Socialism

It is the lower form of communism and communism is the higher form of socialism. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned by society, which leads to communism, the end goal of socialism – when classes, states, religion, and money have been abolished. A social movement, not an economic one, with the primary objective being to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool. It has been sold in schools throughout the world as a modern Utopia where everything is made fair by the government, and all human needs are provided to the poor, the ill, the unemployed. It’s a lie and a trojan horse for totalitarianism cloaked in glitter to fool the populous! Modern socialism began as a rejection of Western Christian civilization and the moral and political values it produced. It is no accident that, in countries where socialism has triumphed over all its rivals, the government moves to destroy every pillar of culture, especially religion and family, and transforms itself into the ultimate authority on values.

Let’s begin by illustrating a point using a short story: During the long-ago days of the British Empire in India, British authorities became concerned over the large numbers of venomous cobras infesting the city of Delhi. Because Hindus both fear and revere cobras, many Indians are reluctant to kill them. The British colonial government decided to create a strong incentive for the locals to get rid of cobras. They began offering sizable bounties for dead snakes, and before long, the authorities were deluged with cobra carcasses. Strangely, while the government doled out a fortune in bounties, the local cobra population showed no signs of decreasing. Eventually, the authorities discovered why this was the case. Spurred on by the opportunity to make money, the locals had taken to raising large numbers of cobras in captivity, in order to kill them and collect the bounty. Dismayed, the British government retracted the cobra bounty — whereupon large numbers of captive cobras were released since they were no longer of any economic value. Delhi ended up with a larger cobra population than ever.

Marxist Vladimir Lenin knew communism would be a tough sell so he turned to socialism to achieve communism. By convincing the gullible and jaundiced they’d collectively control all economic and social resources, he created a new brand of communism – Leninism. In his  book State and Revolution, he wrote: “…socialism is just the lower phase of communism used to facilitate true communist puerility which is its highest phase. Karl Marx believed socialism was the easiest road to pure communism.”

While it is unclear how accurate this story might be, the “cobra effect” is a well-known consequence of misplaced good intentions. It is what usually happens when government engages in what is called “social engineering”: Good intentions lead to bad results. And nowhere is it more widespread than in the type of government called “socialism.”

'The Naked Socialist' author, Paul Skousen, explains socialism
The Robert Herriman Show has Paul Skousen, son of Cleon Skousen who authored The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist, on his show to discuss socialism, its history and progress that has led to where we are today. Paul explains: What is socialism? What is the history with socialism and force? What happened in Jamestown? and the discussion of rights and more are discussed in the interview.

Skousen identifies the seven pillars of socialism:

  1. An all powerful ruler or group of rulers (technocracy, oligarchy, etc.)
  2. Division of society into casts (ruler(s), elite, middle class (enforcers who are rewarded for obedience), and the working class at the bottom
  3. promise of security (food, water, etc.) to seem merciful and eliminate revolt
  4. regulation of every aspect of society
  5. Powerful police / military force to enforce regulations and punish those who do not comply
  6. control of media, information to disseminate propaganda
  7. Rights are privilege of the state, not a God and can be granted or taken away as they please

He also explains how the U.S. Constitution was written to end socialism in all of its forms, but thorugh our own corruption and elcting of corrupt politicians, we have almost destroyed those safeguards.

What is socialism? To increasing numbers of young Americans, “socialism” has come to mean a society where everything is made fair by the government, and all human needs are provided to the poor, the ill, the unemployed, and anyone else living in difficult circumstances. “Socialism” conjures up images of a modern utopia, a world where inequality, discrimination, and poverty are things of the past, and where finely tuned government will use its powers exclusively to promote well-being and cure longstanding social ills. In particular, socialism is often offered as a solution by those wanting government to provide housing, food, employment, medical care, and education, as well as to tightly manage market activity via environmental, financial, labor, and price controls and regulations.

Most modern governments, from Canada to the European Union to Latin America to East Asia, already do all of these things, and so it is not a stretch to say that most modern governments are socialist, at least to some extent. There are different flavors of socialism, to be sure; communism, Marxism, and progressivism are all socialist movements, which is why “communist” regimes such as the former Soviet Union (the USSR, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) always describe themselves as socialist. Communism is a further development or “higher stage” of socialism.

But all of them share one cardinal feature: the belief that the role of government is to plan, manage, control, and regulate all aspects of human activity, since personal liberty cannot be trusted to promote social order and equality. This, the central thesis of modern socialism, has come to replace in many people’s minds the belief in the power and superiority of liberty that most Americans used to embrace. Put otherwise: If you believe that individual liberty is a nice idea in theory but won’t work in practice, you’re sympathetic to socialism.

Socialism is usually sold in the name of fairness and equality. Old-fashioned individual rights and free markets inevitably lead to inequalities and discrimination, argue socialist sympathizers. This is why the chaos of liberty needs to be replaced with cadres of government experts empowered to guarantee fairness and equality, by planning economic production, regulating finance, redistributing wealth, and engaging in every imaginable type of social engineering.

