Apr 01

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?


by Don Hank


In an article titled “Corey Lewandowski set up by man-hating scammer,” Kelleigh Nelson portrays Michelle Fields as a feminist scammer posing as a conservative.

I also saw reports that Fields is a serial accuser of men but did not forward them, waiting instead for confirmation. I just now found confirmation of her accusation against Allen West here. It is hard to imagine that this woman is constantly being harassed by conservative men — especially when there are plenty of Democrat satyrs like Bill Clinton out there, with whom she must have come into contact plenty of times. It doesn’t smell right.

BTW, I am surprised that almost the entire pro-life community seems to have condemned Trump for saying that if abortion is declared to be a crime, then women who attempt abortions should be punished. Pro-lifers have always said that abortion is murder. A woman who tries to have an abortion would be an attempted murderer in that case, no question. Yet, the pro-life community has done what appears to be an about-face, as if they accept at face value the hype that feminists have been peddling for years.

After all, if women are to be treated as untouchables, then what if the abortion provider is a woman? Wouldn’t she have to be let off as well?

I suspect the whole issue is centered around the fact that Cruz, who glibly condemns Trump no matter what he says or does, has used the same tactics as GW Bush, portraying himself as God’s man.

If Bush was God’s man when he invaded Iraq, why were the Assyrian Christians forced to leave the country after we “won” the war there?

If he is not God’s man, then how can Evangelicals be so sure that Cruz, whose view on war is almost identical to that of Bush, is God’s man?

Has God really chosen a man to lead us to the promised land? Or is this another delusion — like so many many before it?

The Neocons said they wanted to use Christians to do their bidding. If they succeed again in deceiving Christiasn, how are non-Christians to take our faith seriously? Should we not be looking to our Savior instead of seeking an earthly Messiah?

Here is what I wrote about Neoconservatism:


Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather” of the (Neoconservative) movement, “has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere. (using naive Christians to do their dirty work — Don)

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” [my highlighting] (any “Christian who allows himself to be led around by the nose by such ungodly people is disobeying God and committing a grievous sin!)

Jesus said be wise as serpents. That was a commandment, not a suggestion.

This commentary is not intended as an endorsement for any candidate. All of them are grievously flawed. However, there is a contrast in the area that I consider more important than all the rest, and that is, the flippant attitude of so many conservatives toward war, particularly with Russia and its allies (including China). The Neoconservatives have always shown an irrational and virtually racist hatred of Russia and many thoughtless Christians have bought into the now-debunked myth that God and Magog in Isaiah represented Russia (these place names were recently found in the Assyrian court records and were found in what is now Turkey).

Judging by the reckless statements of these people in the GOP campaign, many of them are more afraid of losing political power than they are of nuclear war. Americans have never seen war up close and personal, let alone nuclear war and are wholly unqualified to flirt with it – need I remind you, nuclear war could wipe out all of life or at least set civilization back 4000 years or so.

We ought to know that all the elements for such a war are in place and all we need is a warmongering Russian hating president to usher it in.

Cruz has said we should “push back Russia” in Syria. How can we reconcile this with the fact that the US was a co-creator of ISIS in the first place and has no political will to defeat ISIS? Or that Russian ally Assad is the only Middle Eastern leader who protects Christians? Russia is the only world power in Syria that does not have dirty hands and at the same time, is effectively combating ISIS. How can we therefore ignore our ignominious role in creating and even arming ISIS and pretend that we are morally superior to Russia? Cruz also calls Putin a dictator, hewing to the Neocon party line. Yet Putin is the duly elected president of Russia and enjoys a popularity rating that is the envy of the world.

If Christians, particularly those who are part of the pro-life movement, are seen as supporting a pro-war candidate who recklessly wants to push around another nuclear power, regardless of his pro-life statements, what does this do to their image, their credibility and their effectiveness in the pro-life movement?

I welcome comments both pro and con. This is the time for an honest objective debate on this issue.

Apr 01

ISIS always claim responsibility, except in Turkey

by Don Hank

What is Erdogan up to?

Have you noticed that after ISIS perpetrates a terror attack, it invariably claims responsibility within a day of the attack – except in a certain country.

I did some research and was able confirm this regularity of ISIS claims of responsibility in all the hits I got in a targeted search.

You can take part in this research too: In your search engine type


isis claims responsibility


and see what comes up. Here are some I found. Just a few examples. However, these came up randomly in the search, and there are none attributed to ISIS that was unclaimed. Do you see the pattern in this worldwide panorama?


The Brussels attacks on an airport and the metro were reported on March 22:


ISIS claims responsibility for Brussels airport and metro attacks of Tues 22 March on the same day as the attacks.



Deadly blast in Damascus on Jan 31, 2016. ISIS claims responsibility that same day.



Blast in Dagestan March 30, 2016 Happened Tues, ISIS claimed responsibility on Wednesday, one day later:



Convert to Christianity stabbed Mar 23 in Bangladesh; ISIS claims responsibility the next day.



