It really says something when in a secular and fairly Leftist society like the one found in the United Kingdom, the demographic most likely to be in support of Leftist crap refuses to allow for a totalitarian scheme to be successful.
According to a poll recently published by YouGov, 52% of young British people have downloaded the NHS’s Chinese coronavirus tracing app and then either deleted it, turned it off, or just avoided checking in with it. And that’s just of the ones who chose to download the app in the first place.
For a bit of context, the NHS’s Chinese coronavirus tracing app uses Bluetooth technology “to log whether you have come in contact with someone else with the same app who has been diagnosed with coronavirus and sends alerts that can include recommendations to self-isolate. The app can also be used to check into venues, which was a mandatory requirement for service in restaurants and pubs before July 19th’s ‘Freedom Day,’” according to Breitbart News.
How it can know when someone has been diagnosed with the virus, I don’t quite know (probably the app asks someone, but if that’s the case, I imagine a decent amount of people would lie about it), but generally speaking, it’s an app meant to be able to track people who have COVID and encourages people to try and maintain their distance from them.
However, as I mentioned earlier, even young Brits aren’t exactly too keen on its use and purpose. According to that same YouGov poll, a full 40% of Brits never even downloaded the app to begin with, despite it basically having been a “requirement” from the government.
And of those who did download it, only 22% said they were using it correctly, with 24% saying they either switched off the contact tracing and/or avoided checking in at venues, while another 10% deleted it completely.
Keep in mind, also, that this is a poll and not an official statistic, so that 22% of people saying they use it correctly might not even be all that accurate. After all, if someone asks you if you use the NHS app correctly, you might fear some amount of persecution or judgment if you were to say “no”, even if that were the truth, so you’d be more inclined to lie and say “yes.” So it’s entirely possible that there are more people who actually misuse it than correctly use it than the poll would suggest.
Furthermore, according to the poll, the highest proportion of those who have outright deleted the app are those aged 18 to 24, with that same age bracket being the likeliest to intentionally misuse the app in some form or fashion, such as turning off contact tracing (15%), avoiding checking in at venues even though it was required (10%) or have done both (10%). That demographic is also the least likely to use the app correctly.
Again, it’s just a poll and not official figures, but according to Breitbart, “it matches recent reporting of a ‘rising number’ of people deleting the app, including NHS staff.”
So not only are young Brits deleting the app in droves, but even people working at the NHS itself have reportedly been deleting the app as well.
That, to me, sounds like one hell of a totalitarian fail. They hoped that they’d be able to keep tabs on people with such a tracing app, but they could hardly enforce its use. For one, it’s not an outright legal requirement to follow the app’s instructions, as government officials have recently noted, but even if it were, it’d still be rather difficult to enforce it.
Much like enforcing a complete gun confiscation law would be impossible to do in the United States, enforcing the use of an app is also pretty impossible pretty much anywhere. Law enforcement would have to check in with every single person in the country to see if they are using the app correctly, and that is a logistical impossibility due to the limited personnel and resources of the police, not to mention the fact that they have to tend to other crimes, such as a mean guy on the internet calling a homosexual man a “f*ggot”, apparently.
But the fact that the demographic which one would think would be most likely to follow along the “let’s work together to end this pandemic” nonsense is the MOST likely to either misuse the app or outright delete it is a great indication of how far from their goals communists are, even in an already fairly far-Left country like the U.K.
Even NHS staff have come to delete the app, for crying out loud.
Despite things like these, PM Boris Johnson has threatened to introduce mandatory COVID passports for entry into large venues like nightclubs, “in a bid to pressure younger people into getting vaccinated,” according to Breitbart.
Apart from the fact that that is utterly disappointing to see BoZo do, it also would not really work. Why? Because even Germany isn’t mandating vaccines. According to the DW (not Daily Wire), Angela Merkel says they have no plans to mandate vaccinations, saying that such a thing would “endanger public trust.”
Now, one might think that COVID passports and vaccinations are different things, but not really. If your country is mandating COVID passports, it is essentially mandating vaccination, albeit in a bit of a roundabout way. It’s not offering a choice, but an ultimatum: “You can not vaccinate, if you want, but then you’ll be barred from going to all these places which require you to have it. And such places could eventually become your place of work or even your home if you don’t own it yourself.”
So if Germany, which is the leading economic power in Europe, isn’t mandating vaccinations, then no other country really can either, including the U.K. So enforcing COVID passports would be just as much, if not more, of a failure as the tracing app.
And again, we are talking about the demographic most likely to support such totalitarian measures, at least vocally.
The U.K. and much of Europe might never have had as terrible conditions as places like Cuba, South Africa and Iran during this pandemic, but everywhere in the world, there is only so much people will take of authoritarians and their rule. This may not be an outright and loud protest like in the aforementioned countries, but it is a more silent form of protest. The young Brits are seemingly fed up with the nonsense their idiotic government has spewed.
They may not necessarily come right out and say it, but their actions are such an indication.
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
Remember how I mentioned last week that, surprisingly, the Cuban people have begun to protest against the communist Cuban regime for its authoritarianism which restricts the liberties of the Cuban people, and likely also for its inability to properly handle the Chinese coronavirus pandemic? Seemingly, the people of Iran are also taking to the streets due to the regime’s inability to properly manage water and electricity.
According to The Daily Wire, for the past several weeks, “Iran has experienced worsening energy and water shortages,” which the regime claims are the result of “reduced rainfall” and people using air conditioning units to stave off the summer heat. However, according to the BBC, “many locals say the problem is mismanagement and corruption.”
Considering we’re talking about the world sponsor of terrorism, I’d be more inclined to believe the words of the Iranian people as opposed to the government.
Now, one might argue that the biggest reason for these protests is that very mismanagement and inability to produce adequate amounts of water and electricity. That would be correct only in a small way. Thing about that is that there has to be a reason for such an inability and that reason is, as the locals said, mismanagement and corruption. According to videos on social media, there are protesters who can be heard chanting “Death to the dictator” and “Death to Khamenei”.
They’re not “Death to the poor management which would be solved with more government regulation” chants. They are chants of open defiance against the Islamic regime. Doesn’t necessarily mean the Iranian people are done with being Muslims, but it does mean that they are standing against their government, not merely because of the issues presented by the media.
The BBC reported last weekend: “The water crisis has devastated agriculture and livestock farming and led to electricity blackouts. Earlier this month, protests broke out in a number of cities across the country. The authorities blame reduced rainfall for the situation, saying many hydroelectric power plants are not operating and electricity consumption has surged as people use air conditioning to cope with the intense summer heat.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani acknowledged this, saying: “I apologize to our dear people who have faced problems and suffering in the past few days and I urge them to cooperate [with cutting back electricity use]. People complain about power outages and they are right.”
