Melbourne, Australia is a city owned by the CCP. The Prime Minister of Australia is such a hollow man he will not address this issue at the National Cabinet. All one can say is that Victoria is a vassal state of China.
free speech
All posts tagged free speech
What’s happening in Hong Kong with Jimmy Lai will soon be happening in other parts of the world! The CCP has long arms and now that Sleepy Joe is in charge only time will reveal how secure you really are!
‘Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam appointed three more national security law judges to hear the appeal challenging Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai’s bail. The trial will now go ahead without any overseas non-permanent judge at the Court of Final Appeal.
Lai is set to appear in court next Monday to face the government’s appeal against the decision to extend his bail. The pro-democracy media tycoon had been kept in custody since December last year pending trial for alleged violations of the national security law and fraud.
The appeal will be heard by five judges, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, Judges Roberto Ribeiro, Joseph Fok, Patrick Chan, and Frank Stock.
Cheung and Ribeiro were confirmed to be security law judges, and the Chief Executive’s Office told HKFP that Lam had also appointed Fok, Chan, and Stock as designated judges for security law cases on Wednesday.
Lai and eight other democrats – including Margaret Ng, Leung Kwok-hung and Martin Lee – had been charged for allegedly organising and participating in an unauthorised protest in August 2019.
Perry withdrew from the case following criticism from the UK, including from British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab. Critics also questioned the government’s plan to work around the coronavirus restrictions, as travellers from the UK are banned from entering the city.
The case will go to court on February 16.’ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/01/28/hong-kong-leader-appoints-3-more-national-security-judges-for-appeal-against-media-mogul-jimmy-lais-bail/
Ann Corcoran makes the point of moving to those social media sights that still allow the conservative free speech. Here are her thoughts.
‘As I am sure you are all painfully aware, conservative voices are being silenced. BIG Tech and BIG government have colluded to make it very hard for us to communicate and disseminate news. I expect it to get even harder!
And, if you are like me— OLD!—it is a challenge to break long held habits and learn new tricks.
But, before I get to that, let me mention again that right now you can follow at least three (but there are many more) websites/blogs to fill you in on breaking news throughout the day. Gateway Pundit, Conservative Tree House, and Just the News.
(Sorry if I am missing some of your favorites.)
You don’t need me to repeat what they are reporting.
For immigration news I check the news aggregator Borderhawk News that is linked in my sidebar.
So what am I doing to distance myself from BIG TECH that is working with the Socialists to change America?
First, I am dumping Google from my life. It will take time. But, know that in a few days, I will no longer be using gmail that is linked in my sidebar at both of my blogs.
And, I have gone to Brave for all of my browsing needs. Be prepared for some additional work as you may have to make changes to passwords and get notices from say your credit card company wondering if someone other than you is accessing your account.
You can read about Brave here at The Federalist:
How To Stop Using Google Search On Your Computer And Phone
You will then most likely look to Duck Duck Go for your searches.
The Federalist also published a useful piece about the right-wing witch hunt which I will get to in a minute, but which contains this bit of information on changes you should be making.
Modify Your Online Presence. One of the most important steps you can take is to modify your online presence by jumping out of Google, Facebook, and iChat and into technologies that are less intrusive. Here are a few to use:
- Web search:Duck Duck Go
- Email:Proton Mail
- Texting:Signal
- Group and video chat: Element
These are all examples of ways that you can search and communicate on the internet without having intrusive data collectors follow you around the whole time!
I don’t know Element and am staying on Facebook as long as I am able to reach the thousands I am reaching now with my Refugee Resettlement facebook page. Or, LOL! Until they dump me. I will eventually move to MeWe.
As I reported Twitter has blocked me from reaching my account there and I refuse to give Google any more information. Why stay at Twitter as they work to diminish your reach. I am on Gab (@Refugeewatcher), but not super active and don’t have many followers yet.
Now to that Federalist article yesterday, the one with the tips above by Dan Carpenter (hat tip: Scott). Readers may remember I discussed prepping last summer, see here reposted in December.
Who knew there were so many Americans of all stripes who don’t think it is a joke to be ready to take care of themselves and their loved ones.
But, LOL! Beware the Lefties think you are planning to overthrow the government because you have a stash of canned beans in your basement!
And, God forbid, we don’t want the government coming for our toilet paper trove as Biden forbids the destruction of trees ….’https://fraudscrookscriminals.com/2021/01/28/making-the-moves-time-to-get-your-communication-house-in-order/
Is freedom in the UK completely gone? The UK and under Biden freedom is slowly being distinguished. Where does one that seeks true liberty go?
