The University of Gävle in Sweden every year releases a “Diverity barometer” where people in Sweden are asked about their attitudes towards diversity. In the latest barometer they conclude that Swedes’ attitudes towards giving immigrants their cultural rights have become more negative, at the same time more people have positive experiences of having an immigrant colleague at work.
Moreover, 66 percent of the people in the survey also agree on the statement that Muslim women in Sweden are more opressed than other women in Sweden, 26 percent don’t know and 8 percent says no.
87 percent thinks that people with foreign background have a duty to adapt to Swedish culture, 7 percent don’t know and 6 percent says no.
Among the people who participated in the survey, 88 percent are born in Sweden, 8 percent in a nation in Europe, and 5 percent in a nation outside Europe.
The remarkably negative attitude towards Islam shows that most Swedes know that Islam is not a religion like any other.
The dossier claims United Nations aid workers have raped 60,000 people and estimate that the organisation employs 3,300 paedophiles.
A WHISTLE blower has claimed UN staff could have carried out 60,000 rapes in the last decade as aid workers indulge in sex abuse unchecked around the world.
The claim is in a bombshell dossier that former senior United Nations official Andrew Macleod handed over to DFID Secretary Priti Patel last year.
In it, Professor Macleod also estimated there are 3,300 paedophiles working for the world body’s various agencies alone.
Thousands more “predatory” sex abusers specifically target aid charity jobs to get close to vulnerable women and children.
And there has been an “endemic” cover-up of the sickening crimes for two decades, with those who attempt to blow the whistle just getting fired.
Sharing his dossier with The Sun, Prof MacLeod last night warned that the spiralling abuse scandal was on the same scale as the Catholic Church’s.
The respected academic said: “There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a UNICEF T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to.
“You have the impunity to do whatever you want.
“It is endemic across the aid industry across the world”.
“The system is at fault, and should have stopped this years ago.”
Professor MacLeod worked as an aid boss for the UN all over the world, including high profile jobs in the Balkans, Rwanda and Pakistan – where he was chief of operations of the UN’s Emergency Coordination Centre.
He is campaigning for far tougher checks on aid workers in the field as well as the abusers among them to be brought to justice, and wants the UK to lead the fight.
The professor’s grim 60,000 figure is based on UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s admission last year that UN peacekeepers and civilian staff abused 311 victims in just one 12 month period over 2016.
The UN also admits that the likely true number of cases reported against its staff is double that, as figures outside of war zones are not centrally collated.
Prof MacLeod also estimates that only one in 10 of all rapes and assaults by UN staff are reported, as even in the UK the reporting rate is just 14 per cent.
Based on evidence from Prof MacLeod, ex-Cabinet minister Priti Patel – who resigned in November last year - today accused senior officials at DFID of being part of the cover up.
Ms Patel said senior DFID staff tried to talk her out of making a critical speech about aid workers’ sex abuse, arguing that it was only by UN soldiers and to claim otherwise was “over-stepping the mark”.
Britain is one of the top 10 contributors to the UN budget, handing over £2bn a year.
Prof MacLeod insisted that meant the “difficult truth” that “child rape crimes are being inadvertently funded in part by United Kingdom tax-payer”.
He added: “I know there were a lot of discussions at senior levels of the United Nations about ‘something must be done’ but nothing effective came of it, and if you look at the record of whistleblowers, they were fired.
“We are looking at a problem on the scale of the Catholic Church — if not bigger.”
Senior Tory MP Conor Burns, who is Boris Johnson’s parliamentary aide, dubbed the Oxfam furore as just “the tip of an iceberg in finding out what has been going on”.
Mr Burns was a university friend of Prof MacLeod and called for him to be listened to very seriously.
Mr Burns added: “I believe that there has been systematic, organised and covered-up activity going on over many, many years”.
Penny Mordaunt tonight vowed to “step up our work to tackle sexual exploitation and abuse across the UN and other international organisations”.
In September last year, PM Theresa May also threatened to withhold cash from the UN and demanded it “win back trust”.
No10 today insisted there will be “zero tolerance” towards any acts of sexual abuse.