Despite this seemingly humble response from Rouhani, police forces in the nation have been far harsher and more tyrannical than what this response would suggest.
Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist who was once nearly kidnapped by the Iranian government while on American soil, reported on the protests, also calling them “anti-regime demonstrations.”
“Anti-regime demonstrations are still underway in Iran’s #Khuzestan province. This video is from #Susangerd where security forces are seen shooting at innocent protesters asking for water. Khuzestan doesn’t have water and the regime is to blame for wrong water policies,” Alinejad tweeted alongside a minute-long video depicting exactly what she described.
Reportedly, at least one protester has been killed.
But this, as I mentioned earlier, is another massive protest against an authoritarian regime. To my count, three countries seem to be either protesting their authoritarian regimes or heading towards outright civil war: South Africa, Cuba and Iran. The one closest to an actual civil war, and might actually be in the beginning stages of one, is South Africa where two entire provinces, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, have been hit so hard as to resemble warzones. There, the government has already sent 25,000 troops to try and quell the violence which has come as a result of extended lockdowns and other authoritarian actions.
Are these protests/riots/potential civil wars an indication as to where the world is headed? Can’t say for certain at this point, but one thing is for sure: these are not the socialist/communist revolutions Marxists and Leninists would hope that they are.
One reason is that at least one of those countries has already gone through one such revolution and is currently facing backlash from its citizens after 60 years of a communist dictatorship. So what we are witnessing, if they lead to anything at all, would be the opposite of what the communists would desire.
Of course, there could be those who would incite a revolution in one of these places for the purposes of replacing the communist/authoritarian governments with their own communist/authoritarian government, but things could also go the opposite direction from that, towards something more akin to an actual liberation like the American Revolution.
Granted, such a revolution is historically rare, as most other revolutions only led to a new tyrannical regime replacing the prior one (Tsar to Bolshevism, King Louis XVI to Robespierre and then Napoleon, etc.). However, there is some reason for optimism at the very least because of the situation in Cuba.
People are fed up with authoritarians taking away their rights and freedoms at the drop of a hat. The lockdowns have exacerbated, in a lot of places, the tyrannical rule which was already present.
As I said in the previous article, if you think lockdowns were bad in the United States, they pale in comparison to other actually communist nations which operate under central governments. The advantage of federalism was present in America, since some states chose to not lockdown at all, others locked down for a short while, and others took their time but eventually recognized the need to open back up.
And while there are some states which are stupid, such as California which is now reinstituting mask mandates for indoors, plenty other states have seen the light and recognize the futility of such efforts in handling the pandemic. As I have written over a multitude of articles, many, most or all of these measures either didn’t work at best and were outright detrimental to people at worst on a number of levels, pathetically including health and safety.
The point is, the world locked down and experienced some of the worst tyranny they had seen, for many for the very first time. And such near absolute power in the hands of a few became too much for those who have seen some of the worst of it. South Africa was already rather dictatorial, what with white farmers literally being stripped of their land; Iran has been a radical Islamic cesspool since the 70’s and Cuba is, well, Cuba. They have already had to witness a lot tyranny in their lifetimes, and the lockdowns, particularly as long-lasting and severe as they have been, might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for some of them.
They are people with little to nothing to lose by doing this, with plenty to gain if successful. They are willing to take their chances because they can’t stand the bullcrap they currently have to go through.
I hope that many other countries come to understand that they have to fight authoritarianism wherever it pops up and do so to the greatest of their abilities.
“It is an abomination for kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
In most cases, the Left is perfectly content with bringing in people from other countries for just about any cockamamie reason. However, if such people are fleeing communism and generally tend to identify more with the GOP than the Democrat Party, all of a sudden, the Left discourages such migration.
With the recent protests in Cuba almost certainly leading to extreme and harsh punishments from the communist regime, it’s not surprising that there might be Cubans seeking to flee the commie craphole and heading towards the closest beacon of hope they would have: the free state of Florida. However, DHS Chief Alejandro Mayorkas, who is ashamedly a Cuban himself, discouraged Cubans from making their way to the U.S. through the sea.
Mayorkas said on Wednesday: “The time is never right to attempt migration by sea. To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking. Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.”
“If individuals make, establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture, they are referred to third countries for resettlement. They will not enter the United States.”
This coming from the administration which is overseeing the worst influx of illegal immigration at the southern border and couldn’t be bothered to even pretend that it’s a problem.
Now, a liberal might try to make the argument that it’s purely because of safety reasons that they discourage Cubans fleeing the island nation to the States via sea. I call bullcrap on that one. The desert that illegals have to cross in the southern border to get into states like Texas, Arizona, etc. are just as dangerous a trek to make as escaping Cuba via the sea. The extremely high temperatures give them heat stroke, coupled with the fact that they have to practically constantly be moving, as well as the fact that they won’t always be the best prepared for the weather. Not to mention the likelihood that any one of them could be trafficked, willingly or unwillingly, and be the closest thing to slaves in the modern West, which itself carries a multitude of risks.
It’s not the safety of the Cubans that Leftists care about here, it’s the fact that, according to Pew, 58% of Cubans identify more closely to the GOP than the Democrat Party, which is a surprise to exactly no one because the Democrat Party is extremely similar to the communist party that they just fled. Why would they want to support the crap that they just escaped from?
In just about any other circumstance, the Left would argue that such a dangerous trek even through the sea would be worth it so long as they can actually make it here and, likely, vote Democrat. But because Cubans tend to not like Democrats, they get treated differently as migrants.
They seemingly have an “issue” with Cubans making a dangerous trek to escape communism, but don’t have any such issues with illegals crossing the dangerous desert to illegally enter this country.
It’s yet another example of utter Leftist hypocrisy, not that anyone needed to be informed anymore that Leftists are hypocrites.
Cubans are currently fighting against the communist regime, likely in part because of the lockdowns, but mostly because many of them probably figure that they have nothing to lose by doing so. They live under such harsh and terrible conditions due to communism that they think it’s worth it to lose their lives to fight against it, in all likelihood because the lives they currently have could hardly be called “living.”
When people’s backs are against the wall in such a manner, it’s expected that they will begin to fight back, little chance as they might have at success. But not all of them will want to fight. If possible, they will want to flee and escape not only communism but the violence that might come from such altercations, namely from the extreme punishments doled out by the regime. Such people will seek refuge, but ashamedly, the illegitimate Biden DHS is denying them entry.
