horowitz and DHFC reserve the right to exercise all their civil remedies in a lawsuit for damages if they suffer any loss of revenue as a result of your report or from your continuing violation of their rights. Continuing publication or republication of these pernicious falsehoods will further demonstrate your malicious intent and will support the imposition of punitive damages against each of your organizations supporting the Coalition.

cc: Mr. David Horowitz
David Horowitz Freedom Center


1. David Horowitz, The Black Book of the American Left, Vol. IV: lslamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews, 2014, Part 1, Chp. 16 "Jew Hatred at USC"," p. 143.

2. David Horowitz, The Black Book, op. cit., Part Ill, Ch. 10, "A Malignant Cause," p. 312.

3. For a sample, see

An empire that can’t feed its babies is an empire in COLLAPSE~America fails to do what off-grid jungle tribe villagers can do quite readily-FEED their babies



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The American empire is in a state of accelerating collapse, and there’s no turning it around. This once-great empire now cannot achieve the most basic of tasks that even isolated jungle tribes can still manage to do: feed their own babies.

Somehow, with all the high-tech dazzle, iPhones, high-frequency Wall Street trading, electric vehicles, space rockets, and all the rest, America still can’t figure out how to feed babies … something that ancient homo sapiens have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years.

Even before the invention of the wheel, humanity’s ancestors knew how to feed their babies.

They also survived without vaccines. How? The immune system, of course.

Of course, even though America can no longer feed its babies, the American empire is fully able to deliver deadly “vaccine” injections that cause infertility and death. There never seems to be a shortage of anything that might kill you. But when it comes to feeding babies, the USA falls flat.

I sent this message yesterday on Telegram:

While US bureaucrats claim to want to help the world experience less WAR and more FOOD security, they pass $40 billion to buy weapons of WAR while blocking Russia from selling wheat for FOOD. So wait… if you want less war and more food, why are you spending money on war and blocking the trade of food?

And I followed it up with this:

Isn’t it amazing how now, suddenly, ALL #food scarcity in the world is attributed to Russia blocking a single port (Odessa) in southern Ukraine?

It’s as if we are now supposed to believe that literally ALL FOOD ON THE PLANET had, until recently, been shipped through one single port in #Ukraine, then distributed

globally. That’s a port that virtually no one in the USA had heard of until last month.

The absurdity of the food scarcity blame game against #Russia is beyond insane.

Remember, too, that Putin is a TIME TRAVELER because he traveled back to late 2021 and caused food inflation even BEFORE his invasion of Ukraine. That’s amazing!

Under Biden, America’s twisted priorities focus on war and death, while ignoring babies and LIFE

So under the illegitimate Biden regime, we end up with a nation that focuses on death, war, the weapons industry, stock market inflation, money printing, media propaganda, vaccine coercion, and more, while ignoring anything that might protect babies or even provide them food. Under the control of heartless Democrats, we now have a corrupt government wholly committed to abortion, bombs and even carrying out acts of domestic terrorism (false flags), but there’s zero willingness to protect the border, protect the dollar, protect children or protect individual liberty.

While America is sending $40 billion to Ukraine — mostly to purchase weapons and fund propaganda campaigns for brainwashing the public — there’s no embracing of free-market dynamics in the USA which would provide an abundance of baby food options without involving government resources in the least.

The free market can solve this problem. But the free market isn’t allowed to operate. Instead, we get FDA-protected infant formula corporate cartels and market monopolies that are highly vulnerable to failure. This is a microcosm of what we’re about to see across the economy on a much larger scale as western civilization rapidly unravels.

It seems to be no coincidence that Biden and the Democrats are also celebrating the mass murder of babies under the label of “abortion.” These Satan-worshiping creatures have no compassion for human life, and they despise babies being born alive and demanding resources such as food.

When Biden and the Dems claim to want to provide food for babies, they’re merely

pretending to have human compassion. They would actually rather these babies never be born. The Great Replacement strategy is, after all, quite real. Americans are supposed to die (or never be born) and then get replaced with migrants across the wide-open border. And for those babies who actually survive birth, they face starvation or having their genitals cut off under the fraud of transgenderism that’s also pushed by the child groomers and abusers of the progressive Left.

They are demons who hate children. They rigged the election and they’re using their malicious intent to try to destroy the nation just as they destroy the lives of innocent children.

Do not let them succeed.

More details in today’s Situation Update podcast here, and visit for more news dedicated to food scarcity:

Biden Administration Winks at Mob Rule on Abortion~DEVOUT CATHOLIC Pelosi Encourages Protesters’ ‘Righteous Anger’ to March~Chicago’s GAY Mayor Issues ‘Call to Arms’ Against Supreme Court~California to become the first “abortion tourism” state~Hannity: This is a ‘disgusting attempt’ to destroy the independence of America’s judiciary

A "Catholic" president believes a woman has an inherent right to “abort a child”

Dan Ball W/ Elizabeth Johnston, The Sanctity Of Life



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Joe Biden’s outgoing press secretary, Jen Psaki, was asked by reporters last week to explain the president’s use of the words “abort a child” when commenting on who should make that judgment. Psaki ducked the question. She responded only that “the President’s view on a woman’s right to make choices about her own healthcare is well known, well documented, well stated.”

President Biden also said that certain basic rights, such as the right to privacy, are inherent rights. They do not come from the government, President Biden said, “but because I’m just a child of God; I exist.”  He would recognize, of course, that a pregnant woman too is a “child of God” who also has an inherent right to privacy.

However, in the pregnant woman’s case, according to the expansive concept of privacy adopted in Roe v. Wade, her inherent right to privacy means that she can make the choice, in President Biden’s own words, to “abort a child.” Conversely, in this way of thinking, the aborted child does not exist as a “child of God” with the inherent right to life but is considered instead to be a throw-away body part.

Indeed, Jen Psaki refused to answer whether the president supports an unlimited right to abortion, even up until the moment of birth. “He supports the right of a woman to make choices about her own body with her doctor,” Psaki insisted.

The Declaration of Independence recognized that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

During the course of the nation’s history and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution over time, these basic rights have been extended to all “persons” and given deeper meaning as they are applied to new circumstances.

However, it is one thing to interpret the fundamental principle of “liberty,” as that word is used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, to include a notion of privacy in someone’s intimate personal relationships that is protected from undue governmental interference. It is quite another thing to say that the protection of one’s privacy intrinsic to one’s own liberty extends to extinguishing another living being created in the image of God.

Abortion presents complex policy issues that are better left to be sorted out by the political process in which the people have a say through their elected representatives. Creating a completely new constitutional right to “abort a child” does violence to the true meaning of unalienable, God-given rights that are considered so fundamental to ordered liberty that they are beyond lawmakers’ discretion to deny.

President Biden and his press secretary have no problem referring to the right of a “woman” to make choices about her own body, evidently assuming that everyone knows what a “woman” is. Well, not everyone, as we saw during the Senate confirmation hearing of President Biden’s choice for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’" Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the Supreme Court justice in waiting. "Can I provide a definition? No," Ms. Jackson responded. "I can't."

Thus, after Justice Stephen G. Breyer formally steps down as an associate justice this summer, he will be replaced by a justice who could not, or would not, even provide a definition of the word “woman.” Will she refer to "pregnant people" or "birthing people” instead as the class of individuals with the right to make choices about their own bodies and "abort a child," in order not to offend transgender men?

The Biden White House is so angry about the potential overruling of Roe v. Wade that the president and his spokesperson did not speak out for days against plans by pro-abortion extremists to carry their militant protests to where conservative Supreme Court justices live and where Catholics worship.

“I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,”  White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, referring to the leaked draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade written by Justice Samuel Alito.

A radical pop-up group known as Ruth Sent Us, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is one of the extreme leftist organizations behind an effort to intimidate Supreme Court justices by invading their privacy at home.

Another radical group involved with coordinating protests to pressure the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade is Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. Its website calls for people opposed to “patriarchal domination” and “female enslavement” to “resist” and “fill the streets with our fury.”

Is a replay of the disruptive anti-police protests of the summer of 2020, which led to violence in the streets, in the offing?

The Ruth Sent Us group published the residential locations of six conservative justices and urged its followers to “rise up” in protest against them “to force accountability.”  

Some radical pro-abortion activists gathered outside the homes of targeted Supreme Court justices on Saturday, in one case loudly chanting “No uterus, no opinion” outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home.

A reporter described the pro-abortion protest scene outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home as "one of the scariest things" he had ever witnessed. He characterized the protests as an "attempt at intimidation."

Justice Alito and his family reportedly have been moved to an undisclosed location out of concern for their personal safety.

The radicals’ raucous protests outside the justices’ homes may have violated a federal law prohibiting pickets, parades, or demonstrations “near a building or residence occupied or used by” a judge “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge…”

But don’t expect the Biden Justice Department to take any action to enforce the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland is too busy monitoring parents’ behavior at school board meetings.

On May 9th, following the protests at two justices’ homes over the weekend, with more planned for this week, Jen Psaki finally tweeted the following statement:

“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

The White House also put out a statement on May 9th declaring that President Biden “strongly condemns” a Molotov cocktail attack on a Wisconsin pro-life group’s office over this past weekend.

Too little too late. President Biden himself should have gotten ahead of the mounting danger to the Supreme Court justices’ safety and the risk of violence. He should have addressed pro-abortion supporters directly with an urgent message for them to stand down from taking actions intended to intimidate any justices.

President Biden failed to do so.

Instead, President Biden managed to find time last week to insult the many millions of law-abiding Americans who believe in former President Donald Trump’s America First agenda. The president degraded his office by outlandishly claiming that the “MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history.”

That distinction belongs to Antifa and other far-left groups prone to violence. 

Pro-abortion radicals not only hate the Supreme Court justices who may overrule Roe v. Wade, as well as the institution of the Supreme Court itself. They also hate the Catholic Church.

Pro-abortion radicals have no compunctions about defacing churches with pro-abortion graffiti, which they did last week to a Catholic Church in Boulder, Colorado.

Pro-abortion radicals also have no compunctions about interfering with Catholics’ freedom of worship, as they did last Saturday when they blocked the entrance to a New York City church.

And that is not all. Ruth Sent Us also tweeted the following threat on May 7th: “Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries.”

Where is the self-declared devout Catholic Joe Biden’s outrage over a threat to burn the Eucharist? President Biden found time recently to condemn Islamophobia, but he has given hatred directed at Catholics by members of the Democrats’ progressive Left base a free pass.

Leftists have a habit of demanding rights for themselves and their own causes, including freedom of speech and privacy while having no problem denying these same rights to their declared “enemies.”

The Democrats' far-left base believes in mob rule rather than the rule of law. It is past time for President Biden to repudiate them. 


DEVOUT CATHOLIC Pelosi Encourages Protesters' 'Righteous Anger' to March

Pelosi Encourages Protesters' 'Righteous Anger' in Marching Illegally in Front of Justices' Homes



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S. Code § 1507 states that “any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a federal court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer (emphasis mine)” will be fined, or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

It’s no surprise that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice hasn’t lifted a finger to arrest anyone obviously trying to interfere with a Supreme Court decision. It’s also not particularly surprising that Joe Biden’s U.S. Marshals Service hasn’t been tasked with protecting the homes of conservative justices who are under threat.

But the biggest non-surprise of all is that Biden doing nothing about prominent Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all but encouraging and justifying violence against the justices.

Fox News:

“While we have seen and heard extraordinary anguish in our communities,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said, “we have been moved by how so many have channeled their righteous anger into meaningful action: planning to march and mobilize to make their voices heard.”

In the statement, Pelosi also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will “fight relentlessly to enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”

“Righteous anger,” indeed.

“Republicans have made clear that their goal will be to seek to criminalize abortion nationwide,” Pelosi said. “Republican state legislators across the country are already advancing extreme new laws, seeking to arrest doctors for offering reproductive care, ban abortion entirely with no exceptions, and even charge women with murder who exercise their right to choose.”

None of those proposals have passed in any state legislature. Pelosi is dancing with strawmen to gin up outrage against the justices. And given the hysteria that Pelosi and other Democrats are generating against the justices, any such rhetorical incendiary devices could motivate some radical left crackpot to attempt to give Biden a few more Supreme Court picks.

This should concern Attorney General Merrick Garland. But the man who wanted to sic the FBI on parents protesting at school board meetings — a purely local matter — is predictably quiet when federal judges are under threat from a hysterical mob of left-wing crazies.

Fox News:

According to senior fellow at the National Review Institute and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, the Biden DOJ is being silent on this for the same reason as the White House: “They are elevating their political interest in portraying the draft Supreme Court opinion as extreme over their constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully and protect both the Court and the justices.”

“I would note that months ago, when Attorney General Garland unjustifiably dispatched the FBI to investigate parents who were protesting the inclusion of racist and anti-American materials in school curricula, Garland claimed that the Justice Department had an interest in protecting teachers and school administrators. Not only was it untrue that schools were under siege; the relationship between parents and schools is a state and local issue, not a federal one — hypothetically, if a parent were to assault a teacher, it would be a state crime, not a federal one,” continued McCarthy.

Garland is just Biden’s errand boy. He does what he’s told to do. But Pelosi’s veiled threats against the justices, claiming that some anger is justified and should be encouraged, puts the Speaker outside the lines of acceptable behavior in a volatile political atmosphere.

Chicago's GAY Mayor Issues 'Call to Arms' Against Supreme Court After Abortion Decision Leak

Lori Lightfoot elected Chicago mayor, becoming first black woman and ...



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is keenly aware of what she did when she issued a “call to arms” to fight the Supreme Court. With all the violence in her own city, maybe it is just background noise like gunshots on a Saturday night.

The mayor, who presides over a city with the 10th highest murder rate in the country, thought nothing of turning up the flame under an already roiling mob of “protesters” who are quite literally obstructing justice by blocking the homes of Supreme Court justices.

A far-left group leaked the addresses of the justices’ homes and a map for how to get each one, and since then the mobs have begun camping outside the homes of Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito in hopes of changing votes after a leaked draft decision on Mississippi’s Dobbs case suggested that the Court would send the issue of abortion back to the states.

Lightfoot’s “call to arms” came after a news conference in which she vowed to make the Windy City a “sanctuary” for abortion for women — but not for babies.

She promised $500,000 of other people’s money to pay for “free” abortions for people who come to Chicago to take advantage of the city’s newly declared “sanctuary” status.

“Proud to stand side-by-side with fearless women leaders of Chicago,” she wrote online. “We will fight like hell to protect reproductive freedom for women here and across the country.” What she doesn’t say, of course, is that even if Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood decisions, the flawed “canon” of law untethered from the Constitution, are removed, the issue of abortion goes back to the states.

Lightfoot probably didn’t read Justice Alito’s majority opinion, but if she did, she would see that he included a proviso that this decision affected life and not other jurisprudence.

But Lightfoot, like many other people, knows that the gay marriage decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which somehow found same-sex marriage in the Constitution, may also one day devolve back to the states, where marriage always has been. She doesn’t want that to happen, thus her call to arms.

In a Twitter thread, the Chicago mayor, who’s gay, said to her “friends in the LGBTQ+ community” that “the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”
Screenshot from Twitter

Lightfoot doesn’t trust the same voters who put her into office to decide the issues of marriage and abortion.

As Michael Quinn Sullivan, the publisher of Texas Scorecard, put it, “if this isn’t a call to insurrection, what is?”

Look for Sullivan to have his taxes audited next year.


California to become the first “abortion tourism” state, luring pregnant women to the state with funds for airfare, lodging, meals



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) With the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Ruling (Roe v. Wade) soon to get the ax, California is already preparing to become the first ABORTION TOURISM STATE. A new bill, proposed by California senators Nancy Skinner and Anna Caballero, would pay pregnant women to travel into California and terminate the life of their baby. This program would financially incentivize women to get pregnant and abort their babies, over and over again.

This new package (Senate Bill 1142) would provide pregnant women with all the funds they need for a free abortion vacation. The bill calls these abortion vacation amenities “practical support services.” These funds include money for airfare, lodging, meals, dependent childcare, gas, and other financial assistance – as long as the women commit to aborting their babies. This program can target women at any stage of their pregnancy, even when the baby is viable outside the womb.