Now keep something in mind: A few months ago, Turkey and Saudi Arabia started a military buildup obviously in preparation for an attack in Syria, ostensibly against ISIS, but suspected to be against the Russians and Assad. They’d need a really good excuse. The Kurdish attacks would not convince their allies since Obama and Putin had both decided to assist the Kurds in Syria, a big hurdle for Turkish president Erdogan.

Around this time, Turkey suffered some terror attacks. Some were claimed by the Kurds. The Turkish government blamed the unclaimed ones on ISIS (ever hear of a false flag?).


“Kurdish rebels, Isis and a leftist extremist group have carried out attacks in the country recently. Ankara was already on alert after 103 people were killed before the general election in October in a suicide attack on a pro-Kurdish rally, which the government blamed on Isis [my emphasis]. A suicide bombing blamed on Isis killed 11 German tourists and one Peruvian in Istanbul in January.”

For Turkey, I tried a search with these terms:

isis claims responsibility ankara german tourists attack

I got the following hit and others like it reporting the attack and the Turkish government’s accusation of ISIS I found but no reports of ISIS claiming responsibility. How odd:



I also got the following hit reporting that Turkey invaded Iraq and Syria in “retaliation” for the attack, even though ISIS never claimed responsibility.



Isn’t it interesting that when ISIS launches terror attacks anywhere in the world it claims responsibility almost immediately – except in Turkey, where only the government blames ISIS. And funny thing:
Turkey invades Syria and Iraq to avenge itself of ISIS even though ISIS did not claim responsibility for the attacks in question.

Now Turkey has smart analysts and knows that ISIS always claims responsibility for its attacks. Therefore, it had to know that ISIS was not responsible. So why would it attack ISIS in two Middle Eastern countries in retaliation for attacks it knew were not committed by ISIS?

CBS reports (along with numerous other outlets) that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are threatening to send ground troops to Syria to fight Daesh (ISIS) and states that analysts fear the fighting could get out of hand. Translation: The Saudis and Turks have been behind the fight against Assad for years and this threatened incursion into Syria could (probably would) end up being a war between Turkey and the Saudis on the one hand and Syrian government forces, Russia and Iran on the other. The Turkish attacks were almost certainly just a ruse, or a means of opening the door for further military incursions in Syria. They were most likely also a way of securing US permission to make such incursions. The US did not take the bait.

Fortunately, none of the Neocon candidates was president or WW III could be about to happen. There is only one candidate who has not threatened war but he is the one the media are targeting as a potential warmonger.

He’s right. They are liars.






Mar 31

State governor bans Christian tradition in “Land of the Free”

State governor bans Christian tradition in “Land of the Free”


by Don Hank

Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia has usurped power over his own citizens and abolished religious freedom in his state by vetoing house bill HB757, with the text:


 “A BILL to be entitled an Act to protect religious freedoms; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion;…” [my emphasis]


This veto, if translated into law, will effectively end the rights of all traditional Christians in Georgia to hold to their faith and to the Bible. Contrast this with the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Now you will admit that whatever guarantees of human rights apply legally to the national legislature would have to apply to the state legislatures. Otherwise, the states could blithely render federal laws null and void and step on human rights within their states.

As you can see from the above quote, HB 757 did not discriminate against anyone. It simply guaranteed that religious officials could remain within the confines of their faith by refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Any same-sex couple who wished to be “married” under these conditions could apply to a state official or to a religious official who recognized same sex marriage as a “right.”

By vetoing HB757, Governor Deal effectively abolished the rights of church officials to remain within the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As a sidebar, note that adherence to this traditional definition is not only a religious or even a Christian tradition. It is a human tradition that has stood since prehistoric times. As a linguist, I am particularly aware of the features of foreign languages, including ancient ones. I can therefore state with certainty that, of the over 600 existing world languages, there is none in which the equivalent of the word “marriage” in English has traditionally applied to anything but a union between a man and a woman. I have discussed this in greater detail here and I urge you to read this commentary because it explores the linguistic aspect, which is almost invariably ignored).

I am not disputing that in some cultures, polygamous marriage was recognized. For example, a man was sometimes allowed to marry more than one woman. However, none of these marriages were performed for the purpose of enabling sexual relationships to occur within the same sex. Therefore, in vetoing HB 757, Governor Deal upset not only the 2000 year Christian traditional definition, the 4000 year Hebrew traditional definition but in fact, a universal, religious and non-religious traditional definition that was never seriously challenged until a few decades ago. The issue that no one talks about is language, and yet language is really central to everything (In the beginning was the word… John 1:1). There is a human right that few laws have protected and few authorities have discussed, simply because this right has rarely – until recently – been challenged, and that is the right to one’s own traditions and culture. In a previous commentary (see the heading “Culture” therein), I have shown that the global elites, including the US government, are hostile to tradition and culture. By definition that makes them hostile to common sense, the mental faculty that defends all of human society from total chaos and ultimate destruction. Intuitively, we know that common sense is synonymous with survival. Incredibly, we are actually not supposed to survive as a species.

Folks, I have a dream of some day performing an experiment, which I will explain below.

You know how the msm and the Western political establishment keep telling us, or at least suggesting, that Russia is the biggest threat to freedom and that we must beef up NATO so that we can eventually defeat them? (See my commentaries on NATO, for example, here, here, here and you may also do a site search at laiglesforum.com to find more on NATO).

Now – aside from the fact that a confrontation with Russia would almost certainly lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia and China et al., which would almost certainly end all life on earth if it happened – the main issue in this anti-Russian campaign is the following question:

Is Russia really a threat to freedom?

Now reason tells us that a US party can reasonably claim that Russia is a threat to freedom only if the US can be shown to afford its citizens more freedom than Russia affords its citizens. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical for Americans to accuse Russia of denying freedom, or Putin (a duly, democratically, elected president) of being a “dictator.”

The official and media opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy is clear cut evidence that our country has very limited political freedom, ie, the freedom to choose our own leaders. The same can be said of Europe, where the EU attempts to dictate to member states to open their borders to oft times unvetted “refugees” that demonstrably pose a major risk to citizens’ lives and safety as well as to their cultures.

So the purpose of the experiment I have in mind would be to determine if the US has more freedom than Russia or the other way around.

My experimental method would be to carry a sign first in a busy street in a major US city bearing the text:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Then I would translate this into Russian and carry the sign down a busy street in a major Russian city, securing first the permissions to do so in each of the respective cities, of course.

I would record the responses of passersby in each city on video and draw my conclusions from the responses.

What do you suppose the responses would be in the US? In Russia?

Let me know, preferably by posting your best guess in the forum below. (Unless you register first, your post will not appear until I have gone in and approved it, so keep an eye on this site).

Thank you!




Mar 29

Film on Saudi brutality corroborates my warnings

The new video Saudi Arabia Uncovered is an expose of the brutal torture and murders occurring almost daily in the Saudi kingdom and the Western acceptance of this evil.

I have said before that the US government has shaped its foreign policy around Saudi interests — in order to keep the Saudis happy enough to keep propping up the US dollar by charging only USD for their oil. As a result, the Pentagon has reduced our brave young men to mercenaries for the Saudis and the State Department has adopted stealthy policies (eg, the refusal of the Pentagon to target ISIS in Syria in a serious and purposeful way) that make the US a virtual missionary for the cruel, intolerant religion of Wahhabism, which fuels all major anti-Christian terror groups, including Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra (supported as “rebels” in Syria thru US arms and money, thanks in large part to the treachery of John McCain) and ISIS.

In March of 2015, I wrote here about the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement, a taboo topic, and have shown in a translation and associated commentary here how the West is still very actively supporting Saudi-propagated terror.  Very little is written about the Kissinger-Faisal petrodollar agreement mentioned in my article of March 2015. Thus, I tried a search with the terms “text of petrodollar agreement us saudi” and found no text (Note: I am not referring to an economic agreement signed with the Saudis around the same time, which is published but does not mention US military obligations to the Saudis). This is not surprising. The Saudis are very secretive about virtually everything they do, especially about their agreements with the West. Perhaps we can look forward to the disclosure of such a text by Wikeleaks or the like. The reason given by the Saudis for this secrecy is that they do not want Arabs to learn that they are cooperating with the West. However, a more likely reason is that the US government does not dare let its people find out the dirty and immoral dealings it has with the Saudis (including clandestine arms shipments to Wahhabi terror groups) just to preserve the dollar – dealings that threaten not only Middle Eastern and European stability but civilization itself.
After all, readers might infer – rightfully – that the US is in fact a puppet of the Saudi royals and is behind all the terror organizations that it pretends to oppose. As Pogo famously said, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

The West uses a vague reference to “shared intelligence” as an excuse for their support of the Saudis. Western leaders, mostly British, are quoted in the film repeating the mantra that they receive “valuable intelligence” from the Saudi government, as if this vague assistance could justify aiding and abetting the Saudis in their support of terror groups and the spread of the terrorist ideology of Wahhabism.

The film does, however, suggest that the West’s war in Kosovo (the subject of my recent article here) was apparently waged in order to help the Saudis spread terror and Wahhabism (a Sunni sect) in Europe. It had nothing to do with humanitarian motives. Thus all the brutality depicted in the film is in fact reflected in US foreign and military policy.

I had discussed here how NATO had in fact acted as a Saudi agent in the Kosovo war, and I had shown that candidates like Cruz who support NATO were in fact supporting not American security as they insist but in fact Saudi interests.

