There was a recent debate on the Joe Rogan show. The topic of male circumcision came up and Milo Yiannopolous was critical of the foreskin. The reason? He prefers to fellate a circumcised penis.
I’m in favor of it purely on aesthetic grounds. I have to have these things in my mouth, Ok?
Good to know, Milo. I’ll make sure to cut my genitals with a knife in order to accommodate your fellatio preferences. You sick fuck.
Milo is a gay conservative Jew (yes, it’s true). And like many “modern” Jews, he refuses to eschew the practice of dick pruning. It’s like a monkey, clinging tightly to one’s back. Now it’s clear why Milo could never carry the torch of American conservatism in the post-Trump era (despite all of the attempts of Breitbart to hoist him into that position). His lifestyle is in direct opposition to that of traditional America.
So much has been said (and not said) on the topic of circumcision. The Major will defer to the opinion of Italian sociologist Paolo Mantegazzna. His direct statement in The Sexual Relations of Mankind (1935) summarizes my feelings to a tee:
I shout and shall continue to shout at the Hebrews, until my last breath: Cease mutilating yourself; cease imprinting upon your flesh an odious brand to distinguish yourself from other men (p. 99).
Here’s a bit of science for the disbelievers: The foreskin is homologous to the clitoral hood. Not analogous (similar to) but homologous (identical in structure). That’s a critical distinction. Therefore, male circumcision is equivalent to FGM in that they both remove the “clit” : a body part whose sole function is to give sexual pleasure. Or, to put it more plainly, circumcision is a procedure that’s designed to humiliate, denigrate and – ultimately – destroy the passion of an individual.
My sonis sleeping sound at the moment. I refused to let some rapist in a white coat have at his genitals with a knife. Sorry, Milo…go look for a blowjob elsewhere!
Richard Wagner was more than a musical genius. He was an early practitioner of the red pill and a man that suffered no fools. One of his greatest bits of wisdom was on the political; in particular, on how ubiquitous ignorance can destroy a nation. Wagner points to the destruction of ancient Greece for an example:
“…the Barbarian needed only to subjugate the Greek: and all was over with Grecian freedom, strength, and beauty. Thus, in deep humiliation, two hundred million men, huddled in helpless confusion in the Roman empire, too soon found out that when all men cannot be free alike and happy all men must suffer alike as slaves.”
Summary: When the barbarians control a kingdom, then everybody lives in fear. By example, let’s reflect on the Library of Alexandria: a collection of nearly one million books, burned to the ground by savages. And the whole of Europe plunged into a sea of darkness. Imagine the insight in those books…the collected wisdom of the ages! And all was destroyed by a gang of grunting savages.
The ancient Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground by the invading barbarians.
Remember, my friends…
The barbarian can never respect or understand book of wisdom…to him, its pages are equivalent to a piece of toilet paper.
We see this today, of course, with the advent of unchecked immigration. America is no longer interested in bringing the “brightest and best” into the country. Instead, the traitorous lawmakers are using immigration to cause revolution. The same is occurring in London, Brussels and Munich. The missiles of destruction are not flying through the sky; they’re legislative in nature, occurring at weak border checkpoints and in the hands of corrupt officials.
I won’t belabor the point; other writers have addressed the immigration problem better than I. But it’s always interesting when you read history and a find an idea that correlates to the modern world. When we come across such things, we’re reminded that history repeats itself and that the past is alive in the present.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969. He became a darling of the American conservative party, providing a first-hand account of Communist atrocities in the Soviet Union. His book The Gulag Archipelagobecame an international best seller and he was widely applauded.
But then he fell out of favor.
Solzhenitsyn became a literary hero when he criticized the Russian government.
His 2001 book, 200 Years Together, was a expansive two-volume historical essay, discussing the role of Jews in communist Russia. Immediately, the book was decried as anti-semetic. Moreover, publishing houses in New York would not translate the novel into English. In short, Solzhenitsyn went from a literary darling to a persona non grata overnight.
