VIDEO: The New Cold War — The Chinese money machine.

The Chinese money machine.


RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Says He Will Collaborate With China If Elected

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

The Trump Administration’s Geopolitical Hat Trick

Sudan has become the third Arab country to agree to normalize relations with Israel. The Palestinians are most unhappy: “Palestinians condemn ‘shameful’ Israel-Sudan accord,” by Khaled Abu Toameh and Celia Jean, Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2020:

The Palestinian Authority said on Friday that it “condemns and rejects” the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel.

A statement by the PA presidency in Ramallah said that normalization with Israel is in violation of the Arab summit resolutions and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative….

Friday’s statement by the PA, however, did not accuse Sudan of betraying the Palestinians or stabbing the Palestinian people in the back, as was the case with the UAE and Bahrain.

Mahmoud Abbas has apparently figured out that the curses and insults that he and his cronies flung at the UAE and Bahrain when they normalized relations with Israel, did the Palestinians no good, but merely inflamed passions against them. With the Sudan, they’re trying a different, more-in-sorrow approach: How can you do this to us? Don’t you feel our pain?

“No one has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue,” the statement added. “The path to a just and comprehensive peace should be based on international law and legitimacy so as to end the Israeli occupation of the land of the State of Palestine and achieve independence for the Palestinian people in their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership will take the necessary decisions to protect the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

But Sudan did not arrogate to itself the “right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue.” It said nothing at all about the “Palestinians” in its agreement to normalize relations with Israel. It was only addressing, and promoting in two ways, its own national interest. First, to obtain this agreement, the U.S. has removed the Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. That will give it access to foreign investors, and to loans from the World Bank, the IMF, and other institutions. Second, Israel will be eager to prove to the Sudan that it made the right choice, by helping it where it most could use Israeli help: in agriculture. Israel is a world leader in drip irrigation, in wastewater management, and in solar energy, all of which could be of great help to Sudanese farmers.

While not in the official PA statement, Wasel Abu Youssef from the Palestinian Liberation Front, a small faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said that Sudan joining “others who normalized ties with the state of the Israeli occupation represents a new stab in the back of the Palestinian people and a betrayal of the just Palestinian cause.”

“A new stab in the back”? Oh dear. It sounds as if Wasel Abu Youssef of the PLF did not get the memo from Mahmoud Abbas calling for a kinder, gentler approach to Sudan. This kind of charge only infuriated the UAE and Bahrain when it was made about them by the PA; the Sudanese are just as unlikely to be pleased to be described as back-stabbers. The Palestinians really ought to do a better job of coordinating their responses; this mixed-messaging will never do.

Abbas Zaki, a senior official of the ruling Fatah faction, said that Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord with Israel….

“Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord”? But Sudan has already gained something. It has been removed from the American list of state sponsors of terrorism; that removal will greatly improve Sudan’s ability to attract foreign investment, and will now enable Sudan to receive loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other financial institutions that were previously impossible to obtain. And then there is the extensive Israeli aid that will be given to Sudanese farmers, just as soon as the agreement goes into effect. Abbas Zaki is whistling in the dark.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that the agreement was “not compatible with Sudan’s record of supporting the Palestinians.”

But that “record of supporting the Palestinians” took place under the long and terrible rule of Omar al-Bashir, the dictator of Sudan from 1989 to 2019. Bashir was an ardent supporter of Hamas, allowing it to operate freely in the country. Bashir also gave refuge to Osama bin Laden, who lived securely in the Sudan for four years. The new regime in Sudan wants to end any hint of the country’s previous connection to terrorists; it wants to reconnect with the West, attract investors, and build its economy, especially agriculture. It has gotten nothing from its “record of supporting the Palestinians” except being placed on the list of state sponsors of terror. Now, by normalizing relations with Israel, it has already been taken off that list, allowing it to attract investors, be again eligible for foreign aid, and be able to obtain loans from major financial institutions such as the IMF. Israel is ready to share with Sudanese farmers the benefits of its expertise and advances in at least three key areas – solar energy, drip irrigation, and wastewater management – where it is a world leader.

PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] spokesman Daoud Shehab accused Sudan of presenting Israel with a “free gift” in order to appease the US.

“This is a black day in the history of Sudan,” Shehab added. “The agreement jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity and is a betrayal of the Arabs and Muslims.”

The PIJ official expressed confidence that the Sudanese people would not accept this “betrayal.”…

It is Israel that will be giving gifts to the Sudan, in the form of aid to its agricultural sector. As for Shehab’s claim that the normalization agreement “jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity,” since when did the Palestinians become the judges as to the “Arab” identity of others? Because the Sudanese are black, is there possibly an attempt here to hint at doubt as to their “Arab” identity unless they fall back into line with what the Palestinians demand? And what exactly was the “betrayal” by the Sudan? Did it owe the Palestinians anything? Have the Palestinians ever done anything for the Sudan, other than land the country on the list of state sponsors of terrorism?

There is certainly domestic opposition in the Sudan to this new agreement. But the opponents of normalization surely know that the Sudanese quid for that significant American quo was Sudan’s agreeing to normalize relations with Israel. And if they are willing to “give peace a chance,” they will find the new connection with Israel will pay ample dividends, for the Israelis want to make sure that the “early adopters” of normalization realize economic benefits quickly. In the case of Sudan, as bears repeating, that means Israeli help to Sudanese farmers, mainly by sharing Israeli advances in drip irrigation, in waste water management, and in solar energy.

