Churchill, FDR & Plans for the New World Order

“I beg of you not to keep aloof from the European situation once this war is over or in arranging a final settlement of the war. . . There will have to be a Council of Europe, a Council of Asia and a Council of the Americas. Over all will be a world council in which there will be a final appeal.’ Roosevelt should have a seat on all three councils, as should Britain, though Churchill would not be averse to Canada representing him on the council of the Americas.

Roosevelt was not keen on America being on the European council. Churchill reminded him: ‘We have had two wars into which you have been drawn, and which are costing America a lot. . . They will arise again unless some of these countries can be kept in proper control by the rest of the world.’

What they were looking for, said Churchill, was some kind of ‘world
dictator’; or, interposed Roosevelt, a ‘sort of Moderator,’ as in the old Presbyterian assembly…”

David Irving
Churchill’s War, Vol. II / pg, 773

McAtee Takes On The Editor of the Babylon Bee

“Unpopular take: mass immigration could save this country. They are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in. The Democrats want to immediately hook them on welfare and turn them into a permanent underclass voting bloc. We could prevent that by assimilating them.

It’s a fact that first-generation Americans are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families. The democrats want to bring these people in, keep them poor, and destroy their culture, just like they did to black Americans.

They’re doing that anyway right now. Maybe it’s time for Conservatives to start thinking about a realistic plan for amnesty, assimilation, and welcoming these folks as American citizens before the Democrats can destroy these people.

These people coming in are culturally conservative. Who knows–they just might save our culture.”

Joel Berry
The Babylon Bee — Managing editor

Now, before we dissect this we have to keep in mind that “The Babylon Bee” is a publication dedicated to satire. As such it may be that Joel was being satirical here on his twitter account. If he was he outdid himself in terms of the use of sarcasm’s caustic wit in the service of attacking and exposing human foolishness. The fact that anybody could seriously believe the above quote might be the epitome of human foolishness.

However, we are going to treat this vapid and jejune quote as Joel being serious. In doing so, we would say that the first thing this torpid sentiment establishes is that conservatism is dead. Berry and the Babylon Bee sells itself as a conservative publication but this tidbit of wisdom (that’s satire) proves that conservatives means only slightly less liberal and even sometimes slightly more liberal. When someone tells me “I am conservative” my response any more is, “I am sorry to hear that. There are remedies for that you know.” We are far from the conservatism of Burke or de Maistre or even the later conservatism of Hamilton Fish III, John T. Flynn, or Lindbergh. Indeed being genuinely conservative today is like being a genuine unicorn. So, again, I would say Berry’s quote is one more piece of evidence that claiming to be conservative today means only that if Walter Mondale were running for President today the modern conservative would vote for him. Berry is conservative the way that Stalin was a moderate.

In terms of the text itself, first, Berry offers that he is going to give a “unpopular take.” Unpopular take? Is that why we are gathering record numbers of “undocumented workers” at the border? Is it because immigrants are unpopular that some put the number of illegals here at 30 million? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the disappearance of any notion of border? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the constant idiot cant coming from pulpits across America on the virtues of untrammeled immigration? Saying that his view is unpopular is like a teenager saying that the Homecoming Queen is hated by everybody.

Next Berry offers that “mass immigration could save this country.” I can only offer that if mass immigration saves this country then the country that is saved is not the one that needed saving before the mass immigration began. Is Berry thinking that the third world immigration is going to save us the same way the immigration of the Goths, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths saved Rome? This is just ignorance on stilts. If the immigrants had the capacity to save this country would they not have been the grist by which the countries they are fleeing from would have been saved? Their home countries they could not save but America the can save?

