Tag Archives: Nazism

Jesse Lee Peterson: WILL YOUTUBE BE CENSORING YOU TOO NEXT? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson shreds far-left Big Tech reeking with intolerance

by Jesse Lee Peterson

After Vox host Carlos Maza, a radical homosexual who hates Christian conservatives, wrote a viral Twitter thread whining to YouTube about being harassed by conservative YouTube personality Stephen Crowder and his followers, YouTube demonetized my channel and purged many conservatives on its platform. Just a day earlier, YouTube had said in a series of tweets that Crowder’s alleged harassment of Maza (which consisted of jokes and parodies) did not violate its policies.

YouTube claimed it was updating its policy to ban videos espousing neo-Nazism, “white supremacy” and other “bigoted views.” The company also said it was changing its recommendation algorithm to reduce the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The censorship of conservative and independent view points by the liberal mainstream media has fostered the massive growth of conservative and alternative voices on YouTube. The tech giant’s attempt to purge these voices should exhort free thinkers to create new and better platforms.

Ironically, YouTube demonetized my channel minutes after taking down two of my videos condemning anti-Jewish hatred by Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and fringe white extremists who hate Jews. Other influential conservative and independent voices targeted by YouTube for censorship include my friends at PragerU, Stefan Molyneux, Gavin McInnes and others who expose left-wing lunacy and promote American values and exceptionalism. PragerU has filed a lawsuit to stop Google and YouTube from unlawfully censoring its educational videos and discriminating against its right to freedom of speech.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

My channel and many others demonetized by YouTube do not spread hate. Every day on my daily radio broadcast (streamed live on YouTube) I tell people to stop blaming and hating others. I repudiate all hatred, blame, and victimhood. In fact, I wrote an entire book on how to overcome it. I rebuke callers on my radio show who harbor hatred toward Jews, whites, blacks or any other group. I encourage them to drop their anger and forgive so they can go free.

What YouTube is doing is outright censorship. It’s no secret that YouTube and its parent company Google support far-left causes. YouTube supports “gay pride” parades and celebrates homosexual and transgender creators, and its chief executive endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and other conservatives have openly criticized YouTube and other social media networks for their bias against conservative views, and this latest censorship move is a prime example of their bias.

The “adpocalypse” targeted mostly conservative and right leaning YouTube creators, but it’s being applied in such a broad and sloppy manner that even channels that chronicle historical videos of Nazis have been demonetized or banned for having the footage on their channels.

By demonetizing channels, YouTube is restricting conservative creators from running ads and blocking “Super Chats” (which allows viewers to donate during live streams and have their comments highlighted). YouTube is choking the lifeblood of content creator’s ability to make money off their videos.

The mainstream media and big tech companies like Google and YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and others call conservatives “hateful” while they actively empower and embolden radical LGBT social justice activists who are the real haters. Vox host Carlos Maza and the radical LGBT employee/activists at YouTube who agitated and pressured YouTube to censor and ban conservatives are the true bigots. They always spout off about “love” and “inclusion,” but they are the intolerant and hateful ones.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/will-youtube-be-censoring-you-too-next/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Is it Time for Divorce? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Is it Time for Divorce?- “How Deep is the Divide?”

by Bill Lockwood

With all of the political rancor boiling out of the Left against President Donald Trump, perhaps it is time to ask the question if the time has come for American states to consider an amicable divorce? Political separation. The chasm that divides right from left in our nation is wider than can be bridged by mere bi-partisanship. America is in the midst of a brewing civil war. The community organizers and Deep State devotees continue to foment rebellion behind the scenes while their street goose-steppers violently rampage with impunity.

What is the cause of all of this? What is the real issue? It is not about, as shallow thinkers suggest, Trump’s tweets. It is instead the same issue that has been festering beneath the surface for over a century and is just now coming to an ugly head. Will we have a limited government whereby the individual can enjoy his or her God-given liberties?; or, will we have total government control which dispenses or retracts these “freedoms” as central-planners see fit?

