2018 Memorial Day

Posted in uncategorized with tags on May 28, 2018 by andelino

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” —Winston Churchill

As we do on this day each year, we pause to remember the men and women who died fighting for our freedom.

We stand by humbly, gratefully, silently, to honor their sacrifice.

We remember…

We mourn for those lost…

And we mourn for those they’ve left behind…

As we reflect once again on the the steep price of freedom…

By all means, enjoy your picnics, parades and celebrations today – it is a holiday after all. But do pause to remember and honor all the brave Americans across the centuries who have sacrificed their lives in the fight against tyrants, tyrannies and terrorists; the enemies of freedom who will always be amongst us and will always be a threat to liberty.

And God willing, America will always be there to vanquish freedom’s adversaries.

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.”  –  Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1981

Wishing you all a tranquil, thoughtful Memorial Day.

Advertisements

The Age of Expression Suppression

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on March 31, 2018 by andelino

Many Americans are concerned about the direction our nation is headed. And many are weary of the excoriating national conversations broadcast on the nightly news and printed in newspapers and magazines. This increasingly nasty divide is extremely serious—and it is going to affect you!

The liberal left has gained full control of the powerful national mainstream media and is using it to intimidate and professionally ruin thinkers, businessmen and leaders who are conservative and support the United States Constitution. Why? Liberal leftists do not want to debate what is good for the nation—they believe that their way is the only way. If you are not in lockstep agreement with liberal-left talking points on what it considers hot issues, you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, white supremacist, homophobic, or a Nazi.

Turning off your television set and canceling your newspaper and magazine subscriptions will not make it all go away. Many deep-thinking, concerned people in this country are beginning to recognize the left’s intimidation machine is digging its way into their personal lives.

The Federalist’s Mary Katharine Ham and Fox News contributor Guy Benson state in their book “End of Discussion”: “A growing number of Americans are beginning to sense an insidious strain of self-censorship in themselves, either explicitly or subconsciously. You find yourself keeping your mouth shut about controversial issues like gay marriage or so-called women’s issues because you would rather not suffer the social costs of being cast as the enemy by the increasingly aggressive thought police.”

Have you sensed this in your life? Because I don’t agree with the liberal-left mass media’s interpretation of current social issues, I have lost friends and family members. Maybe you have as well.

“They have enforcers everywhere—at the office, at dinner parties, and all over the media,” they continue, referring to the thought police. “This silencing impulse isn’t born out of normal or healthy self-reflection and restraint; it arises out of fear.” America’s free society has flourished through the process of open discussion. Harmful ideas and government policies have often been discarded thanks to open debate. Those days are gone. “Instead, outrage mongers turn this process on its head, disqualifying ideas without debate instead of after debate,” Benson and Ham summarize.

The roots of this sweeping left-generated social revolution are found in the majority of America’s elite colleges and universities, such as Harvard, Princeton, Williams and Yale. William Deresiewicz, former professor at Yale, discussed this shift in Americans and other people in the Western world in an article titled “On Political Correctness” in the Spring 2017 issue of the American Scholar. In his article, he described how the driving force behind political correctness has negatively affected bright and creative minds of college and university students.

“I recently spent a semester at Scripps, a selective women’s college in Southern California,” wrote Mr. Deresiewicz. “I had one student, from a Chinese-American family, who informed me that the first thing she learned when she got to college was to keep quiet about her Christian faith and her non-feminist views about marriage.” He chronicles similar complaints from a list of students. “I had another student, a self-described ‘strong feminist,’ who told me that she tends to keep quiet about everything, because she never knows when she might say something you’re not supposed to.” Deresiewicz also discussed the frustrations of an adjunct professor who was careful “to avoid saying anything, or teaching anything, that might conceivably lead to trouble.”

