No Longer in Print


I want to announce my book will no longer be available, aside from the secondary market.

I also want to explain why.


If you adhere to and/or promote "progressive" agendas, consider yourself forewarned that you are reading any or all of the contents of this post at your own risk. You have agreed to take full responsibility for your own actions (which everyone should do, regardless of any situation).

The text is full of reasoning and contains words that could "trigger" you and could result in bringing to the surface inner issues that may result in you violently lashing out against yourself, against others or against property that you do not own, possibly leading to self-harm, your arrest and possible imprisonment for any assaults you may commit, etc., in attempt to alleviate self-perceived feelings of guilt, fear, power or powerlessness, et al. Depending upon the degree to which you have not yet dealt with internal issues and choose to externalize them instead, no matter how you may attempt to "justify" your aggression and/or blame others, the results could be tragic.

If you decide to proceed and read any or all of the balance of this text in spite of warnings and you feel rage, hostility, loathing for self or others, etc., you may want to take this as a sign that you should seek professional counseling rather than externalize those inner issues in an aggressive manner and take actions you would later regret.


Summary of Events

When I watched the economic crisis unfold a decade ago, I sought answers online. I connected the dots and laid them out in the first part of my book. The second portion detailed a peaceful method of achieving a Utopian solution I conceived while researching the information that caused the crisis.

I had conceptualized a means to never suffer another financial crisis, as well as ensuring that humans could all have what they needed (as opposed to only those who can have needs met because they can "afford" it or those who are given handouts by those in power, which leads to abuses). Over the course of editing my writing, I discovered that my concept lined up closely to what is known as "Anarcho-Syndicalism". I was familiar with it on the surface, but had not researched it much. The book came about due to realizations I had while researching the crisis, and I had no predetermined intention of promoting any political organization or viewpoint. What I had determined could solve society's woes, most of which are either directly created by or are a byproduct of economic systems (free-market capitalism, socialist economic structures, et al.), and I had realized a practical, peaceful road map to make it possible. Still, I had no desire to promote existing ideologies by name nor any organizations, though I admit it did make me optimistic to realize that I had not been the first person to make this basic ideological discovery, though I was certain that I had come up with the first workable and peaceful means to that end. So, although I did not market my work, I was hopeful the right person or persons might discover it and the evolution of society to one of peace and true prosperity (one not limited by economic systems), while having respect for the health of our planet, could actually be achieved.

There are obviously other factors, but economic systems are one of the means by which governments control the masses, either for order or for evil. Elimination of economic systems offers a path to governments truly being under the control of the people, rather than just the wealthy. Without economic limits, progress in areas such as environmentally-friendly energy sources, cancer research, effective food growth and distribution methods, etc., would no longer be hindered by cost. The only real "cost" then becomes human and natural resources, i.e., what is best for society and our planet. Human attitudes would logically change, so that, e.g., natural disasters would no longer be viewed as expensive in terms of money, but rather how costly in terms of lives and the environment. This would lead to all sorts of solutions with no economic restraints to impede their realization. (Think about what could be done with the discoveries of brilliant people like Nikola Tesla without the concern of "profit margins".) Because this would take power away from the few who control the masses via economic systems, it would lead to people being able to collectively determine that there is a much more humane way to run the world and would naturally, over time, lead to less and less need for government above the local level with coordination between those autonomous collectives on a global scale via social media. Things could be shared for the good of all, eliminating any need for barter or, indeed, economics of any kind, replaced by a system of global volunteerism, a world like the one described in the song, "Imagine".

John Lennon surely would have been proud, as I was, of my road map to Utopia. It is feasible to achieve through the means I laid out in the second section of my book.

Sadly, not many people took notice.

Perhaps, not many people really want to quit suffering because it would take effort. It's much easier to let big government make decisions and then complain on social media as things get progressively worse, though the obvious problem with inaction or reaction, as opposed to proaction, is that there is nothing to curb abuse, thus leading to more damage and suffering as things continue to deteriorate.