This is the only explanation for the intensified vicious hatred flung at President Trump. He is doing exactly what he said he would do — rolling back the gargantuan total state that has been created after the socialist will. But the heart of the left will always be about imposing their ungodly agendas on others by totalitarian-style edicts of the New World Order.

Witness some of these edicts. They range from population-control schemes; mandating the activity of each person on earth as is clearly enunciated by Agenda 21 UN goals; over-riding national sovereignty by international law; the complete destruction of capitalism; militant sexual LGBT worldviews; absolute federal and international control of our children’s education; the forced funding of the welfare state; complete domination of unconstitutionally-held land; complete control of our money supply and wealth by which slavery is promoted in the form of debt; and a thousand other similar well-established practices.

Therefore, perhaps the time has come to consider an amicable divorce. States that wish total government, go your own way. Those that eschew despotism, go another. Irreconcilable differences.

How Deep is the Divide?

To consider how deeply we are divided, ponder James Madison’s statement pertaining to government power. “The powers delegated [by the people] by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Those enumerated powers of which Madison spoke equal about twenty specifics (Art. 1, Sec. 8). So important was this basic concept of a limited government that the Founders added the 10th Amendment which was to serve as a lock on the the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson even wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (1791)

We are now on that “boundless sea” and the horizon does not look promising. We have completely lost the Constitution as the people writhe beneath a centralized state. In common with every breed of despotism, communism, Marxism, socialism, Nazism, or fascism—all of which are rooted in atheism—individual rights and liberties are almost non-existent in our nation. This is exactly what the left wants. Therefore, whether one reads the U.N. Earth Charter or the Manifestos of the Humanists or the Democratic Party platform, they all cry for more government control and less freedom of the individual.

Deeper still is the principle that was observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830’s. He noted that that which united Americans, transcending political parties and religious differences, was a fundamental moral consensus in the heart of the people. This was so impressive to the French diplomat. Sadly, consensus does not any longer exist between the opposite sides of our divide which advocate two very different world views.

With a complete lack moral consensus today and cultural leaders of western civilization who love to have it so, it seems insufficient to even call for state conventions for the purpose of adding amendments to the constitution or even demanding the federal government retreat. Statist policies of government officials will continue unfettered and anarchy will escalate.

So, instead of middle America being forced to tolerate the near-Satanic-style assaults from the left, making it impossible for our elected president to govern, perhaps it is time for those addicted to government management of their lives to write their own constitution and go their own way.

Trump and Fascism? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Trump and Fascism?- “Hatred is the lifeblood of the Left and has been since the French Revolution.”

by Bill Lockwood

Michael Kinsley, a contributor to the Washington Post, along with hundreds of other street “organizers” protesting Trump’s inauguration, has labeled Trump a “fascist.” Kinsey thinks that Trump “strong-arming” manufacturing jobs to stay in America or that he “upset” the “delicate balance” of our “relations with China and Taiwan” with a “phone call” is explained by the president’s “fascism.”

The Socialist Alternative website, founded by Kshama Sawant, contains dire warnings to the American people in the wake of Trump’s “right-wing” presidency. Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Sawant pushes for a complete socialist society. “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward democratic socialism.”

Sawant calls upon Democrats in Congress to “obstruct” Trump’s “hateful right-wing agenda” and “tens of thousands of people” to “shut down highways and find other ways to shut down ‘business as usual.’” Sawant says we need “mass, peaceful, direct actions to block efforts to deport our immigrant brothers and sisters.” “People and the environment” must be put “above the profit-driven agenda of big business.” Marches this last week are promised to be only the beginning.

May 1 is International Workers Day in which Sawant calls for millions to protest in the streets and fight for “immigrants.” Open borders are what socialists demand in order to complete turning our nation upside down. “In these struggles” Sawant wants “unions, immigrant rights, women’s, civil rights, LGBTQ, environmental organizations…Sanders supporters, …Greens and socialists” to pour into the streets to disrupt society.

