America: No Longer A Nation


America’s outlook as the one-time shining city on the hill is bleak under Dem-Marxist control of a criminally elected Executive Administration. Everyday an edict or a Constitution-ignoring bill festers from the Dem-Marxist government eradicating America’s heritage. Too many American minds seem to be under the vice-grip of compliance to throw off their bonds of tyranny. Justin Smith as an outlook.

JRH 4/16/21

I need your generosity in 2021 via – credit cards, check cards

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or if donating you can support by getting in the Coffee from home business making yourself extra cash – OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

*****************************

America: No Longer A Nation 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/14/2021 7:13 PM

Razor Wire White House (The Hill, post is dated 3/2021 – photo is dated 1/29/21)

Any nation that requires armed soldiers and police, fences and barriers surrounding its Capitol, in the manner the Biden regime has now placed around America’s Capitol in Washington, D.C., is no longer a nation. It is simply a geographical location controlled by men and women of a particular party, in this case, the Democratic Party, that are so immoral, corrupt and tyrannical in nature, that it does not trust the people, who supposedly elected its people by a landslide, and it is not trusted by the people. 

Any nation throwing its borders wide open to all arrivals regardless of who they are, without demanding documentation of who these people are, is no longer a nation. Instead, it is just another cosmopolitan gathering spot for the dregs and castoffs of the world, and in the case of the relatively wealthy country of America, more wealthy than most of the world only because it prints the dollar as if there’s no tomorrow, it is simply a massive spigot for the delivery of money, resources and welfare benefits to be stolen by those who have no right to them.

Any nation under the control of a [Dem-Marxist Political] Party that so obviously stole the last election is no longer a nation, not when half the nation view those in control, as being illegitimate, treasonous usurpers and traitors to the country. Something so vile as what we see ruling by fiat in our country today is tantamount to what one might expect to see in a Third World country ruled by a military junta, from a fenced in military compound called the Capitol.

Any nation that has a [Dem-Marxist Political] Party acting against the nation’s Founding Principles [Blog Editor: Look for ** after this paragraph of three posts listing secular oriented, Christian oriented then a combination. The combination post is old on Free Republic with dead source-links, but still excellent.] and Founding Documents and  towards its stated goal of transforming the government into something antithetical to its original constitutional republican form of government is not a nation, not when this Party completely upends, ignores and violates the existing Constitution of that nation at will — when it violates the Supreme Law of the Land — to effect the destruction of what came before. It is an occupied area under the control of its enemies from within and abroad, especially when the people once known as “citizens” are being told that they must pay $15,000 to each illegal alien invader crossing the southern border, in effect paying to ensure that the current dictatorship maintains plenty of support in any number of future rigged elections. 

[** Founding Principles:

Any nation that has men and women running it, who have not a bit of compunction or twinge of conscience over violating every single basic human right — each inalienable God-given right — is not a nation of the people, for the people and by the people, rather it is an emerging new totalitarian regime and  hellhole in the making that loves itself, it’s psychopathic dictators and taking all the power that it can simply for the sake of having such enormous power. And it is not anyplace that fine, good and decent normal people wish to inhabit, not for long at any rate.

Any nation that seeks to disarm its law-abiding citizens, in order to more easily subjugate them, as it continues to murder babies by the thousands each day, moves to make an unproven Covid “Vaccine” mandatory and moves each day to eradicate the core nuclear family and God Almighty Himself from the public arena is not a nation. It is one unbelievably massive armed prison camp awaiting orders from on high to round up its dissenters and murder them very similarly to anything one  wishes to name from past fascist regimes, whether we speak of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho or Pol Pot.

[Blog Editor: Just a couple of pieces among many documentations of the evil of Communism:

  • Black Book of Communism; By Stéphane Courtois, et al; Harvard University Press – Uploaded to SCRIBD;  © 1999 – Uploaded to SCRIBD 6/15/08]

The United States of America might have been a nation, once upon a time, but now its monuments are being destroyed and its history is being erased and revised, so that America’s true history is read by our Communist Controllers, sitting within the D.C. Military Command Center, as if it is a new Fairy Tale, and what is presented for the Truth by these foul despicable denizens of the lowest levels of Hell sounds like something that only Satan himself could devise. The once proud nation of the United States of America is now a region open to its enemies from all across the globe, while its indigenous and native born natural and legal citizens are waiting for the final shoe to drop and the curtain to close on the last remnants of the U.S. of A; it is a geographical region that is being divided and subdivided among competing tribes, no matter their origination or length of residency, and no matter their loyalties.

Any nation that is comprised of a population that actively, willingly and gleefully works to destroy everything good and decent, the righteous and virtuous principles, that it was built upon is no longer a nation, but rather, it is something fetid and foul and unrecognizable by righteous freedom and liberty-loving individuals. It is an area packed with however many millions of people who are all working against one another and rushing headlong into disaster, and in America’s case, the death of a once glorious and exceptional nation — rushing headlong into the awaiting embrace of their own cold chains of tyranny that they themselves forged by way of their own corrupt and immoral path, either through ignorance or willful obeyance to illegal and unconstitutional diktats, soon to be forced to cow and bow in Serfdom at the altar of the Super-State — the Leviathan, with freedom and liberty passing to their deaths.

The United States of America is no longer a nation, or a country united in any sense of the word or by any stretch of one’s imagination. It is a GPS spot on the globe facing its own certain destruction at the hands of its own people, who have joined hands with the Fascists, Socialists and Communists of the world. It is a people unprepared to reap what they have sown and a spot on earth that is soon to descend into an unbelievable, unimaginable abattoir and rivers of blood, unless the greatest numbers among them soon turn away from their current love affair with the godless, immoral teachings of Marx, Mao and the Cancel Culture and unite to return to the ways taught to the first American settlers from the great philosophers of Western Civilization and the Books of the Bible and the Word of the One True God, or, at the very least, a moral code that fiercely protects and defends our inalienable God-given rights for all. 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Embedded links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Bold text indicates Editor agreement with Justin.

© Justin O. Smith

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION


Founding Fathers Political Spectrum

The Leftist paradigm to reinvent America different from the intentions of America’s Founding Fathers:

 

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction. (From a Fix Bayonets post)

 

Danny Jeffrey has presented a brilliant post which he attributes as submitted by Dee Fatouros. The thing is this post has a lot of the flavor of Danny’s work so I am a bit uncertain if this is the entire work of Dee Fatouros or if Danny Jeffrey collaborated in the content. Frankly it is irrelevant if this post is collaborative or the work of a sole author. Although essay wise the wording may be lengthy, the journey is quite concise in its layout.

 

This essay is entitled “PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION”. I originally wrote that I haven’t examined or did a search on Fix Bayonets to see if parts one through four are. However in trying to checkout some info on Dee Fatouros I discover that Danny Jeffrey placed all parts on a Blogger page with a Fix Bayonets look: DeeFatourosWorkUpSite. In your own investigations of the potential collapse of the America we know, it might behoove you to find parts one through four in your own research.

 

The essay begins with the foundation of a great civics lesson on American politics from inception to the present. THEN the author (or authors) explains how the American Left with George Soros as the current Leftist puppeteer deceptive pulling the strings of politics and money to transform America to a member of global totalitarian One World Government under the paradigm of Leftist altruism that is absolutely void of real Liberty and independent entrepreneurship.

 

JRH 5/11/15

Please Support NCCR

******************************

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION

 

Submitted By Dee Fatouros

May 11, 2015 6:39 AM

Fix Bayonets

 

Political Institutions:

Institutions that pertain to the governance of a society, its formal distribution of authority, its use of force, and its relationships to other societies and political units. The state, an important political institution in modern societies, is the apparatus of governance over a particular territory.

Here is a rundown of the various forms of government, with definitions provided by “The World Factbook.”

 

Absolute monarchy – a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

 

Anarchy – a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

 

Authoritarian – a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens’ lives.

 

Commonwealth – a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

 

Communist – a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single — often authoritarian — party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

 

Confederacy (Confederation) – a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

 

Constitutional – a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.


Constitutional democracy – a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.


Constitutional monarchy – a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.


Democracy – a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.


Democratic republic – a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.


Dictatorship – a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).


Ecclesiastical – a government administrated by a church.


Emirate – similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Federal (Federation) – a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided — usually by means of a constitution — between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.


Federal republic – a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.


Islamic republic – a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.


Maoism – the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.


Marxism – the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist “dictatorship of the proletariat,” to, finally, a classless society — Communism.


Marxism-Leninism – an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers’ struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.


Monarchy – a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign – such as a king, queen or prince – with constitutionally limited authority.


Oligarchy – a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.


Parliamentary democracy – a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government – a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers – according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.


Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) – a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader – a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.


Parliamentary monarchy – a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head – a prime minister, premier or chancellor – who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).


Presidential – a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).


Republic – a representative democracy in which the people’s elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.


Socialism – a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.


Sultanate – similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Theocracy – a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity’s laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.


Totalitarian – a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

 

The excerpts from the following article are detailed at the end with a link, but they are all part of the same excellent overview.

A SHORT GUIDE TO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

 

The United States is – by size of electorate – the second largest democracy on the globe (India is the largest and Indonesia comes third) and the most powerful nation on earth, politically, economically and militarily, but its political system is in many important respects unlike any other in the world. This essay then was written originally to inform non-Americans as to how the American political system works.


What has been striking, however, is how many Americans – especially young Americans – have found the essay useful and insightful. There is considerable evidence that many Americans know and understand little about the political system of their own country – possibly more than is the case with any other developed democratic nation.

In the U.S., the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests what American students are learning. It has found that the two worst subjects for American students are civics and American history. One NAEP survey found that only 7% of eighth graders (children aged 13-14) could describe the three branches of government.

On a recent trip to the United States, I was eating cereal for breakfast and found that the whole of the reverse side of the cereal packet was devoted to a short explanation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the American government. I find it hard to imagine that many democratic nations would feel it necessary to explain such a subject in such a format.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:


To understand any country’s political system, it is helpful to know something of the history of the nation and the background to the creation of the (latest) constitution. But this is a fundamental necessity in the case of the American political system. This is because the Constitution of the United States is so different from those of other nations and because that Constitution is, in all material respects, the same document as it was over two centuries ago…

 


THE CONSTITUTION:


Unlike Britain but like most nation states, the American political system is clearly defined by basic documents. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1789 form the foundations of the United States federal government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as an independent political entity, while the Constitution creates the basic structure of the federal government…

Further information on the thinking expressed in the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers which are a series of 85 articles and essays published in 1787-1788 promoting the ratification of the Constitution…

THE PRESIDENCY:


What is the Presidency?


The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. He – so far, the position has always been held by a man – is both the head of state and the head of government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. He presides over the executive branch of the government, a vast organisation numbering about four million people, including one million active-duty military personnel…

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:


What is the House of Representatives?


The House of Representatives is the lower chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The founders of the United States intended the House to be the politically dominant entity in the federal system and, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the House served as the primary forum for political debate. However, subsequently the Senate has been the dominant body…

THE SENATE:


What is the Senate?


The Senate is the upper chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The original intention of the authors of the US Constitution was that the Senate should be a regulatory group, less politically dominant than the House. However, since the mid-19th century, the Senate has been the dominant chamber and indeed today it is perhaps the most powerful upper house of any legislative body in the world…

THE SUPREME COURT:


What is the Supreme Court?


The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Originally it had five members but over time this number has increased. Since 1869, it has consisted of nine Justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. They have equal weight when voting on a case and the Chief Justice has no casting vote or power to instruct colleagues. Decisions are made by a simple majority.

Below the Supreme Court, there is a system of Courts of Appeal, and, below these courts, there are District Courts. Together, these three levels of courts represent the federal judicial system.

POLITICAL PARTIES & ELECTIONS:


To an extent quite extraordinary in democratic countries, the American political system is dominated by two political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (often known as the ‘Grand Old Party’ or GOP). These are very old and very stable parties – the Democrats go back to 1824 and the Republicans were founded in 1854.

In illustrations and promotional material, the Democratic Party is often represented as a donkey, while the Republican Party is featured as an elephant. The origin of these symbols is the political cartoonist Thomas Nast who came up with them in 1870 and 1874 respectively.

The main reason for the dominance of these two parties is that – like most other Anglo-Saxon countries (notably Britain) – the electoral system is ‘first past the post’ or simple majority which, combined with the large voter size of the constituencies in the House and (even more) the Senate, ensures that effectively only two parties can play. The other key factor is the huge influence of money in the American electoral system. Since effectively a candidate can spend any amount he can raise (not allowed in many other countries) and since one can buy broadcasting time (again not allowed in many countries), the US can only ‘afford’ two parties or, to put it another way, candidates of any other party face a formidable financial barrier to entry…

THE FEDERAL SYSTEM:

Understanding the federal nature of the United States is critical to appreciating the complexities of the American political system.


Most political systems are created top-down. A national system of government is constructed and a certain amount of power is released to lower levels of government.
The unique history of the United States means that, in this case, the political system was created bottom-up.

First, some 240 years ago, there were were 13 autonomous states who, following the War of Independence against the British, created a system of government in which the various states somewhat reluctantly ceded power to the federal government. Around a century later, the respective authority of the federal government and the individual states was an issue at the heart of the Civil War when there was a bloody conflict over who had the right to determine whether slavery was or was not permissible. With the exception of Switzerland, no other Western democracy diffuses power to the same degree as America.


So today the powers of the federal government remain strictly limited by the Constitution – the critical Tenth Amendment of 1791 – which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.



Each state has an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.


The head of the executive is the Governor who is directly elected.


The legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives (the exception is the state of Nebraska which has a unicameral system).


The judiciary consists of a state system of courts.


The 50 states are divided into counties (parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska). Each county has its court.

Although the Constitution prescribes precisely when Presidential and Congressional elections will be held, the dates and times of state and local elections are determined by state governments. Therefore there is a plethora of elections in the United States and, at almost all times, an election is being held somewhere in the country. State and local elections, like federal elections, use the ‘first past the post’ system of election.



The debate about federalism in the US is far from over. There are those who argue for a stronger role for the federal government and there are advocates of locating more power at the state level.
The recent rise of the electorally-successful Tea Party movement owes a good deal to the view that the federal government has become too dominant, too intrusive and too profligate.

Meanwhile many states – especially those west of the Rockies – have what has been called “the fourth arm of government”: this is the ballot or referendum initiative. This enables a policy question to be put to the electorate as a result of the collection of a certain number of signatures or the decision of the state legislation. Over the last century, some 3,000 such initiatives have been conducted – in some cases (such as California) with profound results.

RECENT TRENDS:


In all political systems, there is a disconnect between the formal arrangements, as set out in the constitution and relevant laws, and the informal arrangements, as occurs in practice. Arguably, in the United States this disconnect is sharper than in most other democratic systems because:



The US Constitution is an old one (late 18th century) whereas most countries have had several constitutions with the current one typically being a 20th century creation.

The US Constitution is relatively immutable so it is very difficult to change the provisions to reflect the reforms that have come about over time from the pressure of events.

Since the US adopted its Constitution, the US has become the pre-eminent world economic and political power which has brought about major changes in how the Presidency operates, most especially in the international sphere.

What this means is that, in the last century and most especially since the end of the Second World War, the reality of how the American political system operates has changed quite fundamentally in terms which are not always evident from the terms of the Constitution (and indeed some might argue are in some respects in contravention of the Constitution). The main changes are as follows:

The balance of power between the Congress and the President has shifted significantly in favour of the President. This is evident in the domestic sphere through practices like ‘impoundment’ (when money is taken from the purpose intended by Congress and allocated to another purpose favoured by the President) and in the international sphere through refusal to invoke the War Powers Resolution in spite of major military invasions. Different terms for this accretion of power by the Presidency are “the unitary executive” and “the imperial presidency”.

The impact of private funding of political campaigns and of lobbyists and special interest groups in political decision making have increased considerably. Candidates raise their own money for campaigns, there is effectively no limit on the money that can be spent in such campaigns (thanks to what is called super Political Action Committees), and the levels of expenditure – especially in the presidential primaries and election proper – have risen astronomically… this has led to some observers describing the American political system as a plutocracy, since it is effectively controlled by private finance from big businesses, which expect certain policies and practices to follow from the candidates they are funding, and big donors, who often expect preferment such as an ambassadorship from a candidate elected as President.

There has been a growth of what is called “pork barrel” politics through the use of “earmarks”…  appropriations are achieved through “earmarks” which can be found both in legislation (also called “hard earmarks” or “hardmarks”) and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called “soft earmarks” or “softmarks”).


The nature of political debate in the United States has become markedly more partisan and bitter… US domestic politics has become polarized and tribal. As a result, the political culture is often more concerned with satisfying the demands of the political ‘base’ rather than attempting to achieve a national consensus.

One final trend worth noting is the frequency of the same family to provide members of Congress. Low polling in elections, the high cost of running for election, and the focus on the individual more than the party all mean that a well-known name can work successfully for a candidate. Everyone is familiar with the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs in American politics but, in 2014, there are no less than 37 members of Congress who have a relative who has served in the legislature….continue.

Since 2004, a clear majority of Americans have told Gallup that they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed… This disillusionment is reflected in the falling number of Americans who even bother to vote….

The debate about the effectiveness of the US political system is a part of the wider debate about whether or not the United States is in relative decline on the world stage. In his book “Time To Start Thinking: America And The Spectre Of Decline” [for my review click here], Edward Luce writes: “Sometimes it seems Americans are engaged in some kind of collusion in which voters pretend to elect their lawmakers and lawmakers pretend to govern. This, in some ways, is America’s core problem: the more America postpones any coherent response to the onset of relative decline, the more difficult the politics are likely to get.”

To read the entire presentation, go here

 

Enter the primary enabler of the movement to accelerate destruction of the American ethos:

George Soros is one of the most malicious individuals on the face of planet Earth. He uses his immense fortune to undermine the political and financial systems of nations not only to line his pockets but to remake the world to his liking. He has used his wealth and influence to build a lethal network cloaked in social justice to fuel his agenda. Once America has been brought to its knees, nothing will stand in the way of the globalist agenda. His biography is far too lengthy to discuss in this writing, but go here to read much more.

 

From The Shadow Party And The Shadow Government

 

If George Soros were a lone billionaire, or if the Shadow Party consisted of a few disgruntled billionaires, these facts and achievements would not be so ominous. But the Shadow Party is far more than a reflection of the prejudices of one special interest or one passing generation. The Shadow Party has united the forces of the radical and “liberal” left while expelling moderates from the Democratic Party coalition. The Shadow Party is the current incarnation of a socialist movement that has been at war with the free market economy and the political system based on liberty and individual rights for more than two hundred years. It is a movement that has learned to conceal its ultimate goal, which is a totalitarian state, in the seductive rhetoric of “progressivism” and “social justice.” But its determination to equalize outcomes, its zeal for state power and for government control as the solution to social problems, and its antagonism to America as a defender of freedom are the tell-tale signs of a radical movement whose agenda is to change fundamentally and unalterably the way Americans have lived.  

 

For further detail on exactly how he and others have been working for decades to change the face of the American political system, go here and here. The information is both detailed and extensive in the links connected with this section, but well worth the time since they are an excellent illustration of the stealth attack on America. After reading the material, one will no longer need to ask, “How did we get here?”

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction.

The strategy of pitting various categories of the citizenry against each other is a most effective emotional technique. Minorities, women, and those comprising the LGBT aggregation are the favorite targets in the current attack in which to implant a narrative of discrimination and victimization by the created straw man of  a white, male dominated, capitalist America.

Take a grain of truth and build upon it until it becomes an an iron clad falsified structure with a siren call to the targeted groups. When such a dynamic is set into motion, it is nearly impossible to counter because currents of such beliefs often flicker below the surface and, in difficult times, can be easily ignited often leading to riots and violence between the different classes of victims as well as against the perceived enemy. The violence, if stoked long enough and hard enough by those seeking to destroy the system, could eventually lead to martial law and an outright totalitarian usurpation of governing power.

Such a takeover would be long and bloody and best avoided by the power masters. It would be far better and more easily managed if a state of collective anomie could be induced resulting in the despair of the national psyche leaving it vulnerable to such promises as “Hope And Change”, world peace (UN government), economic security (redistribution of wealth), a classless society where all are equal, (all are equally poor due to the elimination of entrepreneurship) and discrimination (free speech) is a crime.

The above is precisely what has been happening to America over past century via the gradual erosion of our major social institutions. The pillars of our culture have been infested with the corrosive elements of political mendacity as well as disinterest of the electorate, educationally induced intellectual laziness, spiritual rot, and the false promise of a benign central governmental structure that will do everything in its power to care for the cultivated dependence and/or the hedonism of its citizenry.

Total control by a world government has been inching along and is now going full throttle, unnoticed by the collective I.Q. due to decades of conditioning. Great civilizations have risen and fallen due to the ambitions of the ever increasing totalitarian, expansionist, and expensive tendencies of the governing power. The unawareness and often complicity of the citizenry contributed to the downward spirals because the governed were not fully attentive to the true meaning of the events unfolding before their eyes.

Between a sense of false victimization and bread and circuses lavished upon certain groups via the largess of the central government’s bleeding of the taxpayers, America will eventually collapse. The set up will then be complete for the UN to step in. A stifling darkness will descend upon humankind until the dormant embers of awareness, safely secured by their guardians, slowly become nascent and begin to glow once again. We must be those guardians and pass our precious treasure to future generations so that they will be ready to “Fix Bayonets” for the combat to come.

 

SHARE this essay…


This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend’s timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below.

Suggested Reading…

 

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part One

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part Two

Planned Chaos, Part III, The Attack On Our Religious Institutions

Planned Chaos Part IV, The Economy

The Captivity Of Illusion

_____________________________

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey

 

VISIT FIX BAYONETS LIBRARY

 

Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert


Red-BHO- Change U Will Feel

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014

 

In America this is an ethical argument between Leftists and Conservatives on how to deal with illegal aliens slipping across the southern border in droves. Leftists are dedicated to the concepts involved with diverse multiculturalism. Conservatives are dedicated to the concepts of maintaining the core values and heritage that have made America an exceptional nation, the freest nation in the world and the nation which foreign nationals desire to move into seeking a better life than existed in their homeland.

 

The irony is Leftists would agree with the immigrants looking for a better life in America. The problem is diverse multiculturalism enables immigrants to subscribe to the legal and social traditions of the homeland they are escaping from. In the mind of Conservatives this is a problem because the refusal to assimilate to the American culture that extols the language and history dilutes that which America exceptional and great.

 

The largest amount of ILLEGAL immigrants to the USA today tend to be Hispanic Latin Americans. The traditions brought to Latin America come primarily from Spain which has a heritage of authoritarian elites subjugating the less fortunate as laborers that benefit those elites.

 Caution Undocumented Dems

 

Here is an excerpt that explains Latin America’s heritage (in full disclosure if read entirely blames in part “North America” [meaning USA] and European interference):

 

 

… Latin America’s problems resulted from the Spanish colonial system that had offered native-born whites little opportunity or responsibility in government. The tradition of autocracy and paternalism was a poor precedent for would-be democratic republics. The emphasis on executive power inspired presidents, generals, landowners, and church officials to wield authority with arrogant disregard for public opinion and representative government.

The colonial economic system, based on raw materials rather than industry, encouraged concentration of land and other forms of wealth in a few hands. The church with its vast properties, monopoly on education and welfare agencies, and command over cultural life complicated the politics of every new nation.

In addition, the new states were cursed by problems associated with the wars of independence. Some of the most productive areas were devastated. Hatred and division remained. Many men who had fought the royalists remained armed, predisposed to a life of violence and pillage and likely to group themselves about the caudillos, who promised adventure or profit in revolutions.

 

The final problem facing the new states was that of racial disunity. In 1825 there were from 15 to 18 million people in the former Spanish empire. About 3 million of them were whites, the wealthiest and most educated population. That figure remained constant until the last third of the century, when immigration from Europe in[c]reased drastically. There were about the same number of mestizos, who scorned the Indians, but were not accepted by whites. Their numbers steadily increased, as did their ambition. During the nineteenth century at least half of the population in some states was Indian. Deprived of the small protection once offered by the Spanish crown, they either sank into peonage or lived in semi-independence under their tribal rulers. Finally, in Brazil and most of the Caribbean island, blacks were in a large majority. Conflicts of interest quickly developed between these broad racial groups, particularly between the Creoles and the mestizos. The pernicious effects of these divisive factors can be seen in the experiences of each nation.

Mexico

Despite its promising beginning in 1821, Mexico suffered a … (Latin America: Establishment of Latin American States; By Allen Pikermen; International World History Project; 2002)

 

The heritage of the United States of America as brought over from the English monarchy are quite different. Future Americans came to the New World to specifically find a life better than existed in their homeland. Those non-English colonials that came had to do so under the authorization of the English Crown. So even those earliest immigrants to North America that came from non-English but European roots still owed their legal-economic foundations derived from English law.

 

Here is an excerpt that a quick search on my part demonstrates (I could probably find a better source but I was in a hurry):

 

 

… The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg’s printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

 

The Philosophes

 

Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the “darkness” of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes, scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.

 

One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.

 

John Locke

 

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. … According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. …

 

Important English Documents

 

Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch’s rule was not absolute. …

 

The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of “commoners” to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. …

 

The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact. (2. Foundations of American Government; ushistory.org – American Government; © 1995-2014 by the Independence Hall Association, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia, PA founded in 1942. Publishing electronically as ushistory.org.; online since July 4, 1995.)

 

The largest problem I have with the excerpt above is that nearly ignores the influence of Christianity on the Founding of the USA. It is typical in this day and age to bend to Left Wing humanist interpretations of history which is more often critical of Christianity than supportive of the great faith’s influence not only in America but Western culture at large in general.

 

It is my opinion that the Left has acquired the keys that disseminate education in the USA which is not a good thing for Christians. The Christian Right the best defender of the faith in the 21st century has reacted by perhaps overemphasizing Christianity’s influence of the Founding Fathers. In turn the Left has reacted by overemphasizing the non-Christian influences amplified in the above excerpt. I like the middle ground taken by Mark David Hall, Ph.D. written in 2011. Dr. Hall explains why the far Left and the Christian Right are both wrong on a limited basis. Yes the influences of the great Philosophes were paramount to the Founding Fathers, YET every single Founding Father (even Jefferson and Madison) and the majority of the new USA’s voting enfranchised citizens attributed their social foundations to Christianity especially as they governed their individual lives by morality. Even the most deist of the Founding Fathers believed that without Christian ethics and morality, government would fall into chaos or tyranny. Read Dr. Hall’s essay entitled “Did America Have a Christian Founding?

 

Ergo it is my assertion that that the Left’s political motivation in encouraging open borders to a Latin American culture will ultimately lead to a dilution of the American culture that has made our nation exceptional and free. Immigrants must be welcomed into America but not at the cost of American culture. Immigrants must assimilate! Sure immigrants can honor their heritage by maintaining their memories on an individual basis. However, to maintain the American culture the maintenance of the American version of the English language is a paramount stepping stone for assimilation.

 

This leads me to an emerging multicultural immigration problem. That problem is the willingness of our government (largely under the tutelage of the Obama Administration) to bring foreign born Muslims to the USA. Before the Left Wing multiculturalists and Muslim apologists scream Islamophobe racist, I actually believe individuals that idiotically choose to worship an antichrist religion like Islam should be free to do so according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

The thing is that Muslims that revere Allah, Islamic holy writings and the religion’s false prophet Mohammed WILL BE INTENT to refuse assimilation into American culture.

 

Islam’s Sharia Law is absolutely contradictory to the Liberty and Freedom inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Most adherents to any religion have supremacist ideals about their faith. I know I do pertaining to Christianity. HOWEVER the Islamic faith supremacists requires the blood of all humanity that refuse to submit to Islam or insults Islam (including its crazy prophet).

 

Any foreign culture that develops an ideology among individuals living in or outside the USA that rejects assimilation into American culture and our constitutional government is a threat to the USA remaining free with individual rights and liberty.

 

It’s bad enough that illegal Latin American aliens are coming to America just as much to send money back to their homelands while enjoying taxpayer supported programs, it is worse to take in legal immigrants that have no intention to assimilate but rather to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law.

 

Those Muslims that identify the Quran and Mohammed as perfect and that people must be in submission to Islam are individuals that have the imperative to bring down our Constitution and culture of Freedom and Liberty. If those particular Muslims tell you differently they are either intentionally lying or are unintentionally self-deceived. Allah commands Muslims to eradicate or reduce the non-believers of Islam to a cruel second class citizenship of obeying the rules of Sharia (or else!).

 

This is as evil as when the old Soviet Union cultivated American Communists to use the American system to bring down America or a few radicalized self-starting Communists acting as anarchists (cough can you say Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrnfriends to Obama) to bring down the Constitution and the American heritage.

 

These thoughts are largely inspired by some Geert Wilders information posted by the Gatestone Institute. In case you don’t know who Wilders is, he became known to me largely through a mini-documentary entitled “Fitna”. Wilders takes the title from the same Arabic word that means “a state of trouble or chaos”. “Fitna” is roughly about 16 minutes long and worth the view. The tiny documentary caused quite a stir in the Western World and in Muslim dominated nations. Wilders’ home nation of Netherlands even prosecuted him for hate speech when the documentary is actually truth speech. The Netherlands prosecution lost.

 

Lo and behold the Leftist government of the Netherlands is once again going after Geert Wilders’ free speech rights by interrogating him about a speech encouraging his Dutch constituents (he is a member of whatever the Netherlands calls a Parliament) to support legislation that limits the immigration of Moroccan Muslims who refuse assimilation into Dutch culture.

 

Under heavy pressure by the Dutch left, national government, and the North African immigrants themselves for a rallying cry where Wilders asked a campaign-stop crowd in The Hague if they wanted ‘more Moroccans  or ‘less Morrocans’ in Holland (followed by predictably raucous cheers for the latter), the Dutch politician is fighting back and -per usual- speaking his mind…

 

With the new left-leaning government in charge, they now have the top public prosecutor attempting to build a case against Geert for ‘hate speech’, asking the the (sic) police to retain and question him, etc.

 

But of course, as a man of deep thought and clear logic, he says things for a reason- Wilders had no trouble explaining himself, and even issued a public statement. As is his manner, the Dutch Freedom Party leader didn’t back down a millimeter… while offering an eloquent defense of his position.

 

Some highlights:

 

·         I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures….
Because they are the truth.

 

·         I do not intend to hurt or offend people, either

 

·         In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by READ THE REST (Geert Wilders in Interrogation by State Police: ‘I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands…’; By The Reaganite Republic; 12/10/14)

 

Geert Wilders has made a statement about the interrogation according to what I have read was released while being subjected to the police questioning. I discovered through Google Wilders’ statement is all over the web but I am going with the Gatestone Institute version.

 

JRH 12/10/14

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police

 

By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2014 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures…. Because they are the truth.

 

I do not intend to hurt or offend people either… Already for over 10 years, I have lost my personal freedom.

 

In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.

 

To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”

 

The Hague, December 8, 2014.

 

Today, Dutch parliamentarian and PVV leader Geert Wilders made a statement during his interrogation by the Dutch State Police. The State Police interrogated Mr Wilders on behalf of the Dutch Public Prosecutor, who is considering to prosecute Mr Wilders because the politician had asked his voters during the election campaign whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

 

Our freedom is being threatened. Threatened by a violent totalitarian ideology – Islam – that brings with it death and devastation. Threatened by a politically correct elite that does not tolerate criticism of Islam and mass immigration, and that nurtures cultural relativism.

 

I rise up against this.

 

As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see. I name the dangers and disadvantages that we experience in the Netherlands as a result of cultural relativism, mass immigration and the ongoing Islamization. That is my task. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. That is the reason why I am in politics and why I founded the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

I am fighting for a better Netherlands.
To preserve our own culture.
Our own identity.
Our safety.
Our freedom.

 

I do not discriminate. I do not spread hatred, nor do I incite to it. I do not intend to hurt or offend people either. However, I do not mince my words when I defend our established freedoms and name the dangers to our society.

 

I dedicate my life to the fight against this evil ideology and the defense of our liberties. Every day, I pay the price for this fight. Already for over ten years, I have lost my personal freedom.

 

During the past 10 years, I have drawn attention to the Moroccan problem which we have here in the Netherlands. These include serious problems with integration, crime and welfare dependency. The majority of the jihadis travelling from the Netherlands to Syria is Moroccan. In order to see the whole context, the contents of the attachments that I deposit with you here today must be taken into consideration.

I rely on objective facts and figures. Facts that I must name. Because they are the truth. If we had had the same problem in the Netherlands with Canadians, I would have named them.

 

Those who do not understand that we have an enormous problem with Islam and with Moroccans in the Netherlands, though seeing, they do not see, and though hearing, they do not hear.

 

For the reasons above, while on campaign in The Hague, I argued that there need to be fewer Moroccans. And, at an election meeting in The Hague, I asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?”

 

Geert Wilders 3-2014 speech- 'Do you want more or fewer Moroccans'

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

 

 

Indeed, I want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands for the reasons and context that I have previously expressed in this statement as well as in Parliament and for which I refer you to the documents that I now deposit.

 

I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands. Asking for fewer Moroccans is something totally different than if I were to want all Moroccans to leave the Netherlands or than if I were to object to every Moroccan.

 

Like me, 43% of all the Dutch and 95% of my supporters want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. I have said what millions of Dutchmen think.

 

I also want less Islam in the Netherlands.

 

And like me, 65% of all the Dutch and 100% of my supporters think that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands.


Since the establishment of the PVV, I have advocated fewer immigrants from Islamic countries.


Since the establishment of the PVV, I have identified the Moroccan problem and presented (democratic) solutions for it, such as:

 

·         limiting the immigration of people from Islamic countries, hence also Morocco

 

·         promoting the voluntary remigration of non-Western foreigners, hence also Moroccans

 

·         expelling criminals with dual nationality after denaturalization, hence also Moroccans. Since Moroccans living in the Netherlands are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics and often have dual citizenship, this would also lead to fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

 

I do not retract anything of what I have said.

 

Because I have said nothing wrong.

 

In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.

 

To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”

 

For these above reasons, I assume that the Public Prosecutor will decide not to prosecute me.


Any other decision cannot be interpreted otherwise than politically motivated.

 

Geert Wilders

_________________________

Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014

_________________________

Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police

 

Copyright © 2014 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.