But Downing Street ducked out of ordering any investigation into Ms Patel’s allegations, despite their seriousness.
DFID also said “there no current investigations” into any senior officials turning a blind eye to abuse.
One angry Tory MP said Theresa May was refusing to act because the claims.
In a recent article forQuillette, I presented the results of a study into the concerning relationships between Antifa and national-level journalists. This was never the sum total of anything I had set out to do, but simply a consequence of separate academic research I had conducted into the left-wing radical group. But, as expected, directly after publishing my article there was an immediate and coordinated backlash from those same journalists mentioned in the report. For me, this experience demonstrates an ideal example of how these groups cooperate to target dissenters.
My initial thread on Twitter, which I published on May 15th, mapped out the relationships between 15 Twitter-verified journalists from publications such asThe Huffington Post,The Guardian, and CNN. It was met with days of derision and abuse from Antifa accounts on Twitter. Jason Wilson of the Guardian, and one of the chief examples I had outlined in my study, mocked: (more)
Proof that the NEW WORLD ORDER has been planned by the elite. Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today's problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions.
More
and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the so-called
"mainstream media" have become nothing more than the propaganda arm of
the Democrat party.
Proof of this came after the Russian
Collusion hoax was categorically destroyed after Special Counsel Robert
Mueller issued his report which stated, multiple times, that the nearly
two year exhaustive investigation failed to establish that any member of
the Trump campaign, and no American persons "conspired or coordinated"
with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, as the two
top promoters of that theory, CNN and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, tanked in the ratings and still have not recovered.
Whether
the downward spiraling of their rankings is due to disappointed
liberals being told for three years that the "Trump campaign colluded
with Russia," insisting that the President would indicted by Mueller,
just to have none of it come true, simply tuning out, or whether the
drop is because their liberal viewers realized they had been spoon-fed
fake news," is anyones guess, although I tend to think it might be a
mixture of both.
CHARTS THAT SHOULD TERRIFY ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA
Every
year, Mary Meeker, a general partner at venture capital firm Bond
Capital, delivers her Internet Trends report, which looks back at a
variety of internet trends from the previous year, and in some cases
compares them to previous years' trends, and a few of these charts
indicate some very bad news for the establishment media.
The
first image shown below shows side-by-side charts, one from 2010 and the
same data for 2018. The charts indicate the percentage of time spent
using various types of media, compared to the percentage of advertising
spending used. Meeker divides media into five segments, print, radio,
TV, desktop and mobile.
For Meeker's purpose, she is showing the percent of advertising that
has gone into each media type, but in looking at what these numbers
represent for establishment media, it should terrify them. While TV is
still the largest share of media time spent earning advertising dollars,
the desktop/mobile taken together because both are percentages of the
population that get their news digitally over the internet, 51 percent
is choosing to get their news online, and the advertising has equalized
for both desktop and mobile, therefore online advertising collectively
is now topping all categories.
Another chart found on NiemanLab.org from Emarketer, confirms this conclusion:
More bad news for the establishment media comes from the Reuters
Institute, where they find that due to the fact that now over half the
global population has access to the Internet, and the ability to get
news for free, and the declining trust in the liberal establishment
media, most people are not prepared to "subscribe" or pay for their news
• News
organizations are being challenged by technology giants and unsettled
by a broader lack of trust but they have a much deeper problem: most
people don’t want to pay for online news, the Reuters Institute found.
• The
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said in its annual
Digital News Report that most people would not pay for online news and
that there had been only a small increase in the proportion of people
willing to do so in the last six years.
• When asked what media
subscription they would pick if they had only one for the next year,
just 7% of under 45-year-olds picked news. The report showed 37% would
opt for online video and 15% for online music.
THE MSM DEATH SPIRAL ACCELERATES
On June 3, 2019, the Business Insider reported
that 2,900 people have lost their jobs so far this year alone. Compared
to the approximate 5,000 media jobs cut from the market from 2014
through 2017, the year 2019 is one of the most devastating for
establishment media yet, and it is only June.
CNN, GateHouse
Media, Buzzfeed, Verizon, Vice, McClatchy, Machinima, and Gannett — the
largest newspaper publisher in the US, all were forced to decrease their
employee base.