David Horowitz, a one-time leftist radical, observed: “Last weekend’s marches” were filled with embarrassing lewdness and obscenity. “They allowed speakers like actress Ashley Judd to make fools of themselves and showcased politically senile retreads like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem. They were accompanied by violent mobs that trashed shopping centers and fought with police.” All of these “protests” have been “dressed up in light heartedness, but the silly hats couldn’t disguise the fact that they were hatefests in action.” This shouldn’t surprise us, Horowitz reminds us. “Hatred is the lifeblood of the Left and has been since the French Revolution.”

Leftwing hate groups such as Socialist Alternative operate on what he calls “The Big Lie.” What is this? It is “an exercise in what Freud called ‘projection’ and which psychologists define as denying abhorrent emotions in oneself by attributing them to others.” In other words, though there are certainly “haters” on the right, for the most part they are on the fringe in small pockets. But the LEFT seems motivated solely by hate. It is the primary fuel that runs the machine. Where is the hatred directed?

Make no mistake. The real hatred here is a hatred of freedom. Let’s dig a little deeper.

Fascism?

Fascism, Nazism, and Communism are all hard left philosophies. They differ only in degree. The foundational structures are all very similar and tactics rarely vary. All three systems are species of collectivist style governments. Hitler was, after all, a “national socialist” and Mussolini, known as the father of fascism, wrote: “Everything is in the state, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian…The state, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is creator of right…For fascism the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative…The fascist state is will to power and government.” Mussolini’s dictum was: “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.”

No individual rights can be founded upon the core that all three share–atheism. Marx’s statements are well-known; Hitler described himself as “anti-Christ” and “an atheist” and Mussolini was just as devoted to Nietzsche as was Hitler. He flatly denied universal rights and wrongs and in the statement just quoted equated the state to the creator of rights “before which individuals are relative.”

Lacking concepts of individual rights, all three systems favored dictatorships. A natural outcome is this when denying value to individuals. When persons are considered cogs in a collectivist machine, authoritarian control is the result.

Wherein then does communism differ from Nazism and fascism? Only in the degree to which the state would control the economic machine. How heavy-handed need be the government? Communism favors complete state control while the others allowed “partnerships” between individual business-owners and the government. But government was the sole arbiter and dispenser of rights and privileges.

From this vantage point it might be helpful to recall now the insult of “fascism” actually was popularized. It became frequent on the lips of communists who did not think that fascists were going far enough in state authoritarian control of business. “Fascist” became a hiss and byword among communists and has been trumpeted by the liberals in America, such as Bill Ayers, to describe from their perspective what is to their right.

For Constitutionalists, however, who found their worldview upon individual rights due to man’s creation by God, fascism is a left-wing atheistic authoritarian concept denying value to individuals in favor of state autocratic control.

This bring us to Trump. In terms of state control, America is technically already a fascist state and has been since the time of FDR by virtue of the fact that private businesses have been hijacked by government coercion, be it regulation, taxation, or collusion between government and big business.

Democrat presidents such as Bill Clinton leaned on banks to make unsecured loans to minorities so that the politicians may stand and say, “See how many minorities we put into home ownership!” This and a thousand other examples demonstrate we are already in a fascist state, pretty close to communism when one considers the fact that the average American works from January to June to have his/her wealth redistributed by government.

Trump promises to roll back that regulation, taxation and redistribution. Communists and socialists are enraged. Like communists before them, from Vladimir Lenin to Bill Ayers, the socialistic masses cry “Fascism!” That is because the only thing they see to their right when sitting on the totalitarian extreme left is fascism. “Right-wing” to Socialist Alternative. These labels betray ignorance of the real nature of liberty and freedom. Trump wants not to remain in their leftist communist-fascist land, but to go back more to the center where we ought to be.