So I decided to read the book in question. I’d like to be my own judge on the matter (thank you very much). And after completing the book, I’ve reached a conclusion:
200 Years Together is, arguably, the most accurate description of the Russian-Jewish relationship ever written. Solzhenitsyn’s research is comprehensive. The book is filled with footnotes, specific examples, and a plethora of sources from opposing sides. By doing this, he establishes a convincing case for a controversial claim:
Jewish people were, in part, responsible for mass genocide in the Ukraine during the 1930s; moreover, this atrocity has been downplayed – and often ignored – by the international community.
Here are some of the major points, which lead up to the Ukranian genocide (called the Holodomor).
1.) The Soviet Union Was the Home of the Jewish People for 200 Years
Many people think of Israel when they think of the Jews. Or, they might also think of the United States. However, they overlook the fact that prior to the birth of Israel, the Soviet Union was the home of the Jewish people.
Judging by its stable manner of life, it was in neighboring Poland that the biggest Jewish community emerged, expanded and became strong from the 13th to the 18th century. It formed the basis of the future Russian jewry, which became the most important part of World jewry until the 20th century (p. 9)
This historical background is important. The old saying is true…you can’t know the present unless you know the past. Jewish people have strong historical ties to Russia, and it was their homeland long before Israel became a nation.
Solzhenitsyn continues:
A contemporary Jewish progressive wrote, that ‘Jews, as a nation, do not exist’, that they ‘consider themselves Russians of the Mosaic faith…’‘Jews recognize that their salvation lies in the merging with the Russian people’.” (p. 59)
For 200 years, more Jews lived in Russia than any other country.
Moreover, many Jews considered themselves to be Russian. Many American Jews are unaware of this fact: i.e. the importance of Russia in Jewish history. These histories are glossed over in Hebrew schools, as well as secular American institutions. A Jew might learn about scripture or a variety of stories: i.e. from the Torah, Talmud, etc. Or, he might learn about Israeli history, like as the 7-Day War. But as for Russian history, it’s largely ignored.
2.) Eventually, Jews Became Influential Members of the Communist Party
Solzhenitsyn points out that after the revolution of 1917, the Jews gained more power in Russia.
“Soon after the March Revolution of 1917, everywhere in Petrograd you could see groups of Jews, standing on benches, soap boxes and such, making speeches…. There had been restrictions on the rights of Jews to live in Petrograd, but after the Revolution they came in droves, and the majority of agitators were Jews … they were apostate Jews” (p. 105)
Solzhenitsyn continues:
“Myself, having worked for many years on the “February” press and memoirs…could not fail to notice…in those materials, from the most varied witnesses and participants of those events, there are so many Jewish names, and the Jewish theme is very loud and persistent” (p. 105)
In short, the Russian revolution was, at first, a peasant uprising. However, later the movement was co-opted by Jews. Note that most of these Jews were apostate, meaning they gave up the traditional elements of their culture: i.e. the wearing of the kippah, etc.
Karl Marx was, arguably, the most famous communist Jew that was an apostate. Many more were to follow…
The most famous apostate Jew in Russia was Karl Marx. He did not wear the traditional garb or follow the Hasidic traditions. Yet he was Jewish in this cultural sense: i.e. he was reared in the traditions of that faith.
3.) Jewish Members of the Communist Party Were Guilty of Mass Murder
Nearly 10 million people died in the Holodomor. This was an act of systematic starvation, where the Ukranian farmers were arrested and deported by Joseph Stalin. Soon after, millions of Ukranian peasants would die of starvation. Yet Stalin himself did not organize these actions; instead, he relied on “henchmen”: individuals that he knew would carry out the murders.
Lazar Kaganivich, Stalin’s Jewish brother-in-law, organized the greatest mass murder of the 20th century: the Holodomor.
The most notorious of these mass murderers was Stalin’s brother-in-law, a Jewish man by the name of Lazar Kaganovich. Solzhenitsyn has no kind words for Kaganovich; he indicts him as the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. Moreover, and he lambastes the Western media for refusing to publicize the genocide.
Editorial note: If we continually hear about the Holocaust, then why don’t we hear about the Holodomor?
The photos of the Holodomor resemble those of the Holocaust.