California Democrats look to regulate the population by controlling and coercing women

California Democrats are literally trying to regulate the population of the United States by coercing women into convenient abortions, at any stage of their baby’s gestation. The state would issue abortion vacation funds to various nonprofit organizations in the form of grants. Additionally, the law would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to conduct an “educational and outreach campaign” to lure women into abortion. The Agency would be tasked with developing a website, pointing women in the direction of the nearest abortion provider. After they make travel arrangements for the abortion, the targeted women can be reimbursed for practically all expenses related to the trip.

For the Democrats, this program is obviously all about control, as they take other people’s money to dictate predatory medical procedures over a woman’s body. In the process, they degrade the woman and discard innocent human life, while providing NO assistance to help the woman or her child find healing, life, dignity, and a future together.

High-level Democrats would love to end Roe v. Wade, because it allows them to control women at the state level, using taxpayer funds to dictate a pregnant woman’s future, while shouldering her loss, shame, and guilt. Democrats do not care about a woman’s choice, or else they would provide financial assistance programs to support her baby and the woman’s mental, emotional, and spiritual health. Protecting human life is more important than ever, as predatory governments and corporations prey on women and offer no hope for their situation, their family, or their future.

California already disregards body autonomy rights in favor of coercion and death

California is already pushing abortion for women. Abortion is financially incentivized by the state’s Medicaid program. California taxpayers are forced to pay for population control, as women are coerced into violating the body autonomy rights of the most vulnerable – their own child. Private insurers are even forced to pay for abortions under state law. California legislators are trying to erase the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the U.S. Constitution by guaranteeing unchecked abortion rights in the state’s Constitution.

Democrats pretend to be about “women’s rights,” but their actions suggest they only care about destroying the next generation of women and men. Suddenly, in California, it’s all about “my body, my choice” – as the state disregards the basic human rights of the unborn, allowing unchecked dismembering and vacuuming of their body parts, straight from the mother’s womb.

Of course, these fetal organs are valuable in the organ trafficking industry. The vaccine industry notoriously uses fetal organs to replicate pathogens for their biologics. Perhaps the state of California is being used to keep this organ trafficking industry viable, as the vaccine industry expands. Ironically, California is the same state that has vanquished all body autonomy rights, forcing adults, children, and babies to succumb to destructive vaccine mandates and passports (that are also causing further harm and loss of life).

Sources include:


Hannity: This is a ‘disgusting attempt’ to destroy the independence of America’s judiciary

Sean Hannity discusses the left’s ‘tacit’ approval of the violence being exhibited by pro-choice extremists

In South Dakota schools, ‘Marxist propaganda designed to divide kids from their parents’ and ‘from their country’



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“South Dakotans flame school board meeting over ‘pornographic’ books: ‘This is the Marxist global revolution,'” by Hannah Grossman, Fox News, May 6, 2022:

South Dakota locals expressed outrage during a school board meeting Tuesday over novels they deemed inappropriate and “pornographic” that were once slated to be taught in Rapid City Area Schools’ (RCAS) 12th-grade English. 

For example, a graphic novel called “Fun Home” depicts nudity and sex acts, and “Girl, Woman, Other” follows the journey of women of various sexual and gender identities.

“The pictures in [‘Fun Home’] … are graphic and depict two women performing oral sex, images of masturbation and drug usage. I do apologize if there are children [present],” a local woman said. “There is a difference between teaching what sex is and teaching how to engage in it. And that’s what’s happening in this book.”…

Another speaker at the meeting said the books “have merit in our curriculum” because they highlight marginalized voices such as “Black and brown characters … [and the] LGBTQIA+ community.” 

Florence Thomas, the president of South Dakota Parents Involved in Education, said, the overall picture was that of a “Marxist revolution.”

It’s not this little issue. It’s not this little book or this little school or this little district. This is all going on all over. And these books are not here by accident,” she said. “Our education system has been taken over to a large extent from the federal level … and we need to start saying no at the local level. We’re not going to do this to our kids. We’re not going to do this to our community.”

Thomas, who is also a former school psychologist, continued, “Where’s all this coming from?  … This is the Marxist global revolution – it’s the Cultural Revolution – and this is what is coming into our schools. It is Marxist propaganda. It’s designed to divide the kids from their parents, divide the kids from their country, divide the kids from their culture, and even in many cases, divide them from their very selves. So it is very dangerous.”

Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism and White Nationalism

Richard Weikart's new book cuts through political manipulation of history



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Suffering is a commodity. Two recent events demonstrated this. On March 27, 2022, Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the Academy Awards. Many prominent African Americans, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wanda Sykes, condemned Smith's choice to resort to violence. Race hustlers, though, depicted Will Smith as a victim of white supremacy. The Guardian ran a piece calling the reaction to Will Smith an example of "downright racist … anti-blackness … inequality in plain sight." "Race scholar" and Loyola Marymount University Professor Maia Niguel Hoskin wrote that the slap "is about … White supremacist culture designed to police the behavior of Blacks." Others focused on Jada Pinkett Smith as a victim. "How a black woman’s hair grows out of her head has been a constant battle in this country … while at the same time celebrating white women for fitting your styles … Humiliating a black woman fighting for equality is not a ha-ha moment. Making fun of a black woman a week after we saw Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ambush" proves that "racism always finds a way," wrote columnist Jeneé Osterheldt.

A similar process of victim-mongering occurred after Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated for the Supreme Court. My Facebook page was flooded with memes depicting Jackson as a helpless Little Match Girl facing off against big, scary, white male dragons.

In fact, of course, Smith is worth an estimated $350 million. He is one of the most profitable and popular film stars who has ever lived. Jackson is the child of two professionals. She attended Harvard and married surgeon Patrick Jackson, a Boston Brahmin, and descendant of a Continental Congress delegate and also a relative of Oliver Wendell Holmes and former House Speaker Paul Ryan. She is a millionaire. White male Joe Biden guaranteed her elevation by vowing, in a political promise to help him win an election, to nominate only black women to the SCOTUS. Ilya Shapiro, a white man, tweeted that Sri Srinavasan, an Indian immigrant, was the best-qualified person to be the next SCOTUS nominee. Shapiro was suspended from his job for this tweet. Neither alleged "white male privilege" nor the first amendment guarantee of free speech protected Shapiro from workplace retaliation for expressing his opinion. Senate questions for Jackson were brief and mild compared to the trials-by-fire endured by conservative nominees Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Slavery, Jim Crow, and white supremacy are all too real and unspeakably evil. But rushing to attribute criticism of Will Smith or the Senate questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson to past evils is not warranted by the facts. People made those connections because they commodify suffering to gain political ends. In this approach, suffering belongs exclusively to African Americans. Race hustlers are currently depicting war-ravaged Ukrainians as enjoying white privilege, as Joy Reid did in her March 7, 2022 broadcast.

Evil, like suffering, is also commodified. Powerbrokers rush to monopolize the evil Nazis committed to serve their own narrative ends. This commodification and monopolizing of evil interfere with our desire to understand.  

Americans have been struggling for ninety years in their effort to tell the Nazi story accurately. This effort is recorded, inter alia, in Peter Novick's 2000 book, The Holocaust in American Life, Tom Segev's The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, the This American Life episode "Before It Had a Name" and the documentary "Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust." It's hard to believe now, but there was a time when Hollywood moguls were fearful of making accurate films addressing Nazism. There was a time when Holocaust survivors and those who recorded their stories, both in the US and in Israel, were ignored and silenced. In the Soviet Bloc, the unique victimization of Jews under Nazism was suppressed to near invisibility. There was a time, even after the publication of Mein Kampf, when mainstream American and British magazines focused on the interior decorating of Hitler's homes. In these articles, Hitler was referred to as "charming."

In much American media produced before, during, and immediately after World War II, Hitler was seen as a lone madman, unconnected to previous history or culture, and Nazism almost as a kind of virus – an alien force that infected otherwise innocent Germans. There was a great deal of emphasis on depicting "good Germans," so that Americans could learn to hate Nazis while not hating all Germans because Germans were an important part of America's cultural and economic life. This process of condemning Nazism while shielding German identity from hatred is exemplified by the 1951 best-picture-nominee, "Decision before Dawn." See a discussion of how diligently this film works to exculpate "ordinary Germans" from any guilt, here.

In profound contrast to this approach, in 1996, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen published Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. This book became a bestseller and an international sensation. The book was accused, by serious scholars, of being racist against Germans. Goldhagen, his critics alleged, depicted Germanness itself as the guilty party. "No Germans, no Holocaust," as Goldhagen put it. While others pointed to a perfect storm leading up to Hitler's rise, including Germany's defeat in World War I, the violent rise of Communism in Russia, the Versailles Treaty, the Depression, etc, Goldhagen insisted that "Not economic hardship, not the coercive means of a totalitarian state, not social-psychological pressure," caused Germans to kill, but rather their own anti-Semitism. Raul Hilberg, the "founder of the academic field of Holocaust studies," said that Goldhagen depicted Germans as being possessed of "a medieval-like incubus, a demon latent in the German mind ... waiting for the chance to strike out." Hilberg said that Goldhagen is "totally wrong about everything."

Another big change in how the story of Nazism has been told is in how various retellings depict Christians and Christianity. Nazism's ultimate goal was to eliminate Christianity (see hereherehereherehere.) See, for example, this photo of a Nazi shooting Father Piotr Sosnowski to death, or priests murdered in Bydgoszcz, here. In material produced before and during the war, journalists and filmmakers recorded Nazi persecution of Christians. See, for example, "Nazi Persecution of the Catholic Church Shows They Fear It," from the June 1, 1936 New York Timesor "3 Faiths Protest Nazi Persecution: A Catholic, Protestant, and Jew Represent the Conquered Peoples at Meeting Here" from the November 14, 1941 issue. The Times covered clergy who resisted the Nazis, including Dutch Archbishop Johannes de Jong, German Bishop von Galen, Belgian Cardinal van Roey, Norwegian Lutheran Bishop Eivind Berggrav, Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Gavrilo, and the Swiss Calvinist Karl Barth.

The 1943 Hollywood feature film, Hitler's Madman dramatized the real-life assassination of top Nazi Reinhard Heydrich by Czechoslovak partisans, and the subsequent retaliatory Nazi massacre of the Czech village of Lidice. In that film, Heydrich plows his car through a Czech Christian festival, and one of Heydrich's men shoots the village priest dead. In real life, Heydrich was anti-Christian and he identified "clerics" as well as Jews as among the German people's "eternal" "enemies." Heydrich devised ways to close and limit the operation of churches.

Popular attention to Nazi persecution of Catholics and other Christians changed dramatically after the 1963 play, "The Deputy." "The Deputy" insinuated that Pope Pius XII shared guilt for the Holocaust. One image promoting the work depicts a monstrous face wearing a grotesque caricature of Catholic vestments. One of the eyes in the face is replaced with a swastika. Nazism = Catholicism, the image communicates. Playwright Rolf Hochhuth was a former Hitler Youth member. Hochhuth went on to make other shocking allegations. For example, his 1967 play Soldiers, An Obituary for Geneva suggested that Winston Churchill plotted the murder of the Prime Minister of the Polish Government in Exile, General Wladyslaw Sikorski. There is clearly a pattern here; Hochhuth wrote plays that denigrated WW II heroes of the Allied side. Hochhuth also praised Holocaust-denier David Irving as a "fabulous pioneer of contemporary history." Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the Soviet Bloc to the West, and author of the book Disinformation, alleged that Hochhuth's play was part of a KGB campaign. Whether Hochhuth intended it or not, his tarnishing of Western anti-Nazi figures like Churchill and Pope Pius XII served Soviet interests.

John Cornwell's 1999 book Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 2003 book A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair are representational of more recent works condemning Catholics and Catholicism for Holocaust guilt. Both works were criticized as severely flawed (see herehere, and here).

Anti-Semitism from Christians is an undeniable historical fact, and confronting that fact in an honest way with a view to repentance and reconciliation is a good thing, and has been pursued by the Vatican for decades, and, indeed, for centuries. Too many Christians were at worst complicit in genocide and were at least not as heroic as, say, Franz JägerstätterSophie SchollDietrich Bonhoeffer, or the Ulma Family, all of whom were martyred for their resistance to Nazism. What is not a good thing is the distortion of history by politics. "History is politics projected into the past," said Mikhail Pokrovsky, the Russian Marxist historian. We deserve a better approach to history.

In fact, the Catholic Church was notorious among intellectual elites one hundred years ago. It was notorious because official Catholic teaching insisted on human equality, an insistence that defied then current scientific racism, that argued against human equality on scientific grounds. Noteworthy Catholic documents on the equality of humans include, for example, the 1537 Sublimis Deus, which argues for the full humanity of the then recently discovered Native Americans; 1888 In Plurimis, which argues for the full humanity of enslaved persons; Pius XI's 1938 statement that "Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites," as well as his 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. Yes, Catholics have certainly been bigoted and have committed crimes inspired by their bigotry. But official Catholic Church teaching has insisted, for centuries, on human equality, and, again, during the rise of scientific racism one hundred years ago, this stance was seen as backward and anti-science.

Today, though, it has become conventional in university classrooms, in the press, and in popular books and films, to conflate Nazism with Christianity. For one example, see this 2022 Reddit thread. An author attributes the Holocaust to an alleged Christian "two thousand year hatred" for Jews without which "there never could have been the Holocaust."

For the "Nazism is Christian" narrative to work, one must forget that the first and last victims of a Nazi mass killing campaign were not Jews, but were, rather, handicapped Germans. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the following numbers for civilians killed: Jews, six million. Soviet civilians, seven million. Non-Jewish Polish civilians, 1.8 million. Further down, the list records deaths of hundreds of thousands of Serb civilians, people with handicaps, Roma, aka Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, "asocials," German political prisoners, and homosexuals. Nazis persecuted mixed-race Germans, that is Germans with one African parent, forcing them to undergo sterilization. Nazis murdered three million Soviet POWs. Soviet POWs were the first to be gassed with Zyklon B. They were also shot and starved to death. German Nazis did not treat American or British POWs this way. If the death toll includes military deaths, Nazis killed 24 million Soviet citizens. How to explain these deaths?

No group suffered the same percentage loss as Jews. Nazis murdered over 60% of all Europe's pre-war Jewish population. The numbers of Gypsies killed are uncertain; by one estimate, half of Europe's Gypsies were killed by Nazis. Most of these Gypsies were Christian. Even hard-hit Slavic countries like Poland, Belarus, and Russia did not lose that high a percentage of their non-Jewish populations. Even so, we are still talking about millions dead. To personalize those millions of non-Jewish, largely Slavic deaths, think of Czeslawa Kwoka. This sweet-faced, 14-year-old Polish Catholic girl was imprisoned, beaten, and died in Auschwitz. Why did Nazis murder Polish Catholic children, not just in Auschwitz but also in Kinder-KZ Litzmannstadt, a Nazi concentration camp specifically for Polish, Catholic children, children as young as two years old? Why did an SS man force children to watch as he decapitated a 12-year-old Polish Catholic boy? Why did Nazis place 7-year-old Halina Bukowiecka on a train with other Polish Catholic children, without food or water, for a days-long trip to Germany, where she and others would be mistreated and sometimes killed? The Nazism = Christianity explanation fails to explain these atrocities against largely Christian, civilian victims. We need another explanation.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen exercises "considerable distortion" to write off the persecution of non-Jews as "incidental … mere tactical operations." Goldhagen's dismissal is wrong. Soviet POWs, handicapped Germans, persons with one African and one German parent, Polish Catholic two-year-olds: what ties all these targeted populations together is not Christian anti-Semitism, but rather Nazism's biological focus, a focus sometimes called "scientific racism," "social Darwinism," or "eugenics." All of these diverse populations, in their millions, were deemed "life unworthy of life," and a biological threat to Germany.

Nazism advanced a new ethic, a new ethic that explicitly rejected Christianity and was informed by scientific racism. Germans should be kind and loving – to other Germans. Germans should ruthlessly exploit and then mass-murder those not conducive to German advancement. SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, in his speeches, stated this new ethic quite succinctly.