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is Slavery 0 (0)

Posted on by One comment

SOCIALISM IS SLAVERY- “It is the mainspring of socialism as well. Not only do these superior beings need to recognize the equality of all men, having been created by God, but to count others better than themselves (Philippians 2:1-4).”

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism begins with the basic tenet that some people are superior to others and should therefore manage the activities of the lesser. All men are created equal but some of us are more equal than others. It is a dictatorship of the elite who are required by the very nature of things to govern the lives of others.

Oscar Jaszi, the famed Hungarian socialist, explained socialism as: (1) A condemnation of the existing political and social order; (2) Advocacy of a new order; (3) A belief that this ideal is realizable; (4) A conviction that the immorality of the established order is traceable not to a fixed world order or to the unchanging nature of man but to corrupt institutions; (5) A program of action leading to the ideal through a fundamental remolding of human nature or of institutions or both; and (6) A revolutionary will to carry out this program.

Max Eastman, in his 1962 book Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, mused about the years he wasted in the doctrine of Socialism. Referring to socialism as a “Marxian religion” he emphasized that the real issue is “the usurpation of power” and that the “tyrant has no honest instinct for the liberties of man.”

The common denominator of all socialist theories, be they fascism, communism, Nazism, environmental paganism, economic theories championed by humanism—or whatever, is the following: “… that society can be made more free and equal, and incidentally more orderly and prosperous, by a state apparatus which takes charge of the economy, and runs it according to a plan.” Bottom Line: some people consider themselves to be naturally endowed to govern the rest of us.

Slavery

This is why Socialism is in reality another system of slavery. Socialism is a theory of government which requires the strong arm of the state to re-distribute private resources according to its plan. As an institution slavery begins with exactly the same assumption, both in the ancient and modern world. Some people are “more equal” than others.

Thomas Edwards, in his classic commentary on the biblical book of 1 Corinthians (p. 182), explained slavery on these terms while discussing the apostles’ remarks in chapter 7:11-24: “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious pre-eminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius; so that in discussing the question of slavery, the apostle [Paul] not only arbitrates between master and slave, but addresses himself to the antagonisms most deeply seated in the religious, political, and social condition of the time.”

It is THIS that Christianity alters—the view of mankind.  “All men are created equal” is a Christian axiom. The fact that biblical principles reconstruct one’s view of humankind from the ground up also explains why Christianity did never create firebrands of people to march in the streets demanding the overthrow of the social order, but instead operates over a period of time as leaven on a society.

As Edwards put it, “The distinction between master and slave ceases at the door of the church. But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before.”

For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.

See the slow but constant growing influence of these principles in the early ages of the church. Christians began “manumitting slaves” at Easter; then later on the Lord’s Day; at last they were freed on a daily basis. In the law Constantine forbade the owner of slaves to break up slave families; later came the sentiment that led rich men to consider the education and manumission of slaves an act of piety; finally, one witnesses the election of slaves to offices of the church, such as Calixtus, once an indentured servant, who became a bishop of Rome in 3d century.

Warped View of Mankind

Both slavery and socialism begin with a warped view of mankind, namely, that some people are more sufficient to manage the lives and activities of others. In reality, socialism is another face of slavery. This also demonstrates why the environmentalists continue to tend towards the socialistic Democratic Party.

In the following quotes, centered chiefly around the doctrines of environmentalism, one finds recommendations for massive population control, eugenics, and euthanasia. All of these require an elitist disposition. These geniuses are clearly positioning themselves to be the caretakers of ‘we the people.’

David Graber, once a biologist with the National Park Service, declared that “a particular species of a free-flowing river is of ‘more value’ to me than another human body, or a billion of them. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

The late Jacques Cousteau was quoted in the UNESCO Courier in November 1991 and again in November 1994 as saying, “The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day.” It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. ” But say it he did.

Barbara Marx Hubbard, former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, prominent futurist and occult leader, in her The Book of Co-Creation, (self-published, 1980, Part III, p. p. 59), says, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”

Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, opined that “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Quotations like these are endless. They demonstrate that the very mindset which produces slavery throughout history and around the world– the supposed superiority that too many nurture in their own minds when they compare themselves to others–is alive and prevalent today. It is the mainspring of socialism as well. Not only do these superior beings need to recognize the equality of all men, having been created by God, but to count others better than themselves (Philippians 2:1-4).

Back to Homepage

 

Missing in Orlando 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Missing in Orlando

by Bill Lockwood

Liberalism is a brain disease which rewires one’s cognitive functions and reasoning capabilities. Under its umbrella philosophies such as Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Progressivism flourish. This is startlingly apparent in the aftermath of Orlando which emboldens Presidents and other leftists to leave out the most crucial pieces of the puzzle in analyzing and explaining the terror. Sadly, many on the right are afflicted with the same brain disease as well. What are the most critical puzzle pieces missing which we as a culture have declared off-limits for consideration?

First, refusing to look at the SOURCE material of Islam. It is beyond belief that Americans would continue to be patient with President Obama as he scurries to console—not American citizens who have been targeted for jihad—but members of Omar Mateen’s religious group, Muslims. Obama reassures them that no one is ready to judge them for Mateen’s murders. He must comfort Islam that all is well. By so doing he is warning Americans not to entertain any views that may reflect poorly on Islam.

Quick to take the cue, even conservative pundits rush to judge skeptical Americans who are dubious about Islam itself. “Moderate Muslims” must be our partners, say they. Our first duty seems to be to protect Muslims and their feelings of inclusion into America. The gigantic assumption here is that if the Orlando carnage is Islam, it is only some “radicalized” version of it and not representative of real peaceful Islam. Brain dead liberals expect Americans who can read to be brain dead as well. The real questions are: What did Muhammed himself DO? What did Muhammed himself TEACH in the Koran? In the Hadith? This leads us to the Fountainhead of Islamic teaching: The Koran and The Sura (life of Muhammed).

The prophet of Islam, Muhammed, butchered many more than Omar Mateen shot. He personally oversaw the beheading of thousands. Islam conquered the entire peninsula of Arabia in his lifetime, not because of defensive wars but because of offensive bloody strategems including butchering, raping, pillaging, and instilling fear into surrounding countries. His followers hacked their way across most of Asia and into Europe during the ages succeeding, following Muhammed’s example.

Not only did Muhammed practice what Mateen carried out, but he ordered his followers to do it as well. The last Surah that came from his uninspired lips included this: “Fight and slay pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:5). Another commands Muslims to “behead” their enemies (47:4). Muhammed himself taught and practiced what is styled “radical Islam.” Why do modern-day know-it-all’s in the press continue to discuss Islam with little or no reference to the source of it all—Muhammed?

Another second puzzle piece conspicuously missing from analyzation is this: Leaving unexplained how a Muslim can be “radicalized.” This is all we hear. Mateen became “radicalized;” let’s continue to allow Muslims to come into our country but hope they do not become “radicalized;” we need to watch for “radicalization;” and on and on. Not a single one of these pundits or politicians tell us: Just how is a Muslim radicalized? How specifically doe that occur? Is it by laying aside the Koran and doing something different than what is read? Or, is it by digging deeper and deeper into the Koran and the Sura to imitate the prophet of Islam himself? What exactly is radicalization?

Only one answer is available. By becoming more and more aligned with the heart of the Koran one is radicalized.  If not, let President Obama or Hillary Clinton lay out in detail the process of “radicalization” and explain to America just how this happens. But that is something the left will never do. Instead, they will parade before us such horrendous explanations as that Orlando is the result of “too ready access to guns;” or that it is the result of “one person believing he is right and all else are wrong;” or, “Orlando’s occur” when people are “mentally disturbed.”

Missing in the Orlando analyzation: common sense. And common sense is the refusal to begin with the premise that Omar Mateen could not possibly represent what Islam actually teaches.

Back to Homepage