Next the genius from the “Bee” writes of this immigrant horde descending upon us that, “they are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in.” I would encourage Mr. Berry to read Ann Coulter’s “Adios America” for another opinion on this matter. Secondly, how can Mr. Berry possibly know this? Do he take a poll of the people coming in? Did he talk to the MS-13 gang members slipping in? Thirdly, since when did Protestants (Mr. Berry is Baptist) equate Roman Catholic with being Christian?  Fourthly, I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Berry has even examined Central American Christianity/Catholicism, mixed as it typically is with syncretism and expressive more often than not of some form of Liberation Theology? Now, this might not be a problem since America is no longer a Christian nation in any significant sense. I would go so far as to say that if these immigrants were indeed Christian or even faithful Catholics that there is no way in Hades that our elite would be allowing them to pour in like water through ever possible crevice. Mr. Berry perhaps reaches the very apex of his ignorance with this sentiment.

Berry actually gets it right with his next pearl of wisdom. The Democrats do want the immigrants in, in order to hook them on welfare so as to be a permanent underclass. However, Berry (who I would guess is Republican) fails to tell us is that Republicans also desire the immigrants to pour in, so that there is a ready pool of cheap labor to work in Mega-Corporate organizations. Also, were these people as hard-working as Mr. Berry asserted would not these hard-working people eschew welfare? Secondly, on this score, does Mr. Berry recognize that all these immigrants he wants to allow in are already ripping asunder the welfare safety net? There will be no welfare to get hooked on should the immigrants keep coming. Actually, that might be good news because once the hammock is torn asunder the immigration will cease.

The last phrase of Berry’s first paragraph above is perhaps the grandest knee-slapper of them all. Berry proposes assimilating these foreigners, strangers, and aliens. Has Berry never heard of Putnam’s “Bowling Alone?” Putnam decidedly demonstrates that foreigners don’t assimilate but instead when people of different ethnicities are thrown, cheek by jowl, next to each other the result is balkanization and a refusal to interact. There will be very little assimilating and what assimilation that happens will result in heartache for both cultures/ethnicities that end up assimilating.

Under the banner of conservatism, Berry has proposed every New World Order aficionado’s  wet dream. Keep in mind that the cry of “assimilation” is merely the cry for the white man being replaced. Berry’s conservatism is in support of the replacement theory which intends to breed the white man into numerical diminution.

In the second paragraph of the quote above, Berry presses on to reveal his abject stupidity. Berry talks about “it’s a fact.” How does Berry know this? Has Berry investigated the track record of the “South of the Border” influx to determine that immigrants “are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families.” That might have been true once upon a time with earlier European immigrations, but so far as I know there are no statistical analysis of the first generation third worlders that have come since Ronald Reagan’s first amnesty program. Having said this, I quite agree that Americans, generally speaking, do not know what it means to work hard, are not appreciative of America’s blessings, and no longer have traditional families. Indeed, I would even contend that Mr. Berry is an example of that. If the man was more appreciative of America’s blessings he would not be advocating third-worldizing America by means of bringing in the third world to populate America.

Now we turn briefly to Berry’s third paragraph above. Maybe it is time for Mr. Berry to realize that these people have already been destroyed as seen by the countries they are coming from and that the only end for amnesty and assimilation is the destruction of what little is left of traditional America. Now, just to cover myself, I have no doubt that there are third-worlders who could be fine upstanding Americans. However, generally speaking I agree with former President Trump who wondered  why America would want immigrants from “all these shithole countries” and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway.

Mark my word, the immigrants will eventually be given amnesty — either in a dejure or the current defacto sense and the result will be the morphing of this country into a “shithole country.” We are already seeing this transformation in our major cities in America. The damage has already set in and the fact that “thought leaders” like Berry can’t see it is the stuff upon with satire feasts.

What Does Tim Keller Have In Common With Talmudists?

“It is natural for the Talmudist to reject all Godly or Biblical aspects of government and to promote atheistic and humanistic forms of government such as democracy, socialism, or communist regime. These political concepts stem from Talmudic and Babylonian philosophies of government whose end is total control and dominion.”

Charles E. Weisman
Who Is Esau-Edom?

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said I’d rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by pagans.

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power.

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

Of Eliza Fletcher, Black on White Crime, & Similar Observations

Smell of White female heiress and young mother Eliza Fletcher’s rotting corpse led police to her discovery. Suspect arrested for the murder is a black male with a prior history of kidnapping as well as having served 20 years in prison for a violent crime….

Police were searching near a vacant home in Memphis, Tennessee, when they discovered Eliza Fletcher’s body and a discarded garbage bag containing what appears to be her running shorts.

Online Articles

Eliza Fletcher was a professing Christian who liked her routine morning jog. Cleotha Abston on the other hand was a seasoned criminal who was waiting on DNA test kit results to prove that he was guilty of a previous sexual assault from 2021, when in September 2022 he got the hots for Eliza Fletcher and allegedly abducted, raped, and murdered her.

All of this is somewhat reminiscent of another Tennessee black on white rape and murder from 2007 when  Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., 23 were abducted, brutally raped, tortured and murdered.

This kind of crime when committed follows a particular paradigm as exposed by a little booklet put out by the New Century Foundation titled;
The Color of Crime; Race, Crime, and Justice in America. There we find reported that when Interracial Crime is considered;

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Now, all of what I have reported commits the sin of noticing … yea, even the crime of noticing. It seems we have arrived at the point that when it comes to the “bad taste” scale, that it is in more bad taste to bring to the fore the above statistics than it is bad taste to rape and murder a white female and mother of two small children who is out for a morning jog. At the very least bringing forth the above statistics is at least in the same category of bad taste as abduction, rape, and murder.

One indicator of that is some of the responses of people to this hororfic crime.

1.) What was she doing out jogging that early in the morning?

As if she brought her own abduction, rape and murder on herself by daring to assume that early morning jogging was forbidden by the presence of black thugs in the city.

2.) Did you see what she was wearing?

As if her jogging outfit explained why someone might do to her what they did.

This is not to argue that young women should be out jogging in scantily clad apparel during the wee hours of the morning in questionable environs. It is to say that we shouldn’t be looking for reasons why she made mistakes as if those mistakes excused the behavior of the beast in question. People who do less than wise things shouldn’t be visited with abduction, rape, and murder.

One more thing before we shift gears. If God’s law had been followed and if the murderer of Eliza Fletcher had received the required death penalty for the rape he committed in 2021 then the children of Eliza would still have their mother. Love for Eliza and her family required us to bring God’s subscribed death penalty to Eliza’s assailant before he was her assailant and when he was another woman’s kidnapper and rapist. But because we as a culture think that we can be nicer than God Eliz’s murderer was free to kidnap, and rape again this time topping it off with murder.

While I’m here on this subject on crime I find it fascinating and mystifying at that same time that the Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers is emptying out Wisconsin prisons granting parole to the worst kind of offenders behind bars. Likewise Democratic US Senator Candidate and current Lt. Gov. of Pennsylvania John Fetterman is also doing much the same. Add to this there has been a change in laws in Illinois that will begin 01/23 that will prohibit a judge from imprisoning someone arraigned before them until the trial can take place for the following crimes

Aggravated Battery
Aggravated DUI
Aggravated Fleeing
Drug-induced homicide
2nd-degree murder
Threatening a Public Official

So, it will not be that criminals can’t be arrested but it will be that the arrested criminals of the above crimes can’t be held in jail after arrest but before trial. People guilty of the above crimes in Illinois may well be arrested but at the criminal’s arraignment on the charges the judge, by force of law, will not be able to remand the criminal into custody until the trial. The accused criminal will be right back out on the street with no bail or monitoring to make sure they don’t commit additional crimes or bother to show up for their trial.

Now, when you combine Gov. Tony Evers work in Wisconsin in emptying his prisons (Gov. Evers has a goal to reduce the Wisconsin prison population by 50% via this parole process he is pursuing) with Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s similar course of action in Pennsylvania, with Illinois above law change with the reality of who disproportionately commits violent crimes one sees a pattern that forces one to ask;

Cui Bono? For whose benefit?

Or switching it around, who is going to be most victimized by the loosing of criminals upon society?

I have an answer that I think makes sense in this climate? Do you have an answer that makes sense to you?