By Henry Makow Ph.D.
“Rape is an expression of … male supremacy … the age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men.”
Does this sound like a modern radical feminist? Guess again. It is from an American Communist Party pamphlet from 1948 entitled “Woman Against Myth” by Mary Inman.
In a 2002 book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: “ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women’s movement of the 1960s and later.”(154)
In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960’s-1980’s that wasn’t prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940’s and 1950’s. Many second-wave feminist leaders were “red diaper babies,” the children of Communist Jews.
Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman’s oppression. They originated “women’s studies,” and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children’s rights. They forged key feminist concepts such as “the personal is the political” and techniques such as “consciousness raising.”
In the late 1940’s, CPUSA leaders realized that the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to focus on women and African Americans. They hoped “male supremacy” would “bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War.” (80)
Communist women who made up 40% of the party wanted more freedom to attend party meetings. After the publication of “Women Against Myth” in 1948, the CPUSA initiated a process of “re-educating” men that we recognize only too well today.
For example, in the party newspaper “The Daily Worker” a photo caption of a man with a young child read, “Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters.” (127)
The Party ordered men who didn’t take the woman question seriously to complete “control tasks involving study on the woman question.” In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for “hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women.” (94)
A film Salt of the Earth, which critic Pauline Kael called “Communist propaganda”, portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands’ labor strike. “Against her husband’s wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household… [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life.” (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the “woman question.” The books In Women’s Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women’s oppression and decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman argued that “manufactured femininity” and “overemphasis on beauty” keep women in subjection (33).
The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden, left, relied on these texts when she wrote The Feminine Mystique (1963). These women all hid the fact that they were long-time Communist activists. In 1960, their daughters had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women’s Liberation Movement.
THE COMMUNIST CHARACTER OF FEMINISM
Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
- Why the ” woman’s movement” hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like “equality” on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.
- Why the “women’s movement” also embraces “equality” of race and class.
- Why they want revolution (“transformation”) and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
- Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
- Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
- Why truth for them is a “social construct” defined by whoever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
- Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
- Why they refuse to debate, don’t believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.
- Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Communism is designed to give power to the puppets of central bankers by fostering division and conflict. Divide and Conquer. Having failed to peddle class and race war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. In each case they fostered a sense of grievance in the target group. Now the traditional feminine role “oppressed” women.
(Left, another Communist psy op.)
The “diversity” and “multicultural” movements represent Communism’s attempt to empower and use other minorities, gays and “people of color,” to further undermine the majority (European, Christian) culture. Thus, the original CPUSA trio of “race, gender and class” is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.
The term “politically correct” originated in the Russian Communist Party in the 1920’s. Its usage in America today illustrates the extent society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization and establish a veiled dictatorship called “world government” run by the toadies of the central bankers.
We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite, in fact, sponsors Communism.
In Communism, the government is the ultimate monopoly. It controls everything, not just wealth but also power and thought. It is the instrument of monopoly capital (i.e. Rothschild, Rockefeller.) Everybody from the President on down works for them.
A LOCAL EXAMPLE
“Political correctness” has dulled and regimented our cultural life. In 2002, here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee referred to “the Asian invasion” causing house price increases in Vancouver. Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn.
At a meeting, the School Board Chairman acknowledged that Granger is not a racist and Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, Granger was censured because, I quote, “appearances are more important than reality.” This slippage from the mooring of objective truth is the hallmark of Communism.
The atmosphere at the meeting was charged. Mild-mannered Canadians, all champions of “tolerance,” behaved like wild dogs eager to rip apart a trapped rabbit. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure.
These rituals of denunciation and contrition, typical of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, are becoming more common in America. They are like show trials designed to frighten people into conforming. We have “diversity officers” and “human rights commissions” and “sensitivity training” to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about “discrimination” but they freely discriminate against Christians, white heterosexual men and traditional women. They use the specter of “sexual harassment” to fetter male-female relations and purge their opponents.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanac. The KGB shut down the magazine and deported the women to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism has largely been for export. According to Professor Weigand, her “book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.”
In conclusion, the feminist pursuit of “equal rights” is a mask for an invidious Communist agenda. The Communist MO has always been deception, infiltration, and subversion using social justice issues as a pretext. Communism can take any form that empowers the puppets of the central bankers. The goal is the destruction of Western civilization and creation of a new world order run by monopoly capital. This has largely been accomplished.
Kate Weigand’s Red Feminism demonstrates that we live in a de facto Communist society, a development which took place by subterfuge with the complicity of the Masonic central banker-controlled Establishment.
