Non profit imperialism

Yesterday I made a point about how the recent meddling in the Israeli elections is an example of imperialism. But in doing so, I swerved into a much larger issue. The aggressive use of non profit organizations for the sole purpose of nation-building/nation-changing.

The Obama Administration's use of the OneVoice Movement as a way to launder money and influence an election really puts the spotlight on non-profits as a whole, that is, those non-profits that feign humanitarian aid but actually exist to foster revolution with 'humanitarian aid' as nothing but a cover. There is probably no other person more tied to the aggressive use of non profits for subversive activities than George Soros. In his own words he describes the process. First, let's examine the dictionary definition of the word "Imperialism": (from Merriam Webster)

Full Definition of IMPERIALISM

1: imperial government, authority, or system

So imperialism does not have to strictly be a governmental entity. ISIS, for example, is quickly proving itself to be an imperialist entity - raping and pillaging and beheading its way into power and territorial control.

Now, as to George Soros, there is a video out there where he explains his use of "subversive activities". Here is what he says:

When you try to improve society you effect different people and different interests differently. They're not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So, I had to experiment, and it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity disrupting repressive regimes, and that was a lot of fun, and that's actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise.

Seeing what works in one country, trying it in the other countries, so it was like a kind of, what developed a matrix in fact, we had national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities.

This is only one minute(the first minute) of the video, but there is a lot here. The matrix of national foundations really is the important part. If this isn't imperialistic, I don't know what is. He makes the point that he is affecting different people's lives and having all kinds of unintended adverse consequences, so he knows he's doing damage to people and doesn't really care.

"The subversive activities coming from national foundations". To sum up non profit imperialism, that's the gist of it. Claiming to be humanitarian while destroying the lives of humans. Luckily the work of V15 and Jeremy Bird was a failure as the people of Israel have the right to determine their own destiny without anybody else meddling in it. However, hopefully this will foster more people having discussions about the misuse of non profit organizations for nefarious purposes such as building an imperialistic authority or system.

Is Obama's meddling in the Israeli elections an example of this "imperialism" we keep hearing about?

So I've been reading these stories about the OneVoice Movement and that funneled money from the State department, Jeremy Bird, and the Obama Administration's need to oust Benjamin Netanyahu and the thought occurred to me:

No leftist is ever going to cite this as an example of "American Imperialism", even though that's exactly what this is. Now, I know a lot of people are going to cringe at my using that phrase, and the sad thing is that the phrase has been so maligned that it's practically meaningless.

The problem is this: so called claims of "American Imperialism" are more indicative of Progressivism and progressive ideology than they are of America proper. Now this isn't a problem for me, but it is a problem for progressives who seek to keep the totality of their history hidden. And it doesn't matter if you're examining all of the little skirmishes of World War 1, to Theodore Roosevelt's exploits, all the way up to and including Obama. There's always progressives on the front lines leading the charge. These people think they have a mandate to change the world simply because they were born. Funny thing is, whenever a progressive is at the helm? No, don't ever mention the name "Woodrow Wilson", just blame America. That's the game that progressives play.

This was just a random thought that came to me earlier in the day. Obama's actions in the 2015 Israeli elections are imperialistic.

Someone had to say it.

The phrase "natural rights of Englishmen" is vague and meaningless

The attitude of progressives never ceases to amaze me. I should be used to it by now, you would think I would be - considering how many of their books I thumb through. But I don't think it's possible to entirely get used to things such as this:

The phrase "natural rights of Englishmen" is vague and meaningless in the history of constitutional development and political philosophy, and deserves to stand with that other equally abused phrase, much on the lips of the colonists at this time, "taxation without representation." Neither had any literal meaning in fact, but as historical influences each became a phenomenon of far-reaching significance.

Men have died for a false creed; the colonists fought under the banner of a false philosophy. The importance of the Stamp Act congress does not lie in the declaration of principles which it enunciated. It lies in the accomplished fact that amid a thousand centrifugal tendencies that were keeping the colonies apart as the inhabitants of thirteen separate communities, there had arisen a conscious purpose of uniting to support a common interest. Premature as it was and almost a mockery in the light of the history of the years that followed, the remark at the congress of Christopher Gadsden, a man whose impulses generally outran his judgment, was in a sense a prophecy, "There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on this continent, but all of us Americans." The congress marks the end of an era, and inaugurates a period of disturbance, disorder, suffering and war, destined to culminate in armed revolt from British authority, and the eventual overthrow of the power of king and parliament in America.

This comes to us from one of the many revisionist Progressive "historians" who wrote 100 years ago. This was Charles McLean Andrews, in 1912 he wrote a book titled "The Colonial Period". The quote above are the last two paragraphs of the book, page 251. Just to highlight how awful all of this is, here are the two lines from Christopher Gadsden's speech. As you will see, Andrews only quoted the second line: (Gadsden speech excerpt, page 680)

We stand on the broad common ground of those natural rights that we all feel and know as men. There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on this continent, but all of us Americans.

It was the progressive historians who removed America from its heritage of Natural Rights and Natural Liberty, doing crap like this. They just omit what they don't like, and pass it off. It then becomes cemented because there are far too few historians outside of the overwhelming body of progressive historians. They've had free reign for 100 years to destroy American History. Fundamental transformation? What else would people want, they've been lied to about what America really is(was).

http://tinyurl.com/oouqjha