The majority of the layoffs, buy-outs and firings
have hit liberal-leaning media outlets, providing further empirical
evidence that the establishment medias' death spiral is accelerating.
Trust
in the establishment media, especially the pundits over at CNN,
continue to blame President Trump's calls of "fake news," for the
decreasing trust in the media, along with the unlimited number of
websites that publish different kinds of news, for their decreasing
audience, but Gallup has kept up with the "trust in the media" issue,
asking respondents about it since 1972, where 68 percent of those
surveyed had a Great deal/Fair amount of trust in the media. By 1977-78,
that peaked at 72 percent. Throughout the years that trust has dwindled
and has not topped 50 percent since 2006.
By their 2018 survey,
only 14 percent surveyed had a "great deal" of trust in the media, with
31 percent saying they had a "fair amount," compared to 30 percent
saying they had "not very much" trust in the media and 24 percent saying
"none at all."
The media has done this to themselves.
BOTTOM LINE
Independent
Media should learn the lessons that watching the MSM death spiral is
teaching us. Source our work, offer as much information as possible....
for example: If we offer direct quotes, link to a transcript or a video
clip showing that the quote is not being taken out of context or
selectively edited as we have seen the MSM do, time and time again.
Another
example: While I focused this article on what the Internet Trends and
specific charts tells us about the MSM death spiral, the entire set of
333 charts of Meeker's presentation is embedded below, so readers can
look at what they find to be the most interesting trends, rather than
only being shown the ones that I was focusing on.
The bottom line
here is that the establishment media stopped reporting "news" to inform
and started deciding they should be able to determine how much
information the public should get, all because they believe, and have
admitted, it is their job to control what people should think, and that
arrogance is costing them greatly.
FLASHBACK - Mika Brzezinski: “Our Job” to “Control Exactly What People Think”
2019 Internet Trends Report below: Below: Meeker's presentation with charts
Finally, the mockery that researchers,
including myself, have suffered for many years is finally coming to an
end with the growing number of court cases against the Catholic Church
worldwide. As I wrote in my latest book, Confessions of an Illuminati
vol.6.66,a public inquiry in Scotland has found that nuns, priests, and
staff at two Scottish children’s homes were subjecting children to
regimes of fear, physical, and sexual abuse for many decades. Two days
ago, the BBC reported that a witness of the independent Scottish Child
Abuse inquiry has confirmed in front of Lady Smith, the commission’s
chair, that he was raped by Catholic priests during Satanic
alcohol-fuelled sex parties. The BBC seems to have changed their
stance, as in the past they were often accused of bias towards
pedophiles, especially after their own scandals that include the
infamous Jimmy Savile. The victim in question, Dave Sharp, described a
horrifying scenario made up of sexual, physical, and emotional violence
at St Ninian’s in Falkland, Fife, between 1971 and 1975. Mr. Sharp, from
Glasgow, said the abuse left him with “lifelong trauma.”The inquiry
reported by the BBC is investigating in detail abuse of children in
residential care in Scotland on a historic level, and not surprisingly,
it seems to have also involved Ireland. Mr. Sharp urged inquiry
chairwoman Lady Smith to piece together the “jigsaw”of victims’ accounts
and called for a “national discussion”on the subject that seems rather
difficult in a country full of politicians that practice or support
pedophilia.
The 60-year-old victim was put into
care after his mother died when he was aged one. He stayed in several
institutions before going to the Catholic-run care home in Fife. He
stated that he was groomed by one of the religious brothers, who would
tell him he loved him which, “no-one had ever done”before. The inquiry
revealed that the then-12-year-old was later raped. Most of the abuse
was said to have taken place in the shower rooms where the witness would
be made to stand in the dark through the night as punishment. One
specific attack came after he asked about the whereabouts of a friend
who had disappeared. It was later discovered the boy had taken his own
life, but it could be that he was silenced after being abused by the
Catholic Satanic clergy.
