“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Sunday, July 16, 2017

The Architects of Western Decline - Decimating Western Civilization

The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism



48 comments:

  1. Published on Apr 27, 2017

    This is the long overdue study of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxist philosophy which now controls Western intellectualism, politics, and culture. It was by design; it was created by an internationalist intelligentsia to eradicate Western values, social systems, and European racial groups in a pre-emptive attempt to spark global, communist (think liberal) revolution. Andrew Breitbart's historical notes are taken into the narrative.

    You cannot understand how the institutions in Europe and the United States have so unravelled without the background presented in this 25 minute video.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trump instinctively understands that Christianity is the foundation and circulation system of the West. The West cannot survive without it. Christianity is not so much a religion as it is a philosophy. It is a shield from barbarism. It is worth protecting and worth understanding.

    There is no moral relativism with Islam, which is a cultural deviancy, designed for repression and disguised and touted as a religion.

    We have something worth fighting for and defending. The hordes flooding Europe and the savagery of the cultures they are made from, are the results of the work of the architects of destruction described in this video.

    Trump is right in wanting to halt the attack and invasion of our culture. That is only the first step. We have a much greater internal threat from the propagandists in the US media and the liberal takeover of the education system and the US legal system. All should be broken, reordered and opened up to real competition and stripped of governmental subsidy and license. The power of the courts should come under the states. The federal system of control results in no control.

    There are no monopolies that encourage freedom and independence of thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump's an idiot.

      Rachel Maddow's a frickin Genius

      Delete
  3. EDMONTON JOURNAL

    Fifty years ago, in 1967, Canada became the first country in the world to adopt a “points” system for immigrants. Previous immigration policy had given preference to immigrants from the United Kingdom, western Europe and other majority-white countries such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

    But under new regulations brought in by the Pearson government during Canada’s centennial year, Canadian immigration offices were no longer supposed to discriminate on the basis of race. The new policy assigned “points” to people, based on things like language fluency, education and job skills. It also made it easier for people already here to sponsor relatives from abroad.

    A remarkable shift

    The new 1967 immigration rules changed the face of Canada — metaphorically and literally. Thousands of new skilled immigrants, primarily, though not exclusively, from Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Trinidad, Ghana and Nigeria, stepped through the door as it opened. In so doing, they forever changed the definition of what it meant to be Canadian, setting the stage for a country that embraced multiculturalism — the country we celebrate this July 1 as we mark our sesquicentennial.

    Before 1970, according to Statistics Canada data compiled by University of Toronto sociologist Monica Boyd, only nine per cent of immigrants to Canada were members of visible minorities.

    At that point, 23 per cent of immigrants came from the United Kingdom, 59 per cent came from other parts of Europe and only six per cent came from Asia.

    The period between 1970 and 1979 witnessed a remarkable shift.

    Immigration from Asia skyrocketed, with 27 per cent of new arrivals in the period originating from East India or South Asia. Through the 1970s, only 13 per cent of new arrivals came from the U.K. And in that same period, 48 per cent of new immigrants to Canada were members of visible minorities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When did "visible minorities" (PC speak for "colored and black") become more virtuous and desirable than "whites"?

      It that not the height of racism? Bragging about how successful Canada has been in knocking down the percentage of "whites"? Not to mention the "color blind Canadians", virtuous people one and all, know down to the exact percentage on how they openly discriminate against "whites".

      Delete
    2. Deuce wrote:

      "When did "visible minorities" (PC speak for "colored and black") become more virtuous and desirable than "whites"?"

      Do you also post under the name Bob? Your ability to comprehend what you read appears to be the same. Reasoning like that, as Quirk has pointed out, deserves only mockery, if anything.

      Delete
  4. Trudeau is the picture child for the social experiment described in the posted video.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HOW IS MULTICULTURAL EXCEPTIONALISM WORKING OUT FOR THE VIRTUOUS CANADIANS?