"We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict … We shall once again have to find a new scale of values for our people … everything that we do must be justifiable vis-à-vis the clan, our ancestors. If we do not secure this moral foundation which is the deepest and best because the most natural, we will not be able to overcome Christianity on this plane and create the Germanic Reich which will be a blessing for the earth … We must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and nobody else … Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture … Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished."

Himmler stated the Nazi ethic explicitly in recorded speeches. Why, then, does one still encounter, in social media debates on the internet, in college classrooms, and in high-profile published books and journalism, so little about the role scientific racism played in Nazism, and so much about Christian anti-Semitism? Because evil and suffering are commodities. If one can attribute absolute evil to Christianity, then one has struck a blow against Christianity, against religious belief, and against Western Civilization; and one has struck a blow for their competitors, including scientism, relativism, Marxism, and Atheism.

Atheists like to say that religion has killed more people than any other cause. This statement is fabricated out of thin air, but one hears it frequently, without support, of course. Atheists like to present Atheism as the panacea. If only we could all wise up and acknowledge that there is no God, war would cease. If only we could replace backward, superstitious religious belief with scientism, human life would improve stratospherically.

John Lennon's "Imagine" encapsulates this approach. "Imagine there's no heaven … No hell below us … Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion, too … Imagine all the people livin' life in peace." Steven Pinker, in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature, correlates "The Escalator of Reason," that is a posited increase in rational thought, to a decline in human violence. The title of Michael Shermer's 2015 book The Moral Arc: How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom announces the book's thesis. Oxford Fellow and atheist Peter Atkins argues in a 2018 article that "only science can answer all the big questions" while religion offers only "the sword, the bomb or the flame." To acknowledge that top theorists justified Nazi crimes with an explicit rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic and with reference to science and rationality is a bridge too far for devout Atheists.

The very best author to read on Nazism's roots in scientific racism is Richard Weikart. A great place to start reading Weikart is his brief, accessible, 2022 book, Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism. Richard Weikart has been publishing on Germany, Nazism, and Darwin for over twenty years. His work has been published by the University of Chicago Press and it has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. He has presented at numerous academic conferences. He is an emeritus professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus. Weikart is fluent in German, was a Fulbright scholar in Germany, and lived in Germany for five years. His work has been called, by his fellow scholars, "masterful," "outstanding," "sober," " insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable."

Why, then, has Weikart's work not made the same splash as work by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen or John Cornwell? Why do some Amazon readers award Weikart's books one-star, as does this poorly punctuated three-sentence review: "Hitler was baptized as a Christian and died a Christian. I would not even give this book 1 star not even worth reading" (sic). Why does Robert J. Richards, the Morris Fishbein Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Chicago, dismiss Weikart as a "religious conservative" who sees shapes in clouds? Why is Richards an endowed chair at the prestigious University of Chicago, why is John Cornwell at Cambridge, and why did Goldhagen teach at Harvard, while Weikart spent his career at a less prestigious school? Why? Because Richard Weikart tells unpopular truths. Nazism was inspired by Darwinism. It is simply less popular to state that basic truth than to pump out yet another trite attack on Catholicism in particular and religious belief in general.

In his books that I have read, Weikart never exculpates Christianity or denies Christian anti-Semitism, or Nazism's exploitation of pre-existing anti-Semitism to accomplish its evil ends. Weikart never claims that being a Christian or any other kind of religious believer exempts one from committing atrocities. He makes clear that Darwin was no Nazi, and that believing in Darwinism does not turn one into a Nazi. Weikart emphasizes that many factors, having nothing to do with Darwinism, contributed to the rise of Nazism. But Weikart is crystal clear and irrefutable on his main point: Nazis themselves cited a Darwinian evolutionary worldview as foundational to their ethic and their genocidal behavior.  

Nazis rejected the Judeo-Christian ethic that had been foundational to Western Civilization. Nazis rejected the concept, unique to the Hebrew Bible's book of Genesis, that all humans were equally created in the image of God, and that, therefore, unjustly ending any human life carries an eternal cost. Nazis regarded human beings as comparable to animals, the very animals we slaughter without much thought. Nazis rejected Christian concepts of compassion. Nazis embraced the idea that human groups are arranged on an evolutionary hierarchy, with higher and lower forms. Nazis enthusiastically embraced the idea of struggle as perfecting the species, of "survival of the fittest" as the highest and unquestionable good, and of death as the just destroyer of uncompetitive life. Nazis reduced "life unworthy of life" to a biological threat to the German species. Jews, handicapped Germans, Christian Gypsies, and Slavs, were biological threats that needed to be destroyed just as rats or lice are destroyed in order to enable the flourishing of the desired species. Any "Christian compassion" extended to non-group members was deleterious and condemnable. Nazis spelled out these beliefs in document after document, speech after speech, textbook after textbook. Weikart documents this in exhaustive detail.

Is Weikart threatening Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory? Not for this reader. I accept Darwinian evolution and I have never read anything by Weikart that caused me to doubt Darwinian evolution. But Weikart's work makes plain that powerful people accepted Darwinian evolution and made the immediate leap into genocide.

One can witness the leap from Darwin to genocide in German Darwinian Ernst Haeckel's ironically titled 1904 book The Wonders of LifeOn page 121, Haeckel argues strenuously against the belief in "the immortality of the soul" or in "an all-loving God." How could a human being who was "utterly ruined … born an idiot" enjoy eternal life in Heaven, Haeckel asks. "Pathology, the science of the diseased organism" obliterates faith in God. On page 122, Haeckel argues that "the widespread belief that man is bound under all circumstances to maintain and prolong life" is a senseless religious dogma. "Lunatics, lepers, people with cancer" Haeckel protests, are kept alive "without the slightest profit to themselves or the general body." "What a huge public and private expenditure!" he mourns, on page 123. "A dose of morphia" or a "dose of some painless and rapid poison" "under the control of an authoritative commission" would solve the problem. Then, just as the Nazis did – see the opening of Leni Riefenstahl film Olympia – Haeckel jumps over 2,000 years of Christian influence on ethics and returns to the ancient, Pagan world, where parents had the good sense to commit infanticide of their defective offspring. "The ancient Spartans" owed their "bodily strength and beauty as well as their mental energy and capacity" to the infanticide of the "weak or crippled." "Religious journals" protest with "pious indignation" "as always happens when pure reason" "opposes prejudices and traditional beliefs" "Religion" is "irrational and superstitious."

Haeckel's argument is not unique. Similar intellectual journeys were taken by others, including Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant, two big names in American scientific racism. Stoddard's 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, praises Darwin as making Stoddard's own racist ideas possible. Stoddard positions Darwin as an authoritative opponent of "The Christian doctrine of the equality of all souls before God." He blames this doctrine for "appeals to altruism" which mistakenly encourage efforts to improve "inferior" lives. Stoddard denigrates the compassion springing from Christian teachings of "equality" as "emotional" and "mystic faith." To replace these inferior approaches, Stoddard recommends "science" and "reason" because both inarguably demonstrate that some human lives are worthless. "During the past ten years biology and kindred sciences have refuted practically all the intellectual arguments on which the doctrine of 'natural equality' relies." Stoddard spent time in Nazi Germany and reported the chummy conversations he shared with Himmler. He observed Nazi eugenics procedures and granted those procedures his stamp of approval. Nazis were "weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way."

Margaret Sanger, who founded what would become Planned Parenthood, cited Darwin when, in 1920, she bemoaned "philanthropies and charities" that "build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive." Sanger voiced an opinion that would appear again and again in Darwin-inspired commentary, including that produced by Nazis: that there is a greater difference between the highest and lowest human and the lowest human and an animal. Because of this differential between more highly evolved humans and less evolved ones, Sanger argued, external control of human reproduction is necessary. In 1916, Sanger wrote, "the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." Compare this Sanger statement to one by Ernst Haeckel, "The distance between the thinking soul of the cultured human and the thoughtless animal soul of the wild natural human is extremely vast, greater than the distance between the latter and the soul of a dog." And compare Sanger and Haeckel to this statement: "The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape." The final speaker is Hitler.

In 1916, Madison Grant published The Passing of the Great Race, a book Hitler called his "bible." Scholar Jonathan Spiro writes that "Mein Kampf is riddled with passages that seem directly inspired by The Passing of the Great Race" some "encapsulate all the aspects of Grantian thought including the primacy of race" and "the worship of modern science." Grant wrote, "The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit, and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race … The church assumes a serious responsibility toward the future of the race whenever it steps in and preserves a defective strain … A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit – in other words, social failures – would solve the whole question in one hundred years."

Grant, an environmentalist who co-founded the Bronx Zoo, played a role in placing Ota Benga, a Pygmy, on display with primates in 1906. The goal was to demonstrate that Benga was close to a monkey himself. The Evening Post reported that Benga "has a great influence with the beasts …  including the orang-outang with whom he plays as though one of them … chattering to them in his own guttural tongue, which they seem to understand." The Rev. James H. Gordon said, "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be permitted." The always enlightened New York Times responded that Ota Benga "belongs to a race that scientists do not rate high in the human scale…The idea that men are all much alike … is now far out of date." Benga, being low on the evolutionary scale, was, the Times wrote, not capable of experiencing "humiliation and degradation." Benga eventually committed suicide.

Nor did Grant, Stoddard, and other Darwin-citing, scientific racists limit their disdain to dark-skinned people. Eastern and Southern Europeans were also deemed racially inferior. America's mainstream and even scholarly presses – including the New York TimesThe Saturday Evening PostThe American Anthropologist, Colliers, and The Atlantic were flooded with inflammatory racist material denigrating Poles, Slovaks, Jews, and Italians as subhuman. As sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross put it, "A Slav can live in dirt that would kill a white man." Ironically, Grant, a self-declared member of the superior Nordic race, but, an arthritic, was too frail to testify in front of Congress. Even so, through lobbying, Grant influenced Congress to pass immigration restrictions targeting allegedly racially inferior Eastern and Southern Europeans.

This history violates the monopoly race hustlers claim over evil and suffering. Eastern and Southern Europeans were white and largely Christian. These white, Christian peasants were subject to murderous and hateful racism. They were lynched, exploited at work sites, and defamed.  

In short, those seeking the roots of Nazism in Christianity are commodifying evil and suffering to serve their own petty vendetta against faith and to shield science from critique. Those genuinely about the heartbreaking, demanding work of understanding atrocity will benefit from reading Richard Weikart.

Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism, is a must-read intro to Weikart's entire oeuvre. Though jam-packed with facts and citations, Darwinian Racism is an easier, quicker read than Weikart's more scholarly works.

Weikart proves that Nazis themselves believed themselves to be good Darwinians. They got this idea not from fringe publications or conspiracy theories but from esteemed scientists. Chapter one of Weikart's book includes Darwin quotes which, even if you have encountered them in other contexts, are newly shocking in the context of a discussion of genocide. "We may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant … that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply … Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows" (emphasis added). These exact words could appear in a Himmler speech justifying the Einsatzgruppen. Obviously, Darwin and Himmler would apply a different valence to the words. Compare that quote to this one, "War is thus the unalterable law of all life, the precondition for the natural selection of the strong … What appears to people thereby as cruel is from the standpoint of nature obviously wise." The speaker of this last quote is Hitler.

Weikart shows, in chapter two, that Hitler held to a Darwinian worldview. In chapter three, Weikart amply demonstrates that Darwinian evolution was advanced by Nazis in Nazi-mandated school curricula. "Nature eliminates everything sick and weak. All life is struggle. The weak perish," reads the captions on a series of drawings depicting a fox eating a rabbit, a bird falling from the sky, and other cheerful, very non-Disney themes pounded into the heads of German tots. Catholics protested; Konrad Lorenz, who would later win a Nobel Prize, countered, "evolution provided an even more elevated ideal" than Catholicism did. The elevated ideal the church of Darwin promised was "the higher evolution of humanity." "For us, the race and volk are everything … the individual person as good as nothing."

Lorenz was a Nazi Party member. His ethic directly contradicts the Talmud's commentary on Genesis' insistence that we all descend, not from a plethora of diverse creations, but from one couple, Adam and Eve. This descent, the Talmud informs us, means that to murder one person is to murder the entire world. Similarly, the Talmud teaches that after Cain murders Abel, not just Abel's "blood," but his "blood," plural, cry out from the ground. Why is "blood" plural? The Talmud explains: "This teaches that it was also the blood of his children and his children’s children, and all his future generations, until the end of the human line, that would have one day descended from him. They all stood up and cried out before the Holy Blessed One. (So you learn from this that one person is considered as important as the entire work of Creation.)" Clearly, in the ethic of the Hebrew Bible, murder is a big deal. To the Darwin-inspired Nazi, to kill an individual who is not a member of one's own volk, "the individual person is as good as nothing."

Chapter four of Weikart's book records the many other Darwinian Nazi scientists at work during the Third Reich. Hans Weinert, one of the scientists Weikart discusses in chapter four, was a university anthropologist. In the interest of advancing Darwinian science, Weinert proposed inseminating a chimpanzee with sperm from a Pygmy. Such hideous proposals are not limited to Nazi scientists from decades ago. In 2001, Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous, celebrated, and charismatic atheist and Darwinian in the world today, encouraged his fellow scientists to use genetic engineering to create a "missing link" between apes and humans. "The same benefits in moral education would be delivered by a successful hybridization of a human and a chimpanzee … it would shatter our speciesist illusions very effectively." Dawkins goes on to compare aborting a human fetus to eating beef, using that as an illustration of "speciesism." Himmler similarly complained of "speciesism." "Man is nothing special at all … He has no idea how a fly is constructed – however unpleasant, it is a miracle," Himmler said, in one of his speeches justifying the genocide of human beings.

In chapter five, Weikart covers eugenics and euthanasia. Those adopting these policies believed themselves to be Darwinists. They cited Darwin's statements like, "Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." Weikart quotes Darwin contrasting the "hard reason" that might encourage callous treatment of handicapped persons with "sympathy." In the Christian worldview, "sympathy" is not the opposite of "hard reason." Rather, Christians like the geophysicist and Catholic Xavier le Pichon, regard handicapped persons as necessary and beneficial parts of God's creation.

Chapter six documents Nazi propaganda's promotion of Darwinism. Nazi propaganda did "not just mention Darwinism in passing, but accorded it a prominent place in Nazi racial ideology." Chapter seven charts Nazi Germany's treatment of German Darwinian Ernst Haeckel. The above-mentioned Robert J. Richards claims that Nazi Germany rejected Haeckel. Weikart proves Richards' claim false. Heinz Brucher was a world-class botanist, a Nazi Party member, an SS Sammelkommando – that is, one who stole seed research from the Soviet Union – and, after the war, a biology advisor to UNESCO. Before Nazis began their T4 euthanasia program, "Heinz Brucher was publicly lauding Haeckel for advocating the killing of disabled people." Heinrich Schmidt, Haeckel's protegee and director of the Haeckel house, wrote in 1934, "In the new Reich, his [Haeckel's] ideas about biology … are celebrating a surprisingly powerful resurrection. The religious trajectory of the present is often traveling in the course of his simple, yet sublime nature religion."

In chapter eight, Weikart lists American neo-Nazis and white supremacists who embrace Darwinism. He cites the 1896 book Might is Right, which repeatedly cites Darwin as the new gospel. The book is available for free at white supremacist websites. "As Darwin commands, let the strongest live," author Ragnar Redbeard writes. No longer should humanity follow the "hypnotic myth that centers around the execution of a Hebrew slave." "Christ was a pariah Jew." "Darwinism is the mortal foe of Hebraism." We must reject "the Gospel of Ineffectuality." Our heroes must be "brutal," made so through "brutal warfare, brutal personal encounters, brutal thoughts." "A man is brutal who will not turn the other cheek." Redbeard parodies the Christian beatitudes. He writes, "Cursed are the unfit for they shall be righteously exterminated." Like the Nazis, Haeckel, and many New Atheists today who regret the Judeo-Christian influence on Western Civilization, Redbeard wishes to turn the clock back to Ancient Paganism, focused, as it was, on amoral beauty, strength, health, youth, selfish desires, and raw power. Redbeard writes, "In ancient Rome, it was considered the height of impiety, heresy, and treason, for free-born citizens to adore a circumcised Asiatic [Jesus], but in America it is considered pious and fashionable and highly commendable to do so." Redbeard also bemoans Christianity's negative influence on manly Nordic Pagans. Christians banned the "holmgang," a one-on-one fight to settle disputes. "When Clericalism abolished the holmgang the pride of Norland silently waned away … when it banned gladiatorial contests, the Eternal City had its day."