Mr. Sharp said he was taken to the
shower room by a drunken religious brother. Shockingly enough, the
witness claimed he was then hung by a cord, threatened with murder if he
spoke out and was then raped by the Satanists, adding : “It was from
that day everything I did was under his complete and utter control.”The
inquiry also stated that “two or three” boys were trafficked around
Scotland and Ireland to be used in alcohol-fuelled sex parties, which he
described as “Satanic.”On one occasion in Ireland, Mr. Sharp said he
was involved with ten men who took turns raping the boys, and that
Catholic priests were among those involved. These incidents took place
over the duration of his time at St Ninian’s, which was run by the
Congregation of Christian Brothers, a worldwide religious community
within the Catholic Church.
He left the home at aged 16 without
“any memory other than continually being abused”.It was then that he
found out he had a family, but unfortunately he became dependent on
drugs and alcohol like most victims of pedophilia. He said he struggled
with a “£100-a-day”habit for up to 25 years and attempted to kill
himself on numerous occasions. This also happened to some of the victims
related to the infamous Cardinal Pell. Mr. Sharp eventually decided to
“turn his life around”and is now helping the inquiry that will continue
this Tuesday before Lady Smith. Let us pray that more can be done to
fight the huge number of Satanists that have infiltrated the Catholic
Church from 1966 after the Second Vatican Council made it easy for them
to do so in order to facilitate the Satanic take over of the Catholic
Church.
This summer, PBS Kids premiered an episode of the children's show Arthur in which a teacher, Mr. Ratburn, "marries"
another male character. Even before this premiere, PBS was already
infusing the LGBT agenda into its programming. In between its shows, a
happy song about families included an image of two dads with a baby and lyrics to that effect.
Disney and other children's stations long ago jumped onto the LGBT bandwagon with their line-up. As a Guardian headline noted
in 2016, "From Nickelodeon to Disney: Children's TV leads the way for
LGBT characters," with same-sex unions featuring prominently in shows.
It is not just television, of course. Rumors now fly that even Elsa
of Frozen may be a lesbian in the Disney sequel.
In fact, if you have a
preschooler or early elementary-school child nowadays, you will find
same-sex sexual relationships, as well as transgender advocacy,
advertised throughout your children's media and public programming.
Children's libraries promote drag queen story hours, and schools
inculcate transgender ideas in kindergartners and early elementary
children to the point where children in Brisbane are afraid to use the words "girl" and "boy" in a doctor's office and parents have to sue schools to stop teachers from grooming their impressionable kids. The LGBT agenda push on young children in the West is in full swing.
Some say, "What's the big deal? Love is love. Why should children be scandalized by that unless their parents are bigots?"
Those who say that fail to
grasp certain developmental realities about children. Children do not
care about adult identities or adults' self-actualizaton. They care
about adult romantic feelings because adult romantic feelings can lead
to the creation of children.
In other words, kids care
about their "being." At some ontological level, they wonder where they
came from. They know that love between a mommy and daddy led to their
existence. Whether that love between man and woman caused a stork to
show up or planted a cabbage patch with a baby in the garden is
irrelevant to them. That image of "mom" and "dad" is part of their
genetic identity.
That is why children
grieve so deeply over the absence of a mother or father or the rupture
of a parents' union through divorce. (This grief exists even when
parents deny the reality of that grief.)
When my six-year-old niece
heard that one of her aunts was getting married, she yelled, "Yay,
more cousins!" That is how young children think about marriage. For
little children, adult romantic relationships matter in that they can
somehow create children. It means more playmates, siblings, or
cousins. That is why children's movies that end with a couple marrying
are followed up with sequels in which the couple has a baby.
Since same-sex
relationships do not biologically lead to babies by their inherent
nature, preschoolers and kindergartners who see same-sex couples
calling themselves married wonder, "Why are they getting married? Can
they make babies? If not, does that mean you can marry your friend?"
This leads to another
point of confusion. A critical aspect of child development is the
same-sex friendships children form in their early years. Children know
there is a difference between the sexes. Bonding with their same-sex
peers is an important part of developing their understanding of
themselves as boys and girls.
When boys and girls are
friends, they sometimes "play" at marriage and parenthood. One of my
sons loved to play with dinosaurs in preschool. Another girl who
played with dinosaurs became his friend. She announced to him that
they would get married one day and have three children. He was fine
with that as long as she kept her interest in paleontology. It was
adorable. The friendship between the boys had no such connotation
because boys do not think, "I can marry another boy and create children
with him one day." It is not biologically possible.
