‘Racist, sexist, anti-gay…’ This thing is HUGE!

When my book, Their Angry Creed, was published last July, I firmly located feminism in the international Marxist/Communist milieu, but I confess even I didn’t realise the extent to which it is a worldwide nexus of the progressive left, and how much of a danger that presents to the very basis of our western democracy. It all became clear to me on January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America.

On that day, egged on by activists working behind the scenes and led by their feminist ‘nasty women‘ role models, women young and old took to the streets in their millions in so-called women’s marches, ostensibly to protest against the inauguration of Donald Trump, but, as became clear, it was much, much more than that.

From Washington and capitals across the world to a group of ‘eco-minded tourists and non-government scientists‘ who lent their support under the pretentious Twitter hashtag #womensMarchAntarctica, massed ranks of women, including a significant number of men – that threatened sub species called male feminists (talk about turkeys voting for Christmas!) – came onto the streets in all their hysterical anger and might.

Frankly, it was awesome to behold and it showed to me the extent of sheer unrestrained rage in these people that they didn’t get what they confidently thought was going to happen – the election of Hillary Clinton and the final imposition of their ‘progressive’ values on the rest of us. Thank God it didn’t happen.

The so-called Progressive Left is deeply angry at the rejection of their world view, which is sweeping the developed world in a sea-change of reaction.

Their fellow travellers in the media portrayed it all as ‘a spontaneous feminist rallying cry‘, of course, but it was no such thing. Lurking in the shadows, urging on the ‘useful idiots’ (who were just the cannon fodder) were the shadowy movers and shakers of the worldwide progressive left, such as George Soros, who was undoubtedly involved behind the scenes. Like the Guardianistas and their ilk, Soros is an integral part of a deeply undemocratic political force in the world comprising a ne0-liberal élite that has been infiltrating the traditional left for decades, imposing its own agenda on otherwise honest people who have a heightened social conscience.

That agenda is neatly distilled in the triple slurs: ‘Racist, sexist, anti gay…’, that battle cry chanted across the world that sums up the three key strands of what they actually stand for: Globalism, Feminism, and androgyny – the erasure of sex divisions between men and women. (There is a fourth stand to this agenda, ‘Climate change denier!’, to which I shall return later in this piece.)

Let me begin by showing how ‘racist’ relates to globalism (which must not be confused with globalisation, the development of trading and technological connections, due in large part to the increase in ease of communications through the Internet and better transport links). Globalism is the political expression of an old idea – Utopianism. I describe this in some depth in Their Angry Creed).1Utopianism goes back to the 18th Century, and it re-emerged in the hippy movement in the 1960s, which was also the crucible of feminism. Utopianism is based on the alleged need of mankind to recognise a common humanity, and to join as one people in a spirit of peace and harmony. It was all summed up half-a-century ago by the hippy John Lennon in his 1971 classic song, Imagine.

President Tump’s proposed border wall with Mexico is, of course, a massive poke in the eye for the globalist utopians.

In the progressive’s mind (if mind is the right word for people who display such mindlessness at times), national borders amount to racism (one presumes that they don’t lock their doors at night), and the nation state amounts to primitive tribalism, which is obviously dangerous because it causes wars, doesn’t it?2Of course, it goes without saying that it is the very degree of social stability, sophistication, freedom under a just law, and safety that that the nations of the west offer that causes people from third-world nations to flee their often backward, oppressively dictatorial societies, many of which operate under mediaeval systems of law, and flock to the West on the sure promise of a better life. But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a good ideology? That is why the progressive left believes it has a right to burn national flags, that embodiment of national identity. After all, flags are so racist!