Another Jewish mass murderer was Isai Berg, As it turns out, Berg invented the mobile gas chamber, which he used to murder opponents of the Holodomor.
And from the astonishing disclosure in 1990 we learned that the famous mobile gas chambers were invented, as it turns out, not by Hitler during the World War II, but in the Soviet NKVD in 1937 by Isai Davidovich Berg, the head of the administrative and maintenance section of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast (sure, he was not alone in that enterprise, but he organized the whole business)…the victims were stripped naked, tied, mouths plugged, and thrown into a closed truck, outwardly disguised as a bread truck. On the road the exhaust fumes were redirected into the prisoner-carrying compartment, and by the time the van arrived to the burial ditch, the prisoners were “ready.
The Jewish man, Isai Berg, invented the first mobile gas chamber. It was used to silence opponents of the Holodomor (Ukrainian genocide).
And there were more culprits:
Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250)
The death total in the Holodomoris estimated to be 7-10 million. However, these numbers are widely disputed, and it’s believed to be closer to 20 million. In short, genocides are not carried out by one individual. It takes many people, working together, to organize the murders. In the case of the Ukranian Holodomor, many of the culprits were Jewish.
4.) Counterargument: Jews Should Be Forgiven for Any Atrocities Since They Were Persecuted in Russia
I’ve brought this topic up with Jews in the past: i.e. that Jewish individuals were responsible for genocide in the Ukraine. The retort is usually the same:
“Yes, that might be true…but Jews were heavily persecuted in the Soviet Union.”
Yes, that’s true to a certain extent. There were pogroms, as well as a variety of discriminatory actions perpetuated against Jews: i.e. the quotas regarding Jewish membership in various arenas, such as colleges or the government. And Russian Jews had every right to feel slighted in this regard.
However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Note that most wars are reprisals of some sort. Hiroshima was a response to Pearl Harbor; the bombing of Dresden, a response to the invasion of Poland, etc. Nearly all murders are retaliatory in nature. Somewhere…somehow…war must end. Somebody must learn to forgive.
But there is a more important point, which almost everyone can agree on – there is no justification for genocide. Even Hitler had legitimate grievances: i.e. the unfair treaties that were signed after World War 1. However, that doesn’t make Auschwitz a good thing.
Conclusion
200 Years Together is a must read. We learn important lessons, many of which are not being taught in Western schools.
The Soviet Union Was the Home of the Jewish People for 200 Years
Jews Became Influential Members of the Communist Party
Jewish Members of the Communist Party Were Guilty of Mass Murder
Why has the Holodomor ignored in history books? And why does Hollywood not dramatize the event? So much death…so many families destroyed. There are many answers, but I think Solzhenitsyn says it best:
They [the Jews]have forgotten it. They have sincerely and completely forgotten it. Indeed, it is so difficult to remember bad things about yourself. (379)
Judging by its stable manner of life, it was in neighboring Poland that the biggest Jewish community emerged, expanded and became strong from the 13th to the 18th century. It formed the basis of the future Russian jewry, which became the most important part of World jewry until the 20th century (p. 9)
Ivan IV: “We absolutely do not permit the entry of the Jew into my lands, because we do not wish to see evil in our lands, but rather may God grant that the people in my land may have rest from that irritation. And you, our brother, should not write us on account of the jews again,” for they had “alienated the Russians from [G24] Christianity, brought poisonous plants into our lands and done much evil to our lands.”