Even with new and
ethically questionable technology, the child created under the
directive of a same-sex couple will be deprived of either a mother or
father. Children implicitly understand this ontological reality even
if they cannot verbalize such concepts or recognize their scientific
roots.
Promoting the idea of
same-sex "marriage" in young children's lives thus throws needless
confusion and anxiety into their developing understanding of
friendship. Pushing that on parents through schools, media, and other
children's resources forces parents into conversations they may not be
ready for with such young children.
Just because adult sitcoms like Modern Family
imply that one of the men in a same-sex relationship merely replaces
the mother role in the public mind, that does not make it true. In
fact, it is an idea that manages to be insulting to both women and
homosexual men. Throughout the years of the sitcom, the audience was
supposed to pretend that a real daughter being raised by two men would
never quietly pine for the absent mother. The audience was supposed to
ignore a primal wound. Children know that a man, no matter how
nurturing, is not a mother. And since when did women allow their
irreplaceable role to be so dismissed and caricatured?
I would add that children
know that a woman, no matter how "masculine," is not a father. But
since the father role has already been pummeled by Western society in
recent decades, the removal of the father image in lesbian "marriage"
causes few to bat an eye.
And please spare me the
trope about "infertile couples can't be a mom and dad, and they're
still married." A man and woman who cannot have children are still the
image of "mom" and "dad" in the minds of little children. Two men or
two women can never be so.
There are solutions to the
relentless LGBT push on young children. PBS, public schools, and
public libraries are taxpayer-funded. Demand that taxpayer money not
go to such efforts, and stand your ground when the inevitable slings
and arrows fly. The media will not have your back. Conservativism,
Inc. will definitely not have your back. And the Left already hates
you with a hot passion. Speak and fight for your children's right to
innocence and healthy development anyway.
The many forces arrayed
against your efforts — corporate, social, and political — will vilify
you as a bigot and a homophobe. So what? They label so many who
disagree with them that Americans are numb to it at this point.
We need to speak clearly
and plainly. Romantic attraction between adults of the same sex is a
purely erotic concept, not an ontological one (i.e., not rooted in a
child's being). Two men pretending to be married on a kids' show,
books about two mommies in public school kindergarten classrooms, and
the general LGBT push on young children are controversial not because
of "religious differences" or "intolerance."
All of this is controversial because it is wrong to push adult sexual agendas on children, period.
Correction: It seems I misinterpreted the context of the Trevor Noah
article in that he was referring to Obama at first. It is still
important to note however how they wanted him to be angry and they
wanted 'faux outrage' as well as his praise of Trump
Liberal Celebrity Activism Is A Lie / Exposing Celebrity Hypocrisy.
Recently on MSNBC Actor Jeff Daniels was promoting a play on Broadway
and went on to disparage Trump and his supporters.
But Why?
Why should we care about a leftist celebrity opinion on the president?
Why is he even talking about it? Because he is promoting a product, like
most celebrities. Many of these far left personalities are simply
trying to build a fan base, this is what celebrities are, marketing
tools for brands.
Movies hire them to sell tickets so of course they want to say whatever
they can to make themselves more appealing. Now most A-Listers seem to
avoid getting overtly political because they have mass appeal. but these
C_list types are desperate and will say whatever they can to drum up a
base, activism is an easy path.
When put up to the fire many of these Celebrities break and don't
actually stand by their claims. The calls for social justice and left
wing policy fall apart when we see how they really live and act. Please share this.
While a few lonely experts with obvious agendas are still attempting to
defend the porn industry, the rest of society is rapidly coming to the
sickening realization that the sexual social experiment of 24-7 digital
toxins getting pumped directly into the minds of an entire generation is
going very, very badly. Just last month, for example, a report issued
in the United Kingdom described how online porn use had transformed high
schools into “battlefields,” with girls expected to act like porn stars and
boys using online smut as a guide for how to live life. Testimonies like this from
teens were the norm:
Everything you see on social media is reinforcing the worst things
about ‘lad culture’. Pictures of women like porn stars with slogans like
‘What every lad wants his girl to look like’…My friend wanted his
girlfriend to dress like a porn star and do what a porn star would do.