Deresiewicz also discussed what he learned about the guardians of correctness—also commonly known as the PC police. “I also heard that the director of the writing center, a specialist in disability studies, was informing people that they couldn’t use expressions like ‘that’s a crazy idea’ because they stigmatize the mentally ill,” he wrote. Deresiewicz discussed a situation he had with another writing director over a student who, because of religious reasons, felt obligated to not participate in class discussion over sexually explicit literature. He was sympathetic to the student—the writing director was not. “I was naive enough to think that the director would be sympathetic to the student’s situation,” he wrote. “Instead, she snorted with contempt.”

He shows that guardians of correctness are not only school officials. Some students gladly carry PC police badges. “I heard a young woman tell me that she had been criticized by a fellow student for wearing moccasins—an act, she was informed, of cultural appropriation.” Wow! Political correctness has invaded the world of fashion on college campuses. Unless you are Native American, you cannot wear moccasins.

Deresiewicz has frequently toured and spoken on college campuses throughout the United States. Here is his conclusion: “Above all, I heard my students tell me that while they generally identified with the sentiments and norms that travel under the name of political correctness, they thought it had simply gone too far—way too far. Everybody felt oppressed, as they put it, by the ‘PC police’—everybody, that is except for those whom everybody else regarded as members of the PC police.”

Similar situations exist, to some degree or another, across the board in U.S. colleges and universities—even in top college-prep U.S. high schools. In discussing this issue with some of my own college students, they told me they felt the same kind of oppression in high schools they attended: “not being able to freely express beliefs, ideas or opinions.”

This is vastly different from what was taking place when I attended the University of Pittsburgh in the ’70s. We were encouraged to freely express our ideas, opinions and beliefs. If people didn’t agree, we were encouraged to debate and defend our ideas. And if proved wrong, we accepted the fact and moved on to the next discussion. At that time, this was considered the hallmark of a liberal arts education. By the way, many students wore moccasins then—without fear of reprisal. How our 21st-century colleges have radically changed!

How do you understand political correctness? Here is how Deresiewicz defines its new and virulent form: “By political correctness, I do not mean the term as it has come to be employed on the right—that is, the expectation of adherence to the norms of basic decency, like refraining from derogatory epithets. I mean its older intramural denotation: the persistent attempt to suppress the expression of unwelcome beliefs and ideas.” Good social breeding naturally tells us to not make derogatory comments or racial slurs. Yet today’s political correctness has morphed into a wicked process of thought control. In his famous dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell accurately predicted what is taking place today. Big Brother is definitely watching us and trying to regulate even our thoughts.

Studying this problem carefully, William Deresiewicz has come to a unique understanding. He believes America’s select private colleges and universities have developed into “religious” schools. Yet the religion is not Catholicism, Lutheranism or Methodism “but an extreme version of the belief system of the liberal elite: the liberal professional, managerial and creative classes, which provide a large majority of students enrolled at such places and an even larger majority of faculty and administrators who work at them.”

He means that a vast majority of college students entering some of the best schools are slowly and stealthily being “indoctrinated” into a system of beliefs—a faith—“not about a god, but rather how to be successful in a liberal-left-dominated world.”

According to Deresiewicz, the majority of our secular, higher-education institutions “possess a dogma, unwritten but understood by all: a set of ‘correct’ opinions and beliefs, or at best, a narrow range within which disagreement is permitted. There is a right way to think and a right way to talk, and also a right set of things to talk about.”

America’s free society has flourished through the process of open discussion. Harmful ideas and government policies have often been discarded thanks to open debate. Those days are gone.

What are those “right” things college students are to think about? Here’s the list according to Deresiewicz: “Secularism is taken for granted. Environmentalism is a sacred cause. Issues of identity—principally the holy trinity of race, gender and sexuality—occupy the center of concern. The presiding presence is Michel Foucault [a French philosopher who died in 1984], with his theories of power, discourse and the social construction of the self, who plays the same role on the left as Marx once did.” Remember, this dogma is unwritten. Parents cannot find any course description about such dogma in a college handbook—yet the powerful, mind-altering movement exists.