Robert J. Richards has written "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" a 2013, 54-page rebuttal to Richard Weikart's work. Richards repeatedly resorts to ad hominem commentary, referring to anyone who mentions Darwinism's influence on Nazism as a "conservative" "religious" thinker; in fact, Richards does this in his first sentence, and repeats the ad hominem comment four times; "religious" is also used to dismiss other "constricted" "thinkers" four times, as in "a myriad of religious and politically constricted thinkers." Such thinkers are not "reputable." Richards explicitly blames Christianity for Nazism. Richards claims that Hitler admired Christianity's "greatness." Richards draws a straight line from Martin Luther to Nazism.

In 1919, Julius Streicher helped to found the Deutschsozialistische Partei a nationalist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic party. Soon thereafter he joined the Nazi party. In 1923, he began publishing Der Sturmer, an anti-Semitic and also an anti-Catholic newspaper. In 1937, Streicher was given a copy of Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies" for his birthday. Many authors cite this as Streicher's first encounter with Luther's work. Streicher was 52 at the time. He had been a leading German anti-Semite for at least 18 years. He had been publishing the most notorious anti-Semitic newspaper in history for 14 years. Streicher is not alone. Johannes Wallmann argues against the idea that Luther's sixteenth-century tract was continuously influential in Germany. In any case, Luther raged violently against the Catholic Church, and his Reformation was followed by two centuries of vicious blood-letting by Catholics and Protestants on each other. The Nazis did not oppose Catholicism because of Martin Luther. The Nazis opposed Catholicism for their own reasons.

The most notorious Nazi anti-Semitic film, The Eternal Jew, conflated Jews and rats. It depicted Jews as biological and economic threats. The most successful Nazi propaganda film, Jud Suss, relied on images of Jews as middleman minorities who manipulated the powerful to their own economic enrichment and the impoverishment of the German middle and lower classes. Nazis did not choose Luther's tract as their primary propaganda instrument. They choose biological and economic imagery. Aligning their anti-Semitism most significantly with Christianity did not meet Nazi ideological ends. Presenting their anti-Semitism as rooted in biology, economics, and culture did.

Richards mentions only Jews as victims of the Nazis, and anti-Semitism as the only Nazi hate. Richards thus never has to address why Nazis murdered handicapped Germans, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Polish children, and why Nazis sterilized Germans of African descent. Richards creates a strawman, insisting that Weikart cannot prove Darwinian evolution to be incorrect. I don't think Weikart ever attempts to do that, certainly not in the book under review here. Richards writes that Haeckel's "own moral theory certainly did not abandon Judeo-Christian precepts." In fact, as the above quotes show, it certainly did exactly that. Richards makes a mistake many invested in the "white privilege" assumption about racism make. Only whites are racist; only non-whites are victims of racism. Richards identifies Madison Grant as prejudiced against Slavs – he was – but Richards inexplicably calls "Poles, Czechs, and Russians" "swarthy." In other words, because Grant denigrated Slavs, Slavs must be dark-skinned. Most Slavs are in fact quite pale. Richards claims that "nowhere does Hitler even use" "any word that obviously refers to evolutionary theory." In fact, Hitler does, and he also refers to the "struggle for existence," for example, "the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost." I asked Weikart about the specific term "evolution" in Mein Kampf in the original German. Weikart wrote back that Richards "argued that the German term 'Entwicklung,' which can be translated as 'development' or 'evolution' was no longer being used by biologists during Hitler’s time to refer to biological evolution. This is completely false. Biologists during the entire twentieth century used the term 'Entwicklung' to mean evolution."

As I write this, Russians are committing atrocities in Ukraine. In one intercepted phone call, a laughing Russian woman tells her man to wear a condom when raping Ukrainian women. A Russian soldier has been arrested for filming assaults on babies. He apparently hoped to market the videos. Commodifying evil and suffering to insist that white skin or Christianity explains wrongdoing, and even reactions to Will Smith's Oscar slap, is abhorrent. The Judeo-Christian tradition insists on a different approach. We are all culpable – white, black, rich, poor, believer, Atheist – "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." We must all monitor our behavior in order to comply with God's commands based on the premise that we are all made in the image and likeness of God.

We may never be fully able to get into the minds of individual Nazis who committed atrocities. But we can read, in clear prose, their justifications for genocide. Those justifications were, more often than not, written out in the logic of scientific racism and a rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery.

Defund Disney: It’s time to stand up to the assault on conservatives, Christians and patriots.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My great friend and co-author Nicky Billou and I recently released our first book together, "The Great Patriot Protest & Boycott Book: The Priceless List For Conservatives, Christians, Patriots, and 80+ Million Trump Warriors To Cancel 'Cancel Culture' And Save America."

It's a book that lists 116 "woke" corporations and condemns their fear-driven assault on normal, traditional Americans. We show conservatives, Christians, capitalists, and patriots how to fight back against these gigantic, woke, anti-American corporations spitting in our faces while we make them rich by buying their products.

One of the companies on our list is The Walt Disney Co. Lo and behold, Disney just became THE poster child for our struggle to save America. They must be our "Mona Lisa" — our masterpiece proving we can successfully cancel woke companies that offend conservatives. Once we hurt Disney in the pocketbook and bring them to their knees, this will serve as Exhibit A for how the Silent Majority can take back America.

But first things first: We must successfully "Defund Disney."

Disney could very well be the worst offender we've ever seen. With their arrogance and radical beliefs, they've made themselves the target of 80 million Trump conservatives. Disney has made it easy to hate Disney. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Disney has chosen a "hill to die on": they want to overturn the new Florida law that stops the indoctrination of little children, from pre-kindergarten through third grade, with woke, sexual, gender-identity brainwashing and transgender equality education. Keep in mind that we're only talking about 5- to 8-year-olds. What parent could possibly disagree? What parent visiting Disney could possibly disagree?

But Disney doesn't care. They are intent on alienating the tens of millions of parents who believe that 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be sexualized at school and that those same 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be taught to change their sexual identity like they're changing a pair of sneakers. Can you imagine? Disney has chosen this hill to die on.

The president of Disney recently bragged that she will make sure half of all characters in Disney movies, television shows, and videos are either gay, lesbian, trans, or other minorities. I have no problem with that. America is a free country. But I hope she and her Disney bosses have no problem if conservatives, Christians, and patriots decide to never again visit any Disney theme park or spend a dime on any Disney product.

All is fair in war, right? And this is a war between Disney and America, American values, American exceptionalism, and Judeo-Christian values.

This is a far cry from the vision of Disney's founder, the iconic Walt Disney, a true American patriot who wanted to create movies and television programs that were family-oriented and wholesome to entertain the whole family. Disney made billions of dollars from brilliantly executing Walt's amazing and wholesome vision.

Billou and I outline exactly what to do in our book. We provide the name of Disney's chairman of the board and CEO, their phone numbers, email addresses, social media addresses, and physical addresses (for snail mail). All of this information is provided in our book's directory of 116 woke companies.

Disney just became our No. 1 target.

First, look up the social media handles for Disney and its key senior executives. Then bombard them with polite but firm messages stating that you will choose to boycott Disney for its woke choices. Here is an example:

"Dear Bob Chapek (CEO of Disney),

I am disgusted that Disney is choosing to create content that brainwashes and sexualizes children with your woke and radical anti-American and anti-Christian agenda. This is not the Disney that I grew up with, and I believe it's highly inappropriate to insert adult and woke brainwashing into children's stories. I will be canceling my family's Disney + membership, and we will not be doing business with your company anymore. Shame on you for caving to the woke mob.


Wayne Allyn Root"

Secondly, FOLLOW THROUGH. Stop doing business with Disney. Post on social media. Encourage others to stop doing business with them. Make them pay, financially speaking.

Third, sign up to our email list at, and join the army of God-fearing, patriotic Americans who are fed up with woke corporations who take our money and then spit in our faces.

Businesses exist to serve their customers, solve their problems and make their lives better with their products and services. Not to promote woke ideologies or brainwash our children to change their sexual identities.

Disney is the poster child for this. It's time for Disney to pay. It's time to bring Disney to its knees. It's time to "DEFUND DISNEY."

And after we prove we have the power to change the direction of this country, one company at a time, with Disney as our first target, then we have 115 other companies to target.

But let's start by treating Disney like the feds once treated Al Capone. Disney is now our "public enemy number one." They richly deserve it.


Canada: Home Depot Calgary trains employees to ‘check’ their ‘white,’ ‘Christian,’ ‘heterosexual’ privilege’

Disgusting | Home Depot goes *Nasty* WOKE

Leaked Home Depot Employee Training Pamphlet Sparks Debate ...

WOKE: Leaked Home Depot Employee Training Pamphlet Sparks ...

Former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli on Home Depot getting backlash from activists for not getting involved in Georgia voting law protests



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

If the “woke” ever woke up, they might realize that their offensive, hateful anti-white propaganda would never be tolerated if white racism were really as severe and endemic as they claim.

The Woke Brigade’s malarkey was on full display at a Home Depot outlet in Calgary, Alberta, in a “leaked training pamphlet”:

The flyer that was reportedly posted in a break room at a Calgary, Alberta, Home Depot showed the home improvement giant’s logo and was titled, “Leading Practices: Unpacking Privilege.” It asks employees to literally “check” their “privilege,” whether it be “white privilege,” class privilege,” “Christian privilege,” “cisgender privilege,” “able-bodied privilege,” or “heterosexual privilege.”

The flyer:

Whoever was ultimately responsible for this should realize that advocating for human rights does not entail bashing any other group. Battling discrimination and racism is one thing. To zero in on a target unjustifiably is another. Also, blacks are still held as slaves by Arab Muslims in Algeria, Mauritania, Sudan and Libya. Many Arabs are anti-black. Afghans are at the back of the bus in Iran. China is openly racist against blacks and overweight people. The largest “Black nationalist organization in the US,” the Nation of Islam, spreads virulent hatred against Jews, whites and LGBTQ groups. Muslim rape gangs also view white girls as “worthless” and “trash.”

What do the woke think? That discrimination and racism are exclusively a white problem? Or that racism from other groups is parked at the border in an era of multiculturalism and open-door immigration?

Shame on Home Depot in Calgary, which has chosen the woke path of exclusivity rather than inclusivity in its divisive and discriminatory practices. It is also insulting to visible minorities, who are perpetually deemed to be helpless victims who are in need of handouts and patronizing sympathy from the woke.

Aburrahman Muhammad, an imam who was once with the International Institute of Islamic Thought but had the good sense to leave, observed:

This sense of victimization has now reached a point – especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations – that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group.

This applies also to many blacks in America, Canada, and elsewhere. It isn’t only whites who were oppressors.

Hate against any and every group as such as wrong. That includes the perpetual targeting of whites for past wrongs, which is often done by those who at the same time exonerate non-whites for current and ongoing human rights abuses. Ironically, it is the white woke working alongside supremacist groups such as Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations and the Communist-rooted Black Lives Matter, who perpetuate anti-white “privilege.” It’s a method of manipulating societal and individual weakness to stir up race wars, in pursuit of the goal of destroying Western democracies from within and supplanting them with Marxist regimes. The average Leftist believes these claims. Many BLM leaders have also lined their pockets, playing the victimhood card and betraying their own people.

America had a black president. That would have been unthinkable just a few decades before he was elected. Too many Western countries have evolved to the point of (as they say in economic terms) diminishing returns.   

Fighting discrimination and advocating for equal rights and human rights is admirable, but the likes of Home Depot and the woke brigade, who incessantly parade their superiority (“privilege,” they call it) while spreading the propaganda of victimhood groups are the real racists.


Martin Luther King Jr. was commonly attacked by his critics as being a “mouthpiece for the white man,” a criticism that came from leftists.

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY: The American Empire Has Fallen

Today we're giving what amounts to a Christian, conservative State of the Union (and world). And, spoiler alert, the state of America and the world is pretty bad. Between war raging in Europe and China looking to take America's spot as world superpower, it's a fair bet that tough times lie ahead. To anyone with an objective sense of reality, there is a direct link between the decline of the U.S. and the rise in chaos around the world and the proliferation of progressive policies that put ideology over prosperity. We discuss how progressive environmental and economic regulations create conditions like energy dependence and companies outsourcing manufacturing to our enemies, a situation that China and Russia are all too happy to exploit. However, it's not all bad news, as we discuss a few of the theological reasons Christians need not worry too much about worldly affairs, but a more in-depth theological and practical discussion about what's going on in the world is soon to follow as well.

DR. Robert Malone and Candace Owens Interview


In part 1 of this bombshell exclusive, Candace sits down with Dr. Robert Malone to discuss the effects of the vaccine on women's fertility, the corruption of Big Pharma, and the truth about how medical data is manipulated. This is the interview that Big Tech doesn't want you to see.



PETRODOLLAR PUKES: Cracks emerge in U.S. dollar dominance as Saudis consider accepting Chinese currency for oil sales to Beijing

Image: PETRODOLLAR PUKES: Cracks emerge in U.S. dollar dominance as Saudis consider accepting Chinese currency for oil sales to Beijing



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Since the end of World War II, the British pound was replaced as the world’s reserve currency with the U.S. dollar, which put Americans at a distinct advantage by making our money the strongest and safest in the world.

But in recent years, there have been emerging threats to King Dollar’s dominance, thanks in large part to insane ‘America last’ domestic and foreign policies adopted and perpetuated by left-wing Democratic regimes.

There was a temporary lull in the push to demolish American economic primacy during the four years of Donald Trump’s administration, but his MAGA platform so upset the global power structure all stops were removed to prevent him from winning reelection.

Now, after installing the mindless Joe Biden, the deep state powers that be who are propping him up have reimplemented their policies aimed at destroying America because our country is the only one standing between liberty and economic enslavement by a select global elite.

The latest sign that their plan is working: Saudi Arabia, long an ally of the U.S. and perpetrator of the American “petrodollar,” has announced it will consider accepting the Chinese yuan as payment for oil sold to Beijing.

Zero Hedge explains:

One of the core staples of the past 40 years, and an anchor propping up the dollar’s reserve status, was a global financial system based on the petrodollar – this was a world in which oil producers would sell their product to the US (and the rest of the world) for dollars, which they would then recycle the proceeds in dollar-denominated assets and while investing in dollar-denominated markets, explicitly prop up the USD as the world reserve currency, and in the process backstop the standing of the US as the world’s undisputed financial superpower.

Those days are coming to an end.

And it appears as though the catalyst for the USD’s reserve currency demise is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

According to The Wall Street Journal, “Saudi Arabia is in active talks with Beijing to price its some of its oil sales to China in yuan, people familiar with the matter said, a move that would dent the U.S. dollar’s dominance of the global petroleum market and mark another shift by the world’s top crude exporter toward Asia.”

Talks with China regarding pricing Saudi oil in yuan contracts have taken place in an on-again, off-again fashion for about six years, but they dramatically increased this year as the Kingdom grew increasingly frustrated with U.S. security commitments to help defend the Saudis going back decades, according to the sources.

These China-Saudi talks, again, are being influenced directly by the policies of the current Biden regime, the WSJ noted.

“The Saudis are angry over the U.S.’s lack of support for their intervention in the Yemen civil war, and over the Biden administration’s attempt to strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear program,” the paper said, adding: “Saudi officials have said they were shocked by the precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.”

“China buys more than 25% of the oil that Saudi Arabia exports. If priced in yuan, those sales would boost the standing of China’s currency,” the report continued.