They have no issues whatsoever with illegals who simply seek to take advantage of the economic opportunities in the States to make very little money mowing Democrats’ lawns (the Dems did always want their slaves back and this is the closest they can get to that) and then sending some of that money back to their families (assuming that that happens at all, which could just be another Leftist lie). They have no issues at all with illegals who end up committing major crimes against Americans, such as Kathryn Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant on July 1st, 2015 and whose killer escaped prosecution and the justice that was owed him because California sucks.
They have no issues with such illegal immigrants so long as they can use them at some capacity. But when it comes to ACTUAL humanitarian crises like refugees of communism? No humanity, no sympathy and no heart.
The Left is evil and they prove this each and every day.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
For over 60 years, the people of Cuba have been subjugated under a communist regime which enslaves them and dehumanizes them. They have had to drive the same cars from 60 years ago, if not longer, and have little freedom when it comes to internet access, with the communist regime getting to censor and dictate what people see online.
Any act of seeming dissent against the regime is taken as a threat to the existence of the regime itself and is met with extreme hostility and harsh punishment. The people who protested Sunday put themselves at significant risk, as they could be arrested and face a firing squad because of their actions, despite how peaceful their protests were. This is just how communist countries treat their people when the people protest tyranny.
Despite the great bravery of these people, and immense risk they put themselves in, the American Left has sought, unsurprisingly, to not make this about the ideology which has ruined the island nation, since that is the very ideology the Left espouses, but rather to make it about rising Chinese coronavirus cases and deaths.
Julie Chung, Acting Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, tweeted: “Peaceful protests are growing in #Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages. We commend the numerous efforts of the Cuban people mobilizing donations to help neighbors in need."
Can you see the two things she was most wrong about?
First of all, the Cuban people can’t exercise their right to peaceful assembly because they have no such right. Like I said, they face great risk in protesting in this manner, peaceful as it is, because they risk arrest and execution at the hands of firing squads. No people who face such a risk are people who have a right to peaceful assembly. Chung is treating Cuba as though it’s as free as the U.S. and has the same constitutional rights that America has.
It doesn’t. The constitution which Cuba has includes no specific rights or freedoms of the Cuban people, just vague statements about how “Cuba is a free and democratic socialist state” which is a bunch of bullcrap which is typical for any communist country. Furthermore, they place particular importance on the protection of not the people or even the country itself but the socialist system it employs.
Article 4 of the Cuban Constitution (2019) says: “The defense of our socialist homeland is the greatest honor and the supreme duty of every Cuban. Treason is the most serious of crimes, whoever should commit treason will be subject to the most severe sanctions. The socialist system that this Constitution supports is irrevocable. Citizens have the right to combat through any means, including armed combat when other means are not available, against any that intend to topple the political, social, and economic order established by this Constitution.”
As with any other communist regime, its greatest priority is its own survival, not as a country or people, but as a system. They explicitly state that treason is the most serious crime which carries the heaviest sentence, meaning that the protestors on Sunday, because they were calling for “Libertad”, or “Liberty”, protesting the Marxist regime and even waving American flags, could face charges of treason. And to top it all off, the first specific right that the Cuban constitution affords to the Cuban people is in reference to the PRESERVATION OF THE COMMUNIST REGIME.
Cubans don’t have the right to peacefully assemble, to free speech, to freedom of religion, to freedom of the press. These are the first explicit and specific rights detailed in the American constitution, under the First Amendment. But for Cubans, the first right afforded to them specified in their constitution is the right to protect the communist system of government, social norms and economic system which suffocates the people.
So let no one fool you into believing that the Cuban people are, at any capacity, free in their own country.
The second thing Chung was wrong about was the purpose of the protests. She said it was about COVID, medicine, cases and deaths. Generally, that the Cuban people demanded better care from the communist regime against the Chinese coronavirus.
Like I said earlier, they were calling for liberty, freedom, and were not unclear about the reason for their protests. They are fed up with the communist regime destroying them and their lives.
Now, one might raise a fair question: “Why now, after 60 years of communist crap? We haven’t heard of other similar protests of this scale in years, so why now?” Again, that’s a fair question. The answer is that, frankly, I don’t think the Left is ENTIRELY wrong about the purposes of the protest. Don’t misunderstand, this is specifically about freedom and liberty from the Marxist communist regime, not about demanding better care or raising awareness about cases and deaths. But the reason for this protest might not be entirely divorced from the Chinese coronavirus.
Like other communist states and nations, Cuba locked down to “fight” against the pandemic and they are still locked down for the most part, with some restrictions having been lifted. Assuming that cases and deaths really are going up, it’s likely that the communist regime will want to lock things down again in full. And if you think the lockdowns were painful for Americans, imagine how devastating they are/were for people living in third-world countries which experience 10 times what America went through at the height of the pandemic on a DAILY basis.
Remember when store shelves were empty towards the beginning of the pandemic? That’s a regular Tuesday in Cuba. Remember when people feared toilet paper shortages? Cuba routinely experiences actual shortages of far more than just toilet paper. Remember when the economy was in freefall when we locked down? Cuba’s economy avoided such a freefall if only because it was practically already on the ground.
Put citizens of a communist nation through extreme lockdowns like that and you are bound to get some amount of pushback. And keep in mind, the Cuban people have gone through 60 years of indoctrination and brainwashing in order to be obedient slaves of the communist state. Americans protested because, at least for many of us, we still understand and have a sense and yearning for freedom and can see the tyranny that lockdowns impose on people. But Cubans? They will flee, sure, much as they can, but outright protest and demand freedom and liberty?
Only under extreme circumstances might you see that, and the fact that there were pro-freedom protests on Sunday is an indication that such extreme circumstances are at play here. This has nothing to do with the Chinese coronavirus’ cases or deaths or vaccines or medicine in the country, but it’s not divorced from the general subject of the virus, in my opinion.
Though, again, do not misunderstand what I am saying. They are protesting the communist regime, which is why the Left wants to make this about the Chinese coronavirus. They espouse the very communism which is suffocating Cuba, so they can’t go along with the whole “this is about freedom from tyranny” angle. They SIDE WITH THE TYRANTS the protesters are against. They won’t come right out and say that, of course, but they don’t have to tell the truth on this matter either.
They will pretend to be on the side of the protesters when in fact they sully the protesters’ intent.
They aren’t liars because they lie. They lie because they are liars.
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”
Cancel culture is a tool of the communist intended to purge and punish any action seen as undesirable and any wrong-think as unfitting of humanity. So color me surprised when I see two Leftists, one in particularly who I took to be (and still do, for the most part) communist himself, denouncing cancel culture.
In a July 5th episode of Conan O’Brien’s podcast, “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend,” the retired late night host asked fellow Leftist actor Sean Penn about the habit of destroying careers because of previous “wrong” actions.
O’Brien said: “Empathy is a very important word and also forgiveness. We found that someone did something in 1979 that is now not appropriate. They’re dead to us.” O’Brien then went on to describe cancel culture as “very Soviet”, adding, “People can also be forgiven. If they even need forgiving. What happened to that?”
And, surprisingly, I have nothing to disagree with the Leftist host. Empathy and forgiveness are certainly important. Matthew 18:21-22 says: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!”
Some translations say “Seventy times seven” but the general point that Jesus was making was that Christians ought to forgive their brothers and sisters in faith every time they sin against them, so long as said sinner is repentant of that sin. It is because this is how God acts towards His Children, who continuously sin against Him, wittingly or not, and must ask for forgiveness for said sins.
Now, that’s specifically about Christian brothers and sisters. People in general, or those who we might call “neighbors” do not have to be forgiven for all their sins against us, even if they ask for forgiveness, because mercy is never owed. So the situation O’Brien is describing is a bit different from the example I gave with that Bible verse, but the point remains that it is good to forgive others. When it comes to those who are not Christians, a Christian is not obligated to accept an apology, but may do so at his or her own leisure. Personally, I tend to forgive anyone who has wronged me if they asked for forgiveness (depending on how serious the situation is, of course, as a great wrong might not be easily forgiven and I may not want to restore a relationship with someone I don't trust), regardless of their own faith.
But this act of forgiveness is something O’Brien basically points out that proponents of cancel culture never really do. They will cancel someone and ruin their lives, whether or not such people apologize to the mob. Now, I don’t think anyone should ever apologize to the mob, since apologizing to them only gives them more credence and more authority, which they do not have nor deserve. But that the mob never even accepts such apologies indicates the little empathy they have in their hearts, if any is present at all.
Rush Limbaugh once apologized for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” because she wanted free birth control pills and the only reason she would want that is because she is a slut, which he was completely right about and had no reason at all to apologize (particularly since the Left calls us far worse things literally ALL the time), and Fluke didn’t accept his apology. I remember thinking “well, what’s the point in apologizing, then, if you wouldn’t even be forgiven? At that point, might as well double-down.” Such an attitude, I believe, is what a lot of conservatives share and why, among other reasons, we like Trump so much.
But getting back to the actual conversation, Penn also agreed with O’Brien, calling cancel culture “ludicrous.”
He brought up the example of Alexi McCammond, who was editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue but was fired after a few weeks on the job because of anti-Asian comments she had tweeted as a teenager. Generally, not a good idea to make bigoted comments about any particular race, unless the comments are only considered “bigoted” because they are actually factual statements (for example, the higher likelihood of a police officer being killed by a black man than the other way around would be considered “racist” despite its statistical truth), but it can be more easily forgiven if we are talking about a teenager.
Teenagers are immature, angsty, and sometimes try too hard to be “edgy” or to fit in to a certain group they wish to belong to, and so would do and say things which run contrary to their usual behavior. I won’t outright defend McCammond since she likely is a Leftist (working at such a high level on Teen Vogue, which spreads Marxist crap to teenagers probably makes her a Leftist) but generally speaking, it is illogical that anyone would be fired for actions committed when they were teenagers, so long as such actions weren’t explicitly and horrifyingly illegal. Since she is likely a Leftist, I don’t actually mind that cancel culture destroyed her, but not because I support cancel culture, rather because this is a Leftist tool being used against a Leftist.
Often times, people have to live by rules set by the Left and the Left doesn’t have to live by such rules, so it’s good to see, sometimes, that they get targeted by some of the same vile crap that they support and implement.
Penn, regarding the example of McCammond, said: “When we’re destroying careers like that, what are we really achieving? What are we doing?”
The two then went on to talk about how cancel culture affected their own particular genres of show biz, with Penn pointing out how “representation” has gone so far that he, a straight, white male, would no longer be considered for parts which don’t align with his own label. Namely, that he wouldn’t be able to play the part of gay activist Harvey Milk, which he did in 2008, were that movie to be made today because he isn’t gay himself.
“Today, almost certainly I would not be permitted to be cast in that role. We’re living in a time when, if you’re playing a gay lead character, you’d have to be a gay man or a trans character. And there have been these casting issues.”
He continued: “When you have a period of evolution that certainly has an opportunity for people who have had less opportunities to move forward, that has to be supported, and yet in this pendulum swing society that we’re in, you wonder at some point if only Danish Princes can play Hamlet. It is, I believe, too restrictive. People are looking for gotcha moments and to criticize.”
Ironically, the only times when casting staffs have no issue with not getting a label-appropriate actor for a label-appropriate lead is when casting for traditionally white and male characters. For example, there are people who have argued that a woman ought to play James Bond in a future film, which would practically change the entire character for the sake of “wokeness” because one of his most recognizable traits is, apart from being a man, he is a womanizer who often sleeps with the hot female lead. Unless they plan to also make female Bond gay, which isn’t exactly past them, that aspect of his character would be eliminated. Either way, what you have is not Bond, but a bastardization of Bond. And this is coming from someone who has never seen a Bond film in its entirety and really doesn’t care too much about the franchise.
Not to mention that they are actually and actively trying to make the next Bond film be led by a black James Bond. While I don’t really care about the color of Bond’s skin (again, not exactly a big fan, though it might be different if I were), it’s still an example of Leftists in Hollywood not only hypocritically not caring about the restrictiveness that Penn was talking about when it comes to something they want to change, but also of actively wanting to change the base character for agenda reasons.
Were you to make a film today about, say, Miles Morales (black Spider-Man) and a white actor were to play him, that would be an outrage to the Left. But were you to make a film today about Peter Parker (original Spider-Man) and hired a black actor to play him, they would have absolutely no issues with that, despite the fact that Peter Parker is white.
It’s nothing but hypocrisy, not that this is a rarity for the Left.
At any rate, it is surprising to see such notorious Leftists, particularly Sean Penn, talk so disparagingly about a Leftist tool of censorship and suppression. It’s good to see infighting within the Left, particularly if some of them actually stand on the side of sanity.
Here’s hoping that we see more of this and there is a real, concerted effort to push back against the insanity we are witnessing.
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
For a very long time, I have argued that the most important way in which we can preserve our rights and freedoms in this country for generations is through the taking over of the education system which has been in Leftist hands for 60 years.
The Left took away God from our schools and has slowly but surely been introducing increasingly radical Leftist material in our schools. From the assertion that we are “killing the planet” to the idea that homosexuality is not only okay but outright encouraged, and most recently, that white people are evil because of their race and that black and brown people are victims by the same merit. It is because of this radical Leftist curricula that we have young adults today who unironically love socialism and communism and erroneously believe them to be what will bring about a sort of utopia in this world.
