Month: September 2022
In the Climate Change Church, the Woke Play Pope
By J.B. Shurk
The cult of global warming wants all your money. The more enthusiastically you pay for skyrocketing food and fuel costs — part and parcel of the World Economic Forum’s dreams for a centrally controlled economy — the more piously you can demonstrate that the good “green” spirit has filled you to the brim with virtue. Are you worthy of Mother Earth’s blessings? That depends! Do you drive an electric vehicle? Are you committed to the eternal gospel that all hydrocarbon molecules are evil and that free market economies cause inclement weather? Do you regularly condemn “climate skeptics” as charlatans deserving of censorship, persecution, and even death for their lies? You don’t doubt the prophecies of Klaus Schwab, Barack Obama, George Soros, Al Gore, or any of the other church elders, do you? To question the climate change prophets is to blaspheme! To question man-made global warming is to sin! To question that the “science is settled” is to invite an apocalyptic hell dooming the planet! Disciples, commit yourself to the climate change church, do what you’re told, preach the “green” dogma to wayward doubters, and without exception, always…penitently…obey!
Climate change zealotry is a scam. That so many hundreds of millions of human beings around the world have allowed themselves to get caught up in the greatest, most diabolical con game of all time is endlessly vexing. There is no better example of how dangerous a mind virus can be. When people are shamed into turning off their critical thinking skills and blindly accepting an idea on faith alone, the damage is never less than immense.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had some version of this conversation with otherwise rationally thinking people: So you agree that power corrupts and that governments routinely lie? Oh, of course. And you recognize that the U.S. government, like all others, has spread waves of propaganda at different points in history to affect public opinion, justify wars, win elections, increase budgets, avoid responsibility for heinous crimes, etc.? Isn’t that obvious? Right, okay, but on this one issue — that man’s use of cheap and abundant supplies of hydrocarbon energy, which has raised the global standard of living exponentially over the last century like no other time in human history, is coincidentally so dangerous that it must be regulated and controlled by a handful of wealthy global economic elites who promise to save the planet only if we do as they say and obey — you believe that those same liars are telling the truth? Of course! Who could make up such a lie? It’s backed up by science! Right.
There’s a political cartoon I’ve seen with a stern-looking “scientist,” and the caption reads, “97% of scientists believe whatever will secure their future financial grants.” “Science” has a funny way of losing its objectivity when billionaires with agendas, venal politicians, and a global elite with sights on world domination provide its funding. As much as they are regularly regarded as a priestly caste whose dedication to knowledge renders their pronouncements holy truths, scientists are just people — as corruptible and self-interested as the rest. If you want to use scientists to push an agenda that benefits those at the top while destroying those at the bottom, it helps a lot if they are seen as some sort of holier-than-thou religious order that would never dare tell a lie. You might not trust the billionaires or bureaucrats, but the scientists — well, their word is unimpeachable!
Whatever one believes about the “science” behind so-called anthropogenic climate change — I find it absolute pseudo-scientific bunk, since its predictions have been persistently wrong for nearly a century and its public relations agents have had to shamelessly rebrand its faulty prognostications from global cooling to global warming to climate change and finally just to bad weather like a criminal changing aliases through the decades in order to keep the shell game alive while snookering its most devoted followers — the whole “green” religion has never remotely attempted to answer two fundamental questions:
(1) Even if mankind were changing the global climate, why is that a bad thing?
(2) If the social and economic costs of ending hydrocarbon energy outweigh the benefits, then why should we do so?
Though the church of climate change demeans all skeptics as “climate deniers,” it seems as if the “green” religious fanatics are vacuously unaware that planet Earth’s climate is constantly changing quite naturally on its own. Middle East deserts were once lush grasslands. A land bridge existed between Asia and North America. Large parts of the continental United States have been at times under water or covered in ice. Just what is the ideal climate for the third rock from the sun, then? Since “global warming” is the go-to bogeyman for the “green” clergy, you’d think we must sacrifice anything to keep the temperature from rising. Historically, however, it is cold weather that kills far more humans than hot. Similarly, just because one spot on the planet becomes less fertile at any given time doesn’t mean areas that were once too hot or too cold aren’t now ideal for growing crops. Which climate pope gets to decide what global temperature works best when the complex system that is the global climate remains in constant flux?