Progressives have been driving the globalist agenda for decades, under the guise of so-called multiculturalism, which has been the cause of the cultural ghettoisation of vast swathes of Britain where indigenous Britons have found themselves swamped by mass settlement in their towns by people of other cultures, intent on preserving those cultures rather than becoming integrated. The Scandinavian nations of Sweden and Denmark have been brought low by it too. And Germany, that inherently nationalistic state, apparently hewn from solid rock, is being changed irrevocably by mass-immigration, actively encouraged by its Chancellor, the uber-progressive social justice warrior Angela Merkel,3Merkel is a former research scientist with a doctorate in physical chemistry (and, therefore, very much the technocrat). She was born in 1954 in the communist former German Democratic Republic of East Germany (GDR), and entered politics in the wake of the revolutions of 1989 caused by the fall of communism. She rose to be the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a liberal/conservative, centre-right ‘catch-all’ party, and she is up for election in September 2017, having declared her intention so seek election for a fourth term as Chancellor. Then she will face the people of Germany over her policies. who is hard at work unfreezing Germany and turning it into a melting pot of ‘diversity’.

Progressives are into feminism in a big way. Women are really the same as men see? Therefore they must have equally because that is socially just. That automatically means they must be represented in every walk of life, geddit? Neither must they be valued for their sexual attractiveness because that is objectification – a thought crime in the little red book of feminism. (Oh, and by the way ‘fat shaming’ is very wrong too. Thus, the new icons of feminism, the purported role models for girls, become women like Lena Dunham, a ‘victim’ of endometriosis – apparently.)

Feminism has been in the vanguard of this international conspiracy for almost half-a-century. It played well to the innate narcissism of both the men and the women of the Baby Boom generation and their desire for ‘free love’ that led to an orgy of a divorce, broken families, the destruction of the moral authority of fathers, and a lost generation (Generation X) of messed up kids who went on to produce the ‘special snowflake’ millennial generation that is our youth of today.

Free love came with a massive price tag in the end.

Feminism softened up society, ready for the final push – the elevation of a full-blown feminist woman as leader of the free world. They didn’t pull it off, but that doesn’t mean those of us who know what is going on can afford to be complacent. We must remain vigilant because the worldwide conspiracy of the progressive left is not going to pack up its banners and go away anytime soon. It is a wounded beast, certainly, but as the mighty visceral anger of millions of women worldwide shows, it is going to fight hard for survival.

Feminism was sold to the world wrapped up in the noble idea of equality in order to hide its real purpose, and the same is true of the other aspects of progressivism. For example, the sense of responsibility many people have towards their fellow man becomes easily linked to the idea that should all be citizens of the world, embracing our humanity in one common experience. Of course this is a specious argument. Behind its soft, touchy-feely facade lies the Marxist idea of society – the collective as the principle means of social expression – in other words, Communism writ large.

However, this is all new to those generations of young men and women who have never known the destructive force of communism that swept through the world in the 20th Century, and which was responsible for over 100 million deaths at the hands of vicious, dictatorial régimes. The children who are being whipped up into anger and hysteria by their nasty icons are easy meat for those who are pulling their strings, and who are using them to work out a much bigger agenda.

The promise of false equality is the bait that allows the switch to be made into totalitarianism, and it is a technique as old as the hills.

Progressivism finds its natural home in the liberal left, but it is not the liberalism that embraces the ideas of the Enlightenment: that people are inherently free; that the fruits of their labour belong to them; that an individual is expected to fend for him or herself, succeeding only on the basis of hard work, skill, talent, character etc. – and that basic human rights are derived from a higher moral authority not conferred by governments or states who should be the servants of the people not their masters. In the real utopian society, people are free: they are citizens not subjects. (Compare these values with those being expressed by the special snowflakes who inhabit our campuses today. It is a chilling comparison.)

Progressives have a very clear agenda, and an equally clear direction of travel to achieve their ideological goals. Whereas the rest of us just want to get on with our lives in the pursuit of happiness in liberty, they are ceaselessly at work re-engineering society to conform us to their dogma, cementing those dogma in place using political correctness, thereby suppressing dissent.

This deeply dangerous, left-wing ideology has permeated the entire political spectrum. Just compare the utterances of politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel – and, yes, Theresa May. As I observed in my last post, even so-called conservatives express progressive views.

