History shows that megalomaniacal ideologues do not care how many millions of people die in pursuit of their failed ideologies. Thus emerges one of the universal lessons in the Avengers’: When the plans of the powerful fail, it is the powerless who pay the price

by Laura Hollis

In the Marvel film “Avengers: Infinity War,” Thanos, a super-being from another planet, is seeking six gems – the Infinity Stones – to put into the Infinity Gauntlet, a weapon which, when completed, enables the one who wears it to extinguish half of all life in the universe with just a snap of his fingers.

Thanos is cast as a super-villain, but he thinks of himself as an altruist. He explains to another Marvel character, Dr. Steven Strange, that he witnessed the destruction of his own planet, Titan, and that his motives for using the Infinity Gauntlet are purely beneficent:

“Titan was like most planets – too many mouths and not enough to go around. And when we faced extinction, I offered a solution … I could simply snap my fingers and they would all cease to exist.”

Thanos dismisses Strange’s accusation of genocide. “I call that ‘mercy,’” he says. “The hardest choices require the strongest wills.”

Here in the real world, we have our own class of self-appointed deities trying to run the planet, including Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF), the army of WEF minions who have made their way into national governments across the globe, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

These puny gods, and the countless others who preach their dogma, demand that we worship at the altar of “climate change,” implementing policies they espouse without question, allegedly to save us all from destruction.

In keeping with the Marvel metaphor, here are six “gems” of our lives over which the mad titans of “climate change” seek control: energy, food production, housing, currency, laws/law enforcement, and governance. In each, they are demanding the implementation of policies they insist will “save the planet.”

These elites display the kind of arrogance that always precedes catastrophe. They assume that they are so brilliant and omniscient that they can anticipate every eventuality, every possible snag. Any student of history should be able to debunk that claim, but very recent events offer yet another pointed example.

In 2018, the government of Sri Lanka imposed agricultural regulations driven by the WEF’s “climate change” agenda. All non-organic fertilizer was banned. Within two years, agricultural production collapsed. Then, the overall economy. This past week, riots in the capital city drove the government leaders to flee the country.

Other nations don’t seem to be getting the message. England is trying to prompt farmers to “retire.” The government of the Netherlands has announced a plan to close a certain number of farms and ranches to help ameliorate the effects of “climate change.” (Rumor has it that the WEF plans to buy up Dutch farmland. This isn’t far-fetched; WEF devotee Bill Gates is now the single-largest farmland owner in the United States.) Dutch farmers and citizens have taken to the streets in protest. Similar protests have erupted in Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, and Armenia.

There is plenty of reason to believe that housing and energy policies driven by “climate change” will produce equally dismal results. Even more ominously, the other three “stones” are tied to enforcement of whatever policies our “climate change” titans manage to implement. A digital currency can be manipulated by those in control of it, and actual wealth frozen or taken from those who oppose the regime.

As we’ve already seen in other contexts here in the United States, law-abiding citizens can be targeted by law enforcement for defending themselves or their property, and are characterized as “insurrectionists” or “domestic terrorists” for protesting what they believe to be illicit or ill-advised government actions. And the sovereignty of independent nations is the ultimate impediment to global implementation of the goals being advanced by the “climate change” demigods.

Then again, maybe policy failure is part of the plan. An outgrowth of environmentalism generally, the “climate change” movement has adopted many of environmentalism’s more extreme tenets, including population reduction. Despite the spectacularly wrong predictions of his 1970 bestseller “The Population Bomb,” author Paul Ehrlich is still considered the granddaddy of population-themed environmentalism. Ehrlich maintains that the ideal population of Earth is less than 2 billion people, an attitude that science writer Alex Berezow has described as “openly misanthropic (and) vaguely genocidal.”

Toward the end of “Infinity War,” it becomes clear that Thanos’ plans have not played out as he envisioned. He, like all megalomaniacs, blames not himself but his victims, who refuse to be suitably thankful to Thanos for the unfathomable losses his actions have inflicted. In response, Thanos decides to double down on his methods.

“I thought that by eliminating half of life, the other half would thrive,” Thanos complains to the surviving Avengers. “But you’ve shown me that’s impossible. As long as there are those that remember what was, there will always be those that are unable to accept what can be. I know what I must do. I will shred this universe down to its last atom, and then, with the stones you’ve collected for me, create a new one … a grateful universe.”

History shows that megalomaniacal ideologues – consider Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Josef Stalin – do not care how many millions of people die in pursuit of their failed ideologies. Thus emerges one of the universal lessons in Thanos’ story arc: When the plans of the powerful fail, it is the powerless who pay the price.

Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet are fiction, but the threats we are facing are real. Those who want global control over our nations and our lives must never get it.

Reprinted with permission from WND News Center.

by Ashley Sadler

Wed Jul 13, 2022 – Although feminists now rightly fight against men who identify as women stealing their opportunities, rights, and spaces, it was feminists themselves who laid the groundwork for the ideology they now combat.

In a strange twist of fate, feminists have recently become conservatives’ “allies” (to borrow a term from the LGBT agenda) in the cultural war against transgender ideology.

Prominent feminist figures like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who this week found herself in the puzzling spot of agreeing with staunch conservative anti-feminist commentator Matt Walsh on the transgender agenda, have nonetheless drawn the ire of the Left by asserting women’s rights against the predations of a new sexual ideology that steals women’s privacy in public restrooms, medals and scholarships on sports teams, and even safety in homeless shelters and women’s prisons.

Such women have been dubbed “TERFs,” or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, by the absurd idealogues to insist that mothers are “birthing people” and some women were born boys.

But although feminists now rightly fight against men who identify as women stealing their opportunities, rights, and spaces, it was feminists themselves who laid the groundwork for the ideology they now combat, as Walsh and others have aptly pointed out.

In striving ostensibly to “empower” women, feminism has over time actually stripped away the power that uniquely belongs to womankind: the power to turn houses into homes, children into well-adjusted adults, and bare settlements into thriving civilizations.

Instead, feminists have convinced women that traditional feminine powers, spheres of influence, and pursuits were beneath us. That the most interesting, important, and empowering thing we could do would be to think, act, and talk like men.

We were told that we should enter male-dominated careers, shun family life, and swap feminine modesty and virtue for the same kind of self-centered pleasure seeking embodied by the worst of men.

And while they pushed “girl power” and insisted that “women are the future,” the not-so-subtle message of feminism has been that womanhood is not valuable or empowered unless it is as similar to manhood as possible.

But curiously enough, just as physics shows us the smallest distance between two points is no distance at all — a page folded back on itself  –– it turns out the most “empowered” woman is not actually a woman after all, if the ideology is allowed to progress to its logical conclusion.

With the emergence of transgender ideology, men have proved that anything women-who-act-like-men can do, they can do better.

By (ironically) idolizing male pursuits and strengths, feminists have ended up turning women into the second-class citizens they insist we once were. And by claiming that sexual promiscuity and infanticide liberates women from the bondage of family, feminists have actually shackled women to the very worst of men, the toxic patriarchy they claim to hate.

Feminists brought us some of the most virulent and culture-destroying changes our society has endured. They gave us abortion on demand and no-fault divorce. And by cementing in our culture the idea that men and women are the same, they paved the way for homosexual “marriage,” and yes, ultimately transgenderism.

While conservatives should welcome any reinforcements we can get in the battle to save our culture against the bizarre radicalism of transgender ideology, it’s important to note that feminists will not win against transgenderism until they realize that their own ideology has spawned the very destructive force that now threatens to eliminate not just women’s individual freedom, but womanhood itself.

We can’t lose sight of the radical and serious differences between feminists and conservatives.

In the past weeks, feminists have bemoaned the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, the abominable Supreme Court decision in 1973 that “liberated” women into slavery to hook-up culture, promiscuity, and abuse. In decrying the abolition of a nonsensical “right to abortion,” they rage that our culture has turned back the clock, and that we are returning society to what it was like 50 years ago.

And in this, they’re absolutely right.

As C.S. Lewis once wrote, “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

If we are to accept feminists within our ranks to combat transgenderism, we must get them to acknowledge that to be truly progressive, they must turn back on their own ideology and walk to the right road, or else their fight will be in vain.

Because as conservatives like Walsh note, the road the so-called TERFs started on many decades ago is the very one that has brought us to the immoral absurdity of transgenderism we are all now forced to combat.

Ashley Sadler is a California-based journalist for LifeSiteNews. She has a deep love of American history and the Traditional Latin Mass. In her free time she enjoys mountain-biking, taking road trips, and reading classic literature. You can follow on her on Twitter @asadler216