Makow – What is Communism?
First Comment from TWH:
I have no doubt in my mind at all that bankers are behind a lot of the nonsense we are witnessing today with respect to social re-engineering. I used to work for one of the big five banks here in Canada and can personally attest to the fact that they would ceaselessly push this communist propaganda onto employees all the time. If the company wasn’t extolling the virtues of International Women’s Day, they were harping about buggery (homosexuality) or how “vibrant” minorities made us. The entire strategy was to divide people while telling us that we’re all the same (and, of course, making the white, heterosexual majority feel bland and useless). Only by engaging in some severe cognitive dissonance could one actually swallow their hogwash.
I found the part about Betty Granger in your article particularly eye-popping. She was told that “appearances are more important than reality”. I was told this, or a minor variation of it, numerous times by management where I worked. When I would retort with reason and logic, they’d simply repeat their line.
When you’re the only sane person among a bunch of mentally ill people, you begin to think you’re the one who might be the insane one. I don’t know how people can simply remain silent about it.
I used to compare the bank to a former Eastern-Bloc nation, since they had their Stasi/KGB in overly nosy and harassing H.R. representatives (they would only enforce what management wanted enforced and would dismiss any real concerns brought by white employees — if you’re working for a major corporation, NEVER TRUST H.R.), they had their propaganda arm which permeated everything, they had their legal department which had documents the size of novels to ensure any employee could be accused of wrongdoing when it suited them, and they had the workers in fear of their jobs if they ever decided to raise a peep against any of it. I’m glad to be gone from that place!
Source Article from https://www.henrymakow.com/000180.html
The Washington Post (CIA controlled) wrote an article entitled, Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up to five more years.
The article makes the point that some, unknown, obscure and ultra liberal economist, Michael Clemens, is upset because Hipanics and Africans imigrants are now coming to America in insufficient numbers that would be needed to replace whites as the most prevalent race in America. In the article masquerading as news, the unknown economist is placed upon a pedastal by WAPO quotes this pseudo intellectual:
“By greatly slashing the number of Hispanic and black African immigrants entering America, this proposal would reshape the future United States. Decades ahead, many fewer of us would be nonwhite or have nonwhite people in our families…” and the “elimination of chain migration would delay the date the white Americans become a minority of the population by as many as one or as many as five years”.
Amazingly this anti-white racist rant by the Washington Post is now accepted as news among the liberals. This is the kind of racist rhetoric that preceded the Nazi concentration camps. When the German people would read newspapers, they would read how the Jews had dominated German society and drove the country into the abyss of social, political, military and economic destruction.
In the 1930’s, when the German people would attend the movies, the show began with a 10 minute newsreel which looked a like like today’s network TV. However, ALL of the newsreels consisted of the same plot. A menacing rat would be shown in the corner of a German home. The narrator would be comparing Jews to rats and that they should be treated the same way in that they should never be handling money (ie working in banks), teaching the young adults (ie working as university professors) and they should never enjoy the fruits of their Jewish criminality (ie owning property). Then came Kristallnacht (ie “the night of the broken glass”) which became a premeditated attack upon many Jewish businesses and homes by the Nazis.
When one looks at the George Soros inspired of a rapidly escalating racist path (ie BLM, Moveon.org, et al) that America is on today, I would ask the readers, where is America at in comparison to Nazi Germany history? And I how do I know this history so well, and recognize this history so clearly? These factors were the primary determinants on why so many of my family came to America, from Germany, via England.
When I first heard the “kill whitey” statements from various post-secondary educators that made their way into the media, I felt it was hyperbole and should not be taken seriously. I no longer believe that to be true. Ask yourself this question, why would the establishment media (eg Washington Post promote such anti-white rhetoric? This is a conditioning process for what is coming and parallels what happened prior the opening of the concentration camps?
As I have stated before, while I was attending a State Republican convention in Phoenix on January 27, 2018, I had a conversation with Representative Dr. Paul Gosar and he clearly told me that the estimates of the Republican Party placed the magic number of future Democratic immigrant voters, who would be granted amnesty, at 10 million people, in order to secure a chance at winning general elections.
The current number of proposed DACA members only totals 1.8 million and that is generous. To get to 10 million new Democratic voters, that means that each DACA member would have to bring an average of 5+ unwarranted people into the country. This is the height of Democratic Party insanity.
