The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

quiblepenglobalismThis is quite interesting. I’m not sure if I completely follow his reasoning (I think I do in the main). His supposition comes down to the old one that there is something innate in human beings to seek after liberty, which is I think, beyond rational debate. So, read carefully, it is a bit dense at places; and enjoy. I surely did.

Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.  It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However,everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

via The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose – Personal Liberty®

One thing I would caution the globalists amongst us about is this. Almost everybody harboring these type of dreams, sees themselves as in control, they won’t be, in probably 99% of the cases, the will simply be given enough power to do what they are told to do, without any authority at all to think. Strikes me as a very sterile existence.

The US government was expressly designed to guard against this type of thing, and that is why ‘Job 1’ for these types is to subvert “Rule through and under the law”, always remember that, you don’t have to believe the conspiracy (I too think it is mostly ephemeral, not explicit) to see the dangerous results.

And a word of caution, not everyone who makes noises like they belong to what the author calls ‘the Liberty Movement’ does, many are simply mouthing the words for their own gain. You (and I) need to make our own choices about who really wants freedom. Many are simply contesting who is in charge. And be assured, the media is most assuredly not on the side of freedom.

Guns, Islam, and Orlando, and a note on Brexit

A note if you haven’t heard: Brexit won, everywhere but London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and fairly decisively. I’m not going to say any more because Jess and I both cared very much about this, and we disagreed, and we agreed not to gloat, whoever won.

So, while we all catch our breath, perhaps some Bill Whittle on Orlando. There are some quite graphic images in the video, so be warned, but then again that’s how life is, as well.

I Lived A Completely Gun-Free Life — Until Now, an Update


I published this a couple of years ago because it’s an interesting article, well outside my experience. I’m of that generation that played war, whenever we could, and BB guns were employed, sometimes to our parent’s despair.

I brought this back up today because we are again seeing, after Orlando, another group that is taking responsibility for its own safety, our gays. Good for them, they will find that taking responsibility for themselves will make them more confident, and even more easy-going, the word rational comes to mind. And that self-confidence is what has always struck visitors to America, we don’t look to government, or whatever to fix our problems, we simply go do it ourselves. And you know, as you may have seen this week, the most color, and gender blind group I’ve ever been around is the gun culture. We simply don’t care about any of that, it’s all about how proficient and, not unrelated, safe you are in using what is, after all, a dangerous tool. So welcome, to some of the gay community to my America, where we look at results, not intentions. It’s a nice calm world until someone tries to trample our rights, even if our tools are a bit noisy.

This is interesting, and it’s a completely different perspective than mine. I grew up in farm country and long enough ago that guns were just part of life. Unless you misbehaved with them of course, for the most part, the rules were the same ones taught to soldiers for their (and other soldier’s) safety. Most of you know them as well as I do, just like we know what side of the road to drive, until we visit Britain, anyway. Just another tool, chipmunks digging holes in the yard, squirrels eating the garden? A ten-year-old boy or girl, with a .22 can fix that, no muss, no fuss. Bats in the barn? Unless you’re really good with that 22, borrow Dad’s shotgun, it’s easier on the roof. And so forth.

But not everyone grew up that way, I guess. Those lessons learned in youth never go away but some poor people have to learn about tools in adulthood.

A gun is not the tool for everything, any more than a hammer is. If your only tool is a hammer (or a rock) all problems look like a nail, and if your only tool is a gun, all problems look like a target. That’s why God (with a little help from Gerstner’s and Snap On) created tool boxes, so you had a place to keep thousands, make that, tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools.

But let’s see what Rachel Lu says about coming to guns, later in life. And I would say to her, “Welcome to being responsible for yourself.” No, it’s not all about guns but they are an apt sign.

We just became a Second Amendment family. For the first time in my life, my home contains an object that is, by the manufacturer’s intent, a deadly weapon.