A quick analysis of all US-waged wars outside the Americas for the last roughly 45 years since the signing of the petrodollar agreement between Kissinger and King Faisal (no one seems to know the exact date but we know the time frame) reveals that none of these wars benefited the US in any tangible direct way, but that all of them benefited the Saudis by helping them spread terror and Wahhabism. Despite the obviousness of this observation (for example the fact that the Assyrian Christians started leaving Iraq in droves shortly after we “won” the war in Iraq), very little has been written by anyone besides myself regarding the link between the petrodollar and terror.

The only article I could find on the internet that arrives at a conclusion similar to mine is this one.

US politicians and the msm have been sliming Iran, Syria and the Shiites, and in so doing have given the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia a pass. This film helps set the record straight.

I think it is inevitable that, thanks in part to this film, the sordid Saudi influence on Western foreign policy will now come out bit by bit and serve as a catalyst for a much-needed change in Western foreign and military policy — preferably a 180 degree shift..

Mar 26

Why we can’t see reality

Why we can’t see reality


by Don Hank


In response to my commentary intended to show that the Western elites actually often make mistakes by blindly shaping and implementing policy based solely on ideology and not on reality, a reader, who either missed my point or disagreed with it, averred that the European Union would collapse “by design.” Yet it is clear that the EU bosses are doing everything in their power to prevent the union from breaking apart.

They are working overtime to prevent a Brexit in the UK, just as they worked to manipulate the UK into ratifying the Lisbon Treaty that roped so many countries into the mess that is the EU today.

This column shows how the EU bosses and their toadies in the national governments defrauded Europeans into accepting a union that has led to the bankrupting of Greece, the destabilization of Ukraine (by false promises of that country’s becoming a member), the usurpation of European power by Germany, the strong-arming of EU member states to accept thousands of unwanted immigrants who typically do not assimilate and who absorb the lion’s share of social services (welfare, etc), and that cost the UK its sovereignty and millions of pounds in payments of membership frees every year.

Meanwhile, all the dissident political groups and leaders threatening to lead their countries out of the EU, such as

Nigel Farage and his party UKIP in the UK

Viktor Orban in Hungary

Marine LePen and her party Front National in France

Geert wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid (Freedom Party) in Holland

the party AdF(Alernative for Germany) and the anti-immigration Pegida group in Germany

and a few lesser leaders in smaller countries

have faced enormous pressure from the EU and have all been branded “fascists” or “racists” in the national and Europe-wide media. Most of the above-named leaders have faced fines and even jail terms for their bold opposition to the Establishment.

Further, if you think that the US wants the EU to collapse, then tell me why Obama urged the UK to stay in the union, as reported here?

This notion that the elites always succeed in controlling us is part of the myth that I tried to explode here.

I showed in the above-linked article that far from being in control of everything, the elites ultimately control nothing because — like their models the Soviets — they act solely on ideology, which is so far from reality that it couldn’t possibly succeed.

There is a large segment of the conservative movement that steadfastly believes that everything – even what a keen observer would easily identify as mistakes, pure and simple – is orchestrated by the Western elites. Some extraordinarily myopic and ideology-bound activists are running around trying to prove that the Western elites are in cahoots with the Russians.

I have done my best to blow up this myth, writing, for example, at the following URLs:





Thus, while much of what happens in our world is indeed a result of elitist propaganda and government machinations, a very large percentage is in fact due to errors committed by these same elites. And, as I pointed out before, these errors on the part of the elites are opportunities for us to shuck of our chains. But only if we are observant and wise enough to recognize them for errors and not deliberate missteps targeting chaos or instability.

If we fail to grasp this, we will never fight our way out of the bondage we are in because we will be fighting chimeras of our imagination. Basing our strategies on myths is like using an outdated road map to reach a destination.

The main reason people cling to these myths is because so many others are spreading these rumors. But no one has made a case based on thorough research or at least on reasonable conclusions from such research. Thus much of the Neocon propaganda that we read as “news” or as “thoughtful commentary” in the media and even in the alternative media presents conclusions that do no match even the “supporting” facts presented in the commentaries themselves.

So why do people cling to myths so tenaciously, even though there is ample clear-cut evidence that they are wrong?

Well, one reason for this false conclusion is that much of what the elites do is said to be mistakes, even by the perpetrators. For example, the Iraq War was based in large part on the postulate that there were weapons of mass destruction. Many experts have now concluded (rightly or wrongly—whether or not there were WMD’s is beyond the scope of this commentary) that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Even Tony Blair, a staunch supporter of the war at the time, now says he was mistaken about that. It is correct to doubt the elites who claim the war was a mistake when there is abundant evidence that there were ulterior motives for waging the war. The fact that we had a petrodollar agreement with the Saudis makes it plausible that we waged the war to please the Saudis, who, being intolerant religious fanatics, hated Saddam because he was a secularist and did not rule Iraq based on Shariah law. If you analyze each US-led war outside the Americans since the 60s, it is easy to see that the US in no way benefited but that the Saudis and their Wahhabism made great strides every time we “won” – even in Kosovo, where a Muslim statelet was carved out of a Christian country, Serbia.

Thus, it seems appropriate to conclude that the Iraq war was waged on purpose but that the authors of the war are pretending it was based on a mistake.

This and countless other examples could lead careless observers to conclude, falsely, that everything that appears to be a mistake is actually the result of conscious action on the part of the elites.

But, as I demonstrated here, there is ample evidence that the elites actually do make mistakes, primarily because they shape and implement policies based solely on ideology instead of reality.

It is hard to believe, but people are astoundingly refractory to truth and to the recognition of reality. In fact, many essentially never learn. Back in the 13th Century, Roger Bacon, a remarkable philosopher made a remarkable discovery that had the potential to change the world but somehow didn’t. Writing in a series of books with Latin titles, he stated his discovery that there were 4 main obstacles to learning the truth, to whit:

submission to unworthy authority, the influence of custom, popular prejudice, and concealment of one’s ignorance with a technical show of wisdom. (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Today, about 800 years later, all of these obstacles are still blocking our ability to learn. It is hard to believe that Bacon wrote this potentially earth-shattering discovery all for naught.  The myth that the elites are controlling everything and that when they make mistakes, it is always on purpose, is supported not by facts but by unworthy authority, by popular prejudice, and by people who conceal their ignorance by a display of false wisdom — the same obstacles to truth as Bacon discovered in his day.  Totally incompetent observers tell us this and because we respect these people for whatever reason, we swallow the myth without thinking.

Mar 25

Elitists shocked: Same identical experiment fails again

Global elites shocked: Same identical experiment fails again


by Don Hank

I am hearing from a number of people who say that the elites are allowing terror acts in order to have an excuse to declare martial law. In other words, the elitists are omnipotent and all-wise and everything that happens these days is a result of elitist machinations. While it is true that Belgium was in lockdown for a few days after the Paris attacks and transport was shut down for a short time after the recent Brussels attacks, these were necessary measures and not necessarily a sign that the elites wanted martial law.

The real truth of the matter is that the global elites do not believe in controlling their subjects by physical force. Like the early communist theorists, they believe that once the people are conditioned properly under the tutelage of superior beings like themselves, the state will melt away and the populace will not longer require external control. But now these elites are being blindsided thanks to their naïve belief in an unworkable ideology, which includes the notion that a non-Muslim or Christian country can accommodate unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants, and all of them will learn to get along fine as long as certain elitist principles are followed — ie,  once their superior education system and media have completely eliminated any undesirable thoughts from among the populace and successfully implanted correct thoughts in their charges, thoughts that will reproduce themselves from here to eternity in the Utopia of their creation. Here is a typical example reflecting this notion:

QUOTE from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-24/jihad-brussels

“Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The terminally naive Angela Merkel had said almost the exact same words: Islam belongs in Germany – before, that is, scores of German women were assaulted sexually in Cologne last New Year’s eve by the beneficiaries of Merkel’s invitation to the tired and poor of the Muslim world. Merkel’s subsequent attitude and statements were classic deer in the headlights reactions. She could not think of anything coherent enough to say to stave off a catastrophic loss by her party in the regional elections. Things had clearly spun out of her control, at variance with the popular narrative that the elites control everything. In fact, the consequences of their actions are more often unintended and that is just the opposite of control.

It is clear that these people naively believed that if they applied “European principles” and stuck to their “European values” (including a Pollyanna view that everyone, even devout Muslims, would automatically accept the Western concept of “democracy” and “freedom” (two words that globalist GW Bush used ad nauseam referring to the Iraq fiasco), once they had seen these superior concepts in action in real life.

The reaction of these Western “leaders” to the hard fact that Muslims will never accept “Western values” – with many preferring instead to massacre their naïve liberal hosts – shows that these elitists were not just pretending in order to usher in martial law. They actually believed in their hearts that their “values” (which, as I pointed out here, are not values at all) would be universally accepted, even by Muslims, once they were displayed vividly enough for all to see in action. But in every venue in which this experiment has been tried, “Western values” (called “European values” in Europe) have in fact failed to attract the general public. This is because of something called culture, whose existence the global elites refuse to acknowledge (because they despise the very concept, as I showed here), let alone accommodate it in their public policies. A fatal flaw for them and an opportunity for We the People.

Following the Brussels attacks, the same Mogherini mentioned above broke into tears and could not give a scheduled news conference, as shown in this video. What does this prove? It proves that the naïve Italian girl who had swallowed the elitist notion that everyone would assimilate in Europe and accept European values once exposed to them, was not only wrong, but she was in fact stunned by the failure of her ideology. She was totally unprepared for reality because, like all elitists, she did not believe even in the existence of culture as a political force and could not believe that the Muslim culture would make Muslims behave differently from Europeans once they had been exposed to the far superior European culture (did you catch the racism?).

A similar phenomenon was observed when the US elitists were unable to throw enough money and propaganda at the Jeb Bush campaign to sweep their pathetically incompetent candidate into the presidency.

This refusal to accept reality does not give the elitists power, as many of you believe. It robs them of their power by setting them up for a string of unpleasant surprise upsets, which include the rise to power of anti-Establishment politicians throughout the West:

Donald Trump in the US

Nigel Farage in the UK

Marine LePen in France

Geert Wilders in Holland

Viktor Orban in Hungary

and a host of lesser but rising political figures throughout Europe.

The Islamic jihadists are the catalyst in a rapidly evolving unstoppable but unintended vicious cycle:

The more naively and blindly the elitists behave, for example, by inviting hordes of “refugees” into Western countries, the more terror occurs throughout the West. The more terror occurs, the more powerful the anti-Establishment movement becomes.

If the terror seems unstoppable, the growth of opposition to the elites is also becoming unstoppable at the same time, creating the conditions for a perfect storm of civil unrest and perhaps war.

The reactions of the elitists, as described above, clearly show that things are not going according to plan for them.

The fact of the matter is that WE are in control if we can acquire the essential ingredients for freeing ourselves of slavery, namely, wisdom and knowledge.

To acquire these, we all need to study harder to learn the skills of proper personal and individual analysis, and to rely less on the herd instinct that betrays us in our quest for freedom.

Mar 24

Horrible news! Russia and Assad rout ISIS

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!

I was just listening to Fox News (“know the enemy”) and heard the news that Assad’s troops, aided by Russian air strikes, had just routed ISIS from Palmyra in Syria, the city whose priceless ancient ruins were blown to bits under the watchless gaze of NATO and the US.

The Fox news anchor dutifully repeated the concern that the city was liberated by that nasty old Russia and its henchman Bashar Al-Assad and NOT by the exceptional US government and the infallible and ever-righteous NATO. They forgot to mention that the US and NATO had never expressed any desire to actually DEFEAT ISIS — choosing instead to pretend, sending planes on missions to fly over ISIS strongholds and not drop their bombs.

It’s a little like 2 friends, one of whom has invested in a stock that rose astronomically in value and the other who kept his money under a mattress. The friend who struck it rich had urged the other to buy this stock, showing that it had a good P/E ratio and that it was growing by leaps and bounds. Yet, the friend who hoarded his money and ignored the other friend’s advice bitterly condemns the other for investing in stock that he himself could have invested in but didn’t.

But that is not the end of the hypocrisy.

You will recall that back in September and October, the Neocon media were shrieking that the Russians and Assad had no interest in fighting ISIS. Some of the more shameless ones actually insisted that Russia was working hand in hand with ISIS. Then a few reports trickled in that the Russia-Syria coalition was in fact killing ISIS fighters. Oh dear. Now what? What’s a war propagandist to do?

But now that it is clear that this original narrative was a lie, the media and politicians are shrieking again — this time because the Russians and Syrians ARE demonstrably defeating ISIS. Have they forgotten what they had lamented before?

Perhaps we should all be grateful to God that the Western meddling in Syria was minimal.

If they had had their way, Assad would have met the same fate as Ghadaffi and his demise would have inevitably led to a power vacuum filled by ISIS, just as had happened in Libya — Western “victory” has come to be synonymous with death of Christians and civilization. If, God forbid, the Western Neocon elite were to have its way in Syria, the Christian, Yazidi and other minority population of Syria would meet with the same fate as the Assyrian Christians met in Iraq after the US “won” the war there.

If the West really wants to control ISIS and prevent terror attacks of the Paris, San Bernardino and Maelbeek type, the only sensible thing to do is to join forces with Russia and Assad and drive ISIS out of every stronghold held by that Satanic group.

After all, let’s be honest: The real reason Russia and Assad are hated is that one IS Christian and the other protects its Christian population. The Neocons hate Christianity. That is clear by now to anyone with a smidgen of analytical ability.

But no one is accusing the West of doing sensible things.

Mar 23

The only way Europe can be saved

Fox News recently reported that there are some 400 ISIS fighters poised to unleash hell against the foolish Europeans who insist on importing them to their shores in the vain hope that they will somehow assimilate and learn “European values.”

So why this is happening in Europe and not the US?

This is happening there primarily because the European governments and in particular the EU have invited people from Muslim terror-exporting countries into European countries, where Muslims who are hostile to Westerners and their “values” have been able to settle in enclaves and no-go zones and live without integrating, while receiving welfare and social services from their beneficent hosts.


1—Their children never learn European values

2—European values do not include any religion but only disdain for religion. Ultimately, they are not values at all but rather anti-values. If you ask a typical European about his religious views he will be quick to offer a litany of things that he does not believe but almost nothing that he holds dear and reveres let alone worships. Muslims cannot be expected to accept this blasphemous and disrespectful view as a viable alternative to their strong faith.

You cannot fight Islamic terrorism from an atheistic standpoint because atheism is not a standpoint. It offers people nowhere to stand, just a floating platform where no one feels secure. Thus by shunning religion Europeans offend them deeply.

If Europe were a bastion for a masculine, vibrant and and strong brand of Christianity, this obstinate rejection of Europe would not be happening, for at least 3 reasons:

1—Christians would understand that Islam is incompatible with Christianity and Christian Europeans would not invite them into their midst as readily as do atheistic Europeans, whose “leaders” entertain an unrealistic hope that Muslims can be turned into cookie-cutter images of themselves. And believe me, Muslims know, and resent, that this is the ultimate aim and are not about to give up their faith in God for anything. I have spoken with serious minded young Muslims who immediately warmed up to me and respected me when I told them of my belief in Christ. It was as if I was precisely the kind of Westerner they were looking to befriend. A common complaint among them was Western atheism. One of them told me he had lived and studied in France for 11 years and had never met anyone who believed in God.

2—Strong Christians would not hesitate to witness to Muslims for Christ, and Muslims, for their part, would instinctively understand that Christians revere and honor their Christ and their God in the same way as Muslims honor Allah and Mohammed. Contrary to the squishy European view, this would not necessarily be offensive to Muslims because they would see strong witnesses for Christ who held firmly to traditional Christianity with its rejection of immoral sexual lifestyles.

3—Whereas many Europeans, particularly on the right, show hatred toward Muslim immigrants, these immigrants would sense that Christians do not hate them and in fact love them and want to see them leave their violent religion and come to Christ.

Unfortunately, the only Christians they meet in Europe are the squishy ones who are afraid to witness for Christ to a Muslim. Some even see Islam and Christianity as branches of the same tree of faith when in fact, Koranic Islam is a neurotic construct that has adopted a few features of Christianity while rejecting the core of it and, out of the other side of its mouth, mocking and despising the People of the Book. (I explain this here in detail).

Whereas atheism offers them nothing attractive, solid and viable, a masculine and firm but loving Christian faith offers them a viable alternative to the belief in a violent and intolerant god who demands from his faithful a constant fountain of blood from the veins of unbelievers.

If Europe ever rediscovers the redeeming faith in Jesus Christ and returns to its roots the way the Russians have done after years of religious repression, they will automatically find the solution to the Islamic terror that has it in its grip.

If you want a glimpse of what a strong, masculine redeemed European might look like, I would urge you to read this report on the Russian Christian activist group known as the Night Riders.


Mar 22

So you’re fond of NATO, eh, Mr. Cruz? Check out these videos of NATO in Kosovo

If you liked GW Bush and his wars, you will LOVE Ted Cruz, guaranteed. He will enable all of you folks nostalgic for the Bush years to relive all the exciting action and more. And Fox will make it even more enjoyable for you with their glowing reports of all the glorious US-led wars and attacks on everyone except the enemy.

In the wake of the Belgian terror attacks on an airport and a metro stop, Fox News is focusing heavily on Neocons in the discussion today.

Fox interviewed a host of Bush-era Neocons including John Bolton and John McCain, and showed Cruz criticizing Trump for wanting to withdraw from NATO. Cruz insists that NATO, the group that contributed mightily to the migrant wave in Europe, which brought terrorists along with it, must be strengthened.

Now let’s put this in perspective: the main reason we have waves of Muslim “refugees” invading Europe goes by the name of NATO, which has taken out Middle Eastern leaders who were the only stabilizing force in their countries, leaving vacuums that were predictably filled with ISIS.

Ghadaffi is the poster boy for this misguided policy. He administered one of the most prosperous and stable countries in the Middle East where Christians and minorities were relatively safe.

Then, without bothering to explain why, NATO took out Ghadaffi and within a year of that heinous and irrational murder (which made Hillary cackle), a group of about 20 Egyptian Christian guest workers were massacred in Libya by ISIS, which predictably rushed in to fill the vacuum, as seen on a viral video. The murder that led to all of this terror was an indirect result of NATO’s misguided policy toward Ghadaffi, which they have never adequately explained.

The US (which controls NATO) was also heavily involved in the Arab Spring in Syria and egged on the armed Islamist rebels, then supplying them with arms and training. Many of them later joined ISIS.

Now that the US has abjectly and deliberately failed to defeat ISIS in Syria and Russia has stepped into the gap and routed these terrorists in key areas, NATO is hypocritically wringing its hand over Russia, the nation that saved Syria’s Christians from almost certain death, and has added 40,000 troops to show the Russians who is “boss.”


NATO laments  in the above-linked article that Russia was attacking “rebels” at Jub al Ahmar near the Russian Latakia air base. That is nonsense. A report on the Russian attacks on this area shows a photo of a Russian strike on an ISIS stronghold there.

Further, the “rebel” groups there include Al-Nusra, which is a splinter group of Al-Qaeda (which took credit for the 911 attacks. NATO and Washington like them).



On the other side, the rebel effort has received assistance from both the United States and the Nusra Front, an insurgent group linked to Al Qaeda. The United States and Russia consider the Nusra Front to be a terrorist group.


So let’s analyze what the NATO miscreants are actually saying:

NATO needs to strengthen its forces to oppose Russia in Syria because Russia is fighting rebel groups which include as their main component a group that is essentially Al-Qaeda, the group that took down the Twin Towers and declared war on the US.

In other words, NATO is alarmed because Russia opposes one of the US’s — and western civilization’s — most formidable enemies. Therefore, in order to keep Russia from attacking our enemy, NATO proposes to add extra forces to oppose Russia. Huh?

If you need to, reread the above paragraph a few times until it sinks in. You can’t make this stuff up.

Then consider this: Ted Cruz wants to strengthen NATO so they can oppose the only country that has effectively fought Al-Qaeda and ISIS — you know, the group that takes credit for all the recent terror attacks in Paris, Belgium, San Bernardino, etc, and has declared war on Western civilization.

So my question is: why does Ted Cruz like terrorists so much?


But the Middle East is not the only region that NATO (the misfits that Cruz wants to strengthen) has ruined and destabilized.

Here are some examples of major human rights violations by NATO, the runaway military organization that Cruz and all Neocons defend so fervently:

First let’s take a look at what NATO did to the civilian population in Kosovo:

Linked below is one titled “US army killing civilians and children.” This one contains poignant remarks by Michael Savage condemning Fox News for not reporting these horrors:


Here’s a video of a refugee convoy hit by NATO (remember that these are mostly going to be Serbs, a Christian group):


An article summing up civilian casualties (these would be mostly Serbs):


Here’s one titled “NATO kills more civilians”:


Here’s a short video of a NATO airstrike on a civilian train. You can see that the NATO pilot waited for the train to reach the bridge before bombing it:


But you can find many many more of these NATO strikes on civilians in a Google search.

So what kind of monster deliberately targets civilians? Answer: NATO.

And what kind of monster defends this murderous organization?

Answer: Ted Cruz, the man who wants to be your next president.

And what kind of monster supports this monster with free air time?

Answer: Fox News.

Mar 21

Open letter to Stratfor publisher George Friedman

Open letter to Stratfor editor George Friedman

by Don Hank

Your latest analysis titled “Even as the Russians withdraw, their legacy in Syria remains,” reveals the estimated numbers and positions of Russian armaments left after the partial drawdown of forces in Syria. Your point seems to be that, while Russia promised a withdrawal of its military forces, it is in fact holding on to quite a bit of hardware and is in fact expanding its bases.  It is a military analysis of the type that intel agencies everywhere share with their commanders to help them fight an enemy. This analysis can only be interpreted as an aid in combating Russia.

However, the prime enemy of civilization in the world today is not Russia, but rather  ISIS and other Islamic forces focused  on spreading the creed of Wahhabism, the most violent, barbaric and intolerant religion in the world that has openly proclaimed that it will convert the entire world to Wahhabism by force and kill those who oppose it. The groups we call “rebels” are also Islamists and typically go over to ISIS or share US-gifted hardware with ISIS when they deem that such is expedient.

Say what you will, but the fact is that if Russia took over the US and Europe at some point, civilization would continue and would thrive. But if their enemy ISIS and the “rebels” took us over, civilization would die. Our women would become their sex slaves, among other things. There is no comparing the two scenarios.And more importantly, unlike the US government, the Russians have never said they were “exceptional” or in any way expressed that they wanted to impose their ideology or way of life on anyone or be the world’s policeman. So that scenario is not going to happen.

Since Russia is the only world power that is, together with its ally Bashar Al-Assad, effectively fighting ISIS, having pushed the group out of important strongholds, then your publication of this military analysis disclosing information on important Russian positions is analogous to an American news agency in the 40s publishing key positions and numbers of deployed Russian troops and armaments in the WW II theater. This would have been considered treachery by most American readers, who would have realized that this information would have been used by the fascists to their advantage and would have put all of the allies at risk.

Further, since Russia is part of a coalition organized by the US government, it is in fact our ally. Yet you treat it is though it were an enemy.

Why not publish such information about our enemies, ISIS and the rebel groups, and about their supporters, Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

At this very moment, Turkey, which has already shot down one Russian plane — a war crime considering that Turkey was part of a coalition that included Russia and was supposedly helping to fight ISIS — is allowing Saudi Arabia to amass fighter planes at the Incirlik air base for the purpose of invading Syria and, obviously, fighting against the legitimate, duly elected Syrian government and Russia.

Although the US government and media outlets, including those dedicated to strategic analysis, have made a supreme effort to portray Russia as an enemy and the Saudis and Turks as friends, the American people know when they are being deceived. They know that Russia is a friend of the Western people and do not trust the Saudi and Turkish governments.

Therefore, my question to you is: Particularly in view of your plummeting readership, why do you treat a friend as though it were an enemy and treat your readers as though they were incapable of doing even the most elementary analyses of their own?

Older posts «

» Newer posts