Porn is so easily accessible. You see guys watching it in the classroom
on their phones [and] on the bus.
Additionally, another major study released last month, which you can read
in full here,
also details the devastation wreaked by online pornography across our
culture, and confirms the growing consensus that porn is a public health
crisis. The study, which surveyed 6,463 students (2,633 males and 3,830
females) between the ages of 18 and 26, indicated that almost 80 percent of
the students had been exposed to pornography (a number that I found low).
The effects of this were extraordinarily disturbing. One key finding
highlighted what some of us have been warning about for some time: That porn
functions like a drug, and that users will continue to escalate to harder
and harder-core versions of pornography in order to feed their addiction.
From the study:
Tolerance/escalation: The most common self-perceived adverse effects
of pornography use included: the need for longer stimulation (12.0%) and
more sexual stimuli (17.6%) to reach orgasm, and a decrease in sexual
satisfaction (24.5%)……The present study also suggests that earlier
exposure may be associated with potential desensitization to sexual
stimuli as indicated by a need for longer stimulation and more sexual
stimuli required to reach orgasm when consuming explicit material, and
overall decrease in sexual satisfaction.....Various changes of pattern
of pornography use occurring in the course of the exposure period were
reported: switching to a novel genre of explicit material (46.0%), use
of materials that do not match sexual orientation (60.9%) and need to
use more extreme (violent) material (32.0%)…
Interestingly, the study also found that 10.7 percent of males and 15.5
percent females self-reported daily use and addiction, with
virtually no difference between males and females in regard to addiction
rates. Typically, porn addicts are slow to admit that they have a problem,
so that is actually a very high rate of users willing to admit that they
feel addicted to online pornography. Even among those who do not think they
are addicted, the study indicated that withdrawal symptoms are common: 51
percent had attempted to quit at least one time, with 72.2 percent of those
experiencing one or more symptoms of withdrawal, including loneliness,
libido decrease, insomnia, irritability, anxiety, trembling, aggression,
depression, erotic dreams, and attention disturbance.
Unsurprisingly, the younger people were when they were first exposed to
porn, the more likely they were to suffer from negative effects, with the
highest likelihood found in those first exposed at age 12 or younger (and
keep in mind that the average age of first exposure to porn keeps on going
lower, and now sits around age 11). The study’s authors cautiously suggested
that further research may indicate long-term damage to adults from being
exposed to porn at young ages. In fact, the majority of the study’s
participants both stated that porn was a public health crisis
with many adverse social effects and declined to support public policies
restricting access. Addictions, as we know, are hard to break.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep saying it until people truly realize
it: Pornography is the number one threat to our communities, our churches,
our families, and our marriages. Many Christians are steeling themselves for
what might come next in the culture wars. Many communities are preparing for
the external threats of secular totalitarianism. But pornography, leaking
into our homes from the screens of every device that can sustain an Internet
connection, is poisoning the very relationships and places that we will need
if we are to survive the cultural onslaught we will be facing in the coming
years.
The world has been watching China’s
social credit system with grim fascination, a real-life compulsory
Orwellian horror in which citizens’ lives are determined by their social
score. Daily activities are monitored and tracked, then distilled into a
single number according to rules set by the government. Intended to be fully
implanted by 2020, its goal is to “standardize the assessment of citizens’
and businesses’ economic and social reputation.”
Standardize. That word alone should send shivers down your spine. Let the
meaning sink in: standardize. That means conformity is enshrined and
individuality and innovation are attacked.
When criticized about its draconian social order, “Chinese Communist
Party publications scoff that Westerners are simply too unsophisticated to
understand the wonders of the new system,” according to the New
York Post. Translation: If you criticize the government, ipso facto
you’re dangerous. Communist Russia used
this argument to incarcerate dissidents in psych wards, where they were
experimented upon. China is already “reconditioning” high-profile
individuals to behave only in accordance with communist principles, such as
popular Chinese movie star Fan
Bingbing.