None of this is by accident. The people who operate the deep state are not dumb; they know what they’re doing. They know certain policies embolden and empower our country — like those Trump adopted — and they know which policies will push our allies into other economic spheres of influence and thus weaken our country (which they believe we deserve, for some insane reason).

So this move to alienate the Saudis and hasten the rise of China’s currency at risk to the USD is purposeful. And it comes as other elements of the plan are being put in place thanks to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, per Zero Hedge:

Russia starving the western world of much-needed resources, sending commodity prices ever higher, while its silent partner China quietly picks up the pieces and takes advantage of Russia’s isolation to approach all those other “non-western” former petrodollar clients to offer them a new product, the yuan, which Beijing is now actively and aggressively pushing to dethrone the dollar as a global reserve currency.

This crash is inevitable, by the way; electing Trump to another four-year term won’t do anything but delay it — that is if our country’s economy has not collapsed already by 2024.

Sources include:

UN Warns Individualistic Conservatives Threaten the Planet

"Save the world from free speech. Before it’s too late"



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

If you blinked you might have missed the momentous occasion of the release of the second part of the UN IPCC’s sixth assessment report of how we're all going to die unless we all board jets and attend global warming conferences. Or give lots of money to those officials who do it for us.

Since no one reads these things anyway, by the time the fourteenth chapter of the second part of the sixth assessment rolled around, everyone was drunk and decided to take shots at conservatives.

Chapter 14 was on North America and warned of the threat posed by "individualistic" conservatives who refuse to accept "collective responsibility" for driving pickup trucks.

Once upon a time, we agreed to disagree about things. Those were the good days.

The liberalism of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", has long since been replaced by, "You're spreading misinformation and I'm going to tell on you to Mark Zuckerberg."

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which changes its predictions of the incoming apocalypse more often than a phone psychic, is very upset about misinformation.

Misinformation contradicts the science and under the IPCC’s current chair, Hoesung Lee, who has a Ph.D. in Economics from Rutgers, and was, according to the IPCC, named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in the World, the UN body is all about the science.

Even though economics is as much of a science as the chicken entrails of global warming.

But say what you will about Lee, who used to work for ExxonMobil, he still has better credentials than the former chair, railroad engineer, and sexual harasser Rajendra Pachauri. As a Nature obituary put it, Pachauri, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize and sexual misconduct allegations with Al Gore, died "following a prolonged battle with multiple heart ailments and charges of sexual harassment."

Forget climate change, it’s the sexual harassment allegations that will really kill you.

“If there's no action before 2012, that's too late,” Rajendra Pachauri said in 2007. In 2009, he claimed, “we have just about 6 years left in which we will have to bring about the peaking of emission.” It’s 2022, Pachauri is dead, and the planet is very much alive. Sadly, so is the IPCC.

With a past history like this, you can understand why the IPCC is sensitive about misinformation.

If there were a Nobel prize for misinformation, the IPCC would win it hands down. And that’s the only Nobel prize that it deserves. Unless there were another Nobel for blowing the most hot air.

A year after Pachauri was ousted over his personal contribution to global warming, Hoesung Lee took over and began warning that it's not too late to save the planet from cheap energy and a decent standard of living.

Six years later he's still at it.

IPCC WGII 6, the latest alphabet soup report that no one read, directs the blame for the imminent destruction of the planet at “resistance from individuals with conservative political ideologies” and “individualistic worldviews” who oppose “regulation”.

Save the world from free speech. Before it’s too late.

The IPCC’s preferred solution to the conservative problem (at least the one that it’s willing to put in print) is more media censorship. The report complains about the "journalistic norm of balance” that give "equal weight to climate scientists and contrarians" and are "unevenly amplifying certain messages that are not supported by science".

I don’t know which planet the IPCC is reporting from, where the media provides equal weight to both the establishment and its critics, but it isn’t this one. But the one thing we know about the IPCC from all its reports on the state of the planet is that it doesn’t know much about Earth.

The media is already saturated with the IPCC’s chicken little propaganda. Big Tech companies actively censor those who dissent from the notion that only high taxes can change the weather. To say nothing of the even more outrageous suppression of any other point of view within the scientific community and Corporate America than the one making Big Green investors very rich.

Nevertheless, the IPCC report complains that “much online social media discussion of climate change takes place in ‘echo chambers’”. These echo chambers, unlike the ones operated by the IPCC and the establishment, are obviously a threat to all intelligent life on earth.

A category that no one involved in the IPCC and the media qualifies for anyway.

The censorship will continue until everyone comes to believe that the world is ending as many years from now as it takes to create a sense of crisis while still making it possible to cash in.

The UN solution to all of those “individualistic” and “conservative” Americans is for “the rest of the human collective” to adopt “collective conduct” from “indigenous” people. Unfortunately, the United States has no indigenous people, only immigrants from various eras, tribes traveling across a land bridge from Siberia, paddling canoes, and then Columbus and his three ships.

But the UN might want to check in on Africa and see how the “indigenous” people of that continent exercise their “sense of duty or responsibility toward human and other-than-human relations” by wiping out endangered species and killing entire tribes with equal gusto.

Or Hoesung Lee might want to look toward Manchuria where his distant ancestors came from and examine just how that region shows us that we can “(re)learn from Indigenous cultures to (re)consider our responsibility/ies to the land”.

The idea that a native population is less likely to pollute the earth and water, hunt animals to extinction, and treat their territory like a trash heap is more white nonsense, as Lee knows.

The noble savage is the romanticized invention of European fourth-generation colonists who condescendingly presume that their neighbor is less likely to want an SUV or a weekend at the shore because his ancestors had a lower technological level and less civilizational scope.

The native population consists of stone, iron, and bronze age colonists who wiped out whatever indigenous peoples there were and then got down to the business of killing each other until the Europeans showed up. Your average American and Canadian tree hugger has as much of a mystical relationship with the great outdoors as a California casino owner or the Hawaiian businessman whose many times great-grandfather killed and enslaved the natives he found living there after he finished making the long imperialist canoe journey to colonize the islands.

The lead authors of the North American chapter who urge us to learn magical indigenous skills of collectivism are largely the descendants of European immigrants. And they know a whole lot more about collectivism than North American Indians who were a good deal more independent, conservative, and individualistic than the hive mind of two dozen authors behind a UN report.

But if the UN really wants to model respect for the land, it should lead the way by demolishing its Manhattan headquarters and returning Turtle Bay back to the turtles.

The one mystical quality that the IPCC does have is magical thinking.

After failing to convince Americans that the planet will burn unless everyone gives environmental consultants more money to change the weather, the IPCC is convinced that suppressing political dissent will surely convince those individualistic conservatives.

As everyone knows, using your power to silence people wins the argument every time.

It’s not American individualism that threatens the planet. The environmental movement not only stole trillions and spent it on trips and worthless windmills and solar panels, it brought the planet closer to war by making the world dependent on Middle Eastern and Russian fuel. After generations of wars that could have been avoided with cheap nuclear energy and domestic drilling, there is yet another war that is being fought over energy resources in Ukraine.

Conservative individualism doesn’t threaten the planet, environmental collectivism does. 

Robert Spencer vs. Joseph Puder: How Much Should We Get Involved in Ukraine?


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Editors' note: Below is an exchange between Frontpage contributors Robert Spencer and Joseph Puder on Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- and what America and the West must do about it. We hope our readers will find this dialogue/debate between two of Frontpage's finest to be thought-provoking and enlightening.

Joseph Puder: The West Has Not Learned The Lessons of World War II.
We need a Churchill in the White House, not a feeble Chamberlain.

The scenes of the Russian invasion into Ukraine are reminiscent of 81 years ago when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in what was called “Operation Barbarossa.” Nazi troops stormed the Ukraine fields with thousands of tanks and Stuka dive bombers. Behind them was Hitler’s Einsatzgruppen, SS murderers set out to murder every Jew in the territories of Ukraine that the Nazi army occupied.  

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, has copied the same tactics. Claiming his armies were merely on military maneuvers and that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he ordered his armies with thousands of soldiers, tanks, and jets to invade Ukraine. In 1939, Adolf Hitler, who had committed Germany not to attack the Soviet Union under the Treaty of Non-Aggression known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, broke the treaty and invaded the Soviet Union with massive force. And, like the murderous Nazi Einsatzgruppen, Putin sent a similar group of Chechen murderers to assassinate Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and members of his government.   

Hitler, in the summer of 1941, already had Europe almost entirely under his brutal boot, but his “lebensraum” or living space concept, which he specified in his book, “Mein Kampf,” and speeches, required him, in his mind to remove the Slavic and other so-called non-Aryan peoples in Eastern Europe from their land and populate them with German people. So naturally, Hitler was not going to stop anywhere ‘while the going was good.’    

Let us be clear, Putin is not Hitler, he is not the sadist and antisemitic murderer that Hitler was. Nevertheless, he too has a dream of restoring to Russia the title of the super-power that the Soviet Union became after World War II. He is a Russian nationalist whose formative years in the Soviet Union were spent absorbing Soviet propaganda and subsequently becoming a KGB officer. It made him a staunch believer in Russian power. His father fought with the Red Army in WWII, and his native Leningrad suffered enormously during World War II. He also learned from the example that Hitler had provided, that when your potential enemies are weak, it is time to strike.  

Hitler had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to deal with. An appeaser who desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs, and indeed, the costs were much higher for Britain and the world for not recognizing that evil can only be stopped by force and not by appeasement. Had the allies stopped Hitler early on in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland, World War II would never have occurred. Even in 1938, before Hitler annexed by force the Czechoslovakian territory of the Sudetenland under the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Chamberlain sold out the Czechs, and got in return World War II. Had the western powers used the military option, the German military High Command (the Wehrmacht) would have removed Hitler from power, as was revealed in later years.   

Putin, like Hitler, views US President Joe Biden as weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain. A person who refuses to use the military option with the radical regime of the Ayatollahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and would certainly not dare to challenge Russia’s military might. Putin figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia. Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.  

It is apparent to Putin that President Biden and the other major western leaders fear him enough not to challenge his actions other than with words and economic sanctions that hitherto have had little impact on Putin and his regime. He took Crimea in March 2014 from Ukraine, and the Obama administration’s reaction was so anemic that it only encouraged him to go further and initiate the separatist violent rebellion against the Ukrainian government in the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine), less than a month later. As the case of the US imposed sanctions on Iran has proven, sanctions cannot alter the behavior of a radical authoritarian regime, and only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course.   

There was a time when the US did just that, using the military option. President John F. Kennedy did it during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; he took military action after diplomacy failed. True, the Soviet missiles in Cuba posed an existential threat to the US… And yet, President Lyndon Johnson did it in the Middle East, when the Soviet Union threatened to send its troops to aid Syria against Israel during the Six-Day War of June 1967.  

Uri Bar-Noi, in a report for the Wilson Center dealing with the Soviet Union and the Six-Day War, had written his article based on revelations from the Polish government archives, “The Soviet Union military took practical steps to assist Syria in stopping the advance of Israeli troops into Syrian territory toward the end of the war. These steps included a naval landing, airborne reinforcement, and air support for ground operations. Military operations were, however, eventually aborted for fear of American retaliation.” President Johnson responded by putting American forces on standby, ready to respond to the Soviet’s moves.   

In today’s climate of near pacifism in the US and the western world, there are no Churchills to be found. There is however one inspiring Churchill-like person and that is the leader of Ukraine – President Volodymyr Zelensky. He alone has stood up to the bullying of Vladimir Putin with the determination of David facing Goliath, and that in spite of the odds facing him. He inspired his people and the world by taking on a nuclear superpower with its enormous military machine and an abundance of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. He alone put into deeds what it means to fight for freedom and human dignity. 

While Biden and others filled the airwaves with platitudes, they fear facing the Russian bear. Fortunately for Winston Churchill, he was able to, after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) enjoy the benefits of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Zelensky and Ukraine remain alone in fighting an unrestrained aggressor. Sadly, never has America needed a Churchill more in the White House than now. Instead, we have a feeble Chamberlain. 

Robert Spencer Responds: What Are the Real Lessons of World War II?
It’s true: we need a Churchill, but we don’t need a world war.
It’s interesting that Joseph Puder begins his article calling for the U.S. to stand up much more firmly to Putin than it is doing now by likening the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine to the German army’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Puder doesn’t mention the fact that many Ukrainians fought tenaciously on the side of the Nazis in that conflict; nor does he mention that fighting in Ukraine now against the Russians is the Azov Battalion, a gang of actual neo-Nazis, not the kind the establishment media sees whenever a guy goes out wearing a MAGA hat. Nor are they some outliers: in 2014, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called them “our best warriors.”

This is not to say that Russia’s invasion is justified, or that Americans should not support Ukraine’s resistance; it’s only meant to illustrate that sometimes matters are much more complicated than meets the eye, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a quintessential example of that.

Puder is correct that Neville Chamberlain “desperately wanted to avoid war at all costs,” and appeasement failed before World War II and will fail to stop Putin. He is also correct that Putin, like everyone else on the face of the earth, sees Old Joe Biden as “weak and feeble, just as Hitler saw Chamberlain.” According to Puder, Putin “figures that Biden and the Western leaders would scream ‘bloody murder,’ but won’t challenge him militarily, not even using a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ukrainian civilian population, for fear of entanglement with Russia.” He sees Putin’s statement that this would be considered an act of war as an empty threat: “Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than Biden, Johnson, or Macron. He knows, however, that he is dealing with Chamberlains, not with Churchills.”

It is undoubtedly true that Putin sees Biden as weak. It is less certain that if the U.S. sets up a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the Russians will not see it as a casus belli and start World War III. And as odious as Putin’s actions in Ukraine are, they aren’t our fight. Volodymyr Zelensky, for all his heroism, is tied into the World Economic Forum cabal. Ukraine is a corrupt kleptocracy with still-unexplained ties to the Biden family; it was a Ukrainian energy firm that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job for which he was completely unqualified, in an obvious case of buying influence. Except for brief periods, Ukraine was part of Russia for a thousand years, until 1991. Putin may go on from Ukraine to menace NATO states, and that could be a legitimate casus belli, but Ukraine is no hill to die on or to start a world war on. It is not actually the United States’ responsibility to solve the problems of all the people in the world, and there will always be tyrants, invasions, and occupations. We can’t fix them all, especially with our woke military spending time on gender theory that it could be spending on learning to fight.

In this connection, it is important to recall that even as the Nazis stormed across Europe in 1939, 1940, and 1941, swiftly conquering Poland, Norway, France, and more, the United States did not enter the war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted very much to get into the war, but he could not sell to the American people the idea that it was the responsibility of the American people to fight for Poland, Norway, or France. It was much more widely understood then than it is now that the United States of America is not the world’s policeman or repairman, and will only expend its resources fruitlessly when it tries to act as such (see, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Roosevelt didn’t enter the war, in fact, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11. It was at that point, and not before then, that World War II became our fight. Roosevelt had given all manner of aid to the British before Pearl Harbor was bombed, and Biden’s handlers, if they have any spine at all, should do the same in this case, but the idea that, as Puder says, “only the unpleasant choice of a credible threat of Military action will make Russia or Iran change its course” runs the risk of provoking a real war, one that could be far more catastrophic than any war the planet has seen up to now.   

There is no doubt that Puder is right: America needs a Churchill in the White House. But when Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain, the war in Europe had already been raging for eight months. He didn’t start the war by reckless actions in a conflict that did not involve his country. We need a prudent leader of his type now, one who will know how much is enough and how much is too much in dealing with Putin. As it is, our feckless State Department and dementia-ridden president are foolishly writing checks their woke military can’t cash.

*Joseph Puder Responds: Evil, If Not Stopped, Will Swallow Us All.

If Vladimir Putin wants a global nuclear war, he could choose multiple reasons to serve as a casus belli and wage war. If pressed hard by western sanctions, including the cutting off of his oil and gas revenues, he is as likely to consider it a casus belli, and turn against the NATO allies. Putin, I have no doubt, feels just as intensely about his economic strangulation as he does about a no-fly zone in and around Lviv, to protect the fleeing Ukrainian refugees, should the US and NATO allies consider imposing it.