As a result, naturally, the best way to fight against it is to take over the education system and begin teaching children the horrors of communism and begin teaching them actual, objective truths such as “we are not killing the planet” and “males can only be male and females can only be female.” Thankfully, this is what Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also believes and has allowed to occur in Florida.
Recently, America’s best governor signed three civics education bills, HB 5, HB 233 and SB 1108. HB 5 requires high school students to learn about communism and totalitarianism, ideologies which “conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States,” according to Breitbart News.
During a press conference at a Fort Myers middle school, the governor said: “It’s crucial to ensure that we teach our students how to be responsible citizens. They need to have a good working knowledge of American history, American government and the principles that underline our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
He continued: “I’m proud to sign three bills today that prioritize civics education in our schools. The sad reality is that only two in five Americans can correctly name the three branches of government, and more than a third of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is abundantly clear that we need to do a much better job of educating our students in civics to prepare them for the rest of their lives.”
HB 5 also “provides a library of ‘Portraits in Patriotism’ based on the lives of individuals who have represented civic-minded qualities, including some who have moved to this country after suffering persecution in nations such as Cuba and Venezuela,” according to Breitbart.
DeSantis said: “We have a number of people in Florida, particularly southern Florida, who’ve escaped totalitarian regimes, who’ve escaped communist dictatorships to be able to come to America,” adding that he wants all students “to understand the difference, why would somebody flee across shark-infested waters, say leaving from Cuba to come to southern Florida? Why would somebody leave a place like Vietnam? Why would people leave these countries and risk their life to be able to come here? It’s important students understand that.”
HB 233 is a bill which requires state colleges and universities to hold annual assessments of the “viewpoint diversity and intellectual freedom at their institutions,” according to the governor’s office. In essence, it requires Florida colleges and universities which receive state funding to not be centers of Marxist brain-washing and to protect students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights of free speech to ensure they can’t be censored for their beliefs if they hold beliefs which run contrary to the faculty or upper echelon of the school.
On this matter, the governor said: “It used to be thought that a university campus was a place you’d be exposed to a lot of different ideas. Unfortunately, now, the norm is really that these are more intellectually oppressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed. We don’t want that in Florida.”
He continued: “You need to have a true contest of ideas. Students should not be shielded from ideas and we want robust First Amendment speech on our college and university campuses.”
And finally, SB 1108 requires state college and university students to take a civic literacy course and assessment as a requirement for graduation, so that they don’t routinely pull an Ilhan Omar and believe that the different chambers of Congress are different branches of government.
Personally, I think these bills are great and are definitely a step in the right direction. Teaching high school and college students about communism and totalitarianism and requiring colleges and universities to be intellectually diverse and have a civic literacy course and assessment as requirements for graduation are things which will only help Floridians and Americans down the line.
My only issue, really, is that these bills are aimed more towards high school and college (though that isn’t a bad thing in itself at any rate) and don’t seem to include earlier ages. Obviously, it is utterly obscene that the Left is going after elementary and kindergarten aged students in their brainwashing attempts, but they have the general right idea. The earlier you can influence students, the better they will be for your side as time goes on.
Surely, conservatives in the education system could come up with curricula which would teach elementary and kindergarten students of the rottenness of socialism and communism without robbing them of their innocence and going into detail regarding the goriness that such systems bring about.
As one example, a teacher could explain to his or her young students that “communism and socialism are bad economic and political systems because they bring about sadness and pain to a great number of people. They take away the freedom of the innocent and add on to the pain with unfair rules which lead to really bad punishments. If you think whatever punishments your parents have given to you are bad, they are nothing compared to what communism and socialism do to innocent people.”
I’m not a teacher nor a parent, so I don’t really know how to best put such lessons in a way which truthfully exposes the evils of communism without going into gory details such as the public executions and terrorist tactics of the Bolsheviks, Politburo, Gestapo, etc, but like I said, I’m sure people qualified to take on such jobs could figure out a way to accomplish this.
And if you think that it’s not a good thing to be teaching young kids about the evils of communism, at least in a way which won’t outright scar them, then please step aside as you’d be nothing but a burden. It’s either they are taught the evils of communism or are taught that males can be females and are exposed to drag queens who will groom them and ruin their lives entirely, while the kids themselves are taught to believe that any refusal of such pedophiles would be considered bigoted behavior and that they owe reparations for either their race, gender and/or sexuality for “oppressing” such people.
Seriously, the Left is hunting these kids at the earliest age they can. Notable “anti-racist” racist Ibram X. Kendi has a book called “Antiracist Baby.” Of course, it’s a children’s book, seemingly aimed at toddlers. Such young children shouldn’t be taught how to be massive racists, but that’s what the Left is doing anyway. Why should we willingly be behind them in influencing young children?
Of course, no toddler will understand what the hell the book is trying to say because children don’t tend to be naturally racist like that. They don’t generally see color and have no issue with being nice to other people if such people are nice in return. However, this is still an attempt to influence these children in such an awful manner. Why would we allow the Left to have such influence over children if we can do something about it?
The Left wants to brainwash them. We want to implement systems which will prevent that. That’s what DeSantis is doing and this is a great step in the right direction towards that, but we can’t possibly end the fight there.
It’s good that high school and college students are the intended demographics of these bills, but I would like to see the Florida Congress pass similar bills intended for middle school, elementary school and kindergarten students.
At any rate, these are great bills and it’s fantastic that Gov. DeSantis has signed them into law. But this is just the first step in taking back education from the Left. Other states will likely follow suit and go into other areas of education as well. I pray that this will serve as the catalyst for much needed positive change in this country’s Leftist educational system.
“And give no opportunity to the devil.”
For a very long time, anyone with a relatively unbiased and analytical eye could tell that the organization commonly referred to as “Black Lives Matter” does not actually believe that black lives matter. It takes whatever opportunities it can to cause destruction to public and private property, and to induce terror into the hearts of citizens and political opponents alike.
It is little more than a terrorist organization, alongside Antifa, and has already claimed a number of lives in the past year. However, it is seen in a favorable light by the fake news media, entirely because both BLM and the media are Leftists fighting for Leftist causes.
BLM’s “About Us” page included items which were explicitly Leftist LGBT crap that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the improvement of black lives or the protection of black lives, thereby pointing out how little black lives actually mattered to BLM (and is among the reasons I have been calling them “BLM” for the past year).
It is simply a Marxist, communist organization meant to drive Marxism and make us more into a Soviet Union.
They fool plenty of people into believing that their cause is genuine and noble, and even some of its chapter founders believe that the organization cares about black lives and black people.
