I know mama. He was my dog. I’ll do it.Travis, “Old Yeller” (1957)
Friends with blogs warned me not to offer a comment section. It was good advice they gave. But I started a comment section anyway. And it has been valuable at times. Only now there is a lot of growling and threats, and a big chunk has been taken out of me. And too much valuable time has been lost. So how do you shoot Old Yeller?
Believe it or not, I do not share all my thoughts with readers. Not every topic is fit for mixed company. Nevertheless, I have allowed a few insensitive posts that may not have been entirelly suitable for mixed company; for example, the extensive religious discussions in which readers post their own sermons, or quote scripture along with criticisms of other Christian theologies. This has been very destructive and I have deleted many posts and lost readers who thought I was wicked for opposing the “true gospel.” Just to make my position clear: I am not here to decide between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
In terms of tolerance, I am more tolerant than most. Sometimes I even play with trolls. I have frequently allowed posts that are offensive to me; that is, posts written by communists, or those who chamption Critical Race Theory. As a white guy, am I outrageed? Not usually. It is all grist for the mill. Sometimes an ideological enemy gives you a priceless gift; that is, when they admit what they are really thinking. On such an occasion you are empowered to make a point you never would have otherwise made.
Here is a rule to follow: Try not to take disagreements personally. Of course, If they call you a liar, or a shoddy journalist, or a clown, or a joke, then you must take it personally (because the comments are meant to be personal, and are calculated to injure you). But if they are simply expressing an opinion about Americans, or capitalism, or white men, or women, then try to look at it disapassionately. Question the premise you disagree with. See how they react to a carefully reasoned reply.
What apparently offended some of my readers over the weekend, was a remark shared by two men. They suggested women should not have the vote. One of our dearest readers took offense, interpretting this as an insult to female intelligence. Obviously, each sex has its own prejudices, its understandings or misunderstandings about the other. On reading the offending post earlier, I did not recall anything about women being called stupid. To reassure myself, I tried to check, but wasted three hours going through this monstrously long thread without success (because every time I got interrupted I had to start over). Evidently the offending remark was on a previous thread. Oh dear, and there I was, pressed for time. I could not go through another haystack looking for that needle. Please forgive my negligence, but the comment section is too large. It is too large for me to second-guess myself. I simply cannot find things. And this is not first time I have lost an afternoon.
Then we have this issue, which I ought to comment on. Should I delete posts that argue against female suffrage? I do not see why this kind of statement should be censored. It is an ultra-conservative or traditionalist commonplace to say women should not vote. Even Ann Coulter has made the case, saying that the left would not be in a position of power in America if women did not vote (because women tend to vote for the left). Is Coulter serious? One might ask whether the destruction of the country by the left is serious. And yes, it is. If women did not have the vote, we probably would not have had Clinton or Obama in the White House. For whatever reason, studies show that young women are more left wing than young men. In 2016 Trump won 52 percent of votes cast by men and only 41 percent of votes cast by women. Ronald Reagan also suffered from a gender gap of 8 percentage points.
In the United States, in the 1960s, women voted about the same as men. By 1980 a noticable gap began to appear. How do we explain it? Marxist/feminist indoctrination has taken place on college campuses. This kind of indoctrination is not going to work on men because it does not appeal to them. More to the point, women now attend universities in larger numbers than men do. Does that suggest women are less intelligent? Universities are for smart people, right? So Ann Coulter’s argument has nothing to do with sexism, or women being dumb. Ann wants the left to lose, and women are allowing the left to win. Woman are more easily swayed by leftist arguments. They are offered special goodies by leftism. Therefore, women vote for the left more readily. This is an objective fact.
My solution to this problem is more outrageous than anyone else’s. I do not propose to take the vote away from women. I propose to level all our universities, sparing the university libraries. And I propose to make all the professors into night janitors. All indoctrination at the universities stops. Women will return to voting in the same ratios as men. But my solution to the problem is as impractical as those who want to deprive women of the vote; because there is zero chance anything can or will be done to stop the left. They control all our institutions. We will see this play out soon enough.
