March 27, 2016 What does “Right Hwing” mean anyway?
I use the term “Right Hwing” when the media/globalist/leftist cabal use “right wing”. I think they mean me when they say “right wing”, but their meaning is meant to be unfathomable and deliberately murky. So I say “Right Hwing” to indicate this unknown position that to them implies “The Bad Guys.” Ie. ME. I.e. US.
Why bring this up? Because tonight, on ABC News, they identified a group of people being water-cannoned by the military/police in Brussels, Belgium, as “Right Hwing protestors.”
FOUR TIMES in a short sequence – they were identified as “Right Hwing protestors.” Well – OK – three times they called them “Right Hwing protestors,” and once they referred to them as “the Far Right.”
Now – before we try to make some sense out of who these people are (I must say I’m clueless at the moment, but we’ll work on it), we need to point out the blatant hypocrisy of ABC News and other members of the mainstream media. Do you think they would ever call protestors “Left Hwing protestors?” Even when they are – like in 2012, I ran into a group of leftists hiding out (with the media’s protection) as “Occupy Wall Street.” They were staging a “protest” against – something or other – in Time Square, New York, on an evening when there were a lot of tourists visiting, including my school group. While the students were trying to peacefully shop and enjoy the amazing displays of Time Square after dark, these leftists – again, with no specific purpose that they were representing – provoked a conflict with the NYPD, members of which must have been tipped off, because they had been stationed there for an hour or so before the “action.” After the police had to arrest one of them because the leftist protestor apparently attacked him, they just stood around, still not really seeming to protest anything but “Wall Street” and, it seemed to me, commerce. Because that’s all that was happening – people were shopping, eating, going to theaters, and spending money in other ways. Funny – these people never – as far as I saw or heard, over months of “occupying Wall Street” – never ONCE mentioned the name as the President of the United States as someone they were protesting. “Wall Street’? Yes. “Bankers?” Yes “The Right Hwing?” Yes. The actual President of the United States? No.
Hmmm? Wonder why?
But did ABC News call them “leftists?” No. They were just “concerned citizens” who were protesting – well, Wall Street, and Banks, and those Right Hwingers. They were the “grass roots.” Well, I’m sure there was indeed a lot of “grass” involved, but they were anything but “the common people.” Those real grass root protestors were called “Tea Party” members – who were pasted as “Right Hwingers” by the mainstream media.
To show another example of left-wing hypocrisy: could you imagine this news report: “Anti-Trump protestors were led by left-wingers paid by George Soros to cause trouble at Trump rallies and blame it on Trump’s ‘violent’ words instead of a mob of left-wing protestors who were paid by the primary money-man behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Ya think you would ever hear that? OF COURSE NOT!
So, in the spirit of fairness (I know I’m speaking to people who have no idea what that means, but I’ll go forward anyway), I’ll define what I mean by a “leftist” or “left wing”. It’s not “Left Hwing”, which I define as a meaningless term for the “Bad Guys”, but an actual, working definition of left wing. A leftist is simply a socialist. A leftist is a person who sees the “Almighty State” (I mean the national government, not Pennsylvania!) as their “god.” The State brings the greatest good for the greatest number. It’s Marxism… it’s Communism… it’s the kind of government practically every member of the EU has. It involves the redistribution of wealth. As such, the State must be in complete control of everything – “laissez faire” capitalism need not apply. Since the State must “fairly” redistribute wealth, it has to CONTROL all wealth. Ultimately, an employee in a socialist society works for the State. Freedom is NECESSARILY restricted. The result of leftism, as we can see in every case where it’s been tried, is failure. Look at Greece… look at France… look at Italy… look at Spain – all once great nations; all economic basket cases because of socialism. And I think it’s fair to go on: look at North Korea (especially as compared to South Korea – it’s nolo contendre as Spiro Agnew might say)… look at the basket case the Soviet Union was, and all the depressed economies left (no pun intended) in it’s wake when it collapsed. Look at China, which should be an even greater economic power than we are – their economy is tanking (it was the partial capitalism that made it so healthy, for a while). That’s because, ultimately, socialism doesn’t work. As Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” So true… so true…
Don’t believe it? Well, try the alternative. What are the healthiest economies today? The United States, primarily when we’ve followed free enterprise. Since we’ve been going the socialist direction, we’ve destroyed the once-most vigorous economy in human history. Same thing in Hong Kong – a once-powerful economy sinking into the undertow of Communism. Look at Singapore… a successful economy because of the relative freedom there. Look at Australia – well, they’re sinking back into the same morass that is about to swallow us. Several Arab states are wealthy because of oil – but what’s going to happen to them when their main customers – the West – can’t afford to drive our cars anymore? There’s no doubt: there is a strong correlation between freedom of commerce and a wealthy society.
So – is that a “Right Hwinger” then? Somebody who believes in free enterprise and free commerce? Someone who believes in “the Protestant work ethic”: a day’s pay for a day’s work? The less the state interferes with trying to direct an economy, the healthier that economy is? Well, if “right wing” is defined as the opposite of “left wing”, yes.
But that’s not what ABC News meant by “Right Hwing” in their report. If you heard laissez-faire, it was because the Walloons in Belgium speak French as their primary language, but the protest had nothing to do with economics – at least not directly. I heard, on another mainstream media outlet, that they were called “fascists”, but that confuses things. “Fascism” was Mussolini’s so-called “Third Way” economic system that combined the “best elements” of Marxism and Capitalism. But Mussolini was always a socialist, and Fascism was just his Italian brand of totalitarianism. They certainly were not in favor of laissez-faire free enterprise. All Benito wanted was control of everything – so Fascism was really “whatever it took to get power.” It certainly was NOT an increase in personal freedom! And Hitler took over the National Socialists in Germany. They even called themselves Socialists – because they WERE! Did they want more individual freedom? Did Hitler want to be a totalitarian dictator? YES! Did he want to control everything in society so he could conquer the world? YES!
Tell me when ANY of these system defined above sound anything LIKE American-style government! They are all ANTITHETICAL to the Freedom of the Individual so valued by our Founding Fathers. We wanted a weak central government, with power distributed widely (down to states and localities), so no one could take “the reins of power.” We wanted the maximum freedom of commerce possible. We wanted people – our American citizens – to be able to speak their minds without fear of the government silencing them. We wanted the freedom to protect ourselves by allowing the common law-abiding citizens to “bear arms.” We wanted no state religion – not even the State itself – to interfere with our freedom to worship. We wanted government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And we believed our nation was dedicated to the one True God – the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob… the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah. We weren’t perfect by any means – but we knew, with the help of the God in Whom We Trust, we would have the best system of government the world has ever known.
Well, if THAT’S what you mean by “right-wing”, count me in!
That’s not what ABC News meant by “Right Hwing”, though. They didn’t really explain what they were protesting – they kind of assumed their listeners would “assume” they meant something. Like – they did mention that “some were skinheads.” AH hah! Racists! The KKK! They’re “Right Hwing” groups, aren’t they!
No, not really. Just like when the Tea Party Rally happened a few years back (does anybody remember, or is that down the memory hole?), the media found, scattered among the good, decent, righteous people a handful of racists – and weren’t THEY featured prominently on the national news! Genuine conservatives (a much more meaningful term that “Right Hwing”) reject racism. Wasn’t it leftists – the Nazis – who based their entire philosophy on the Darwinian idea of “The Master Race?” The Aryan race idea, which was foundational to everything the Nazis stood for – and was the premise for the Holocaust – was firmly based on Darwin, not Jesus in any way. The Nazis openly rejected Jesus – to Hitler, He was hated because He was a “Jew.” The swastika was chosen, not just because it was a Tibetan occultic symbol, but because it was “a broken cross” – the Master Race who “break the cross of Jesus”. The blood red flag was designed to represent Aryan blood – as opposed to the shed blood of Jesus, which washes us from our sins. We teach Creationism, not Darwinian Evolution. We, as humans, have worth and dignity because we are made in the “image and likeness of God (Elohim)”.
To cut to the chase: these were simply people in Belgium who have had enough – why did these people (who saw success as killing as many native Belgians as possible) come to Belgium if they didn’t want to BECOME Belgians? Or, if not ethnically, then in terms of adopting a Western mindset? I have the same question: why do people want to come to the United States, if they reject the values that are the foundation of our system? Do we want people in our country who see it as their life’s goal to kill us because we’re infidels? No – of course not! So why should Belgians accept that?
It’s not racist for Belgians to feel the way they do. Here are people who were graciously given asylum for their own protection, because of the welcoming nature of the Belgian people and what are their thanks for giving them a safe place to live and work? They refuse to assimilate – deliberately. They use their hosts’ benefits to plot against THEM. They make bombs and steal weapons for one goal: not to defend themselves against the native Belgians, but to kill them! Their goal is to kill every non-Muslim Belgian – and any Muslim who DARES wish them a “Happy Easter”!
This has nothing to do with politics (except for the mainstream media cover-up). It has everything to do with preserving Western Culture… defending ourselves against those who want to not only hurt us and our families, but to KILL us… all of us. An atheist infidel is a Christian infidel is a Jewish Infidel. An infidel is an infidel… unless you plan on becoming a Muslim.