Commending the agreement from the Arab world was Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who tweeted that he welcomed the joint efforts of all three states involved in the agreement.

He added that he also values “all efforts aimed at achieving regional stability and peace.”…

El-Sisi has for a long time been cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially against Jihadis in the Sinai and, naturally, against the Muslim Brotherhood that is the sworn enemy of his regime. He previously praised both the UAE and Bahrain for their normalization agreements with Israel. It is not surprising, but is still heartening, that the most populous Arab state, and Sudan’s immediate northern neighbor, has come out foursquare for the agreement.

The Palestinian Arabs continue to believe that they should have a veto power over the policy toward Israel of all the other Arabs. They seek to deny the Arab states the possibility of making their own arrangements with Israel, arrangements that further their own national interests. The UAE and Bahrain dismissed the Palestinian objections, and went ahead in normalizing relations with the Jewish state. They have had only curses and insults heaped on them by the Palestinians, which only makes them more determined to promote both economic and people-to-people ties with the Israelis – “a warm peace.” Meanwhile, the entire nation of Israel seems ready to make sure their new Arab interlocutors benefit from such normalization; Israeli businessmen, entrepreneurs, scientists, academics, and tourists have gone to the UAE and Bahrain, while Emiratis and Bahrainis are doing the same in the Jewish state. And now, to complete the Trump Administration’s geopolitical hat trick, Sudan has just become the third Arab state to announce its intention to normalize relations with Israel. Abbas rages in Ramallah, for he can do no other, and the caravan moves on.



RELATED VIDEO: FBI warns David Wood of jihadists’ calls to murder him for eating Qur’an pages


North Carolina Leftist who wanted to kill Biden to ‘save Bernie’ had pro-jihad video, praised 9/11

Colorado: Non-Muslims try to destroy Islam by ‘sugarcoating, watering it down, accept LGBT…HIYZ…music is okay’

Muslims from Mozambique screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ cross into Tanzania, behead 20 people

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MAGA Mask-Wearing Nuns Steal The Show At Trump Rally

Religious nuns wearing “Make America Great Again” masks at President Donald Trump’s rally excited the attention of Twitter users Saturday evening.

At least three different nuns can be seen standing behind the president as he spoke Saturday night in Circleville, Ohio. The nuns, dressed in white, black and purple habits and wearing crosses around their necks, also wore black masks with the letters “MAGA” on them, were in the front row of the Trump rally.

One nun held a bible in her hands, pictures show, while others held rosaries.

The nuns can be seen applauding throughout the president’s speech, as Twitter users noted.



Social issues reporter.


Pro-Trump group crashes Biden drive-in rally in Pennsylvania

Biden Has 52% Of The Catholic Vote, Poll Finds

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. McSally Explains How She Plans To Keep John McCain’s Senate Seat

Brett Favre: ‘Fans Clearly Do Not Want Political Messaging Mixed With Their Sports’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Corporation from an Islamic State where Wife-Beating is Legal Opens a Feminist Hotel in D.C.

Look at the tampon portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ignore the wife-beating.

What was Washington D.C. missing?

A feminist hotel whose lobby has a giant portrait of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg made out of “repurposed tampons”. Of all the ways the deceased justice would want to be remembered, a giant tampon portrait likely ranks below being the new Land O’Lakes or Aunt Jemima mascot.

But Hotel Zena’s incredible commitment to female empowerment also includes a reception desk full of jumbled high heels, giant portraits of female warriors, thousands of feminist protest buttons, and a Wall of Honor that includes Oprah and Hillary Clinton, for a “fierce” atmosphere.

Because who doesn’t come on a business trip to D.C. and then wants to stay overnight in a “fierce” atmosphere while being glared at by a mural of a dour Greek goddess in every room?

The only thing funnier than a “fierce”, but “inviting” feminist hotel is who’s behind it.

Viceroy Hotels & Resorts announced that “Hotel Zena was created primarily by women, for people, both women and men. It is a hotel that offers a haven for all genders, races, and sexualities.”

That might nor be quite the attitude of Viceroy’s Maldives hotel in a country where Islamic sharia law orders women who have been raped to be lashed. The Islamic regime made headlines around the world when it ordered a 15-year-old girl to be lashed for having premarital sex.

But then again, 50% of Viceroy is owned by the Mubadala Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund in Abu Dhabi. Its CEO is the grandson of the former top Sharia judge there.

Some 50% of Viceroy was owned by Jho Low, the businessman at the center of Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal that dragged in sections of its government and assorted Muslim royals. The Justice Department seized some of Low’s assets and the Abu Dhabi wealth fund was negotiating to buy that 50%, but it’s unclear who now owns the other half of Viceroy.

Viceroy’s true hometown in Abu Dhabi is about as feminist as a tampon portrait of RBG.

Women have “male guardians” who run their lives and decide whether they can travel and the Sharia Court of Appeals found that men have the right to beat their wives. Female genital mutilation is commonplace, and rape is only a crime for girls under fourteen years old.

Hugging a man without the benefit of marriage however is a crime.

Foreign tourists who reported being raped were sentenced to prison because they had confessed to extramarital sex. In other words, it’s the usual sort of Sharia setup.

And don’t ask about “sexualities.”

“Unnatural sex with another person” gets you 14 years prison. That’s progressive in a region where Iran hangs gay people. And it’s not the only one dispensing death penalties freely.

All of this is a little awkward for a feminist hotel that boasts of its “provocative art” produced by “feminists of both genders” who are “working globally for the cause of human rights.”