Where does this leave a student who is highly inquisitive about many different subjects? “The fundamental questions that a college education ought to raise—questions of individual and collective virtue, of what it means to be a good person and a good community—are understood to have been settled,” wrote Deresiewicz. This is a chilling statement. “The assumption, on elite college campuses, is that we are already in full possession of the moral truth,” he continued. “This is a religious attitude. It is certainly not a scholarly or intellectual attitude.”

Amazingly, few if any college students see the need to “go against the flow” of liberal-left indoctrination. Deresiewicz explained why he thinks this is happening and why it is a problem. “Dogma, and the enforcement of dogma, makes for ideological consensus,” he wrote. “Students seldom disagree with one another anymore in class, I’ve been told about school after school. The reason, at least at Whitman College, said one of the students I talked to there, is mainly that they really don’t have any disagreements. Another added that when they take up an issue in class, it isn’t let’s talk about issue X, but rather, let’s talk about why such and such position is the correct one to have on issue X.”

The majority of the elite schools today would consider themselves diverse in their education. Deresiewicz disagrees. “But of course, Scripps and its ilk are only diverse in terms of identity. In terms of ideology, they are all but homogeneous. You don’t have ‘different voices’ on campus, as these institutions like to boast; you have different bodies, speaking with the same voice.”

The freedom to express and challenge different points of view, to have an honest exchange of disagreement, or to debate has all but vanished from a majority of classrooms in high schools, colleges and universities. “That, by the way, is why liberal students (and liberals in general) are so bad at defending their own positions. They never have to, so they never learn to,” stated Deresiewicz.

Living suppressed for four years in undergraduate studies—or six to eight years if doing graduate work—can indoctrinate a student to go along with the norm and say nothing about anything. When you consider the numbers of college students who have attended these colleges and universities in recent years, it is not hard to see why Americans are becoming more silent about beliefs, ideas and opinions.

Can you see the dangerous shift toward ideological, mental and even political censorship? Since there is an unwritten liberal-left dogma promoted on elite college campuses, what happens to the nonbelievers? There have to be some students who don’t follow the doctrine. How are they looked upon? “Unlike the campus protesters of the 1960s, today’s student activists are not expressing counter-cultural views,” wrote Deresiewicz. “They are expressing the exact views of the culture in which they find themselves (a reason that administrators prove so ready to accede to their demands). If you want to find the counterculture on today’s elite college campuses, you need to look for the conservative students.” The nonbelievers of the liberal-left dogma are considered to be members of the counterculture.

Even more, they’re branded heretics! “Which brings us to another thing that comes with dogma: heresy,” wrote Deresiewicz. “Heresy means those beliefs that undermine the orthodox consensus, so it must be eradicated: by education, by reeducation—if necessary, by censorship. It makes a perfect dreary sense that there are speech codes, or the desire for speech codes, at selective private colleges.” This means that any student who does not accept the commonly believed positions on secularism, environmentalism, issues of identity, such as race, gender and sexuality, or the radical ideas of Michel Foucault are socially doomed!

According to the guardians of the doctrine, these students must be educated, reeducated or censored. How? “The most effective form of censorship, of course, is self-censorship—which, in the intimate environment of a residential college, young adults are very quick to learn,” wrote Deresiewicz. Students who attend an elite college in New York told Deresiewicz “that any challenge to the hegemony of identity politics will get you branded as a racist (as in, ‘Don’t talk to that guy, he is a racist’).” Students on some of today’s best college campuses are being silenced. Faculty, administrators and students of the dogma do not want to hear opposing beliefs or ideas. So these students are keeping their mouths shut. Instead of having honest discussion and debate, we see evisceration and personal character assassination rage on major media.

Deresiewicz and concerned faculty spread across the colleges see a real danger on college campuses. However, it is not the conservative students they worry most about. It is the indoctrinated students.

“The reason to listen to people who disagree with you is not so you can learn to refute them. The reason is that you may be wrong,” wrote Deresiewicz. “In fact, you are wrong: about some things and probably about a lot of things. There is zero percent chance that any of us is 100 percent correct. That, in turn, is why freedom of expression includes the right to hear as well as speak, and why dis-inviting campus speakers abridges the speech rights of students as well as the speakers themselves.” This is a statement we should think about deeply. Deresiewicz exposed the greatest weakness in elite leftist thinking: “They refuse to hear opinions, ideas or beliefs that could expose them as wrong!”

“Americans must face the reality that a majority of our journalists and news reporters have been trained at elite colleges and universities, which are sophisticated at indoctrinating young minds to the left’s mind-numbing dogma. The students who have been fully converted to the cause have been hired for the most-coveted mass media, government and business jobs in town. This means that our top newspapers, nightly news and special reports are and will continue to be dispensation outlets for the left’s extremely powerful dogma indoctrination campaign.”

“Washington is where the oddities of campus over-sensitivity and leftist outrage come to get weaponized—something to freak out about, something to obsess over, and most important, something to bash political enemies and fellow countrymen,” continue Benson and Ham in their book. We are all targets. It is only the tough-minded, thinking readers and watchers, those willing to investigate the evidence, who will not be taken captive.

In September 2016, Gallup reported that Americans’ trust in mass media had sunk to a new low. Only 32 percent of Americans said they had “a great deal” or “a fair amount of trust” in the media. This is actually a good thing. But the mass media and the left elites point their finger at conservatives, the Republicans and, should we forget, the current president as the cause of the mistrust.

If we are as honest as Deresiewicz, we should recognize both sides have error in thinking—both sides are wrong about “some things.” Instead of having honest discussion and debate, we see evisceration and personal character assassination rage on major media. We must consider this point: “Not just one side has liars.”

Many Americans suspect they are being lied to. The Americans who follow the evidence to the truth know they are being lied to. Truths on “climate change, gender identity, the nuclear family and racial tension,” for example, are being overwhelmed by lies that are tearing down families, economies and nations.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” wrote Apostle Paul to his assistant Timothy (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

The time of which he was prophesying is here. While Paul is talking for the most part spiritually, the application for secular society is a perfect fit. This is a precise description of what the liberal left and its version of political correctness is bringing about in America and across our Western society.

William Deresiewicz, PhD.Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life.

Caliph Obama’s Revolutionaries

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on March 30, 2018 by andelino

Former United States Muslim President Caliph Barack Obama is making big plans for the future. At a conference in Japan last Sunday, he said he wanted to create “a million young Barack Obama’s or Michelle Obama’s.” He announced that the Obama Muslim Foundation—a Chicago-based nonprofit founded in 2014—would be his primary platform for accomplishing this dream.

“After I left office, what I realized is that the Obama Muslim Foundation could potentially create a platform for young, up-and-coming revolutionaries, both in the United States and all around the world to come together, meet together, create a digital platform where they could exchange information,” Caliph Obama said at the Fourth Global Opinion Leaders Summit in Tokyo.

“If I could do that effectively, then—you know—I would create a hundred or a thousand or a million young Barack Obama’s or Michelle Obama’s,” he said. “Or the next group of people who could take that baton in that relay race that is human progress.”

During the discussion, Caliph Obama praised the teens taking part in the “March for Our Lives” movement and demanding more “restrictions on firearm ownership.” He said that a “lot of our problems are caused by old men.”

At least 1.2 million people participated in “March for Our Lives” protests. Leading up to the protests, Barack and Michelle Obama wrote a letter to the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where a 19-year-old former student murdered 17 people with a semiautomatic rifle on February 14. In their letter, they praised the students’ “resilience, resolve and solidarity” and for helping to “awaken the conscience of the nation.”

“Throughout our history, young people like you have led the way in making America better,” they wrote on March 10. “There may be setbacks; you may sometimes feel like progress is too slow in coming. But we have no doubt you are going to make an enormous difference in the days and years to come, and we will be there for you.”

The “March for Our Lives” movement is exactly the type of youth movement the Obama Muslim Foundation will be supporting as the former president seeks to help teenagers take the lead in undoing the problems “caused by old men.”

The children’s crusade for more “firearm restrictions” is similar to the political youth movement for “socialism” led by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both movements seek to elevate the “opinions of children” above the work of America’s Founding Fathers. Both movements seek to create a better world by “stripping more rights” from individuals and giving that power to an increasingly “dominant central government.”

Generational divisions in American politics are wider now than they have been in decades. The millennial generation is far more supportive of abortion, gun control, homosexuality, immigration, marijuana legalization and socialism than older generations.

 

Politicians like Obama and Sanders “support” these youths in an attempt to kick off a “political revolution.” History shows that when a nation succumbs to “division and infighting,” it becomes vulnerable to “attack by foreign enemies.” Protests over race relations and economic inequality are spiraling into riots, leaving blood in America’s streets.

The Prophet Isaiah foretold this situation over 2,700 years ago: “See now, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, is about to take from Jerusalem and Judah  both supply and support: all supplies of food and all supplies of water, the hero and the warrior, the judge and the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of fifty and the man of rank, the counselor, skilled craftsman and clever enchanter. I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them. People will oppress each other— man against man, neighbor against neighbor. The young will rise up against the old, the nobody against the honored.” (Isaiah 3:1-5).

Because of the sins of the nation, God has taken away the ancients—leaders Caliph Obama would call “old men.” God has allowed childish leaders, as well as literal children, to become the nation’s princes, or rulers.

While some of the problems these children protest are legitimate, the churlish spirit of lawlessness driving these youth movements and the journalists and politicians who amplify them is undermining the fundamental principles that created the greatest, freest single nation in history.

The United States does not need children to take the lead; it needs mature adults who can teach, guide and correct the upcoming generation in a responsible, wise, godly way of life.

For more information on the danger posed by youthful revolutionaries, read The Roots of America’s Dangerous Turn Left.”

Future World Megaprojects

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on January 21, 2018 by andelino

What will the world look like in the next 30 years? The exciting new documentaries the “World’s Future Megaprojects” seeks answers as it examines “ambitious” initiatives that may forever “alter” societies around the globe.

Each of these projects harbor a hefty price tag, but government and private industry has joined to bring them into fruition. In our age of modern technology and inter-connectivity, we’re only limited by our imagination. It’s difficult to despair over the future of our species while watching these initiatives take shape.

America’s Most Expensive Megaprojects

Incredible constructions that cost billions. The U.S. certainly doesn’t do its megaprojects by halves. From icons such as the Golden Gate Bridge and Empire State Building, to gargantuan infrastructure wonders such as the Alaskan Highway or Transcontinental Railroad, we reveal the country’s most expensive public and private works of all time, and how much they would cost in today’s dollars. Keep Watching as we reveal the priciest U.S. megaprojects of all time.

China’s Future MEGAPROJECTS (2016-2050’s)

China is embracing megaprojects at an unprecedented rate and will – over the course of a few decades – complete a phase of infrastructure that will rival what the United States has built in its entire history.

The World’s Future MEGAPROJECTS (2017-2040’s)

A documentary on eight of the most ambitious mega-projects currently under development around the world, featuring: Istanbul’s building boom (Turkey); the Mission to put a human on Mars; the effort to develop Lagos (Nigeria); Africa’s unprecedented clean energy opportunity; the project to probe the nearest Earth-like exoplanet; Atlanta’s stadium of the future (Georgia, United States); India’s effort to modernize its highways; and China’s unprecedented One Belt One Road, “New Silk Road” initiative.

The World’s Future MEGAPROJECTS

A documentary on the ten most ambitious mega-projects currently under development around the world, featuring: Dubai World Central Airport (United Arab Emirates); Songdo International Business District (South Korea); Tokyo-Osaka Maglev Train (Japan); Masdar City (United Arab Emirates); The Grand Canal (Nicaragua); National Trunk Highway System (China); International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] – Fusion (France); World’s Tallest Building (Azerbaijan); Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (India); King Abdullah Economic City (Saudi Arabia).

These Are the Events That Will Happen Before 2050

Science & Cookbooks

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on January 8, 2018 by andelino

Donald Trump “tweeted” how New Years 2017/2018 could be the “coldest” on record…

Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren of Massachusetts “responded” to President Donald Trump’s Thursday tweet, in which he questioned the concept of “global” warming, by announcing that she “believes in science…”

… only to be questioned “relentlessly” on how exactly her “scientific belief” applies to issues like “abortion or her supposed Native American ancestry.”

GOP U.S. Senate candidate V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai sent Warren a fully paid DNA test kit from “23&Me” through Amazon to see if she is willing to back up her claims of “Native American” heritage.

When Warren “did not accept” Ayyadurai’s gift, Ayyadurai posted a receipt on Twitter of his “refunded” purchase and wrote that he was “deeply saddened” the progressive Massachusetts senator did not accept his “thoughtful birthday gift.”

Here is a science “Cookbook” collection of “The Best of Every Dish” created by Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren…

Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren is gearing up for her “2020 Presidential Run…”

Elizabeth Warren Has Raised An Absurd Amount Of Cash

Boobs or Balls

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on January 6, 2018 by andelino

Prude CNN host Brooke Baldwin was nearly in “tears” a couple months ago when guest Clay Travis repeatedly said he liked the “first amendment” and “boobs” while on her show.

Baldwin laughed and said, “I just want to make sure I heard you correctly as a woman anchoring this show. What did you just say, you believe in the first amendment and ‘b-o-o-b-s?’” ?

When Travis doubled down on his “love” of boobs, Baldwin was “outraged.”

After declaring the conversation “over,” Baldwin said the talk was “entirely inappropriate.”

Fast forward, at the “2017 New Years Eve” coverage, she didn’t have a problem bringing up “balls” during the inane banter with fellow host Don Lemon.

After thanking the New Orleans venue for hosting the “news” network, slightly drank Baldwin told Lemon, “By the way, my balls are bigger than your balls.”

“Probably,” Lemon responded.

Question: How did Brooke knew the size of Lemon’s balls?
Answer: She munched on them earlier in the evening.

Demeaning men has “consequences.” Baldwin would get real upset at the “I love boobies” shirts at the cancer walk last fall.

Squeeze a boob, save a life
Big or small, squeeze them all
Say boobies and offend a libtard
Who has double standards.

I personally like “boobs” on women, “balls” not so much.

Outkick Dunks On CNN and Boobs Baldwin On New Year’s Eve
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin to Don Lemon: “My Balls Are Bigger Than Your Balls”
Woman Tricks CNN with Fake Marriage Proposal, Yells ‘I Love Boobs’ at Brooke Baldwin
Brooke Baldwin BANS ‘boobs and First Amendment’ guy from her show

Europe’s Strongman

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on January 4, 2018 by andelino

Even Westerners are tired of the political correctness, the consensus-building, the bureaucrats and the establishment. The British voted to leave the super-bureaucracy of the European Union. Americans elected their first-ever president who has no prior political or military experience—a complete rejection of the establishment—based on promises to put “America first” and “make America great again.”

European nations are now voting for stronger, more patriotic nationalists: Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński, Austria’s Sebastian Kurz and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babiš.

European Union bureaucrats are struggling to deal with a new type of leader. He is not sophisticated, multicultural and managerial. He is not soft, consensus-building and wary of giving offense. He is strong. He is patriotic. He is decisive. He is everything the European Commission in Brussels is not. European bureaucrats hate him. Yet this type of leader is emerging in country after country. Whether bureaucrats like it or not, these strongmen are Europe’s future.

(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Hungary has been the trailblazer for this trend. Viktor Orbán first became prime minister from 1998 to 2002. But it’s his second incarnation that is more significant. In 2010, in the midst of a global financial crisis, he led his Fidesz party to an overwhelming victory.

His method of governing has become the standard strongman template—the comparison used to judge Europe’s other strong leaders.

Orbán’s guiding principle is simple: Hungary first. He pursues his country’s national interest and pays little lip service to the European Union, consensus-building and multi-lateralism. Orbán was putting Hungary first long before Donald Trump came along. The EU encourages its member countries to share the burden, to all join in and accept migrants, suffering individually for the greater good. Orbán is having none of it. “To defend borders is a national responsibility,” he said last June. “As a state, you have to protect your own borders. I don’t believe in a European solution.”

Orbán has also concentrated political power in his office. He bluntly called checks and balances “a U.S. invention” that doesn’t work in Europe. This isn’t just talk: “He has pushed through changes to the Hungarian Constitution to remove restrictions on his power over the rest of the government.”

He also increased the government’s power over Hungary’s people. He has driven out foreign businesses and re-nationalized a host of industries including natural gas, electricity, pension funds, water, recycling and many banks.

Orbán has also shifted his politics to the right, borrowing ideas and language from Hungary’s far-right Jobbik party.

He is one of Europe’s most outspoken Christian leaders. He talks about “creating a Christian Hungary within a Christian Europe.” His opposition to immigration stems from this Christian identity. In 2015, he said with characteristic bluntness, “I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country.”

Orbán calls for a new style of government. In his most famous speech, given in July 2014, he said, “The new state that we are constructing in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not reject the fundamental principles of liberalism such as freedom, and I could list a few more, but it does not make this ideology the central element of state organization, but instead includes a different, special, national approach.”

In his book Orbán: Europe’s New Strongman, Paul Lendvai said Orbán is creating “Hungary’s Führer Democracy.” “After seven continuous years of Fidesz rule and in light of all opinion polls, even Viktor Orbán’s fiercest critics concede that at the age of 53, his position appears impregnable,” he writes. “His unlimited personal power is virtually unchallenged within Hungary, nor is it under threat from the EU.”

Leftists around the world hate what he is doing, and this colors much of their coverage of him. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this reporting. In just about every Western nation, the left fill government jobs with people who agree with them. When Orbán does the same, the left screams blue murder.

It is important to note, though, that few are accusing Orbán of being undemocratic. The fact is, his approach is popular. When times are tough, most are happy with a little less liberty and a little more strength. Too often people look at Orbán through the lens of their own personal ideology. But both sides can agree that Orbán represents a new kind of “strongman democracy.” The historical connotations in the phrase “führer democracy” are unfair. But aside from that, it is a good description of the new Hungary-first regime that Viktor Orbán is building.

(Photo by JANEK SKARZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Jarosław Kaczyński, along with his twin brother Lech, is another key founder of this new movement.

In 2001 the two of them co-founded the Law and Justice Party in Poland. Jarosław was in power from July 2006 to November 2007, before his party lost its majority in parliament.

They won again in 2015, becoming the first party to win an outright majority in Poland’s post-Communist history. The party now holds both the presidency and prime minister ship.

Kaczyński himself holds neither of these positions; he merely leads the party. Yet as the Guardian noted in 2016, “President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Beata Szydło are entirely beholden to his patronage.” The Financial Times and Deutsche Welle called him “the most powerful man in Poland.” He is often referred to as the real power behind the throne.

Poles know Kaczyński’s power over the government, and many put their hope in him personally. One common chant at his rallies is “Jarosław save us.”

Kaczyński has moved to reduce checks and balances on the executive branch, to curtail the power of the judges. He also managed to take control of Poland’s public broadcaster from leftists.

His party’s approach is similar to Viktor Orbán’s. His party calls for a “Fourth Republic” to replace Poland’s current system of government. In fact, Kaczyński once openly said he aimed to “bring Budapest to Warsaw”—a promise to copy Orbán’s strategies.

Kaczyński also has the same Christian values. “We want to restore a moral order,” he said. In May 2017, Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that the presence of the largely Muslim refugee population is a “ticking bomb” in Europe.

Like Orbán, Kaczyński is subject to hysterical criticism from leftists everywhere. And also like Orbán, there’s little or no evidence he is being undemocratic: Many Poles support his consolidation of power, and he is not accused of interfering in elections. Nevertheless, he is a new kind of European leader: “a strongman who puts Poland first.”

(Photo by Thomas Kronsteiner/Getty Images)

In October, new members were inducted into the Strongman Club, including Sebastian Kurz. This 31-year-old wunderkind won Austria’s national elections on October 15 and is working to form a governing coalition.

As of this writing, he has not yet spent his first day in office at the Federal Chancellery, but he already has considerable power due to his election and his authority within his party. When Austrian People’s Party offered him the chairmanship in May, he set conditions. He would only take over if he was granted unprecedented personal authority. He would have power to appoint all the ministers and to nominate candidates for parliament—even if they were from a different party. His party agreed, and he almost single-handedly led them to victory.

In fact, candidates did not stand for the “Austrian People’s Party”; they were on the ballot as members of “Sebastian Kurz’s list.” The new administration will clearly be indebted to Kurz personally.

The European said Kurz was “like a Ferrari among politicians.” Other media call him the “Danube messiah.”

Serving as foreign minister before the election, Kurz almost single-handedly reduced the impact of the migrant crisis. In February 2016, he helped organize the Balkan states to block refugees traveling from Greece and Turkey toward Austria.

Kurz’s manifesto called for a crackdown on “political Islam” and immigration. The Freedom Party of Austria, his likely coalition partner, goes even further, saying that “Islam has no place” in Austria. The platform is clear—and popular: “Austria first.”

(Photo credit by THIERRY CHARLIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Robert Fico is the strongman of Slovakia. He has been the country’s prime minister since 2006 except for a two-year period from 2010 to 2012.

He does not fit on this list quite as comfortably as the others. He is a leftist, but is unafraid of working with the far right. More importantly, he is a nationalist.

His nationalism drives him to stand up to Brussels. And he has become one of Europe’s most outspoken critics of Islam and Muslim refugees. In May 2016, he said, “I do not want to see a Muslim community in Slovakia …. We do not want to change the traditions of this country, which are built on the Christian tradition.”

“Islam has no place in Slovakia,” he said. “Slovakia first.”

(Photo credit by MICHAL CIZEK/AFP/Getty Images)

The second new inductee to the Strongman Club, Andrej Babiš, won the national election in the Czech Republic on October 22 with almost 30 percent of the vote. His nearest rival won only 11 percent.

Like the other strongmen, Babiš ran on an anti establishment ticket as the leader of the ano party, which is only six years old. “ano” means “yes” in Czech and is also the acronym for Action of Dissatisfied Citizens. Czechs said yes to overthrowing the establishment, empowering a newcomer party with Babiš at the head.

How will Babiš exercise his new power? He has indicated that he wants to dismantle the Czech Republic’s checks and balances, and to abolish the senate and regional government. His platform focused on opposing immigration and reducing European Union influence over Czech affairs. It also focused on him. The BBC’s Rob Cameron wrote, “His message to voters—that he alone could heal the ills of the Czech political and economic system, that he alone could decapitate the hydra of corruption, that he alone could defend Czech national interests—appears to have been heard. They have given him a convincing mandate. He has truly crushed his rivals” (Oct. 22, 2017).

Like many others on this list of strongmen, Babiš openly admires Viktor Orbán. While Orbán puts Hungary first, Babiš will put the Czech Republic first.

Notice that these men have “one mind.” They think alike. These leaders have the same worldview, but they still represent nations with their own national interests.

Countries across Europe want strongmen. Men with personal charisma and personal power are taking office. Voters are willing to hand these men unprecedented authority. And these men want to combine into a regional grouping of like-minded leaders.

How Cultural Revolution and the Legacy of Communism Turned Europe’s Left into the Right
“WE WILL FIGHT THE EU,” vows Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

%d bloggers like this: