Tag: Terrorism


As I washed more eggs off the back of my vehicle, one of which almost scored a direct hit on the “Make America Great Again” sticker, I mused the motive of the deliverer of those ovulatory projectiles. Was it tolerance? Was it peace? Was it brotherly love and inclusion? Hmm…


Just for the record, the vehicle is twenty-one years old and would cost more to sell than I could get for it. Perhaps I should just scramble it.

There’s some serious hatred of Trump in the US and distrust in some parts of the world. What has he actually done to deserve that? My contention is that he hasn’t done anything: the hatred is the result of a giant smear campaign, funded by wealthy socialists and globalists…

Theresa May lost her desired majority in the UK election. She also lost her opportunity to be a real man (er… woman) and to speak for millions of people who don’t want “fundamental change”: perhaps that’s why she didn’t get that majority. She’s one of the many millions who’ve been silenced by political correctness, who are afraid to say “boo” to a goose (or a chicken) lest-horror of horrors-they be labeled “hatemongers”, “bigots” and “racists”, and their vehicles be pelted with eggs by tolerant, loving, sophisticated world-citizens.

I know something about the Brits, having been one for almost all my life. Traditionally they’re tolerant and polite even when inside they don’t really like someone. And it’s that tolerance and politeness which stands to land them in a whole heap of trouble, rather like Chamberlain’s tolerance and politeness did in the forties. Brits are just so nice that they can’t even imagine that anyone would want to wage something like civilizational jihad against them. If they did know, and as long as those waging civilizational jihad against them did it politely, they really wouldn’t mind. In fact they would help…which is exactly what they are doing. It’s a case of the proverbial frog in the pot slowly coming to a boil without realizing it. Perhaps he’ll make frog tea…


As I’ve said, I agree that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and honorable people who just want to get on with their lives like the rest of us. And that’s why Brits are content to accept them into their midst-by the millions. The problem is that a small minority of them take their ideology very seriously, as their founder did and as the Turks who almost succeeded in invading Western Europe did.  And I know from decades of interest in world affairs that in every single Islamic country of the world now there are extremists pushing the nominal on to greater commitment. They push by means of violence if necessary. Even in the more extremely dedicated Islamic nations the majority are forced continually to become more dedicated. The problem is not just a case of ISIS having a temper-tantrum outside their own confines.

Trump has dared to stick his neck out on this issue. But he’s absolutely not “anti-Muslim” as his enemies have attempted to convince us: his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and the Arab League was a roaring success, despite how the anti-Trump media tried to portray it.

However, like it or not, with the millions of law-abiding immigrants come more extremists and their ideology. And what do our other  world “leaders” in the West care? I’ll tell you what: they want us to “get used to it”. And why are those who hold the reigns of power, who have the potential to steer us into a reasonably safe future, choose instead to make platitudinous statements about us all pulling together and not changing our ways, while doing nothing but coming to clean up the mess when there’s a terrorist attack?


It’s because many of them now want us all to be “citizens of the world” rather than having our own national identity. Nationalism breeds war, they think, and preserves that awful Christian morality nonsense. They agree with Lennon’s line that if we could just do away with borders, all the people of the world will be kissing each other and blissfully saying goodbye to religion (except Islam, the religion of choice for socialists) forever.

Israel is one of the obstacles to a world-wide utopia, because Israelis persist in being Jewish and in living in their ancient capital. Trump supports the Jewish state, making him a giant obstacle to globalist ideals.

The push for globalism among the elites is gathering momentum and power. President Obama virtually wiped out US borders because of his views on this, and the Democrats were and still are fully behind him. So were their media people-those now doing everything in their power to remove Trump from office, no matter what it takes, and no matter how much they have to lie to do it. I say “elites” intentionally, because a large number of people, especially in the UK, have fallen for the belief that all the rich powerful people are nationalists and “extreme-right-wingers”. All Trump supporters are racist, rich and ignorant, they’ve been told, while all those kind, tolerant, inclusive socialists and liberals are just poor lowly types trying to scrape together a few pennies to help their fellow man get by.


No, it’s the big boys at the top who have all the money and all the power who are driving us on to a one-world, Babylon-esque society, mashing together differing cultures, inventing  man-made climate-change and the ludicrous notion that we can change the climate back by giving them more money, and calling anyone who dares to oppose them “hateful bigots”.


I say “other source”, but really the two are inextricably linked. Western globalists think that once they get everyone in the same boat we’ll all have the same views on morality: liberal views. I think they’ll find out that the Muslims have different plans.

There’s also an undeniable spiritual thread to the whole situation: more on that another time.

It was known early on in Trump’s campaign that he leaned towards Christian belief, and that he largely held to Christian morality in his proposed policies, as did a large number of his followers. He made it clear that he would oppose unnecessary abortion and Obama’s requirements that the rest of us pay for them (he has and is-see note 3) and that he would reverse President Obama’s rulings on transgender bathrooms: he has. Obama issued a decree stating that all public schools must allow kids to use whichever bathroom they wanted to use on any given day, according to which gender they felt like being (note 1). Where’s the respect for women, who overwhelmingly want privacy, in that? Trump reversed the ruling (thank you President Trump). President Obama did all he could to push for gay rights and gay marriage. He ordered the military to take part in gay pride celebrations (note 2).

Trump is an altogether different animal, as is his vice-president. It’s this stand on morality and his respect for established laws and the constitution which brought the full force of the news media, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and all their ultra-rich donors against him and his followers. We Trump supporters are “ignorant” because we don’t see the world their way, and because we didn’t go along with Obama’s and Hillary’s “fundamental change”, but they’re oh so sophisticated and intelligent! Sophisticated people want the rest of us to pay for babies to be aborted.

No, Trump didn’t introduce polarity to America, it was already here. It was here because far more people opposed Obama and Hillary’s “fundamental change” than the elites and their followers had hoped. Trump’s enemies were sure that their propaganda in universities and on TV had done its work.

It’s my opinion that if Obama had just held back on his pronouncements on transgender bathrooms, and if he had not tried so hard to eradicate the “radical Islamic terrorist” label, just enough people would have voted for Hillary to continue that fundamental change: I’m glad he didn’t.

Scrambled eggs, anyone?


1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-administration-public-schools-transgender-students-access-bathrooms/story?id=39081956

2 https://patriotpost.us/alexander/13881

3 https://aclj.org/pro-life/shocking-planned-parenthood-annual-report-shows-abortions-taxpayer-funding-and-profits-soar-prenatal-services-and-cancer-screenings-plummet





There’s a time to be silent and tactful, and there’s a time to express what we think and what we believe. Without the latter we are robots, slaves and wimps, betraying our convictions, our humanity and our God-given ability and right to think for ourselves and to stand up for what we’re convinced of; we’re denying our right to shape and to improve our own world, and instead we’re lackeys to the ones who are prepared and positioned to push their views onto the rest of us…



I’ve always believed in politeness and in avoiding sarcasm and aggression: a good attitude towards others is the glue that holds a society together in mutual self-respect. I’m also happy to let others have different views to mine, so long as we allow each other the dignity of airing our views and perhaps even engaging in some robust debate. But I’ve never believed in keeping silent about what I feel strongly about, in order to avoid “offending’ someone. And in this age where political correctness seeks to silence all but the views of those with the most control and who say exactly what they think, the next step is for them to charge the rest of us with thought-crime, via “hate-speech” and other Orwell-esque constructs.

For years I heard about the necessity of freedom of the press. But in the West the press is free-free to push its anti-Christian, anti-West, immoral, revisionist, pro-Marxist worldview onto the rest of us, and to fool us into thinking that its own philosophy is the norm and the only healthy way to think. In some cases tax-payers’ money is being used to pay news media to indoctrinate us (see my post, “Nefarious Public Radio”). Tax payers’ money is used, not just to ruin (I’m sorry, I mean “run”) the economy or to pay for our protection (or lack of it) but to change the fabric of our society. Big government and the “let’s-make-the-laws-not-just-correct-the-breaking-of-them” judicial system, with the help of the big-bully mainstream media, is ramming its own interpretations of history, morality and religion down our throats. I don’t want to squeal “conspiracy”, but hey, I think there’s a conspiracy.

The only “religion” castigated these days, the only faith attacked in colleges and universities, in text books, in the media and in the courts, is Christianity. Is this, by any chance, a central goal of those who are the social engineers of our society?

By being afraid to be called “intolerant” “bigoted” “ignorant” and a host of other names designed to silence all opposition, we peons at the bottom of the pole in the West are surrendering our freedom of speech to the ruling elite so that their philosophies and agendas, which are in some cases directly opposed to the majority of the people they claim to represent, can take over. No, I’m not just talking about “rich Republicans” here: haven’t you noticed it’s the Democrats who’ve been in charge for seven years now? Don’t you know that many of those politicians who you think care so much about the poor are millionaires, funded by billionaires and big business? How would they raise tens of millions from the poor for an election campaign? If they’re so interested in financial equality, how come they want to share my money around but not theirs?

Why are we surrendering our freedom of speech to political correctness? We’re surrendering because we believe that our masters’ destruction of traditional morality is going to give us freedom and make us happy, and because we’ve bought the lie propagated in our own media and higher education institutions that everything our civilization is built on is evil. Well if it’s so evil and nasty why does the rest of the world want to move here, and why aren’t the “offended” ones moving out? Why, if we treat people of other faiths, of the female gender, and with different amounts of melanin in their skin so badly, do they move here by the million?

The most pernicious aspect of political correctness is that it invites the enemies of freedom to destroy the very freedom and tolerance it claims to promote. If we’re not free to examine or to criticize-for example-the nature of radical Islam, we’ve already succumbed to its objectives on a foundational level. What do I mean? I mean that since the word “Islam” means “submission”, by refusing to question its philosophy we’ve already submitted to an extent which makes us much more vulnerable. Neighbors of those who carried out the recent terror attack (gasp…yes I did say that “t” word) in San Bernardino had failed to report suspicious activities for fear of being labeled as “racist bigots”. As a result fourteen people lost their lives and dozens more lost their loved ones.

Recent terror attacks have been carried out in gun-free zones, yet those in the highest authority are wishing to capitalize on the operation and blame gun possession for the violence. Guns don’t shoot people-evil ideologies and evil people do it. Paris was a gun-free zone-but guns were used in the terror attack, where there was no one to shoot back in defense of the innocent.

By taking away guns from the public at this late stage, we would be exposing ourselves to more attacks-not less-from the cowards who will not stop hating the West no matter how much we kowtow to them, who don’t want anyone shooting back, and who aren’t interested in obeying gun laws. Can we really believe idle promises from government to protect us from such attacks? Short of security forces being omnipresent, and assuming that the administration would actually have the will to identify, disagree with and resist the enemy, all they can really do is come to clean up the mess when it’s happened, and then take you to court (if you’re still alive) for trying to defend yourself.