A giant tampon portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a very convenient distraction even if it’s not too clear how all those “repurposed tampons” are advancing human rights around the world.

The business model is a familiar one. Take an underwhelming hotel, and renovate it into a “luxury urban lifestyle hotel” by throwing lots of bad art, and virtue signaling at every inch of it. But the investors are often foreign, looking for someplace with potential to put their money.

Last year’s reviews for The Donovan mentioned smells, leaks, and dirty toilets. The hotel had been renamed several times and showed up in the D.C. Madam’s phone records (probably not one of the accomplishments of female empowerment that the current management would like to celebrate, but you never know) and then a $25 million renovation gave it a feminist makeover.

Now if there are any leaks, visitors will be too distracted by all the feminist virtue signaling.

Washington D.C. is leading the nation in the trend of woke hotels with extremely un-woke owners. The Eaton Workshop had been previously announced as a woke hotel with crystal healing, politically correct lectures, and bibles replaced with UN pamphlets. But its ownership was linked to a Hong Kong family entangled with Chinese state-owned enterprises.

Like the NBA, Disney, and the rest of the huge corporate titans, woke is reserved for America.

Opening a hotel in D.C. that blathers about oppression or feminism is fine. It’s just marketing to the ruling class of a government town that sees oppressors everywhere except in the mirror. But don’t expect any lectures about human rights in a Hong Kong hotel or feminist tampon portraits in the hotels of Maldives or Abu Dhabi. That’s the difference between virtue and virtue signaling.

So many corporations have been happy to shout, “Black Lives Matter”, lecture on “toxic masculinity”, ban gun owners, and pro-life activists because that’s the official dogma. Every dot com from Amazon to Spotify will rename Columbus Day, Indigenous Peoples Day, because that’s what the ruling class here wants, the way the PRC’s ruling class wants Mao portraits.

There’s no contradiction between Sharia law in Abu Dhabi and tampon portraits in D.C., or Communist propaganda in Shanghai and Black Lives Matter t-shirts in San Francisco.

It’s not about rights, principles, or commitments: it’s about power.

That’s why shoving the Uighurs in the NBA’s face is a great own on Twitter, but not much else. The NBA doesn’t care about rights. No more than Disney or any corporation shooting off emails about its commitment to racial equality and the millions it’s sending to Black Lives Matter does.

When most Americans were patriotic, corporations also wanted to be seen as patriotic. But these days most Americans matter about as much as most Chinese or most Venezuelans.

The ruling class has a new set of mores and virtues to distinguish it from the folks, as Obama once put it at a San Francisco fundraiser with George Soros in attendance, bitterly cling to their guns and religion, instead of bitterly clinging to their Black Lives Matter signs and RBG portraits.

The luxury hotels of D.C. cater to the new ruling class and its mores and fetishes.

The Zena Hotel, like the Eaton Workshop or any of the new urban luxury leftist hotels, doesn’t represent rights, but the power of the ruling class to repress the rest of the country. The more obnoxious, crude, hypocritical, and abusive its propaganda, the greater its show of strength.

The propaganda can be about female empowerment, the glories of Maoism or Sharia law, but their real message is in the universal language of the power and preening of the ruling class.

In D.C., Democrat women can be groped by Biden before checking into a feminist hotel where tampon portraits and murals of female goddesses and warriors make them feel empowered. It’s no different than the Muslim women who claim that Sharia law empowers them. Empowerment is different from freedom. Rights provide real freedom while empowerment offers a heady rush.

One is a legal reality and the other is an emotional feeling.

A brief history of the tyranny of the Left is that it substitutes emotions for rights. Its empowerment doesn’t promise freedom or rights, only the thrill of power over others.

“Every architectural line, material and art peinstallation was thoughtfully designed and curated to send a message of female empowerment,” a story about the Zena Hotel claims.

It’s not about the empowerment of women. The Zena Hotel is still a product of two massive companies with male CEOs, not to mention Islamic emirates with male rulers, and even the hotel’s chef is a man. But it is about the empowerment of some women of the ruling class, not to rule over their male bosses, but the rest of the country which lacks their wealth and power.

A ruling class doesn’t seek to empower women or anyone else, but to hold and wield power. Zena’s portraits of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of Hillary Clinton and Oprah are not about rights: they’re a celebration of the power of a ruling class while pretending that power is feminism.

And if you get too worried about the wife-beating in Abu Dhabi, here’s a tampon mural of RBG.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Arizona: Hijab-wearing Muslim trans Antifa militant arrested at Phoenix riot, claims to be victim of ‘Islamophobia’

Turkey, Azerbaijan commit more crimes against Armenians

Al-Azhar grand imam says man who beheaded teacher doesn’t speak for Islam, but warns against ‘insulting religions’

Iran’s Khamenei: ‘Muslim nations will never accept the humiliation of compromising with the Zionist regime’

Iran: Woman bicycles without hijab, governor says she ‘insulted the Islamic veil,’ her motive is being investigated

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why this Jew is Voting for Donald J. Trump

How can so many American Jews vote AGAINST the most pro-Israel POTUS in American history? How can they vote for a party whose platform violates so many tenets of their religion?

It’s time to #JEXIT #Trump2020 #JewsForTrump #IsraelisforTrump

©The United West. All rights reserved.

Fr. Michael O’Connor Preaches Truth to Joe Biden

Joe Biden is a “…an embarrassment to Catholicism…”


RELATED VIDEO: Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 


Please share these videos with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Pope Francis Oversteps the Papal Office

Fr. Gerald Murray on the pope’s endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples. Pope Francis must repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.

The endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples by Pope Francis in the film Francesco, directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, is a true scandal in both the technical and popular meaning of that term. He has repudiated the teaching of St. John Paul II that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions” and that the “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”

In addition to endorsing civil unions, Pope Francis says that homosexuals “have a right to a family.” What are we to make of this? There is evidence that Afineevsky has egregiously taken this statement from a videotaped 2019 interview of Pope Francis by the Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki out of context.

Pope Francis was in fact speaking about the right of homosexuals not to be rejected by their own families, not about homosexuals creating new families of their own, presumably by adoption or through surrogate motherhood.

The problem, though, remains that the Vatican has publicly embraced this film. And the pope’s out-of-context “right to a family” comments have been widely interpreted in the media in the way surely intended by Afineevsky but not by Pope Francis. The Vatican has the duty to issue a correction stating clearly that Pope Francis was not giving an endorsement of a right to the adoption of children by homosexual couples. The Church has always taught that there is no right for two men or two women living together in an immoral sexual relationship to adopt children.

As he has at several critical points in the past, however, Pope Francis has overstepped the limits of his office. The pope is a witness to the Faith, not an all-powerful authority who can change Catholic doctrine according to his own mistaken way of thinking. Catholic doctrine teaches that homosexual persons should refrain from same-sex activity and not enter into sinful relationships that lead to mortal sin.

Pope Francis’ remarks will give encouragement to all those, Catholic and not, who reject the Church’s teaching that sodomy is an inherently evil act. They will claim that the Church now accepts homosexual activity as something good when it offers a real good: life within a family, of a sort.

And in the context the pope has placed it, same-sex “families” deserve not only legal protection via civil unions but also societal approval in order to make same-sex couples feel as welcome and accepted as anyone else in society.

I expect that various cardinals and bishops will make public statements for and against this new teaching. Cardinal Burke has already issued a powerful reply that may be read by clicking here.  Divisions, already in existence over other hotly-contested questions, will grow wider.

No “bridge-building” will result from this latest misstep. Those who accept the Church’s perennial teaching on homosexuality will be accused of being anti-Catholic enemies of the pope. But can that be true?

To remind the pope of what the Church has always taught makes those who do so not his opponents, but rather his true friends who have the courage to rebuke a pope who has attempted to do what lies beyond his powers, that is, change Catholic moral doctrine.

The Catholic Church throughout the world has strongly opposed proposals to pass civil-union laws, having been instructed to do so by the Holy See in 2003. That all changed on October 21, 2020. Encouraging governments to legally formalize unnatural, sinful relationships in which people engage in sodomy is a shameful thing for any Christian to do, but most especially so for the pope.

Pope Francis’ comments are a flagrant betrayal of the mission of the successor of St. Peter “to confirm the brethren” in sound doctrine.

This is a volcanic eruption. Catholicism is now widely but incorrectly seen to consist of the latest remarks by Pope Francis to journalists and filmmakers. Pope Francis has used the power and influence of his sacred office to promote something that is sinful. That is not the mission entrusted by Christ to St. Peter and his successors. Catholic doctrine on the immorality of homosexual acts cannot be changed by Pope Francis or any other pope.

We must pray that he comes to realize the grave offense he has given to God by this wrongful endorsement of homosexual pseudo-marriage. He is encouraging what he is bound by his office to condemn. His acceptance of his election as pope by the College of Cardinals included a solemn commitment to uphold the Faith handed down from the Apostles.

He has no right to promote the erroneous teaching that homosexual people have a right to live together in sin or have a just claim upon civil society, acting through its governments, to publicly recognize such unions as legal institutions that are equivalent in some way to sacramental marriage.

The faithful must call upon Pope Francis to repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.


Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Cultural Marxism 101

Why are the Left and Right fighting over this term?

A lot of terms are thrown around today to describe extremist movements. One that keeps coming up is “cultural Marxism.” In an attempt to add clarity, political and historical accuracy, Clarion Project investigates the origin and current usage of the term and offers our suggestions going forward.

1. The modern term “cultural Marxism” morphed from its original expression, which was “cultural Bolshevism.” This latter term originated in Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s as a way to denounce the modernist movement in the arts and culture and was later used by the Nazis to claim that the Bolsheviks, the Marxist revolutionary movement in Russia, wanted to subvert the Germany values of family and national identity as well as its traditions in music, art and intellectual ideas.

However, the term “cultural Bolshevism” in Germany was also fundamentally used as an antisemitic canard based on the conspiracy theory that the Jews were behind the 1917 communist revolution in Russia. This canard was aided by the 1920s’ global circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a made-up document published in Russia in 1903 that purported to describe a secret Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination. (To this day, Far-Right circles continue to believe that communism is a Jewish conspiracy.) In reality, by December 1917, only five of the 21 members of the Communist Central Committee were Jews.

2. Even though the term originated as an antisemitic Nazi trope, most people using it today are unaware of its origins or implied meaning. They certainly are not using it as an antisemitic slur. For example, celebrated thought-leader Jordan Peterson uses the term “cultural Marxism” in a context completely different from its origins. Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News platform, also popularized the term despite being Jewish himself.

A more accurate representation of the use of this term by the above figures and similar conservative thinkers would probably be “neo-Marxism,” as this expression more accurately describes the aspirations of the specific demographic that favors the uprooting of our existing systems.

In its most extreme, the program advocated by this demographic is based on Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto, which outlines the core goal of communism: the abolishment of private property as a means to bring about a classless society (in our day and age, this would be called an “anti-racist” society as per critical race theory).

This chapter of the Manifesto includes a call for the abolishment of the family, as families are viewed as a mechanism of exploitation and a means to capitalism’s ends.

The official Black Lives Matter website advocated a number of these classic Marxist ideologies found in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto in their “What We Believe” page, including the goal of “disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” The page, which has since been taken down by the group, also provided biographies of the movement’s founders, who describe themselves as “trained Marxists.”

3. The Far-Left charges that the term “cultural Marxism” is used by the Far-Right — especially white supremacists — to slander those who believe in the “social justice movement.”

For example, the Left-wing site Fair writes,

What does cultural Marxism mean for the far right? In the modern iteration, in spaces like Breitbart or Infowars, it is the belief that a failure by communists to topple capitalism through worker revolt has led to a “Plan B” to destroy Western society from the inside. By tearing down the gender binary, de-centering Christianity values, championing the weak over the privileged and creating a multicultural society, revolutionaries have unanchored traditional Western order. Everything from gay rights to Muslim immigration is, in the language of the far right, part of a plot to finish the job that radical worker organizing could not.

Suffice it to say, this is a most paranoid fantasy. Most Marxists don’t speak in these terms, and people who do advocate for immigration, multiculturalism or secularism do so out of a certain regard for human and civil rights. But the far right still obsesses that this is a historical cultural struggle.

This group also points to the fact that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik invoked “cultural Marxism” in his manifesto. In 2011, Breivik went on a killing spree in which he murdered 77 people, the majority of whom were teenagers at a Workers’ Youth League summer camp.

4. While it would nice to have a static, agreed-upon definition of “cultural Marxism,” even this would probably not resolve the controversy over the term, considering its antisemitic origins. What may be the best solution is to pivot our use of language around all current discussions of Marxism to the far more specific and accurate phrase “neo-Marxism.”


A Lesson in How Not to Fight Antisemitism

From Street Thugs to the High-Brow Salon Circles, the Right to Free Speech Is Increasingly Under Attack

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: SUMMING THINGS UP — Boiling it all down.


Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

A programming note before we begin: Church Militant will be covering the currently scheduled last presidential debate this coming Thursday live as we have done all the previous debates.

Coverage will begin at 8:30 p.m. ET with a pre-debate analysis. That will go for roughly 30 minutes until the debate begins (which we will carry on our site).

Then, immediately following the debate, we will return for a full hour of analysis and commentary.

One thing to keep a very careful eye on will be the conservative reports of the Hunter Biden laptop hard drive and allegedly damning emails proving Joe Biden’s years of corruption involving the Chinese Communist Party.

Again, this Thursday, 8:30 p.m. ET, debate coverage will be live from Church Militant — your go-to Catholic source for news and information.

For today, a brief introduction: One of the things that happens when you’re in media is various interview requests come in looking for deeper insight into current stories of import.

This past Friday, Church Militant did an interview with Rob Gocklin (the “blue-collar Catholic”) who asked some of the best questions we’ve been asked here about the current state of the culture, the Church and the campaign — a sum-up of things as they stand right now.

Rob is a down-to-earth, straight-up, plain-spoken Catholic dedicated every bit as we are to righting this ship.


EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

On the Nature of Complicity

Randall Smith: In the future, will America’s bishops renounce their failure to condemn politicians who support abortion as German bishops have recently done for their former support of Nazism?

In a column last year titled “Politicizing the Eucharist?” I pointed out that no one now claims that when Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three Catholics for publically encouraging people to defy his order to de-segregate the Catholic schools, he was “politicizing the Eucharist.”  Rather, Rummel is now praised highly for his singular courage, especially since his condemnation was so contrary to the more “accommodating” views of many of his fellow southern Catholics.

I also mentioned Cardinal Adolf Bertram, the ex-officio head of the German episcopate in the 1930s, who ordered Church bells rung in celebration of Nazi Germany’s victories over Poland and France and who sent greetings to Hitler on his 50th birthday in the name of all German Catholics, an act that angered his fellow bishops Konrad von Preysing and August von Galen.

The subject of whether the bishops should speak out publically against the treatment of the Jews arose at a 1942 meeting of the German bishops at Fulda. The consensus was “to give up heroic action in favor of small successes.”  In the 1933 Reichskonkordat between the Holy See and the German government, Church leaders pledged to refrain from speaking out on issues not directly related to the Church.  Repeated violations of the Konkordat on the part of the government, including closing churches and church schools, did not change their minds. And it also didn’t keep bishops like Bertram from endorsing government actions they favored, such as opposition to communism and the subjugation of Poland.

If you imagine I am being too tough on these German bishops, then perhaps you should read the twenty-three-page report made public last May by Germany’s Council of Catholic Bishops in which they admitted “complicity” by their predecessors who did not do enough to oppose the rise of Nazi regime and its mistreatment of Jews.

In eighty or ninety years, will future U.S. bishops be submitting a similar document of their own, confessing the “complicity” of their predecessors who did not do enough to oppose the abortion regime?  Will Catholics of that time be as baffled about our present bishops and prominent Catholic politicians as we are about the accommodationist Catholics of Nazi Germany?

How could Catholics of that time have failed to understand the evil staring them in the face? And why did they “accommodate” a regime that had labeled Christianity, and Catholics in particular, as “enemies of the state”?  Was it perhaps because so many leaders of the regime had been raised Catholic and some were still rosary-carrying church-goers?

Who, in retrospect, would not look back in shame at a German bishop who called questioning the Catholic commitments of Catholic Nazi leaders “offensive because they constitute an assault on the meaning of what it is to be Catholic.” Because “being Catholic means loving the Church; being Catholic means participating in the sacramental life of the church; being a Catholic means trying to transform the world by the light of the Gospel”?

And yet those are the words of our own Bishop McElroy of San Diego about those who question Joe Biden’s Catholicism.

And we transform the world in the light of the Gospel how?  Is it not by opposing the killing of innocent human beings?

In retrospect, we would suspect that a bishop who had said about the treatment of Jews, as Bishop McElroy has about abortion, that “To reduce that magnificent, multidimensional gift of God’s love to a single question of public policy is repugnant and should have no place in public discourse” had little or no serious concern for the lives being lost.  “Sure, abortion is bad, but what about global warming!”  “Sure the ill-treatment of Jews is unfortunate, but what about the future of Europe!” Wouldn’t we consider that to be repugnant?

What would anyone say now about a Catholic politician as prominent as Mario Cuomo if, during the 1930s in Germany, he had said:  “I accept the Church’s teaching about Jews, but must I insist others do so?  Our public morality. . .the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives – depends on a consensus view of right and wrong.  The values derived from religious belief will not and should not be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large by consensus.” That statement would have worked equally well for Catholic segregationists in the American South.

If that Catholic politician in 1930s Germany had available to him the “seamless garment” argument used by Mr. Cuomo, he might have said, “I grant that the treatment of Jews may have a unique significance but not a preemptive significance.”  “The Jewish question is an important issue for Catholics, but so is the question of the injustice of the reparation payments we have been forced to make along with all the resulting hunger and homelessness and joblessness, all the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it.”

All the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it?  Like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . abortion?

Who, in retrospect now, wouldn’t find such a “Catholic” politician either an obvious liar or a delusional hack?

If you find my comparison between the Catholics who enabled the Nazis and modern Catholics who enable abortion troubling, perhaps you should read Anne Applebaum’s article in The Atlantic titled “History Will Judge the Complicit.” Take out all the tendentious stuff about the numbers at Trump’s inauguration and a phone call with the Ukrainian ambassador and replace it with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden’s support for abortion and for policies that result in the closure of faithful Catholic institutions, and then change the title to “On the Nature of Complicity: Abortion’s Catholic Enablers and the Judgment of History.”

That judgment is unlikely to be any kinder to them than it has been to their German predecessors.


Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is a tenured Full Professor of Theology. His book Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Guidebook for Beginners is available from Emmaus Press. And his book Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture at Paris: Preaching, Prologues, and Biblical Commentary is due out from Cambridge University Press in the fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

France Reeling From Beheading of Schoolteacher Educating About Free Speech

EDITORS NOTE: In an attack that sent France reeling, on Friday afternoon, October 16, in broad daylight, a French schoolteacher was beheaded on a suburban street for teaching his students a required lesson about free speech. Samuel Paty, 47, was murdered close to the school where he taught by an 18-year-old Chechen immigrant (identified only as Abdoulakh A.) who had come to France as a child refugee.

Abdoulakh then posted images of Paty’s severed head on his Twitter account along with insults aimed at French President Emmanuel Macron and French “infidels” and “dogs.” 

Witnesses reported hearing Abdoulakh shout “Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)!” during the attack. Abdoulakh had been waiting for Paty before attacking him with a knife and inflicting him with multiple head wounds.

The attacker was killed by police after firing at them with an airgun.

Paty was a history and geography teacher, who had been threatened many times after educating his students in light of the ongoing Charlie Hebdo trial and showing them cartoons from the satirical magazine depicting Islam’s prophet Mohammed (he advised Muslim students to look away if they were offended).

In 2015, 14 Islamist extremists murdered 17 people in a killing spree that started at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. The magazine had published “Mohammed cartoons” that triggered a violent assault, turning their newsroom into a scene of carnage, blood and gunpowder.

Abdoulakh, who lived 62 miles away from the school, waited for Paty outside the school, asked students to point out Paty and followed him on foot.

Macron said the attack was consistent with an “Islamist terrorist attack” and that Paty had been killed because he “taught freedom of expression.”

France announced it will hold a national tribute for Paty. The hashtag #JeSuisSamuel (I am Samuel) began trending on social media shortly after the attack, reminiscent of the #JeSuisCharlie call for solidarity after the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Since the trial began, there have been two terror attacks with two people wounded outside the magazine’s former offices.

On Friday after the attack, Charlie Hebdo tweeted, “Intolerance just reached a new threshold and seems to stop at nothing to impose terror in our country.”

The Threat of Political Islam

In the space of five years, France’s President Emmanuel Macron has performed a gradual and now complete volte-face on the threat that political Islam poses to France.

In a 2015 speech before he became president, he declared that France’s colonial past was partly responsible for the emergence of jihad in the homeland.

At a press conference in April 2019 in which he announced measures he planned to take in response to the civil unrest that was sweeping the nation, he spoke about the emergence of what he termed “communitarianism” (a euphemism for political Islam) that would eventually lead certain parts of the country to secede from the French Republic.

The only concrete measure he proposed was to ban foreign funding of mosques and Islamist NGOs that were driving political Islam and putting national cohesion at risk.

Over the past 18 months, a policy speech has been eagerly awaited by the media and public, but Macron has a tendency to shy away from this explosive topic, and the pandemic that paralyzed the country in March 2020 enabled him to kick the can down the road.

That policy speech materialized on October 2, when Macron finally stopped beating around the bush and declared radical Islam to be a clear and present danger to France that needs to be tackled urgently.

He stated that Islamist separatists had put in place an orchestrated plan and network to create a parallel social order within the French Republic, which he defined as a nation of citizens forming an “indivisible bloc” that is “one and plural,” echoing the United States motto E pluribus unum.

The ultimate goal of the Islamist ideologists is to take full control of French society.

Macron announced a draft law designed to combat Islamist separatism will be presented to the cabinet on December 9 that will include the following measures:

  1. Schooling will be compulsory for children from the age of three and exemptions will only be granted for medical reasons. Macron revealed that over 50,000 children are currently homeschooled and that many of them are attending bunker-type institutions where they are taught by women in niqabs and learn only how to pray.
  2. Mayors who are pressured by Islamist organizations to introduce religious menus in school canteens or allow gender-segregated use of public swimming pools will see their decisions annulled by the local préfet, a state-appointed official tasked with ensuring compliance with the law and national interest.
  3. Powers to dissolve NGOs will be extended to include those that violate personal dignity and exert psychological or physical pressure. This measure is intended to target the network of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations that have mushroomed throughout the country in the past three decades. All NGOs receiving public funds will be required to sign a secular charter and refund the money if the charter is not respected.
  4. The ELCO program will be terminated. This program was introduced in the 1970s to enable children of Arabic, Turkish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Croatian immigrants to learn the language and culture of their parents’ home country. The teachers are hired, paid and supervised by the countries concerned. In reality, the ELCO program was a pipeline for the indoctrination of Muslim children, as the study of Arabic was restricted to reading religious texts. ELCO will be replaced by an alternative system controlled by the French Ministry of Education.
  5. Religious neutrality, which is already legally required in the public sector workplace, will also apply to public services that are sub-contracted to private entities, such as transport companies.
  6. Funding of mosques will be subject to stricter control and measures will be taken to prevent Salafists from taking over mosques and using them to propagate extremism.
  7. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) will be required to certify imams and ensure they respect a charter of values compliant with those of the French Republic. Foreign imams (of which there are currently around 300 from Algeria, Morocco and Turkey) will not be allowed to preach in French mosques.
  8. The state will donate $12 million to the Foundation for French Islam to set up a scientific institute for the study of Islam and additional research posts will be created in French universities.

Macron reiterated his accusation that France was partly to blame for the emergence of Islamist separatism because of its failure to integrate Muslim immigrants and their offspring. He also wheeled out the role played by France’s colonial past.

These arguments can be easily refuted as France’s colonial past in Vietnam has not prevented the total integration of the Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the 1970s.

There is nothing new in the proposals outlined by Macron, most of which are drawn from The Islamist Factory, a 2018 report by Hakim El Karoui of the Montaigne Institute think tank.

The measures are unlikely to make a dent in the inroads that have already been made in French society by the advocates of political Islam, and the growing numbers of French Muslims who are hostile to French society are unlikely to be dissuaded from their determination to live separately from the rest of the French population.

Macron’s stated goal of building “an Islam in France that can be an Islam of the Enlightenment” shows the extent to which he has failed to understand the nature of political Islam or take the measure of the threat it poses to France.

Political Islam is incompatible with the Enlightenment values upon which the French Republic was founded and therein lies the dilemma facing both the French Muslim community and the politicians seeking to defuse the threat they pose to the nation.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden: Muslims Will Serve ‘At Every Level’ of His Administration

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Permanent Coup. Ushering in the new world order.


Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

The interview we are presenting in today’s Vortex is perhaps one of the most important we have ever conducted. We have included some sound bites in this episode to give you a flavor of it, but we strongly recommend that you view the whole interview.

When Our Lady appeared in Fatima in 1917, it was specifically to tell the world to repent and to warn of the coming scourge of communism (meaning Marxism). Marxism is the decided enemy of the Church, of Christ, because it replaces the supernatural with natural; it makes the State God.

Our interview is with Joseph Flynn — the brother of Gen. Michael Flynn and who heads up his legal defense fund. In our interview, he drops the bombshell that documents released as part of the ongoing Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation reveal that not only Obama but Joe Biden was a major player in the attempt to destroy Donald Trump even before the inauguration.

The chosen route was to conjure up charges against Gen. Michael Flynn — who had become aware of the fact that Obama had reworked America’s national intelligence apparatus.

This all started coming out a week ago when a document known as a “302” was released, showing the beginnings of what has been termed a “permanent coup” and that it was orchestrated from within the Obama White House — and Joe Biden was in on the whole thing.

If you’re wondering why you are hearing this on Church Militant and not CNN or MSNBC or even Fox News — except for the slightest little blurb — well, the answer should be obvious.

Why should all of this matter specifically to Catholics (aside from the fact that the Flynn family is faithful practicing Catholics)? Because the same dynamic creating a coup in Washington, D.C. is the exact same dynamic that is in high gear in Rome.

That analysis of what’s going on in Rome has been substantiated by considerable evidence and commentary over the past half-dozen years. It also explains why Pope Francis refused to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as Hong Kong’s Cdl. Zen — both of whom have been very public calling on Rome and the pope to condemn this march to worldwide Marxism.

Church Militant has been sounding this alarm for two years now, alerting the world to the union of Rome and the Washington, D.C. swamp to effectively oust Trump so that a new world order can be ushered in. Remember, the globalists never thought Trump was going to win in 2016.

The final push was supposed to happen from a Hillary Clinton White House. The globalists in the Church were already in place from early on in Francis’ papacy. They were to team up with a Hillary administration and carry the ball over the goal line.

That obviously did not happen. That’s why there’s been an unleashing of such evil against Trump by the Left: He ruined their plans, set them back four years — hopefully longer. America is the last piece on the board that needs to be taken off. One month to go.

Please watch the interview in its entirety — so you can inform as many people as you possibly can.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


Watch Church Militant’s analysis of what’s at stake in November.


EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SURVEY: Trump is preferred by 74% of Orthodox, 23% of Conservative, 20% of Reform, 3% of Reconstructionist, and 14% of Secular Jews.

NEW YORK, NY/PRNewswire/ — The 2020 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey of Jews in the United States regarding the upcoming elections shows that 75% would choose former Vice President Joe Biden and 22% President Donald Trump. In 2016, 16% voted for Trump and 62% for Hillary Clinton, while 7% chose another candidate and 14% did not vote.

The AJC survey is the most comprehensive Jewish organization poll of Jews in the United States. The survey of 1,334 American Jews, ages 18 or older, was conducted by SSRS via telephone from September 9 to October 4, with a margin of error for the total sample of plus or minus 4.2%.

American Jews were asked about the most important issue in deciding how to vote, which candidate would do a better job on key issues facing the U.S., as well as questions regarding U.S.-Israel relations and prospects for peace between Israel and the Arab world, and between Israel and the Palestinians.

As in prior election year AJC surveys, there is a pronounced division of opinion by Jewish religious affiliation, in addition to political party connection. Asked about party affiliation, 53% identified as Democrats, 14% as Republicans, and 25% as Independents.

Trump is preferred by 74% of Orthodox, 23% of Conservative, 20% of Reform, 3% of Reconstructionist, and 14% of Secular Jews. Biden is the choice of 18% of Orthodox, 72% of Conservative, 78% of Reform, 93% of Reconstructionist, and 83% of Secular Jews.

Vice President Biden’s share of the Jewish vote mirrors the degree of dissatisfaction the survey uncovered about President Trump’s performance in office. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents disapproved of the job the president is doing, 73% “strongly,” as compared to 22% who approved, 15% “strongly.”

The difference between Orthodox and other affiliated Jews in viewing how well the president is doing his job is clear. 75% of Orthodox, 24% of Conservative, 20% of Reform, 4% of Reconstructionist, and 15% of Secular Jews approve of President Trump’s performance. Those who disapprove are 25% of Orthodox, 76% of Conservative, 80% of Reform, 96% of Reconstructionist, and 85% of Secular Jews.

For American Jewish voters, the most important issue in deciding for whom to cast a ballot for president is the COVID-19 pandemic (26%), with others prioritizing health care (17%), the economy (13%), race relations (12%), crime (6%), foreign policy (5%), or another issue (20%).

Health care was chosen as the second most important issue by 20%, followed by COVID-19 (18%), race relations (17%), economy (16%), foreign policy (11%), crime (5%), or some other issue (12%).

By wide margins, American Jews believe that if elected president Joe Biden would handle several key issues facing the U.S. today better than President Trump, including the COVID-19 pandemic (78% vs. 19%), combatting terrorism (71% vs. 26%), and antisemitism in the U.S. (75% vs. 22%). The difference was narrower in those who believe that Biden would be better suited to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations (54% vs. 42%)

On the U.S.-Israel relationship today, 86% of respondents characterize it as strong, with 33% who say very strong, and 12% weak. Republicans (68%) are more likely than Independents (35%) or Democrats (22%) to say U.S.-Israel relations are very strong.

Recent efforts to establish relations between Israel and Arab countries apparently have had some influence on American Jews’ optimism. Nearly two in five (37%) say they are more optimistic than they were a year ago about peace between Israel and the Arab world. Forty-nine percent say their views haven’t changed much, while 13% say they are less optimistic about peace between Israel and the Arab world.

Republicans (77%) are more likely than Independents (45%) or Democrats (21%) to say they are more optimistic about peace with the Arab world.

On the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, 55% of American Jews say their views have not changed, while 28% say they are less optimistic, and 16% say they are more optimistic than a year ago. Republicans (43%) are more likely than Independents (18%) or Democrats (7%) to say they are more optimistic about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The full AJC survey of American Jews on the 2020 U.S. Elections is available at

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: American Synagogue Under Siege

VIDEO: Courageous Priest Speaks The TRUTH About Joe Biden and the Democrat Party

This is a must-see Homily from Fr. Edward Meeks delivered at Christ the King parish in Towson, Maryland. Catholics need to understand that their vote must be one cast to further the will of God and Jesus Christ as written in the Holy Scripture.

Fr. Meeks states:

“[The] Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard politics-public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it.”



Fr. Ed Meeks is a Catholic priest of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, and the founding pastor of Christ the King Catholic Church in Towson, Maryland. Prior to becoming a priest, Fr. Ed had a career in Human Resources in several Baltimore area firms. He and his wife, Jan, were married in 1970.  They have four grown children and seventeen grandchildren.  After many years as a priest of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and then the Anglican Church in America, Fr. Meeks was ordained a Roman Catholic priest on June 23, 2012.

©Christ The King Catholic Church. All rights reserved.