I received fair warning that this would happen. Even before we were married, my husband announced his general intention to own a gun. A year or so back he started researching the topic more earnestly, and then one afternoon there was a gun sitting on my kitchen table. It was unloaded, of course. We had extensive conversations about trigger locks and all the other safety measures. I know that the kids can’t get it, and are in fact far more likely to be injured by stairs or cleaning solutions or sporting equipment. Intuitively it still feels like a menace.

The thing is, I don’t come from a gun-happy culture. Apart from my husband, I doubt any of my near relations have experience with firearms. Mind you, I was raised by conservatives, but Mormons trend towards a communitarian, good-government brand of conservatism. They’re rarely drawn to the more suspicious and individualistic culture of the N.R.A. If my parents had any gun-owning friends when I was growing up, I wasn’t aware.

Thus, I can tell you how it feels when you’ve lived a completely gun-free life, and suddenly have a gun under your roof. Your instincts tell you: we don’t need it. It’s threatening. Bad things happen to people who own guns.

I’m pretty sure this instinct is dramatically reinforced by the violence-drenched entertainment that we (like most Americans) consume in considerable quantities. This might seem counter-intuitive, especially to men, but psychologically it feels to me like the obvious dividing line between the world of television (in which people regularly die horrible deaths) and the world I live in (in which they don’t) is the presence of guns. Leave guns alone and they’ll leave me alone, or so my subconscious tells me. It’s worked for me so far.

via I Lived A Completely Gun-Free Life — Until Now.

Let’s add this to gain a little perspective.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Stupidest Thing on the Internet

5002I was going to pass up this story, it’s essentially published bullshit, but found enough commentary from others to at least make it funny. Yes, I know it’s not kind to point at others and laugh, but I’m inclined to think it’s alright when they take wrong information tie it together with lies and expect to convince anybody. Case in point, from The Victory Girls.

After firing the AR-15, NY Daily News columnist Gersh Kuntzman is terrified – of the gun

by JENNY NORTH on JUNE 14, 2016

VG readers, it is hard to believe that any self-respecting person, much less someone who identifies as male, would actually publish a confessional like this: Firing an AR-15 is horrifying, menacing, and very very loud.

It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon.

Gersh Kuntzman, an award winning journalist at NY Daily Mail, is curious, and with all the talk about the big bad weapons of war in the news, he thought he should go try them out for himself.


Gersh Kuntzman, not a fan of the AR-15

But that is not the first reason he cited for trying out the AR-15 – what he said was this:

One day after 49 people were killed in the Orlando shooting, I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of military-style assault weapons and, hopefully, explain their appeal to gun lovers.

So that’s what drives him to the range – seeing how it would feel to be a murderer?

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

All it takes is the will to do it.

Forty nine people can be gone in 60 seconds.

Hey, that’s why I go the range, don’t you?

But what old Gersh finds out is that it is the gun itself – not the person behind it – that terrifies him:

I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Ahhh, deep breath. Warning, readers, some profanity does follow.

Gersh, I have to speak to you directly. You are a complete moron. I have to question what “pistols” you’ve shot before. They were water pistols weren’t they?! Can’t have been more than a .22 for you to have such a big surprise upon shooting some real ammunition.

Via After firing the AR-15, NY Daily News columnist Gersh Kuntzman is terrified – of the gun. Do read the whole thing™, I laughed till I cried, and I also cried until I laughed. It’s that kind of story.

I’m like anybody else who grew up in the country, I started shooting as a kid, with a Daisy BB gun, and occasional lessons on Dad’s .410 bolt action shotgun, starting at, heck I don’t know, 7 maybe. Never could shoot that particular gun well, but did OK with the bolt action .22 I got for my 10th birthday. Being a responsible kid had its rewards, I also got a new (used) lawnmower.:) Both were mine to use as I saw fit, to take care of, and to be responsible with. (The mower was actually far more dangerous in my hands than the rifle).