The default stance of the progressive is that someone who has less than you should be a cause for guilt, and someone who has more than you should be a target of resentment. Getting people onto a level playing field is not their aim, what matters is how people come off it. After all, losing is so unfair!

For the average progressive, inequality of outcome is automatically injustice, and misfortune automatically confers on someone the right to reward and social elevation to be equal with those who have (or have created for themselves) good fortune. Thus, in the utopian social justice world, minorities are rewarded with an equal voice in society that is disproportionate to their numbers.

White people, of course, are automatically privileged and need to be taken down if social justice is ever to be achieved.  Even white women, feminists or not, are put into the same pigeon hole if they don’t buy into the entire agenda, as we saw in the Washington march (of which more in a moment). White men especially (and even more especially old white men who represent patriarchy) are particularly privileged, and therefore must be targeted using the draconian laws about sexuality which progressives in government have succeeded in getting enacted (See my post, ‘No country for old men‘). By contrast, black is beautiful, homosexuality is normal, and gender is a matter of personal choice.

In the restless, brave new progressive world everything is struggle and nothing is stable (or even should be) in the endless quest for a socially just society.

Progressives are prepared to go to any lengths to produce a world in which social control, exercised for the greatest benefit for the most, is the outcome, even if that comes at the expense the freedom of the individual. We see the outcome of this in Canada, where they now have extra-judicial Social Justice Tribunals that possess immense supra-legal power, such that they are effectively unaccountable to the mainstream legal system. (See the story of the enormously brave Professor Janice Fiamengo for an insight into this evil.) Social justice warriors, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have introduced these parallel systems of ‘social justice’ to the normal justice system, and that is just a taste of what was to come under Hillary Clinton. (I am utterly convinced that the American people avoided an effective coup when they rejected Clinton, and that they saved their nation from certain downfall.)

Progressives want BIG government that engages in social planning, carried out by experts who will guide society in better ways. After all, what do the people know about anything? Surely experts know what’s best? Progressives believe in bureaucracies, headed by apparatchik government officials who will implement the experts’ plans in regulated, uniform ways. These, of course, are the principles of Communism. They were also at the heart of National Socialism in Hitler’s Germany, and Fascism in Mussolini’s Italy.4The Italian word fascio means a bundle of rods. The symbolism suggests strength through unity. A single rod is easily broken but a bundle is difficult to break. The term (and the idea) comes from the Roman magistrates who could enforce their rulings through corporal and capital punishment, and whose symbol was a bundle of rods tied around and axe.

These apparently opposing ideologies all used the same methods to achieve their aimed-for social outcomes. They used central planning and social experimentation. They controlled their populations, manipulating the birth rate, and they practiced eugenics. The NAZIs in particular openly introduced programmes to maximise the breeding of biologically superior human beings and minimise the breeding of those whom they considered inferior human beings (a point to which I shall return when talking about the femininsts’ Pro Choice policy). And both took over, controlled, or otherwise reengineered one or more of the key institutions of society: the family, the church, the synagogue, children’s upbringing, etc. – all those things that give people a sense of real society and a place in it.

One of the classic hypocrisies of the progressive left is that they will label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a fascist. Indeed, there is a new term for it – ‘Antifa’ – short for anti-fascist (see the Urban Dictionary for more) – largely applied to  teenagers and university students who grow out of the fad when they start paying taxes. Paradoxically, this antifa generation seems only too willing to go to any lengths to prevent dissent to their ideas, just like fascists. They are now using naked intimidation in mass (and now violent) demonstrations, for example in Washington DC on the day of the Presidential Inauguration, and more recently at University of California, Berkeley – ironically the scene of the 1964-5 Free Speech Movement5The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1] Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speechand academic freedom. – Wikipedia. – where they smashed up property and set fire to vehicles trying to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos’s last gig on his ‘Dangerous Faggot’ tour.

Progressives also seek to impose their own set of concocted rules on others through the fanatical imposition of political correctness, often to the extent of destroying the careers of those who either deliberately stand up to them, or inadvertently cross their party line, and they are very close to burning books, as we have seen recently in their reaction to Milo Yiannopoulos’s new book Dangerous (which it is to the progressive left, of course). Yiannopoulos has been described as  ‘America’s most famous internet troll’ – allegedly (yes, by The Guardian, who else?), ‘alt-right’, and a  ‘brand building narcissist’ by Alexandra Schwartz in the New Yorker. However, as Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451 once said, ‘There is more than one way to burn a book.’6He even went so far as to introduce a Coda to the book expressing his resistance to attempts to restrict his free speech when he received letters suggesting that he needed to revise his treatment of female and black characters.

This is the very extremism that progressives purport to fight and it is the measure by which we should judge them. Actions speak louder than words every single time.

There is no doubt that the women’s protests across the developed world were coordinated affairs, and that within them was a series of intertwining hidden agendas. One of the key themes of the Washington march was the feminist Pro Life lobby – the resistance to any attempt to curtail women’s alleged right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. From numerous press reports, it is clear that women who claimed to be feminists and also Pro Life were told they were not welcome. I mean how could you be a feminist and not support unrestricted abortion? It’s a no-brainer, surely?

Pro Choice is at the epicentre of a decades-long feminist battle to retain hold of a tenuous legal decision known as Roe-v-Wade, made in 1973 by the US Supreme Court, which effectively overruled any state legislation controlling abortion7Roe-v-Wade was the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in 1973, carried by a majority of seven to two, that the right to a woman’s privacy under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution extended to her right to decide to have an abortion. About that decision, one of the dissenting judges, Mr Justice White, wrote this: ‘I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.’ And the other, Mr Justice Rehnquist, elaborated on this, saying, ‘To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment…’, and they know the writing is on the wall. President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch, undoubtedly backed by Vice-President Pence, is all about laying the groundwork for a future challenge of Roe-v-Wade, and within its first week in power, the Trump administration blocked US funding of foreign agencies carrying out abortions. The President has also made it clear that he is going to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the principal US agency carrying out abortions using federal funds.

Pro Choice is just a euphemism for a woman to have unrestrained licence to get rid of an unwanted, inconvenient, or economically unviable child, and it is a chilling insight into the cold soul of feminism, which flies in the face of a normal woman’s basic humanity: her drive, her biological imperative to protect the preciousness of a new life within her, and bring that child to viability and independent life.

In the feminist progressive mind (if that isn’t elevating this dogmatic ideology to too high a level), a child in the womb is just a foetus, see?. The result of a liaison with a man: a bunch of cells, and therefore something that can be disposed of at will without conscience by a woman whose rights transcend everything. Any attempt to limit a woman’s choice about whether to abort amounts to ‘limiting a woman’s reproductive rights’, which, like many other aspects of the feminist progressive thinking (again, that might be a bit of an overstatement), is just plain lies. It is just an exquisite bit of spin, and it is cold and heartless.

It is of course fascist eugenics, pure and simple. (Read this, it will make you shudder.) Its roots lie in the work of one of the most significant movers and shakers in the Pro Choice movement, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood whose euphemistic name belies its true purpose, which is to be the principal means of providing abortions to women in lower socio-economic groups.

As I describe  at length in Their Angry Creed, Margaret Sanger was the driving force behind the invention of what she called ‘The Magic Pill’, which later became more commonly known as just the Pill. However, her activities went far beyond that. Sanger was a eugenicist. She spoke openly at Ku Klux Klan meetings, arguing for ‘The blooming of the finest flowers of American civilisation’. She was the architect of ‘The Negro Project’, a programme she initiated in the black inner city communities of America (the latter-day plantations’, as they have been called, and the electoral heartland of the now completely progressive Democratic Party of America), that included the forced sterilisation of black woman as a means of controlling the birth of black children.

The last people on earth who think that Black Lives Matter are feminist progressives. Black people in America are about 12% of the population, but black women have about a third of all abortions, and for every two African American women that get pregnant one will choose to abort. Since Roe-v-Wade in 1973, over 25% of the African-American population has been aborted.

I mentioned earlier that there is a fourth strand to the progressive left, probably best illustrated by the much-loved epithet, ‘Climate-change denier!’ The green movement is very much part of the pan-global feminist progressive movement, which has embraced within its open arms ‘the battle to save the planet’. This is just another front in their overall war for worldwide ideological supremacy, and it has proved to be a very successful one indeed. President Barack Obama, social justice warrior par excellence, was (and no doubt remains) a passionate ‘climate change’ advocate.8Barack Obama, was religiously fanatical about alleged ‘climate change denial’, even to the point of sponsoring a web site naming and shaming members of the House of Representatives who don’t agree with him. This was pure bullying, of course, one of the tried and tested tactics of the progressive left who will brook no contra view of their ‘truth’. Obama always had his sights firmly set on America leading the creation of a globalised world. This is clear from his 2009 inaugural address in which he said, ‘As the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.’ Along with his almost-but-not-quite predecessor, Al Gore, he succeeded in giving political legitimacy to what is a 1960s, hippy-style, love-the-earth agenda, even to the extent that governments across the world have adopted it.

Today, the once-crazy idea that ‘Mother Earth’ is a goddess who supports her largely androgynous acolytes, provided they live in perfect harmony with her and with each other, is accepted as normal, thanks to the progressive left, and it doesn’t take much research to find out that the prime movers in the Greens were youths in the 1960s and 70s. They were the original, progressive ‘tree huggers’ and they have succeeded in convincing vast numbers of people that they are right, turning the original Gaia theory into a new religion for the masses, complete with its political representation at the highest level, especially the United Nations. (Again, I shall return to this at the end of this piece.)

President Trump, of course, has signalled a return to rationality and is undoubtedly going to overturn all of this, much to the delight of sensible people, and the detestation and fear of the progressive left (who are no longer a ‘lunatic fringe’).

The final leg of the stool of progressivism is the ‘anti-gay’ pejorative. Behind it lurks the desire to bring about universal androgyny – an ultimate aim of Utopianism. The ‘gay rights’ movement (once a just cause that is now won) has been turned into the LGBTQ agenda, which is being cast as a universal human rights issue by the progressive left.9Those people who are LGBTQ (or whatever other mnemonic letter has been added to the mix since I wrote this) are estimated to be about 0.03 per cent of the population. That is 3/100ths of one percent, which shows the degree to which this is being used as a political fulcrum for leverage.

The direction of travel is quite clear. They are moving towards replacing normal biological heterosexuality with an asexual, changeable, choosable form of gender identity – a sort of ‘trans-stance’ – which ultimately meets not just the utopian ideal of practical androgyny (to the extent that even feminists are kicking off about it), but also the Marxist-feminist ideal of the destruction of marriage between a normal man and a woman, from which families are formed. In these conditions, there is no way that the traditional family based on heterosexual marriage can survive. It is being relentlessly destroyed and socially re-engineered before our very eyes. The progressive new world order is now very close to being complete in this area.

And all this brings me back to the threat of it all to us. Especially to our democracy. The world-wide women’s marches, the post-Brexit attempts by the progressive left who are using every trick in constitutional the book to reverse the sovereign will of the people in the referendum in June 2016 because it didn’t go their way; the angry refusal of the progressive left in America to accept the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, are all, in my view, just the beginning.

I do not believe the progressive left is going to go away anytime soon. In fact, I have a nagging suspicion that it is all going to blow up in a final stand off between democracy and totalitarianism, which is a threat far greater than terrorism.

You see, progressives don’t do democracy, and there is no better example of that than the European Union (EU), that bastion of institutionalised progressivism. From the very outset, its founders showed utter contempt for the will of the people.  Time and again, we read of this in the letters and papers of those who drove its creation. For them, it was clear that the people’s will was a wild-card factor, useful only as far as it went their way, otherwise it was to be manipulated and, if necessary, perverted in the great cause of European unity. (Which, of course, was always intended to be but a stepping stone to world unity.)

It took Great Britain 50 years to wake up to what was going on and vote to get off the train, even though the message was clear from the beginning. Here are just a few examples of the evidence:

  • Jean Monnet, the so-called ‘Father of Europe’ rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations as far back as the 1950s. He is on record in his papers, in a communication dated 30th April 1952, saying that Europe should become a federal superstate into which all its ancient nations would be ‘fused’ (his actual word).
  • The socialist Claude Cheysson, French Foreign Minister from 1981 to 1984, said that the Europe of Maastricht, ‘could only have been created in the absence of democracy’, and public debate about it would be counterproductive.
  • And the centre-right French politician (and, yes, a progressive) Raymond Barre, who was Vice President of the European Commission, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs under three French Presidents, and later Prime Minister of France from 1976 to 1981 (under President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing),  said,  ‘I never have understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account’.

And it doesn’t stop there. As I write, the entire agenda is being brazenly driven through by the United Nations, which is increasingly positioning itself to be the one-world government (another fact that hasn’t escaped President Trump who, as I write, is making moves to de-fund it). Progressive thinking and ideology runs through every jot and tittle of its ‘Agenda 2030‘, under the weasel-word title, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which amounts to a progressive manifesto for global socialism.

We need to get this clear: the progressive left is not just people who have socialist leanings and gentler temperament: those who, perhaps, care for their fellow man and want to extend the hand of friendship to people who are less fortunate than them, or who are in distress. It is not even about the sort of feminism that most women who call themselves feminists think it is. That is not what this worldwide progressive-feminist-LGBTQ-green nexus is all about.

Well-meaning people, full of noble ideas of equality and love of fellow man, must stop seeing it as cool, hip, sophisticated, modern – as progress. It is not progress, it is regress, dressed in the same old clothing of the traditional left, but underneath its metaphorical hijab is an evil, highly motivated societal assassin.

For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of the women’s march in Washington, was the image of women wearing the American flag as a hijab (as sympathetically reported in The Guardian, UK, perhaps the leading progressive newspaper in the Western world). And, at its sister march in Berlin, one of the marchers was filmed chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ from the steps of a monument. (See a YouTube clip here.)

Is this an indication of where women in the civilised world are now heading? Are these women just dupes, or is it a sign that the feminist progressive left, in all its wild-eyed fury at seeing its power taken away from it by a US President who represents the very essence of patriarchy, and who was elected by ordinary people who just want a prosperous, peaceful life, is allying itself with the other great threat to democratic civilisation, Islamic hegemony?

Is this a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Hell, it seems, hath no fury like women scorned.

The possibility that progressive feminism is going to ally with Islamism in order to get leverage and continue the battle, shows the extent to which those who are driving its agendas will use any tactic, any lie, any hypocrisy, any power they can get their hands on to impose their worldview on us, and we must never forget that it is all being funded by mega-wealthy individuals (see my post The undermining of our values continues), who are ploughing vast sums of money into bringing their aims to fruition.

If these people really are edging towards an unholy alliance with militant Islam, it would make the stupid women and weak-minded men who are taking to the streets in their millions, dressed incongruously in pink (bearing in mind their feminist views), wearing their equally incongruously self-knitted ‘pussy hats’, waving their ‘Love Trumps Hate’ banners, and chanting their mindless mantras, look like a kitten’s miaow.

Those who are failing to exercise discernment, who have disposed of the value of male wisdom, who rely only on their feelings to guide them, and who have forgotten how to question everything rationally need to calm down and take stock. They need to see that they are being whipped up into anger by dark forces that are seducing them into embracing their own enslavement, like the alien suckered onto its victim’s face, working from the inside, removing freedom and disposing of democracy, while they are rendered helpless by their anger.

This thing is huge and it is going to take the most powerful man in the world, Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, and all of his huge energy and drive to see it off – and even then that might not be enough.

I can see an Armageddon-like final conflict on the cards, between the democratic power of the common man voting for those who best reflect his values, and the progressive élitist left, which is intent on imposing its feminist, equality-ridden, globalist, green faux left nonsense on us all – by fair means or foul. I urge anyone reading this to wake up to what is going on in the world. People need to start forming their own judgements and look behind what is being fed to them daily by the media-progressive-political nexus. The press is compromised. True journalism is dead. The 24-hour news media are just playing an endless-loop ‘movie’ (complete with screenplay) that amounts to brainwashing, and it is all fake news – progressive propaganda.

On the day of President Trump’s election, I declared it was game over for feminism. I remain firmly of that belief. The end of this angry creed and its progressive bedfellows began on that day but, as Winston Churchill said after the first significant British victory over Hitler in Egypt, ‘Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.’ That day on 10th November 1942, Britain, her Commonwealth partners, America, and the occupied nations of Europe still had a major war to fight, but at least they knew who the enemy really was.

On the 20th January 2017, the day of the US Presidential inauguration, I am convinced people didn’t even realise there was a war on. Maybe this analysis will show that not only does such a war exist, but also who the enemy really is.

   [ + ]

1. Utopianism goes back to the 18th Century, and it re-emerged in the hippy movement in the 1960s, which was also the crucible of feminism.
2. Of course, it goes without saying that it is the very degree of social stability, sophistication, freedom under a just law, and safety that that the nations of the west offer that causes people from third-world nations to flee their often backward, oppressively dictatorial societies, many of which operate under mediaeval systems of law, and flock to the West on the sure promise of a better life. But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a good ideology?
3. Merkel is a former research scientist with a doctorate in physical chemistry (and, therefore, very much the technocrat). She was born in 1954 in the communist former German Democratic Republic of East Germany (GDR), and entered politics in the wake of the revolutions of 1989 caused by the fall of communism. She rose to be the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a liberal/conservative, centre-right ‘catch-all’ party, and she is up for election in September 2017, having declared her intention so seek election for a fourth term as Chancellor. Then she will face the people of Germany over her policies.
4. The Italian word fascio means a bundle of rods. The symbolism suggests strength through unity. A single rod is easily broken but a bundle is difficult to break. The term (and the idea) comes from the Roman magistrates who could enforce their rulings through corporal and capital punishment, and whose symbol was a bundle of rods tied around and axe.
5. The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1] Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speechand academic freedom. – Wikipedia.
6. He even went so far as to introduce a Coda to the book expressing his resistance to attempts to restrict his free speech when he received letters suggesting that he needed to revise his treatment of female and black characters.
7. Roe-v-Wade was the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in 1973, carried by a majority of seven to two, that the right to a woman’s privacy under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution extended to her right to decide to have an abortion. About that decision, one of the dissenting judges, Mr Justice White, wrote this: ‘I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.’ And the other, Mr Justice Rehnquist, elaborated on this, saying, ‘To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment…’
8. Barack Obama, was religiously fanatical about alleged ‘climate change denial’, even to the point of sponsoring a web site naming and shaming members of the House of Representatives who don’t agree with him. This was pure bullying, of course, one of the tried and tested tactics of the progressive left who will brook no contra view of their ‘truth’. Obama always had his sights firmly set on America leading the creation of a globalised world. This is clear from his 2009 inaugural address in which he said, ‘As the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.’
9. Those people who are LGBTQ (or whatever other mnemonic letter has been added to the mix since I wrote this) are estimated to be about 0.03 per cent of the population. That is 3/100ths of one percent, which shows the degree to which this is being used as a political fulcrum for leverage.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • William Collins

    Yes indeed, an excellent summary of our position. My fear is that this confrontation, long brewing, has come before the forces of rationality have gathered their full strength. But perhaps it always seems like that in war. One is never ready.

  • Kronk

    Feminism is taking over because good men do nothing about it. We read about here (and other places) and go about our day hoping it will not catch up to us somehow?

    Its already TOO LATE FOR THAT!!!!

  • Well-put, clear explanation of the present situation!