This is all very interesting in a distant and other-side-of-the-world
sort of way, right? Or … are we facing something similar here in America?
Think about it. The U.S. is in the grip of a progressive mobocracy trying
to standardize everyone’s thoughts and actions. Leftists insist you support
their side or they will find some way to hurt you – economically,
politically, socially, educationally, or in your career.
Little by little, incrementally, the progressive dominance of politics,
schools and the media means conservative thought is being suppressed (at
best) or punished (at worst). Don’t believe me? Just consider the number of
people afraid to admit their support for Trump lest they have their grades
penalized or their job jeopardized or their cars keyed. If you’re caught
wearing a MAGA hat in public, you’re practically taking your life in your
hands.
Conservatives are heckled in the streets, harassed in restaurants and
have their homes or businesses sabotaged. In school, children are bullied or
expelled for expressing Christian opinions or objecting to “transgender”
athletes dominating girls’ sports.
In an unregulated (and some might argue, unhinged) invasion into our
privacy, the Google/Facebook/YouTube/Amazon/Microsoft/Apple cabal is
listening and tracking everything: what we say, what we research, where we
travel, what routes we take, what we buy and everything else about us. China
does the same thing.
The extreme left-wing and weirdly influential Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC) has designated so many conservative individuals and organizations as
“hate groups” that some
are suing the organization for “racketeering.”
Conservatives are being damaged economically. Thanks to the SPLC’s
influence, PayPal
is banning some groups from receiving online donations using their
platform. Mastercard is calling for a vote at its upcoming June shareholder
meeting to financially
blacklist conservatives. The same
activist group pushing Mastercard, SumOfUs, “is fighting against people
and groups it deems hateful such by trying to get them financially
blacklisted on social media and payment platforms such as Facebook, Google,
Twitter, Patreon and PayPal. Their goal is to ‘choke off donations.'”
Some social media sites are even changing
their own rules to justify banning free speech by conservatives. Not to
be left out of the game, the federal government is trying to create
legislation like the “Equality” Act, which promises to make Christianity
(upon which this nation was founded, remember?) all but illegal in practice.
See? Incrementally, step by step, progressives are attempting to turn
America into a dystopian state every bit as oppressive as China. One
conservative noted, “Democrats want this country to be a place where the
witch hunters call you guilty and force you to prove your innocence before
the screaming mob.” The goal is a single unified progressive groupthink
society.
But of course the one single thing keeping America from turning into
China is the Second Amendment. Eliminating personal firearms ownership is
possibly the biggest goal of the left. But progressives have discovered one
important tactic on the road to banning guns: Don’t make it illegal, just
make it impossible.
To this end, big banks are being
pressured to stop lending to gun manufacturers. Senate
Bill S2857A in New York would force every gun owner in the state (who
isn’t law enforcement or active military) to purchase and maintain a minimum
$1 million liability insurance policy. Another
bill was introducedthat would require anyone who wants to buy a gun to
turn over their internet search history and their social media passwords to
determine “who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm.”
In other words, unchecked, the progressive promises of utopia here in the
U.S. bear an eerie similarity to what China is implementing now, in which
people are being “standardized” in accordance to the progressive economic
and social requirements.
The Chinese government claims this system is “restoring
morality” to its nation. So let’s talk morality.
Jesse
Lee Peterson wisely observed, “Democrats are about control, but they
cannot control a moral people. Democrats have to make people angry and
immoral in order to assume power over them.”
In a poignant video (below) by Harvard professor Clay Christensen, he
relates a conversation with a Marxist economist from China finishing up a
Fulbright Fellowship. The Chinese economist was stunned to learn “how
critical religion is to the functioning of democracy.”
“The reason why democracy works,” said the Chinese economist, “is not
because the government was designed to oversee what everybody does. But
rather democracy works because most people, most of the time, voluntarily
choose to obey the law. … Americans followed these rules because they had
come to believe that they weren’t just accountable to society, they were
accountable to God. … If you take away religion, you cannot hire enough
police.”
China came up with its answer to “not enough police” by implementing this
social credit system. Take away Americans’ guns and faith, and this will be
the next step here as well.