“When Jews manage to find out about the impending Imperial Manifest about recruit enrollment before it is officially published … all members of Jewish families fit for military service flee from their homes in all directions….” (p. 44)
A contemporary Jewish progressive wrote, that ‘Jews, as a nation, do not exist’, that they ‘consider themselves Russians of the Mosaic faith…’‘Jews recognize that their salvation lies in the merging with the Russian people’.” (p. 59)
We just read in the old Jewish Encyclopedia: in Balta one Jew was killed, and wounded – several. But in the new Jewish Encyclopedia, after a century from the events, we read: in Balta “soldiers joined the pogromists…Several Jews were killed, hundreds wounded, many women were raped.” (p. 79)
“…the Jews did not forgive the Russian Government for these pogroms – and never have since. And although the pogroms originated mainly with the Ukrainian population, the Russians have not been forgiven and the pogroms have always been tied with the name of Russia (p. 89)
“…there arose the alarming connection that together with the increase of Jews among the students, the participation of students in the revolutionary movement noticeably increased” (p. 92)
“Myself, having worked for many years on the “February” press and memoirs…could not fail to notice…in those materials, from the most varied witnesses and participants of those events, there are so many Jewish names, and the Jewish theme is very loud and persistent” (p. 105)
“Soon after the March Revolution of 1917, everywhere in Petrograd you could see groups of Jews, standing on benches, soap boxes and such, making speeches…. There had been restrictions on the rights of Jews to live in Petrograd, but after the Revolution they came in droves, and the majority of agitators were Jews … they were apostate Jews” (p. 105)
The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews — had.(p. 107)
This mass departure of Jews from agriculture in the 1920’s and 30’s resembles similar Jewish withdrawal from agricultural colonies in the 19th century, albeit now there were many new occupations available in industry (and in administration, a prohibited field for Jews in Tsarist Russia) (222)
By far, the largest figure of Soviet cinematography was Sergei Eisenstein….The worldwide fame of Battleship Potemkin was a battering ram for the purposes of the Soviets and in its irresponsibly falsified history encouraged the Soviet public to further curse Tsarist Russia. Made-up events, such as the “massacre on Odessa Steps” scene and the scene where a crowd of rebellious seamen is covered with tarpaulin for execution, entered the world’s consciousness as if they were facts. First it was necessary to serve Stalin’s totalitarian plans and then his nationalistic idea. Eisenstein was there to help (233)
Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250)
The spirit of the decree was itself an example of nationalist hatred: It was the history and language of the Great Russians that was no longer needed. During the 20’s the very understanding of Russian history was changed — there was none! And the understanding of what a Great Russian is changed — there was no such thing. (238).
Bloom in Moscow Evening could brazenly demand the removal of “history’s garbage from *city+ squares”: to remove Minin-Pozharsky monument from the Red Square, to remove the monument to Russia’s thousand-year anniversary in Novgorod and a statue of St. Vladimir on the hill in Kiev. “Those tons of metal are needed for raw material.”(238)
And from the astonishing disclosure in 1990 we learned that the famous mobile gas chambers were invented, as it turns out, not by Hitler during the World War II, but in the Soviet NKVD in 1937 by Isai Davidovich Berg, the head of the administrative and maintenance section of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast (sure, he was not alone in that enterprise, but he organized the whole business). This is why it is also important to know who occupied middle-level posts. It turns out, that I.D. Berg was entrusted with carrying out the sentences of the “troika” of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast; he dutifully performed his mission, which involved shuttling prisoners to the execution place. But when three “troikas” began to work simultaneously in the Moscow Oblast, the executioners became unable to cope with the sheer number of executions. Then they invented a time-saving method: the victims were stripped naked, tied, mouths plugged, and thrown into a closed truck, outwardly disguised as a bread truck. On the road the exhaust fumes were redirected into the prisoner-carrying compartment, and by the time the van arrived to the burial ditch, the prisoners were “ready.” (Well, Berg himself was shot in 1939, not for those evil deeds, of course, but for “the anti-Soviet conspiracy”. In 1956 he was rehabilitated without any problem, though the story of his murderous invention was kept preserved and protected in the records of his case and only recently discovered by journalists) (264)
So, even the purest and most immaculate Russian patriotism has no right to exist – not now, not ever?
Why is it so? And why it is that Russian patriotism is thus singled out? (274)
Jews were unjustly accused of evasion of military service and in particular, of evasion of front line service.”65 “It was often said about Jews that instead of fighting, they stormed the cities of Alma-Ata and Tashkent.”66 Here is a testimony of a Polish Jew who fought in the Red Army: “In the army, young and old had been trying to convince me that … there was not a single Jew on the front . `We’ve got to fight for them.´ I was told in a `friendly´ manner: `You’re crazy. All your people are safely sitting at home. How come you are here on the front?´”67 I. Arad writes: “Expressions such as `we are at the front, and the Jews are in Tashkent´, `one never sees a Jew at the front line´could be heard among soldiers and civilians alike. (311)
Jewish family camps originated among the Jewish masses fleeing into the woods and there “were many thousands of such fugitives.” Purely Jewish armed squads were formed specifically for the protection of these camps. (Weapons were purchased through third parties from German soldiers or policemen.) Yet how to feed them all? The only way was to take food as well as shoes and clothing, both male and female, by force from the peasants of surrounding villages. “The peasant was placed between the hammer and the anvil. If he did not carry out his assigned production minimum, the Germans burned his household and killed him as a `partisan´. On the other hand, guerrillas took from him by force all they needed”159 – and this naturally caused spite among the peasants: they are robbed by Germans and robbed by guerrillas – and now in addition even the Jews rob them? And the Jews even take away clothes from their women? (p. 324)
“Zionism is the instrument of the American imperialism.” So the “Jews had to prove their loyalty in one way or other, to somehow convince the people around them that they had no connection to their own Jewishness, especially to Zionism.” (360)
Yet why should not the Jewish question exist — the question of the unprecedented threethousand-year-old existence of the nation, scattered all over the Earth, yet spiritulally soldered together despite all notions of the state and territoriality, and at the same time influencing the entire world history in the most lively and powerful way? Why should there not be a “Jewish question” given that all national questions come up at one time or other, even the “Gagauz question” *a small Christian Turkic people, who live in the Balkans and Eastern Europe]? (369)
The same was true for Russia too. In pre-revolutionary Russian society, as we saw, it was the omission of the Jewish question that was considered “anti-Semitic.” In fact, in the mind of the Russian public the Jewish question — understood as the question of civil rights or civil equality — developed into perhaps the central question of the whole Russian public life of that period, and certainly into the central node of the conscience of every individual, its acid test.” (369)
So when exactly did it happen that the Jews, once such a reliable backbone of the regime, turned into almost its greatest adversary? (371)
Here’s Dan Levin, an American intellectual who immigrated to Israel: “It is no accident, that none of the American writers who attempted to describe and explain what happened to Soviet Jewry, has touched this important issue — the [Jewish] responsibility for the communism…. In Russia, the people’s anti-Semitism is largely due to the fact that the Russians perceive the Jews as the cause of all the evil of the revolution. Yet American writers — Jews and ex-Communists … do not want to resurrect the ghosts of the past. However, oblivion is a terrible thing. (374)
But today, when it is clear how many Jews were in the iron Bolshevik leadership, and how many more took part in the ideological guidance of a great country to the wrong track — should the question not arise [among modern Jews] as to some sense of responsibility for the actions of those *Jews+? It should be asked in general: shouldn’t there be a kind of moral responsibility — not a joint liability, yet the responsibility to remember and to acknowledge? For example, modern Germans accept liability to Jews directly, both morally and materially, as perpetrators are liable to the victims: for many years they have paid compensation to Israel and personal compensation to surviving victims. (375)
They have forgotten it. They have sincerely and completely forgotten it. Indeed, it is so difficult to remember bad things about yourself. (379)
Of course, as is always true for both individuals and nations, it is unreasonable to expect words of remorse from Jews regarding their past involvement. But I absolutely could not expect that the Jews, while deserting Bolshevism, rather than expressing even a sign of repentance or at least some embarrassment, instead angrily turned on the Russian people: it is the Russians who had ruined democracy in Russia (i.e., in February 1917), it is the Russians who are guilty of support of this regime from 1918 on. (382)
Let us note that any insulting judgment about the “Russian soul” in general or about the “Russian character” generally does not give rise to the slightest protest or doubt among civilized people. The question “of daring to judge nations as one uniform and faceless whole” does not arise. If someone does not like all things Russian or feels contempt for them, or even expresses in progressive circles the belief that “Russia is a cesspool,” this is no sin in Russia and it does not appear reactionary or backward. And no one immediately appeals to presidents, prime ministers, senators, or members of Congress with a reverent cry, “What do you think of such incitement of ethnic hatred?” We’ve said worse of ourselves since the 19th century and right up to the revolution. We have a rich tradition of this.) (385)
According to Two Hundred Years Together, written by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (he of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970) it was not Adolph Hitler. Nor was it any number of his Nazi henchmen: i.e. Eichmann, Hess, Himmler, etc.
It was a Jewish man named Isai Berg.
Let’s dig deeper into the excerpt (page 274):
And from the astonishing disclosure in 1990 we learned that the famous mobile gas chambers were invented, as it turns out, not by Hitler during the World War II, but in the Soviet NKVD in 1937 by Isai Davidovich Berg the head of the administrative and maintenance section of the NKVD of Moscow Oblast
As it turns out, Jews were active participants in the Soviet crackdown on freedom. Of course, they were not 100% responsible for these murder, torture, and kidnapping. However, they werepartially responsible – a point that our history books have never told us.
A true reading of history will show that Jewish people, just like all other people, are capable of human cruelty.
We’re fighting a war for truth…and it’s time that more American Jews begin to speak it. True, we have some based members of the tribe: RIP to Jerry Lewis. But we don’t have nearly enough. And they can start by using their power (i.e. control of the media) to stop assaulting the honor of Donald J. Trump.
A note to America and Europe: The barbarians (i.e. Muslim terrorists) are not at the gates…they are inside the gates. So we need to get our shit together. This means that the liberal Jewish contingency of the West – from the Hollywood elite to the Beltway bureaucrats – need to realize something quick.
The United States and Europe are the best friends that the Jewish people will ever have; and they are twenty times safer within its borders than they are in Cairo, Libya or Mali.
I am currently reading Two Hundred Years Together. It’s an expansive book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, written in 2001, that analyzes the Jewish role in the Communist revolution of 1917 (By the vey, where is the 100-year retrospect on CNN?). At any rate, Solzhenitsyn is highly critical of the “chosen people” and their role in this debacle.
For example, he provides the names of Jewish individuals that committed a host of crimes: murder, treason, extortion, etc. Overall, it’s a scathing indictment of the Jewish role in the Russian revolution—and it’s the primary reason that Solzhenitsyn has been removed from the Western liberal clique (in addition to his admiration of Vladimir Putin). Ah…how quickly the lefties can forget a Noble Prize winner.
The book has many insightful parts. However, one narrative stuck with me. It’s regarding the Jewish refusal to do farming work. At one point, international funds were being sent to the USSR so that the Jews could farm in the Crimea. However, despite millions of dollars in incentives, most of the Jews returned to other lines of work: i.e. money lending, various trades, etc.
This mass departure of Jews from agriculture in the 1920’s and 30’s resembles similar Jewish withdrawal from agricultural colonies in the 19th century, albeit now there were many new occupations available in industry (and in administration, a prohibited field for Jews in Tsarist Russia) (222)
In 1926 Kalinin (and other functionaries) received many questions about Jews in letters and at meetings… Among these questions (91): Why do they not farm even though it is now allowed them? (209)
When I read this, I immediately thought of Tevye from the movieFiddler on the Roof.
Despite the casting of Tevye as a farmer, the reality was different – most Jews did not farm in the Soviet Union.
The movie is based on the life of a poor Jewish farmer (named Tevye), circa 1905, living in a Russian village. However, as we learn from Two Hundred Years Together, this character would have been an anomaly, Most likely, he would have been working in some trade.
Now there is nothing wrong with eschewing agriculture. However, there IS something wrong with lying to the public. There IS something wrong with trying to rewrite history. And there IS something wrong with turning Hollywood into a vehicle for agitative propaganda.
See through this light, we realize an unpleasant fact:
Fiddler on the Roof was partly propaganda, designed to give the public a false view of facts.
In short, it’s goal was to sanctify the Jewish people, while simultaneously denigrating Russia.
The left is hanging onto the Charlottesville story for dear life. They realize that if this story fades into another news cycle (which it will) then it’s more losing. But essentially, they’re already in trouble due to a pathological addiction to censorship.
Remember…the BLM was a “Divide and Conquer” campaign orchestrated by the (((media))). Much to their surprise, their time-honored tradition backfired. They overplayed their weasly hand and inadvertently got Donald Trump elected. They were like an over-confident Joe Pisarcik, fumbling the ball away to Herman Edwards at the Miracle in the Meadowlands.
But unlike the BLM, the WN movement is not media-sponsored—nor do they have frequent marches, like the BLM. Their “optics” (to borrow the word of the day) are far less visible than the BLM. For example, you’ll never see Richard Spencer tearing the microphone out of a presidential candidate’s hand (a la Bernie Sanders). And you’ll never see Spencer get a White House invitation, like Obama gave to the BLM leaders.
And therein lies the Catch-22…
The far left needs more White Nationalist rallies to further their agenda. Yet they’re incapable of letting the events take place, because they’re addicted to censorship.
The Comey decision will finally end the “muh Russia” controversy. Remember when the wage gap was bedunked? Or what about the campus rape myth? The liberals gave up on the lies!
Oh wait…never mind.
The liberals ALWAYS double down. When you catch them in a lie, they don’t apologize; instead, they go for the bigger lie. The whopper gets larger. They accuse you of doing of what they just did. They gaslight.
Remember the recount? We found out that Democrats were tampering the ballots, and not the Republicans. But the Libs never apologized. Instead, they invented the “muh Russia” conspiracy.
Fifty years from now, the libs will still be crying about Russia – it’s now part of their identity.
I’ve been to several Islamic countries: Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Malaysia. In addition, I’ve traveled to many areas that have been hit by Islamic terrorism: i.e. Southern Thailand, the Philippines (Palawan), most of Europe, etc. Also, I’ve actually read the Koran. So while I’m not an expert, I know more about Islam than the average liberal Westerner.
My experience has taught me this; Most Middle Easterners are decent people and their food is very good: kabobs, hummus, etc. However, there is a very real problem with terrorism. Moreover, the Middle East is, by and large, a depressing shit hole. The famed Arab “hospitality” is virtually non-existent; if anything, the Westerner has to worry about continually being scammed or even attacked. Overall, it’s a place of poverty, genital mutilation, and despair.
You won’t find many left-wing hipsters in Cairo…
My perspective is very different from the Western liberal (the majority of which have never visited the Middle East or read the Koran). So that begs the question…why are liberals unable to acknowledge Islamic terrorism?
Let me give you the top three reasons:
Liberals Hate White People
Liberals have been trained since birth to hate white people. Kathy Griffin, for example, is a perfect example of how the “down-with-whitey” disease has metastasized. At the recent press conference, she offered the following reason for her decapitated head “joke.”
“I’ve been bullied by older, white men my whole life.”
What she really means is, “I’ve been ignored by older, white men my whole life.” But let’s hold off on the psychoanalysis for the moment (and we are analyzing a psycho, make no mistake about it).
With her back against the wall, Griffin played the “old white man” card. She did this for one reason – she knows the Weltanschauung of the far left. Everything they believe is centered on a hatred of white men. So the left will overlook what is, essentially, an act of treason against the President. And they’ll repeat the well-worn excuse – the white man did it.
Liberals Believe in Rousseau’s Concept of the Noble Savage
Rousseau coined the term “noble savage.” It’s the idea that the brown peoples of the earth are an idyllic race – they live in harmony with the land, peacefully interacting with butterflies and baby deer. They hold hands and sing in unison. War, slavery, torture…all foreign concepts to them. Sadly, their utopia was overturned when the white Europeans arrived.
Rousseau was…well, misguided.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-Colombian America, as well as tribal Africa, were home to innumerable atrocities. For example, roughly 1/3 of Oregonian Indians were slaves prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Another example can be found in The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano (1789), which provides an account of the Islamic slave trade in Western Africa: i.e. Equiano was stolen from his home by black slave traders, brought to the West African coast, and sold to Europeans.
There was nothing “noble” about Indians enslaving one another, or stealing African children from their beds in the middle of the night. Believing otherwise makes you intellectually inferior…not to mention a liar.
Liberals Don’t Travel to Islamic Countries
Most liberals are single/ugly women; the rest are young people (idealistic) or beta-male simps. These women present themselves as loving and accepting. In reality, they don’t want to visit – much less live in – the Islamic countries of the world.
When was the last time you heard a liberal woman say, “I’m moving to Qatar!” Or how about, “I can’t wait to spend next summer in Algeria!” That’s a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is never. If they were so concerned about Muslims, then they would visit the Middle East. But they don’t have the courage to go there. So instead, they base their impressions on the small percentage of Muslims that have the money/education to live in the West – a minuscule sampling, at best.
The meme that captures is well…
Remember: Liberal women only want to visit affluent areas. For example, look at how many movie stars talked about moving to Canada when Donald Trump won the presidency. Canada…not Bolivia, Senegal, or Mexico. So very brave! Taking a stand against injustice from an air-conditioned coffee house in Vancouver. Or contemplating the horrors of racism from a five-star restaurant in Montreal.
Summary
The Middle East has been going downhill since the 7th century (when Islam supplanted the local religions). It’s now a region that’s dominated by stone-age thinking and brutal ideologies. And most urgently, the pestilence of terrorism.
Only a delusional person could ignore this fact…in other words, a Western liberal.
Economics is a study of consequences of various ways of allocating scarce resources which have alternative uses. It is not a study of our hopes and values. (p. 3)
You can see why Thomas Sowell is hated by the left (cue the “Uncle Tom” card). For them, economics is allabout hopes and values. Spread sheets don’t matter, budgets don’t matter, and the national debt is irrelevant. It’s all about feelings (cue the violin solo).
Unfortunately, these feelings are based on Cultural Marxism – they hinge on the oppressor/oppressed model. The people that have things are evil; the people that lack things are noble. It’s a children’s fable, akin to Robin Hood – steal from the rich and give to the poor.
Charity is a noble thing – but only to a worthy cause: a child with a cleft palate, a man with no legs, a homeless veteran, etc. The examples are endless. They deserve our sympathy and perhaps (if we can afford it) a monetary handout; but charity to the deserving and only to the deserving.
Life is about the subtle difference. You have to break down the argument, weigh the evidence, and analyze the fact. It’s a time-consuming process. But it’s a critical one, since your personal well-being is at stake.
Can you spot a real victim from a fake one? The charlatan never sleeps…
Conservative soldier to wife: “Gee honey, you’ll never believe what I did. I single handedly defeated 50 ISIS fighters in a firefight. My courage brought democracy to a small village in the rural mountains of Iraq!”
Wife to husband: “That sounds great, but I have some bad news. Our daughter got two arm-sleeve tattoos and is undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. She says that you have no right to protest because you’re a cisgendered, white male.
The degenerate left will happily take the second victory…and take it all day long. They want your Church, your spouse and your child. They want to poz you with their spiritual sickness. They want to denigrate the fundamental fabric of American society. And they’ve used the public school system, the press and Hollywood as their weapons. For fifty years, they’re been doing a brash, touchdown dance on the football fields of America.
Silly conservatives…they became satisfied with moral victories in distant lands. Meanwhile, while these conservatives were deployed overseas, their homeland was being spiritually sodomized. Their noble land, a country overflowing with natural grandeur, being overtaken by the forces of darkness—the idealistic foot soldiers of the diabolical Max Horkheimer. The degenerate left was laughing in hysterics…the right was too stupid, too riddled with PTSD to ever wake up. Victory was on the way—Hillary would arrive, a proud feminist, to hammer the final nail in the American coffin.
But then they got grabbed by the pussy.
Why do liberals despise President Trump? It’s quite simple—he’s dared to challenge their control of the culture. That’s the liberal sacred cow, their Dome of the Rock. He dared to challenge Rosie O’ Donnell, Meryl Streep and Hamilton—for liberals, these things are 100 times important than the lives of Iraqi children. These “artists” are the conduit for cultural poison. If you remove them, there is no way to denigrate the noble spirit of America.
Never forget—we’re fighting a culture war. If you don’t know what you’re fighting for, then you’ve already lost.
Major Styles 