However, there are some times when even a founding member of a chapter recognizes the putrid nature of the organization and sees that it works towards things which would be counterintuitive to its official mission of helping black people.
Rashad Turner is one such person, as he founded a Minnesota BLM chapter in 2015 and resigned some time later (unknown exactly when). The reason I am pointing this out now is because, regardless of when he actually resigned, he recently released a video (below) on YouTube in which he “reveals the truth about BLM”.
It’s a short, two-minute video in which he details some of his early life:
“My mother wasn’t able to take care of me, so I was raised by my grandparents. They told me that if I was going to change my life for the better, education was the answer. So, I worked hard in school. I got into Hamline University, and earned a college degree, the first in my family. Then I went on to earn a master’s in education from St. Mary’s University of Minnesota. I am living proof that no matter your start in life, quality education is a pathway to success.”
He then goes on to talk about founding the St. Paul chapter of BLM in 2015, believing “the organization stood for exactly what the name implies, black lives do matter. However, after a year on the inside, I learned they have little concern for rebuilding black families, and they cared even less about improving the quality of education for students in Minneapolis.”
“That was made clear when they publicly denounced charter schools, alongside the teachers’ union. I was an insider in Black Lives Matter, and I learned the ugly truth: the moratorium on charter schools does not support rebuilding the black family, but it does create barriers to a better education for black children.”
And it goes a lot further than that. The fact that their “About Us” page included LGBT propaganda and that one of their main missions was to disrupt the nuclear family is exemplary of their ill-will towards black people. The black family unit is racked by absent parents, with Turner himself mentioning how his mother couldn’t take care of him and was instead raised by his grandparents (notice the sheer absence of a father here, a common story for many black families).
The current social and welfare system in the U.S. encourages poor women (often, black women) to have as many kids as they can so they get bigger welfare checks from the government (which the Left is happy to provide, since it means they get to financially own such people, basically reliving their “glory days” of being slave owners).
While overt racism (towards minorities) is rather scarce, the Left enacts systematic racism (which they claim to fight against, though they are the ones implementing it) through their welfare systems which financially enslave poor people, whom are most often minorities. Of course, there are plenty of people who can get out of it, such as Turner or Ben Carson, among others. But it is undeniable that the Left does what it can to enslave as many people in as legal a way as they can.
And organizations like BLM are created, not for the purposes of improving the lives of black people and families, but keeping them in check. Similar to how Margaret Sanger used black people to convince other black people of the “goodness” of the genocide she wanted to commit against them, the Left uses black people to convince other black people of the “goodness” of the enslavement that they want to place on them.
And clearly, it works with many, as Turner sort of points out. He used to believe that black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter. After all, it’s in the name (an argument which somehow is ignored when you point out that there is “socialist” in “National Socialist” or “Nazi”, but whatever). However, there are those who can see, immediately or eventually, how disingenuous the organization is to its namesake.
This should have been made perfectly clear to all last year, when BLM burned down black-owned businesses and harassed black neighborhoods. BLM actively worked against the benefit of black lives, and many took notice of this.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Turner is one of those people.
At any rate, it is good that Turner is speaking out against the evil of BLM, and how it is an organization which only cares about black lives in name. In action, they do things which are actively against the progress of black people and their Marxist leaders are intent on pushing not a pro-equality agenda, but a pro-LGBT, Marxist agenda, which as mentioned previously, work against black people.
I hope and pray many others whom are still within the organization come to the realization that BLM is nothing but a Marxist communist organization which only serves to make matters worse for black people in the short and long-run.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
It is often the case that what the government intends with a particular plan, the opposite intended effect ends up occurring. Ludwig von Mises explained this particular phenomenon using the example of the price of milk while addressing the University Club in New York back in 1950:
“The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.”
In essence, what he explains is that the results of central planning by governments will often end up creating the opposite intended effect (provided they actually intended to improve the situation and not make things worse). This is what has recently happened in the State of Hawaii, which is seeking to fully transition to “renewable energy” by the year 2045 and replace their last coal power plant with The Kapolei Energy Storage Facility, which is basically an enormous battery.
The intent was to have this “green” battery, powered by wind, solar, etc., replace the output of the coal power plant (it’s a 185-megawatt storage facility compared to the 180-megawatt coal plant, so it generates more power, which is good) and make the state a little bit “greener.”
However, there are seemingly unintended issues and consequences coming as a result of the use of this battery. Namely, the issue of delays to renewable projects. This is a problem for two reasons:
First, as Pacific Business News reported back in March, the delays “will leave Oahu (the island where this is taking place) with a very tight fuel reserve margin, opening up the possibility of rolling blackouts in the event of failure.”
In essence, it could potentially lead to the same problems that Los Angeles had been facing some time ago, where they simply had no power at all.
Second, and the biggest problem for those who viewed the battery as an environmentally friendly alternative to coal, is that “If there is not enough solar, wind, or battery storage energy to replace the [coal] plant, [Hawaiian Electric Co.] would have to use oil instead to charge things like the upcoming 185-megawatt Kapolei Energy Storage Facility,” according to Pacific Business News.
Now, here’s the thing: Pacific Business News is being rather deceptive here. They phrase the issue as an “if” situation. The reality is, however, that there isn’t enough solar, wind, or battery storage to replace the coal plant with a renewable source of energy. Which brings us to the biggest dilemma for those who are ideologically invested in the success of this project: Hawaiian Electric Co. will have to use OIL to power the giant battery.
But wait, it gets worse for these people. Not only will they be substituting one fossil fuel source for another, they will be substituting one fossil fuel source for a MORE EXPENSIVE fossil fuel source. This led to Public Utilities Commission chair James Griffin to complain that Hawaiians would be “going from cigarettes to crack.”
“Oil prices don’t have to be much higher for this to look like the highest increase people will have experienced. And it’s not acceptable. We have to do better,” continued Griffin.
Returning to Mises, this whole ordeal is exemplary of the phenomenon I had talked about earlier. “The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which – again from the point of view of the government – is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.”
Certainly, intending to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy and ending up not only using another fossil fuel source, but also one which is even more expensive than the source which they were trying to replace is absolutely less desirable not only for those in the government and environmentalist whackos, but everyone whom this affects. After all, if the government is going for a more expensive source of fuel, they have to do something to afford it and still operate normally. This, almost always, involves the raising of taxes on the population.
So this entire situation is a raw deal for the government which seemingly wanted to improve their renewable energy use, for those who originally approved of this transition because they believed it would be “better for the planet”, and for those who couldn’t care less if they were using fossil fuels or renewable energies to power things up but who will soon have to fork over more of their hard-earned cash to a government which has screwed them, intentionally or not.
