Yes, I think They Are Evil

 As if to answer the previous post, at the American Thinker Monica Showalter has a post entitled At Davos, the WEF now promotes less clothes-washing to save the planet. What is it with these rich freaks, that they want to impose misery on the rest of us?

What is it about the greenie jet-setters of the World Economic Forum flying in on a plume of carbon compounds, and their urge to make life just a little more solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short for the little guys they claim to know what's best for?

...snip...

It's all part of the leftist urge to make life as wretched as possible for the well-fed average joes of the West.

As I wrote here, they really like this stuff and they're on a tear:

What a sick world this is. Greens have unsuccessfully tried to sell us on all sorts of repulsive things to put into our bodies -- from various versions of soylent green, to "stewmaking" burials, to human compost burials, to recycling urine into drinking water to save the earth, to eating bugs. It's one disgusting thing after another, which these days even includes attempting to coax people into taking public transit. Not too long ago, a Utah official tried to encourage people to eat wild toads to save the environment. Utah teachers were also recently caught teaching CRT in schools behind the kids' parents' backs.

... and ...

It wasn't enough that the greenie left came for our light bulbs, our flush toilets, our guns, our plastic straws, our gas stoves, or our hamburgers.

Now they're coming for our coffee.

Another greenie favorite is going without air conditioning. The New York Times was promoting that last year. I wrote about it here.

Now they want crusty, dirty, smell-it-a-mile-away clothing, all made worse by the greenie practice of going without air conditioning.

To reinforce what I wrote in the last post, yes I think the WEF people are evil, and anyone who supports their insane ideas is supporting evil. Rather than trust in these guys, perhaps put our trust in God?

Are Democrat Voters Evil?

At Hot Air today, David Strom has an article that tells us It's Wrong to Assume Democratic Party Voters are Evil.

One of the frustrations all of us have is that Democratic voters are incurious about why we believe what we believe and why we vote as we do.

They come up with explanations that amount to: we are Naziwhitesupremacisthomophobiccolonialist genocidaires. They watch the pundits on TV, listen to people like President Biden, and read the editorials in Pravda and are convinced that we are on a hair trigger and will soon stalk the land with our scary AR-15s hunting down trans people, brown people, and eventually AWFLs.

The idea is of course absurd, but a lot of liberals have voted for politicians they, at some level, know are insanely liberals because they believe the alternative is a future they fear would be dystopian.

Now, reverse things for a moment. For decades, we understood that liberals see us as evil, and we saw liberals as stupid. But as their politicians have become more and more insane or even evil—what else can you call abortion until birth and sterilizing and mutilating children except demonic?—many of us have concluded that anybody who can be complicit in that evil must be evil themselves.

I see it in the comments. I understand it in my bones. When I hear a liberal talking about trans issues while ignoring the fact that boys are having their penises cut off and girls are having their breasts and wombs removed, it is enraging. Vague handwaving in the face of Mengele-like human experimentation isn't just baffling, but enraging.

So far, his experience is similar to mine. And frankly, I am not sure that ignorance is an excuse for continuing to vote for evil, particularly because so many have in essence closed their eyes, covered their ears, and yelled "nanny nanny boo boo" to avoid hearing the truth. They want to believe that man is basically good, but the truth is man, and everything in the world is fallen.

In the end, what liberals believe is that the world is perfectible with enough money and effort, and their politicians promise to perfect it. They actually believe that Gavin Newsom wants to solve homelessness, that Tim Walz wanted to feed children and provide daycare, and were shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that Biden's brain was pudding. They were told by their trusted elite that he was fit as a fiddle.

It must have been a mistake, because the alternative—a massive conspiracy to deceive the American public—would never be done by their trusted elite.

Your average liberal doesn't want communism or children sacrificed to the alphabet gods. They want peace and prosperity and a "kinder, gentler" world. They don't understand that human beings are fallen—most are post-Christian—and believe the myth that the world is perfectible.

Saint Paul notes that the Word of God has gone out to all creation. Therefore, closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming so you won't hear it does not relieve you of the responsibility for evil. So, I will continue to think that while these people are not, in themselves, evil, they are still promoting it to the detriment of us all.

About Greenland

 Howard J. Warner has a post at the American Thinker entitled Greenland: How about this for a solution? that proposes a middle ground to America controlling Greenland. I agree with the President here that we need Greenland for security purposes. Looking at a typical Mercator map shows Greenland off to the side of Canada and much larger than it actually is. But if you look at a map looking down on the North Pole, the strategic importance of both Alaska and Greenland becomes obvious.

Now, the Arctic Ocean and Greenland are being actively contested by Russia, China, and of course the United States. Greenland has a population of only around 56k. Clearly it cannot defend itself. Either Russia or China could easily over run it. Denmark cannot defend it either. For that matter, can NATO? Don't make me laugh. As for which of these potential rulers would the residence rather live under. China? Really? Russia is not much better. The U.S. with its long history of freedom seems a much more benevolent. Now, I am the grandson of Danish immigrants, and I have been to Denmark. It's a beautiful country, to be sure, but I am sure glad that my ancestors immigrated here.

In an ideal world, the Greenlanders would be left alone to pursue their independent lives. But we don't live in an ideal world. The Greenlanders find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry.

A Democratic Republic Is the Worst System of Government...Except All The Others

Olivia Murray at the American Thinker today notes that As history has shown, communists always go for the churches first. Marx sneered that "religion is the opiate of the masses" meaning that the huddled poor comforted themselves that they would be rewarded in the afterlife. Marx was an atheist. And so are most of his followers.

Attacks against the Christian church and her people are nothing new. Christians in imperial Rome were fed to the lions and other wild beasts in the Colosseum, and they were burned alive on posts to light the streets—but what we saw in Minnesota was communism, through and through, as we’ve seen this same movie play out across time and place for more than a hundred years. Communists always go for the churches first.

In late 1917, the communist Bolsheviks overthrew imperial Russia, and just a few months later (January 23, 1918), Vladimir Lenin enacted the “Decree on the Separation of Church and State” (American leftists love that phrase still today), which was a systematic attack against the religious order of Tsarist Russia. That campaign promoted atheism as a core tenet of a new Bolshevik nation, and saw mass arrests, the confiscation of church property, and mass murders of religious teachers. (A few very interesting photos from the time can be found at this link, with one in particular looking eerily evocative of the smug mob that just barged into Cities Church in St. Paul, MN.) This war against the churches continued apace under Joseph Stalin, who, among other measures, ordered more mass killing against church leaders.

Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution waged a war on the “Four Olds” of traditional China, which included the destruction of Christian churches, and the prohibition of Christianity (a ban which effectively exists still today).

Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia during the 1970s intentionally decimated the Christian population. According to Persecution.org, Pol Pot “established a medieval regime of terror and restlessly hunted Christians.” The same site reveals that before the Khmer Rouge rose to power, there were around 170,000 Christians in Cambodia; in just a few years, that number dropped to a staggering low of only a couple thousand. Christians were “outsiders” accused of being too Western, so they had to go.

(I could go on with the anti-church policies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, but I’m running out of room.)

Murray has noted every communist experiment with the exception of some of the smaller countries that have tried it. Then she asks a key question, one that gets to the heart of communism/socialism/progressivism/fabianism/fascism (the system has gone by many names, but they all come down to one reason.)

So why do communists hate the Christian church so much? It’s simple: Without an authority higher than man, they can be god. They want to be the moral arbiter, making moral claims on what’s right and wrong. So, the real moral arbiter (God), and anyone who believes in Him, is an obstacle to the communist and his political goals.

So, it is the original sin.  They want to dethrone God and sit in his place. They have listened to the Devil and are following his instruction and not God's. There is so much that is wrong with communism, I don't understand why people think it is better than our own system. Oh, I understand that ours isn't so great, but any other is worse, far worse.

Politics Is Dangerous to You and Everyone You Care About

 I don't write about Christopher Cantrill's pieces much, though they are thought provoking.  But today he made a point that needs to be amplified if we are to retain our sanity.  You can find his article at the American Thinker entitled Why Do the Virtue Signalers Hate Carl Schmitt? So, who, you are wondering is Carl Schmitt? I will admit that this individual is today just a little bit obscure. He was a Nazi jurist and sometime philosopher who made the point that politics requires an enemy. If there isn't an enemy, one has to be invented. Sometimes our overlords can't find a human enemy so they invent one like terrorism, poverty, or drugs. The whole point of politics is to acquire power so that you can punish your enemies and reward your friends.  Well, duh.  Obama made that point as well as noting that elections have consequences.

But there is another way to live. You can live by God's laws, doing good, loving God and loving your neighbor. This is how most of us, most of the time, live our lives. We are social creatures, for good and bad. Politics is a necessary evil. But Democrats see it very differently:

Notice how I am always writing about “our liberal friends” or “our Democratic friends.” There is a reason for that. I do not think that liberals are The Enemy. I believe that our liberal friends are fools and knaves that believe in politics as the solution to social problems -- and race problems and patriarchy problems and climate problems. Earth to liberals: politics makes most things worse.

I repeat: Doesn’t Yarvin’s maxim exactly explain the minds and the acts of our liberal friends, from intellectuals to politicians to activists? They are devoted to politics: therefore there must be an enemy.

Now, to me, Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt is important because he teaches me why politics is really dangerous to humans and other living things. I Have a Dream that one day our liberal friends will finally understand that politics is radioactive and that politics should be shut down like nuclear plants before we melt down all the way to China. My understanding of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt is that politics should be confined to dealing with the problem of real external enemies, and real internal thugs and criminals.

Schmitt explains why Communism has been such a disaster, why Nazism led the Germans into Hell, why the Iranian regime is blowing up the ancient land of Zarathustra until the rubble bounces. Using politics as a guide to running society at large is a disaster, because humans are social animals. Nearly all the time we interact with each other with the give and take of community and work and play and a shared moral framework. Politics is only useful in an emergency, as “in emergency, break glass.”

Yes, but whatabout morality, about good and evil? I direct your attention to our Democratic friends in Minnesota, and the apparent large-scale corruption featuring the Somali community. If you look at Minnesota politics through a Schmittian lens you see that, to Democratic politicians, it doesn’t matter that the Somalis have been ripping off all kinds of federal social programs. The Somalis help get the Somali vote out in elections and harvest the ballots to defeat the Republican Enemy. The Somalis are the Friends of the Democratic politicians in their fight against the Enemy, and in politics you reward your supporters and friends.

In other words, despite all the talk about morality and helpless victims, our Democratic friends just fight the enemy and gift the friends that help them get elected. Morality, good and evil, has nothing to do with the case. In politics the only rule is: just win, baby. Morality, good and evil, only applies outside of politics.

A note here about what it means to "love your neighbor," because too many confuse "loving" with "letting you neighbor get off scot free." It does not mean that at all. Suppose your neighbor defrauds another out of his life savings, and you discover it. If you do nothing, you may be showing one neighbor kindness, but you are further hurting the neighbor who was defrauded, not to mention that you are demoralizing yourself. Sometimes tough love is the only way to show love. This is why it is so important for the authorities to prosecute those who have lied, cheated, stolen elections, and engaged in lawfare. While we cannot achieve absolute justice in this fallen world, we must attempt to approximate it.

My main takeaway from Chantill's piece though is that while politics is necessary, it should not consume us. I have certainly allowed it at times to overtake my life, to my regret. Don't let it overtake yours.

When Both Men Are Armed, Persuasion Is the Only Way to Changes Men's Minds

 Allen J. Feifer reminds us that Whether in Iran, Minneapolis, or NYC, collectivists like gun-free zones at the American Thinker today. The Second Amendment to our Constitution is unique among the world's governments. But that is because of the unique circumstances of our founding. Having just fought a war for independence from what at the time was the finest army in the world, we determined to remain free and independent. The only way to do that was if everyone was armed and trained.

Just as people who want power manage to convince a subset of our people that socialism and communism isn't really so bad, so they constantly work to convince us to disarm ourselves. So far, it hasn't worked. There are too many reminders of things like the protests in Iran, or the massacre at Bondi Beach in Australia to remind us that perhaps we need more guns, more ammunition...just in case.

Have you been watching TV lately? If you have, you’ve seen an ever-spiraling series of events that threaten to overwhelm the most steadfast among us. You hear it everywhere: domestic and foreign events are as kinetic and dynamic as they’ve been since the end of WWII. From internal unrest to war in Europe and one of America’s major adversaries in open revolt against the Mullahs, what should we take away?

It turns out events in NYC, Minneapolis, and Iran have something in common—gun control:

Iran: Contrary to what many thought, the government still has cards to play. Its strength is that, while Iranians can own guns, they can do so only under very strict, state-controlled conditions, leading to few people actually owning a firearm and virtually no ordinary citizens.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who touts “the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” opposes the Second Amendment, as do those in his government. They have warned that they have designs on citizens’ private property and wealth, and citizens have no Second Amendment bulwark against this.

In Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, showing incredible chutzpah, are simultaneously (allegedly) responsible for one of the largest frauds in American history, even as they scream loudly how caring they are for their “Neighbors,” which is code for illegal aliens whom Walz and Frey consider above the law. It’s not a coincidence that Minneapolis is an anti-gun city and Walz dreams of an anti-gun state.

Of course, there are other places like New York and Minneapolis right here in the United States. Virginia just elected a hard left governor, Abagail Spanberger, who took the oath of office on a Quran. Now, I know she is not a Muslim, and I suspect she is not a Christian either, but swearing on a Quran is making Lucifer the guarantor of your oath. What could go wrong?  But it is appropriate because the Democrat Commonwealth's General Assembly has sworn to bring gun-grabbing back to Virginia.

Which brings me to this point: that Virginia was a freedom loving state, and most of it still is. There are lots of guns in Virginia. One of the things one learns living in Virginia is that when both people are armed, the only way to change someone's mind is through persuasion. But collectivism depends on force.

Collectivist projects are always coercive because large-scale redistribution and centralized coordination conflict with private interests and individual autonomy. Sooner or later, the government must use force to implement and sustain collectivist policies.

While Tehran’s force is religious and military, New York City and Minneapolis use regulations, law enforcement, and judicial enforcement to exercise control over people. Most importantly, people’s ability to fight the government is limited by the government’s near monopoly on firearms ownership, which effectively empowers it and ultimately encourages it to violate our God-given and constitutional rights.

As long as we have the Second Amendment, and it is viewed as a first-class right, the same as the right our First Amendment rights, we are citizens. One we lose it, we become like serfs or slaves, mere subjects.

When the day comes that Americans can no longer resist their government and self-styled demi-gods like Mamdani, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and yes, people like Jacob Frey and Tim Walz, we will have lost our ability to protect ourselves. We will no longer be free men, but serfs in service to the collective.

What’s happening on Iran’s streets is a cautionary tale about tyrants disarming their people. Firearms ownership has long been understood as more than a matter of personal defense. It serves as a structural check on how far a government can intrude into its citizens' private lives.

Foreign Actors Finding Out

 J.R. Dunn claims in a post at the American Thinker that the Delta Force that arrested Maduro used a "sonic weapon". You can find Dunn's piece here.

Here’s a wild one: rumors asserting that Delta Force troops used a “sonic weapon” against Maduro’s bodyguard troops while picking him up last week have been confirmed by Karoline Leavitt.

While sonic weapons such as the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) and sound cannons have been used for years against targets such as Somalian pirates (what a pleasure it is to write that) and rioters, this weapon appears to operate on an entirely new level of effectiveness. Eyewitness reports of the raid on Caracas describe troops falling to their knees with their noses and mouths spurting blood, a level of impact unheard of in previous such weapons. While the LRAD and sound cannons can cause disorientation and moderately severe pain, physical effects of this sort are new in this kind of weapon.

Early on, some wit coined the term FAFO. It describes a situation where someone who insists on doing bad things finds out what the word "consequences" means. Right now, some foreign actors are discovering the meaning of FAFO. Just as clearly, the Trump Doctrine is coming into focus, with a renewed emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine and an emphasis on American greatness.

Be Wise and Prudent

 Today, I want to highlight a piece from Ammoland by John Farnum entitled Gun Confiscation Promises, Criminal Release Policies, and the Myth of 'Random' Violence. Farnum makes the point that most violence isn't random at all in the strictest sense of the word. Violence happens because of things like gun restrictions and the so-called 'compassionate' release of violent criminals on our nations streets to commit more violence.

Violent, mentally-ill, drug-addicted vagrants (including many illegal immigrants), have been, by these same Democrats, dubiously re-christened “The Homeless,” and subsequently released (and perpetually re-released, despite multiple felony arrests) to ‘colonize’ our formerly beautiful public places, which used to be enjoyed by the rest of us, but are now filthy, crime-invested, disease-ridden open-sewers.

“Homeless” is a dishonest title, deliberately designed to make these dangerous outlaws appear “benign.”

...snip...

Like wolves that casually enter fenced-in pastures to kill sheep, VCAs and EDPs go into “nice areas” and murder citizens. Apex predators (human and animal) have scant regard for fences, nor for arbitrary political boundaries, nor for property lines, nor for other symbolic barriers.

In December of last year, a “transient man” entered a tanning salon in Loveland, CO, and precipitously attacked several people there with a claw hammer. Two of his victims were very seriously injured.

This “homeless man” was well-known to local police and had been arrested previously, multiple times. Local police and the media then assured us that this vicious attack was “random.”

“Random” is another less-than-honest term, frequently used by less-than-honest politicians, to convince the rest of us that we have nothing to worry about!

It is sad, but true, that ruthless, power-hungry people will alsways try to deny us our God given right to defend ourselves. We must be ever vigilant. Of course, your first line of defense is situational awareness, avoiding placing yourself in dangerous places if you can help it. But you should always be prepared to defend your life and lives of those around you. That is just the world we live in.

Be advised, the wise and prudent are never loved by the shallow, ignorant, and stupid.

“The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise, they will win and decent people will loose” ~ James Earl Jones.

The Term Marxist Billionaire an Oxymoron?

 What is it with these Marxist billionaires? Isn't that an oxymoron?  How does someone who actually believes the garbage Marx spewed accumulate $1,000,000,000? Shouldn't he have distributed it to the poor and the needy? Or given it to the government to distribute as it saw fit?

Now, except for Soros, I am not accusing any of them of gaining wealth by shady or illegal means. But if they came by it through capitalist means, why then use it destroy capitalism and the republic? Perhaps hoping to be eaten last? If so, a reading of history doesn't show that to be the case. In any event, I hope Rep. Luna grills him good, and the DOJ prosecutes him to the full extent of the law and makes an example of him. He is just as guilty as the protesters and leftist activists he funds.

Why We Have the Second Amendment

 Monica Showalter, at the American Thinker today points out that Venezuela's top thug unwittingly writes an NRA ad for the Second Amendment. I had not seen this, but it is both incredibly sad, and hilarious at the same time. I alternate between laughing to myself, and feeling deeply sorry for Venezuelans, who at one time had access to guns, though no Second Amendment. After a long campaign by the government, similar to the one waged by gun-grabbers here I might add, the government enacted gun control in 2012.

We will never know if Venezuela's citizens might have prevented a Communist take over or not, but we do know that the Communist dictators maintained power because they have a monopoly of force, as Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello points out:

BREAKING NEWS | Diosdado Cabello: "The country is calm because the monopoly on arms in Venezuela is held by the State". "Holding the position of arms has allowed us the control so that no group or anyone can claim acts of violence"

A monopoly of violence was NOT what the Founders wanted. They had just fought a war for independence from a tyranny that attempted a monopoly of violence.  Being Christian, they also knew that man is a fallen creature and inevitably can be tempted to tyranny. So, to avoid tyranny, and to avoid having a large professional army (which they couldn't afford in any case) they came up with the Second Amendment together with the militia. It is probably why our republic has lasted as long as it has.

The Devil's Music

 It seems music is in the news lately.  While the world at large is concentrated on the recent death of a woman during a confrontation in which any rational person would calculate that taking stupid risks means possible injury or death, let us ponder the effects of bad "music."  I put "music" here in scare quotes because rap and hip hop is not technically music.  Oh, it has elements of music, and elements of poetry, but it is neither music nor poetry.  What it is rather is vulgar and not terribly literate language set to a drum beat.  It is the supposed voice of the ghetto.  And we are supposed to sympathize with this voice of the downtrodden.

But too many people like Dr. Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell and others tells me that being poor does not mark you for life like Cain.  Each of us makes choices every day that determine the course of our lives.

At the American Thinker yesterday, John Deitrick had a piece entitled Mark the Music in which he notes that we are teaching our children savagery by letting this trash come into our homes.

Recently, country music singer John Rich commented on a remark made by rap singer Sean Combs. Combs boasted, “I own your kids. I own their souls. I determine what they wear. I determine what they listen to.” Rich asked, “Is anybody going to rebut this devil and what he just said about our kids?” He answered his own question: “Nobody did. Nobody said boo about it.” Unfortunately, Rich is correct. Few recognize the damage resulting from large numbers of children being “owned” by degenerates.

One can understand the popularity of rap and hip hop by looking at it carefully. One can easily learn to produce the background beat. It doesn't require years of study and music theory. And one can learn within a few weeks to months to put together words to fit the beat- and made-up words are seemingly celebrated in this genre. So, it is not like one needs a vast vocabulary to make the lyrics rhyme. Further, the lyrics also sound cool to the young because they express rage and hint at the forbidden. So, one can see why the young might be tempted by it.

Now, I am not saying that to play and appreciate music, one must study classical piano for seven years, practice at the instrument for two or more hours a day, and attend a conservatory like Julliard. There is a time for everything, and music can fit into a balanced life. But a constant diet of rage is not healthy, and listening to it all the time promotes ill emotions.

Of course, you cannot protect your children from hearing this garbage. They will be exposed to it when out with friends, in some restaurants, in some shops. I remember my father trying to keep me from listening to the Beatles. The more he railed against them, the better I liked them. I realize now that most of the stuff I like then was utter crap. But with age has come an appreciation of classical pieces.

Probably the best thing you can do is to expose your children to good music. I recommend J.S. Bach and Mozart. Pachelbel's Canon is a approachable piece as well as Bach's Air on the G String, Beethoven's Fur Elise. Good tunes make for good music.  For older children, Handel's Messiah is wonderful. Exposing them to the richness of such music will also expose the hollowness of Rap.  In addition, they might like finding out exactly what a "canon" is.

Finally, I want to note that Rap and Hip Hop are in large part from the Devil.  Deitrich hints at it but doesn't say it.  It isn't fashionable to admit the Devil exists.  Too many believe this is true.  You can, of course, believe what you want.  I believe that Rap invites the Devil into the listener's heart just as porn and Ouija boards open a doorway for him to come in.  None of this is harmless.  Just say'n.  

Raising kids...it ain't easy.

The Mighty Organ Simulates the Voice of God

 Eric Utter at the American Thinker today has a post entitled Music, drink, dance, pork, and dogs - five outrages of Islamists. Now, I like dogs, having three of them myself. The others, except for one are things of the earth and this life. Alcohol is toxic in any amount, though small amounts may actually be good for you. Dance requires a partner. Pork is tasty, though unlike Mr. Utter, I don't think it is healthier than red meat. But, why Muslims hate pork is anybody's guess.

Music though is essential. I don't know, but from what I have read of the experiences of people who have had near death experiences, heaven has the most beautiful music ever composed playing for all eternity. And why not? Music is part of the evidence for the existence of God, and of His creation of the universe. Church services use a liturgy saturated in music and chants. The Psalms are intended to be chanted. And there is ample evidence in the Bible that Temple worship involved singers and a variety of instruments.

Certain instruments being meant for intimate settings and small gatherings are not typically used in churches. Instead, what is used is a mighty organ which can be loud but not ear-splitting, or quiet but rattles your bones. The organ simulates the voice of God.

Why would Muslims hate music? Because music fills God's heavenly kingdom, and the devil wants nothing to do with that kingdom. It is why hell is so far from God.

The End of Luxury Beliefs

Please watch the embedded video from Youtube  entitled The End of Luxury Beliefs. In it, the speaker makes a point that is not original with him, but he he frames to fit our times. Namely that hard times create rational beliefs, rational beliefs create good times, good times create luxury beliefs, and luxury beliefs create hard times. Luxury beliefs are those that do not conform to reality; communism, tran-genderism, Islam, indeed pretty much the entire liberal leftist project. People who hold these beliefs and push them on others typically do not have to live with the consequences, or they actually benefit in some way from them. He cites examples where people tried some of these beliefs and ended up being killed for them. He asks, "what did they think would happen?"

I sincerely hope that he is correct, and we are coming to the end of such beliefs. Society certainly can't afford much more without completely falling apart. I was especially amused to hear the story of Finland's SuperShe Island at the 19:28 minute mark. All men were banned from the island, though they had to have men construct the infrastructure before it opened, and come and repair the plumbing and such. Feminism is yet another luxury belief that people in the daily throws of survival have no time for.

So, make yourself a cup of coffee and sit down for a 20-minute romp through history. You won't be disappointed.