As for the second question, what’s the point of “saving the planet” if the economic consequences for obeying the “climate gods” unleash runaway inflation, currency collapse, worldwide war, disease, famine, and starvation? If 99% of us perish from Big Government’s Green New Deal (here’s the deal: we all die for Mother Earth’s honor), will the last tribe of humans still standing feel vindicated? Will the World Economic Forum’s ruling offspring walk around chummily in Birkenstocks and t-shirts emblazoned with green recycling vectors, smoking dope, listening to Marley, and feeling smugly self-assured that killing off humanity was worth it? As much as I love our planet, it is still just a spectacularly built spaceship sailing us through the universe. I will not sacrifice human life for rocks, even if those rocks happen to be as majestic as the Matterhorn. Mankind, after all, is just as organic as anything else in nature. If a beaver building a dam in order to survive is natural, then humans building transportation networks and factories are, too.
The truth is that the “green” religion is really about power. Climate Marxists believe that only a select few are fit to rule, and everyone else is either servant or serf. And once you have enough humans for those roles, all the rest are, well, expendable. Who needs billions and billions of extra passengers flying through space all demanding political equality, economic self-sufficiency, and personal freedom? For the WEF’s global elites, getting rid of the riffraff just makes sense.
Yet there are signs that more people are becoming hip to the global elite’s nefarious little “green” tune. After two years of COVID-1984 insanity, Establishment Science doesn’t look quite so trustworthy. Runaway inflation doesn’t look quite so under control. Economic collapse doesn’t look quite so far away. And the global “elites” who have put all this “green” nonsense into motion no longer look quite so competent.
If enough people begin to see through the climate change church, then the globalist gospel looks pretty bare. If it’s not about “saving the planet,” after all, then it’s nothing more than a dogma used by those with great power to assert control over everyone else. It’s a con game created so the “woke” can play pope. It’s a false religion with false gods. Should the scales finally fall from humanity’s eyes, then the “green” doomsayers among us will look foolish and wicked with their signs still painted, “The End Is Nigh.”
India: Muslim intermediate college teacher thrashes students for visiting Hindu temple, asks priest to shut temple
On Wednesday, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) reached the Bapu Uparaudh Intermediate College in the Lalganj area of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh to demand the reopening of a Shiv temple built inside the college premises. The temple was forcibly shut for three days under the direction of a teacher called Mohammed Kasif. The VHP members asked the college authorities to reopen the temple and also demanded strict action against the Islamist teacher.
According to the reports, the temple was shut for three days for the first time in the last 50 years. The temple has been inside the college premises for around 50 years and students, as well as teachers, have been worshipping the temple on regular basis. The students daily apply the Chandan (sandalwood powder) from the temple on their forehead and then attend the classes.
On September 8, the principal of the college, Dr Dharamjeet Singh had to travel out of the Lalganj area for a legal job. In the absence of the principal, the college’s responsibilities were to be looked upon by a teacher named Mohammed Kasif who was appointed as temporary in charge of the college. Kasif that day happened to thrash the students for visiting the Shiv temple and applying the temple Chandan on their forehead. He also called the temple priest identified as Pandit Ramji Mishra and bashed him for worshipping God when he is the college in charge.
“Keep the temple gate closed on the day I am in charge of the college. Open the gate only after 4 pm”, he ordered the temple priest. On the directions of the Islamist teacher, the Shiv temple located inside the college premises was then forcibly shut for the next three days until the principal of the college, Dr Dharamjeet Singh returned to the city.
On September 12, as Dr Singh returned to the college, Pandit Ramji Mishra informed him about the incident and stated that this was the first time in the past 50 years that the Shiv temple was kept shut for three consecutive days. According to the priest, the college temple has never been closed to date. “We clean the temple and worship the deity even during the vacations. But it was closed for the first time after the Islamist teacher threatened the students and me”, the priest stated.
The priest also informed the members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad who reached the college to demand strict action against the Islamist teacher. Reports mention that the Islamist teacher also misbehaved with the VHP workers including Block President Shivsagar Dubey, activist Jagannath Kesharwani and Manoj Keshari. Meanwhile the Principal of the college, Dr. Singh has stated that the matter will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken against the teacher.