But before looking at whether these socialist goals are achievable or even desirable, let’s consider a few hypothetical scenarios typical of modern socialism — including socialism right here in the United States. Ask yourself whether the following situations could truly be considered “fair”:

  • You’re in a difficult college chemistry class where, because the students are enthusiastic about socialism, the professor has told students he will give them all the exact same grade in the class, in the name of equality, if more than half of them want that plan — an average of all their grades. You’re trying to get into medical school and need straight A’s to have a realistic chance of acceptance, but your classmates voted for the plan, nearly ensuring you’ll get less than an A because many students will surely slack off on studying, counting on a few hard workers to keep grades up. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • Your parents started their own business in their 30s, risking their life savings and ownership of their house to open a restaurant. After working 80-hour weeks for 20 years, taking only two vacations in that entire time, they have saved enough to have a good retirement ($20 million). Your parents will not give you money for college because they believe if you have to use your own money for school, you’ll work harder, so you will have to borrow $80,000 to go to your state university for four years — because the college has documented that your parents have enough money to pay tuition bills. You will be paying back your loans with interest for the next 15 to 20 years, while a student whose family recently moved here from Poland will get free tuition from the same college because his parents make less than $50,000 a year. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • You’re in your thirties and have held some type of job since you were 12. You didn’t go to college because school didn’t interest you and it was very expensive, but you managed to create a successful landscaping business through working long hours, saving to buy the equipment necessary to open the entity, and building a reputation as an honest businessman. Now, you are not only taxed at an exorbitant rate to pay for other people to go to college, but you’re losing some of your biggest accounts because companies get tax breaks for hiring minority-headed contracting businesses and you’re white. That’s socialism — is it fair?
  • You’re in your early 70s and are retired. While you didn’t plan on having a luxurious retirement, you did plan on a comfortable one, since you have put money from your manufacturing job into a retirement account since your early twenties, and your stock portfolio has grown. With your Social Security payments and investment income combined, you planned to live on a lake in the woods and fish regularly, having the grandchildren visit often. But things haven’t gone as planned: Government Social Security payments not only have not kept up with inflation, but property taxes on your retirement cottage have skyrocketed, so you can’t afford to live on the lake anymore. Not only that, you notice that taxes on gas, capital gains from your prudent investments, and many other inescapable budget items have all crept upward over the years, while the interest rates and real value of your bank-based savings have fallen. In fact, inflation and ever-higher taxes are making it hard to pay the bills even in a cheap house in a low-income neighborhood. Retirement on the lakeshore has now become an impossible dream, and all because of socialist-inspired government spending — is that fair?

Experiences like these will be familiar to countless millions of people living under socialism all over the world. As socialism sets in (and the process often takes several generations), people see their standards of living erode and, eventually, the entire fabric of society that was once familiar remade into something both economically and culturally alien. In fact, culture is the key.

Societal Socialism

In the end, socialism isn’t mainly about economics; it’s about cultural change. Socialism is first and foremost (as the word implies) a social movement, not an economic one. The primary objective of socialism is to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool.

Modern socialism began as a rejection of Western Christian civilization and the moral and political values it produced. From its early beginnings — in revolutionary France in the late 18th century and in the eccentric socialist communes of Britain and America in the early 19th century — socialist utopias always were based on the eradication of traditional family ties and religious beliefs. Sexual “liberation,” including communal marriages, and the substitution of pagan and even atheist beliefs for Christian doctrine, were necessary preconditions for a social order that required renouncing individuality, private property, and allegiances to family and church.

So-called sexual liberation, as well as freedom from economic want, have headlined socialist sales pitches: In return for allowing a governing entity to take one’s freedom of choice in many areas, including what to believe, how to use one’s time, or how to spend one’s earned wealth, physical pleasures and safety nets have been offered in return.

Socialists needed to sell something worth having, since there’s no escaping a simple rule that should be obvious to anyone: More laws equals less freedom.

And since the Christian religion preaches reliance on God, not man, and is against the idea of “redistribution of wealth” — taking by force from one to give to another — deeming it theft, socialism has always worked to undermine Christianity to achieve its goals. By the mid-19th century, the dominant form of socialism was communism. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto expended a lot of ink on the need to eradicate religion and family ties, by any means necessary. And communism’s well-known hostility to God and family is shared by all other forms of socialism, although behind a kinder, gentler mask of “tolerance.”

Hence the accusations against Christians, by those who call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” (modern terms for socialists and socialist sympathizers), for being “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “oppressive,” etc. — though Christianity advocates loving the sinner, just not the sin, and a couple dozen Christian rules for living pale in comparison — oppression-wise — to the volumes of rules that accompany socialist laws.

Of course, attacks on Christians are justified as being anti-discriminatory, but that provides only a thin veneer of justification over the top of glaring injustice. All people and businesses discriminate, but usually only Christians in liberal society suffer for being discriminatory. Examples of allowed discrimination are many: Secular humanist stores don’t sell Bibles (religious discrimination); homosexual dating and travel sites don’t cater to heterosexuals (sex discrimination); some dating sites and college scholarships are black-only (race discrimination); most hat stores don’t sell Jewish yarmulkes (religious discrimination); women’s clothing stores usually carry limited sizes (weight discrimination); luxury car dealers and hotels don’t provide discounts to the poor (poverty discrimination); many fitness clubs and doctors cater to women only (sex discrimination); department stores often sell underwear but don’t sell sheer lingerie (lifestyle discrimination); etc.

Christian religion is tolerated by socialists only to the extent that religious groups will bend their beliefs to accommodate socialist ideology; hence, the “official” churches in China and the USSR, and the exclusion of other belief systems. Socialism, by its very nature, is intolerant and hateful.

Similarly, liberals dub Christianity “intolerant,” “patriarchal,” and the like, and Western culture “Eurocentric,” “imperialist,” and so on, though socialism when enacted will command, and even eliminate, the most mundane of individual behaviors.

To undo traditional culture, socialist talking points commonly demean and belittle the status quo. According to the reasoning of socialist radicals, America, the most diverse and inclusive society the world has ever seen, is somehow bigoted, racist, and intolerant above all else. The country that invented modern liberty and limited republican government is a model of oppression. And the country that has done more than any other to advance human learning via the world’s greatest universities and scholarly community is somehow guilty of systemic ignorance and Eurocentrism.