Robert Spencer is correct about Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, and I should add the rabid antisemitism on the part of many Ukrainians during WWII, and even to some extent today. Naturally, there were some Ukrainians who saved Jews as well. My own parents escaped being murdered by Ukrainians during WWII. My mother’s courage and Russian troops nearby saved them from certain death. Modern Ukraine is different, it seeks to be democratic, and share western values, and Volodymyr Zelensky is not Petro Poroshenko. In the late 1930s or 1940s, the thought of a Jewish president in Ukraine would have been impossible. Today, Ukraine looks to the west – not to the east, and it should be embraced.

Spencer isn’t exactly accurate when asserting that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years.” In fact, Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital. The Kievan state existed until the year 1240 when the Mongol hordes crushed it. Actually, Putin has claimed Ukraine for historical and religious (Russian Orthodoxy) reasons. He forgets however that Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia. Kiev originated the Cyrillic alphabet and Russian Orthodoxy.

Let’s be clear, I am not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia; understandably, such a conflict could lead to World War III and an end to life as we know it. We must however understand that Putin is not some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west, and his Mother Russia. He is though, succeeding in intimidating the west. When he took Crimea and effectively tore the Donbas region out of Ukraine, the Obama administration and its western allies whimpered, and condemned, but did nothing. And when Obama set up a “red line” against the Syrian dictator upon his use of chemical weapons on his people, he pathetically let it slide…President Joe Biden’s responses to foreign aggression is even more pathetic, as we have seen last year in the Afghanistan debacle.  

Putin believes that Russia has some justified reasons to fear the expansion of NATO eastward, and at the same time, he seeks to recreate the former Soviet Union. A child of Soviet propaganda, Putin envisions a superpower Russia with all the natural resources of its former republics such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. In a 2014 interview with the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, he (Gorbachev) stated that he thought that the NATO enlargement and incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries was a “big mistake,” and a “violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made in 1990.

All of the above notwithstanding, Ukraine held democratic elections, and elected Volodymyr Zelensky as president. The Ukrainian people, moreover, have the right to determine their future, a right Putin does not have. And, if the people of Ukraine choose to join NATO, or the EU, as a sovereign state they have the right to do so.

The real question is where will Putin stop? Will he be satisfied with subjugating Ukraine against the will of most of its people? Poland, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary, all of them border Ukraine; will he push further into these states to punish them for supporting Ukraine? Putin is obviously not deterred by the likes of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emanuel Macron, or Olaf Scholz. He recognizes the near pacifism in the western world, and he is not frightened by western economic sanctions, since they have not hitherto impacted him personally, or for that matter, Russia.  

Spencer is correct about FDR wanting to fight Nazi Germany but he could not sell the American people on entering the war to save Poland, France, or other conquered nations. There is a difference however this time around. Article 5 of the NATO charter specifies that the US is committed to fight against any aggression committed against a fellow NATO member. True, Ukraine is not yet a NATO member, and therefore the US has no legal obligation to protect it. But the American people today are far less isolationist than in the 1930s or the period just before Pearl Harbor. Most Americans see it as a moral obligation to defend innocent civilians, and they are aghast by Russia’s naked aggression. I agree with Spencer that “America is not the world’s policeman,” but we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.

While acknowledging Joe Biden's desire for world peace and avoidance of war is understandable, warning Putin with a credible military option against further Russian expansion is essential. At some point, a no-fly zone will become imperative. Sadly, America needs a Churchill in the White House right now. Instead, it seems, we have a Chamberlain.

*Robert Spencer Responds: There's a Fine Line Between Strength and Provocation.

Joseph Puder is certainly correct that if Vladimir Putin wants war with the United States, he could start it now, trumpeting any number of actions by the U.S. and its allies, from expanding NATO ever eastward to arming Ukraine and more, as the reasons why he had no choice but to declare war. It is clear by now that he doesn’t want a world war, which would almost certainly be a nuclear war of unimaginable devastation, any more than Joe Biden and his handlers do. But Puder believes, not without reason, that Biden’s handlers can and should present a much stronger front to Putin, and that doing so would deter the Russian from continuing to pursue his expansionist goals. While strength is always to be preferred to appeasement of a tyrant, however, the current regime of socialist internationalists and spineless dreamers cannot be trusted to know what constitutes a reasonable show of strength and what constitutes an unwarranted provocation.

Take, for example, the expansion of NATO. In his February 24 speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine, Putin said: “In December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us, continuing to pursue their own goals and disregarding our interests.”

If this is true, it is not hard to imagine Antony Blinken and his team too concerned with making sure the State Department had the right number of racial minorities and proper instruction in Critical Race Theory to concern themselves with Putin’s overtures. They could have and should have known that Russia considers the expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics to be an unacceptable attempt to encircle Russia, as Putin explained in his speech: “I am referring to the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders.”

One doesn’t have to accept Putin’s argument or consider his invasion of Ukraine justified to see that his characterization of Biden’s imperious, elitist State Department is entirely plausible. It is important to point this out now, after the invasion, because the same ham-handed, blinkered, pseudo-intellectual Leftists whose short-sightedness and wrongheadedness let the invasion happen in the first place are still in charge. If a show of strength to Putin can be bungled, they can be counted upon to bungle it.

As for Puder’s claim that it is not accurate to say that “Ukraine was part of Russia for 1,000 years,” he actually demonstrates that it is accurate by noting that “Russia, as we know it today has its roots in Kiev – Ukraine’s capital.” One may quibble over whether Kievan Rus was Russian or Ukrainian, but the telling fact is that it was both and that throughout history the two have been more one people than two. The fact that, as Puder claims I forgot but which was actually the basis of my argument, it is true that “Kiev was the cradle of what we know as Russia,” and that is precisely why Putin believes he has a claim to it. This is not to say that Ukraine should not be independent unless one wishes also to argue that Austria and Germany should be one state, a proposition I am not at all disposed to favor.

Puder says that he is “not advocating a military and possibly a nuclear confrontation with Putin’s Russia,” but the weak and feckless socialist policy wonks who inhabit Biden’s State Department and entire administration have never demonstrated anything comparable to the judiciousness and wisdom of Churchill or anyone else who ever brought a major war to a successful conclusion. Puder is in effect asking that Biden’s gang of arrogant, miseducated children, with no understanding of history, culture, religion, or economics stand up to a canny, unscrupulous, utterly ruthless authoritarian. The consequences of their miscalculation and the hopeless Blinken is certain to miscalculate, would be, as Puder says “World War III and an end to life as we know it.” Putin may not be, as Puder says, “some crazy monster who is set on incinerating the west,” but the foreign policy establishment is a bunch of self-infatuated grad students with no understanding of how the world works; he can and would take advantage of their attempts to draw some “red line” that both he and they would know from the outset was spurious.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is a corrupt kleptocracy that gave Hunter Biden a high-paying job in a field in which he had no experience, in an obvious attempt to curry favor with Joe Biden. It was a phone call with Zelensky that got Trump impeached, in an obvious partisan witch-hunt, the first time. This is not to say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, or that Putin is not a scoundrel, or that the Ukrainians are not noble in resistance, or that Zelensky is not courageous. But once again, this is not our fight, and making it our fight could so easily spiral out of control that it is imperative that we keep a cool head amid all the prevailing war fever. Haven’t we learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan yet?

Puder admits that Ukraine is not in NATO and so we have no obligation to defend it, but thinks that we should anyway, for “we must also realize that evil, if not stopped will swallow us all.” Well, yes. But that’s why NATO has members and non-members. We are bound, for better or worse, to defend NATO’s members. If this means that we have an obligation to fight evil anywhere else in the world that it may appear, we might as well bring every country in the world into NATO, so that it is clear that we are obligated to fight for them all and to combat evil wherever and whenever it may break out.

That may be a wonderful sentiment, but it is utterly impracticable. Our resources are not infinite, and our self-serving, corrupt leaders are already pouring out our substance for all manner of boondoggles that benefit the American people not a whit. At some point, the gravy train is going to run out. What we really need is a strong America-First president, who would have made clear to Putin from the outset that his adventurism would have terrible consequences, and who would have always acted in the best interests of the American people. If only there were someone on the scene like that.

Pizza Hut Teaches Kids America is Built on Slavery and Genocide

A fast-food chain that makes bad pizza wants to talk to your kids about white privilege



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Pizza Hut, unsatisfied with making kids fat, also wants to make them racist.

The stale franchise chain has supplemented its menu of lightly charred cardboard covered in tasteless glops of something that a blind hobo might mistake for cheese with racism.

While Pizza Hut focuses on poisoning children with such horrible concoctions as cheeseburger crust pizza, fish and chips pizza, and sushi cream cheese pizza, the Pizza Hut Foundation is hard at work teaching students that America is racist and white people suck.

The training materials intended for use in the classroom want teachers to ask 10-year-olds, “How often have you thought about your race in the last 24 hours?”

If demanding that 10-year-olds spend all their time thinking about race sounds crazy, another Pizza Hut pamphlet with tips for "talking to kids about race" claims that by "6 months, babies notice racial differences" and that 4-year-olds "show signs of racial bias."

The Empowering Educators Toolbox presented by the Pizza Hut Foundation urges teachers to tell their students that everyone is defined by race, that "everyone has a racial identity", and that race defines American life. Forget MLK, the stale pizza franchise chain wants your kids to believe that they're defined by their skin color, not the content of their character.

A sane country wouldn’t take its cues on race from the people who decided to combine hot dogs and pizza into something that looks like a dachshund got run over by a garbage truck, but in a nation of woke corporations, Pizza Hut would like your children to violently hate America.

"America is a country built on a foundation of slavery, genocide, and white supremacy," a pamphlet for teachers stamped with the Pizza Hut logo declares.

Pizza Hut is built on a foundation of turning kids into fat butterballs waiting for a heart attack.

The actual best practices for teachers would be to teach your students to love America and avoid Pizza Hut unless they want to close off their minds as thoroughly as their arteries.

When Pizza Hut isn’t serving up junk food, it’s serving up junk history and junk factoids.

A Challenging Conversations pamphlet claims that the "police force is the sixth leading cause of death for black men."

According to the CDC, it's actually diabetes. But it's understandable that Pizza Hut, which makes millions giving black men heart disease, strokes, and diabetes, wants to blame the cops who are the only people keeping the underpaid employees of their struggling franchisees alive..

1,055 people were shot and killed by police officers in 2021. 234 of them were white and only 139 were black. 632 of those who were shot were waving guns. Only 34 were unarmed.

459,540 black people died in 2020. With heart disease, strokes, hypertension, and diabetes accounting for around 30% of deaths, Pizza Hut and the rest of the Yum! Brands' family probably kill more black men in one day than every single police shooting in a century combined.

Not satisfied with being blamed for Michael Jordan's food poisoning during the 1997 NBA finals, Pizza Hut's handout to teachers rants about "white privilege" and quotes a false claim that white teachers who refuse to "recognize their privilege" are harming their students.

The hateful pamphlet also promotes demands for race reparations by millionaire racist author Ta-Nehisi Coates who wrote that the police officers and firefighters who died on September 11 “were not human to me.”

Good to know Pizza Hut agrees.

A guidebook to teachers marked with the Pizza Hut logo  and with an introduction co-signed by Artie Starrs, then Yum!'s CEO of Pizza Hut, claims that "racism" has been part of America's "collective history since the first English colonists arrived in 1607." It's a good thing that the Spanish who were there a century earlier and enslaved and killed the Indians weren't racists.

"Science has proven that race is not biological," insists a pamphlet for teachers produced by a fast-food chain that understands science almost as well as it knows history and cooking.

Don't question any of this. According to the Pizza Hut branded pamphlet, saying, "I don't see color", "white privilege doesn't exist" and "all lives matter" are all racial microaggressions.

Never mind that Pizza Hut’s entire existence is an ongoing hate crime against Italians.

Pizza Hut's bad education materials come in three flavors, racist lies, woke lies, and lies that could be easily disproven if someone is involved in the racist pamphlets, which also promote fact-checking and warn against “misinformation”, bothered to spend 30 seconds on Google.

For example, the Pizza Hut indoctrination pamphlet falsely claims that the Atlanta spa shootings were a hate crime against Asian people. The shooter was actually struggling with sex addiction and was never charged with a hate crime.

"Anti-bias, antiracist instruction should happen year-round," Pizza Hut demands.

What does that mean? The Pizza Hut hate pamphlets defend critical race theory and promote the Black Lives Matter hate movement, racist authors like Ibram X. Kendi, and the 1619 Project.

But that’s what happens when you get your history from a subsidiary of Yum! Brands that once infuriated Vietnamese-American refugees by using a Communist red star in a logo.

The obvious question is why is Pizza Hut trying to poison kids in a whole new way?

The answer, as Pizza Hut's new Chief Equity Officer Chequan Lewis said, is equity.

“Pizza Hut is introducing a new chapter in our long-standing commitment to literacy – focused on the intersection of equity and education,” Lewis said.

Literacy now means corporations turning kids into Marxists at shareholder expense.

Pizza Hut's Literacy Project emphasizes Young Activists. "Find amazing examples of activism and get your students involved," a program backed by a garbage pizza chain insists.

Corporate Marxism has become as ubiquitous as it is infuriating. But wokeness is also a symptom of a declining corporate power.

Domino's beat Pizza Hut around the same time that Trump beat Hillary. Pizza Hut sales fell in 2020 even as the pandemic helped boost Domino's and Papa John's by 17.6% and 15.9%. The largest Pizza Hut franchisee, with over 1,300 locations, filed for bankruptcy in 2020 after struggling with $1 billion in debt. Pizza Hut’s garbage pizza is as woke as it is broke.

Having destroyed pizza and its own company, Pizza Hut now wants to destroy America.

Army Hands Down Rules on How to Treat “Transgender” Soldiers



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The U.S. Army, once led by men such as Generals George S. Patton and Jumpin’ Jim Gavin, is preparing for war the modern way: with “gender identity” training that teaches soldiers how to treat “transgender” military personnel. 

It was bad enough that President Joe Biden opened military service to the tragically mentally ill individuals, who need treatment, not “validation.” But now, the real work begins: Jamming leftist “gender” ideology down the throat of everyone who wears the uniform of his country. 

The latest madness occurs, as the Washington Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo noted in his disturbing report, as Russia brutally rolls over Ukraine, or so the leftist Mainstream Media tell us.

Treat With Respect

The Army’s new policy on “transgenders” serving “openly” took effect in June, pursuant to Biden’s order in January last year to put “transgenders” in the foxhole.

Now, the fruit of that crazy order — forcing sane military personnel to validate the pronouns of the mentally ill — is falling from the tree.

“The Army allows transgender soldiers to serve openly,” the policy says. “An otherwise qualified soldier shall not be involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity.”

The guidance includes “vignettes” that show radical “transgender” subversives and sex deviants who now control U.S. military personnel policy.

“Soldier who was assigned male at birth says he identifies as a female,” one such scenario begins:

Soldier lives as a female in his off-duty hours. He has no medical diagnosis, does not plan to seek medical treatment, and does not experience significant distress relating to his gender identity. Soldier is not requesting to be treated as a female while on duty.

Aside from treating the soldier with “dignity and respect,” the vignette says, military personnel must kowtow to him and pretend he needs a new “gender identity,” not a discharge and psychiatric treatment:

If Soldier later requests to be identified as a female during duty hours and/or experiences increased distress relating to his gender identity, inform Soldier of the Army’s transgender policy and recommend that he see a military medical provider. Gender transition in the Army begins when a Soldier receives a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary.

A second vignette is about a soldier “assigned female at birth. She tells her first sergeant that she identifies as male and would like to be treated as a male. She has not yet seen a military medical provider”:

Inform Soldier that the Army recognizes a Soldier’s gender by the soldier’s gender marker in DEERs. Coincident with that gender marker, the Soldier is responsible to meet all standards for uniforms and grooming; body composition assessment; physical readiness testing; Military Personal Drug Abuse Testing program; and other standards applied with consideration of the Soldier’s gender.

DEERs is the Defense Enrollment Eligibility System.

Note that the Army used standard pronouns in these directions, not the newly created nonsense pronouns that “transgender” ideologues would prefer. Xe and xim won’t be far behind.

No Surprise

The trouble for the military began even before Biden took the oath of office. In November 2020, he appointed a man who masquerades as a woman to run his transition review of the Department of Defense.

Just days after assuming office in January 2021, he opened the armed services to the mentally ill “transgenders.” There followed drag queen shows at Nellis Air Force Base, and worse still, naming a Navy ship after homosexual politician Harvey Milk, a statutory rapist.

The latest move is particularly concerning given that the military focus has, as expected, shifted from winning wars to promoting “diversity” and sexual deviance. 

A recent recruiting advertisement for the U.S. Army features the story of a “soldier” named Emma Malonelord, who operates a Patriot missile defense system. She was a “little girl raised by two moms.”

She marched for “equality” — meaning “gay rights” — as a kid. “I like to think I’ve been defending freedom from an early age,” Emma says.

Emma grew up a privileged girl, and with sorority sisters who traveled to Italy and climbed Mount Everest, needed “my own adventures, my own challenge.” 

Emma joined the Army as a “way to prove my inner strength and maybe shatter some stereotypes along the way.”

The advertisement is also notable for its opening, which features five battle-dressed personnel who transform into cartoon caricatures of themselves. 

Apparently to show the Army’s diversity, not one is a white man. As of 2020, official data showed, 67.9 percent of the Army’s active-duty personnel were white; 84.5 percent were men.

ACLU, ALA, PEN Fight ‘Censorship’ in Schools, That Is, Parents Resisting Leftist Indoctrination



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Freedom of expression is under more concerted attack than it has faced in years, and as the censorship efforts of Big Tech demonstrate, that attack is coming from the Left. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), and the anti-censorship group PEN America, however, would have you believe that the real threat is coming from the big, grey conservative machine that looms so large in far-Left propaganda. AP ran a story on Tuesday about these admirable warriors, entitled “Activism grows nationwide in response to school book bans.” It is, as you might expect, a near-total inversion of reality: what the Leftists in the story characterize as censorship is actually the effort of parents to roll back at least some of what the Left has done to transform American public schools into centers of Leftist indoctrination.

We are first introduced to a woman named Stephana Ferrell, who was moved to become politically active when her Florida county decided to remove a graphic novel entitled Gender Queer: A Memoir from the local high school’s library. “By winter break,” she says, “we realized this was happening all over the state and needed to start a project to rally parents to protect access to information and ideas in school.” Along with another parent, Ferrell then founded the Florida Freedom to Read Project, which labors to “keep or get back books that have gone under challenge or have been banned.”

This is a deft spin, but it’s a spin nonetheless. Ferrell and her ilk aren’t fighting against some entrenched conservative establishment that is banning books left and right that don’t conform to the MAGA worldview. There is, of course, no such establishment. There is, rather, an educational establishment that is wholly under the control of the Left, and that has been pushing to get books such as Gender Queer: A Memoir into schools in order to break down traditional morality even more than it is already. Some parents have taken it upon themselves to try to resist this effort. And now, for AP, as well as the ACLU, the ALA, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), PEN America, and others, they’re the censors.

The ACLU, PEN America, and the NCAC have been astroturfing this effort to strike back at the supposed censors. According to AP, the three groups “have been working with local activists, educators and families around the country, helping them ‘to prepare for meetings, to draft letters and to mobilize opposition,’ according to PEN America’s executive director, Suzanne Nossel.” These people are awash in cash: “The CEO of Penguin Random House, Markus Dohle, has said he will personally donate $500,000 for a book defense fund to be run in partnership with PEN. Hachette Book Group has announced ‘emergency donations’ to PEN, the NCAC, and the Authors Guild.”

These well-heeled activists also have the ACLU mounting legal battles for them, fighting the removal of books including Gender Queer. “The civil liberties union has also filed open records requests in Tennessee and Montana over book bans, and a warning letter in Mississippi against what it described as the ‘unconstitutionality of public library book bans.'” Vera Eidelman of the ACLU cited a 1982 Supreme Court case stating that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”

Related: Ibram X. Kendi Is Marginalized? Hey, It’s Banned Leftist Books Week!

The irony couldn’t be thicker. Local school boards, contrary to the impression that AP gives, are not hotbeds of reactionaries and anti-intellectual yahoos. Up until the recent book controversies, they were generally as dominated by Leftists as everything else in America today. Conservative parents are only fighting back now because they have begun to be aware of the effects of decades of Leftist domination of the educational establishment. The Leftist activists AP celebrates in its article aren’t fighting to get books defending the traditional family, arguing against the wisdom of encouraging and celebrating transgenderism, or praising Washington, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers out of schools, because for the most part, those books aren’t there in the first place. The Leftist activists are just fighting to preserve the gains that the Left has made in recent years in the culture wars.

The AP article concludes by telling a story about how the Round Rock Black Parents Association in Texas fought to prevent Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, a piece of race-hate agitprop, from being taken off middle school reading lists. A Leftist activist recounts proudly, “We had children speaking up in favor of this book, even though it was traumatic for some of them to read. We had everyone from middle school students to grandmothers and grandfathers stating their reasons why this should remain on the shelves. The board ended up voting in our favor and the book is still there.” Heartwarming.

Imagine, however, the outcry if a book calling for racial equality and arguing against Critical Race Theory had somehow gotten onto the curriculum in Round Rock. In the first place, that never would have happened at all. But if it did, there would be an outcry in the establishment media, the book would be removed, and that would be that. Censorship is usually the act of the powerful, silencing the powerless. The powerful in America’s schools today are all on the Left. AP’s propaganda won’t change that.


The Pandemic Has Proven Democracy Is an Illusion



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled out all the stops to quash the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, it became clear that democracy has been an illusion
  • For many years, the technocratic elite, with their global authoritarianism goals, have infiltrated governments around the world and pushed for surveillance and national security tools intended to suppress dissent
  • A key part of that dissent-crushing system is the surveillance apparatus that has been erected. While sold as a tool to hunt down dangerous criminals, its primary purpose is to stifle dissent among peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Financial warfare — banning people from using financial services — is another
  • Dissent is also stifled by applying criminal terms to those who disagree with the narrative. Case in point: "Anti-vaxxers" and anyone who disagrees with pandemic measures are now labeled domestic terrorists or domestic extremists. Using terms of criminality allows those in power to justify the use of unconstitutional repression and punishment
  • The U.S. must repeal both the Patriot Act and the new bio preparedness initiative, or else all privacy and freedom will be destroyed

As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled out all the stops to quash the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, without ever having actually listened to their complaints, a truth emerged, clear as day. Democracy has been an illusion. That's the conclusion drawn by Canadian journalist Matthew Ehret in a February 18, 2022, Strategic Culture article.1

"Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?" Ehret asks.

"Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an 'insurrectionist movement' full of 'white supremacists,' 'Russian stooges,' and 'Nazis' out to 'overthrow the government.'

Even the Bank of England's former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that 'this is sedition' and that 'those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law' ...

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada's capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate.

This shouldn't be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal 'rules-based' order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the 'liberty' of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony.

The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks come off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces."

Tyrants Are Showing Their True Colors

As reported by Ehret, the Deep State of Canada is now using the Emergency Measures Act to do precisely what Carney called for, namely identify and punish anyone who dares stand up for freedom.

The Act grants extraordinary powers to the banking industry to search people's social media accounts and private bank records and to seize the bank accounts of anyone suspected of supporting the Freedom Convoy, either in spirit or through online donations, including cryptocurrencies.

Victims will have no recourse, as the banks have been given full legal protection from lawsuits by those whose lives they destroy. Business owners in Canada who support freedom can also have their insurance policies canceled, and truckers can lose their drivers' licenses, either temporarily or permanently. 

Still, the protesters did not give up. If anything, the threats appeared to have had the opposite effect. According to Ehret, the protestors were "renewing their commitments to remain in place," which they did until Trudeau sent in police2 to arrest protestors and tow their trucks.

While Trudeau remained dictatorial until the truckers had been cleared from the Parliament area, the political establishment, on the other hand, showed signs of cracking. Two Liberal Party members, MP Joel Lightbound and MP Yves Robillard broke with party ranks, calling for an end to the unpopular and unnecessary COVID measures.3 Then, finally, in a surprise turnabout, Trudeau buckled February 23, 2022, and said he would revoke the Emergencies Act he'd invoked earlier.4

On a global scale, the silence of leaders of democracies and republics around the world is as informative as Trudeau's power grab. By now, we would have expected leaders of the U.S., the U.K., France, and any number of others, to have stepped up to the microphone to denounce the Canadian government's actions.

But they haven't, and that tells you everything you need to know about where they stand on the issues of democracy and freedom. Worse, some have vocalized support for Trudeau's dictatorial actions.

In a February 10, 2022, tweet, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security under U.S. President Obama and a frequent CNN commentator, suggested the Canadian regime ought to slash the truckers' tires, empty their gas tanks, arrest the drivers, move the trucks, cancel their insurance, suspend their drivers' licenses and prohibit their recertification in the future. In her own words, "I will not run out of ways to make this hurt."5

The Illusion of Liberal Democracy Has Collapsed

As noted by Ehret, while we don't yet know how it will end, one thing we can be sure of is that "the illusion of liberal democracy ... has collapsed."6 That doesn't mean the globalist cabal will pack up their briefcases and retire. No, they're going to fight to stay in power until the bitter end.

But the hill they're standing on is getting steeper and slipperier by the day. Everyone can see that they're saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. You can't lay claim to being a defender of democracy, freedom, and equal rights for all while simultaneously declaring peaceful citizens the enemy of the state. It's just not credible. As noted by historically left-leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:7

"When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored.

Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state.

When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government's use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging ...

That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable. But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited.

That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression.

Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West's official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even vaguely treasonous.

The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny."

The Dangers of Majority Despotism

As explained by Greenwald, the premise of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that "majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme." "Despotism" means government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Usually, this entity is an individual, but despotism can also arise out of majority rule.

It's interesting to note that while the Founding Fathers probably had no term for what we now know as the psychology of "mass formation," they were clearly aware of the dangers posed by an irrational majority.

As noted by Greenwald, "the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact."

For example, even if a majority of people agree that certain ideas and views should be criminalized, the Bill of Rights prohibits it. The Bill of Rights also prohibits the abolishment of religious freedom, even if a majority were to support it. Likewise, "life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if 9 out of 10 citizens favor doing so."

The Founding Fathers were clever enough to realize that majority rule can easily become just as destructively despotic as any dictatorship. Hence, they ensured that individual freedoms were enshrined in such a way that even if you're the last person in the country who wants to practice religion, you have the right to do so. The majority cannot take that away from you.

Waking Up to Reality as It Is

Greenwald goes on to explain how the signs of tyranny in the West have been evident for well over a decade. We just weren't paying attention. Only now, as we stare tyranny in the face first-hand, are we starting to really see it for what it is:

"The decade-long repression of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, standing alone, demonstrates how grave neoliberal attacks on dissent have become. Many are aware of key parts of this repression ... but have forgotten or, due to media malfeasance, never knew several of the most extreme aspects.

While the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder failed to find evidence of criminality after convening a years-long Grand Jury investigation, the then-Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), succeeded in pressuring financial services companies such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America to terminate WikiLeaks' accounts and thus banish them from the financial system, choking off their ability to receive funds from supporters or pay their bills.

Lieberman and his neocon allies also pressured Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from its hosting services, causing the whistleblower group to be temporarily offline.

All of that succeeded in crippling WikiLeaks' ability to operate despite being charged with no crime: indeed, as the DOJ admitted, it could not prove that the group committed any crimes, yet this extra-legal punishment was nonetheless meted out.

Those tactics pioneered against WikiLeaks — excluding dissenters from the financial system and coercing tech companies to deny them internet access without a whiff of due process — have now become standard weapons. Trudeau's government seizes and freezes bank accounts with no judicial process.

The 'charity' fundraising site GoFundMe first blocked the millions of dollars raised for the truckers and announced it would redirect those funds to other charities, then refunded the donations when people pointed out, rightly, that their original plan amounted to a form of stealing. When an alternative fundraising site, GiveSendGo, raised millions more for the truckers, Canadian courts blocked its distribution."

Greenwald also highlights how American politicians have pressured Big Tech monopolies and the financial system to act as a joint censorship arm of government. Blocking people and companies from being able to use servers and financial transaction services have been key strategies to silence critical voices.

Why Assange Was Targeted

According to Greenwald, Assange's capture was precipitated by his denouncement of the Spanish government's violence against citizens of Catalonia in 2017 and 2019. Catalonia wanted autonomy from the Madrid-based Spanish government, and the government responded with shocking force.

"Spain treated the activists not as domestic protesters exercising their civic rights but as terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists," Greenwald writes. "Violence was used to sweep up Catalans in mass arrests, and their leaders were charged with terrorism and sedition and given lengthy prison sentences."

Assange did not actually express support for Catalonian independence. He objected to the Spanish government's violent assault on civil liberties. This was why Ecuador rescinded Assange's asylum and handed him over to British authorities in April 2020. Since then, Assange has been held in a high-security prison in Belmarsh, even though he's never been convicted of a crime.

"All of this reflects, and stems from, a clear and growing Western intolerance for dissent," Greenwald writes.8 "This last decade of history is crucial to understand the dissent-eliminating framework that has been constructed and implemented in the West. This framework has culminated, thus far, with the stunning multi-pronged attacks on Canadian truckers by the Trudeau government.

But it has been a long time in the making, and it is inevitable that it will find still-more extreme expressions. It is, after all, based in the central recognition that there is mass, widespread anger and even hatred toward the neoliberal ruling class throughout the West."

Surveillance Apparatus Was Created to Crush Dissent

In response to the growing anger against the ruling class, the technocratic cabal has "opted for force, a system that crushes all forms of dissent as soon as they emerge in anything resembling an effective, meaningful or potent form," Greenwald notes.

A key part of that dissent-crushing system is the surveillance apparatus that has been erected all around us.9 While sold as a tool to hunt down dangerous criminals, we've come to realize that rarely is the system ever used to go after true criminals. Instead, it's used to identify people who disagree with a given narrative. Its primary purpose is to stifle dissent among citizens.

As noted by the ACLU,10 while most Americans think the Patriot Act's surveillance powers are there to facilitate the identification and roundup of terrorists, it "actually turns regular citizens into suspects." Dissent is also stifled by applying criminal terms to those who disagree with the narrative. Case in point: "Anti-vaxxers" and anyone who disagrees with pandemic measures are now labeled domestic terrorists or domestic extremists. As noted by Greenwald:

"Applying terms of criminality renders justifiable any subsequent acts of repression: we are trained to accept that core liberties are forfeited upon the commission of crimes. What is most notable, though, is that this alleged criminality is not adjudicated through judicial proceedings — with all the accompanying protections of judges, juries, rules of evidence and requirements of due process — but simply by decree ...

Few things are more dangerous than a political leader who convinces themselves that they are so benevolent and well-intentioned that anything they do is inherently justified in light of their noble character and their enlightened ends ...

Within the logical world where one is convinced that they really are fighting a white nationalist, fascistic, insurrectionary global movement to overthrow liberal democracy, then all the weapons we were long taught to view as despotic suddenly become ennobled ...

And it is through this self-glorifying tale which Western neoliberals are telling themselves that they have become exactly what they shrilly insist they are battling."

We Must Repeal the Patriot Act and Pandemic Powers

In September 2021, the White House announced a $65 billion bio preparedness initiative as part of the Biden administration's Build Back Better plan.11 As I've explained in many previous articles, Build Back Better is part and parcel of The Great Reset, which in turn is a technocrat-led attempt to implement global authoritarianism. As reported by Biospace:12

"The first goal is to transform medical defense, including an improvement and expansion of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics against known threats, and lay the groundwork for unknown pathogens ... Secondly, the plan calls for ensuring 'situational awareness' regarding infectious disease threats. This includes early warning and real-time monitoring of these viral threats."