How the Catholic Church Became a Defender of Islam
In the late 1930s Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc wrote:
It [Islam] is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past…
It seemed an unlikely prediction. At the time, the Islamic world was practically moribund. A comeback did not seem to be in the cards. Yet, Belloc was proved right. Within four decades, Islam was once again a power to be reckoned with.
Had he lived, however, even Belloc would have been surprised to find that one of the chief agents of Islam’s resuscitation was his own beloved Catholic Church. Although Belloc referred to Islam as a “formidable and persistent enemy,” by the end of the century, practically no “respectable” Catholic would have described Islam as an “enemy.” On the contrary, Islam had become a “fellow Abrahamic faith” which, we were told, shared much in common with Catholicism.
At one time, the Catholic Church had defended the West against Islam, but by the beginning of the 21st century, the Church had become a reliable defender of Islam against its critics.
Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, Catholic leaders and educators assured the world that Islam had nothing to do with violence. They also insisted that “Islam” means “peace” and that “jihad” is an “interior struggle.” If you disagreed with any of this you were dismissed as an “Islamophobe.”
But I’m getting ahead of myself. The Church’s mission to fight “Islamophobia” came later. First came the Second Vatican Council and the 1965 declaration Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetatewas intended to examine the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions. In particular it sought to consider “what men have in common.”
What do Muslims and Christians have in common? Here’s the key passage:
They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
In short, Islam was just like Catholicism…except it wasn’t. The Council fathers had come up with a list of surface similarities between Islam and Catholicism, but had ignored the deep differences.
For example, Catholics and Muslims supposedly worship the same God. And sure enough, the God adored by Catholics is “merciful and all powerful”—just like the Muslim God. But unlike the Muslim God He is also a Trinity—something that Muslims vehemently deny. He is also, from the Catholic point of view, a Father. Again, this is vehemently rejected by Muslims. In fact, to say that God is a father is, from the Muslim point of view the height of blasphemy. Moreover, in Islamic scripture, Allah is always associated with the Prophet Muhammad. In fact, when a Muslim avows that “there is no God but Allah,” he is obliged to add “And Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.” Unfortunately for the “same God” thesis, the name “Muhammad” does not appear anywhere in the Bible.
Strike one! The pious belief that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God does not hold water. The “common-ground” thesis is built on very shoddy scholarship.
But wait! There is a man named “Jesus” in the Koran, and he is considered a great prophet. So, you can at least say that Muslims and Catholics both “revere” Jesus. Perhaps the common-ground thesis is intact, after all. The only problem is, it’s not the same Jesus. On the one hand, you have Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, you have the Jesus of the Koran, who does not resemble the former in any way, shape, or form.
Jesus of Nazareth is a recognizable human being, who eats and drinks and converses with his disciples in a recognizably human way. He also says things of startling and profound originality, causing many to say with wonderment, “no man has ever spoken like this before.”
The Koran, on the other hand, provides no details on the life of the Koranic Jesus. He has no substance, and practically nothing of interest to say. He is little more than a cardboard cutout. If you think I exaggerate, then read the Koran for yourself. In doing so, you may well find yourself wondering if the Council fathers and their “expert” advisers ever bothered to do the same.
Strike two! The pious belief that the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Koran share anything in common other than the same name is completely untenable.
But how about the final point? —the one in which the Council fathers assure us that “they [Muslims] value the moral life”? This is particularly misleading because the Council fathers must certainly have known that the Muslim moral code differs markedly in many respects from the Catholic moral code. The Muslim moral code allows for polygamy, child brides, wife beating, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy.
Oh! There’s one more thing. In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section “on the Moslems,” the Council fathers mention that “[Muslims] worship God especially through prayers, almsgiving, and fasting.” But they forgot to mention “jihad,” even though the Koran explicitly states that jihad is more pleasing to God than prayer and almsgiving.
How could they have forgotten to mention the thing that is most pleasing to God– namely, jihad? It’s difficult to avoid the impression that the authors of the Muslim section had been deliberately dishonest.
And the deception continued. In the wake of the Council, the Church set up numerous Muslim-Catholic dialogues, Centers for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Abrahamic faith initiatives of various kinds. And all of them presented a Pollyannish portrait of Islam.
