Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Red Pill

Getting to the truth behind modern day mythology. Beware the tall tales coming out of Greece

The narrative now being devised in Athens to reconcile the harsh and brutal new memorandum is getting wilder by the day. The reality to what was offered, what was taken, and what could have been for Greece is much simpler and straight forward than the Athens media spinsters are now presenting.

Avatar

Published

on

Post submitted by Alexander Mercouris.

Ever since the latest bailout agreement, misinformation to justify it has been pouring out of Greece.

Much of this centres on the impracticability of supposed plans for a Grexit and of the “revolutionary” nature of the individuals who hatched them.

Varoufakis has claimed authorship of some of these plans. Others are attributed to the former Energy Minister and leader of Syriza’s Left Platform, Panagiotis Lafantzanis.

Varoufakis’s plan, which he claims to have presented to Tsipras at the last moment as the referendum results were coming in, was for the Greek government to start handing out electronic IOUs in place of a currency. This would have been accompanied by capital controls, the nationalisation of the banks and the seizure of the government’s revenue office and of the Bank of Greece.

Varoufakis claims that this plan was prepared by the five man group based within the Finance Ministry he set up back in February. Apparently this group carried out its work in total secrecy and – in a bizarre twist – even hacked into the Finance Ministry’s own computers in order to prepare its plans.

Meanwhile the Financial Times has published a lurid account of a semi-secret meeting arranged by Lafantzanis and Syriza’ s Left Platform in an Athens hotel, where there was supposedly wild talk of having the governor of the Bank of Greece arrested and of seizing the hoard of euros supposedly stashed away in the Athens mint in order to keep the economy going and to pay for essential imports until a new currency was set up.

No doubt in the desperate situation caused by the Syriza government’s failure to undertake proper and timely preparations for the launch of a new currency all sorts of wild ideas were in circulation.

Not all these ideas were wild. It is constantly overlooked that because the Greek banks were bailed out by the Greek government in 2008 (a major reason why its debt burden became so catastrophically and insupportably high) they are already 80% state owned. “Nationalising” the banks would not therefore have been an act of revolutionary confiscation or of appropriation of private property. It would have simply meant the state taking operational control of the banks by replacing their managements by new managements appointed by and accountable directly to the government.

Implementing extreme steps such as seizing the Bank of Greece and the mint and issuing IOUs would nonetheless have provoked a major crisis in Greece. The economy would have been thrown into turmoil, with much of the population and the business community refusing to accept the IOUs of a bankrupt government as a credible substitute for actual money.

Acting in such a way would also have completely antagonised the EU leaders, who would have been bound to construe such steps as a declaration of economic war, and who would undoubtedly have responded by suspending the Greek government’s participation in the EU’s central institutions on the grounds that it was in breach of the fundamental provisions of Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union.

Putting all that aside, what no one has explained is why any of these schemes were necessary.

Implicit in Varoufakis’s various “plans” and in the scheme the Financial Times attributes to Lafantzanis is the strange idea that preparing a new currency was something that needed to be done in secret and which would have had to be improvised at the last moment.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from the introduction of a new currency being something that would have been resisted across Greece and Europe, we know it would have had the backing of the German Finance Ministry, of Wolfgang Schauble and of the IMF.

According to the British writer Tariq Ali, as long ago as February Schauble was offering Varoufakis 50 billion euros and help with an orderly Grexit. Tariq Ali describes the offer in this way:

“It is now known that Schäuble offered an amicable, organised Grexit and a cheque for 50 billion euros. This was refused on the grounds that it would seem to be a capitulation. This is bizarre logic. It would have preserved Greek sovereignty, and if Syriza had taken charge of the Greek banking system a recovery could have been planned on its terms. The offer was repeated later. ‘How much do you want to leave the Eurozone?’ Schäuble asked Varoufakis just before the referendum. Again Schäuble was snubbed. Of course the Germans made the offer for their own reasons, but a planned Grexit would have been far better for Greece than what has happened.”

No one in Greece is denying this story and in fact I am told it is true.

I recently wrote a piece for Russia Insider in which I said that the claim that Putin rejected a request from Tsipras for $10 billion is – as the Russians say – pure fantasy. We now have indirect confirmation of this from what must ultimately be a Greek source (the one that gave the story to Tariq Ali). Why would Tsipras ask Putin for $10 billion to fund a Grexit when Schauble was offering him 50 billion euros to do the same?