Should I have censored the obnoxious posting on female suffrage when I read it upon waking Sunday morning? The person who posted the offending remark on women, and the Russian “monarchist” who agreed with it, have colonized my blog; and that in itself is obnoxious. But I allowed the comment because it is in keeping with traditionalist thinking. Why should I disallow traditionalists from posting their opinions when I have allowed communists and defenders of Critical Race Theory to post theirs?
This site has a commentary section for a reason. It was not to spare people’s feelings. In part, I am a polemicist. The dictionary defines a polemicist as “a person who engages in controversial debate.” Controversy is all about disagreement; prolonged, public and heated. The punchline follows: Is this an agreeable or a disagreable project to embark on? [Laugh track here.]
A Challenge to Readers
In my books, The Origins of the Fourth World War as well as The Fool and His Enemy, I argue that we are experiencing a civilization-altering spiritual/intellectual change. A New Religion is now displacing traditional Christianity and its adjunct in classical pagan teachings (i.e., Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Cicero, etc.). The New Religion inverts the terms of man’s existence. The New Religion inverts sexuality, rank order, economic principles and morality. The elimination of Christianity as the ruling religion today is strikingly similar to the elimination of paganism as the ruling religion during the fourth century (insofar as it portends the outright destruction of civilization itself).
Described in these terms, my theory is not a conspiracy theory. It is a theory of transition to mass death and destruction. The New Religion cannot produce its own civilization to replace the old. The communist movement, which leads the socialist left, promises only destruction and tyranny. To hide the truth about their policy, and to catch mankind unawares, the New Religion advances under false labels and false flags. The communists themselves, in Russia, Europe and North America, have dispensed with the word “communism.” Yet the thing being pushed – behind global warming, behind vaccine passports, behind the Great Reset – is communism. And it is not “democratic socialism” but Leninist socialism wearing a liberal disguise; that is, the disguise of NEP, Operation Trust, the Green New Deal and Critical Race Theory.
This controversial thesis of mine is rejected by most people on the right. They will tell you “the Illuminati did it,” or “the Satanists did it,” or “Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum did it,” or “the Rothschilds did it,” or “the malefactors of great wealth did it.” My thesis is nothing like theirs. None of the candidates listed by the favored conspiracy theories of the day can explain the last 104 years of history (i.e., since the Bolshevik Revolution). The work of the Soviet Union, the Communist International, the many communist parties throughout the world, has been ignored and described as a “failed experiment.” I say otherwise because I dispute the generally accepted narrative that the Soviet Union collapsed because communism “failed.” No. Communism changed its strategy. As Soviet strategist Georgi Arbatov said in 1988, Moscow’s new secret weapon was to “take away the image of the enemy.” And this is what they did.
When I opened the discussion section here on this blog, I was hoping that somebody would show why this thesis is wrong. Recently, a Russian national posted a video clip of the anti-Leninist ravings of former KGB officer Vladimir Zhirinovsky. He was speaking in the Russian parliament (Duma). He is the head of the Russian Liberal Democratic Party. Only there is a problem, because Mr. Zhirinovsky’s party was formed under the Soviet Union, under the auspices of the KGB itself. And his rant against Vladimir Lenin is a parody of anticommunism. He misstates facts. He bloviates. He plays the part of a buffoon. As we watch the video, we can see a bemused Dmitri Medvedev watching Zhirinovsky’s performance from the Prime Minister’s chair. Does anyone think Zhirinovsky is anything but a clown?
I know what things look like, superficially. After all, we saw Alexander Yakovlev – the ideology chief of the Communist Party Soviet Union – denouncing Lenin in 1991! The idea that communism was defeated, that Lenin was no longer an icon, was underscored by Soviet Russia’s leading Leninist! Ask yourself how this is possible. Why would a party and an empire intentionally pull the plug on itself? They had nuclear weapons. They had the KGB. They had the Red Army. And then, Boris Yeltsin stopped a coup by walking out and standing on a tank while his KGB bodyguard looked on passively. Do you really believe it was honestly done?
I have written many essays detailing the facts about this so-called “collapse of communism.” In all that time nobody wrote a detailed argument showing I was wrong. They just repeated slogans the communists had given them. In fact, those who warned about the coming fake collapse of communism – James Angleton and Anatoliy Golitsyn – were not dealt with by rational argument. They were libeled in books whose authors did the talk show circuit. They were dragged through the mud and called madmen by leading conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. But there was no rational argument against their true predictions of the future. Angleton and Golitsyn had been right. And now the end of the long range strategy is upon us.
Russia and China are now moving against us openly – in Afghanistan, the Pacific, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Even so, our conservative pundits are like blind men. They see the incompetence in Washington, yet they do not see the grand strategy that continues to unfold, step by step. We can still hear Sean Hannity and Mark Levin saying that “Reagan won the Cold War.” This slogan, however, is not an argument. It is not historically correct. It is a lie we learned from the communists. But nobody dares to re-examine it.
What do I have to do for someone to debunk me, once and for all? Is my thesis so contemptible, so improbable, that nobody dares to take the subject on? How does one explain Yevgenia Albats’s book, The State Within a State? Or Andrei Codrescu’s The Hole in the Flag? Or what about Mark Reibling’s Wedge, where we read of the 94 percent accuracy of KGB defector Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions – back in 1994. And I must say, Golitsyn’s accuracy rating just went up another couple of percent since China and Russia joined their forces together. Or did I just imagine the recent Japanese warning about Russian and Chinese forces practicing a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor a month or two ago?
The threat from Russia and China and our domestic communists is real. The facts I cite are true. Yet these facts are “damned.” That is what Charles Hoy Fort once called inconvenient scientific facts. Here we are writing of inconvenient political facts. And all these facts add up to one truth. It is the truth that my thesis points to; namely, the coming victory of the New Religion. Where is that writer, thinker, scholar who can show where I’ve gone wrong in this thesis? Come on, if you dare. What intellectual errors have I made? What “facts” have I gotten wrong? The only thing I have for my efforts is name-calling. But that is not a proper answer to a thousand articles and several books.
Show me the error of my ways and I will retire from this tiresome subject and do something else. Please show me that communism is not winning? Please show me that Russia and China are not working with all the other communist countries and the communists here in the USA. The comment section is open, for now – open for intelligent criticism, for challenges. What have I gotten so far? A Russian Orthodox impersonator sending me clips from an old KGB officer doing a hilarious parody of a Western liberal democrat as a half-baked, chauvinistic warmonger.
As the communists come to power here in America, watch how they forfeit whole regions of the earth to Moscow and Beijing. As the communists come to power here in America, watch how they pull down the statues of our Founding Fathers. As the communists teach America’s children, watch how those children cheer for socialism and despise capitalism. The United States is in the process of falling. Will you deny it?
Why are the Chinese cheering America’s retreat from Afghanistan? Why are Russian and Chinese troops in Venezuela? Why are the Russians building military infrastructure in Nicaragua? Why have the Russians rebuilt their military in such a way that they now have the advantage in Europe? Why have the Chinese built the largest navy in the world? And why would the American people elect Joe Biden to the White House when Joe Biden has always been a communist shill? – lifted into the Senate by the efforts of KGB agent Armand Hammer, the Council for a Livable World and other communist fronts?
Do you think it’s just an accident that Biden drop-kicked Afghanistan? I do not.
The commentary section will be limited to two days of postings and I will not tolerate massive postings from the same person. I do not write articles so others can write War and Peace in the commentary section.
Quarterly Subscription (Voluntary)