When the English edition of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in 1994 it didn’t say much about the Muslims—only that “together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” It wasn’t much to go on, but it did seem to suggest that Muslims were on the side of the angels. So, when Muslims struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, it seemed safe to assume as so many in government and media were saying that “this has nothing to do with Islam.” Moreover, once it became known that Muslims revered Jesus and honored Mary, all subsequent Islamic attacks could be dismissed as the work of a tiny minority of extremists who had misunderstood the peaceful tenets of the Islamic faith. And when Muslims began migrating into Europe by the millions, Catholic prelates only had to remind their flocks that “in the face of the migrant we see the face of Jesus.”
On the other hand, it didn’t pay to see the face of Jesus in the face of persecuted Christians. When Pope Benedict XVI asked for greater protection of persecuted Christians in Egypt, Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University cut-off the dialogue with the Vatican and wouldn’t resume it until Benedict’s successor, Francis, agreed not to criticize Islamic persecutions of Christians. Francis, of course, thought this was a good deal: the dialogue was his pet project—one that must be preserved at all costs.
The Church had for all intents and purposes become an enabler of Islam. But it wasn’t like the aiding and abetting of yore. In those days, some traitor or other would open the gates of the city to the enemy. In the modern era, the Pope simply warns the Christian population that if they don’t open the borders of Europe to the Muslim horde, they are guilty of closing the door of the inn on the Holy Family.
Belloc was right about Islam. It would return as a formidable enemy of Western Civilization. But Western Civilization—including the Catholic Church—couldn’t accept the fact of enmity and it invented all sorts of reasons why Islam and the West were really the best of friends. The Church which once had a well-deserved reputation for being both a Church of faith and reason even mistook Islam for a religion of peace.
The Ayatollah Khomeini could have set them straight on that. The man who overthrew the Shah of Iran once declared:
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword…People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for Holy warriors.
Despite the Ayatollah’s warning, there still seems to be a constant supply of “witless” ones in the Church who “pretend that Islam counsels against war.” Chief among them is Francis who in his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, asserted that “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
It’s a remarkable statement, and also provably false. Moreover, it puts Christians in danger by misleading them about the nature of Islam. Catholic apologists for Islam have been repeating similar lies about Islam ever since the mid-sixties. Will they ever be held to account? One sincerely hopes so.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-catholic-church-became-a-defender-of-islam/
Right-wing takes Sweden!
A European country is dissolving in mass immigration
by Giulio Meotti
“It is getting worse and worse in terms of violent crime, it worries people,” Torsten Elofsson, the former Malmö police chief candidate with the center-right Christian Democrats, says to Financial Times. Once there were only Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Now you see it in small towns. It’s getting closer and closer to where most people live. Swedes who want their families to be safe are running out of places to hide and move, unless they decide to leave Sweden behind, like some are already doing. They have had enough of living in a once ideal country that recorded 342 shootings in a year – almost one a day.
Over the past decade, Sweden has gone from one of the lowest per capita fatal shooting rates in Europe to the highest, according to data from the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council. Sweden is on track this year to break a record of deadly shootings with a total of 44 deaths by mid-August, not far from a peak of 47 in 2020. In the country that has welcomed everyone indiscriminately, from Pakistan as from Syria, from Nigeria as from Somalia, no one feels safe anymore.
The Stockholm suburb of Tensta has had free parking for months after the area was deemed too dangerous to enter.
The postal service did not deliver parcels to a neighborhood in central Malmö for periods of time.
Several public libraries have had to reduce their opening hours or even temporarily close in response to harassment by gangs of young people.
In a neighborhood in Gothenburg, kindergarten and kindergarten children took to the streets with their teachers to protest gang violence after a dozen shootings in the area in just a few months, including one in the kindergarten yard.
When the children come to kindergarten, the parents ask teachers to to keep them inside.
Criminologist Manne Gerell of Malmö University provided the newspaper Aftenposten with a list of possible causes why one of Europe’s safest countries has become the most dangerous: increase in the number of criminal gangs, the failed integration of immigrants and the multicultural housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s.
In practice, it is the questioning of 50 years of migration policy.
Sweden is an edifying example of the transformation of the population of a European country. According to data from the Swedish Statistical Institute, the Swedish population in the 1950s was made up of 7 million inhabitants, of whom 197,000 were born abroad. As the population reached 10 million in 2017, the number of foreign-born residents in Sweden has increased tenfold to 1.8 million. The two-generation foreign population has increased from 20 percent of the total population in 2002 to 30 percent in 2017.
While the indigenous population declined over the period of 94,000, the foreign population increased by 1.1 million. Lower borders and generous admission criteria have contributed to the explosion in the number of asylum applicants. The result is that the foreign population in cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants reaches 44 percent.
Islam has become the second largest religion in the country (the first if we consider church and mosque attendance).
In Sweden as elsewhere, the population has never been consulted on the transformation taking place in the country. 1.2 million of those eligible to vote in the upcoming elections were not born in Sweden and it is 200,000 foreigners more than in the previous elections in 2018. One in four voters between the ages of 18 and 21 was born abroad or has two parents born abroad. In central Malmö, one in two people who can vote for the first time is of foreign origin.
It is always the same problem of identity. Once Christianity, which is the only glue of European societies, disappears (and Sweden is today the most atheistic country in the West), the ruling classes do not care whether the culture of a country is replaced, they no longer believe in it. On the contrary they often believe that it deserves to be eliminated. Only the economic data or humanitarian seduction counts, which as Pierre Manent explains in Le Figaro is a new religion. The borders are then not only wide open, but encouraged to be crossed. At that point the Jews usually leave, as has been the case in Sweden for years.
Thus, within a few years, society collapses. Once past this Rubicon, turning back is impossible.
COVID Fascism Fizzles Out in New Zealand
By Jack Cashill
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (she/her) held such promise. In the spring of 2020, the then 39-year-old New Zealand prime minister emerged on the world stage as the COVID drama’s anti-Trump.
Ardern was calm, we were told, where Trump was capricious, compassionate where Trump was callous, and disciplined where Trump was improvisational. She was, in short, the modern major general of the emerging fascist new world order, and the media swooned.
The New York Times headlined an April 2020 op-ed, “In a Crisis, True Leaders Stand Out: Swift action, compassion and trust in science mark the most effective responses to the coronavirus.”
When the “liberal” Ardern promised “the most significant restrictions on New Zealanders’ movements in modern history,” the Times praised her for her “swift and decisive action.”
The Atlantic outgushed the Times. “Since March, New Zealand has been unique in staking out a national goal of not just flattening the curve of coronavirus cases,” wrote Uri Friedman, “but eliminating the virus altogether. And it is on track to do it.”
Ardern was common sense personified. “She justified severe policies with practical examples,” Friedman continued. “People needed to stay local, because what if they drove off to some remote destination and their car broke down?” OMG!
Added Friedman, “She said she knows as a parent that it’s really hard to avoid playgrounds, but the virus can live on surfaces for 72 hours.” Right… science.
On reviewing the New Zealand COVID timeline, I was reminded of rebel leader Esposito’s speech in the Woody Allen film, Bananas.
“From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish,” Esposito declared. “In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now…16 years old!”
On March 25, 2020, Ardern outcrazied Esposito, putting the country on complete “Lockdown” status four days before anyone had died of COVID.
On April 25, the country moved from Lockdown status to “Restrict.” On June 8, with the borders closed and no new cases reported, the restrictions were lifted, but on August 11, four new cases surfaced, and once again Ardern put the “Kiwis” on Restrict.
By October 7, the whole country was back to normal, sort of, but on February 14, 2021, three new cases were reported, and it was back to Restrict.
For the next six months, the nation yo-yoed between normal and Restrict. Other than closing New Zealand to the world and treating her citizens like kindergarteners, Ardern’s finger-in-the-dike strategy seemed to be working.
Until it wasn’t. Her positively medieval “zero-COVID” policy led to this headline-making storyfrom August 2021, “New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern locks down nation over single Covid case.”
Science! “The best thing we can do to get out of this as quickly as we can is to go hard,” said Ardern after imposing once more the nation’s toughest level 4 Lockdown rules.
“We have made the decision on the basis that it is better to start high and go down levels rather than to go low, not contain the virus and see it move quickly.”
After seven weeks into a three-day Lockdown, Ardern finally abandoned her increasingly futile zero-COVID policy, and the virus ran through New Zealand’s population in 2021-2022 much as it had done the rest of the world a year earlier.
Despite a vaccination rate of 77 percent and 18 months to prepare for an epidemic, more than one out of three New Zealanders contracted the disease, including Ardern herself. Nearly 2,000 died.
As the cases mounted, the “swift and decisive” Ardern rotated her nation once more through the various levels of oppression. To Ardern’s seeming surprise, the gratuitous restrictions and mandates caused a major public backlash.
In March 2022, protestors set up camp on Parliament grounds in Wellington, the nation’s capital, and stayed for three weeks until routed by the police.
To dislodge the protestors authorities resorted to cruel and unusual measures, including turning on the sprinklers and “blast[ing] Barry Manilow tunes.” Where was Amnesty International when the protestors needed them?
For the prime minister, the protest was her very own January 6. Said Ardern, “I was both angry and also deeply saddened. To see the Parliament — your Parliament, our Parliament — desecrated in that way, and a children’s playground destroyed, by a small group of illegal protesters.”
After ruining countless businesses and deforming millions of lives, the ever-compassionate PM would have the nation weep for a broken playground.
Added Ardern. “But, as I say, it’s not something that will define New Zealand’s response to this pandemic.” Unfortunately, she was right. Most Kiwis put up with the nonsense.
On Monday, September 12, Ardern may not have intended to show how perversely she mismanaged New Zealand these past thirty months, but that is exactly what she did.
The one-time poster girl for well-intentioned oppression announced the lifting of virtually all COVID restrictions, including mask wearing and vaccine mandates. Voila! Just like that.
“Finally,” said Ardern at a press conference, “rather than feeling that COVID dictates what happens to us, our lives, and our futures, we take back control.”
In truth, COVID never dictated what happened to New Zealanders. With the eager backing of the world’s media, Ardern did. That’s what dictators do.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/09/covid_fascism_fizzles_out_in_new_zealand.html
Leftists’ Reaction to Queen Elizabeth’s Passing Says it All
That Queen Elizabeth II passed away this week was a surprise only in the sense of the day it happened. Nothing against the Queen, who always seemed like a nice, lovely person, but she was 96. When someone is 96 years old the days are numbered. One day we might cheat death, or find ways to postpone it much longer than nature dictates currently, but that day isn’t today. So, sad as it is for family and friends of anyone who passes away at any age, surprise isn’t a word that leaps to mind to describe it. That being said, there was a surprise that accompanied the news that day – just how awful “progressive” leftists are as human beings.
If we’re being honest, and we have to be honest, Jimmy Carter is not long for this world. The man was a horrible President of the United States – the worst in modern times until Joe Biden stumbled into the job – but when he dies it won’t occur to be to gloat or attack him. He seems like a decent man, he was simply wrong about everything in terms of both policy and politics.
To put it in basic terms, he sucked. Were it not for Biden, Carter would still be sitting on top of the heap of awful Presidents. That’s not a reason to celebrate his death.
I say this as someone who won’t cry when he passes – I didn’t know him, have no connection with him – but I don’t wish him ill. I will simply offer condolences on social media and that’s about it. I may correct some revisionist history that inevitably occurs when a politician dies, nothing more. It’s called being a normal human being.
Being a normal human being, or even just decent, is something beyond the reach of progressive Democrats. Actually, it’s not beyond their reach, they don’t even try to reach it. They’re just horrible people.
Queen Elizabeth’s passing was met with normal people offering condolences and progressives denouncing her existence.
Case in point, though not close to the only example, is Uju Anya, linguistics professor at Carnegie Mellon University showed her true nature when she tweeted, “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.”
After revealing to the world she’s the type of person worthy of having her final resting place be listed as a destination for anyone seeking to unburden their bladder of its capacity, Anya added, “If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star.”
I don’t know what happened to her family, but any member who doesn’t have to be around to deal with Uju got off lucky.
See, that’s mean. I shouldn’t have said that, but to hell with her and her ilk.
When Ronald Reagan died, the left went into overdrive to smear him, to bastardize the first draft of history to make it what they wanted it to be. When George H. W. Bush passed, same thing. There isn’t a Republican who’s died that at least some faction of the left didn’t spend a lot of time smearing even before the funeral.
Democrats have no decency. “Black Twitter” spent the day whining about colonialization and racism, cheering the Queen’s death. They didn’t seem bothered by the goon on a killing spree in Memphis, but a nice only lady dying got many users seemingly sexually aroused.
I can’t say being a douchebag on social media is the fast track to hell because I think God has higher standards, not to mention better things to do than monitor the Internet (plus, I can be one too). But I do think it says something about a political movement when they routinely try to smear someone who just died.
If they can’t even give civility a day, do we owe them anything?
I’m all for giving the left a huge dose of their own medicine, but I have to draw the line somewhere. When Bill or Hillary Clinton die I won’t shed a tear, they are horrible people. But they are people. When Joe Biden’s physical being catches up with his brain, I won’t dance on his coffin. I won’t celebrate any of it as those who care about them grapple with the news. It’s a choice to not be a jackass. After a suitable morning period passes it’s game on, but not immediately. Sadly, there’s something seriously wrong with Democrats that they can’t control themselves even for a day.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-way-leftists-reacted-to-queen-elizabeths-passing-says-it-all/
US investors pull out of ‘dark’ Europe
The US investment bank JPMorgan, which wants to move its employees to London because of the imminent danger of a blackout in Germany, is not an isolated case. Other foreign analysts also consider Europe to be increasingly at risk – and are avoiding doing business in Europe. US companies are already focusing on their domestic businesses.
Strategists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc believe a recession in Europe is a certainty. The US economy is safer than betting on Europe, they said. Even though the path of US growth may be “uncertain”, the economic situation in Europe was simply catastrophic.
“Despite investor concerns about the US equity market, we believe it offers greater absolute and risk-adjusted return potential than recession-hit European markets,” the statement said. It has been a tough year for business in Europe “amid a gas crisis, soaring inflation and tightening central-bank policy”.
And the business news service Bloomberg reported that a Goldman Sachs team said that while the path of US growth may be “uncertain,” the economic situation in Europe was “dire”.
“Despite concerns that investors have about the US equity market, we believe it offers greater absolute and risk-adjusted return potential than recession-plagued European markets,” they noted.
The Stoxx Europe 600 lagged the S&P 500, and a Goldman basket of US companies with 100 percent domestic sales has performed better than a basket of companies with high sales in Europe. Barclays Plc strategists expressed similar concern about European prospects.
https://freewestmedia.com/2022/09/15/us-investors-pull-out-of-dark-europe/
Austria: Turkish YouTube guardian of public morals causes a stir in Vienna
For some he is a celebrated hero, most others feel provoked by his videos. Meanwhile, the Turkish Youtuber Mesut Can Eray is even being investigated. In Vienna, he acted as an Islamic guardian of public morals and insulted passers-by in a sexist way!
Because of their outfits, the Turkish man living in Vienna insulted young women in a sexist way, shared the video with his 1.3 million followers. Users on Twitter reported the “guardian of public morals” to the LPD for a video. The latter replied under a tweet. “Regarding the video showing an incident at Stephansplatz square , rumours going viral about measures taken by the police cannot be confirmed! The investigation is ongoing. Our colleagues will take all legally necessary & possible steps.”
Mesut Can Eray produces videos such as: “My German friend fasted for the first time” or “Asked people what they thought of the headscarf”, or even “How old were you when you lost your virginity”, “What colour are your pants” or “Asked girls when they last had sex”. He often asks these questions to minors as well.
Sometimes this is not always well received, even in the Turkish community. “He plays the guardian of public morals and apparently also finds it funny to humiliate or expose girls because of their clothes or appearance. Some girls, mothers and women from the Turkish community have contacted me and sent me his disgusting videos, so I didn’t want to remain inactive and make a public issue of this, because regardless of origin, everyone is ashamed of him. No one has the right to tell women what to wear or what kind of lifestyle to lead,” Muhammed Yüksek, a councillor in the district of Favoriten, was quoted as saying in the newspaper Kurier.
https://exxpress.at/ekelhafte-videos-tuerkischer-youtube-sittenwaechter-sorgt-fuer-wirbel-in-wien/