What is perhaps the most unfortunate part of all of this is that many people will not learn the most important lessons to be learned out of this: central planning from the government is pretty much always a bad thing.
This has been shown to be the case in Germany (more than once), in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Russia (both now and when they were the Soviet Union and militarized the workplace to try to mitigate strikes in factories and “restore order” but it only led to more strikes, particularly in the areas most militarized), China, most countries in Latin America, and in many places in the U.S. And yet, this crucial lesson is not always learned by some people, even those who experience such central planning.
Even assuming the absolute best intentions by the government (and that requires a whole lot, knowing the evil nature of Man), it often only ends up getting in the way of the progress it seeks to create, even ending up creating regress as a result.
Like with the example provided by Mises of trying to control the price of milk for the sake of poor people, but only creating a shortage of milk in the process and making things worse for the poor, or like with the example of the current situation in Oahu, Hawaii, even under the best circumstance regarding the true intentions of the government, the government ends up making things worse, not better.
The words of Ronald Reagan ring very much true in this instance: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
The Left, following a series of shootings in March, was really hoping to see increased support for their gun-grabbing desires in the fake news polls, so that they might have a “green light” to go forth with such legislation, but things didn’t exactly go their way with a recent WaPo poll.
Back in 2018, according to the WaPo, by a margin of 57 to 34, people supported the idea of prioritizing “laws to reduce gun violence” over “protecting the right to own guns.”
Before I go further, I want to point out the misleading wording the WaPo and all fake news organizations tend to use in order to rig these polls in their favor. Note how the WaPo didn’t phrase it as prioritizing “laws to increase gun control” or anything like that, but “laws to reduce gun violence.”
I’ve pointed this out in a previous article, but this is how these people “debate”. They don’t argue issues, but they frame issues a certain way so as to make it favorable to them and make it look like their position is reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to reduce gun violence, right? Only criminals and sick people would not want to reduce gun violence (a term which is misleading in itself, as it makes it look like guns are sentient beings capable of killing people of their own accord).
This is actually how communists generally tend to phrase things so that they appeared in their favor. Back in early 1918, as the Soviet Union was beginning to form, their secret police (or at least, one of its iterations), the Cheka, had to break a strike by state employees in Petrograd. The Cheka arrested the leaders of the strike, though Isaac Steinberg, a Socialist Revolutionary himself, and a man with the title of “The People’s Commissar for Justice”, objected to that action, attempting to argue the legality of the Cheka. He wrote to Lenin: “What is the point of a ‘People’s Commissariat for Justice’? It would be more honest to have a People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly.” To which Lenin replied: “Excellent idea. That’s exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t do to call it that!”
Lenin knew precisely what the point of that “legal” position was: to legitimize the soviets’ actions. At the time, some people like Felix Dzerzhinksy frankly cared little for the legality of it all, arguing that it was just “the nitpicking legalism of the old school of the ancient regime,” but others understood that they had to at least make their actions seem relatively legitimate. And so, they named things like a “People’s Commissariat for Justice” that way, despite their intentions being that it would, effectually, be a “People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination.”
Similarly, the modern Left makes their gun-grabbing position seem reasonable and legitimate by painting it as “a measure to reduce gun violence” when, in actuality and evidenced by real life, their position leads to MORE gun violence. Just look at Democrat-run cities with extreme gun control measures to see that this is true. It’s no coincidence that the cities with the heaviest gun control measures are cities with the highest gun-related crime rates.
Chicago, a gun-control heavy city, recently saw 26 people shot over Mother’s Day weekend, which is about par for the course for Chicago weekends.
And in Portland, Oregon, according to The Epoch Times, Portland Police have responded to nearly 360 shootings so far THIS YEAR. Again, it’s no coincidence at all that these things happen in Democrat-run cities.
At any rate, the “figures” that the WaPo showed in 2018 were pretty bad for 2A supporters and good for the gun-grabbing Leftists (despite the fact that, even just with that little excerpt from that poll, it’s clear that it was rigged). However, since then, things have been going in the wrong direction for the Left.
While they enjoyed a “23-point” advantage in 2018, that advantage plummeted to just “7.” I put those numbers in quotation marks because it’s reasonable that these are still rigged polls and that the numbers are even worse for the Left.
Not only has support for gun control measures plummeted in the last few years, but it has particularly come down among young people and Hispanics, two demographics which tend to be pretty Leftist.
In April of 2018, 65% of people aged 18-29 said they supported more gun control laws, particularly “red flag” laws and limits on magazine capacity. Fast-forward to 2021, and that number plummeted to 45%, a full 20 points.
According to Newsweek: “The preference for enacting new gun laws aimed at reducing firearm violence has dropped by 7 percent overall since the last corresponding survey was conducted in April 2018. Percentage drops were seen in nearly every demographic divide. In that time period, 20 percent of Hispanics pulled back from supporting new gun laws, falling to 50 percent. An increase in rural Americans also now say they want no new gun restrictions, down 17 points to 30 percent.”
So not only has overall support for gun control measures fallen 16 points (supposedly), but among young Americans and Hispanics, it has fallen even more, by 20 points (supposedly)?
It’s reasonable to ask what exactly has led to this sort of drop, as there has to be a reason for it. But I highly doubt one needs to look very hard for such a reason.
Leftists perpetrated hundreds of riots across numerous cities in the country, ultimately killing around 30 people, and causing billions of dollars in damage for the individual cities, let alone total. Riots which were encouraged by elected officials and the fake news media, so long as the riots didn’t affect them in the least bit. And even when it did, such as the riot which affected CNN’s HQ in Atlanta, they still continued to encourage them, believing it would reflect poorly on TRUMP, until polls came out that showed people, in fact, didn’t appreciate their cities being ransacked by the Bitchygoths.
With such Democrat-approved destruction and violence, we saw massive increases in gun sales for a number of months (coupled with the fact that people were unconstitutionally forced to stay at home and lock things down, which definitely didn’t help) and an increase in first-time gun buyers. It’s no wonder, then, that so many people are less keen on making it harder for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to acquire guns.
With Antifa and BLM terrorists running around cities and, sometimes, residential neighborhoods, terrorizing the places where they went, it’s no wonder that people wished to acquire means by which they could be safe and protect the ones they care about.
There are other potential reasons for this as well, as Breitbart News points out, though I myself am not so sure about them. One potential reason John Nolte of Breitbart gives is that young Americans are wired to be rebellious. As they see that the establishment, which includes not only the government but also the fake news media, pop culture, academia, etc., is all skewed toward one political ideology, Nolte argues that young people, being rebellious, will rebel against that.