Or, maybe humanity just isn't intelligent enough and will have to suffer further while trying to endure until society is ready to evolve, if it survives that long. Apparently, some would rather foolishly rehash failed political and economic systems with the unattainable promise that they would work this time, i.e., do the same thing over and over while somehow expecting different results. (One reviewer of my book noted that he doubted what I had envisioned would happen, though he hadn't quite comprehended that the end game wasn't "barter", as he had stated. Barter would still require economic principals. It would be a form of capitalism without currency that would still require someone to do without, by necessitating supply and demand principals in order to determine relative value. He could not intellectually grasp the concept that I had envisioned of how to achieve a world where no one would do without, via a system of volunteerism.)

I'm also certain some are content to simply hope that an external intelligent source saves us, and thus wait on religious promises, aliens or artificial intelligence to rescue us because, on the whole, we're not smart enough to do it ourselves as a society. Very sad, indeed.

Perhaps, sadder still, not many people even care and will remain blissfully unaware until it's too late and they suddenly realize in horror that things like protests, Facebook likes or SJW arguments won't help them in a economic collapse, whether the cause is from within the system itself or result of some external source, such as an EMP (which would bring additional horrors) due to an attack or CME, etc. The best scenario for those people is for global economic collapse to somehow not occur while they are still living so they can sleep through life and not have to deal with such a tragically rude awakening.

But apathy and lack of comprehension are not the reasons I pulled the book from publication. Rather, it is that some who claim to be under those "Anarcho" banners (and others in the "progressive" movement) and their recent actions are diametrically opposite from me and what I had proposed.

Stated differently, the reason is due to the desire of a section of society to pursue a course of hatred, divisiveness and violence, rather than seek the solutions in my book, which are rooted in peace and prosperity for all. I want to prevent, to the extent that I can, any twisting of the ideas within it, so the only thing I could do was to pull the book from publication and make it much more difficult to locate.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not support nor condone extremism and its resultant violence, period. There is no excuse for it. It matters not that it is being demonstrated by those who are prodded by mentors, peers, cults, political organizations, educational systems, media, or any form of propaganda or are otherwise brainwashed into violence via perceived powerlessness or fear simply because of being born or due to conscious lifestyle choices, or brainwashed into violence via perceived guilt simply because of being born, e.g., with "white" skin. (See Final Thoughts, Part I)

Antifaschistische Aktion

To explain what I mean about my reason for pulling the book, an example can be found in the Net Neutrality protests. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) recently spoke at a gathering while anti-fascists (known commonly as "Antifaschistische Aktion", which originated in Europe, or more recently in the U.S. known commonly as "Antifa") held signs in amongst other protesting liberals and their signs. (You can see them at the back of the crowd in the photo on the following link.)

Who are Antifa and why do they individually hide their identities?

The overwhelming majority of mainstream media outlets in the United States (CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, etc., the very organizations whose news stories I noted at length in my book while refraining from using Fox) have used headlines in stories over the past year or more that include terms like "Anti-Trump protesters" and "counter-protesters" for Antifa and "Pro-Trump protesters" for their targeted victims in "counter-protests", although major media outlets largely ignore that liberals are also being randomly attacked by Antifa (and, in some instances, other "progressives") at some of their "protests" and "counter-protests".

For the purpose of their political agenda, Antifa generally hide their faces and use black bloc tactics (like wild animals that stalk individual prey in groups because they are too weak or slow to do so alone) in order to anonymously carry out violence against people and property. (Examples of black blocs can be seen in the links below.)

Though the American mainstream media outlets I referenced in my book have viewed them in a positive light in some of their "reporting", Antifa should be considered a terrorist organization, per the U.S. Government's definition: "Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as 'the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives' (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

Though I did not find any information on who funds Antifa, my research uncovered some disturbing things about this group which nearly all American mainstream media has recently attempted to "justify" as peaceful "protesters" or "victims" of "racist" Trump supporters and part of the "progressive" (thus, "Anti-Trump") ideology. The fact is that the truth isn't as simple as mainstream media "reports" it to be. While there are similarities with some "progressives", Antifa groups are apparently made up predominantly of middle class (and generally young) "white" males who have been programmed to feel guilty about being born, e.g., as a U.S. citizen with a light skin tone and having a nice life due to the work of those who raised them.

Groups like Antifa and "privileged" members of the "progressive" movement are perpetuating a cycle whereby they need people to be weak and powerless and thus (in their eyes) in need of the "benefit" of egocentric and racist "white privilege". Both those who feel overwhelming fear in daily life and are thus viewed as powerless, needing "champions" to assist them, and those viewed as having "privilege" or "power" by birth, use this as an excuse to destroy personal property or insult and/or assault people who disagree with their discriminatory power structure.

Regarding Antifa and other Americans viewing themselves as having the benefit of "privilege", these attacks on others are not for the benefit of those for whom they claim to fight, but rather for the benefit of their own individual consciences because they were programmed to feel guilt. Thus, they don't want a better world, they just don't want to face their programmed self-loathing due to simply being born. Rather than seeking therapy, they externalize it and attempt to achieve relief from programmed guilt through attacking others, some of whom are simply trying to help them through rationalizing with them by pointing out their hypocrisies, which forces them to face that burden of self-proclaimed guilt, thus further forcing them into perpetuating circumstances that ensure they will continue to prey on those who live in a self-damaging perpetual fear of "white" people (and/or cisgender, et al.), in order to have pet projects in an attempt to relieve the guilt, which only serves to reinforce their self-loathing when next they are called out for hypocritical actions, in an ever-deepening cycle until it finally erupts. (Apparently not many took psychology courses in college, or if they did, they were only taught to use it to manipulate others.) This explains why "progressives" are so easily "triggered" by words and lash out with hate and violence. Additionally, they are prodded along by mentors, political leaders, the bulk of mainstream media, et al. The greater the burden of their guilt becomes, the more aggressively they lash out until they ultimately end up imprisoned for violent lawlessness, etc. (Those who live in self-defeating fear are, in addition to being used, also using these ones they perceive as "privileged" and are in the same boat when it comes to this self-destructive rationale, rather than seeking psychological help to deal with and overcome their irrational fears so as to become a functioning member of society regardless of who else is a part of that society, but for the moment, I want to focus on the "white privilege" members of the left.)

That twisted rationale results in pet projects that they (which could apply, not only to Antifa, but to all "progressives" of "privilege") use in an attempt to "justify" their violence.

Pet Projects

Some feel they must fight for feminism, though I have read about instances where Antifa males in some groups allegedly prepared for black bloc protests by practicing the launching of projectiles outdoors while females stayed inside to prepare Molotov cocktails for them to throw or Antifa men had the women go out and buy fabric to bring back and sew into flags and banners for them.

Some Antifa members travel from their own locales to other cities and claim they are "protesting" for locals there while attacking them with weapons and/or destroying property in that area. During the 2017 Presidential inauguration, for example, they set fire to a limousine to fight for some of their pet projects, "protesting" for Muslims and illegal immigrants and others that "needed" Antifa as their "champion", because nearly all mainstream media worked them into a frenzy with regard to Trump. Sadly and ironically, the limo that was torched that day was owned by a Muslim businessman from Virginia who had immigrated to this country and who later, along with the driver, had to deal with "harassing phone calls from people who accused them of being Trump supporters" (some of which I assume included threats to their safety and/or safety of their families, as is the norm from members of the "progressive" movement).

Due to self-perceived grandiosity because of being "white", some "progressives" claim BLM as a pet project, while ignoring the obvious overtones of racism, as though through acts of violence against innocents and private property, they are "champions" of African-Americans that they egotistically feel "need" their "white privilege". This is eerily reminiscent of slave owners in the old South who felt they were superior to, thus rationalizing they were caring for, those they likewise considered a pet, or otherwise less than human, for their projects which were obviously economic, but also political.

"Progressives", Their "Values" and How They Affected My Decision

Continuing on the subject of "race", like "progressives", people who viewed themselves as "privileged" in those days prior to the end of the U.S. Civil War also rationalized their aims with twisted thinking and by conveniently separating people by "race" so as to enforce the flawed notion that they were "privileged" and ones with darker skin tones were powerless under or without them, and consequently needed their protection. (That doesn't explain why slavery in the U.S., ended by "white" people and resulting in countless sacrifices of "white" people in the Civil War, isn't viewed as positive nor why current slavery of over an estimated 6 million people with darker skin that continues in Sub-Saharan Africa is largely ignored by "globalist" SJWs or is justified by dark-skinned Africans who carry out that barbaric practice today. You can research information about the estimated 45.8 million people currently enslaved worldwide, and the over 6 million currently enslaved in Sub-Saharan Africa, in links below.)

In the United States, the means of eradicating "legal" forced labor slavery ultimately resulted in a war between those who "justified" slavery because those slaves were considered powerless and in need of the benefit of their "privilege", against those who believed those with darker skin could live in society under their own power, equally with others, as one nation. That division of thought still exists, though it has somehow been twisted so that now those who feel American minorities are powerless and need the benefit of "white privilege" are not considered "racist", while those that believe all Americans can live in society under their own power, equally with others, as one nation, are "racist", reminding one of Orwell's Newspeak word, "blackwhite".

The Civil War, which nearly severed our nation in two, resulted in over 1.1 million casualties (including deaths, wounded and those struck by disease) out of a combined population of 30.5 million, or over 3.6% of the population. Although the left is politically driven primarily by self-loathing guilt and power of the "elite" members, whereas the old South was politically driven primarily by economics and power of its "elite" members, if "progressives" don't get therapy to deal with their guilt and instead continue to violently externalize it in an effort to blame others so as to not have to deal with it, under the prodding of its leaders, the end may be just as tragic as the Civil War, if not more so. Using the same ratio of casualties/population, according to U.S. Census estimates for July, 2016, 3.6% of the population would amount to over 11.6 million casualties. With the increased sophistication of today's weaponry, that figure of 3.6% could easily be larger, leading to many more millions of casualties.

Is this the "progressive" agenda, to create self-loathing soldiers who cannot reason nor even civilly listen to it, let alone bring about a world of good for everyone, so that "progressives" can be manipulated by leaders of said agenda through propaganda to incite violence, terror, and at some point initiate another civil (or perhaps, global) war?

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Until you listen to some of them rant, that is.

Or until you consider which party the KKK was associated with while lynching those who did not share their "white privilege". For well over a century since the Civil War, including, e.g., a large faction who were in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1960, Democrats were, as now, anything but "all-inclusive". Just because the rhetoric has changed since the early 1960s doesn't mean the underlying message of using "white privilege" for the benefit of "elite" liberals has. But, the method of pulling the wool over the eyes of people does stand in stark contrast to that of the outright bigotry of times past. Nevertheless, like the TV show "Survivor", at some point they feed on their own. Who do you think would be on the bottom of their "progressive" alliance? Do you really believe it would be the ones with "privilege"? (See Final Thoughts, Part II)

Consider this: There is a growing multitude of people who are being programmed to such an extreme degree that they are "triggered" into violence by mere words and are in such fear of words, thoughts and being challenged with rationalization that they need "safe spaces" and violently oppose constitutionally guaranteed free speech. What is the point of influencing (literally, brainwashing) young minds to this extent if not for manipulation by leaders of their movement?

Read this and let it sink in for a moment: Our systems of "higher learning" have created an army of followers who can be "triggered" by a single word into mob violence and who, individually, need the protection of like minds, leading to the rise of extremist groups like Antifa who use black blocs and terrorism to "defend" those ones who are taught they are powerless and thus in need of "safe spaces" from people's words.

More "Progessive" Racism

A disturbing result is one that can also be seen in Islamists. "Cultural cleansing" is a phrase used in a Los Angeles Times article that references experts rationalizing on why Islamists are destroying historical sites. That's not so different from what Antifa (and other "progressives" with "white privilege") claim they are doing when "protesting" and eradicating historical sites in the United States. For example, a group in Texas stated, regarding a rally that Antifa organized, "Several large groups of BLM have also pledged their support for this historic rally against the idols of an oppressive history, hence the name 'Anti-Oppression Rally' -- These statues are a slap in the face of all Black Americans!" Notice the similarities to Islamists tearing down historical sites for the purpose of "cultural cleansing" and the notion that Antifa members were using their racist "white privilege" to be "champions" of "Black" people whom they were fighting for and who later pledged support. Meanwhile, in Germany, the birthplace of Antifaschistische Aktion (Antifa), "cultural cleansing" has regressed beyond attacking historical sites to calls for "more forced-rape of ethnic Germans" and "the destruction of pure-german (sic) genotypes", a.k.a. genocide. That sounds very much like the Nazis they claim to hate, replacing Jewish people with Germans in their proposed "cleansing". Not to mention that encouraging rape is, hypocritically, not a "pro-feminist", "progressive" stance, to say the least. (See Final Thoughts, Part III)

Following is another example of the extent of the hypocrisy when it comes to "race". Similar delusions of grandeur exist with ones who feel they are "fighting" for the Native Americans they view as powerless, thus in need of their "privilege", by trying to force the Washington Redskins to change their name or the Cleveland Indians to change their logo. These "progressives" would rather worry about some people's feelings and then hypocritically show no regard for the feelings of innocent people, who are simply trying to get them to rationalize, as they verbally assault those who don't agree. This means of not having to face the guilt of their "privilege" is easier than actually caring for and working with communities to address larger, daily, real-life issues like jobs, access to clean water, etc. Then, to top off the hypocrisy, they try to "justify" the use of names like Boston Celtics or Notre Dame Fighting Irish and their logos, though in reality, it's because they would view "white" people of Irish heritage as having "white privilege", thus using racism to excuse themselves for being racist because of the causes they have chosen to "champion" for those whom they marginalize and they view as powerless, in this case, Native Americans. Never once have I ever heard these "champions" of Native Americans offer to give them back any of the real estate they personally live upon. I guess Native Americans who want that, or even would be content with clean water and adequate sewage, should just shut up and be happy for benefiting from their "white privilege" if the day ever comes when the Washington NFL team has a different nickname or Chief Wahoo has been scrapped by Cleveland.

They are similarly blind to the hypocrisies that exist with "progressive" views on Cinco de Mayo celebrations, lashing out at people enjoying themselves, e.g., for eating nachos and drinking a Corona while wearing red, white and green, which they call "cultural appropriation". Yet, none seem to understand the conundrum when drinking green beer, eating corned beef and cabbage or Irish stew and wearing green while saying, "Erin go Bragh" on St. Patrick's Day, while twisting that to somehow not fall under the umbrella of "cultural appropriation" because of their own racist attitudes.

The list of "progressive" hypocrisies goes on and on.

The Eventual Result?

None of this is for any tangible benefit. You don't see these people putting similar effort into charities to assist the poor (regardless of "race") as you see these people putting into threatening innocent people online or attacking them with weapons while "counter-protesting". No wonder the mantra from their leadership isn't something like "help raise money to give to the poor", but instead, "resist". If this continues unabated, it's just a matter of time until this powder keg of "progressive" programming under the encouragement of the movement's leaders and mainstream media leads to domestic terrorist attacks that lead to loss of life. This, then is how the left implodes.



The unfortunate reality is that I gave humanity way too much credit with regard to collective (and even individual) intelligence, reason, comprehension and ability to think outside the box. It is much easier to follow like a sheep and repeat programmed mantras that teach them to view themselves as either powerless persons who must live in fear and thus are in need of "champions" or as those who use the "privilege" of their skin color or genitalia to fight for those who are not quite as "white" or masculine as they are, but that is no excuse for taking that path of destruction and devolution. They use that twisted programming as an excuse to become violent under the guise of pet projects that are as bigoted as those they purport to be fighting against rather than do the hard work of internally dealing with personal issues and externally building a productive, peaceful society.

Sadly, my current view is that humanity is more like a bunch of wild animals (much like the black blocs used by Antifa) that are taught to repeat actions through programming than a collective of intelligent beings that can reason on their own and act benevolently for the good of all. In fact, animals may even be more intelligent on the whole because they innately understand how to live without the "need" for money or economic systems. I would like to believe there are those in this world that can think outside of programmed propaganda, but I certainly don't see it on the overwhelming majority of mainstream media or within the "progressive" agenda.

I want nothing to do with divisive radical extremists nor the political entities and news organizations that either encourage, support, condone and/or refuse to expose them.

Thus, I decided to pull my book from publication because I do not want anyone taking my peaceful road map to Utopia and twisting some of the ideas within it into some violent, extremist political drama or anarchist terrorism. I am no part of that and the philosophy of my book did not promote such extremism, nor do I want the basic tenets used for evil.

Additionally, I want to distance any work of mine from referencing information from media outlets that refuse to condemn what our federal government defines as "terrorism".

Lastly, I have been wrongly and disgustingly slandered by others in the past (much like "progressives" do to anyone who doesn't agree with them), so this is a step intended also to counter that and I personally have copies of my book, in print and digital format, available to any government or legal office for examination to prove what I have stated is true.


Final Thoughts, Part I: "White Privilege"

In addition to being an obvious misnomer ("white" skin doesn't exist in humans, even albinos have skin with a pinkish tone), "white privilege" is hypocritical for self-proclaimed "globalists" because "white" people, a.k.a. "Caucasian race" or people of European descent, are actually a minority on the globe. Therefore, based on their "globalist" viewpoint, flawed reasoning and archaic view of dividing people into groups to pit one against another in order to sell their agenda, the majority "race" to target and guilt into violence for their "progressive" agenda should instead be people of Asian descent. However, nothing about liberal agendas make any sense if you try to rationalize them, but that's a discussion for another day.

Final Thoughts, Part II: Left Divides and Feeds on Itself

Mislabeling, spinning, twisting or outright lying exists throughout "progressive" social media and mainstream media reports in an attempt to blame "Trump supporters" for everything, whether the people involved were actually Trump supporters or not. For example, one news outlet in Oregon stated, regarding Jeremy Christian, "Liberals also refuse to claim him, pointing out that he was also a Donald Trump supporter," yet the Portland attacker, whose bigoted tirades led to him killing two people with a knife and who "liked" multiple Bernie Sanders groups on social media, stated, "Bernie Sanders was the President I wanted," and, "I (sic) gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!!!" as well as "'I Hereby Solemnly swear to Die trying to Kill Hillary (Herself a filthy Murderess) Clinton and Donald Trump should they be elected to the post of President," and "Sanders/Stein 2017!!!" All of those posts were made by Jeremy Christian on social media and were plainly visible to any who wanted to see for themselves rather than just blindly ingest what mainstream media outlets and members of the "progressive" movement were feeding them. It would be as difficult to confuse him with a Trump supporter as it would to confuse him with a Hillary supporter based on his threats to both candidates and their collective supporters, but [insert "progressive" hypocritical argument here]. During an earlier protest, he had to be surrounded and protected by police while he was between Antifa and Trump supporters because of his threatening actions (while allegedly holding a baseball bat) and the fact that he belonged to neither group and that Trump supporters had kicked him out of their march. He is obviously not "alt-right", unless Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were conservatives and the "alt-right" threatens Trump's life. Believing that would require either willful ignorance or the absence of an IQ above 20. If anything, he is "progressive" or "alt-left".

The mainstream media largely ignores other stories, like it did initially with regard to the recent attack on liberal professor Bret Weinstein, in Olympia, Washington, who was told by police to stay off-campus due to mob mentality, actions and threats to him from student members of the "progressive" movement, because it doesn't fit the narrative and was impossible to spin into an attack by Trump supporters due to the fact that none were present.

Not that mainstream media outlets haven't tried to twist as much as they can to fit the "progressive" narrative. I only point to this as an example because it occurred during the writing and editing of this post. There are new examples weekly, if not daily, if you are willing to dig a little deeper on the internet and see what the mainstream media ignores. This constant twisting, or otherwise outright ignoring, of news stories will lead to the fatal downfall of the "progressive" movement.

The "regressive left" (google it) and their media cheerleaders fail to realize that radical anarchists would currently be their enemies if liberals were running the federal government. "Anarcho" groups often carry a red/black flag (divided diagonally) to symbolize their ideology. That flag does not mean "Anti-Trump". It likewise does not indicate a pro-liberal political stance. "Anarcho" has the same root as "anarchy", thus true "Anarcho" groups are anti-government. If they are truly anarchist, that means any government.

They claim they want government "by the people". The obvious hypocrisy is that they are fighting here against a republic with a constitution that is set up to be for and by the people and was amended many decades ago to include all citizens. Instead of working within the system to curb big government abuses, the problem is that they use terrorism and extremism in an attempt to achieve their goals, which is not only horrendous and dangerous but also doomed to fail against federal government since they control police and military and use those to maintain or restore order. Recently reported extremism is being countered through those means in the Philippines, at this moment (as I am writing, obviously, not necessarily as you are reading this). The situation in the Philippines has worsened because radical elements who oppose the government side with Islamists from other nations. Much like the rhetoric here, the opposition parties recently claimed the President in the Philippines is carrying out actions that are "unconstitutional" with regard to countering terrorism. Why do "globalists" and "progressives", along with a large segment of mainstream media, seemingly always side with terrorists? Aside from their "strongly worded condemnations" and statements about standing firm against them, no action is taken by most governments to thwart or eliminate them. Why? Why are these extremists always known to authorities but no action is taken, leading to attack after attack? When will it be enough? Is now too soon for some reason?

Meanwhile, in Britain, there have been (as of this writing) three major terror attacks in as many months, two of which occurred in London. That city's mayor fired back at Trump's tweets regarding his comments prior to and after the most recent (London Bridge) attack. The mainstream media, here and in the U.K., was all over it, condemning Trump (as always), making a huge story of, while defending, the mayor's statement that Trump shouldn't be allowed in Britain. But Piers Morgan, instead, grilled the mayor on British TV about why it was okay for roughly 400 (half of which were in London, in the mayor's estimation) nationals to be allowed back into the country after being radicalized, and possibly fighting against British troops, while in Syria, and why those extremists, whose exact whereabouts are currently unknown, were not the top priority of London police. (Answer: lack of funds. My book addressed such problems, but never mind that now.) So, Trump is not welcome, yet radicalized Islamists who traveled to Syria, possibly fighting against British troops while there, are welcome in Britain without authorities even knowing exactly where they are, nor are they even a priority, according to the mayor of London. It seems as though the liberal agenda is to defend the lack of action regarding terrorists (being close to, if not fully immersed in, willful complicity of extremism) while giving tabloid statements priority.

The left objects to any reference to "Islamists", and that's fine. It should be only about terrorism, period. Antifa and other extremist domestic organizations or cults should be included under that umbrella if engaging in what the government defines as terrorism (as referenced earlier in this post), along with those who support, condone, excuse and/or encourage them, especially since we see that violent, anti-government "protesters" from around the globe eventually reach out to terrorists from other nations (e.g., Filipinos who have reached out to Islamists) for support and assistance, as much of the "progressive" movement and its media cheerleaders have done here in embracing Antifa. It's only a matter of time until our federal government steps up, in spite of "progressive" opposition to countering terrorism here, if it wants to stamp out extremism of all kinds, though I fear another major attack with numerous casualties might happen prior any federal government decision to implement such controls for order and protection of innocent citizens who live lawfully. (Proactivity on the part of the federal government was recently seen in the June 4 Free Speech Rally and the "protesters" of those ones, in Portland. Included in amongst the "protesters" were, of course, members of Antifa. Part of the purpose of the rally was that the Trump supporters wanted to make it clear they disdained the actions of Jeremy Christian and wanted to honor and remember his victims, in spite of the left blatantly and falsely spinning him to be one of that group, while Antifa members, and possibly other "protesters" who are part of the "progressive" movement, were there with weapons to stir up violence and incite terror. But, to make my point, it wasn't just local police and SWAT there to oversee events. It was also state and federal authorities, including FBI and DHS. Perhaps it won't be long until these extremists are rounded up, en masse, by the federal authorities in raids against domestic terror groups, along with any who side or sympathize with them on the left.)

Regarding the rise of Antifa in our nation, if you look at the basic tenets of fascism, many line up more closely with the "progressive" movement than to the GOP, i.e., heavy regulations leading to government control of national commerce and industry (e.g., Obamacare) and using "progressive" mantras as reasoning to repress free speech while forcibly suppressing opposition to their ideologies (e.g., Berkeley). Liberals want that on a global scale, as did Mussolini while leader of his fascist regime in Italy and Hitler in Nazi Germany. Thus, that liberal view of "globalism" is reminiscent of the WWII Axis powers collective expansionist attempt to take their views beyond national borders in an attempt to subvert the globe. That should be more than enough to make them natural enemies of any anti-fascist. Antifa also want that suppression of the U.S. Constitution but violently enacted though methods like black blocs and without any governmental control whatsoever and have been doing so with the support of much of the mainstream media here who refuse to acknowledge groups such as this as dangerous and extremist, while continually attempt to lay blame at the foot of Trump supporters. How long until some Antifa group gets the idea to use bombs like other extremists have done? Seems to me it's only a matter of time and I wonder how much spin mainstream media would use to blame "Pro-Trump protesters"? The media are wading into dangerous territory with their willful ignorance (at best) or possibly even deliberate spin in support of domestic terror. Put another way, if Antifa and the "progressive" movement is labeled by the media collectively as "Anti-Trump protesters" or "Anti-hate protesters" while engaging in terrorism, what does that make the Anti-Trump mainstream media who "report" on them without condemning their actions while trying to blame a group that appears to be, to some degree, if not largely, elderly people with Trump signs?

I'm not sure which group is more foolish as they all ("progressives", Antifa, "Anarcho" and other extremists) are using one another for destructive means, ultimately leading to self-destructive ends. History has repeatedly shown that none of them will come out on top. Balance and reason have always won out over extremist movements, though the path to achieving such order has been historically brutal with innocent victims suffering because of the rise and fall of extremist agendas.

Today's "progressive" environment is like a Survivor episode just waiting to happen, at the point when contestants start blindsiding and turning on their own alliance. Liberals are divided into factions, each with their own agenda. The "progressives" promise to take care of the wishes of all of these groups in exchange for votes, but they all turn on one another over time because of each having a different agenda, leading to conflicts. For example, LGBTQ has been/can be +/- letters (LGBT, LGBTQIA, et al.), depending upon one's viewpoint from within as to who should be included and who shouldn't, yet another example of how divided "progressives" are. This division-leading-to-inevitable-subdivisions-leading-to-further-subdivisions and resultant conflicts exist throughout the "progressive" movement. However, this isn't played out on TV like Survivor so there are no "safe spaces" for liberals. This is being played out in the real world and because the "progressive" movement is becoming more and more radical and violent, as recently seen in Berkeley, Portland, Evergreen State College, etc., it will most certainly be brutal as they continue to turn on one another for power within the "progressive" movement, especially since some are sympathizing with domestic terrorists and terrorist organizations from overseas.

Final Thoughts, Part III: "Progressives" and their "Love" of Terrorists

I have noticed "anti-hate" mouthpieces for the "progressive" movement seem to mention the word "love" much more frequently when they are using it with regard to radical terrorists with each attack than they ever have for our President or those who voted for him.

Considering the attacks on Trump supporters, it's obvious that liberal "love" does not apparently apply to anyone who voted for Trump, even though some "progressives" considered anyone who voted for the President as "a legal terrorist" (thus, another liberal hypocrisy). Voting for a preferred candidate is considered terrorism on the left, yet attacking Trump supporters, innocents and private property, "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives", is referred to as "anti-hate", "peaceful" and "counter-protesting". Yes, that's how unhinged the "progressive" agenda is. They tell people to "love" radicals who behead innocents, sexually enslave women and girls, bomb or shoot up concerts or nightclubs, and call for or attempt genocide, while claiming innocent citizens who use their legal right to vote or are simply born "white" are terrorists.

Maybe these liberals who think showing "love" to extremists would stop terrorism should have thought about showing "love" to them immediately following the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Following their logic, if they had reached out and let Islamists stay in their "progressive" homes and Hollywood mansions and fed them while saying, "I love you", the World Trade Center would still be there instead of coming down because of a terrorist attack 8 1/2 years later. If that is indeed the solution, then "progressives" failed us all and must share the blame for the 9/11 attacks due to not stepping up and carrying out their loving "solution". And, if that is indeed the solution, then by all means, prove it, now. What are you all waiting for? You don't need government permission to show "love", do you? Stop the terrorists with your "love"!

Backing up "progressive" rhetoric with action seems to be lacking in every instance, however. I doubt any rich "progressives" would take down the walls that protect their homes so that undocumented immigrants could squat there and live off handouts from those liberal millionaires and billionaires instead of leaving the burden on lower and middle class taxpayers, either. But, that particular hypocrisy is a discussion for another day.