But .223 Remington that the AR 15 fires a very nice mild round, that’s why we all like it so much, it’s a perfect round, and the AR 15 itself, is nearly a perfect rifle for what I tend to call a ranch gun. The one we drag around with us out on the ranch, for snakes, coyotes, perhaps the occasional calf that has to be put down, whatever. Rather like the Winchester that our Grandfathers carried on the saddle, except it’s a lot tougher, and better in almost every way. Kind of like the Leatherman we also carry around.

For me, at least, it’s marginal for anything else, multiple rounds well, placed, will work, but you may or may not have time. That’s when it time to go what we used to call battle rifles, M1s, M1As, Springfields, and such. I find it interesting that all of those rifles, including the Winchester’s daddy, the Henry, started out with the US Army. They, unlike the AR 15, can bruise your shoulder, they can also get the job done on anything in North America. Yes, they’re fun too. But they cost more, are noisier, and more expensive (last I looked) to feed. And truthfully, in a semi rural setting, they’re likely more powerful than is warranted, albeit a whole lot better than nothing, but not what I’d buy for rural self-defense, either.

So maybe when whatshername up above gets her (child-size) knickers untwisted, (s)he can go back to reviewing frappes or whatever he does to supposedly justify his income. He sure has no insight to be sharing on the affairs of men.

Peggy Noonan: The Court, Like the Country, Needs Balance

I’ve always like Peggy Noonan, anybody who could write the ‘Pointe du Hoc’ speech for Ronald Reagan is far from all bad. Yes, she got caught in the umbrella of the Acela corridor for a while and Obama dazzled her. Well, how is that different than all the conservatives dazzled by Donald Trump? It’s not.

Here, she tells some truth, and she’s right.

The president has every right to nominate a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia. He shouldn’t, but he has the right by law and precedent.

The reasons he shouldn’t spring from facts particular to the moment and having to do with what Justice Scalia symbolized.

In a 50/50 country, one that suffers deep ideological divisions and is constantly at its own throat, Justice Scalia stood, for that half of the country that is more or less conservative, for wisdom, permanence, enduring structures and understandings. That he was brilliant, witty and penetrating in his thought goes without saying. He was also brave, with that exhausting kind of courage that has to do with swimming each day against the tide. Here is Justice Scalia as prophet, dissenting in 1992’s sweeping abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v Casey: “Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. … [But] by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.”

It did; it has.

And very sadly, she is right about why the people should have the choice on the nominator of Scalia’s replacement too:

There is something increasingly unappeasable in the left. This is something conservatives and others have come to fear, that progressives now accept no limits. We can’t just have court-ordered legalized abortion across the land, we have to have it up to the point of birth, and taxpayers have to pay for it. It’s not enough to win same-sex marriage, you’ve got to personally approve of it and if you publicly resist you’ll be ruined. It’s not enough that we have publicly funded contraceptives, the nuns have to provide them.

This unappeasable spirit always turns to the courts to have its way.

If progressives were wise they would step back, accept their victories, take a breath and turn to the idea of solidifying gains, of heroic patience, of being peaceable.

Don’t make them bake the cake. Don’t make them accept the progressive replacement for Scalia. Leave the nuns alone.

Progressives have no idea how fragile it all is. That’s why they feel free to be unappeasable. They don’t know what they’re grinding down.

They think America has endless give. But America is composed of humans, and they do not have endless give.

Isn’t that what we’re seeing this year in the political realm? That they don’t have endless give? And we’ll be seeing more of it.

via Peggy Noonan: The Court, Like the Country, Needs Balance — The Patriot Post.

She’s very right here, there is an end to the give in the American people, it was last seen in the 1860 election. Wise (or even clever) people don’t want to find it again. But the Progressives, like the Democrats of Dixie in 1860 seem oblivious to the approaching apocalypse.

Requiescat in pace


Justice Scalia’s clerks lined up as an honor guard at the Supreme Court

And so Saturday, I watched the funeral of Antonin Scalia.* It was a most moving service, from the processional

Which is, of course, one of the great old English hymns, based on the 90th Psalm, written by Isaac Watts, a nonconformist, and the father of English hymnody and the tune (St Anne) by William Croft. At his death, Watts’ papers were given to Yale Univesity in the Connecticut Colony, which the nonconformists had founded. Watts is on the Calender of Saints of the CofE and the Lutheran Church 25 November, and the Episcopal Church the following day. Knowing some of that is why it struck me, both because it was a Catholic Mass, and its connections with early America, as so very appropriate.

I’m no expert on Catholic Masses, funeral or regular, although I note that Justice Scalia preferred the Latin Mass, while this was in English, a great gift to those of us not Catholic. My friend Cultural Limits is something of an expert, though and she had some thoughts yesterday on the Mass. Let’s let her guide us.

After what is a typical 24 minute procession for such an occasion, Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington gave remarks of welcome, and apologizing for the seating and scaffolding as the Basilica is currently being renovated.  The principle celebrant for this Funeral Mass was Rev. Paul Scalia, son of the judge, of the Archdiocese of Arlington, where the Scalias live.   (He has a lovely singing voice and chanted the prayers, and led the congregation in the Our Father chant that every Catholic knows.)

As the Mass proceeded, the First Reading was from the Book of Wisdom* from the Third Chapter read by the Executive Vice President of Federalist Society Leonard Leo.

But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace.  And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality.  Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.

The Responsorial Psalm was a modern setting if the now fairly traditional or a Funeral The Lord is My Shepherd.  The Second Reading, Hope Does Not Disappoint from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, was read by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  The Gospel from St. Matthew, Praise to You, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth…Come to Me all who are labored and burdened and you will find rest, was proclaimed by a Deacon from the Archdiocese of Arlington.

“We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us. Known only by reputation to even more. A man loved by many. Scorned by others. A man known for great controversy. And for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.” (Fr. Paul Scalia, Homily at his father’s funeral)

Father Paul gave a moving homily relating the connection of the Funeral Mass to Christ, the past, the present and the future, and told a charming story of his father finding himself in Fr. Paul’s line for confession once.  Justice Scalia promptly removed himself from the line and later told his son that he’d be darned if he confessed his sins to HIM.  Father Paul readily agreed with his Dad. […]

Writer’s note: no, this was NOT overdone for a simple, parish Mass as the Scalias requested.  We do this music all the time in my parish.  The incense and the bells weren’t even too much. [I don’t doubt anything she says here, but it looked to this liturgical Lutheran, as the next best thing to a state funeral, which would have been earned by his service. Neo]

As is actually liturgically correct at a Catholic Funeral Mass – or because, as Father Paul told us, Justice Scalia HATED eulogies – there was not one.  In attendance of note: Vice President Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill,  Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whose wife, Calista, is a member of the professional choir at the Basilica, the full Supreme Court, and countless mourners who were not recognized formally.

Do read it all, it’s very interesting, link here.

CL reminds us that:

The Funeral Mass of Justice Antonin Scalia ended with “O God Beyond All Praising,” a hymn set to THAXTED and one of the themes from the Jupiter movement of Gustav Holst’s “The Planets.”  In great keeping of the idea of vocation, Justice Scalia was led to his rest to one of the great hymns imploring the people of doing the job God put you on earth to do.  Justice Antonin Scalia was put on this earth to defend the Constitution of the United States, raise a family of good citizens and faith, and give us all an example of courage in the face of adversity.  He accomplished that in spades.

Indeed, he was, and he did.

The rightscoop shared a story last week from a US Marine about Justice Scalia:

My cousin is a U.S. Marine. He shared this on Facebook tonight about Justice Scalia:

I once had the pleasure of hearing Justice Scalia speak. He told a story about a small dinner he attended in England. His hosts raised their classes and said “God save the queen.” 

He asked his hosts what the equivalent statement would be in the United States. They responded, “God save the President.”

Justice Scalia said, “no, God save the Constitution.”

I’m quite certain that as he crossed over, he was welcomed with the words,

“Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

And now it is up to us.

If you missed the funeral, or just want to see it again, here is the video

%d bloggers like this: