DRAFT: The Conservative Case For Ending Drug Prohibition

July 7, 2014

A conservative seeks to be grounded in reality… the drug laws aren’t working and more damage net is being done by their continuation on the books than would be done by withdrawing them from the books”.  – William F. Buckley

With yesterday’s news that Australia is leading the world in illicit drug consumption, every conservative should heed these words of conservative icon William F. Buckely and admit the stark fact that the war on drugs is over, and drugs won. Despite a bipartisan consensus costing billions of taxpayer dollars a year, illicit drugs remain easily available, cheap, and potent. Meanwhile, 100,000 people are arrested each year and 40% of Australians are de facto criminals.

Conservatives frequently attack the left for not taking into account the opportunity cost of their actions –  for not “thinking beyond stage one” – yet the drug war is a prime example of this. Even those unswayed  by classical-liberal arguments for individual choice must come to accept that prohibition has not only failed, but has leveled a terrible toll not just on the economy but on society.

It was estimated that in 2008 Australian governments spent a staggering $4.7 billion on the war on drugs , which this week’s figures show has resulted in little more than clogging up courts and prisons. At a time of both Federal and State budget emergencies, this is a vanity we just can’t afford. With 87% of Cannabis arrest targeting mere consumers , and with over 10% of sentenced prisoners incarcerated for drug related offences, prohibition redirects limited police resources away from real crime.

Law enforcement and incarceration are just a fraction of the complete economic costs of prohibition, with productivity costs to the economy estimated by James Ostrowski at over seven times the enforcement cost.

The social effects of prohibition, however, are far broader and far more debilitating to society than purely economic ones, and should trouble conservatives even more than the budgetary impacts.

Conservatives who stress the importance of the family unit should be horrified at the effects of tearing otherwise law-abiding (predominantly young male) parents from their families, leading to broken homes and a broken society.

Worse still, incarceration serves in these cases as a “Criminal University.” Upon release, with low job prospects as a result of a criminal record, many “graduates” of this university enter a cycle of welfare dependency supplemented by a life of crime. Is this the lifestyle to which we wish to condemn the next generation of Australians?

And who can deny the boon to criminals that prohibition entails—just look at the gun-slinging wild west that parts of Western Sydney have become. Drug prohibition is bad for law and order. Is it any wonder Former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Palmer has begged for drug law reform, as has the former NSW Director of Public Prosecution Nicholas Cowdery.

Let us be clear: Australia’s high drug use is not a result of lax policies in Australia. To the contrary, Australia’s use is considerably higher than in countries where drugs are legal. Even in countries where drug use attracts the death penalty, use is still high!

This increase in Australia’s drug use has coincided with a 27.2% increase in drug-related arrests in the last decade, with a 66.4 per cent increase in drug seizures.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the evidence shows that prohibition may actually create more users: Making something illegal gives it a “forbidden fruit” factor it would not otherwise have.  Australia has a cannabis use rate 50% greater than that of the Netherlands, with its famous “coffee shops”. Portugal, which has decriminalised all drugs and replaced the war on drugs with a system of treatment, found that within a decade of those reforms drug use halved.

In the United States, the tide is rapidly turning against prohibition. Republican Governors like Chris Christie have branded the War on Drugs “a failure”, with conservative icon Rick Perry of Texas urging moves towards decriminalisation. States are rapidly legalising Cannabis: the most recent of these, Colorado, has witnessed a jobs boom, garnered more than $10 million in taxes , saved up to $40 million in law enforcement, and witnessed plummeting crime rates, with murders down by a staggering 52.9% since legalisation.

Conservatives are right to stigmitise and condemn drug use, and to point out its damaging effects. However, using big government to enact social policies is always doomed to fail. As Milton Friedman noted: “Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike.

A shift is gradually occurring in Australia: Quadrant’s own Paddy McGuinness was long a lone voice arguing for legalisation, but more recently Michael Wooldridge , Federal Minister for Health in the Howard Government, has admitted we have 40 years of experience of a law and order approach to drugs, and it has failed”. Current Federal Liberal Backbenchers are starting to urge reform.

With the modern Australian left obsessed with enacting more and more paternalist nanny state policies, any positive movement in this field shall be left to conservatives. This is turf that is rightfully ours. As such, it is time we accept reality, and publicly demand an end to the failed war on drugs.

The Ducking Hypocrisy of Thick Libertarians

December 28, 2013

Visiting any libertarian page or discussion group recently, a reader would be struck by the tension and frequent (rather heated!) arguments between, for lack of better terms, “thick” and “thin” libertarianism. This debate would seem to cut to the very core of what contemporary libertarianism is: is it a doctrine limited to the size and scope of government, or, as the personal is political, is it far broader in scope than that?

Whereas thin libertarianism typically remains limited to more traditional libertarian notions of reducing the size of government, thick-libertarianism seeks to go beyond this.

In a manner reminiscent of the essentially-now-failed to the AtheistPlus movement, thick-libertarianism argues that there must be something more than applying the Non Aggression Principle to governments: As Nathan Goodman has argued, “thickness is any broadening of libertarian concerns beyond overt aggression and state power to concern about what cultural and social conditions are most conducive to liberty”

Critically, however, it is a movement associated not with the FS Meyer or Nesbitt schools of thought, which, drawing from the ideas of Burke, argued that in order for a libertarian society to flourish, a civil society based on traditional values must endure, but quite the opposite. The contemporary thick-libertarian mandate is, in the most part, for libertarians to oppose any and all forms of traditional and social pressures. For if social pressures are coercion, then it is the responsibility of libertarians to oppose them, what ever they may be.

Most often, this presents itself as an imperative for libertarians to oppose social coercion just as vehemently as they do state coercion, often focussing on social pressures as they occur in regards to “slut shaming”, drug use, and racism. To use one of Mr Goodman’s examples “we should vigorously oppose slut shaming and victim blaming in the same way we should oppose any excuses offered for state violence”.

At the core of this philosophy is the notion that “individuals and groups threaten people who “misbehave” as well, with criticism, ridicule, shame, and sometimes complete ostracization” and that this is indistinguishable from state violence. As Cathy Reisenwitz notes in a post that perhaps best exemplifies the thick-libertarian mindset entitled “Shaming Others Is Unjustifiable Coercion”: Read the rest of this entry »

Shame: The Libertarian Imperative

September 12, 2013

Earlier today, Cathy Reisenwitz, a DC based libertarian writer and political commentator, wrote a somewhat controversial piece on shame.

The crux of her argument was that social pressures, particular shame, have no place in a libertarian society and is “unjustifiable coercion”

But individuals and groups threaten people who “misbehave” as well, with criticism, ridicule, shame, and sometimes complete ostracization.

Somewhere we’ve decided that the tools the state uses to influence behavior are “coercion” while the tools non-state actors use are cooperation. Where is the justification for this? I didn’t sign a contract with slut-shamers any more than I did with my government. I may find complete ostracism much more oppressive than a small fine…

But say my actions are completely and totally cooperative, but frowned upon. Maybe I’m doing heroin, or having sex with lots of dudes. What right then does anyone have to coerce me by threatening to criticize, ridicule, shame or ostracize me?

And how is this private coercion any better than public coercion? It is safe to say that those who would criticize, ridicule, shame or ostracize me do not have all of the information I have about my environment and behavior. The same knowledge problem which makes state planning inferior to markets makes other people shaming me into certain behavior inferior to me making decisions separate from that outside threat of shame.

A number of libertarian commentators have critiqued this view. Some have argued from a rights-based position, stating that that the absence of physical intimidation make it inappropriate to classify “shaming” someone as coercion, that there is a large difference between public and private spheres. Others have said that individuals who know other individuals intimately bypass the knowledge problem to a large degree, in the same way that a local shop performs better than a centrally planned distribution board. Some feminists have responded in puzzlement; when feminism depends upon shaming misogynists to force them to alter their behaviour, how can a self-described feminist argue against shame?

These are both valid critiques, however, I would take a slightly different, and no doubt more controversial, approach. I would argue that not only is “shaming” compatible with a libertarian society, it is, in fact, imperative for its success. Read the rest of this entry »

Tim’s 2013 Federal Election Senate Preferences Final Draft

August 29, 2013
BEIGER, Nicole Smokers Rights
LEYONHJELM, David Liberal Democrats
PETTETT, Jeffrey Marc Liberal Democrats
WHELAN, James Peter Smokers Rights
OBRIEN, Rick Stop The Greens
DE LIMA, Joaquim Eduardo Stop The Greens
KOUTALIANOS, Bill No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
McDOWALL, Mijina No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
SINODINOS, Arthur Liberal Read the rest of this entry »

The Science Is In: Our Political Class Is Responsible For “Alcohol-Related Violence”

July 3, 2013

This post is still in draft form and is posted here for constructive criticism and debate prior to final publication

Did anyone catch “Shitsville Express” on ABC2 on Tuesday Night? Joe Hilderbrand took four young politically-minded people on an emotionally-charged tour of persons affected by “alcohol-related violence” and asked for solutions. The results were unsurprising.

We are constantly told by politicians, the media and the public health lobby that we have a problem with ‘alcohol fuelled violence’. Alcohol is to blame for social ills, and this is a problem that can only be solved with more taxes to reduce consumption, and more regulation to discourage poor behaviour. Why, think of the children!

Yet as anyone who has travelled to Europe would know, alcohol consumption in Australia is relatively low by European standards, yet ‘alcohol-related violence’ is almost non-existent on the Continent.

The evidence for different reactions to alcohol across countries not purely anecdotal: a landmark study looking at alcohol-related aggressive behaviour across the world found that  “alcohol-related  aggressive behaviour—as measured by male involvement in drunken brawls—is about as likely to  be present as it is to be absent” . Another found that “men engaged in drunkenness in 76% of 60 small societies examined, but aggressive drunken behaviour was found in less than half. ” The prestigious “Criminology” Journal recently observed: ”  The evidence suggests that drinking has a strong effect on adolescent violence in the Nordic and Eastern European countries but has little or no effect in the Mediterranean countries

What accounts for this?

What is it that makes “alcohol-related violence” such an issue in Australia? Why do Europeans drink so much more than we do and yet never seem to get out of control? After all, there is “There is enormous cross-cultural variation in the way people behave when they drink”. Why is it that here alcohol is associated with violent and anti-social behaviour, while in other countriesdrinking behaviour “is largely peaceful and harmonious”?

The answer to this question is not a mystery. Criminologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have researched this for decades, and have reached an overwhelming consensus: culture.

Multiple controlled experiments conducted under double blind control conditions have confirmed that aggressive behaviour is determined by cultural expectations rather than the chemical actions of ethanol.” Similarly, cross-cultural and longitudinal studies have shown that the effects of alcohol on behaviour are primarily determined by social and cultural factors, rather than the chemical actions of ethanol.

Let us stress this: science is clear – “we can conclude that there is no direct causal relationship between alcohol and violenceRead the rest of this entry »

The post-post-Christian Era & Its Challenges to Libertarians, Christians and Atheists

June 25, 2013

Note: This post is still in draft form

We are nearing the end of the Post-Christian Era.

A process that began with the Enlightenment, had, by the 1961 publication of The Death of God, well and truly reached fruition. For the last several decades, we have lived in a society that cannot be called Christian in any sense of the word.

This is not to mean, of course, that Christianity does not exist, nor that it does not have significant adherents (although the decline of self-affirming Christians in the national census, not to mention falling church attendance numbers tell only part of the story; many “Churches” that remain are little more than Sunday Social Clubs, with a theology that can only be described as Gnostic at best). Rather, Christianity, as a sense imbuing the national consciousness and from which our moral, ethical, and legal frameworks stem, is well and truly over. Of course, a valiant band of Trad Catholics (The Church of Rome in many ways having hoisted the white flag of surrender in 1965), Evangelical Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox continue to flight a brave rearguard action, but our culture, our national consciousness as a whole, for good or ill, well and truly succumbed – many years ago.  What we are now witnessing in the so-called “culture wars” is little more than the dying throes of a Christian culture as secular institutions and the all-powerful State have taken over all: Socialists may have failed in “dragging heaven down to Earth”, but they have created their own replacement. Christianity has once again returned to its roots at the margins of society.

This presents unique challenges not just to Christians, but atheists and libertarians also. For there is one area where Christianity undoubtedly still lingers – its legacy on modern Western concepts of morality and virtue ethics: the dignity of the person, equality and individual rights. And, as these influences are gradually eroded, as the foundation upon which they are based becomes unmoored, the post-post-Christian era presents new challenges to all interested in ensuring a beneficial body politic.

Yet the uniquely Christian concepts of dignity, equality, and charity, so radical when first presented by Christian in the Roman Empire that they were mocked and derided for weakness by the then popular culture, have become the bedrock upon which our contemporary society is based: we have abandoned our belief in Christianity, yet its values live on. Only the most wilfully-blind atheist, brazenly ignoring the evidence of history would deny that the values which contemporary society holds dear – these were uniquely Christian values in the west:  values of individual rights, of the equal dignity of all, and of charity, pity, and mercy were all uniquely and distinctly Christian in origin. Read the rest of this entry »

Buy Tim A Christmas Present!

December 22, 2011

I am sure you all want to thank me for all my work promoting freedom throughout the year, so now you can- by getting me a Christmas Present from my Amazon Wish List!

You can find my WishList here, and then send all sorts of presents directly to me!

So what are you waiting for? :)

 

One of Peter Savage’s Murderer’s Convicted

December 7, 2011

Good news from today’s SMH:

A MAN has been found guilty of manslaughter over the death of Peter Savage, 16 years after the schoolboy was killed while walking home from school.

Peter was 16 when he was stabbed on Mills Street, Lidcombe, in August 1995 after refusing to hand his wallet to two teenagers who confronted him as he walked home after rugby training.

The case remained unsolved for more than 10 years until a childhood friend of one of the killers came forward to police in 2006, sparking an undercover police operation that brought a 33-year-old man to trial last month.

Although I never knew Peter Savage personally (I was still at the prep at the time), many friends of mine did, and I still remember clearly the Assembly where we were all informed of how one of our schoolmates was brutally murdered for $5, and the pall it cast over the school for a very long time.
It is great to see that justice, as belated at it was, has finally come to pass for one of the perpetrators, and I can not wait until the day where the other – who has apparently fled to El Salvador – is also made to pay for his crime.

Requiescat in pace, Reader

October 26, 2011


It is difficult to express in words the acute sense of sorrow – indeed heartache – I feel in the knowledge that, in all probability, the next time I go online and open my browser, I shall be confronted with my default page opening up and showing either a “page not found”, or a redirection to the interface of the wildly unpopular Google Plus.

The decision by Google to effectively destroy Google Reader, without any consultation with its loyal and dedicated userbase, is a significant blow to me, on so many levels, and I wanted to take this opportunity to explain just why it is important enough for me to have been spamming facebook with news of it, and even helping arrange for a protest outside Google DC’s office.

I have previously mentioned how vital Google Reader is to my political activities – and this is certainly true; I genuinely do not know how I shall be able to keep much of the advocacy I do at the same level of effectiveness without it – specifically, without the functions that are being destroyed in the transition to Google Plus. To call it vital would be an understatement. But there is a lot more to it than that.

To me Google Reader was always so much more than a tool to receive news and information: it was a social network beyond par that was a significant part of my life, and that I shall miss deeply.

In contrast to the facile commentary that dominates facebook, or the flippancy of twitter, it was a forum for discussion, for the cultivation of ideas and where you could deeply get to know members of your community in ways that other social networks made physically impossible. The degree of camaraderie it inspired and fostered, the intimacy it necessitated, the manner in which it was like being in a room talking with all your closest friends from around the world  at the same time, the organic development of idiosyncratic little in jokes in different groups, the petty joke squabbling, and all the tactics I satarised some time ago that made up the race to “win” google reader” – these were all things that became such an important part of my life. It is no coincidence the number of close friends I have that developed through Google Reader. And how close they all are to me.

And this, at its core, it what I shall miss the most. The friendship and the intimacy. The things I learned from people, and how it influenced me and changed me as a person (and make no mistake: google reader really has impacted upon the evolution of my political beliefs for starters, but I also my character as a whole), and these are things that shall not be able to occur anymore. Even the minor things – the little jokes (watching Team BEAR! longstanding squabbles with upstarts perhaps being the most longstanding one I’d had the pleasure to both observe from the outside and occasionally mock) – had the opportunity to brighten up my day, and put a smile on my face. It was certainly not a substitute for a social life, but it was a damn good complement to one.

And, to twist the knife in deeper, there is the fact that I am convinced that without Reader I would be not so fortunate as to be dating the brilliant and wonderful girl that I am. It is like finding that the special romantic place whose memories you cherish deeply is being  torn down and destroyed and replaced with a car park.

There is no doubt that this comes across as overly melodramatic to an outsider, but I can not deny just how utterly devastated I am by this, how much I relied on it in my social life, and how much a gaping void has appeared in my life that I do not know how to fill.

Vale Google Reader, you were killed long before your prime.


The Reason Behind The Left’s Vitriol

February 8, 2011

This is an extended version of an article initially published on Menzies House. I would strongly recommend everyone just read that  article,  and not the one posted here, as this version is rather long-winded and rather ranty! :)

To provide a bit of comic relief to our readers, I thought I would let you all know that,  in response to Menzies House’s efforts to stand up for Australian families and oppose the Federal Governments unnecessary and economically damaging tax hike, a group of bitter radical leftists decided to launch a facebook hate-page to “Alert Australians about the Agenda of the Administrator of the Original *stop the levy* page. He is a strident member of the religious right living in the USA, and an advocate for the Tea Party Movement within Australia.”

This was, of course, rather of news to us:; Menzies House being administered primarily by Chris Browne, who lives in Adelaide, and the other Admin on the Stop The Levy site, John Humphreys, himself had his house destroyed in the Queensland flooding (although they initially actually claimed he was an imposter and refused to accept this). As for me, I freely admit that I live in the U.S. for the time being (hardly an expose, you would think, as it is plainly listed on the MH website), and, of course, despite my personal religious beliefs, as an ideological classical liberal, as anyone who has read more than one piece by me would be aware, I can hardly be classified as “religious-right”, nor do I have any links to the Australian Tea Party Movement whatsoever. (The website, in a spectacular example of left-wing logic, also put two and two together, and ended up with 17, claiming claimed I renounced my Australian citizenship (I didn’t) and swore an oath of allegiance to the U.S. (also untrue – my dual-citizenship is simply due to my father being American, and have had it from birth.))

There are deeper issues at hand here, though, than the simple mouthing off of a few disgruntled leftists, which I shall go into in greater detail later in this piece, but, just to provide the background as to who exactly we are dealing with, you ought be aware that almost all of the comments on their website consists of little more than juvenile self-congratulatory gutter attempts at toilet humour (seriously, how many times can you chuckle about  “Koch-suckers” (referring to the philanthropic activities of the CG Koch Charitable Foundation) before it gets old? (also, laughingly, they claimed Menzies House receives secret Koch money – I wish!), and attacking my physical appearance (which, I concede, is probably a fair point, my modelling career has gone rather rapidly downhill considerably since I won Baby of The Year – I peaked too soon! :) ). And, of course, there are the death threats.

Now, due to the family-friendly nature of this site, I shall not begin to catalogue the vitriol and abuse poured our way by members of this page. With that being said, at the adamant insistence of one of their members, a Mr. Jonathon Ring, I am instructed to pass on the message that  apparently we are “heartless scumbags, mental midgets, f**lheads, dips**ts, spoons, tubes, tools, d**kheads, a***holes and c**ks.” Which is rather charming (John Humphreys – again at their request – did compile a slightly more comprehensive anthology of “the left-wing definition of polite”, which you can read here). Personally, I support their right to freedom of speech, because not only is free speech a bedrock of our free society, it also gives me great mirth, and besides, I follow Oscar Wilde’s prescription to always forgive your enemies, as “nothing annoys them so much”! Besides, I certainly do support their right to freedom of speech, and it gives me great mirth!

What is interesting, however, is the fact that in the last few days they have directed their bile at the U.S. Tea Party movement, a term used to describe a decentralised grassroots movement comprising several thousand independent local organisations, united around reducing the size and scope of government, through eliminating wasteful spending and opposing unnecessary tax hikes. From my perspective, my only real involvement with Tea Parties was attending (more observing really) a rally on September 12, 2008. Where I saw hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens come out and oppose bad economic policies. And, like David Boaz from the libertarian Cato Institute, I came to the conclusion that, you know, these Tea Party’s were ultimately a force for good (if you want further information, here’s a good clip of my former boss, Grover Norquist, analysing the Tea Parties on Lateline with Leah Sales). Getting everyday, ordinary people engaged in the political process, to oppose bad economic policy was a great step forward for civil engagement, and I thoroughly support this. So, I am more than happy to identify, in spirit, with the Tea Party movement, and to support their small government aims, as I think most of our readers ought.