Even as late as the latest EU summit the option of an orderly Grexit was on the table. Schauble – with Merkel’s (alas temporary) backing – actually proposed it. If the Greeks had agreed to it, it would have happened. The IMF, which has made known its complete lack of belief in the viability of the latest bailout, would have backed it.

Greece would have got its 50 billion euros to help it support the new currency, Schauble and the Germans would have ensured that the ECB provided the necessary liquidity to the banks to keep the banks operating until the new currency was ready, the banks could have been nationalised by mutual agreement – there being as I have said nothing revolutionary about this – capital controls would have been imposed until the new currency was ready (the Germans agreed to this when Cyprus imposed them, so why would they refuse it if sought by Greece?) and control of the Bank of Greece, the mint and the revenue service would have been transferred back to the Greek government as an indispensable element in an orderly and agreed Grexit. Meanwhile the Russians, as I reported previously, were prepared to help with essential imports of energy and (probably) food.

The Financial Times in its hit piece says the process of introducing a new currency would have taken 6-8 months, which is much less than the 18 months Varoufakis has claimed.

Actually that is far too pessimistic. The former British cabinet minister John Redwood has guesstimated it would have taken no more than 3 months. In my opinion, given financial help from the EU and the IMF and technical support e.g. from Russia, the whole process could have been carried out from beginning to end in the space of a few weeks.

Once Greece was out of the eurozone it could have agreed – if it wanted – a formal restructuring as part of a package negotiated with the IMF (the alternative of a default on the entire debt might have done irreparable damage to relations with the creditor countries). The conditions would doubtless have been tough but they would hardly have amounted to the psychopathic agreement we have now. With Greece outside the eurozone and able to regain competitiveness through a devaluation there would have been a real chance that whatever was agreed would succeed.

However one spins the ball, the reality has to be faced: a Grexit did not happen not because it was difficult to do but because the Syriza government didn’t want it.

All claims to the contrary are fairy tales, whilst the malicious spreading of stories about the various plans that were hatched in the desperate final hours before Greece’s final capitulation is being done purposefully by those who want to discredit the idea of a Grexit and those who support it.

As for the perennial claim that the Greek people want to cling on to the euro no matter what, I have previously said why since the referendum I no longer believe that claim despite what the opinion polls are alleged to say.

In my opinion far too many people go on giving Tsipras and Syriza the benefit of the doubt even though the extent of their incompetence and of their double-dealing is becoming simply impossible to ignore.

Varoufakis has in fact now admitted that the real Plan B if the negotiations for a debt write-off failed was not a Grexit – his claims to have prepared for one is so much smoke and mirrors – but a resignation of the government and the formation of a “government of national unity” consisting of the old oligarchic pro-EU parties to sign a bailout package in place of Syriza. In Varoufakis’s own words

“We are going to do all it takes to bring home a financially viable agreement. We will compromise but not be compromised. We will step back just as much as is needed to secure an agreement-solution within the Eurozone. However, if we are defeated by the catastrophic policies of the memorandum we shall step down and pass on the power to those who believe in such means; let them enforce those measures while we return to the streets.”

No word here of any plan for a Grexit.

This by the way surely provides final confirmation that my previous statement – doubted by some – that the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard story that Tsipras called the referendum in expectation of a Yes vote so as to give himself political cover to resign is true.

In my opinion such a resignation of a government elected just a few months before to bring an end to austerity would have been an extraordinary act of abdication of responsibility.

Regardless it is not what Tsipras and Syriza did.

Instead of resigning when they failed to secure a debt write-off they chose to remain in power and negotiated for Greece an even worse deal than the one they had previously rejected.

Instead of admitting that Schauble offered him a dignified way out, Varoufakis is now also busy spreading a fantastic story that Schauble was throughout plotting to expel Greece from the eurozone so that he could terrorise France to accept the economic medicine he suoposedly wants to impose on it. Varoufakis is actually claiming that Schauble told him as much.

Varoufakis’s precise words are:

“Schauble believes that the eurozone is not sustainable as it is. He believes there has to be some fiscal transfers, some degree of political union. He believes that for that political union to work without federation, without the legitimacy that a properly elected federal parliament can render, can bestow upon an executive, it will have to be done in a very disciplinary way,”

“And he said explicitly to me that a Grexit is going to equip him with sufficient terrorising power in order to impose upon the French, that which Paris has been resisting: a degree of transfer of budget making powers from Paris to Brussels.”