In a nutshell, what this bio preparedness initiative entails is more invasive biosurveillance — meaning, the monitoring of your internal biology. Right now, claims that government wants to monitor people down to their body chemistry will earn you the title of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, yet the writing is on the wall. That's where we're headed, even if we're not there yet.

I believe the U.S. must repeal both the Patriot Act and the bio preparedness initiative, or else all privacy and freedom will be destroyed. 

How to End Vaccine Mandates~A History Lesson



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard
  • Over 135 years ago, in 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule
  • Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. Many were fined and jailed, but in the end, the government relented and abolished the mandate
  • The trucker protest in Canada and elsewhere is almost identical to what happened during smallpox vaccination campaigns more than a century ago when mass protests and peaceful disobedience broke the government’s tyrannical hold
  • The Leicester Model was proven successful in the wake of that 1885 anti-vaccination protest and has been standard ever since. By quarantining infected patients and improving public hygiene, smallpox was finally eradicated

If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard. The parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and its countermeasures that of previous smallpox pandemics are fascinating to behold, and therein we can also find the answer to our current predicament.

Smallpox, a highly infectious and disfiguring illness with a fatality rate of around 30%,1 has been with us for many centuries, probably thousands of years. During the last four centuries, forced mass vaccination has been a recurring countermeasure relied on by the government during these kinds of outbreaks, often with devastating results, and there have always been large portions of society that opposed it.

In the 1700s, Boston, Massachusetts, was hit by a series of outbreaks, and the introduction of a vaccine led to violent rebellion by those who believed it was dangerous and a violation of God’s will. Local newspapers were rife with disputes for and against the vaccine.2

The hypodermic needle had not yet been invented at this time, so the vaccination consisted of rubbing some cowpox pus into an open wound on the arm. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the inoculation at the urgings of Rev. Cotton Mather, was forced into hiding and was eventually arrested. Mather’s home was firebombed.

In 1862, it was Los Angeles, California’s turn. Compulsory vaccination was again rolled out, and anyone who refused was subject to arrest. Infected people were terrified of being forcibly quarantined in a “pest house,” miles outside the city limits, and for good reason. It was a place where you were dumped to die, with not so much as a bedsheet for comfort.3

The Anti-Vaccination Rebellion of 1885

In the decades to come, smallpox outbreaks were occurring all over the world, and forced inoculation was typically the answer, even though it had its own risks. In 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule.

As reported by the BBC, December 28, 2019, mere weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic:4

“In the late 19th Century, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. There were arrests, fines and people were even sent to jail. Banners were brandished demanding ‘Repeal the Vaccination Acts, the curse of our nation’ and vowing ‘Better a felon's cell than a poisoned babe.’ Copies of hated laws were burned in the streets and the effigy was lynched of the humble country doctor who was seen as to blame for the smallpox prevention program.”

A Substack user going by the moniker “A Midwestern Doctor”5,6 details this part of history, explaining why it matters to us today. He writes:7

“What is occurring now in Canada and other places is almost identical to what happened with the smallpox vaccination campaigns over a century ago, and I believe it is critical we understand these lessons from the past and it is vital this message gets out to the Truckers.

Briefly, the original smallpox vaccine was an unusually harmful vaccination that was never tested before being adopted. It increased, rather than decreased smallpox outbreaks. As the danger and inefficacy became known, increasing public protest developed towards vaccination. Yet, as smallpox increased, governments around the world instead adopted more draconian mandatory vaccination policies.

Eventually, one of the largest protests of the century occurred in 1885 in Leicester (an English city). Leicester’s government was replaced, mandatory vaccination abolished, and public health measures rejected by the medical community were implemented. These measures were highly successful, and once adopted globally ended the smallpox epidemic, something most erroneously believe arose from vaccination.”

The alternative countermeasure implemented in Leicester involved quarantining infected people and notifying anyone who’d been in close contact with the patient. They also used “ring vaccination” in which hospital workers who took care of infected patients had been inoculated.8

As a result, when smallpox broke out again between 1892 and 1894, Leicester got off lightly, with a case rate of 20.5 cases per 10,000. In all, the town had 370 cases and 21 deaths — far lower than the towns of Warrington and Sheffield, where vaccination rates were high.

On the other hand, there were well-vaccinated areas that had lower case rates and fewer deaths, and areas with low vaccination rates that also fared worse in this regard, so vaccination was probably not the determining factor either way.

In 1898, the U.K. implemented a new law that allowed people to opt-out of vaccination for moral reasons. As reported by the BBC, this was “the first time ‘conscientious objection’ was recognized in U.K. law.”9 Now, we have to fight to regain that right yet again, all around the world.

Dissolving Illusions

“A Midwestern Doctor”10 goes on to discuss Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ 2009 book, “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” in which she shatters the notion that vaccines (and certain other medical interventions) have been single-handedly responsible for improved health and increased life spans. As a nephrologist (kidney specialist), Humphries noticed a pattern among her patients.

Many who experienced kidney injury or kidney failure had recently received a flu vaccine. It was a singular common denominator. So, she began to challenge the hospital’s routine practice of vaccinating patients. Humphries was roundly ignored and was ultimately forced to leave. The book grew out of her frustration with people who insisted that vaccines had eliminated scourges like polio and smallpox. Once she delved into the research, what she found was something else entirely.

With regard to smallpox and smallpox vaccination, living conditions during the industrial revolution were horrid. Plagues and infectious outbreaks were commonplace, not because of insufficient vaccination, but because sanitation was near-nonexistent and people, including children, were overworked and underfed. Early progressives believed deadly plagues could be prevented by improving living and working conditions, and they were correct.

We know this because other plagues for which there were no vaccines disappeared right along with smallpox and polio. While the medical industry eventually embraced vaccination, and increasingly over time treated it as something that could not be contested or questioned, Humphries’ book details the opposition.

Smallpox Opposition

As it turns out, many doctors have spoken out against smallpox vaccination and published data demonstrating its dangers. For example:11

In 1799, Dr. Woodville, after having administered the vaccination to many children, stated that “in several instances, the cowpox has proved a very severe disease. In three or four cases out of 500, the patient has been in considerable danger, and one child actually died.”
In 1809, the medical observer reported more than a dozen cases of often fatal smallpox, contracted as long as a year post-vaccination. The 1810 medical observer contained 535 cases of smallpox after vaccination (97 of which were fatal), and 150 cases of severe vaccine injuries.
An 1817 London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review reported that many who received the smallpox vaccination were still getting sick with smallpox.
In 1818, Thomas Brown, a surgeon of 30 years and ardent proponent of vaccination, after vaccinating 1,200 people stated: “The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced … the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion.”
In 1829, The Lancet described a recent smallpox outbreak, stating: “It attacked many who had had smallpox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.”
In 1845 George Gregory M.D. reported: “In the 1844 smallpox epidemic, about one-third of the vaccinated contracted a mild form of smallpox, but roughly 8% of those vaccinated still died, and nearly two-thirds had severe disease.”
In 1829, William Cobbett, a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer, wrote: “Why, that in hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real small-pox afterward, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives!”
An 1850 letter to the Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle claimed there were more admissions to the London Small-Pox Hospital in 1844 than during the smallpox epidemic of 1781 before vaccination began, and that one-third of the deaths from smallpox were in people who had previously been vaccinated.

The Moving Goal Post

Once it became clear that the smallpox vaccine was incapable of providing long-lasting immunity as initially promised, the medical profession moved the goal post and started justifying vaccination on the basis that it could protect against more severe illness, even if it couldn’t provide lifelong “perfect” immunity the way recovering from the infection could.

This has been a basic mantra ever since, and we’ve gotten a double dose of it during this COVID pandemic. Within months, the goal post was switched from “two doses are near-100% effective,” to “two doses wear off in six months and leave you more vulnerable to severe illness thereafter.” Some bargain!

Corruption of Vital Statistics Protect Vaccination Narrative

What’s worse, the trend of not reporting vaccine injuries due to “allegiance to the practice,” as noted by Henry May in the Birmingham Medical Review in January 1874, has continued unabated. According to May, vaccinated people who died were typically recorded as having died from some other condition, or were erroneously listed as “unvaccinated.”12 As noted by “A Midwestern Doctor”:13

“This corruption of the vital statistics creates many challenges in assessing the efficacy of immunization, and is also why many authors have noted no metric can be used to assess COVID-19 immunizations except total number of deaths (independent of cause) as this cannot be fudged.

Of note, a different significant overlap exists with the early polio campaigns (also detailed within ‘Dissolving Illusions’), where ‘polio’ diagnostic criteria was repeatedly adjusted to meet the political need for polio cases.

Governments responded to this skepticism by progressively using more and more force to mandate vaccination. Vaccination was made compulsory in England in 1853, with stricter laws passed in 1867. In the United States, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive vaccination laws in 1855 (which created the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts a case that is frequently cited about state enforced vaccination).

Lemuel Shattuck emphasized the need for vaccination and pushed for house-to-house vaccination to be enforced by the authority of the City of Boston in an 1856 report, also noting ‘The City has already provided that no unvaccinated child shall be admitted into the public schools.’

A situation emerged I term the ‘Vaccine positive feedback cycle.’ Keep in mind that most systems in nature are instead negative feedback systems. In these, when something occurs, it self-corrects the system and turns it off rather than accelerating it, as occurs in a positive feedback system. The cycle is as follows:

A concerning disease exists.

Immunization is cited as a potential solution to the problem.

An immunization campaign is conducted and makes the problem worse.

As the problem is now worse, the need for immunizations to address it increases and another campaign is conducted.

This makes the problem worse.

This increases the need for more aggressive measures to increase immunization.

This makes the problem worse and further perpetuates the cycle, before long leading to very questionable governmental policies designed to force unwilling parties to vaccinate.

The underlying drivers of this process seem to be an unquestionable faith in vaccination, a conviction dating back to the days of smallpox, that vaccinating an ever-increasing proportion of the population through vaccination can end epidemics (now termed herd immunity), and the government having limited options to address the issue besides immunizations and governmental force.”

The Effects of Forced Smallpox Vaccinations

“A Midwestern Doctor” continues describing the effects of the government’s insistence of forced smallpox vaccination:14

“In accordance the positive feedback cycle, these results were found everywhere. Within the United States, as smallpox worsened in Boston, in 1855, the government made enacted strict enforcement of vaccination.

It was followed by the epidemics of 1859-1860, 1864-1865, 1867 (these were all similar in size to earlier epidemics), and then infamous 1872-1873 epidemic which dwarfed all previous epidemics (proving fatal to 1040 persons, at a rate of 280 deaths per 100,000 people).

By the end of 1868, more than 95% of the inhabitants of Chicago had been vaccinated. After the Great Fire of 1871 ... strict vaccine laws were passed, and vaccination was made a condition of receiving relief supplies. Chicago was then hit with a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1872 where over 2,000 persons contracted smallpox, with over 25% dying, and the fatality rate among children under 5 being the highest ever recorded.

A 1900 medical article discussed vaccination in three European nations. In England, of 9392 small-pox patients in London hospitals, 6,854 had been vaccinated and 17.5% of the 9,392 died.

In Germany ‘official returns show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.’ In France, ‘every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there 23,469 cases of small-pox in that army.’

An 1888 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica describing Prussia’s strict vaccination practices throughout the population (including mandatory re-vaccination for school pupils), noted: ‘Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best revaccinated (boosted) country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871 was higher (59,839) than in any other northern state.’”

Other countries reported the same smallpox trends, including Italy and Japan, where smallpox death rates after successful vaccination campaigns were unprecedented. Vaccine injuries, including deaths, were also common. It is shocking how closely the miserable failures of the smallpox vaccines mirror the COVID jabs.

One of the most common causes of death after smallpox vaccination was erysipelas, a painful bacterial skin disease. An 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica article reported that smallpox vaccination had triggered a disastrous epidemic of erysipelas. Other side effects included jaundice, syphilis, tuberculosis, eczema vaccinatum (a rare and lethal skin condition).

Massive Historic Public Protests Over 135 Years Ago

As skepticism of and opposition against smallpox vaccination grew, enforcement increased. Vaccine refusers were fined, jailed and sometimes vaccinated by force. Parents were even forced to vaccinate their second child even if the first one died from the inoculation. Intermittently, riots would break out. A Midwestern Doctor details what happened next:15

“In 1884, 5,000 court summons had been issued against the unvaccinated, a case load that completely overloaded the court system. Letters in local newspaper at this time revealed widespread disdain for the irrationality of the procedure and the medical profession’s steadfast defense of a dangerous practice that had clearly failed over the last 80 years.

Tensions reached a boiling point and on March 23, 1885, a large protest estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 people erupted. It was composed of citizens of all professions from across England and receive support from citizens across Europe who could not attend it.

The procession was 2 miles long, with displays showing the popular sentiments against vaccination present throughout the crowd. The demonstration was successful, and the local government acceded to and acknowledged their demands for liberty. Many of the description of this protest (and the jubilant mood there) are extremely similar to reports I have read of the Trucker's protest.

Mr. Councilor Butcher of Leicester addressed the protest and spoke of the growing opinion that the best way to get rid of smallpox and deadly infectious diseases was to use plenty of water, eat good food, live in light and airy houses, while it was the municipality’s duty to keep the streets clean and the sewers in order. He emphasized that if this was not done, it was unlikely any act of Parliament or vaccination could prevent the diseases.

That year, following the protest, the government was replaced, mandates were terminated, and by 1887 vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%. To replace the vaccination model, the Leicester activists proposed a system of immediately quarantining smallpox patients, disinfection of their homes and quarantining of their contacts alongside improving public sanitation.

The medical community vehemently rejected this model, and zealously predicted Leicester’s ‘gigantic experiment’ would soon result in a terrible ‘massacre,’ especially in the unprotected children, who were viewed by government physicians as ‘bags of gunpowder’ that could easily blow up schools (along with much other hateful and hyperbolic rhetoric directed at them).

This smallpox apocalypse would forever serve as a lesson against vaccine refusal the medical profession bet their stake upon. [But] the predicted catastrophe failed to emerge and Leicester had dramatically lower rates of smallpox in subsequent epidemics than other fully vaccinated towns (ranging from 1/2 to 1/32).

Various rationalizations were put forward to explain this, but as the decades went by, a gradual public acceptance of Leicester’s methods emerged, but even 30 years later, a New York Times article still predicted a disaster was right around the corner and it was imperative Leicester change their methods.

Fortunately, the value of Leicester’s novel approach of quarantining and improvement public hygiene was recognized and gradually adopted around the world, leading to the eventual eradication of smallpox.”

Keep in mind that these protests occurred when the population was much lower, so as a percentage of the population it was much higher. In 1885, the U.K. population was only 36,015,500,16 so a protest with 100,000 was just under 0.3% of the entire population. As of February 16, 2022, today’s U.K. population is 68,471,390,17 so to match that protest, percentage-wise, about 205,400 would have to hit the streets.

History Repeats Itself

Those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it, and it seems that’s precisely what we’ve allowed to occur in the past two years. Many doctors predicted and warned that the pandemic would be prolonged and worsened by rolling out non-sterilizing vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission). And that’s precisely what we’ve witnessed.

Predictions of devastating side effects have also come true. And, as resistance to the shots grew, draconian mandates followed. History tells us forced vaccination is not the answer. History also tells us how to get out from underneath a tyrannical government’s insistence on forced vaccination.

The answer is peaceful noncompliance. The answer is standing together, en masse, and saying “No more. Enough.” The truckers in Canada, the U.S., Belgium, and elsewhere have the right idea, and the rest of us need to join and support them, in any way we can.

“Like the smallpox vaccination campaigns, the COVID-19 immunization campaign has been so egregious it has inspired a large global protest movement with the large scale current protests being very similar to those that occurred 135 years ago,” A Midwestern Doctor writes.18

“My hope is that this movement can remember the lessons from the past and carry them forward to now so a future generation does not have to repeat our mistakes.”

If you want to learn more about the fraud of all vaccines, I would encourage you to carefully review Suzanne Humphries’ excellent book, “Dissolving Illusions.” In my view, it is the best book out there on the subject.

1 2 3 10