It is no accident that, in countries where socialism has triumphed over all its rivals, the government moves to destroy every pillar of culture, especially religion and family, and transforms itself into the ultimate authority on values. During China’s horrific “cultural revolution,” the communist government set out to destroy Chinese traditional culture root and branch. Families were brutally torn apart and children re-educated. Traditional values — in China embodied by the precepts of Buddhism, Taoism, and the philosophy of Confucius — were all attacked and replaced by the Communist Party as the only legitimate source of moral standards. This policy continues to this day; little of Chinese traditional culture is taught in government schools. While some semblance of normal family values has returned to China, the government still dictates how many children parents can have. The communists also act as the national guardians of virtue, being engaged in nonstop anti-corruption campaigns to stamp out drugs, prostitution, bribery, and other social ills — mostly by tightly controlling the Internet and other forms of free speech and association. Such have been the far-ranging consequences of the socialist cultural makeover of China.

That same overall goal is being sought in Europe, as EU countries are being flooded with Third World immigrants, while citizens in those countries are being arrested if they disagree with the massive cultural changes taking place — same result as China, though with less violence.

Misconceptions of Socialism

Despite the cultural realignment that is the main thrust of socialism, it is widely perceived by those sold on socialism as being nothing more than a better economic alternative to free market capitalism, though the belief that socialism can and will make everyone well-off is an illusion. It is worth taking a look at a few of the many widely believed economic misconceptions used to promote socialism.

Misconception #1: Socialism will ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, low-cost, timely healthcare. 

Socialized medicine has been one of the top selling points for socialism for a long time, and countries such as Canada and Great Britain are celebrated by leftists everywhere for their allegedly successful socialized healthcare systems, though the efficiency and effectiveness of those systems are way oversold, and they often actually provide substandard care as compared to medical care in America. (See article on page 17.)

Over time, the United States has created a partially socialized healthcare system, beginning with Lyndon Johnson’s creation of Medicare and Medicaid, and continuing with countless other government controls over healthcare, including President Obama’s Affordable Care Act — a hodgepodge of public and private interests that nobody really understands, and that, most everyone agrees, is broken beyond repair.

Running contrary to the promises of socialism, each time the government has gotten involved in the healthcare system, it has caused unintended consequences and distortions — much like our example of the Indian cobras — causing more harm than good. Not only is the U.S. government responsible for health insurance being issued through one’s job — because of price controls the U.S. government introduced in WWII — making medical care less accessible to some than others, nearly every action of government has led to bad results, especially making healthcare more expensive or less accessible. Here are a few, of numerous, examples:

  • Government limits the number of doctors available to practice — at the behest of doctors, because doctors want to get paid a lot — by limiting residency slots available, by making it difficult for foreign doctors to be admitted to practice here, by limiting how many doctors may practice a certain specialty in a given locale, and more.
  • Government causes high drug prices by renewing and extending patents on drugs when small, unimportant drug-formulation changes are made by pharmaceutical companies. And government also raises drug costs by allowing drug marketing companies to demand kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies to sell their products under exclusive contracts, as explained at nomiddlemen.org, causing some drug prices to rise in excess of 400 percent (raising drug costs in the United States by hundreds of billions of dollars per year) and causing some drugs to be unavailable altogether. (This is legalized racketeering, thanks to Congress.)
  • Government boosted healthcare costs to those with private insurance or no insurance by underpaying for Medicaid patients, causing medical providers to make up their losses elsewhere. Underpaying for Medicaid services also made it difficult for Medicaid patients to find a doctor willing to treat them, leading to worse care and shorter lives for Medicaid patients with heart conditions and head, neck, breast, and colon cancers.
  • Government boosted the opioid overdose epidemic by providing opioids such as oxycodone to Medicaid patients for free or nearly free, a drug program that the Medicaid patients saw as an opportunity to make easy money by selling the drugs on the streets, or as a cheap way to get an opioid “fix,” according to the U.S. Senate.

(Question: Since government officials must either have been ignorant or corrupt to allow the aforementioned things to occur, what are the chances they will run an efficient and equitable healthcare system?)

Analysis tells us that it’s simply untrue that government provision of medical care will mean more and better care, as should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. Because of the incentive structure associated with socialism, government-run entities are always much more expensive and much less efficient than their counterparts in the private sector. This is obviously true with, for example, government-run post offices versus private shipping firms such as FedEx, or with government-run versus private airlines, buses, and other modes of transportation. (Consider whether Uber and Lyft are better than government-sanctioned cab-company monopolies.) While there are some tasks that government is arguably required to perform — military spending, road and bridge construction, for example — all such government projects always end up with delays and cost overruns. This is because, where government is concerned, delays and excessive spending are incentivized. Politicians derive power from bloated budgets and big projects, and the more money and time spent, the greater the political leverage. The more people and bureaucrats involved, the more likely that a budget item will survive, since large, overfunded projects appear to create lots of jobs and are politically difficult to defund.

This is why government healthcare is always massively inefficient and poor quality. It may not be paid for out of pocket at the inpatient reception desk, but it will be paid for — with interest — via massive taxation. As for the quality of government-run healthcare, the exodus of well-heeled Canadians (including, not long ago, the premier of a Canadian province) to American hospitals for major medical procedures such as heart surgery speaks for itself.

Before socialization overwhelmed American medicine, healthcare was cheap and convenient. Socialized medicine removes the element of choice (another word for freedom), and instead of a menu of different care options and a wide range of possible healthcare providers, it provides one or a very limited range of options dictated by the government, not the consumer, to save money. For instance, when drugs cost a lot, Britain’s National Health Service simply refuses to allow them to be used. And we get a system that incentivizes patients to overuse their “unlimited” healthcare benefits, incentivizes doctors to recommend treatments that pay the most, and incentivizes government to ration care to lower costs. Hardly a win-win-win situation.

Misconception #2: Socialism means “equality,” spreading wealth and opportunity so that everyone gets their fair share. 

