Mediaboss Marketing

Progressives in America are just as bad as the North Korean regime at least according to E.W. Jackson, the right-wing radio host and former candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia.

Jackson has been reading The Aquariums of Pyongyang, the story of a man who spent a decade in North Korean prison camp, which inspired him to declare that he doesnt see any difference whatsoever in substance between the North Korean regime and liberals in the U.S.

They are interested in hurting people, Jackson said. We Christians are not interested in putting people in jail because they dont agree with us. Were not interested in destroying peoples lives because they dont agree with us. Were interested in praying for them and ultimately persuading them and trusting that God will touch their hearts and theyll see the light. We know that God loves them and so do we.

I also dont recall Kim Jong-un fighting for justice reform, demanding a living wage for workers, or urging the government to provide all people with affordable healthcare.

But besides anything relevant, Im sure both groups are alike.

(via Right Wing Watch)

Originally posted here:
E.W. Jackson: U.S. Liberals Are Totally the Same as the North Korean Regime - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

The 20th Century witnessed two of the bloodiest wars in the entirety of human history. More than seven decades have passed since the end of the second world war and as it happens very often, much of what was known, or should have been known, has been forgotten. However, there are certain patterns that can be deduced through observation alone. And it is those aspects that we shall focus on here.

In the second world war, unlike what has traditionally been believed, there were three totalitarian ideologies competing for supremacy, arguably at a global scale. The three primary actors, certainly the three most powerful ones, were the flagbearers of these totalitarian ideologies. One of the ideologies was vanquished in the second world war, another at the end of the cold war. The one that emerged victorious on both these occasions still survives and expectedly, it is not considered totalitarian in the 21st century.

The first, of course, was Nazism and the second was Communism. The third, which emerged victorious against both these ideologies, was, needless to say, Liberalism. Nazism ceased to be a serious political force with the end of Hitlers Germany. Communism suffered the same fate with the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Liberalism, however, is the state ideology of the worlds only superpower: The USA.

- Ad - - article resumes -

People may argue Liberalism is not totalitarian in nature and everyone has human rights and freedom of speech but one must also reconcile themselves with the fact that people who live in a totalitarian regime do not consider the regime to be totalitarian. For instance, its extremely unlikely that in the world George Orwell created in 1948, the residents perceived the state to be totalitarian. For them, a totalitarian society was normal. Similarly, people who live in a liberal society are unlikely to consider it tyranny. Its only from the outside that it looks totalitarian.

Read: Fascist Modi or Over Tolerant Modi: When Modi pardoned Muslim men for sending him threatening letters

In the 20th century, the similarities between these three ideologies wasnt so apparent as these three ideologies were at war with each other. However, in the 21st Century, as Liberalisms stranglehold over power became nearly complete backed by military prowess of the US military, the similarities have become more than apparent. Today, we look at some of glowing similarities between Liberalism and Fascism.

Adolf Hitler, as we are well aware, was obsessed with the supposed superiority of the Aryan Race. In his bid to secure the future of the Aryan Race, he committed the genocide of Jews in Germany. Similarly, liberals in the West are obsessed with race too. In fact, they are so obsessed that a strong candidate for the Democrat nominee for US Presidential elections in 2020 lied about her race and claimed that she is Native American despite the fact she is not in order to gain political benefits.

Furthermore, prominent liberals in the US can be regularly found to be engaged in anti-White rhetoric where they can be seen cheering for White Genocide, all the while denying that such a thing exists. In India, liberals are obsessed with the Aryan-Dravidian race theory despite the fact that it has been regularly debunked by scholars and academics. But that hasnt stopped Indian liberals from continuing to further the race theory. The obsession that liberals have with race is very similar to that shared by Nazi Germany.

In India, the rhetoric that liberals employ against Brahmins is akin to the one employed by Nazi Germany against Jews. In mainstream Dravidian politics, which is cheered on and encouraged and sustained by liberalism, the propaganda against Brahmins are is completely alike that fueled by Nazis against Jews.

In Nazi Germany, the media served as the propaganda wing of the fascist government. We see a similar pattern in the liberal world. The media was an extended arm of the Nazis. In the USA, we see the mainstream media act as the propaganda wing of the Democrat party. The collusion that was observed between news networks and Hillary Clinton was for all to see. The liberal American media has even justified violence by Antifa goons against their political opponents.

In India, we see the mainstream media serve as the propaganda wing of the Secular parties. There is extreme collusion between the political establishment and the media. The Liberal media demonizes the opponents of secular political parties and their supporters, exaggerates minor events in order to benefit secular politicians and whitewashes and buries news that could adversely impact secular parties. Its an incestuous relationship between Liberal Media and Liberal political parties and they work together in the same fashion as the media and politicians in Nazi Germany.

However, there is one distinct difference between the media-politics nexus in the world of liberalism and Nazism. In Nazi Germany, no efforts were made to hide the relationship. But liberalism, in order to be more effective, claims to be independent and neutral even when they are clearly not and buries the incestuous relationship under layers and layers of carefully constructed diversions.

The relationship between the Media and politicians in Nazi Germany and in the Liberal World stems from the ideological unity between them, the material benefits that are gained are only a second-order requirement. Loyalty to ideology is the main motivation.

In Nazi Germany, the Academia served the Nazis greatly and even helped shape their ideology and provided them with ideas and techniques to help them achieve their nefarious objectives. We see a similar pattern in the liberal world. The political parties rely on academia for acquiring footsoldiers and legitimizing their evil agenda while the latter relies on the former for patronage.

The Academia also provides Liberal politicians with footsoldiers and innovative techniques in order for them to achieve their political goals. Here, again, we see a complete unity of ideology between the Academia and Liberal political parties. It is the same in the US as it is in India. The liberal parties work in tandem in order to indoctrinate the youth and achieve ideological objectives.

In Nazi Germany, there was complete coherence of ideology between the political establishment, the Media and Academia. A similar pattern is also observed in the world of Liberalism. The three departments, together, with complete ideological unity between them, form the Liberal Establishment in the 21st century. The arms of the Liberal Establishment then work in tandem, like Nazi Germany, to crush dissent and entrench itself in the corridors of power.

The Liberal Establishment crushes dissent, demonizes its opponent unfairly and unceremoniously removes them from power all the while accusing their political opponent of being fascists, despite the fact that it is the structure of their politics that is completely akin to Nazi Germany. No stones are left unturned in order to secure their power. In India, the Liberal Establishment has also engaged in the genocide of Hindus and Sikhs, in Kashmir and in 1984 respectively.

The three arms of the Liberal Establishment attack and defend together. Whenever the power of one arm is under threat, the other arms immediately comes to their defense. For instance, when there is a threat to its political power, the academia and the media immediately rushes to their defense in order to defeat its political opponents. When political rivals attempt to remove stranglehold of liberals in academia, political parties and the media rushes to its defense. When the monopoly of liberals over media is threatened, the academia and political parties rush to provide cover. And together, they fight to ensure that the Liberal Establishment continues to thrive.

Simultaneously, the opponents of the Liberal Establishment are crushed by the three arms together and its ensured that opposing ideologies never get a foothold in these institutions. If someone or some entity succeeds in gaining legitimacy in these three arms, then they demonized and every effort is made to tarnish their reputation and destroy their lives. In many instances, people actually lose their lives and their death is brushed under the carpet as an insignificant statistic. And on and on it goes.

The most distinguishing feature of a totalitarian society or a totalitarian ideology is that the power structure isnt merely interested in what an individual says or how he acts but also how people think. It is not enough to merely say or act in a certain way, a person must also believe the ideology completely. Otherwise, the person can be accused of a thoughtcrime and persecuted accordingly.

In George Orwells 1984, thoughtcrime describes a persons politically unorthodox thoughts, such as unspoken beliefs and doubts that contradict the dominant political ideology. We see a similar pattern playing out in the liberal world. Merely accusations and allegations combined with certain suspicious behaviour is enough reason to completely destroy an individuals life.

For instance, a person does not have to be a homophobe or misogynist in order to have his life completely destroyed and ruined, mere accusations are enough. Furthermore, anyone who does not endorse the most extreme positions of the Liberal world is branded homophobe, misogynist, regressive or whatever the latest buzzword maybe and then it is demanded that his professional career be destroyed.

Mere differences in political opinions are treated as thoughtcrimes and efforts are undertaken to crush the individual. Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is Sanghi and fascist against whom even violence is justified. Jai Shri Ram slogans and chants of Vande Mataram are deemed as provocations.

While it is fancy, these days, for people to accuse the political opponents of Liberalism as fascists, in reality, Liberalism and Nazism are cousins and the fight between them is one of sibling rivalry. The reason why liberals paint all their political opponents from diverse political backgrounds as fascist is that fascism is the ideology they are most well acquainted with and intimate with.

Read: From fake Jai Shri Ram hate crimes to CAA: Five big battle of narratives that the Liberal Establishment lost in 2019

The tactic of labeling the political opponents of Liberalism as fascists is also a way to hide the fact that Liberalism is the one ideology that shares the most similarity with Fascism. Its also a way to distract people from the fact that it is the conduct of liberals that resembles that of Nazis the most. Most dangerously, however, the footsoldiers of liberalism religiously believe the accusations they level against their opponents and the indoctrination they have suffered makes them unable to see the intricate similarities between Liberalism and Fascism. However, if they look into the mirror with honesty and integrity, they will discover that the two ideologies are mirror images of themselves in a great many essential respects.

Black Coffee Enthusiast. Post Graduate in Psychology. Bengali.

Read more:
Liberalism and Fascism: 5 ways in which liberals are exactly the same as Nazis - OpIndia

Protests in India over a controversial citizenship amendment law have curiously exposed the duplicity of liberals when it comes to their commitment to democracy.

Left-backed student unions and Muslim groups have been up in arms over a law that they perceive to be anti-Muslim. Backing up this protest movement, liberal Indians have revealed their cards.

For the youth to resist the charms of revolution to be angry without a cause and bask in the romance and idealism of protests is fine. Such a phenomenon is common across the world and examples abound in Indias own past. Pragmatism is usually a post-facto realization for the young.

As British conservative thinker, polymath and philosopher Roger Scruton said of the 1968 student agitation in Paris, an event that shaped his political thinking: What I saw was an unruly mob of self-indulgent middle-class hooligans uttering ludicrous Marxist gobbledegook.

Sir Roger died on Sunday, but he would have taken a forgiving view of student activism: Reason will dawn on them.

In contrast, liberal anger against Modi is cynical. It is politics by proxy. Led by the power brokers and elites who had been at the heart of Indias power structure for decades since Independence but now have been cast aside.

As author Pankaj Mishra describes in Bloomberg: Deeply united by caste (uniformly upper), class (upper to middle), education (mostly Western), marriage and profession, this elite was originally entrusted with the task of modernizing Indias peasant society by Jawaharlal Nehru Then, under the patronage of his daughter Indira Gandhi, the community came to accumulate more cultural and intellectual capital than any self-interested group in the country.

This group now feels threatened by the rise of Narendra Modi. They feel disempowered by the way a Modi-led BJP government has ended their grip over Indias corridors of power. A blowback was inevitable, and it has come in the form of questioning the very tenets of Indias representative democracy that elected Modi. The protests provide a useful context.

This is where the phenomenon becomes global. The condition in India mirrors whats happening in the West where Donald Trumps rise in the US through a democratic process has been called the end of liberal democracy.

Whether in India, the US or the UK that voted for Brexit, this elite derision against popular opinion stems from a liberal disaffection with democracy whenever the electoral pendulum swings away from them.

The liberals believe in the legitimacy of democracy as long as it throws up results that they like. If not, the unwashed masses, middle class voters or working classes are castigated as intolerant fools, white supremacists, racists or bhakts, Hindutva goons, and xenophobes who are taking India back to thedark age.

In the US, where Trump is facing a doomed impeachment move brought by desperate Democrats, we frequently hear comments about Trumps base.

Who are these people? Are they not hardworking, ordinary Americans trying to get on with their lives and believe in exercising their franchise? To call them bigots or racists is to be condescending of their choices. This call-out culture that dominates American Leftist identity politics and alienates ordinary people from the insufferable woke generation, is now visible in India too. People who voted against the recommendations of self-righteous liberals are now at the receiving end of their ire.

In the Hindustan Times, historian Ramachandra Guha, a vocal critic of BJP, writes: Had not the abolition of Article 370 already done a great deal to satisfy the BJPs hardline Hindutva base? Had not the Supreme Courts verdict in the Ayodhya dispute satisfied them further? Is the greed of the base really so insatiable that this third bone had to be thrown their way so soon after the other two?

It is instructive to note the language that he uses to describe those who voted for BJP and Modi. Greedy base who need more bones to satiate their hunger. This use of animal metaphors to describe ordinary people whose political views are different from theirs, typifies the arrogance and intolerance of this tribe.

We see the same rhetoric employed by a leader of the Congress party, an outfit that symbolizes dynasticism and the old elites incestuous grip over power. Shashi Tharoor writes in a magazine that worlds fastest-growing free-market liberal democracy seems to be giving way to a violent, intolerant, illiberal autocracy.

It is difficult to understand how India, the worlds largest representative democracy that concluded a massive electoral exercise in 2019, has turned overnight into an autocracy. The BJP, that forms the federal government at the Center, has suffered recent reverses in state elections to further underline the vibrancy of Indias democracy.

If liberal democracies around the world are facing a threat, it is not from populist leaders but liberals themselves who are unable to come to terms with reality. A little humility may help.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Originally posted here:
Protests over citizenship law in India prove liberal elites only like democracy if they agree with the results - RT

Actor Robert De Niro, in case you didnt know, is also a constitutional scholar.

The Goodfellas star thinks President Trump will flout the Constitution because he will likely start a war in order to stay in the White House for 12 years.

Hes going to be history at one point, though hed love to be president for life, De Niro recently told The Daily Beast. He jokes about it. I think that if he became president for a second term, hed try to have a third term, and let smarter people manipulate it into getting us into some kind of altercation: a war.

The presidential historian bloviated on. The only other president who served a third term was [Franklin D.] Roosevelt because he was in a war, and this fool would go and start something. This was what [film director] Marty Scorsese was saying, and I said, Marty, I never thought of that. I never thought hed go for a third term if there was a war or something, De Niro said.

CNNs S.E. Cupp, who hosts a weekend show called Unfiltered, recently took to Twitter to pass along the theory that Trump will try to demand a third term.

Remember when [New York City Mayor Michael R.] Bloomberg demanded a third term as mayor and got it? she asked her 415,000 followers. Trump will do the same. Beware, the same autocratic impulses

And Trump-hating director Michael Moore said much the same thing earlier this year. (Its interesting that the liberals who spout these conspiracy theories are all giving Trump at least another term, warning that the problems only begin when he tries to snatch a third term.)

Last June, Trump fed the fires.

The good news is that at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT), he tweeted.

The conspiracy theory has exploded since Trump ordered an airstrike to take out the worlds No. 1 terrorist, Qassem Soleimani, a major general in Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and commander of its Quds Force, a division responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.

De Niro, its worth pointing out, starred in a movie called Wag the Dog, about a president, seeking reelection, who faces scandal and is extricated by declaring war against Albania. The film was released a month before news of President Clintons affair with Monica Lewinsky broke when Clinton initiated two anti-terrorism bombing campaigns in the subsequent year of impeachment. Some wags in the media said the embattled president was trying to wag the dog.

So now, with Trump mired in his own impeachment furor, speculation is swirling that he, too, is trying to wag the dog.

Even though tensions between the U.S. and Iran have quieted in the last few days, Trump is well aware of the strategy, designed to bring about a swell of national pride and a rally round the flag effect that could help an incumbent (although the effect is usually short lived).

During President Obamas tenure, Trump repeatedly predicted that Obama would attack Iran in order to help him get reelected. He first warned about such a nefarious plan in 2011, tweeting that Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election.

@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected, Trump tweeted in January 2012. In July, he tweeted: Just as I predicted, @BarackObama is preparing a possible attack on Iran right before November. Right before the election, he tweeted: Dont let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected be careful Republicans!

While Obama could have been could have been trying to start a war with Iran to win election (a spurious theory at best), what the amateur constitutional scholars like De Niro and Ms. Cupp and Moore dont seem to know is that Trump cant start a war to secure a third term.

Theres something called the 22nd Amendment, which says a person can only serve two elected terms as president.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once, says the amendment, which was passed after Roosevelt had won third and fourth terms, a move that broke custom but no constitutional limit at the time.

End of story.

Will someone please let De Niro know?

*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Read more:
CURL: Liberals Terrified That Trump Will Try To Sneak A Third Term - The Daily Wire

The Liberals promised in their 2019 budget to work toward creating a national school-food program and have reached out to provinces, territories and key stakeholders over the past months.

Ellen O'Nan/The Associated Press

The federal Liberals are being told to avoid creating a one-size-fits-all national school-food program to replace the existing patchwork of efforts to feed hungry children.

The Liberals promised in their 2019 budget to work toward creating such a program and have reached out to provinces, territories and key stakeholders over the past months.

The design of a new program will provide answers to lingering questions about how soon the program kicks off, how big it will be when it begins, which children will qualify and what meals theyll receive.

Story continues below advertisement

Federal officials have been told to provide provinces, territories and even schools themselves with the latitude needed to deliver programs that meet local needs, said Joanne Bays, co-founder of Farm to Cafeteria Canada. The group seeks to get locally produced food into public institutions kitchens, starting with schools.

The main message was go slow and Canada needs a recipe for success, said Ms. Bays, whose organization receives federal funding to run and evaluate a food program in dozens of schools.

We have lots of other places we can look to see what they have done, but we need to pilot these things in Canada and evaluate and come up with our own unique formula.

Canada is the only member of the Group of Seven countries with large economies that doesnt have a national school-food program.

Instead, there are thousands of food programs for the roughly five million children enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools programs often run by community groups with financial help from governments and charities.

Feeding all school-aged children could cost billions each year, depending on whether funding would provide snacks, breakfast or lunch, or more than one of those. Its a steep budget ask, and also potentially too ambitious for the current system to handle.

Instead, as a start, the Coalition for Healthy School Food has asked the Liberals for $360-million in this years budget to expand existing local programs and grow slowly, similar to what the Liberals did with their child-care spending.

Story continues below advertisement

No one at this moment, I think, is interested in the federal government coming in and funding a brand-new top-down program, for a variety of reasons, said Debbie Field, the coalitions co-ordinator.

Not even that it would be expensive, but primarily it would erase what is on the ground, which would be a bad idea.

A national program would likely require cost-sharing with provinces and territories. Negotiating funding deals would delay any large social program, as the Liberals have found with their housing and child-care strategies.

And those agreements and associated spending were approved when the Liberals had a majority in the House of Commons, which they lost in the October election.

Ms. Field said she isnt concerned the politics of a minority Parliament will get in the way of funding and creating a national program because of cross-party support for the idea at the federal and provincial levels.

Ms. Bays said any federal spending would be more than covered through reduced health-care spending and increased economic activity for local farmers.

Story continues below advertisement

The latest figures from Statistics Canada show that 8.7 per cent of Canadian households, or almost 1.25 million homes, are considered food insecure, meaning they dont have enough money to afford, or otherwise cant get, the amount and variety of food needed for a healthy lifestyle.

In June, ahead of a meeting with stakeholders, the then-minister of social development Jean-Yves Duclos was told that coming to school hungry could be the result of income, lengthy commutes, early-morning sports practices, or just busy morning family routines. That was in a briefing note, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The reasons explain why groups want the Liberals to work toward a universal program that isnt based solely on income: Poverty isnt the only reason some children dont eat.

Ms. Bayss group is conducting 21 round tables in every province and territory to get a better sense of how a program should be framed, particularly for Indigenous communities.

Continuing talks with federal officials are important, she said, because the more people feel that theyre engaged in whats being put out there, the more successful that program is going to be.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the days most important headlines. Sign up today.

More:
Liberals set table for national school-food program, warned to avoid top-down approach - The Globe and Mail