As an aside, when immigrants are here for a few years and begin to assimilate into the culture, many reject the Democratic Party anti-American values that shun the value of patriotism, hard work etc. Many of these hard-working immigrants have had to scratch and claw and earn everything they get. I have noticed that most do not identify with the welfare handout philosophy of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” mentality of the Democratic Party.
The American people can expect that after DACA is passed and chain migration upheld, in five years, the Democrats will be back again looking for more unsuspecting immigrants and they will be trying to get this new group of amnesty seekers as the Democrats try to stay one step ahead of the burning bridge.
Anyone who calls for violence against the President is subject to arrest and imprisonment. After making such a threat, Linda Sarsour should be sitting in a prison cell.
Linda Sarsour, just gave a speech in which she attempted to come off as the great Martin Luther King. Instead, when one analyzes the content of her speech, she sounded more like Stalin. Here is an example of what she said:
“…here in these United States of America where we have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House. When I wake up every morning and remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged.”
This is Sarsour’s right to make the above statements. The statement is baseless, but under the 1st Amendment, she is allowed to say what she said. However, Sarsour does not have the right to say the following:
“I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of Jihad.”
This statement was made in direct reference to President Trump. A Jihad is a war and she later went on to direct this at the present administration. This is illegal as it constituted a clear threat against the President of the United States. In the same speech she later threatened a collective jihad against the government. This is also not allowed under our laws. She has also disparaged white Christians in the same manner. The Nazi Germany parallels are seemingly everywhere.
Time Magazine immediately went into damage control mode by saying that she was not calling for violence against the President. The word jihad” is a violent word which calls for violent action. Even some of the Mainstream Media expressed shock over Sarsour’s jihad comments. These actions parallel the Nazi propaganda against the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Fox News was critical of Sarsour’s jihad comments:
Controversial activist Linda Sarsour is calling for a “jihad” against President Donald Trump and his administration.
Addressing the Annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention this past weekend, Sarsour attacked the Trump administration and called on the Muslim community to unite against the White House.”
It should be noted that Sarsour was also the organizer of the pro-women’s march against Trump on Inauguration Day. The hypocrisy of Sarsour is notable as she violated her own spiritual precepts by banning all pro-life women from participating in the the march.
Sarsour is intelligent, well-spoken and obviously and obviously very well versed in Marxian ideology as she is attempting to create a victim’s mentality in anyone who is not White in order to form a revolutionary coalition to unseat the existing Constitutional structure of our government. This is a jihad against the American culture. The move towards a racially motivated civil war gets a big boost from people like Sarsour. It should also be noted that in this speech, she demanded that Muslims not assimilate into the American culture. Why? Because her kind of followers want to conquer America through a stealth jihad. This means that the concern that many Americans have is that the intent of Sarsour and her followers is to supplant the US Constituent with Sharia law. And when that day happens Christians and non-Muslim believers better go into hiding. THEREFORE, THE PRECISE PARALLEL BETWEEN TODAY, OUR IMMEDIATE FUTURE AND NAZI GERMANY OF THE PAST, IS THAT TODAY’S WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE YESTERDAY’S 1930’S GERMAN JEWS.
It is also noteworthy that Sarsour was a voting DNC delegate. Meet the new Democratic party in all of its bigotry, violence and intolerance.
Was anyone else bothered by the fact the large body count of Democratic Congressmen who did not attend Trump’s Inauguration and displayed disrespectful and unpatriotic behavior at the recent State of the Union speech? These unpatriotic Congressmen were led by the very radicalized John Lewis. Lewis belongs to the Progressive Caucus which a clear front organization for the Communist Party as are the other disloyal Congressmen (see Louden’s Enemies Within).
At minimum, I am concerned because these Congressmen demonstrated that they will not work with this President. This is troublesome because the Congress and the President must work together for the good of the country.
At maximum, I am concerned about this development because questions about these Congressmen are being asked by my audience with regard to their real motivation. Many of my readers and viewers are questioning if these Congressmen want to simply be “out of the blast zone” for what is coming. In other words they are positioning themselves to survive the coup that is coming.
Again, as New Zealand Journalist, Trevor Loudon, fully documents, through The Enemies Within, he details how the Communist Party of the USA itself has adopted a stealth plan to achieve revolutionary goals by decisions made in the 1970s to infiltrate and manipulate the Democratic Party. Loudon’s newest work (available on Amazon Prime) documents how Lewis is a member of several front organizations have strong ties to the Community Party and the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.
“The Communist and Muslim Brotherhood infiltration plan is to form alliances with the radical elements in organized labor in conjunction with radicals in the African-American community and the feminist movement to establish a progressive coalition on the left that could dominate the national political agenda for decades to come.” John Lewis is a member of the Progressive Caucus which is a front group for the Communist Party. Lewis is not alone, but his actions and allegiances speak to his lack of commitment to the Republic and most importantly, the Constitution of the United States.
With these associations and his continual efforts in dividing the country, this Congressman should resign. Our country has reached its saturation point with treason from its public officials. Lewis has lost all credibility. Former Congressman, Alan West, has identified 80 of these Congressman as belonging to front groups for either the Communist party or the Muslim Brotherhood, or both. Tervor Louden came to the same conclusion and they are all Democrats.
Words are cheap and history is often open to interpretation. For myself, I have crossed the great divide and there is no turning back. The coming conflicts are unavoidable and people need to take defensive action. There is much talk about a civil war, intellecutally and philsophically, we are already there. The tell-tale sign will be when there is a modern day “Night of the Broken Glass”.
Regardless of the country or the period in history, a totalitarian takeover always follows the same script.
For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show
CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE- USE THE COUPON CODE “5COMMON” TO TAKE 5% OFF
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/qPaEaoz64U8/
This week, The Free Thought Project was contacted by Michael Heise, founder of the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus who provided us with evidence that leaders within the Libertarian party have blocked Libertarian icon Ron Paul from appearing at their national convention, over comments he made about how the party needed to stick to principles instead of playing politics as usual.
This past year, Heise has been on a mission to shake up the Libertarian Party and steer it back in the direction of its origins—towards the principles of peace and economic freedom that he learned from people like Ron Paul.
“The LPMC has never been shy about our goal of shaking up the leadership of the party to give it a fresh look and principled direction that the majority of libertarians would be motivated to support. In fact, it is our first major milestone goal. We knew this would draw the ire of party leadership and it’s supporters. However, we feel, as most libertarians do, that it is badly needed and much overdue,” Heise said in a statement on Thursday.
One of the main strategies in this plan for change is to bring advocates of the non-aggression principle and true libertarianism into positions of power and influence in the party. This includes promoting principled candidates who are running for leadership positions, as well as booking influential people to speak at conventions and libertarian events.
“It is only natural that we would want to feel represented at the convention and to have a voice both on the convention floor and the stage. Nobody in leadership seems to be championing and putting issues like foreign policy, specifically the absolute humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, blockchain solutions to statist problems and the Federal Reserve fraud on the forefront!” Heise said.
“We found success in this pursuit after connecting Jim Cantrell, part of the founding team for SpaceX, and CEO of Vector Space Systems, with Daniel Hayes, the chair of the LP’s convention committee,” he added.
In recent weeks, Heise attempted to follow up with Hayes about the upcoming National Convention, which he is in charge of, in hopes of getting Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano booked for the event. After getting the cold shoulder for several weeks, Heise finally received the following messages, stating that Ron Paul was “definitely out,” and that he “has no idea what the LP represents.”
Hayes linked an article titled “Good News: Young Americans Want a New Political Party” that Ron Paul wrote where he was slightly critical of the direction that the LP was headed, as proof that he had no idea what they represented.
In the article, Paul said that,
“Unfortunately the Libertarian Party has failed to live up to what should have been its role as an ideological alternative to Washington’s one-party system. As was quite obvious in the 2016 presidential election, the Libertarians yielded to prevailing attitudes on war, welfare, the Federal Reserve, and more. In believing that winning was more important than standing for something, they ended up achieving neither. I would still like to have some hope for the Libertarian Party, but to really fill its role as a challenger to our two-party system (that is actually a one-party system) it would need a major overhaul. It would need to actually embrace the core libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-intervention in the affairs of others.”
Perhaps it is the Libertarian Party that does not understand Libertarian Values.
In further dialogue between Heise and Hayes, Hayes said that Judge Napolitano “would make a terrible chairman” and suggested Neocon Glen Beck as a potential speaker instead.
Heise says that the party is likely trying to avoid criticism over the change in direction that they have taken in recent years to appeal more to liberals and conservatives, and his assumptions were later confirmed when LP Chairman Nicholas Sarwark was questioned on Twitter about the party’s rejection of Paul at the convention.
“We all know very well that this isn’t actually about Ron Paul, it’s about what he represents. This member of the Libertarian National Committee would rather hold a grudge over legitimate criticism than let Dr. Paul speak, just like the Republican Party tried to do to him. This type of pettiness is why this caucus (Mises) exists,” Heise said.
It seems that the libertarian party has been co-opted with people who want to water down the radical principles of freedom that have been at the core of the libertarian brand for centuries, well before the existence of the US Libertarian political party.
Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/libertarian-party-blocks-ron-paul-judge-nap/
Zahava Gal-On, the leader of left-wing Israeli party Meretz, described the Israeli measures in the occupied Palestinian territories as “apartheid”, Quds Press reported yesterday.
During her speech at the annual conference of the Israeli Institute of National Security Studies (INSS), Gal-On said: “The occupation must be a temporary solution. We turned it to a permanent solution. There is one name for this: apartheid.”
Israel controls millions of people and deprives them from their basic human rights. Occupation is a bleeding wound.
Meretz is the only party in Israel which supports the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and it objects to illegal Israelis settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
In March last year a UN report accused Israel of having established “an apartheid regime” and practices a “systematic regime of racial domination”. The controversial report led to the head of the United Nation’s West Asia commission resignation after what she described as pressure from the UN secretary-general to withdraw the findings.
Morocco’s Unified Socialist Party has called for the country’s withdrawal from the Saudi-led military coalition that has been fighting Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militias.
The party added in the concluding statement of its fourth congress, held in Rabat, that Morocco should not get involved in any such military interventions.
These steps could tarnish Morocco’s reputation and standing, according to the party’s statement.
For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show
CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE- USE THE COUPON CODE 5COMMON TO TAKE 5% OFF
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/QvW8GABavJ4/
Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of The Media Research Center)
What if the US Ambassador to the UN had a party for all of America’s true friends? The room might be pretty empty.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley hosted a “Friends of the US” reception Wednesday to thank the 64 brave diplomats who didn’t scold Donald Trump for his over-the-top Hanukkah gift to his bro, Bibi Netanyahu.
There were three levels of guests at the party, really.
First, the VERY welcome guests – those who voted with the US, against the resolution. Numero Uno, of course, Israel: “Israel completely rejects this preposterous resolution. Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be,” explained Netanyahu.
The other heavyweight nations that proudly stood with the United States were Guatemala, Honduras, Togo (“Africa’s Best-Kept Secret”) and the wee island states of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. As USA Today put it, “Four of the countries – Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau – have combined populations less than Boise, Idaho.” This massive amalgamation, this force to be reckoned with, standing arm-in-arm with America, has a total population of less than one half of one percent of the world’s population (about 3.7 million).
Let’s take a look at the size of those countries:
That’s why Nikki needed to invite another level – the “SORT OF welcome guests” – to her party. These were the abstainers. The thirty-five countries that stayed on the proverbial fence. You have to give them credit, though, for their creativity: Australia claimed it abstained because unilateral action was a bad idea, and a UN resolution wouldn’t help anyway. Canada said it abstained because the resolution did not fully acknowledge the three monotheistic faiths’ ties to Jerusalem. But hey, at least they didn’t vote against the US. And they scored an invitation to the party!
It still wasn’t going to be much of a crowd, so Nikki took another look at her naughty/nice list (remember, she was “taking names“). And that’s how the no-show countries also got an invitation. Because nothing says “I don’t not support you” like failure to attend an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Netanyahu put a positive spin on the truancy of those twenty-one countries: “I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theater of the absurd.”
Nikki Haley tweeted her thanks to “the 64” (that is, the 8 + 35 + 21 AWOLs) after the party: “It’s easy for friends to be with you in the good times, but it’s the friends who are with you during the challenging times that will never be forgotten.”
We’ve all faced challenging times like this, when we’ve chosen to take the High Road, knowing it might be a lonely walk. We warned our colleagues that if they didn’t join us, we’d abandon them in their hour of need; we threatened that there would be a price to pay for those who refused to join us on our noble journey. And then we’ve walked proudly – and nearly alone. The world may have judged us, but we knew they were wrong and we were right. And those courageous few whom we could bribe to join us, and the equally courageous few who couldn’t make up their minds or who stayed home – their friendship will be forever valued.
President Trump, whose announcement on December 6 had been the original impetus for the party (the first domino that caused the emergency session), made a pre-taped video address to the little group. As always, DT was eloquent and succinct:
“Rest assured that your actions on Thursday, December 21, will go down as a very important date.”
Trump then shared his fantasy with the group:
“The United States remains committed to achieving lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. There’s no reason that peace should not be entered into. We will continue to work with the partners like you to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for the region, for the people, for the world.”
Because with one-half of one percent of the world’s population, there’s literally nothing you can’t accomplish.