This misconception involves several cons. Foremost is the redistribution con. Before wealth can be redistributed, it must first be taken from someone. And where will we find the angelic beings who are to be trusted to wisely and fairly redistribute the wealth once it’s gathered? Experience tells us we won’t find them. We always end up with political elites living in splendor, while everyone else is mired in squalor and deprivation. Even as China and Russia have allowed some capitalism — because socialism had impoverished their countries — the great majority of the new wealth is concentrated in the hands of the “former communists.”

As the government consumes and controls more and more of the wealth of a given country, those in the government and connected to it benefit disproportionately, and it becomes ever more difficult for the average Joe to make ends meet; he is forced to accept more and more dependence on government “aid,” a fact used by the Left to push for more government control.

The socialist vision of equality, the belief that only government can level people in society, never ends up elevating society to new, higher levels of equality in health, prosperity, and education. Instead, it has the long-term effect of bringing everyone down to a lower, common level of misery, eliminating any possibility for individuals to improve their circumstances by free choice. This is true because socialism stops, or at least slows, wealth creation because government can never meet the desires, demands, and needs of consumers as well as businesses do — and that is how wealth is created.

Because businesses must either meet consumer demand or, as in the case of the creation of smartphones, create new consumer demand to make money, businesses usually react swiftly to consumers’ wants. When consumers express dislike for menu items, car styles, a price point, a ball color, golf club performance, or anything else, businesses will strive to meet consumer desires — or will go out of business. Consumers dictate what products will be produced and in what quantity. Under socialism, to a large extent, government dictates what products will be produced: what pharmaceuticals will be available, what new medical experiments will be funded, what type of cars you should drive, what type of house you should live in, etc. — and all those decisions get made based on favoritism, bribes, family connections, or simply bureaucratic whim, stifling innovation and taking funds companies would use for job and wealth creation if they were allowed to keep the cash.

And while it seems entirely wrong that a handful of Americans, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, and a few others, have as much money as most of the rest of the country combined, this perception of wrongness rests on the errant belief that the country has a fixed amount of wealth and that, in the name of fairness, that wealth should be more equally distributed. That claim is not true. New companies, new products, and new services can create new wealth, so many of the rich in this country are actually helping raise the standard of living for Americans as a whole, even as they become exceptionally rich. On the other hand, concentrated wealth is a problem under socialism because that ideology interferes with wealth creation.

As Winston Churchill famously pointed out, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Nor is any of this idle speculation. The evidence is very clear, from decades and decades of socialist experimentation both at home and abroad. The present situation in Venezuela has grabbed headlines in recent years. There, in what was not long ago Latin America’s wealthiest country, “Bolivarian” socialism has taken a fearful toll, plunging the country into unimaginable poverty — this, even as the country’s brutal dictator, Nicolás Maduro, stubbornly clings to power while his people starve or flee abroad. Zimbabwe, with inflation reaching 89.7 sextillion percent year-on-year in 2008, is another poster child for the toll that generational socialism will take, and South Africa now seems determined to follow the same tragic path. While socialists always protest that such examples are not typical, and represent the tragic misapplication of socialist principles, the facts don’t back them up. In the United States, socialism at the level of state and local government has wrecked entire cities such as Detroit, and is now destroying once-prosperous California. Formerly the place where dreams come true, California is now in very sorry shape, with disease, poverty, and crime rampant in her largest cities, uncontrolled wildfires destroying vast swaths of towns and suburbs (the result of decades of bad government environmental policy), and state and city governments teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. All this, while California’s political leaders focus their energy on providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, spending billions on high-speed railroad boondoggles, and even — at the time of this writing — intending to spend $100 million per year to provide full health coverage for low-income illegal immigrants aged 19 to 25.

Too, American Indian reservations, classic examples of government planning, have been under the superintendence of the federal government for generations — and poverty, crime, and numerous other social ills remain the norm.

Capitalism, and freedom in general, has just the opposite effect. All of the miraculous progress of the modern world is the result of capitalism, of risk-taking and innovation, not central planning. Even heavily socialized countries such as China have made considerable progress — in exact proportion to their willingness to allow capitalism to take root. And it has been capitalism, not socialism, that, by incentivizing progress in medicine, food production, transportation, information technology, and so on, that has immeasurably improved standards of living almost everywhere in the world, leading to drastic increases in the quality of living for an overwhelming majority of people. So much for the socialist caricature of wicked, morally challenged capitalism!

Continued on next page…

Fabian Society

The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London to promote Socialism and is named after the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal’s army in small, carefully planned strategies of debilitating skirmishes to slowly wear down his enemies over a long period of time to obtain victory rather than attempting one decisive battle. It originated and as an offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of the New Life, with the purpose of forming a single, global socialist state. “Fabian Socialism” uses incremental change over a long period of time to slowly transform a state as opposed to using violent revolution for change. It is essentially socialism by stealth and gradualism, a slow march towards a New World Order.

According to author Jon Perdue, “The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.” The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.

Its nine founding members were Frank Podmore, Edward R. Pease, William Clarke, Hubert Bland, Percival Chubb, Frederick Keddell, H. H. Champion, Edith Nesbit, and Rosamund Dale Owen. Havelock Ellis is sometimes also mentioned as a tenth founding member, though there is some question about this. Immediately upon its inception, the Fabian Society began attracting many prominent contemporary figures drawn to its socialist cause, including George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf and Virginia Woolf, Ramsay MacDonald and Emmeline Pankhurst. Even Bertrand Russell briefly became a member, but resigned after he expressed his belief that the Society’s principle of entente (in this case, countries allying themselves against Germany) could lead to war.

The Fabian Society was named—at the suggestion of Frank Podmore—in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed “Cunctator”, meaning the “Delayer”). His Fabian strategy sought gradual victory against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal through persistence, harassment, and wearing the enemy down by attrition rather than head-on battles. An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group’s first pamphlet declared:

For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.

According to author Jon Perdue, “The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.” The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.

H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:

“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do.”1

When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.2 It gets in the way of revolutionary change.

Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate3, that it  should become the vision for better things in the next world. The new order must be built on the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.

  1. H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1928), p. vii.
  2. There is disagreement over the correct translation from the German text. One translation is opium of the people.
  3. It’s a small matter, but we prefer opiate of the masses because we believe it is a more accurate translation and is more consistent with the fiery vocabulary of Marx.

The blueprint in The Open Conspiracy has been followed in all the British dependencies and the United Sates. As a result, today’s world is very close to the vision of  H.G. Wells. A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.

LOVE-HATE BETWEEN FABIANS AND LENINISTS

Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called the bourgeoisie.

Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin accepted it wholeheartedly. Lenin described the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.

When the Bolsheviks (Zionists N.M.) came to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands. This brutality offended the sensibilities of the more genteel Fabians. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer it as a last resort, whereas the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They likely would have stayed there if they hadn’t been offended by the brutality of the regime.

To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.

Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father, G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds collectivists together. She says:

It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….

The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down, those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party (and the many who having initially joined it, left in all haste), together with G.D.H. Cole’s connections in the working-class education movement and his young disciples from Oxford of the ‘twenties, found no mental difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 – nor did the surviving faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2

Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.

Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to dictatorships anyway.

In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties, church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations, financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am going to read a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic examples of this strategy.

The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike. They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominate the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition to collectivism.

It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism today without being aware of that reality.

THE KEY THAT UNLOCKS THE DOOR THAT HIDES THE SECRETS

The Fabian symbols of the turtle and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass window that used to be in the Fabian headquarters. The window has been removed, we are told, for safety, but there are many photographs showing the symbols in great detail. The most significant part appears at the top. It is that famous line from Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

1 Syndicalism is a variant of collectivism in which labor unions play a dominant role in government and industry.

2 Margaret Cole, The Story of Fabian Socialism (Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1961), p. xii.

5 Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it unlocks the door that hides the secret of the war on terrorism:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

Elsewhere in the window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are striking it with hammers – to shatter it to bits! That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. “War is the best way to remold society. War! It will shatter society to bits, break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire.” And what is their heart’s desire? Ladies and Gentlemen, it is collectivism.

Source: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/religion_cults/news.php?q=1252088437

See all events tagged ‘Fabian socialism

Fabian Society 2; Fabian Society 3


History of Events Related to Fabian Socialism

Richard Gardner: "...the ’House of World Order’ Will Have to be Built from the Bottom up Rather than from the Top Down... Eroding it (Sovereignty) Piece by Piece"

Richard Gardner: “…the ’House of World Order’ Will Have to be Built from the Bottom up Rather than from the Top Down… Eroding it (Sovereignty) Piece by Piece”

In the April issue of the CFR journal, 'Foreign Affairs' (p 558), Richard Gardner is quoted from a 1968 speech he gave: If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The ...
Read More
The Leftist, Socialist Group SDS Published a Pamphlet Titled 'Socialism and the Coming Decade' Changing Their Social Change Tactics from Stealth to Eschewing Controversy

The Leftist, Socialist Group SDS Published a Pamphlet Titled ‘Socialism and the Coming Decade’ Changing Their Social Change Tactics from Stealth to Eschewing Controversy

A group that included past SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) national secretary Paul Booth, his activist wife, Heather Booth, onetime SDS field secretary Steve Max and radical community organizer Harry Boyte published a pamphlet titled Socialism and the Coming Decade. This creed said that because the U.S. had entered a “non-revolutionary period,” socialist activists should eschew confrontational tactics in favor of a stealth, incremental approach to social ...
Read More
Senator Jenner: "We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state."

Senator Jenner: “We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state.”

Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its ...
Read More
'Education for Destruction' is Published by Patriot Dr. Bessie Burchett, who Valiantly Fought the Communization of American Public Schools

‘Education for Destruction’ is Published by Patriot Dr. Bessie Burchett, who Valiantly Fought the Communization of American Public Schools

"EDUCATION FOR DESTRUCTION" was written by DR. B.R. BURCHETT and PUBLISHED by her in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1941. She gives us a first hand look at her battle with the beginnings of collectivism, removing God from school, and other agendas carried out by infiltrators of our education system. The promotional flyer for Dr. Burchett’s book read as follows: Arresting... Disturbing... Exciting NOW for the First Time—the ...
Read More
Maine Education Commissioner Dr. Augustus Thomas: "If There are Those who Think we are to Jump Immediately into a New World Order... They are Doomed to Disappointment."

Maine Education Commissioner Dr. Augustus Thomas: “If There are Those who Think we are to Jump Immediately into a New World Order… They are Doomed to Disappointment.”

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR OF AUGUST 8, 1927 quoted from an address to the World Federation of Education Associations (WFEA) at their Toronto, Canada conference delivered by Dr. Augustus Thomas, commissioner of education for the state of Maine. Excerpts from Dr. Thomas’s revealing address follow: If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and ...
Read More

Sanders, Bernie

(born Sept 8, 1941) A bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He later wrote about crudities for left-wing rags for $50 a story, and then tried politics where he has served as U.S. Senator (D-VT) since 1991. Peter Schweizer’s book, Profile’s in Corruption, details how Bernie over the course of his 30-plus years in public office funneled huge sums of money ($83M via clandestine media-buying company) to his family. Sanders ran unsuccessfully for the 2016 Democratic nomination (stolen by Hillary) for president and is running again in 2020. He has denied ever being a member of the communist SWP, but The Washington Examiner found his ties to the party are “deep and enduring.” He took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR (where he took his 2nd wife on their honeymoon), but also to communist Cuba and Nicaragua where he spoke at the 7th anniversary of the violent Sandinista Revolution in 1985. He has amassed a $2.5+ million fortune (disclosed), but wants you to redistribute your wealth, if any, to bums like him until a capitalist free market (along with shady dealings) made him millions.

Read more

Warren, Elizabeth

Socialist Senator (D-MA) and 2020 presidential candidate from the party of liars, she stands out as a fraud and habitual liar. She was first exposed as a fraud when President Trump challenged her (nicknaming her Pocahontas) to take a DNA test and she did. She was 1/1024th, or 0.09% Indian. The average European American is 0.18%. In other words, she’s whiter than your average white person!”1 She listed herself as ‘Native American’ in the Harvard law directory where she taught prior to politics. Also, while telling families they cannot have school choice or charter schools, she is lying to them about her children going to public school, who actually went to an expensive public school. Also, she lied falsely claimed she was fired from a teaching job because she was pregnant, and advertised to MA residents watching the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, a 30-second campaign commercial that said America should be more like communist China.

Bag of Lies

She claims to be the daughter of a janitor and even Barack Obama called her a janitor’s daughter in an endorsement ad when she was in a tight Senate race in 2012 in Massachusetts. Obama also endorsed her for 2020. But her father’s death certificate- with info supplied by Warren herself- says her dad was a flight instructor for the US Army. His obituary says he was a “self-employed businessman.” Her brother was reportedly ‘furious’ she claims their father was a janitor.’ He said, ‘My Dad was never a janitor. Well, he was a maintenance man.’  but it was only brief “work he found after losing a job as a salesman after his heart attack”.

Elizabeth Warren’s entire career has been based on a lie. The notion that she’s some sort of expert on the financial sector is another. Not only is the Senator from Massachusetts bad on basic economics — advocating policies that would grossly punish the poor, ignore the consequences of central banking, and being a general embodiment for everything bad about modern progressivism — but she is ignorant of basic facts that played out during the financial crisis according to Tho Bishop of the Mises Institute.

The University of Pennsylvania Law School’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified Warren as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority. And Warren listed herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) from 1986 to 1995, The Washington Post reported. Harvard law school listed her as a minority and Warren even provided recipes for a 1984 cookbook titled “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole,” listing herself as a Cherokee. The Daily Mail reported in that three of those recipes were plagiarized from a French chef.1

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) has continually taken aim at parents having a say in what school their child attends. What’s ironic, however, is Warren doesn’t want parents who send their kids to public school to decide where their child is sent but Warren herself made the choice to send her kids to an elite private school in Texas.2

The Washington Free Beacon obtained a yearbook for the private school Ms. Warren’s son attended. Back in the 1980s, the school charged roughly $15,000 per year for tuition. The Warren campaign tried to tamp down the controversy by claiming Ms. Warren was technically accurate because, “Elizabeth’s daughter went to public school. Her son went to public school until 5th grade.”4

One of her cornerstone stories while campaigning is that she was fired from a teaching job because she was pregnant.  In Warren’s telling, her horrible principal wished her luck and threw her out on the street. That news must come as a real shock to the maligned principal and board of education, since they appear to have treated Warren with nothing but respect and offered her a job extension.  They accepted Warren’s resignation with regret, and why not?  It’s not every day you lose your sole American Indian on staff, which no doubt immediately messed up their “diversity is our strength” ratio.3

In 2019, she tweeted out that “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.”  That is not only a lie, but a horrible smear of a man who serves and protects Americans. Darren Wilson did not murder Michael Brown.  Warren’s noxious play here was obvious.  Warren is performing wretchedly among black Americans and decided that lying to them would help build that support.  Based on recent polls, it didn’t work.  If she fails to capture the nomination, her continued failure with these Americans will be the main reason why.3

PolitiFact refused to even acknowledge one of the worst lies in recent history, stating, “Because the significance of [Kamala] Harris’ and [Elizabeth] Warren’s use of the word is open to some dispute, we won’t be rating their tweets on the Truth-O-Meter.” The Michael Brown “hands-up, don’t shoot” lie was proven definitively.  Wilson was the victim who was fighting for his life, a heroic man forced into a terrible situation.  But Democrats will never admit the truth since the lie serves their purpose far better.3

During the 2020 Presidential campaign, Warren accused Bernie Sanders of saying that a woman couldn’t win the election. He denied saying it. When asked about it, Warren replied, in a major lack of self-awareness, “How could the American people want someone that lies to them?”


Warren should not be able to escape liability for her deceptions. The Texas Bar should open an ethics investigation of Warren’s false representations about her identity. So should the Senate Ethics Committee.1

Purgery

Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that Elizabeth Warren gave false statements under oath regarding Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) activities when she served as the agency’s interim director. According to the records, Warren and the CFPB were intimately involved in brokering a 50-state settlement underway with the nation’s largest mortgage lenders related to alleged improper foreclosure procedures. This evidence seems to contradict Warren’s statements before Congress suggesting her office responded to requests for advice, but did not seek to push its views.

During a March 16, 2011, hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ms. Warren downplayed her agency’s involvement in the state settlement negotiations: “We have been asked for advice by the Department of Justice, by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by other federal agencies. And when asked for advice, we have given our advice.”

But this does not come close to telling the full story.

Emails obtained by Judicial Watch from several states suggest her agency’s participation was far more intense and aggressive. Warren called emergency meetings by phone and in person with attorneys general nationwide to contribute unsolicited input on the matter. The documents also indicate that Warren’s office insisted on keeping its contact with the state attorneys general secret. For example, in a February 25, 2011, email to the Executive Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan wrote: “Elizabeth Warren would like to present the CFPB’s view on loan modifications.” Two weeks earlier, a similar email was distributed to NAAG’s Loss Mitigation Subgroup on Warren’s behalf. In an email on February 15 regarding that meeting, Madigan points out that “The CFPB wanted me to stress the confidential nature of this briefing.”

Cronyism

Author Peter Schweizer visited “Fox & Friends” to discuss his new book, Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite, which offers a look into some of the shady dealings of the United States’ political leaders, including Elizabeth Warren.

Schweizer said there is a “three-layer cake of corruption” with Warren.

“[Warren] was actually a government consultant paid by the U.S. Congress in the 1990s to rewrite our bankruptcy laws. OK, that’s all fine and good, but she did the typical Washington crony move: She cashed in. After she rewrote those laws, what did she do? She went to the corporations who would benefit from the law and said, ‘Hire me, and I will help you interpret the law that I myself wrote.’ And she made millions of dollars doing that.”

She’s also got a daughter who set up a business. She was setting up that business while Elizabeth Warren was head of the TARP Oversight Committee, and what ends up happening is the daughter gets her business financed and gets advisors from the very investment banks that Elizabeth Warren’s TARP Committee was bailing out.”

Absurd Policies

Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All healthcare plan comes with a price tag of ‘just under’ $52 trillion, but she claims not ‘one penny’ would be paid for by the middle class – instead billionaires will face huge new bills. ‘We don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare-for-All,’ she says in her long-awaited plan for single-payer health coverage. The progressive wealth tax behind it would however hit the ultra-wealthy for vast sums – with a six per cent tax on all wealth over $1 billion at the heart of the scheme.5

Her Accountable Capitalism Act, which would mandate that 40 percent of the directors of large companies be selected by the employees and corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would have to obtain a federal charter, would have a more fitting name if she called it what it is: The New Communism Act. Elected workers’ and peoples’ committees? That might have been good politics in Russia in 1917, but today? Doubtful. Communism has been a huge failure in Russia, Cuba, Eastern Europe, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and a good portion of Africa. It has never worked, and is a stillborn political idea, except on some college campuses, CNN and NBC and, maybe for a brief period, in The New York Times.

Sen. Warren and her supporters claim the bill would address “income inequality.” The experience in all of the above countries is that the elite get much richer and the poor get much poorer. The way to raise incomes is to encourage a strong economy, which the senator’s bill would destroy.

Here’s a sampling of what would happen: capital would flee the United States, just as it did under President Obama, and crater the economic recovery. All those companies that are reinvesting in the United States and building new plants would stop doing so. Unemployment would skyrocket, and the new hope now given to African-Americans, Hispanic citizens, and women in the job market would evaporate. Pensions of American workers would collapse. All those “rich capitalists” and everyone else, including union pension plans, would simply short American companies and make another bundle. In short, it’s an incredibly stupid economic idea.

Initially she had a great case to make. Some of those investment bankers, Fannie Mae leaders, and other financial manipulators should have gone to jail after the financial crisis; they didn’t, and Sen. Warren failed in the one real job we gave her. She rightly spoke out about those who made a bundle securitizing mortgages, selling them to investors, and then shorting their own products and lying about it. She said they should be in jail, but ultimately, she did nothing about it.

This political move, combined with Sen. Warren’s indictment of the entire law enforcement system in America as “racist,” a comment she made at Dillard University and elsewhere, suggests she is a national politician who cannot read the (red/blue) map. Few people in the red or blue states on that map will accept her anti-law enforcement pitch. With unemployment falling, and serious hope returning, the political tool of attacking law enforcement will be much less effective if an improved economy leads to a decline in urban frustration.5

In addition, Warren has a plan to combat the fake global warming crisis that would restrict new housing completely unless the homes were zero carbon footprint. This is a stated policy but I’m sure she’ll have plenty of other restrictions to unveil, but while you and me are peddling to work on our bikes to save the planet, Fauxcahontas will be flying around in her private jet and hoping t o not get caught…

Iran Connection

Warren’s son-in-law, with whom she is close, has troubling ties to the Iranian regime, according to a 2020 book by Peter Schweizer. The book, Profiles in Corruption, reveals Sushil Tyagi, who is married to her daughter, Amelia. Tyagi was born in India but moved to the United States, where he met Amelia while they were both pursuing MBAs at Wharton Business School. She attended his brother’s wedding in India, recounting it in her memoir. She and her husband Bruce Mann in December 2009 served as witnesses for a power of attorney corporate document he filed in India.

Since his marriage into the Warren family, Tyagi “has been involved in a series of curious—even troubling—business ventures around the world,” Schweizer writes. Tyagi runs Tricolor Films, and in 2008, produced a film called The Song of Sparrows, directed by Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi. Tyagi was listed as the film’s sole producer on a New York Times page, in credits which have now been deleted. A look back at the page’s archive revealed that the film was funded by the Iranian government agency that is overseen by Iranian propagandists.

Schweizer writes:

The full credits of the film, for some reason, seem to also have been scrubbed from the internet. We obtained a copy by using the Wayback machine and made a startling discovery: the movie’s chief investors included none other than the social deputy of the State Welfare Organization (SWO) of Iran (SWO-“معاونت اجتماعی سازمان بهزیستی کشور”) as well as the Cultural and Artistic Organization of Tehran. (“سازمان فرهنگی و هنری شهرداری تهران”)

These two investors in the film might appear at first glance to be innocuous cultural organizations—but they are not. Both are funded and controlled by the Islamist Iranian government.

The Cultural and Artistic Organization of Tehran states: “This organization was founded in 1996 and [does] its activities under the supervision of a board of trustees composed of various cultural institutions such as IRIB and Islamic propaganda organization.”

The Cultural and Artistic Organization of Tehran’s page promotes cultural events such as one for school children entitled “The Seal of Hostages,” attended by several top Iranian officials, according to the book. Another event is the inherently antisemitic Quds Day on the last day of Ramadan. The organization also arranges marches, as well as organizes posters and other materials, for Quds Day. Its site says, “A new plan for the destruction of Israel will be launched, and the Quds Cultural Radio station will be located at the Radio Station. Also, the ‘I love the fight against Israel’ is distributed among the people.”

Schweizer notes, “Quds Day typically features massive crowds organized by the Iranian government chanting ‘death to America’ and burning effigies, with full media coverage.” He writes Tyagi’s The Song of Sparrows has film credits that read like “who’s who of prominent Iranian government institutions.” For example, there is a thank-you to the “Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force.”

This was during a time of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions, when Washington had accused Iran of assisting in the killing of five American soldiers based in Iraq, and the then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had repeatedly threatened that the United States, which he declared a “satanic power,” and warned that Israel would disappear from the face of the earth.

Tyagi also produced another film by Majid Majidi, but even less information is available about this film, Schweizer writes. According to the book, a now deleted Web page describes Tyagi’s production company this way:

Leveraging their relationships with studio executives, access to top creative talent, and the high-level support that they enjoy from numerous foreign governments, this Los Angeles–based production company is developing a number of major international-themed projects for feature films, television, and interactive media.

“It is not known what foreign governments those might involve beyond Iran. Why the website was shut down is also unknown,” the book says.

Sources:

Chronological History of Events Involving Elizabeth Warren

2020 Election: The Greatest Election Fraud in History as Globalist Consortium Carry Out Coup to Take Over America

2020 Election: The Greatest Election Fraud in History as Globalist Consortium Carry Out Coup to Take Over America

The democrats, having failed in every effort to oust President Trump from the White House up until the Election (RussiaGate, UkraineGate, COVID-19 Scamdemic), would now see the 2020 Election as their best opportunity to remove the thorn in the deep state's side. Besides, they had essentially been manipulating elections for decades and they had prolonged the COVID-19 pandemic scare by ramping up testing and counting asymptomatic ...
Read More
Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of Rape and Sex Assault

Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of Rape and Sex Assault

After five days of deliberation, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape and sexual assault, sealing his dizzying fall from powerful Hollywood studio boss and Democrat party mega-donor to convicted rapist. The verdict followed weeks of often harrowing and excruciatingly graphic testimony from a string of accusers who told of rapes, forced oral sex, groping, masturbation, lewd propositions and how Hollywood’s casting couch works. The case against ...
Read More
Democrats Turn Iowa Caucus Into a Disaster; Buttigieg Declared Winner

Democrats Turn Iowa Caucus Into a Disaster; Buttigieg Declared Winner

The Iowa Democratic Party thought it would be a really swell idea to set the tone of the Democratic primary season by using their first-in-the-nation, widely touted, closely watched caucuses as a testing ground for a new Soros-funded election result reporting app called Shadow created by a shadowy organization called Acronym funded by a Silicon Valley billionaire known for online false flag operations in American elections and staffed by old ...
Read More
Democrats Kill Amendment Protecting Americans from Credit Discrimination Based on Politics, Religion

Democrats Kill Amendment Protecting Americans from Credit Discrimination Based on Politics, Religion

Democrats in the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday against an amendment to a proposed bill that would prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing credit reporting agencies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs. Without such an amendment, Republicans warn, the powerful CFPB would have the legal authority to make nearly any criteria mandatory for a private credit evaluation company ...
Read More
'Profiles in Corruption' Released, Revealing How Biden Family Siphoned ‘Millions in Taxpayer Cash’

‘Profiles in Corruption’ Released, Revealing How Biden Family Siphoned ‘Millions in Taxpayer Cash’

Publishing giant HarperCollins released Peter Schweizer’s new book which reveals how five members of Joe Biden’s family—the “Biden Five”—siphoned tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer cash and guaranteed loans. And the recent scandals involving Joe and Hunter Biden, Ukraine, and Burisma are just “the tip of the iceberg,” say sources close to the publisher. The book, Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive ...
Read More
Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump

Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump

(NBC News) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who for months resisted efforts to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, announced a formal inquiry on Tuesday, saying that the president’s growing Ukraine scandal marked a “breach of his Constitutional responsibilities." "This week the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically," Pelosi said. "The actions of the Trump ...
Read More
Dayton, OH Mass Shooting: 9 Killed, 27 Injured by Satanist Shooter

Dayton, OH Mass Shooting: 9 Killed, 27 Injured by Satanist Shooter

The mass shooter in Dayton, Ohio was identified by police as Connor Betts, who was shot dead by police within seconds, but not before he killed nine innocent people including his own younger sister. The brother and sister drove together to Dayton's Oregon District, an entertainment area with bars and restaurants, sometime Saturday night. Once there, they went their separate ways, police said. The shooting started ...
Read More
Democrats Block 'Born Alive' Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants who Survive Failed Abortions

Democrats Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants who Survive Failed Abortions

Senate Democrats blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing "infanticide" to appeal to left-wing voters. All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker ...
Read More
Operation Choke Point: Obama Administration Uses FDIC Intimidation on Unfavorable Businesses

Operation Choke Point: Obama Administration Uses FDIC Intimidation on Unfavorable Businesses

Operation Choke Point: Eric Holder’s Department of Justice conducted Operation Choke Point by using informal guidance language to manipulate the FDIC into intimidating banks and third-party payment processors to drop services to whole categories of businesses the Obama administration disfavors, such as online arms and ammunition sellers, gold and silver dealers, tobacconists, and payday lenders.  Nonprofits like the Center for Responsible Lending and Americans for Financial ...
Read More
John Kerry's New World Order Promotion at His Secretary of State Confirmation Hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

John Kerry’s New World Order Promotion at His Secretary of State Confirmation Hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

JOHN FORBES KELLY: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker and Members of the Committee: Thank you very, very much. I am in awe of the wonderful comments that were just made and I appreciate them and I’ll say a little bit more about them. Before I begin, I would like to have the privilege of just introducing very quickly, I think most of you know my wonderful wife Teresa, ...
Read More