    Oops, a turd seems to have been dropped in the multicultural punch bowl:

    Islamic schools, mosques in Canada are filled with extremist literature: study

    The authors of the study say what worried them was not the presence of extremist literature, but that they found nothing but such writings in several mosque libraries and Islamic schools.

    By JIM BRONSKILLThe Canadian Press
    Mon., Aug. 22, 2016

    OTTAWA—Many mosques and Islamic schools in Canada are placing young people at risk by espousing — or at least not condemning — extremist teachings, a new study says.

    Co-authors Thomas Quiggin, a former intelligence analyst with the Privy Council Office and the RCMP, and Saied Shoaaib, a journalist originally from Egypt, base their findings on research conducted quietly in mosque libraries and Islamic schools.

    The study, titled “Lovers of the Death”? — Islamist Extremism in Mosques and Schools, says what worried them was not the presence of extremist literature, but that they found nothing but such writings in several libraries.

    The study says what worried them was not the presence of extremist literature, but that they found nothing but such writings in several libraries.

    “Further research is required to determine the depth and breadth of this problem.” (YOU THINK?)

    The authors say openly available material and analysis of social media postings helped confirm their views that many Canadians, including leading politicians, are turning a blind eye to the dangers.

    They argue the issue is too important to ignore, given that a number of young Canadians have become radicalized to violence.

    Canadian Muslims with humanist and modernist outlooks are being drowned out by those with extreme views, the study says. “The struggle for the soul of Islam between Islamists and humanists goes on in Canada and the U.S.A., not just in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IT GETS WORSE


      The Canadian Council of Imams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      The Liberal government plans to soon announce details of its plans for a national office of counter-radicalization to carry out research and co-ordinate activities across Canada.

      One year ago, the Senate defence and security committee issued a report saying some foreign-trained imams had been spreading extremist religious ideology and messages that are not in keeping with Canadian values, contributing to radicalization.

      It called on the government to work with the provinces and Muslim communities to “investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of imams in Canada.”

      The report was not supported by Liberal senators on the committee. It was denounced by the National Council of Canadian Muslims as stigmatizing and failing to offer effective solutions to the challenge of violent extremism.

      Delete
    2. ...A remarkable shift

      The new 1967 immigration rules changed the face of Canada — metaphorically and literally. Thousands of new skilled immigrants, primarily, though not exclusively, from Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Trinidad, Ghana and Nigeria, stepped through the door as it opened. In so doing, they forever changed the definition of what it meant to be Canadian, setting the stage for a country that embraced multiculturalism — the country we celebrate this July 1 as we mark our sesquicentennial.

      Delete
  6. A remarkable shift indeed!

    Wankers

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...One year ago, the Senate defence and security committee issued a report saying some foreign-trained imams had been spreading extremist religious ideology and messages that are not in keeping with Canadian values, contributing to radicalization.

    It called on the government to work with the provinces and Muslim communities to “investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of imams in Canada.”

    The report was not supported by Liberal senators on the committee. It was denounced by the National Council of Canadian Muslims as stigmatizing and failing to offer effective solutions to the challenge of violent extremism.




    Celebrate your diversity assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LISTEN UP

    Here is an "effective solution to the challenge of violent extremism."

    Quit importing them!

    Wankers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Canadians really aren't happy with Americans, according to a new poll released this week. And, perhaps predictably, President Donald Trump is to blame.

      Just 44 percent of Canadians hold a very or somewhat favorable view of the United States, according to the survey conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research (EISR). That's the lowest such figure in the 35 years EISR has done the poll. Of that 35 percent, just 9 percent had a very favorable overall opinion of the U.S.

      Fifty-three percent of Canadians, meanwhile, had an unfavorable view of the U.S. Twenty percent had a very unfavorable view.

      Delete
  9. FINAL LAUGH ON THE CANADIAN WHITE EXCLUSION ACT

    ...The new policy assigned “points” to people, based on things like language fluency, education and job skills. It also made it easier for people already here to sponsor relatives from abroad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, an Electrical Engineer from India has a better chance to immigrate to Canada than a farm labourer from Poland.

      Delete
    2. A Polish laborer would work. Muslims have the second highest unemployment rates in Canada with 14.4% of the population being unemployed, as compared to 7.4% national unemployment rate

      Delete
  10. But Canadians still love the US. They come down for holidays, enjoy our golf courses, good restaurants convenient road and transit systems. All while stiffing any service personnel they encounter. Then they go back home and bitch about how horrible we are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We pay waitresses to serve Canadians.

      Delete
  11. Costa Rica is loaded with the sanctimonious canadious

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hawaii is ground zero for Canadious Sanctimonious in the winter season.

      I think it's one of the reasons Doug finally retreated to a lava tube.

      Delete
  12. Ash has called me a racist again.

    When will he ever get it through his thick thick noggin that Islam is not a race.

    I am an islamophobe, for good reason, suffering from islamonausea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you afraid of Islam? Scared?

      Delete
    2. I fear I may be playing my favorite machine at the Casino some night when "BOOM" the whole place goes up in fire and blast.

      Delete
    3. The whole phobe suffix, phobia thing is a missed used term. I think the gays first started using it wrongly and everyone else, especially Libs, picked up on it as a derogatory term.

      In order to be a homophobe, one would need to be afraid of homos, right?

      A xenophobe, means you are afraid of foreigners, right? And on and on. What a crock.

      Delete
    4. If I were a female in Sweden I would definitely be afraid of moslems.

      Delete
    5. In France too, and in Germany.

      But not in Poland.

      Delete
    6. I am truly afraid of poisonous snakes. I think it's called ophiophobia.

      I can assure you I am not afraid of:

      Homosexuals
      Foreigners
      Islam
      Muslims
      Dying
      Spiders

      Delete
    7. What about poisonous spiders ?

      Delete
    8. I remember a thriller I read as a kid, "The Incredible Shrinking Man". Can't recall why he started shrinking but soon he was fighting off a poisonous spider with a sewing needle.

      I've been afraid of uncontrollable shrinking ever since.

      Delete
  13. “Almost no country needs to be more worried about jihadist Islam spreading than India”

    JULY 15, 2017 9:43 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

    “The ideology of jihadist Islam is the exact opposite of the idea of India.”

    What is needed, and has been needed for many years now, is a global alliance of nations that are threatened by jihad.



    “Fifth column: Wisdom in a dark time,” by Tavleen Singh, Indian Express, July 9, 2017:

    If you are in the media and dare to say anything good about Donald Trump, you risk being called a lunatic. So it is with trepidation that I admit that I was impressed with something the American President said last week in Warsaw. His words had special resonance for me because I believe they are as relevant to India as the West. He said, “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

    He was speaking of the threat of jihadist Islam to Western, Christian civilisation and values. But almost no country needs to be more worried about jihadist Islam spreading than India, where more Muslims live than anywhere else, except Indonesia. The ideology of jihadist Islam is the exact opposite of the idea of India. What is the idea of India? The Dalai Lama defined it perfectly in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. He wrote, “India, where I now live, has been home to the ideas of secularism, inclusiveness and diversity for 3,000 years. One philosophical tradition asserts that only what we know through our five senses exists. Other Indian philosophical schools criticise this nihilistic view but still regard the people who hold it as rishis, or sages.”

    Islamism is based on the idea that if you do not accept the narrow, evil version of Islam, on which the ISIS founded its Caliphate, then you deserve to be killed. Does India have the will to stand up against this violent new interpretation of Islam? It is this will that is being tested in the Kashmir Valley and those districts of West Bengal that border Bangladesh. The violence that we saw last week in Basirhat is being treated as a problem of law enforcement. But is it? In the Kashmir Valley every time there is a violent upsurge, ‘moderate’ Kashmiri politicians say that the problem is political. But is it?

    In the long years that I have reported on the movement for ‘azadi’ in Kashmir, I have seen it change from being a place where the values of India were enshrined to becoming our own little Caliphate. This change began in the early Nineties when Kashmiri Pandits were forced out of the Valley, but most of us political commentators ignored what this meant. When liquor shops and bars were forcibly closed, when video libraries were vandalised and women forced to cover their heads, we ignored these things too. If moderate Kashmiri politicians noticed what was happening, they spoke of it only in private, and today it is groups declaring openly that they fight for Allah and Islam that have taken over. So is it a political movement we are dealing with or a religious one that threatens the values enshrined in the idea of India for thousands of years?…

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/almost-no-country-needs-to-be-more-worried-about-jihadist-islam-spreading-than-india


    When it comes to jihad, the Hindus know where of they speak. They have been through centuries of it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. July 16, 2017
    Our Significant Insignificance: The Universe and Us
    By Bill Schanefelt

    What is man, that thou art mindful of him? - Psalm 8:4

    Every once in a while an article comes along that reminds us of our insignificance in the grand scope of the Universe and that at the same time prompts us to think of the significance of our very existence in that Universe. Thanks to our friends at Hot Air we are linked to one.


    Nick Hughes, an Irish Research Council postdoctoral research fellow at University College Dublin, has written a compelling piece at Aeon that explores our minuteness in the vastness of the Cosmos:

    Humanity occupies a very small place in an unfathomably vast Universe....at the speed of light...it would take us 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way....[but] the Milky Way is just one of 2 trillion galaxies in the observable Universe....[and] our time on this mote of dust will amount to nothing more than....[fleeting moments of] temporal smallness within it .

    And, after further exposition, Mr. Hughes goes on to ask if:

    ... we occupy such a small and brief place in the cosmos, [and if] we and the things we do are insignificant and inconsequential....[then] doesn’t it follow that we are utterly insignificant and inconsequential?

    Mr. Hughes thinks not:

    This thought can be a spur to nihilism. [That is], [i]f we are so insignificant, if our existence is so trivial, how could anything we do or are – our successes and failures, our anxiety and sadness and joy, all our busy ambition and toil and endeavor, all that makes up the material of our lives – how could any of that possibly matter?

    Mr. Hughes then presents the positions of a number of writers who do think, for various reasons, that none of that does objectively matter because “we are cosmically insignificant,” and then he writes at length about Mr. Guy Kahane at the University of Oxford who disagrees with the notion of some that our “cosmic insignificance [is] nothing more than a muddle”:

    Kahane thinks that there is a better way of thinking about the matter. He disputes...[the] claim that nothing has objective value: intelligent life, he argues, has it in spades (and little else comes close). But more importantly, the dismissers have misunderstood what it means for something to be significant or insignificant.... Kahane argues [that]....[w]e mustn’t forget that significance is also a function of value. If, for some reason, human life stands out as a source of value compared with everything else, then even from the cosmic point of view we might be significant....

    Since...the primary source of value is intelligent life, it follows that our cosmic significance depends on how much intelligent life there is out there. If the Universe is teeming with it...then we are indeed cosmically insignificant. If, however, we are the sole exemplars of intelligent life, then we are of immense cosmic significance....[and since] intelligent life is the primary source of value, and since only that which has value is significant, whether or not we matter depends on the quantity of intelligent life in the Universe. If it is abundant, then we are insignificant and matter little. But if we alone exemplify it, then we are of immense significance even from the supremely broad perspective of the entire Universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Mr. Hughes thinks that, notwithstanding the above:

      Kahane has misdiagnosed the issue....[W]e find ourselves wanting on an altogether different scale of significance....the primary source of our concern regarding our cosmic insignificance is, it seems, that we occupy a very small place in the Universe. Given this, it presumably makes sense to think that, were we not so small, we would correspondingly not feel so insignificant....

      For Mr. Hughes then:

      ...the things that we care about most – our relationships, our projects and goals, our shared experiences, social justice, the pursuit of knowledge, the creation and appreciation of art, music and literature, and the future and fate of ours and other species – do not depend to any considerable extent on our having control over a vast but largely irrelevant Universe. We might be distinctly lacking in power from the cosmic perspective, and so, in a sense, insignificant. But having such power and such significance wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway. To lament its lack and respond with despair and nihilism is merely a form of narcissism. Most of what matters to us is right here on Earth.

      Mr. Hughes touches only briefly and peripherally on faith and religion, and he does not touch at all on the origins and nature of the Universe, but the piece has caused me to reflect again on those issues and on humanity's near-universal quest for meaning and significance in what is, still, a largely incomprehensible Universe.

      Yes, most of what matters to us is right here on Earth, but what we think about what matters to us right here on Earth depends, in very large part, on where we stand on faith and religion. And where we stand on faith and religion depends, in very large part, on what we think about the origins and nature of the Universe.

      Most followers of faiths believe in creation myths and theological tenets that are dozens of centuries old, and most of the beliefs associated with the various faiths are incompatible with and, in large part, mutually exclusive of one another. Furthermore, many tenets fail to hold up under the scrutiny of modern science, but the religious impulse is strong, and we all believe in something that gives significance to our existence.

      It was once thought that traveling far enough in one direction would result in a fall off of a flat Earth, and now we know that it would result in a return to the starting point. Similarly, we now peer through telescopes seeking images and/or knowledge of the origins of the Universe, but future astronomers might well end up seeing their own backsides.

      Our understanding of the origins and nature of the Universe is a growth industry, as is our place and the place of faith and religion on Earth in these times.

      I am most grateful to Mr. Hughes for the prod given me by his piece, and I encourage the reading of the whole article..

      Delete
    2. Readers who wish to pursue these issues further will find Amir Aczel's thoughts on the compatibility of science with God of interest and may listen to an intriguing interview with him on the subject here.

      In his works, among many other things, Mr. Aczel takes issue with such New Atheists as physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, but Krauss and Dawkins, nevertheless, have compellingly written of, I think, multitudes of Universes continually emerging out of a nothingness and that then again disappear into that nothingness, or something! -- as Allah and Ed might put it.

      John Batchelor interviews Krauss here, and it is well worth a listen for those who wish to learn a bit about where the thinkings of some physicists are heading these days.

      P.S. In the minds of many, Atheism is a religion, and New Atheism is its Westboro Baptist branch -- I'd compare it to other radically extreme religious groups, but I am far too civil to do so.

      The author is retired, his profile may be found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent to bilschan@hotmail.com.

      What is man, that thou art mindful of him? - Psalm 8:4

      Every once in a while an article comes along that reminds us of our insignificance in the grand scope of the Universe and that at the same time prompts us to think of the significance of our very existence in that Universe. Thanks to our friends at Hot Air we are linked to one.

      Nick Hughes, an Irish Research Council postdoctoral research fellow at University College Dublin, has written a compelling piece at Aeon that explores our minuteness in the vastness of the Cosmos:

      Humanity occupies a very small place in an unfathomably vast Universe....at the speed of light...it would take us 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way....[but] the Milky Way is just one of 2 trillion galaxies in the observable Universe....[and] our time on this mote of dust will amount to nothing more than....[fleeting moments of] temporal smallness within it .

      And, after further exposition, Mr. Hughes goes on to ask if:


      ... we occupy such a small and brief place in the cosmos, [and if] we and the things we do are insignificant and inconsequential....[then] doesn’t it follow that we are utterly insignificant and inconsequential?

      Delete
    3. Mr. Hughes thinks not:

      This thought can be a spur to nihilism. [That is], [i]f we are so insignificant, if our existence is so trivial, how could anything we do or are – our successes and failures, our anxiety and sadness and joy, all our busy ambition and toil and endeavor, all that makes up the material of our lives – how could any of that possibly matter?

      Mr. Hughes then presents the positions of a number of writers who do think, for various reasons, that none of that does objectively matter because “we are cosmically insignificant,” and then he writes at length about Mr. Guy Kahane at the University of Oxford who disagrees with the notion of some that our “cosmic insignificance [is] nothing more than a muddle”:

      Kahane thinks that there is a better way of thinking about the matter. He disputes...[the] claim that nothing has objective value: intelligent life, he argues, has it in spades (and little else comes close). But more importantly, the dismissers have misunderstood what it means for something to be significant or insignificant.... Kahane argues [that]....[w]e mustn’t forget that significance is also a function of value. If, for some reason, human life stands out as a source of value compared with everything else, then even from the cosmic point of view we might be significant....

      Since...the primary source of value is intelligent life, it follows that our cosmic significance depends on how much intelligent life there is out there. If the Universe is teeming with it...then we are indeed cosmically insignificant. If, however, we are the sole exemplars of intelligent life, then we are of immense cosmic significance....[and since] intelligent life is the primary source of value, and since only that which has value is significant, whether or not we matter depends on the quantity of intelligent life in the Universe. If it is abundant, then we are insignificant and matter little. But if we alone exemplify it, then we are of immense significance even from the supremely broad perspective of the entire Universe.

      Delete
    4. But Mr. Hughes thinks that, notwithstanding the above:

      Kahane has misdiagnosed the issue....[W]e find ourselves wanting on an altogether different scale of significance....the primary source of our concern regarding our cosmic insignificance is, it seems, that we occupy a very small place in the Universe. Given this, it presumably makes sense to think that, were we not so small, we would correspondingly not feel so insignificant....

      For Mr. Hughes then:

      ...the things that we care about most – our relationships, our projects and goals, our shared experiences, social justice, the pursuit of knowledge, the creation and appreciation of art, music and literature, and the future and fate of ours and other species – do not depend to any considerable extent on our having control over a vast but largely irrelevant Universe. We might be distinctly lacking in power from the cosmic perspective, and so, in a sense, insignificant. But having such power and such significance wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway. To lament its lack and respond with despair and nihilism is merely a form of narcissism. Most of what matters to us is right here on Earth.

      Mr. Hughes touches only briefly and peripherally on faith and religion, and he does not touch at all on the origins and nature of the Universe, but the piece has caused me to reflect again on those issues and on humanity's near-universal quest for meaning and significance in what is, still, a largely incomprehensible Universe.

      Yes, most of what matters to us is right here on Earth, but what we think about what matters to us right here on Earth depends, in very large part, on where we stand on faith and religion. And where we stand on faith and religion depends, in very large part, on what we think about the origins and nature of the Universe.

      Most followers of faiths believe in creation myths and theological tenets that are dozens of centuries old, and most of the beliefs associated with the various faiths are incompatible with and, in large part, mutually exclusive of one another. Furthermore, many tenets fail to hold up under the scrutiny of modern science, but the religious impulse is strong, and we all believe in something that gives significance to our existence.

      Delete
    5. It was once thought that traveling far enough in one direction would result in a fall off of a flat Earth, and now we know that it would result in a return to the starting point. Similarly, we now peer through telescopes seeking images and/or knowledge of the origins of the Universe, but future astronomers might well end up seeing their own backsides.

      Our understanding of the origins and nature of the Universe is a growth industry, as is our place and the place of faith and religion on Earth in these times.

      I am most grateful to Mr. Hughes for the prod given me by his piece, and I encourage the reading of the whole article..

      Readers who wish to pursue these issues further will find Amir Aczel's thoughts on the compatibility of science with God of interest and may listen to an intriguing interview with him on the subject here.

      In his works, among many other things, Mr. Aczel takes issue with such New Atheists as physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, but Krauss and Dawkins, nevertheless, have compellingly written of, I think, multitudes of Universes continually emerging out of a nothingness and that then again disappear into that nothingness, or something! -- as Allah and Ed might put it.

      John Batchelor interviews Krauss here, and it is well worth a listen for those who wish to learn a bit about where the thinkings of some physicists are heading these days.

      P.S. In the minds of many, Atheism is a religion, and New Atheism is its Westboro Baptist branch -- I'd compare it to other radically extreme religious groups, but I am far too civil to do so.

      The author is retired, his profile may be found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent to bilschan@hotmail.com


      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/our_significant_insignificance_the_universe_and_us_.html#ixzz4n2AqWi4e

      Delete
  15. California dreaming.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm_Bnx2_X6Y

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aggressive driving fatalities up 60% since 2011!

      ...no connection to Hollywood movies and daily tv coverage of idiot freeway police chases.

      Maybe we'll succumb to our own stupidity before our Muslim brothers take care of us.

      Delete
    2. We'll drive ourselves to death !

      Delete
  16. July 16, 2017
    Europe Must Resist Third-World Migration
    By E. Jeffrey Ludwig

    Bill Gates has recently commended Germany for allocating 0.7% of GDP for payments to fight poverty in less developed developing countries (LDDCs). With his infinite browser wisdom, he asserts that the developed world, especially Europe, must increase these contributions or face a flood of migration from the LDDCs that will overwhelm the continent. We all understand that by "overwhelm," he is referring to crime, housing, health care, education, and cultural viability of European identities. In short, the Europe we know will be crushed. Gates's vocabulary includes terms like "unfolding tragedy," "migratory pressure," and "development aid payments." He is fixated on drama ("tragedy"), demography, and the tired category of development that has become a cliché in use for the last 72 years since the end of WWII. These terms out of the business and administrative glossary fail to capture the depth and danger of the situation Gates is referring to.

    Gates thinks the migration can be stopped by an even greater effort to rehab (read: buy off) the LDDCs under the decades-old rubric of development. Again, according to the guilt-ridden, weakened leftist mindset, it's so sad to see those sub-Saharans and Arabs living in great poverty and under-development that we need to throw more money at the problem, and thereby save ourselves. So Gates is not really changing his tune. He's not worried about obliterating European identities or economies. Rather, he is still singing the old liberal-left song. Throw money at vast social problems, and your peace and stability will be assured.


    Building up the LDDC economies is not a new idea. This has been the clichéd response since the end of WWII when the U.N., the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank were founded. Going back to the 1960s, Walter Rostow, one of Harvard's eminent economists, projected his theory of the "take-off stage." With economic development support through the three above-named institutions, the poorest countries would be subsidized and finally move to the take-off stage, where they could generate sufficient surplus capital to manage and grow their own assets and begin to develop viable economic projects and infrastructure without "development funds" and without the currency undergirding of the IMF.

    These take-off stages never materialized.....

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/europe_must_resist_thirdworld_migration.html#ixzz4n2Fbe8eN

    ReplyDelete
  17. Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed by Chinese interference in a presidential election.

    A 1998 Senate Government Affairs Committee report on the scandal found “strong circumstantial evidence” that a great deal of foreign money had illegally entered the country in an attempt to influence the 1996 election. The DNC was forced to give back more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals. The most suspect funds were brought in by Johnny Chung, a bagman for the Asian billionaire Riady family.

    Chung confessed that at least $35,000 of his donations to the Clinton campaign and the DNC had come from a Chinese aerospace executive — a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese military. Chung said the executive had helped him meet three times with General Ji Shengde, the head of Chinese military intelligence. According to Chung’s testimony, General Shengde had told him:

    “We really like your president. We hope he will be reelected. I will give you $300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to . . . your president and the Democratic party.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449539/chinese-illegally-donated-bill-clinton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed

    ReplyDelete
  18. McCain Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought.....DRUDGE

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/health/john-mccain-blood-clot-recovery.html?mtrref=www.drudgereport.com&gwh=F28161AE4930444C87DDB300A2110938&gwt=pay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's got that Super Congressional Health Insurance Plan.

      He should be OK.

      Delete
  19. Hannity and Gingrich on Don Jr vs the DNC in Kiev.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmGG_7ILVqQ#t=401.846119

    ReplyDelete