This vitriol was running through the back of my mind, when I saw this clip, filled by Ann McElhinney of Greener Horizon Films, producer of the expose on the true close of Global Warming hysteria, Not Evil Just Wrong (full disclosure, I previously worked for Greener Horizon Films as the  Australia-NZ representatives for NEJW):

You would think such foolishness a parody, if it wasn’t  for the fact that these are the exact same views espoused by the left in Australia. In all seriousness. Indeed,  Upon watching this, I immediately thought of the abuse by representatives of the hate-site, and in particularly, this message that seems to underpin all their work: This right-wing American style of politics needs to be shut down in Australia and only you the public can stop it.”

Ahh, the left. Free speech for everyone, except if you disagree with them.

Now, personally, I find their page  hilarious, and I can’t stop laughing anytime I see it; heck, I frequently visit the site just to get a bit of a laugh whenever my day gets too stressful. Yet, beneath the humour that is the pathetically pitiful nature of their bitter obsession (and it can only be called an obsession), is a far darker point to be made. Because lurking beneath their abuse is a hatred of Australians, and a fear and desperation.

As we have explained, the tea party movement is simply ordinary people expressing their belief in small government, so, why all the hate? Indeed, as someone who believes in grassroots empowerment, in getting as many people involved in the political process as possible, and in creating a strong and dynamic civil society, this call to “stop” freedom of speech, is something I find baffling.

The only explanation I can think of for these calls, the only explanation I can find for the hate-filled smears of the left, is that they are terrified of the people. There is a real, palatable of Australians getting engaged in the political process, and this scares the hard-left witless.

Why? Simple. Because the multi-billion dollar left-wing industry relies on a quiet populace.  The millions they receive, whether it be to their NGO’s, to Unions, or even – yes, I’ll say it – to their media arm, the ABC, is reliant upon the Australian people being docile. And I think it’s time for us to be frank about this fact. There really is a multi-billion dollar far-left industry out there, reliant upon our taxpayer, and I am sick of tip-toeing around the issue for fear of alienating a special interest group.

Whether it be fat cat public ‘servant” bureaucrats, safe and secure in their tenure, knowing they will never be able to get a non-taxpayer funded job in the real world. Or so-called “climate scientists”, who, without millions in funds for scaremongering would face the unemployment queue. Those reliant on sustaining a culture of welfare, so they can keep on leeching off the public purse, “helping” the less fortunate, despite all the evidence that their big-government plans never have worked. The artsy types, who live off taxpayer dollars to propagate their hate – sorry, “art”.  “Multicultural organisations”, the ABC, Unions – the list goes on – I am only just scratching the surface. Australia has entire left wing industry entrenched through all levels of government, that up until now has never been challenged. And ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Sure, not everyone in these professions is guilty. Most are probably hard working, diligent, good people. But I direct this to the top levels of their hierarchy, those who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds a year, and, if anyone dares to tell me with a straight face they don’t have their snouts in the trough, I’d tell you that no, they don’t only have their snouts in it – they have their two front trotters as well!

If Big Left really were unashamed of their actions, they would welcome debate. They would welcome Australians getting involved in their civic duty and taking action upon their beliefs. They would, indeed, encourage this debate in the battle of ideas.

Ye shall know them by their fruits, and the frenzied actions of the left expose says all that we need to know. Their frantic efforts to silence all debate, to quash all opposition, reveals their true nature.

They do not want debate, they want power. And are willing to do anything to stop the Australian people from waking up to their radical agenda.

The problem is, for the left, that it’s probably too late. The freedom that the internet brings has allowed the Australian people to learn about their game (any wonder why Labor is so desperately trying to censor it from political thoughts they do not like?)

The Australian people have woken up, and are sick of the left. They can no longer put the genie back in the bottle. We will no longer be intimidated, and we are standing up for our rights. And the left see the end of their multi-billion dollar industry is near.

And that is why they are frothing at the mouth.

Don’t even bother visiting their hate site – not even for a laugh. For all you will see is the last, desperate gasp of a discredited ideology, and witness its adherents collapsing as they view the entire corrupt edifice that supports them crumble before their eyes.

We are seeing the end of a dark, dark, era.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.