‘• London contender Brian Rose accuses No.10 of undermining democracy that leaves police in ‘impossible position’ over May elections • Rose and campaign team arrested despite ensuring fully digital campaign bus is safest in the country • Dangerously vague election guidance threatens fair vote, says Rose London Mayor candidate Brian Rose has accused the Prime Minister of undermining democracy after Rose and his campaign team were arrested while campaigning in London yesterday (Sunday 24 January). Rose is using a COVID-secure, fully digital battle bus to visit the city’s 32 boroughs ahead of the scheduled May elections, allowing the public to communicate with him via social media during lockdown but with the public kept off the bus itself. While the bus was parked legally in Southwark on Sunday morning, a large group of City of London police descended on Rose’s team, arresting them and issuing £200 fines. At the time, Rose was recording a piece to video, while social distancing. His team produced the relevant parking and filming permits, but was informed that “campaigning was not a necessary reason to be out of your homes”, despite the police being told that other political parties have continued to operate leafleting activities throughout the lockdown. The lockdown regulations include express exceptions for people to leave the house and gather in groups where engaging in voluntary work as our campaigners were or working as the production team were. WE URGENTLY DEMAND THAT POLICE FORCES ACROSS LONDON RECONSIDER HOW THEY RESPOND TO LAWFUL CAMPAIGNING.’ https://brianformayor.london/
This is happening in Australian schools as well. Now that Biden and many Progressives are in charge 1984 is happening now in 2021 and this is not going to end well! A video is attached at the bottom of this article.
‘A middle school in Springfield, Missouri, recently held a diversity training program that forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix” and watch a video of “George Floyd’s last words.”
According to whistleblower documents and teachers who attended the program at Cherokee Middle School, the training began with a “land acknowledgement,” claiming that “Springfield Public Schools is built on ancestral territory of the Osage, Delaware and Kickapoo Nations and Peoples.” (At the time of publication, Springfield Public Schools had not responded to a request for comment.) The diversity trainers, Jeremy Sullivan and Myki Williamson, asked the teachers to “acknowledge the dark history and violence against Native and Indigenous People” before engaging in the day’s program of “social justice work.”
The trainers then forced the teachers to watch a nine-minute video of “George Floyd’s last words.” The film is silent, showing only white text on a black screen, illustrating Floyd’s final utterances, including his cries for his mother. Such videos are a common technique in many diversity-training programs—and cult indoctrinations. The intention is to overload the senses of the participants and create an “emotional anchor” that serves to justify subsequent political arguments, even if they’re non sequiturs.
Next, Sullivan announced the agenda: “We’re going to look at three large concepts and those concepts are oppression, white supremacy, and systemic racism.” He and Williamson provided the teachers a handout to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” which defines white heterosexual males as the “privileged social group” and women, minorities, transgender, and LGBT people as “oppressed social groups.” Presumably, those at the top of the oppression matrix, including many of the teachers in the room, are responsible for the “racism, sexism, transgender oppression, heterosexism, [and] classism” against disfavored groups.
The diversity trainers then narrowed the focus to race, distributing another handout that outlines the concepts of “overt white supremacy” and “covert white supremacy.” The document claims that “lynching, hate crimes, KKK, neo-Nazis, [and] burning crosses” are “socially unacceptable” forms of white supremacy, while “education funding from property tax, colorblindness, calling the police on black people, BIPOC as Halloween costumes, not believing experiences of BIPOC, tone policing, [and] white silence” are “socially acceptable” forms of white supremacy.
This is a dangerous conflation. The trainers are attempting to extend the stigma of true social evils—slavery, lynching, Nazism—to any deviation from progressive political preferences, from property taxes to criminal justice to Halloween costumes. According to one teacher who attended the training, the handout originally listed “MAGA” as a form of “covert white supremacy,” but it was removed after public outcry. The principle, however, has remained: diversity trainers use the emotional overload of historical evils to justify the imposition of current dogma.
Even more cynically, diversity trainers such as those at Springfield Public Schools have begun to insist on a standard of “affirmative consent.” This means that teachers must not only accept the tenets of the training—in some cases even condemning themselves as white supremacists or oppressors—but also actively vocalize that acceptance. When one teacher said that he was “afraid to say anything,” Sullivan quickly shut him down, telling the teacher that he must think what an “underrepresented or under-resourced student [might] say of our fear of speaking up.” Remember: under the new ethics, disagreement is verboten; silence is transformed into an admission of guilt. “White silence” is a form of “white supremacy.”
Finally, after more than an hour of training, one white teacher, who was raised by a black stepfather began pushing back, asking: “Is the district saying that we should be Marxists?” He continued:
While I don’t think there’s a person in the room who doesn’t agree that this is an important topic that should be dealt with, the way that it’s being framed comes from Herbert Marcuse who took and stripped all of the economic policies of Marxist theory and turned it into [cultural Marxism]. . . . I grew up the son of a black man, he raised me to believe in Dr. King’s teachings. Dr. King did not teach the kind of vitriol that we see out of Marxism, [which] has a long replete history of countries being bigoted and prejudiced against others and then murdering millions as a result.
The diversity trainers, both white, were stunned. At first, Sullivan acknowledged the Marxist orientation of the diversity training program. “I know that that’s the roots, I’m aware of all that information,” he said. Then, perhaps realizing that teaching Frankfurt School Marxism in a Missouri public school could be controversial, he distanced himself: “The goal here is to take a stand against racism, it’s not to be totalitarian. . . . There’s not some big political agenda. It’s certainly not Marxism. It’s just let’s make sure that all of our kids are truly valued and celebrated.”
This is the tell. Many diversity training programs—and the political movement known as Black Lives Matter—operate on the principle of bait and switch. Following Marcuse, they predicate their rhetoric on the “emotional anchor” of racial suffering, then use euphemisms to make their political arguments. In the Missouri training program, the school district proposes “empowerment” as the solution, which sounds anodyne, even appealing. However, in the documentation, the district defines “empowerment” as training students to “refuse to accept the dominant ideology and their subordinate status and take actions to redistribute social power more equitably.” The district defines a euphemism with more euphemisms, but the deeper meaning is clear: that American society is white supremacist and must be replaced with a regime of race-based redistribution.
For years, Americans have watched as educators have pushed deeply divisive “antiracism” programs in coastal cities such as Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle. Now “antiracism” has come to the heartland.’https://www.discovery.org/a/antiracism-comes-to-the-heartland/
‘oppression matrix
The oppression matrix provides a model for analyzing social oppression and considering the formation of multiple interacting (intersectional ) parts of our identities and power structures that determine our lives.’ https://blogs.umass.edu/comm397ss-jsaxe/oppression-matrix/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szdtCxXvJs-8QJJo-U_W1OqeoW2BpRDV/view
‘“Free speech” is a term that gets thrown around quite often these days. But what is it? And why is it important?
The freedom of speech is simply the ability to say, write, or otherwise express what you truly believe without fear of punishment or retaliation from the government.
This freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The authors of our Constitution believed it was very important to protect this freedom.
And for good reason.
Speaking is how you express your thoughts. So if government officials can force you to say things you don’t believe, you no longer control the content of your speech and thus lose the freedom to live consistently with the principles you treasure most.
Government officials who seek to control your speech are trying to control what you think and what you do. And that’s contrary to the very idea of freedom. Not only that, but it’s contrary to the dignity of the human person. Our thoughts not only cause our actions, they are the most personal possession we have.
While upholding human dignity is the most important reason to protect this freedom, it certainly isn’t the only reason.
If you want good ideas to have influence, you’ll support protections for the freedom of speech. The best ideas often come from the robust discussion and debate of many different ideas.
And this cannot exist without free speech.
What the freedom of speech is not.
Some might argue that the freedom of speech is just a piece of rhetoric used by those who want to say hateful things. But this is false.
Free speech is a right that every individual possesses as a human being created by God.
And this right isn’t just for those with certain beliefs. In fact, that’s the whole point. There are as many unique perspectives as there are people. Our ability to share our perspective with others is what free speech is all about.
As the Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal.” But this doesn’t mean that all ideas are equal. There will always be bad or even false ideas that we must address.
But the answer isn’t to shut down debate or silence the people sharing those ideas. The answer is more speech.
We can use our own speech to answer hateful statements with good and truthful ones. We can debate ideas we consider bad with those we believe are good.
No matter what, we need those with whom we disagree to be involved in the conversation.
Debate with our ideological opponents sharpens our ideas and may even allow us to see the truth in a new and unexpected way. Not only that, but our opponents’ right to free speech should be protected because they are human beings with dignity just like us. And if their right is taken away, then ours can easily be taken away too.
It has been said that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”’ https://www.adflegal.org/blog/what-is-freedom-of-speech
I would have been more surprised if the judge had gone Parler’s way. Me thinks the justice system in the USA just might lean a little to the Left in how it reads the law!
‘The judge in the Parler vs Amazon case has denied Parler’s request for a temporary restraining order against Amazon.
“Parler has failed to meet the standard set by Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent for issuance of a preliminary injunction,” Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein wrote in her conclusion.
Although the judge did note that her order was not to say that Parler didn’t have any substantial claims, but that “Parler has fallen far short, however, of demonstrating, as it must, that it has raised serious questions going to the merits of its claims, or that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.
“It has also failed to demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits of any of its three claims; that the balance of equities tips in its favor, let alone strongly so; or that the public interests lie in granting the injunction,” the judge concluded.
Parler, a free speech Twitter alternative, was hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS). On Sunday January 10th, Parler went offline after it was banned from AWS.‘ https://reclaimthenet.org/judge-denies-parlers-request-for-temporary-restraining-order-against-amazon/
The fact is that the Left does not want unity but they desire full control! This email was received this morning from Dr. Arnn, President of Hillsdale College. What he has to say is well worth your reading as the next four years will be unprecedented.
‘I was proud last year to accept President Trump’s appointment to chair the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. Also appointed to the Commission was Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History here at Hillsdale. Matthew Spalding, dean of our Van Andel Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., served as the Commission’s executive director.
The Commission issued its 1776 Report this past Monday. The report calls for a return to the unifying principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. It quotes the greatest Americans, black and white, men and women, in devotion to these principles. It acknowledges the many ways we have fallen short of them even as it celebrates, following Abraham Lincoln, the influence for good that they exercised to the benefit of all. It acknowledges the way we fall short of them today and argues that it is only by returning to them that our current evils can be corrected. It calls for a civics education that fosters reverence for these principles, beginning with an accurate and honest teaching of American history. It is not a partisan document.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and other publications have made positive note of the report. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media organizations condemned the report, almost entirely for things it does not say. On Wednesday, the 1776 Commission was abolished by one of President Biden’s first executive orders.’
Abolishing the 1776 Commission means something and that something is not good. Here’s the web site where the Report may be read and downloaded https://info.hillsdale.edu/1776-commission?utm_campaign=landofhope&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=107566815&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9WOoyLuTiQZKOSEl_9WG6t7TMRtHm5ZmRzOJxnsEg38BZ188btr8QoUIbgXA-5ZLiNYPHauQMM5jf0J-fA7pkJ_eo01Q&utm_content=107566815&utm_source=hs_email
Please share far and wide so that more people will know the truth of the real America.
‘Let us begin with this fact: The left always suppresses speech. Since Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, there has been no example of the left in control and not crushing dissent.
That is one of the important differences between liberal and left: Liberalism and liberals believe in free speech. (The present leftist threat to freedom in America, the greatest threat to freedom in American history, is made possible because liberals think they have more to fear from conservatives than from the left. Liberals don’t understand that the left regards liberals as their useful idiots.)
The left controls universities. There is little or no dissent allowed at universities.
The left controls nearly every “news” medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media—not in the “news” sections and not in the opinion sections.
The left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed in Hollywood.
That is why we have “cancel culture”—the silencing and firing of anyone who publicly dissents from the left, and even “publicly” is no longer necessary. The National Association of Realtors has just announced that if you express dissenting views (on race, especially) in private, you may be fined and lose your membership in the organization—which effectively ends your career as a realtor.
So, we return to the opening question: Why does the left need to crush all dissent? This is a question made all the more stark because there is no parallel on the right: Conservatives don’t shut down dissent or debate.
The answer, though the left will not acknowledge it, is the left fears dissent. And they do so for good reason. Leftism is essentially a giant balloon filled with nothing but hot air. Therefore, no matter how big the balloon—the Democratic Party, The New York Times, Yale University—all it takes is a mere pin to burst it.
Leftism is venerated by intellectuals. But there is little intellectual substance to leftism. It is a combination of doctrine and emotion. The proof? Those with intellectual depth don’t stifle dissent; they welcome it.
That is why universities are so opposed to conservatives coming to speak on campus. One articulate conservative can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in a one-hour talk or Q and A. I know this from personal experience on campuses. You can, too. Watch the speeches given by any conservatives allowed to speak on a campus—many of these talks are still on YouTube—and you will see large halls filled with students yearning to hear something other than left-wing pablum. Look at their faces, filled with rapt attention to ideas they never heard that are clearly having an impact. Universities are entirely right to fear our coming to speak. We come with the pin that bursts their $50,000-a-year balloon.
That is also why it is so hard to get any of them to debate any of us. In 35 years of radio, I have never mistreated or bullied a guest. I was unfailingly polite to an icon of the left, Howard Zinn, the America-hating author of the America-hating “A People’s History of the United States.” I even invited a UCLA political science professor and violinist, one of seven members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra who refused to play when I conducted the orchestra in a Joseph Haydn symphony in the Disney Concert Hall—solely because I’m a conservative. Despite his public letter, in which he accused me of holding “horribly bigoted positions” and wrote, “Please urge your friends to not attend this concert, which helps normalize bigotry in our community,” I nevertheless invited him on my national radio show. He agreed. I had him in studio for an entire hour and treated him and his wife (who accompanied him) with great respect, despite my contempt for his false accusations and his advocacy of the cancel culture. Every American should hear that hour.
Unfortunately for the emotional and intellectual health of our society, he, Zinn, and a few others were anomalies. Of the 100 or so left-wing authors, professors, and columnists invited to appear on my show, almost none has responded in the affirmative. They prefer NPR, where they are never challenged.
The opposite, however, isn’t true: Every conservative intellectual I know says yes to every one of the (very few) left-wing invitations we receive. Of course, we are almost never invited. We regularly invite leftists. Leftists almost never invite us. They claim it’s because we are not up to their intellectual level and they have no desire to waste their time. One would think that the opportunity to publicly show how vapid we conservatives really are would be too good to pass up.
Leftists don’t debate us or appear as guests on our shows and prevent us from speaking whenever possible, because they (correctly) fear conservatives. Race-baiters such as Ibram X. Kendi or Ta-Nehisi Coates or “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo would never debate Larry Elder, for example. Why won’t they? Because they would be shown to be the intellectually shallow purveyors of hate they are. Deep down, they know it. Larry Elder is one of many conservative black intellectuals who left-wing blacks (and whites) refuse to debate.
Now you know why the left suppresses free speech: because they have to. If there is free speech, there is dissent. And if there is dissent, there is no more left.’https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-the-left-has-to-suppress-free-speech_3661634.html
‘Informed people know that the far left has desires, designs, and determination to overthrown America because we have been a beacon of freedom for hundreds of years. They want that light extinguished forever. The light has grown dim in recent years and is now flickering. Traitors, dupes, and fellow travelers have been at work and the results are obvious in Washington, D.C.
What is happening in Democrat-controlled cities is not accidental. It’s called treason. The desired result is revolution.
Historian Will Durant wrote in the Age of Napoleon that the Jacobins and all Frenchmen who had rejected divine revelation and were now dependent on reason “all concurred in hoping that devotion to the young republic would become the religion of the people; that Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity would replace God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that the furtherance of the new Trinity could be made the overriding aim of social order and the final test of morality.”
But it was not to be.
Abbe Augustin Barruel was an honest, scholarly, informed apologist and defender of Christian morality and Roman Catholic Church’s rights. He was a Jesuit priest and famous writer during the French Revolution who charged that the Revolution was planned and executed by secret societies and had been planned for decades, beginning with Voltaire. Voltaire, Rousseau, and other philosophers conspired with secret societies to destroy Catholicism and France’s monarchy.
The philosophers’ writings had a significant influence on those who would lead the Revolution, and Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their followers were responsible for the training of budding revolutionaries. However, they would have been horrified had they lived to see the results of their diatribes against the church, the crown, and the cottage.
It is charged that Barruel developed the above as a conspiracy theory because of his hatred of the Illuminati. Still, even if he hated or feared the Illuminati, that does not mean his information is faulty. The Illuminati refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society founded on May 1, 1776, in Bavaria, now a part of Germany. The secret group opposed all religious influence over public life and what they considered abuses of state power. Moreover, they believed any kind of government was unnecessary because of the perfectibility of man. There was no need for the church, crown, or cottage.
Highly principled and respected leaders in Europe and England, living at the time, had high praise for Barruel’s work in exposing the conspiracy. The much-respected Englishman Edmund Burke wrote to Barruel in praise of his book, declaring, “I have known myself, personally, five of your principal conspirators; and I can undertake to say from my own certain knowledge, that as far back as the year 1773, they were busy in the plot you have so well described, and in the manner, and on the principle you have so truly represented. To this I can speak as a witness.”
A contemporary of Burke in England, the Scottish scientist John Robison, published Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. Robison reported the same as Burke as to secret societies and their involvement in the Revolution.
Winston Churchill wrote of the Illuminati in a February 8, 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald and referred to it as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization.”
This alone does not prove that the Illuminati were a significant cause of the French Revolution, but it does demonstrate the group existed at the time and exercised enormous influence. It was not a group of nutty men who had more toes than teeth, but the opposite—the Illuminati were the leaders in the universities and some European governments. The Illuminati were such a threat that various governments outlawed them.
In his Lectures on the French Revolution, Lord Acton observed, “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke, we perceive the evidence of calculating organisation. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first.”
The first two volumes by Abbe Barruel published in 1797 and the other two in 1798, following the French Revolution in 1789, took great pains to document that Jacobins, Freemasons, the Illuminati, and others carefully planned on removing from France all government authority, all churches, and the father-led family. The conspirators used the peasants’ resentment toward the special privileges of the Church and nobles and gave the people the reason for self-justification for the extremism that followed.
The philosophers, trying to change public opinion, decided to publish a multi-volume Encyclopédie consisting of general knowledge. It was co-founded and edited by Denise Diderot, who thought he was moral because he had only one mistress at a time. They began publishing in 1751 and had profound political, social, and intellectual repercussions in France just before the Revolution. Its contributors were called Encyclopédistes.
The Encyclopédie’s purpose was “to change the way people think” based upon human reason, not divine revelation. Chief Editor Diderot expressed the radical philosophy of many revolutionaries by having one of his characters in a drama say, “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” That was the tone of many of the articles that were published and prepared France for revolution.
It would have been a surprise if a revolution had not happened.
Among the skepticism and humanism in the publication, there was much useful information. Of course, a little poison can make a pot of soup deadly. The writers had a big job to corrupt the nation since the people (especially outside Paris, Versailles, and Marseilles) had marinated for centuries in family traditions, the Roman Church, and respect for the king. For decades, they and their children had been educated by the Catholic Jesuits.
Barruel defined philosophism as “the error of every man who, judging of all things by the standard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority that is not derived from the light of nature.” The political termites believed mankind must rely on reason, not revelation since the elitists thought only fools trust revelation over reason. So, religion (the Roman Catholic Church) and the monarchy based on the divine right of kings must be denigrated, denied, and destroyed.
Barruel believed the volumes of the Encyclopédie were successful in controlling the minds of intellectuals and creating public opinion against the church and crown. The various writers were men dedicated to expanding science and secular thought, laying a foundation for the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was reasonable, reforming, and eventually revolutionary.
Barruel and others declared the publication was an intellectual introduction to the French Revolution. He and others believed the volumes of the Encyclopédie were successful in controlling the minds of young intellectuals and creating public opinion against the church and crown and cottage.
The skepticism and lack of support for the Church and the Bible in the Encyclopédie brought much criticism and opposition from Church leaders from its first volume. The Catholic Jesuits especially fought the offensive publication, and the group was made illegal in France in 1764 as they were in Portugal, Hungary, Austria, and other nations.
The Encyclopédie’s publication was opposed by Church and government officials and was censored and repressed in 1752. In 1759, the government denied permission for publication. The Revolution started in earnest in 1789 and lasted until the late 1790s ending with Napoleon’s dictatorship.
The volatile, vicious, and often vile authors fed into the common people’s hatred and envy against the Church and anyone wearing silk knee-breeches, the nobility. Aldous Huxley correctly asserted, “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’— this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
The Revolution was an attack upon all authority and gave frustrated, angry, resentful, and hungry people an excuse to take their licks on those people and groups they hated.
America has been softened by pious preachers, purring politicians, pathetic professors, and a perverted press to where few people think for themselves or think critically. They long ago rejected revelation and climbed into bed with reason.
We are ripe for the Second American Revolution, and the chaos around us was planned by the radical left; and they are charging Trump and his followers of doing what the left itself has successfully accomplished. Democrats have traditionally accused Republicans of what the Democrats have been doing.
I don’t want to shout fire in a crowded theater, but folks, we are surrounded by an uncontrolled conflagration, and leftists have cut the water hose. It is time to form bucket brigades, and everyone does their part to extinguish the flames.
America is at risk.’http://donboys.cstnews.com/like-france-traitors-live-among-us-producing-revolution
whatyareckon 