There is merit to this idea, as American teenagers tend to rebel and are often encouraged to rebel, but seeing as the Left has been indoctrinating American teenagers with Leftist dribble for decades now, I’m not entirely certain that that is the case. If this were the case, young Americans would be more conservative regarding other issues, not just gun control. Yet, they likely will tend to support, even if because of social pressure, things like homosexuality and transgenderism.
Young Americans aged 18-29 usually are leaving the nest or already have, and so recognize that, in a country with increased violence and crime, they have to be able to defend themselves, as they have to be a bit more independent from their parents regarding safety.
Though such an explanation might not necessarily suffice for why so many Hispanics have stopped supporting gun control laws, but my first theory might still be applicable. BLM and Antifa have terrorized whomever they could, and are emboldened by the fact they are so quickly released from jail following their actions. When you have terrorists who are being sponsored by the government to continue their terrorism, it’s only natural that people of all races would want to protect themselves, seeing as the government refuses to do its job.
Let us continue to hope and pray that we see even greater numbers of people, particularly young people, turn away from Leftist bullcrap that runs contrary to God and to nature and which only serves to destroy people.
“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.”
Following the end of the Second World War, the world was made fully aware of what had transpired at select concentration camps throughout Europe. Genocide was the only word which could describe it, though it was hardly used before such atrocities were known. Upon finding this out, the world said “never again.” As I have pointed out in previous articles, it is clear that the world lied, because China is doing much the same what Nazi Germany did, though with a different target.
As far as we know, there are roughly one million Uyghurs in concentration camps in China, likely alongside many Christians, seeing as the CCP has no regard for any religion which does not see Xi as their deity. I say “as far as we know” because it wouldn’t be surprising if the actual number is considerably higher, and with different groups of people.
On December 17, 1942, following reports of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning such plans and declared that they would punish the perpetrators, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. The full extent of the Nazis’ intent on destroying the Jews was not fully known, however, until after the war and the Allies liberated the camps. The world had an excuse for not having prevented or stopped The Holocaust: they largely didn’t know about it. They knew the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews, but didn’t know what they were already doing.
The world, however, has no excuse for not doing something about the genocide that the CCP is perpetrating not only against Uyghurs but also, in all likelihood, Christians and anyone they consider “enemies of the state.” Remember also that it wasn’t just the Jews that the Nazis put into concentration camps, but also people whom they considered to have been “enemies of the Reich.” The parallels between China and Nazi Germany are obvious.
However, it does not appear to be so obvious to some people, as woke professors from Columbia University and Middlesex University in London co-authored an op-ed in Project Syndicate arguing that what’s happening in China’s concentration camps against the Uyghurs should not be called a “genocide.”
They also argue that China is perfectly justified in taking action against Uyghurs, arguing that the CCP views them in the same manner as Americans viewed terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. "We must understand the context of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang, which had essentially the same motivation as America's foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September 2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups." You can tell how bad these people are at pushing their side with such flimsy argumentation.
Following the 9/11 attacks, radical Islamic terrorists were targeted by the U.S. precisely because they are radical Islamic terrorists. It would be silly to argue that their religious faith had nothing to do with it, as it is such a religious faith that led such people to commit the atrocities that they did, but the United States NEVER waged war against Islam in itself. Make no mistake, the “religion of peace” is a cult of death and nothing more. However, that isn’t to say that all people belonging to that religion are going to commit terrorist acts. What the CCP is doing is outright persecution and execution of Uyghurs because they have been wanting a separate state, or at least independence, from China.
The CCP views Uyghurs as a threat to their country, or at least, that’s the excuse they give, much like how the Nazis would blame the Jews for all things bad, including losing the First World War. The Nazis hated the Jews because, in large part, Jews tended to be capitalists and the Nazis were socialists. Similar to how the KKK hated Republicans and targeted black people because they were Republicans at the time, the Nazis hated capitalists and targeted the Jews as a result. What the CCP is doing is taking a page out of their book, just painting it with a “nicer” brush and claiming it’s for “national security.”
At any rate, getting back to Dumb and Dumber, they recognize that there are “credible charges of human rights abuses” against the Uyghurs, but they don’t believe the U.S. has proven that what’s going on in that country constitutes as genocide.
Ironically, however, the duo does recognize the following, which is a point I was about to make and which utterly decimates their flimsy arguments: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group” is considered an act of genocide under the Geneva Convention.
But it’s not just the Geneva Convention where genocide is defined in this way. A more immediate convention, the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (December 9th, 1948) defines genocide in the following manner: “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Given the nature of the communists, and given the excuse of “national security”, it is easy to imagine that the CCP has killed members of the Uyghurs whom have resisted their “re-education” propaganda attempts. Naturally, since this is ongoing and highly secretive, I can’t say for certain that this has been happening, but it’s not a massive leap in logic to assume that the CCP is killing Uyghurs. But even if the first definition is not applicable, just about all the others are.
There have been numerous reports of escapees where they give accounts as to what happens in those camps, which cause serious bodily and/or mental harm, such as torture, rape, forced labor, etc.
The third definition is less clear-cut, but one can interpret it as forcing upon Uyghurs conditions which would bring about their destruction at least in part, which is achieved through the concentration camps.
The fourth definition is definitely the easiest to prove, as forced sterilization has been shown to occur.
The final definition could well also be applicable, in one way or another. According to The Guardian, in 2018, there were nearly 10,000 mostly Uyghur children who were classified as experiencing either “single hardship” or “double hardship”, meaning that one or both parents are held in concentration camps.
Researcher on this atrocity, Adrian Zenz, who was the first to indicate that roughly a million Uyghurs were held in concentration camps, said that “Beijing’s strategy to subdue its restive minorities in Xinjiang is shifting away from internment and towards mechanisms of long-term social control.” In other words, the CCP is looking to control the hearts and minds of the young Uyghurs and have them grow up to be loyal to the Party.
Whether one would wish to classify that as the final definition of genocide is arguable, but also irrelevant at this point. The CCP, according to the Geneva Convention, the UN’s Convention of 1948, the French criminal code, and any human rights convention that followed the discovery and condemnation of the Holocaust, is committing nothing short of genocide against whole groups of people.
For anyone to assert otherwise, they would have to be one of three things: a member of the CCP, a paid associate of the CCP, or a complete and utter moron. Given how many college professors have been found in recent years to have been taking money from China, it wouldn’t be surprising if the professors of that op-ed were taking money from China as well.
Of course, that last option is a possibility, as college professors tend to be morons, too stupid and arrogant to recognize their idiocy. This is particularly possible given that they themselves pointed out that forced sterilization, something which China has been proven to be doing, constitutes genocide under the Geneva Convention. Nothing like undermining your own argument, huh?
“If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...