Does anybody seriously believe that if Schauble really did have such a plan he would have shared it with Varoufakis of all people?

The reality, as I have always said, is that Schauble adamantly opposes a debt write-off for Greece whilst it remains part of the eurozone not because he wants to terrorise France into submission but because of the disastrous precedent such a write-off might provide to other heavily indebted and bailed out eurozone states like Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and Ireland.

Obviously that is not sinister enough for Varoufakis – who has never shown the slightest understanding of Schauble’s position – which is why he attributes this bizarre plan to him.

Sad to say it seems Varoufakis was already spreading his fable about Schauble’s wicked plan to use Greece in order to terrorise France whilst the negotiations were actually underway – one reason surely why Schauble came to dislike him so much.

It could be that Varoufakis misunderstood something Schauble said to him. However I have to say that it also looks rather like an attempt by Varoufakis to play the French and the Germans off against each other – in much the same way that Tsipras was trying to play the Russians and the Europeans (and Americans) off against each other. Needless to say the ploy failed.

In fairness to Tsipras, Varoufakis and Syriza, though their tactics were manipulative and duplicitous, their objective was always what they said it was: to keep Greece in the eurozone whilst securing an end to austerity and a debt write-off.

Most people – including me – assumed that as it became clear this was impossible they would drop the euro in order to end austerity and secure the debt write-off.

In fairness to him, that is the position, when all else failed, that Varoufakis eventually adopted, though the plan he came up with is testament to his failure to prepare for a Grexit properly, as he should have done.

In Tsipras’s case however it is now clear he always intended the opposite – to drop the plan to end austerity and get a debt write-off so as to hang on to the euro.

I still come across from time to time a strange idea that Tsipras and Syriza are agents of Soros and of the CIA.

Nothing they have done in power is consistent with that theory, which my sources insist is untrue.

By contrast I am slowly coming round to what anyone who knows Greece well would judge an altogether more plausible theory – that Tsipras and the Syriza government were a device cooked up by a part of the oligarchy to scare the Germans into granting Greece a debt write-off whilst keeping Greece in the Eurozone. The calculation was that a “pro-Russian”, “ultra left” leader, who “might fall into Putin’s embrace” was more scary and would have a better chance of securing a debt write-off than a more conventional conservative. Once it became clear that the scare wasn’t going to work, the Syriza project was shelved.

To those who say this is too complicated, my response is that for the Greek oligarchy nothing is too complicated.

This will be my working hypothesis from now on. I am planning to visit Greece soon and whilst there I will undertake certain enquiries to see if I can find out whether or not this hypothesis is true.

In the meantime I would ask people to keep a cool head in the face of all the nonsense that is now coming out of Greece. I am afraid that it is not without good reason we are known as the land of myths, legends and wondrous tales. There are far too many of those circulating over the last few days and people should be careful before they fall for them.

References:

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Latest

Frankenstein Designer Kids: What You Don’t Know About Gender-Transitioning Will Blow Your Mind

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Puberty-blocking drugs, mastectomies, vaginal surgery and fake penises – all with zero chance of reversal – these are just some of the radical experimental methods being used on children. The madness must stop.

Imagine that you are the parent of a five-year-old boy who innocently informs you one day that he is a girl. Of course, the natural reaction would be to laugh, not phone up the nearest gender transitioning clinic. You have no idea how your little boy came to believe such a thing; possibly it was through something he heard at the daycare center, or maybe a program he saw on television. In any case, he insists that he ‘identifies’ as a female.

Eventually, possibly at the encouragement of your local school, you pay a visit to a physician. You hope this medical professional will be able to provide you and your child with some sound counseling to clear up his confusion. Prepare yourself to be disappointed. Your doctor will be forced, according to state and medical dictate, to follow the professional guidelines known as ‘affirmative care.’ It sounds nice and harmless, doesn’t it? In fact, the program could be best described as nothing short of diabolical.

The Medical Harms of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work. In other words, if the child tells the doctor that he believes he is a girl, the doctor must comply with that ‘reality’ no matter what biology tells him or her to be the case. But this is just the beginning of the madness.

As the child’s parent, you will be encouraged to start referring to your son as your ‘daughter,’ and even permit him to choose a feminine name, as well as matching clothes. Teachers will be instructed to let your son use the girl’s bathroom while at school. The question of the social stigma attached to such a lifestyle change, complete with bullying, is rarely brought into the equation. Therapists will seldom discuss with the parents the social implications of such a mental and physical change; indeed, many will insist the changes are ‘reversible’ should the child one day have a change of heart. If only things were that easy.

Let’s pause for a moment and ask what should be the most obvious question, especially among medical professionals: ‘Is it not terribly naive to support the fleeting belief of a child, who still believes in Santa Claus, that he/she is the opposite sex? Isn’t there a very high possibility that the child is just confused and the thought will pass? Moreover, why did we never hear about such episodes just 10 years ago, yet today we are led to believe it is some sort of epidemic?’ Instead of working with the child and his newfound identity from such an obvious approach, in the majority of cases the child will be placed on the fast-track to gender transitioning. This is where the horror story begins.

One parent, ‘Elaine,’ a member of the advocacy group Kelsey Coalition whose daughter underwent “life-altering medical interventions,” came to understand that the transition is immensely harmful to the future health and well-being of her child.

“Once the teenage years begin, affirmative care means giving young people cross-sex hormones,” Elaine said during a panel discussion organized by the Heritage Foundation. “Girls as young as twelve are prescribed testosterone for lifetime usage, while boys are given estrogen. These are serious hormonal treatments that impact brain development, cardiovascular health and may increase the risk of cancer.”

This leads us to the operating table, where adolescents, lacking the mental maturity necessary to make such a huge life-altering choice, are exposed to the knife of irreversible surgical manipulation. Double mastectomies on girls, for example, as well as the fashioning of false penises derived from flesh borrowed from other parts of the body, are just some of the unprecedented procedures now available.

Elaine mentioned the high-profile story of one Jazz Jennings, who was diagnosed with ‘gender dysphoria’ and raised as a girl since the age of five. He was treated with hormones at the age of eleven, and at the age of 17, Jazz underwent surgery to remove his penis and create a simulated vagina out of his stomach lining.

“After surgery, Jazz’s wounds began separating and a blood blister began to form. An emergency surgery was performed. According to Jazz’s doctor, ‘As I was getting her on the bed, I heard something go ‘pop.’ When I looked, the whole thing has split open.’”

Elaine called the case of Jazz a “medical experiment on a child” that “has been playing out on television for the past 12 years.” It should be noted that a similar drama-packed scenario captivated the nation with the high-profile, made-for-television sexual transition of Caitlyn Jenner, born Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic gold medalist, who was quite possibly the greatest American athlete of all time.

The obvious question is ‘how many impressionable children, many experiencing their own bodily changes in the form of puberty, were persuaded to decide in favor of gender transitioning (something that a child could have only heard about from some external media or source, unless the parents engage in such odd discussion topics at the dinner table) after watching these celebrity persona?’ By now, few people would doubt the powerful influence that TV celebrities have over people, and especially adolescents. In fact, that is the entire notion behind the idea of a ‘positive role model.’ I am not sure Caitlin Jenner would qualify for such a part.

According to Michael Laidlaw, M.D., these children, who are experiencing what the medical community has dubbed ‘gender dysphoria,’ will move beyond their condition either naturally or with the assistance of a therapist. Meanwhile, according to Laidlaw, citing studies, many of the girls and boys who display symptoms have neuro-psychiatric conditions and autism. “Social media and YouTube, things like that, binge-watching YouTube videos of transitioners seem to be playing a role…as well as contagion” in popularizing the idea among the masses.

The movement is predicated upon the modern liberal idea of ‘gender identity,’ which has been defined as a “person’s core internal sense of their own gender,” regardless as to what the biological facts of their sex prove.

Dr. Laidlaw presented perhaps the best case against parents and their children rushing to the conclusion that their children need puberty blockers, for example, or extreme doses of hormones, when he discussed what happens when a person is diagnosed with cancer.

“If a child or somebody you knew had cancer, would you want pathology results, would you want imaging to prove [the condition] before you give harmful chemotherapeutics,” he asked. Yet we are allowing children and adolescents to undergo irreversible chemical and surgical procedures without being able to see any evidence that shows the presence of ‘the opposite sex’ in the patient.

In other words, the medical community is monkey-wrenching with not only Mother Nature, but with the lives of children, with radical and irreversible experiments that have not been proven to promote the happiness and wellbeing of those on the receiving (or subtracting) end.

“We are giving very harmful therapies on the basis of no objective diagnosis,” Dr. Laidlaw said.

Laidlaw was forced to repeat what has been widely known for millennia.

“There are only two sexes,” he said. “Sex is identified at birth, nobody assigns it. Doctors don’t arbitrarily assign this person to be a boy and this person to be a girl. We all know how to identify it.

“I would say ‘ask your grandmother who doesn’t read the scientific journals, and they will tell you exactly how to identify boys from girls.’”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Candace Owens calls out lying Democrat narrative machine [Video]

Candace Owens was the latest near-casualty in the Democrat liberal globalists’ attempt to increase anger and division in the US.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

In a Congressional hearing led by House Democrats, Candace Owens represented the Republican party’s viewpoints in a conference that was supposed to be about “hate crimes” and their perpetration through Internet social media outlets. She was treated with a despicable level of disgust.

It would actually be very difficult for anyone but the most prejudiced liberal Democrat to not see the blatant use of out of context remarks and spin to try to destroy a person for political gain.

A well known conservative commentator, Candace Owens got a clip played of her own statement about nationalism by Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA), which she supports. She made a statement about how the perception of “nationalist” leaders is commonly held to be people like Adolf Hitler, but that this in fact is not true. Here is the exact text of what she said:

I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word “nationalism”. I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. … Whenever we say “nationalism”, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.[59]

Where the Democrats went with this was astounding in its reach into both fiction and insanity. The allegation did not address in any regard what Ms. Owens actually said, but rather, the “concern” over her saying the name “Adolf Hitler” and also that “if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great… fine.”

For the next four minutes Candace sat quietly as the Democrats used this foil to prattle on their narrative about the “hatefulness of conservatives” and underlined indirectly Owens’ alleged prejudice. But finally, Ms Owens got a chance to speak. And speak, she did:

Here is the video. It is instructive to watch the whole thing, but if you want only Candace’s response, go to [05:29] to see and hear what she has to say.

The body of what Ms Owens said in response to this farce is here below (we added emphasis and edited a mistaken phrase that Ms Owens corrected as she spoke – she was very angry as she fiercely defended herself and called the Democrats to account):

“I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extract, an extracted clip…”

Here, Rep. Jerry Nadler interrupted, trying to correct Ms Owens for calling Rep. Lieu stupid, which she actually did not, as one can see in the text.

“As I said, he is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip. And he purposefully extracted; he cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether … or not I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad…

And what I responded to, is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people. That is exactly what I was referring to in the clip and he purposely wanted to give you a cut-up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump, to create a different narrative. That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it, which is worrisome, and and to tell you a lot about where people are today in terms of people trying to drum up narratives.

By the way, I would like to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the Embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure that I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”

Ms. Owens was not finished. Fox News reported further:

Turning to her 75-year old grandfather seated behind her, Owens remarked, “My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’ held real meaning.”

Though Owens stood up for truth, a deeper problem still exists

The hearing in which this took place was one in which executives from Facebook and Google answer lawmakers’ questions about the companies’ spread of “hate crimes” and the mythical issue of “white nationalism” in the United States.

This “white nationalism” is a total farce and only exists in the minds of woke liberals and Democrats. Further, there is nothing illegal about what has popularly come to be called “hate speech”, though of course as Christians we are taught not to speak hatefully about anyone, even our enemies.

Of course, since Christianity is rejected in the US, with more and more people saying they do not believe in the traditionally held concept of God, and an increasing number of outright atheists, who deliberately believe there is no such thing as God. Concurrent with this breakdown is the inability for people to handle themselves, and a corresponding increase in unrestrained rage over social media and even face to face.

The mainstream media will not report this, but we will. One of the biggest factors in this madness is the use of social media as a “blasting point” from which anyone can say anything, no matter how vile, to anyone else or to everyone else. Even religious discussion groups, such as Facebook’s various groups on Orthodox Christianity (the oldest and purest Christian confession on earth) swiftly devolve into accusations, name calling and enough invective to turn any inquirer into Christianity completely off.

As a matter of fact, the live streaming of this Congressional hearing had to have its comments disabled, and Representative Nadler showed a copy of the transcribed comments to the people in the meeting and read it, perhaps blissfully unaware of how his own dishonesty added to it.

This is a problem. While it is refreshing to many people that Candace Owens stuck up for herself and did so with strength and self-restraint at the same time, the circus antics do reveal exactly what she talked about and further how serious it is.

It is unclear how far this goes. Google and YouTube and Facebook are probably not themselves to blame for the breakdown, but their services are certainly highly employable by people who are energized with self-righteous rage in any direction, and all of that is helping separate us all from one another.

It should be noted that Russia did not have to do one single thing to cause this. This is totally Made In USA.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Number Of Americans With “No Religion” Has Soared 266% Over The Last 3 Decades

There is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog:


Over the last 30 years, there has been a mass exodus out of organized religion in the United States.  Each year the needle has only moved a little bit, but over the long-term what we have witnessed has been nothing short of a seismic shift.  Never before in American history have we seen such dramatic movement away from the Christian faith, and this has enormous implications for the future of our nation.  According to a survey that was just released, the percentage of Americans that claim to have “no religion” has increased by 266 percent since 1991…

The number of Americans who identify as having no religion has risen 266 percent since 1991, to now tie statistically with the number of Catholics and Evangelicals, according to a new survey.

People with no religion – known as ‘nones’ among statisticians – account for 23.1 percent of the U.S. population, while Catholics make up 23 percent and Evangelicals account for 22.5 percent, according to the General Social Survey.

In other words, the “nones” are now officially the largest religious group in the United States.

At one time it would have been extremely difficult to imagine that one day the “nones” would someday surpass evangelical Christians, but it has actually happened.

And the biggest movement that we have seen has been among our young people.  According to a different survey, two-thirds of Christian young adults say that they stopped going to church at some point between the ages of 18 and 22

Large numbers of young adults who frequently attended Protestant worship services in high school are dropping out of church.

Two-thirds of young people say they stopped regularly going to church for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22, a new LifeWay Research surveyshows.

These are the exact same patterns that we saw happen in Europe, and now most of those countries are considered to be “post-Christian societies”.

The young adults of today are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they have a much higher percentage of “nones” than the population as a whole.  According to a study that was conducted a while back by PRRI, 39 percent of our young adults are “religiously unaffiliated” at this point…

Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.

To go from 10 percent during Ronald Reagan’s second term to 39 percent today is an absolutely colossal shift.

Right now, only about 27 percent of U.S. Millennials attend church on a regular basis.  Most of them simply have no interest in being heavily involved in organized religion.

And even the young people that are involved in church do not seem very keen on sharing their faith with others.  According to one of the most shocking surveys that I have seen in a long time, 47 percent of Millennials that consider themselves to be “practicing Christians” believe that it is “wrong” to share the gospel with others

A new study from the California-based firm Barna Group, which compiles data on Christian trends in American culture, has revealed a staggering number of American millennials think evangelism is wrong.

The report, commissioned by the discipleship group Alpha USA, showed a whopping 47 percent of millennials — born between 1984 and 1998 — “agree at least somewhat that it is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith.”

These numbers are hard to believe, but they are from some of the most respected pollsters in the entire country.

Politically, these trends indicate that America is likely to continue to move to the left.  Those that have no religious affiliation are much, much more likely to be Democrats, and so this exodus away from organized religion is tremendous news for the Democratic Party.

In a previous article, I documented the fact that somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the United States are dying each year.

That means that more than 100 will die this week.

And thousands more are teetering on the brink.  In fact, most churches in America have less than 100 people attending each Sunday

A majority of churches have fewer than 100 people attending services each Sunday and have declined or nearly flatlined in membership growth, according to a new study from Exponential by LifeWay Research.

The study, which was conducted to help churches better understand growth in the pews, showed that most Protestant churches are not doing well attracting new Christian converts, reporting an average of less than one each month.

But even among all the bad news, there are some promising signs for the Christian faith.  The home church movement if flourishing all over the country, and many of those home fellowships are focused on getting back to the roots of the Christian faith.  All throughout history there have been relentless attempts to destroy the Christian faith, and yet it is still the largest faith in the entire world.

However, there is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

This is what one pastor had to say about the slow death of his church

‘My church is on the decline,’ he said. ‘We had 50 (congregants) in 2005 and now we have 15. We’re probably going to have to close (in a few years).’

‘Mainline Christianity is dying,’ he added. ‘It’s at least going away. It makes me feel more comfortable that it’s not my fault or my church’s fault. It’s part of a bigger trend that’s happening.’

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once said the following about our form of government…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

As America has turned away from the Christian faith, we have become steadily less moral and steadily less religious.

If we continue down this path, many believe that the future of our nation is going to be quite bleak indeed.


About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared NowThe Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dreamand The Most Important News.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending