The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
The Donald's Foreign Policy
It sure trumps Hillary
Trump

Coming off a string of victories in the so-called Acela state primaries two weeks ago, GOP presidential candidate presumptive Donald J. Trump made what he described as a major foreign policy speech. Critics have blasted the effort as being short on details and long on generalities but, as ever, one’s perspective pretty much depends on what one expects or wants to hear. I admire Trump for two reasons. First is his uncompromising stance on illegal immigrants, which I fully support, and second is his willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy by condemning the Iraq War and opposing nation building and military intervention overseas.

I wanted to hear two things on foreign policy: that Donald Trump is indeed committed to military non-intervention in other countries except in those rare instances where vital national interests are at stake and also that the United States would pursue a course of positive engagement with Vladimir Putin and Russia. I was not disappointed.

Trump actually used the words “peace” and “peaceful” a number of times, something that has been missing from GOP rhetoric for many years. He said that he would “view the world through the clear lens of American interests,” something that he went on to describe as “America First,” adding “Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction…war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Paraphrasing John Quincy Adams, Trump concluded that “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies.”

Trump observed that there has been a fixation with policies that are both “foolish and arrogant” that have “led to one foreign policy disaster after another” in places like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. “It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a western democracy. We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed: civil war.”

This is all good common sense, lambasting the twin plagues of military intervention and democracy promotion, the two false idols that have respectively driven the foreign policies of the GOP and the Democrats. Trump’s comments in those specific areas could have been made by Ron Paul.

Trump went on to observe that “our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS.” I would have added that the power vacuums that we have created actually gave birth to ISIS. Regarding Russia and China, he said “We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations and must regard them with open eyes. But we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests…I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia…is possible.”

On the negative side, Trump took obligatory swipes at Iran and the nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration, but he did not say that he would seek to terminate the arrangement and the only line he drew was that “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” far less vitriolic than the neocon and conventional Republican demand that Tehran not have the “capability” to do so, which is a threshold that has already been passed and which many have viewed as a carte blanche justification of an immediate attack by the U.S.

Regarding Israel, Trump engaged in the usual American politician speak regarding “the one true democracy in the Middle East” that also serves as a “force for justice and peace.” He also has stated that he would be “neutral” in negotiating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and turned around to endorse continued expansion of Israeli settlements on Arab land. Hopefully he knows better about what is going on in the Middle East or will have advisers who know better and are not afraid to speak the truth. At least he didn’t invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move in down the hall in the White House on Inauguration Day, which Hillary Clinton has de facto done.

And speaking of Hillary, comparing her record and promises with the Trump speech demonstrates the differences between the two. David Stockman has noted that Hillary “wants to use government to make government great again” while The Donald wants “to use government to make America great again.” Hillary is indeed the favorite candidate of the Welfare-Warfare State Leviathan, a monster that seeks to dominate overseas while simultaneously stripping Americans of their liberties at home.

Hillary’s record is one of unmitigated belligerency. She enthusiastically supported her President-husband’s devastation of the Balkans in the 1990s, a “police action” in which she repeatedly lied about being “under fire” when she arrived on a visit. And she also signed on to the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 carried out by the George W. Bush Administration.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence in spite of misgivings by President Barack Obama. The Libyan fiasco led to government arsenals being looted with the weapons making their way to arm local militias and also to Islamic militants in Central Africa. It is widely believed that the four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012 were killed while arranging for weapons transfers to the “moderate rebels” in Syria. If success as a diplomat is measured by the ability to destabilize entire regions, Hillary certainly takes center stage as the finest Secretary of State since Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that killing half a million Iraqi children through sanctions was “worth it.” Albright is currently regarded as Hillary’s closest foreign policy adviser.

Like several of the other women who have surrounded the president as top level advisers, Hillary is an enthusiastic advocate of the “R2P” doctrine, “responsibility to protect.” That means that the Washington can intervene in a foreign country even if that nation’s government in no way threatens the United States. The intervention is based on humanitarian grounds, allegedly to protect the local citizens against their own leaders, but it ironically and inevitably winds up killing mostly civilians in far greater numbers than would have otherwise been the case if there had been no military action. Libya and Syria are perfect examples of R2P on steroids.

Hillary has a team of strongly pro-Israel foreign policy advisers and she has frequently expressed her hostility towards Iran, which she has threatened to “obliterate.” One of her campaign videos includes “Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, Iran is a leading sponsor of terror in the region, Iran is flouting international law with its ballistic missile tests and its threats against our allies and partners.” None of the assertions are actually true.

Regarding the threat from Russia, Hillary has inevitably likened President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. She and her neocon acolyte Victoria Nuland were the driving forces behind cranking up the unrest in Ukraine, which eventually exploded into yet another pastel revolution that quickly became mired in corruption before dissolving into something approaching anarchy, which prevails to this day. She nevertheless wants to provide lethal arms to Kiev and also wants to expedite both Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, even though it is a given that such action would provoke a major crisis with a nuclear armed and militarily quite capable Russia.

Hillary sees the conflict in Syria as an additional opportunity to confront Moscow, just like in the heady days of the Cold War, so she advocates a no-fly zone as a way for American and Russian flyboys to go head to head and is firm in her demand to replace Bashar al-Assad no matter what. She is one tough lady and she wants to make sure than everyone knows it. And of course her role model is Benjamin Netanyahu, who, she has promised, will be invited to join her in Washington as soon as her administration begins work in January.

So if one is concerned with foreign policy the choice between Donald and Hillary is no choice at all. Hillary may have the resume but it is essentially a bad one. If Trump does even a little of what he pledges to do he is a much better deal for the American people, as well as for most of the world, than is Hillary Clinton.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Trump Says U.S. Should Shoot Russian Planes If Diplomacy Fails”

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-should-shoot-russian-planes-if-putin-calls-fail-454902

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump has vowed to shoot down Russian jets approaching U.S. military assets should the Kremlin reject calls to stop.

    Trump, who declared himself the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican party after another round of sweeping primary victories last week, was speaking to BuzzFeed radio show K File on Sunday, ahead of campaigning in Indiana.

    He was asked about the recent swathe of incidents involving Russian military aircraft zooming at high speeds past U.S. navy vessels in European waters. The latest incident occurred when a Russian Su-27 plane did a barrel roll over a U.S. ship in the Baltic Sea last week.

    “It just shows how low we’ve gone where they can toy with us like that,” Trump said, describing such scenarios as “terrible.” He insisted that the problem is Russia’s lack of respect for U.S. President Barack Obama.

    “Normally, an Obama—let’s say a president, because you want to make at least a call or two—but normally Obama would call up Putin and say, ‘Listen, do us a favor, don’t do that, get that maniac, just stop it.’ But we don’t have that kind of a president. He’s gonna be out playing golf or something,” Trump said. “But I don’t know, at a certain point, you can’t take it.”

    “I mean, at a certain point, you have to do something … you just can’t take that,” Trump said. “But it should certainly start with diplomacy and it should start quickly with a phone call to Putin, wouldn’t you think?”

    According to Trump, if Russia rejects calls to stop the approaches, the U.S. should open fire.

    “And if that doesn’t work out, I don’t know, you know, at a certain point, when that sucker comes by you, you gotta shoot,” Trump said. “And it’s a shame. It’s a shame. It’s a total lack of respect for our country and it’s a total lack of respect for Obama. Which [sic] as you know, they don’t respect.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unapologetic White Man
    Did you have a point you were trying to make, or is this just a random factoid?
    , @Rabbitnexus
    When he gets into office or even now as his "security briefings" have begun, he will be made aware that the USA cannot do as he says since the Russians have the ability to switch off their air defenses with a device these reported fly bys have all included in their onboard eqipment despite being un-armed as reported. They were also ensuring the US naval vessels in question were just as un-armed.
    , @Anonymous
    Yeah, the lesson Trump is imparting is don't be a pansy. If the US were to withdraw from some places around the world it will be a debate about what word to describe US actions as. You cannot appear belligerent or weak. When Russia tests you, you have to at least fire a warning shot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-donalds-foreign-policy/#comment-1414428
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Max Boot, the war-mongering Neocon, published an oped in which he claimed that Hillary Clinton was better suited for the White House. He also heap praise on the contemptible Paul Ryan, who doesn’t seem very interested in helping American citizens, while praying for a Trump defeat in November. The oped is good indictment of the #NeverTrump crowd, the Neocons, the GOP establishment, etc.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-republicans-in-exile-20160508-story.html

    Read More
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Invite/Invade is so stupid as policy.

    What would happen if you took a stick and smashed a hornet hive and then invited the displaced hornets into your home?

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza, Che Guava, Clyde
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    Brilliant comment, wish I would have said it myself!
    , @Kiza
    Only a village idiot smashes a stick on the hornet hive, EU and US are Israel's village idiots.
  4. ugly and unloved.

    only destruction, deaths, and gold give her meaning.

    very jew.

    Read More
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It’s been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, “it’s true but not true enough.”

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it’s only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy’s losses in WWI and WWII weren’t that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like ‘larping’.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can’t trust other white peoples aren’t likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn’t trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn’t like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don’t trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren’t going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become ‘welcoming’ of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things — peace, prosperity, and trust — undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It’s like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as ‘European values’, the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn’t they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought ‘European values’ could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one’s nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more ‘vibrant’ by importing ‘diversity’ into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren’t so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, ‘far right’, and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled ‘hate crime commission’.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan’t touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn’t touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being ‘cool’ and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over “Surfer Girl” made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace ‘gay marriage’ and ‘diversity’, especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust… and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don’t trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it’s good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: “since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood.”

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @geokat62

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things — peace, prosperity, and trust — undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Priss. But there is a glaring omission in your analysis - i.e., The Frankfurt School.
    , @Rehmat
    YEP - the French Revolution, the Marxist Revolution, and WWI and WWII which resulted in the death of over 200 million people, were waged by Martian to bring "peace and prosperity to the White Folks" in the West.

    There are lot of White idiots who also believe that the Dutch, French, British, etc. who colonized Africa, Asia, Americana, Australia and New Zealand, were those 'blood thirsty Muslims'.
    , @Che Guava
    The poster formerly knom as Priss Factory. I like parts of your style and sentiments, you seem to have an inordinate amount nf time to comment.

    Dwelling in the basment, much?

    Abondoning 'Priss Factory' was a good idea, you seemed to not know the meaning of 'prissy'.

    Unless Trump is elected, there will be a dyke in the Whitehouse.

    Not that I am a US cit., so I have no say on whether or not that happens.

    Just sayin'
    , @woodNfish
    I think the reason the former eastern bloc nations have better held off the third world hoards is because they don't buy into the PC lies of the Left. They were once ruled by leftists and understand them and their lies making them more immune to the Left's deceit.
    , @Che Guava
    Gawd,

    I forgot Eleanor 'Roosevdelt', perhaps first dyke in the White House, but only as the First Lady. not the pres., although history has it that she made numerous decrees as he declined.
    , @Wally

    Some might say it was Holocaust guilt.
     
    Indeed, guilt for the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' that did not happen.

    Get the facts here:
    www.codoh.com
    no name calling debate here:
    www.forum.codoh

    Don't die stupid, see new video for basics:
    Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed (Part 1 of 2)
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/QuestioningTheHolocaust-Part1-640x360-RddqP0ABzwM.mp4

    , @Unapologetic White Man
    An article-length post? Good grief!
    , @Anonymous
    I find your thesis fascinating.

    However, I do feel that you are discounting the power of Western cultural imperialism.

    You've written at length about how the influx of black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab Muslims seems to herald the decline of Western society, in short, because of the post-war Euro/American booms (at least in my interpretation). I would argue that the bulk of those refugees or immigrants actually has the same values - or at least has been influenced by them - as Western Europeans. A lot of countries in Africa, for example, do not have locally booming film or music industries - a lot of what is popular in those countries is pretty much the same as that which is popular in the US or Europe.

    If this supposition is correct, how can nationalism actually be an answer to "Western demise" as you put it? What threat are they posing? I can only assume that you think hegemonic, singular societies are the answers to world problems.

    You quite eloquently wrote that "we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.

    Those wars began in the west; they were self-inflicted, so why all the fear? Who or what is/was this 'survivalist instinct' directed against?

    , @Anonymous
    So War is Peace. Got it.
  6. I hope the Paul’s move on from their hissy fit over Trump knocking out Rand earlier in the process. Rand might have a chance to actually play a front line role in a Trump administration, something that would never be allowed under anyone else. Disappointed by Ron’s current stance, there is clearly no similarity between Trump and Clinton’s policies. Thought they were better than such petulance.

    Anyway PPP are coming out with a poll today with Trump a mere four points behind Clinton, the game is afoot.

    Read More
  7. “The Donald’s Foreign Policy
    It sure trumps Hillary”

    Faint praise for sure.

    Read More
  8. Haven’t we been told that saying or even thinking ‘America First,’ is anti-Semitic? Americans MUST put Israel first, second and third and only then can we deal with our many problems.

    Read More
  9. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Mr. Giraldi is one of the best here. But he seems to be succumbing to the red/blue puppet show.

    Go back and look, and you’ll be reminded that the last two successful candidates told us things like “except in those rare instances where vital national interests are at stake,” too, before they assumed office. Especially in light of his unprincipled statements endorsing torture, suggesting that Mr. Snowden has committed treason, etc., Mr. Trump should not be compared favorably to Ron Paul, even when he rolls out of the truly Right side of the bed.

    I also am disappointed that this article ends with the suggestion that we have only “the choice between Donald and Hillary.” Why not abstain or, if you must participate, cast a vote for a “third party” candidate or write-in the name of someone that you would actually want to see entrusted with the power of Uncle Sam?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Happy Riches
    If the traitors of US citizens within the RNC get their way, there is only one choice:Hillary Clinton.

    TRUMP is not the nominee yet.

    Expect an attempt by the NEVER TRUMP party within the RNC to scuttle the Don at Cleveland. The premise is Trump has not got 1237 delegates, he has not qualified, so who says the DON has to be boss.

    If the first option fails, the renegades are scheming to inveigle Trump into handing over control of campaign donations and they can redirect money into a general ledger and fund representatives rather than the presidential nominee.

    Those are options 1 and 2. I suspect option 3 could be more fatal to Trump's election prospects.
    , @Unapologetic White Man
    Uh, no, I'll be voting for Trump.
  10. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things — peace, prosperity, and trust — undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul.

    Interesting hypothesis, Priss. But there is a glaring omission in your analysis – i.e., The Frankfurt School.

    Read More
    • Replies: @noizpots
    please Dominique no more.
    , @RobinG
    Geo, you're a glutton for punishment. We are under no obligation to read Pissy Miss P's racist BS distractions. What brand of time-wasting confuser is she?
  11. Mr. Giraldi, I’m willing to bet a few of my Canadian dollar that like Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Donald “J” Trump would throw in dustbin all his “peace for none but Israel” rhetoric once elected to receive the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’.

    Anyone who believes that Western wars on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. created the ISIS, Arab Spring, al-Qaeda, and other so-called “jihadis” – has his brain hanging between his legs. These groups were created by CIA, MI6 and Mossad to demonize Muslims and destroy, and occupy their nation-states to maintain Zionist entity’s superiority in the region.

    On doesn’t need a PhD to find the Devil behind the curtain. Just listen to French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    Levy has even produced a documentary on French attack on Libya, ‘The Oath of Tobruk’ which was premiered at Cannes June 2012. The documentary shows Levy’s contributions towards the destruction of the richest Muslim-majority African country. Levy attended the premiere along with four Libyan rebel leaders.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Yeah, like many of the racist dbags here will accept such basic facts.
    , @mtn cur
    No matter what snoop and poopers did to foment the violence, if we idiots would jail a few credit card congress creatures instead giving them fourth and fifth terms on a pork barrel committee, our troops would stay here instead of over there, leaving those folk free to conduct their pleasurable blood feuds or whatever.
  12. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rehmat
    Mr. Giraldi, I'm willing to bet a few of my Canadian dollar that like Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Donald "J" Trump would throw in dustbin all his "peace for none but Israel" rhetoric once elected to receive the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.

    Anyone who believes that Western wars on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. created the ISIS, Arab Spring, al-Qaeda, and other so-called "jihadis" - has his brain hanging between his legs. These groups were created by CIA, MI6 and Mossad to demonize Muslims and destroy, and occupy their nation-states to maintain Zionist entity's superiority in the region.

    On doesn't need a PhD to find the Devil behind the curtain. Just listen to French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    Levy has even produced a documentary on French attack on Libya, ‘The Oath of Tobruk’ which was premiered at Cannes June 2012. The documentary shows Levy’s contributions towards the destruction of the richest Muslim-majority African country. Levy attended the premiere along with four Libyan rebel leaders.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/

    Yeah, like many of the racist dbags here will accept such basic facts.

    Read More
  13. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t take that position because of Israeli. I take it because no more Muslim countries should have a nuclear weapon. Muslims aren’t peaceful people and another Muslim country with the bomb will further destabilize the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Iran hasn't attacked any country in centuries.
    But I agree that it should not have a nuke, because the more countries have it, the more possibility of accidental use or getting into the hands of the wrong people.

    btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.
    US goes around the world attacking, invading, destroying countries which have not attacked US.
    US was involved in Pakistan getting nukes - did you know that ?
    US leaders have also threatened to attack and bomb Iran on behalf of Israel.
    US leaders have let it be known that "nothing is off the table", meaning US would consider using tactical nukes to attack Iran.

    On the other hand, North Korea openly threatens her neighbors, and has developed some crude nukes - but nobody will dare invade NK, because they'll fight back......with nukes if necessary.

    , @Orville H. Larson
    "Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. . . ."

    Bullshit. Iran should have all the nukes it wants--and then some.

    The criminal, racist Zionist entity shouldn't have any.
  14. @anonymous
    Mr. Giraldi is one of the best here. But he seems to be succumbing to the red/blue puppet show.

    Go back and look, and you'll be reminded that the last two successful candidates told us things like "except in those rare instances where vital national interests are at stake," too, before they assumed office. Especially in light of his unprincipled statements endorsing torture, suggesting that Mr. Snowden has committed treason, etc., Mr. Trump should not be compared favorably to Ron Paul, even when he rolls out of the truly Right side of the bed.

    I also am disappointed that this article ends with the suggestion that we have only "the choice between Donald and Hillary." Why not abstain or, if you must participate, cast a vote for a "third party" candidate or write-in the name of someone that you would actually want to see entrusted with the power of Uncle Sam?

    If the traitors of US citizens within the RNC get their way, there is only one choice:Hillary Clinton.

    TRUMP is not the nominee yet.

    Expect an attempt by the NEVER TRUMP party within the RNC to scuttle the Don at Cleveland. The premise is Trump has not got 1237 delegates, he has not qualified, so who says the DON has to be boss.

    If the first option fails, the renegades are scheming to inveigle Trump into handing over control of campaign donations and they can redirect money into a general ledger and fund representatives rather than the presidential nominee.

    Those are options 1 and 2. I suspect option 3 could be more fatal to Trump’s election prospects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Is this wishful thinking on your part? One strain of those commenters enthusing about Mr. Trump seems to hope for some shenanigans that deprive him of the Republican nomination. In this "we wuz robbed" scenario, all of his warts can fall away, and each fan can cling forever after to the rhetoric they liked while ignoring all of the ugly things that have come out of the other side of the man's mouth.

    Far more likely: President Trump will disappoint those who vote for him as some sort of street smart Ron Paul. Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush's rejection of nation building and/or Mr. Obama on, well, just about everything that disgusts most of us here.
  15. Dec 18, 2015 The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let’s look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the “anti-establishment” Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Gilligan
    Ron Paul was expected to support his son in the primary, no?

    Strange Bedfellows: the Bizarre Coalition of Kochs, Neocons and Democrats Allied Against Trump and His #FUvoters

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/06/strange-bedfellows-the-bizarre-coalition-of-kochs-neocons-and-democrats-against-trump-and-his-fu-voters/

    Trump v. Disastrous US Triumphalism in Foreign Policy
    Trump’s challenge to 20-year bipartisan consensus may finally produce the missing public debate.
    By Stephen F. Cohen

    http://www.thenation.com/article/trump-v-disastrous-us-triumphalism-in-foreign-policy/
    , @woodNfish

    Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.
     
    Yeah right, that's why the RNC and RINOs have been attacking him nonstop since April, 2015. Stop blowing smoke up your own butt.
  16. @Anonymous
    Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. I don't take that position because of Israeli. I take it because no more Muslim countries should have a nuclear weapon. Muslims aren't peaceful people and another Muslim country with the bomb will further destabilize the world.

    Iran hasn’t attacked any country in centuries.
    But I agree that it should not have a nuke, because the more countries have it, the more possibility of accidental use or getting into the hands of the wrong people.

    btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.
    US goes around the world attacking, invading, destroying countries which have not attacked US.
    US was involved in Pakistan getting nukes – did you know that ?
    US leaders have also threatened to attack and bomb Iran on behalf of Israel.
    US leaders have let it be known that “nothing is off the table”, meaning US would consider using tactical nukes to attack Iran.

    On the other hand, North Korea openly threatens her neighbors, and has developed some crude nukes – but nobody will dare invade NK, because they’ll fight back……with nukes if necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Iran must get nuclear weapons if it wants to get good bargaining position in the final NWO scenario. W/o the nuclear weapons Iran will not survive and will not last when the final victory of NWO over the OWO.
  17. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Happy Riches
    If the traitors of US citizens within the RNC get their way, there is only one choice:Hillary Clinton.

    TRUMP is not the nominee yet.

    Expect an attempt by the NEVER TRUMP party within the RNC to scuttle the Don at Cleveland. The premise is Trump has not got 1237 delegates, he has not qualified, so who says the DON has to be boss.

    If the first option fails, the renegades are scheming to inveigle Trump into handing over control of campaign donations and they can redirect money into a general ledger and fund representatives rather than the presidential nominee.

    Those are options 1 and 2. I suspect option 3 could be more fatal to Trump's election prospects.

    Is this wishful thinking on your part? One strain of those commenters enthusing about Mr. Trump seems to hope for some shenanigans that deprive him of the Republican nomination. In this “we wuz robbed” scenario, all of his warts can fall away, and each fan can cling forever after to the rhetoric they liked while ignoring all of the ugly things that have come out of the other side of the man’s mouth.

    Far more likely: President Trump will disappoint those who vote for him as some sort of street smart Ron Paul. Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush’s rejection of nation building and/or Mr. Obama on, well, just about everything that disgusts most of us here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unapologetic White Man
    Gosh, you're so cool. Where'd you get your crystal ball? I want one just like it.
    , @utu
    "Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush’s rejection of nation building " - I was one of them. I was even hoping that GWB is going to avenge his father's defeat in 1992 that was orchestrated by neocons.

    GWB to Prince Bandar in 1997: “There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy.” Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: “Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or who doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.” Bandar’s message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. “Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar continues. “This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”

    Anyway, it did not work. Neocons won. And they (perhaps in new incarnation) will win under Trump or whoever.
  18. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Trump blasting Jeb Bush on television for his brother’s criminal wars was a blast of fresh air, something I’d been dying to hear spoken out loud for years now. Heretofore everyone was in waffle-speak mode, avoiding mentioning the elephant that’s been in our presence all this time. Hearing that had a liberating effect; the ice was broken as the truth was spoken. The Bush-Clinton-Obama insider group have caused hundreds of thousands of people to die and millions to become pauperized refugees, war criminality of worldwide significance even as our massive propaganda machine told us we were boy scouts bearing gifts. Although not a follower of personalities I don’t see much wiggle room; it looks to be either Trump or Clinton. We’ll just have to roll the dice on Trump and see what happens. There’s not much else a person can do.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Trump blasting Jeb Bush on television for his brother’s criminal wars was a blast of fresh air, something I’d been dying to hear spoken out loud for years now.
     
    not only that, he also repudiated that "hero" John McBloodstain.

    when you consider the alternative to Trump is Hillary, the stakes are so stark, that I don't know how people can be on the fence
  19. @Agent76
    Dec 18, 2015 The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment" Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    https://youtu.be/vt2NPP1z-y8

    Ron Paul was expected to support his son in the primary, no?

    Strange Bedfellows: the Bizarre Coalition of Kochs, Neocons and Democrats Allied Against Trump and His #FUvoters

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/06/strange-bedfellows-the-bizarre-coalition-of-kochs-neocons-and-democrats-against-trump-and-his-fu-voters/

    Trump v. Disastrous US Triumphalism in Foreign Policy
    Trump’s challenge to 20-year bipartisan consensus may finally produce the missing public debate.
    By Stephen F. Cohen

    http://www.thenation.com/article/trump-v-disastrous-us-triumphalism-in-foreign-policy/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    You clearly do not physically participate in processes as a whole. Otherwise you would not be so eager to support any RNC or DNC! Here is what you missed out on.

    Aug 30, 2012 Did RNC "Scripted" Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?

    Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how the most controversial rule change in party history was not legitimately passed.

    https://youtu.be/pKaXqoC4DjE

    Apr 9, 2014 Change the Presidential Debates

    Most Americans have no idea that the official-sounding and acting Commission on Presidential Debates is, in reality, a private organization created by the Republican and Democrat Parties. Our America is challenging this unfair duopoly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBCCqPpt_RA
  20. @Rehmat
    Mr. Giraldi, I'm willing to bet a few of my Canadian dollar that like Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Donald "J" Trump would throw in dustbin all his "peace for none but Israel" rhetoric once elected to receive the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.

    Anyone who believes that Western wars on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. created the ISIS, Arab Spring, al-Qaeda, and other so-called "jihadis" - has his brain hanging between his legs. These groups were created by CIA, MI6 and Mossad to demonize Muslims and destroy, and occupy their nation-states to maintain Zionist entity's superiority in the region.

    On doesn't need a PhD to find the Devil behind the curtain. Just listen to French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    Levy has even produced a documentary on French attack on Libya, ‘The Oath of Tobruk’ which was premiered at Cannes June 2012. The documentary shows Levy’s contributions towards the destruction of the richest Muslim-majority African country. Levy attended the premiere along with four Libyan rebel leaders.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/

    No matter what snoop and poopers did to foment the violence, if we idiots would jail a few credit card congress creatures instead giving them fourth and fifth terms on a pork barrel committee, our troops would stay here instead of over there, leaving those folk free to conduct their pleasurable blood feuds or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I like your idea to throw the Americans who work for foreign interests into sewer but please don't blame western Holocausts and ethnic-cleansings of hundreds of millions of White and non-White folks on Muslim and Christian folks living outside the West.
  21. @geokat62

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things — peace, prosperity, and trust — undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Priss. But there is a glaring omission in your analysis - i.e., The Frankfurt School.

    please Dominique no more.

    Read More
  22. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    YEP – the French Revolution, the Marxist Revolution, and WWI and WWII which resulted in the death of over 200 million people, were waged by Martian to bring “peace and prosperity to the White Folks” in the West.

    There are lot of White idiots who also believe that the Dutch, French, British, etc. who colonized Africa, Asia, Americana, Australia and New Zealand, were those ‘blood thirsty Muslims’.

    Read More
  23. @mtn cur
    No matter what snoop and poopers did to foment the violence, if we idiots would jail a few credit card congress creatures instead giving them fourth and fifth terms on a pork barrel committee, our troops would stay here instead of over there, leaving those folk free to conduct their pleasurable blood feuds or whatever.

    I like your idea to throw the Americans who work for foreign interests into sewer but please don’t blame western Holocausts and ethnic-cleansings of hundreds of millions of White and non-White folks on Muslim and Christian folks living outside the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    Speaking of foreign interests, how's the weather there in Rawalpindi?
  24. @Priss Factor
    Invite/Invade is so stupid as policy.

    What would happen if you took a stick and smashed a hornet hive and then invited the displaced hornets into your home?

    Brilliant comment, wish I would have said it myself!

    Read More
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    factor in the Netanyahu-Saudi relationship

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/05/httpwwwglobalresearchcasaudi-king-salman-financed-netanyahus-campaign-panama-papers-leak5524183.html

    Isaac Herzog, member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Israeli Labor party, revealed that Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz financed the election campaign of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

    “In March 2015, King Salman has deposited eighty million dollars to support Netanyahu’s campaign via a Syrian-Spanish person named Mohamed Eyad Kayali. The money was deposited to a company’s account in British Virgin Islands owned by Teddy Sagi, an Israeli billionaire and businessman, who has allocated the money to fund the campaign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”,
     
    , @tbraton
    From your linked article:

    "Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

    «By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria».

    Hersh didn’t say whether these «arms» included the precursor chemicals for making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya, but there have been multiple independent reports that Libya’s Gaddafi possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US Consulate in Benghazi Libya was operating a «rat line» for Gaddafi’s captured weapons into Syria through Turkey.

    So, Hersh isn’t the only reporter who has been covering this. Indeed, the investigative journalist Christoph Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013, «Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria» and reported, on the basis of very different sources than Hersh used, that «Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry»."

    I have asked a number of times over the years, both on TAC and here, whether anybody knows how that "red line" comment by Obama in the summer of 2012 found its way into Obama's statement. I never got an answer. Does anyone know whether anything was written at the time identifying which White House aide came up with that suggestion or was that purely an Obama invention? Thank heaven the British Parliament revolted and rejected PM Cameron's proposal to wage war with Syria. That gave Obama the willies, since he didn't like waging war without our trusted sidekick Britain there to give us cover. Had the British Parliament approved, I am sure Obama would have launched attacks against Syria without waiting for Congressional approval, just as he did in Libya and just as he has put "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria without Congressional authorization.
  26. @anonymous
    Trump blasting Jeb Bush on television for his brother's criminal wars was a blast of fresh air, something I'd been dying to hear spoken out loud for years now. Heretofore everyone was in waffle-speak mode, avoiding mentioning the elephant that's been in our presence all this time. Hearing that had a liberating effect; the ice was broken as the truth was spoken. The Bush-Clinton-Obama insider group have caused hundreds of thousands of people to die and millions to become pauperized refugees, war criminality of worldwide significance even as our massive propaganda machine told us we were boy scouts bearing gifts. Although not a follower of personalities I don't see much wiggle room; it looks to be either Trump or Clinton. We'll just have to roll the dice on Trump and see what happens. There's not much else a person can do.

    Trump blasting Jeb Bush on television for his brother’s criminal wars was a blast of fresh air, something I’d been dying to hear spoken out loud for years now.

    not only that, he also repudiated that “hero” John McBloodstain.

    when you consider the alternative to Trump is Hillary, the stakes are so stark, that I don’t know how people can be on the fence

    Read More
  27. @Pat Gilligan
    Ron Paul was expected to support his son in the primary, no?

    Strange Bedfellows: the Bizarre Coalition of Kochs, Neocons and Democrats Allied Against Trump and His #FUvoters

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/06/strange-bedfellows-the-bizarre-coalition-of-kochs-neocons-and-democrats-against-trump-and-his-fu-voters/

    Trump v. Disastrous US Triumphalism in Foreign Policy
    Trump’s challenge to 20-year bipartisan consensus may finally produce the missing public debate.
    By Stephen F. Cohen

    http://www.thenation.com/article/trump-v-disastrous-us-triumphalism-in-foreign-policy/

    You clearly do not physically participate in processes as a whole. Otherwise you would not be so eager to support any RNC or DNC! Here is what you missed out on.

    Aug 30, 2012 Did RNC “Scripted” Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?

    Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how the most controversial rule change in party history was not legitimately passed.

    Apr 9, 2014 Change the Presidential Debates

    Most Americans have no idea that the official-sounding and acting Commission on Presidential Debates is, in reality, a private organization created by the Republican and Democrat Parties. Our America is challenging this unfair duopoly.

    Read More
  28. @Priss Factor
    If this story is true...

    http://www.4thmedia.org/2016/05/seymour-hersh-says-hillary-approved-sending-libyas-sarin-to-syrian-rebels-2/

    factor in the Netanyahu-Saudi relationship

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/05/httpwwwglobalresearchcasaudi-king-salman-financed-netanyahus-campaign-panama-papers-leak5524183.html

    Isaac Herzog, member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Israeli Labor party, revealed that Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz financed the election campaign of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

    “In March 2015, King Salman has deposited eighty million dollars to support Netanyahu’s campaign via a Syrian-Spanish person named Mohamed Eyad Kayali. The money was deposited to a company’s account in British Virgin Islands owned by Teddy Sagi, an Israeli billionaire and businessman, who has allocated the money to fund the campaign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”,

    Read More
  29. Fine piece, PG. As anyone can tell from reviewing my posts from last August, I have been a Trump enthusiast since the first Republican debate in Cleveland in mid-August, where he stressed that he was the only candidate on stage to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning (he got the date wrong, it turned out), while Rand Paul, my early favorite, sat like a bump on a log (he challenged Trump’s contention at a subsequent debate). And he brought up on his own (and not in response to a question) why we still had 26,000+ U.S. troops on the Korean DMZ. It was his foreign policy positions that got my attention along with his stance against immigration, but, like any rational person, I still had to retain a certain degree of skepticism since I was fully aware that politicians had lied before. Any doubts I may have had were erased by Trump’s performance at the SC debate, held a few days before the SC primary, when he not only attacked the Iraq War but attacked George W. Bush, the Republican President who concocted that disaster and the brother of Trump’s competitor, the hapless Jeb!!! Bush. The audacity of Trump to take such an outspoken critical approach to the Iraq War and GWB just before the primary in a state known for its patriotism and militaristic attitude convinced me that Trump was for real in his foreign policy positions. The fact that he took what I considered to be a big political gamble and got away with it has convinced me that he is going to be our next President. I fully expect him to hammer Hillary on three foreign policy positions between now and November: (1) she voted for the Iraq War (and, as a consequence, lost the 2008 nomination to a relative unknown politician), (2) she pushed for the war against Libya and the overthrow of Qaddafi, which has resulted in chaos in Libya and surrounding African countries and a great flow of refugees to Europe, and (3) she has actively campaigned on establishment of “no-fly zones” in Syria which are contrary to international law and could possibly lead to WWIII.

    ” but he did not say that he would seek to terminate the arrangement and the only line he drew was that “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” far less vitriolic than the neocon and conventional Republican demand that Tehran not have the “capability” to do so, which is a threshold that has already been passed and which many have viewed as a carte blanche justification of an immediate attack by the U.S.”

    Our current President gave an interview to his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, a few months before his virtually certain election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 (against the clown Alan Keyes), in which he stated that, if economic sanctions did not succeed in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment program, a missile attack against those facilities might be necessary (he ruled out “boots on the ground” in Iran since we were still bogged down in Iraq at the time). Surprisingly, the Chicago Tribune deleted that interview from its website a few years later, but the interview was preserved on other websites. I posted a link to that 2004 interview with Obama several times on TAC. See http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/an-iranian-war-would-ruin-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-242306:

    “Rather than waiting for Iran to actually possess a nuclear weapon, Obama made clear back in 2004 (when he was running basically unopposed for the Senate) that he would not wait that long. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama stated that the idea of “radical mullahs” in possession of nuclear weapons was not acceptable in his view and that, if economic sanctions proved unsuccessful in convincing Iran to give up their nuclear enrichment program, missile strikes would be necessary. See September 24,2004 interview with Chicago Tribune reprinted at http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage

    In that same interview, Obama also stated that, if President Musharraf was deposed in Pakistan, a missile attack against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities might be necessary. He also stated that he was opposed to gay marriage “on religious grounds.” So, in case anyone needs reminding, words spoken by a politician are not exactly guarantees about what they will do once in office. Trump’s positions on several issues are consistent and have been stated repeatedly so that one has some reassurance that he will follow such policies once in office. The alternative is to vote for Hillary and pray that she will not follow the policies she has consistently articulated and followed in office.

    BTW, in one of my first posts on unz.com back in July, 2015, I laid out my experience with that Chicago Tribune interview with the prospective U.S. Senator and future President of the U.S., which Obama’s hometown newspaper did not think important enough to preserve on its website: http://www.unz.com/announcement/new-columnists-and-new-columnist-software/#comment-1033199

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    " Surprisingly, the Chicago Tribune deleted that interview from its website a few years later, but the interview was preserved on other websites." - So, the Oslo Peace Nobel Prize committee did not have in their file.
    , @Sam Shama
    I must say my own path as a Trump supporter has been quite similar to your own, not to neglect the added attraction of his economic policies, which, if one correctly estimates, hold the potential to unleash long-term benefits for Americans. Trump understands debt very well and my suspicion is, he is deliberately playing fast and loose with his missives, to be fait accomplied in the fullness of time, with a major public briefing similar to his foreign policy speech, putting to rest, or rather in chaos, minds of the chattering class. I do so believe he wants to purge the neocon influence from the party and bring back some measure of Buchananite conservatism.

    My only worry now, concerns his true standing with women; for if one were to take the results of MSM polls and pronouncements, he is at a serious disadvantage, reversible only through ritual prostrations before the television matriarchy.

    Thanks also for the saved CT interview in TAC.

  30. @Rehmat
    I like your idea to throw the Americans who work for foreign interests into sewer but please don't blame western Holocausts and ethnic-cleansings of hundreds of millions of White and non-White folks on Muslim and Christian folks living outside the West.

    Speaking of foreign interests, how’s the weather there in Rawalpindi?

    Read More
  31. Who really knows if Trump is for real. Where does the “red meat” rhetoric end and the genuine policy changes begin? Is he truly an American nationalist who will actually put America (and Americans first)? Could be. Will he stand up to the Federal Reserve Bank and its predatorial, parasitical owners? That’s the $64,000 question ~ from back in the days when such a sum would buy a pretty nice house on the hill, a brand new Caddy to go with it and with plenty left over for a nice, steady interest-bearing savings account.

    Americans have been bamboozled by many a prostitician ~ with each succeeding president generally worse than the previous one. On some levels Obaminable is no worse than Bu$h the $hrub, but that is a moot argument. What discerning and realistic observers can see even with their eyes wide shut is that Hitllery would unquestionably be the worst of all possible presidential choices American voters could make. No question that Ms Rodham is a warmonger, a tool of the Wall Street tentacle of the Bankster Imperium and a psychopath to boot. The Evil Woman has essentially NO redeeming qualities.

    If Trump is shylocked out of the nomination it is almost guaranteed that there will be blood in the streets ~ and perhaps a few oligarchs and their minions hanging from lamp-posts ~ perhaps even a coup within the US military. That is largely because the people backing the Donald are a composite of the fading middle class and some very pissed off members of an economically castrated working class ~ also a slew of Evangelicals and rednecks whose theme song would be “We ain’t gonna take it any more”. Trump has catalyzed and energized that demographic melange.

    Should it come down to a contest between Hillary and Donald there will be no polite discourse between faux liberals and ersatz conservatives. The charges and countercharges are apt to be a no holds barred affair. The bulk of the American people are getting their blood up on this one. The more Trump utters previously unaired truths, the more the American people will flock to vote for him and the more he becomes a JFK-MLK-RFK target by the puppetmasters and their minions.

    The coming election will determine whether our ruptured Republic, currently in the ICU on life-support will recover somehow or whether it will be relegated to the too often cliched “dustbin of history”. This is the big one, folks. The Donald has broken the ice.

    Read More
  32. @Avery
    Iran hasn't attacked any country in centuries.
    But I agree that it should not have a nuke, because the more countries have it, the more possibility of accidental use or getting into the hands of the wrong people.

    btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.
    US goes around the world attacking, invading, destroying countries which have not attacked US.
    US was involved in Pakistan getting nukes - did you know that ?
    US leaders have also threatened to attack and bomb Iran on behalf of Israel.
    US leaders have let it be known that "nothing is off the table", meaning US would consider using tactical nukes to attack Iran.

    On the other hand, North Korea openly threatens her neighbors, and has developed some crude nukes - but nobody will dare invade NK, because they'll fight back......with nukes if necessary.

    Iran must get nuclear weapons if it wants to get good bargaining position in the final NWO scenario. W/o the nuclear weapons Iran will not survive and will not last when the final victory of NWO over the OWO.

    Read More
  33. @tbraton
    Fine piece, PG. As anyone can tell from reviewing my posts from last August, I have been a Trump enthusiast since the first Republican debate in Cleveland in mid-August, where he stressed that he was the only candidate on stage to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning (he got the date wrong, it turned out), while Rand Paul, my early favorite, sat like a bump on a log (he challenged Trump's contention at a subsequent debate). And he brought up on his own (and not in response to a question) why we still had 26,000+ U.S. troops on the Korean DMZ. It was his foreign policy positions that got my attention along with his stance against immigration, but, like any rational person, I still had to retain a certain degree of skepticism since I was fully aware that politicians had lied before. Any doubts I may have had were erased by Trump's performance at the SC debate, held a few days before the SC primary, when he not only attacked the Iraq War but attacked George W. Bush, the Republican President who concocted that disaster and the brother of Trump's competitor, the hapless Jeb!!! Bush. The audacity of Trump to take such an outspoken critical approach to the Iraq War and GWB just before the primary in a state known for its patriotism and militaristic attitude convinced me that Trump was for real in his foreign policy positions. The fact that he took what I considered to be a big political gamble and got away with it has convinced me that he is going to be our next President. I fully expect him to hammer Hillary on three foreign policy positions between now and November: (1) she voted for the Iraq War (and, as a consequence, lost the 2008 nomination to a relative unknown politician), (2) she pushed for the war against Libya and the overthrow of Qaddafi, which has resulted in chaos in Libya and surrounding African countries and a great flow of refugees to Europe, and (3) she has actively campaigned on establishment of "no-fly zones" in Syria which are contrary to international law and could possibly lead to WWIII.

    " but he did not say that he would seek to terminate the arrangement and the only line he drew was that “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” far less vitriolic than the neocon and conventional Republican demand that Tehran not have the “capability” to do so, which is a threshold that has already been passed and which many have viewed as a carte blanche justification of an immediate attack by the U.S."

    Our current President gave an interview to his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, a few months before his virtually certain election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 (against the clown Alan Keyes), in which he stated that, if economic sanctions did not succeed in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment program, a missile attack against those facilities might be necessary (he ruled out "boots on the ground" in Iran since we were still bogged down in Iraq at the time). Surprisingly, the Chicago Tribune deleted that interview from its website a few years later, but the interview was preserved on other websites. I posted a link to that 2004 interview with Obama several times on TAC. See http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/an-iranian-war-would-ruin-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-242306:

    "Rather than waiting for Iran to actually possess a nuclear weapon, Obama made clear back in 2004 (when he was running basically unopposed for the Senate) that he would not wait that long. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama stated that the idea of “radical mullahs” in possession of nuclear weapons was not acceptable in his view and that, if economic sanctions proved unsuccessful in convincing Iran to give up their nuclear enrichment program, missile strikes would be necessary. See September 24,2004 interview with Chicago Tribune reprinted at http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage "

    In that same interview, Obama also stated that, if President Musharraf was deposed in Pakistan, a missile attack against Pakistan's nuclear facilities might be necessary. He also stated that he was opposed to gay marriage "on religious grounds." So, in case anyone needs reminding, words spoken by a politician are not exactly guarantees about what they will do once in office. Trump's positions on several issues are consistent and have been stated repeatedly so that one has some reassurance that he will follow such policies once in office. The alternative is to vote for Hillary and pray that she will not follow the policies she has consistently articulated and followed in office.

    BTW, in one of my first posts on unz.com back in July, 2015, I laid out my experience with that Chicago Tribune interview with the prospective U.S. Senator and future President of the U.S., which Obama's hometown newspaper did not think important enough to preserve on its website: http://www.unz.com/announcement/new-columnists-and-new-columnist-software/#comment-1033199

    ” Surprisingly, the Chicago Tribune deleted that interview from its website a few years later, but the interview was preserved on other websites.” – So, the Oslo Peace Nobel Prize committee did not have in their file.

    Read More
  34. @tbraton
    Fine piece, PG. As anyone can tell from reviewing my posts from last August, I have been a Trump enthusiast since the first Republican debate in Cleveland in mid-August, where he stressed that he was the only candidate on stage to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning (he got the date wrong, it turned out), while Rand Paul, my early favorite, sat like a bump on a log (he challenged Trump's contention at a subsequent debate). And he brought up on his own (and not in response to a question) why we still had 26,000+ U.S. troops on the Korean DMZ. It was his foreign policy positions that got my attention along with his stance against immigration, but, like any rational person, I still had to retain a certain degree of skepticism since I was fully aware that politicians had lied before. Any doubts I may have had were erased by Trump's performance at the SC debate, held a few days before the SC primary, when he not only attacked the Iraq War but attacked George W. Bush, the Republican President who concocted that disaster and the brother of Trump's competitor, the hapless Jeb!!! Bush. The audacity of Trump to take such an outspoken critical approach to the Iraq War and GWB just before the primary in a state known for its patriotism and militaristic attitude convinced me that Trump was for real in his foreign policy positions. The fact that he took what I considered to be a big political gamble and got away with it has convinced me that he is going to be our next President. I fully expect him to hammer Hillary on three foreign policy positions between now and November: (1) she voted for the Iraq War (and, as a consequence, lost the 2008 nomination to a relative unknown politician), (2) she pushed for the war against Libya and the overthrow of Qaddafi, which has resulted in chaos in Libya and surrounding African countries and a great flow of refugees to Europe, and (3) she has actively campaigned on establishment of "no-fly zones" in Syria which are contrary to international law and could possibly lead to WWIII.

    " but he did not say that he would seek to terminate the arrangement and the only line he drew was that “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” far less vitriolic than the neocon and conventional Republican demand that Tehran not have the “capability” to do so, which is a threshold that has already been passed and which many have viewed as a carte blanche justification of an immediate attack by the U.S."

    Our current President gave an interview to his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, a few months before his virtually certain election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 (against the clown Alan Keyes), in which he stated that, if economic sanctions did not succeed in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment program, a missile attack against those facilities might be necessary (he ruled out "boots on the ground" in Iran since we were still bogged down in Iraq at the time). Surprisingly, the Chicago Tribune deleted that interview from its website a few years later, but the interview was preserved on other websites. I posted a link to that 2004 interview with Obama several times on TAC. See http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/an-iranian-war-would-ruin-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-242306:

    "Rather than waiting for Iran to actually possess a nuclear weapon, Obama made clear back in 2004 (when he was running basically unopposed for the Senate) that he would not wait that long. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama stated that the idea of “radical mullahs” in possession of nuclear weapons was not acceptable in his view and that, if economic sanctions proved unsuccessful in convincing Iran to give up their nuclear enrichment program, missile strikes would be necessary. See September 24,2004 interview with Chicago Tribune reprinted at http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage "

    In that same interview, Obama also stated that, if President Musharraf was deposed in Pakistan, a missile attack against Pakistan's nuclear facilities might be necessary. He also stated that he was opposed to gay marriage "on religious grounds." So, in case anyone needs reminding, words spoken by a politician are not exactly guarantees about what they will do once in office. Trump's positions on several issues are consistent and have been stated repeatedly so that one has some reassurance that he will follow such policies once in office. The alternative is to vote for Hillary and pray that she will not follow the policies she has consistently articulated and followed in office.

    BTW, in one of my first posts on unz.com back in July, 2015, I laid out my experience with that Chicago Tribune interview with the prospective U.S. Senator and future President of the U.S., which Obama's hometown newspaper did not think important enough to preserve on its website: http://www.unz.com/announcement/new-columnists-and-new-columnist-software/#comment-1033199

    I must say my own path as a Trump supporter has been quite similar to your own, not to neglect the added attraction of his economic policies, which, if one correctly estimates, hold the potential to unleash long-term benefits for Americans. Trump understands debt very well and my suspicion is, he is deliberately playing fast and loose with his missives, to be fait accomplied in the fullness of time, with a major public briefing similar to his foreign policy speech, putting to rest, or rather in chaos, minds of the chattering class. I do so believe he wants to purge the neocon influence from the party and bring back some measure of Buchananite conservatism.

    My only worry now, concerns his true standing with women; for if one were to take the results of MSM polls and pronouncements, he is at a serious disadvantage, reversible only through ritual prostrations before the television matriarchy.

    Thanks also for the saved CT interview in TAC.

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @dahoit
    Thew MSM polls have all been wishful thinking.The wish being the hell bitch.
    Trump will tear her a new asshole.
    But don't count Sanders out yet,like the MSM wishes.(again)
  35. To hypothesize about Donald Trumps foreign policy agenda is what we all have to do as citizens facing an election. Without the requisite mind reading machinery we are thrown back on what The Donald talks about most, domestic economics and the effect foreign trade treaties have on same. He appears to be a pragmatic nationalist with little investment in the status quo. One suspects that in some cases he will veer from conservative orthodoxy in order to get what he thinks is the best deal for the greatest number. He has a refreshing tendency to speak of our “allies” and “trading partners” as consenting adults in a healthy competition; a much more rational approach than we are used to.

    Naturally this frightens all those parties whose rice bowl is filled by the status quo. Lets ber honest, if Trump had the mannerisms of Harvey Mansfield he would still be called a dangerous nut. Too many factions in American life depend on the repression of any healthy nationalist sentiment. When these factions win, ordinary Americans lose. It must count for something that both the Neocons and the internationalist economic parasites are his declared enemies. Neocon antipathy to Trump is particularly revealing as it is a tacit admission that what is good for America is bad for Israel.

    Donald Trumps personality is a legitimate cause for concern; but we must choose between a problematic new actor in the White House and a veteran operative among the wreckers of our prosperity and way of life. What Trump might do vs what Hillary and company will do if given the chance.

    Read More
  36. “So, the Oslo Peace Nobel Prize committee did not have in their file.”

    That hadn’t occurred to me. Good point, but I don’t think it would have mattered even if it were in the file. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee was so in love with Obama they would have given him the Prize even had he already attacked Iran with missiles. They would have cited his action as just one more sign of his deep commitment to international peace.

    Read More
  37. @geokat62

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things — peace, prosperity, and trust — undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Priss. But there is a glaring omission in your analysis - i.e., The Frankfurt School.

    Geo, you’re a glutton for punishment. We are under no obligation to read Pissy Miss P’s racist BS distractions. What brand of time-wasting confuser is she?

    Read More
  38. I do not blindly apply the axiom, Enemy of my Enemy, but any sensible evaluation of whether one should support Trump or not should take a good hard look at his enemies.

    Read More
  39. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    The poster formerly knom as Priss Factory. I like parts of your style and sentiments, you seem to have an inordinate amount nf time to comment.

    Dwelling in the basment, much?

    Abondoning ‘Priss Factory’ was a good idea, you seemed to not know the meaning of ‘prissy’.

    Unless Trump is elected, there will be a dyke in the Whitehouse.

    Not that I am a US cit., so I have no say on whether or not that happens.

    Just sayin’

    Read More
  40. Mr. Giraldi is being pretty selective about which of Trump’s statements he focuses on, outside of his official foreign policy speech.

    “Time to Talk About Faux America-Firster Nationalist Donald Trump”:

    http://winteractionables.com/?p=32811

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    This http://winteractionables.com/?p=32811 should be read by all Trump enthusiasts who project on him their fantasies and wishful thinking.
  41. Donald has spent $40m of his own simoleon thus far, and requires [by his own estimates] $1.5b to mount an effective campaign for the generals. This is the paramount moment at which the political duopoly can simply force his hand, extract deep compromises or scupper entirely, his platform.

    Or, can they? Is it simply too outlandish a proposition to expect a combination of individual contributions and a continuation of his own brainchild – reality themed TV campaigning – to effectively prevail over Hillary’s resources?

    He has apparently approached the Koch bros., receiving a bit of a cold shoulder, while Sheldon Adelson [to my unease] reacts with beatific signals.

    Read More
  42. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    I think the reason the former eastern bloc nations have better held off the third world hoards is because they don’t buy into the PC lies of the Left. They were once ruled by leftists and understand them and their lies making them more immune to the Left’s deceit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    This is somewhat misleading because Western PC is essentially Jewish liberalism in extreme form (or perhaps taken to its logical conclusion?), while the leftist states imposed on Eastern Europe were, for the most part, non-Jewish. This is esp. true post-Stalin. It is true Jews were disproportionately represented in some immediate post-war govts. like Czechoslovakia and Poland, but this was essentially an anti-fascist stratagem. PC in the West and the Eastern bloc nations were very different systems.
  43. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    Gawd,

    I forgot Eleanor ‘Roosevdelt’, perhaps first dyke in the White House, but only as the First Lady. not the pres., although history has it that she made numerous decrees as he declined.

    Read More
  44. I completely agree with Phil’s assessment but I’d like to add that the establishment will try to undermine Trump’s positions in the following way:

    First and foremost, they’ll offer to support him only in return for his compromise on Israel and Iran. He’ll acquiesce on the current charade of building up Iran as the “dangerous” straw-man and Israel the helpless innocent victim; positions which, hes’ already taken.

    They’ll take him up on fighting IS, thus, not far from the current interventionist bilateral Republican and Democratic party position.

    They’ll let him deescalate the Russian scenario a bit but they’ll keep provoking Russia and then appeal to Trump’s machismo to take harder stands on Russia. If that happens, the approach will certainly pay off for them because they’ll get everyone to think: ‘if even Trump is changing his position with the Russians, then they must be as bad as they’ve been made out to be’. … and NATO will stay because by that time Ukraine should be back at war.

    He’ll have a free hand to reshape relations with China and Mexico but that won’t mean much.

    I agree that this is preferable to the active R2P (“rip to peaces”) Hillary position
    but in the end we’ll, sadly, end up with the classical distinction without a difference !

    Read More
  45. @Agent76
    Dec 18, 2015 The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment" Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    https://youtu.be/vt2NPP1z-y8

    Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    Yeah right, that’s why the RNC and RINOs have been attacking him nonstop since April, 2015. Stop blowing smoke up your own butt.

    Read More
  46. @Anonymous
    Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. I don't take that position because of Israeli. I take it because no more Muslim countries should have a nuclear weapon. Muslims aren't peaceful people and another Muslim country with the bomb will further destabilize the world.

    “Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon. . . .”

    Bullshit. Iran should have all the nukes it wants–and then some.

    The criminal, racist Zionist entity shouldn’t have any.

    Read More
  47. Giraldi:

    ” . . . If success as a diplomat is measured by the ability to destabilize entire regions, Hillary certainly takes center stage as the finest Secretary of State since Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that killing half a million Iraqi children through sanctions was ‘worth it.’ Albright is currently regarded as Hillary’s closest foreign policy adviser.”

    Please, ladies and gentlemen, consider voting for Trump–and then do it.

    Read More
  48. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    Some might say it was Holocaust guilt.

    Indeed, guilt for the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ that did not happen.

    Get the facts here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    no name calling debate here:
    http://www.forum.codoh

    Don’t die stupid, see new video for basics:
    Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed (Part 1 of 2)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    That's right! This award-winning film is the handiwork of the remarkable Eric "Rhymes With" Hunt, pictured below on what we can only imagine was not one of his parents' provider days:

    ww2.hdnux.com/photos/10/75/13/2347749/15/920x920.jpg

  49. @Anonymous
    “Trump Says U.S. Should Shoot Russian Planes If Diplomacy Fails”

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-should-shoot-russian-planes-if-putin-calls-fail-454902

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump has vowed to shoot down Russian jets approaching U.S. military assets should the Kremlin reject calls to stop.

    Trump, who declared himself the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican party after another round of sweeping primary victories last week, was speaking to BuzzFeed radio show K File on Sunday, ahead of campaigning in Indiana.

    He was asked about the recent swathe of incidents involving Russian military aircraft zooming at high speeds past U.S. navy vessels in European waters. The latest incident occurred when a Russian Su-27 plane did a barrel roll over a U.S. ship in the Baltic Sea last week.

    “It just shows how low we’ve gone where they can toy with us like that,” Trump said, describing such scenarios as “terrible.” He insisted that the problem is Russia’s lack of respect for U.S. President Barack Obama.

    “Normally, an Obama—let’s say a president, because you want to make at least a call or two—but normally Obama would call up Putin and say, ‘Listen, do us a favor, don’t do that, get that maniac, just stop it.’ But we don’t have that kind of a president. He’s gonna be out playing golf or something,” Trump said. “But I don’t know, at a certain point, you can’t take it.”



    “I mean, at a certain point, you have to do something … you just can’t take that,” Trump said. “But it should certainly start with diplomacy and it should start quickly with a phone call to Putin, wouldn’t you think?”



    According to Trump, if Russia rejects calls to stop the approaches, the U.S. should open fire.

    “And if that doesn’t work out, I don’t know, you know, at a certain point, when that sucker comes by you, you gotta shoot,” Trump said. “And it’s a shame. It’s a shame. It’s a total lack of respect for our country and it’s a total lack of respect for Obama. Which [sic] as you know, they don’t respect.”
     

    Did you have a point you were trying to make, or is this just a random factoid?

    Read More
  50. @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    An article-length post? Good grief!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    The artist formerly known as The Priss Factory should write an article.

    Aspects of his style are good. Would need editing for grammar and spelling, but he spends so much time posting, an original article would be interesting, hell, if it were at a time where I had the time, I'd even be willing to volunteer to fix the mishaps in spelling and grammar.
    , @Che Guava
    Well, most of the posts tend to be article length, so it would be nice if he composed one.
  51. @anonymous
    Mr. Giraldi is one of the best here. But he seems to be succumbing to the red/blue puppet show.

    Go back and look, and you'll be reminded that the last two successful candidates told us things like "except in those rare instances where vital national interests are at stake," too, before they assumed office. Especially in light of his unprincipled statements endorsing torture, suggesting that Mr. Snowden has committed treason, etc., Mr. Trump should not be compared favorably to Ron Paul, even when he rolls out of the truly Right side of the bed.

    I also am disappointed that this article ends with the suggestion that we have only "the choice between Donald and Hillary." Why not abstain or, if you must participate, cast a vote for a "third party" candidate or write-in the name of someone that you would actually want to see entrusted with the power of Uncle Sam?

    Uh, no, I’ll be voting for Trump.

    Read More
  52. @Wally

    Some might say it was Holocaust guilt.
     
    Indeed, guilt for the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' that did not happen.

    Get the facts here:
    www.codoh.com
    no name calling debate here:
    www.forum.codoh

    Don't die stupid, see new video for basics:
    Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed (Part 1 of 2)
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/QuestioningTheHolocaust-Part1-640x360-RddqP0ABzwM.mp4

    That’s right! This award-winning film is the handiwork of the remarkable Eric “Rhymes With” Hunt, pictured below on what we can only imagine was not one of his parents’ provider days:

    ww2.hdnux.com/photos/10/75/13/2347749/15/920×920.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed. 'Rejoining Ash, the typical foul mouth retrograde Zionist. Just knowing he is is a Zionist says it all.

    Q.: How do you know a Zionist is lying?
    A.: They say or write something.

    Anyway, moving on.

    Also new:
    http://codoh.com/news/3359/
    Curated Lies
    The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions

    By Carlo Mattogno
    http://codoh.com/media/generated/generated/images/38l_big_big.jpg
    brief description:


    Since the early 1990s, revisionist historians have published an increasing amount of research about the infamous German facility at Ausch­witz in what is now Poland. This research surpasses the work of the Auschwitz Museum’s own research department in both quantity and quality while failing to find in the tens of thousands of available wartime documents any trace of plans for gas chambers for executing people at Auschwitz or any of its satellite camps.

    Because these facts contradict a great body of the history of World War II, Polish researchers at the Auschwitz Museum have been under enormous pressure to respond to this revisionist challenge. In 2014, the museum researchers issued a book, The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials, reprinting 74 original German wartime documents which they claim prove the construction and use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz by the German government and the German civilian and military forces who ran the camp. However, upon examination of the book, none of the “new” evidence or analysis holds water. In its main section, Curated Lies is therefore a point by point refutation of the Auschwitz Museum’s book. This main section is preceded by a section focusing on the Auschwitz Museum’s most coveted asset: the alleged gas chamber inside the Old Crematorium, toured every year by well over a million visitors. We begin Curated Lies therefore by exposing the many ways in which visitors have been deceived and misled by forgeries and misrepresentations committed by the Auschwitz Museum, some of which are maintained to this day.
     

  53. @utu
    Iran must get nuclear weapons if it wants to get good bargaining position in the final NWO scenario. W/o the nuclear weapons Iran will not survive and will not last when the final victory of NWO over the OWO.

    Who cares if Iran survives?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Who cares if Iran survives?" - 70 million Iranians do care.
  54. @anonymous
    Is this wishful thinking on your part? One strain of those commenters enthusing about Mr. Trump seems to hope for some shenanigans that deprive him of the Republican nomination. In this "we wuz robbed" scenario, all of his warts can fall away, and each fan can cling forever after to the rhetoric they liked while ignoring all of the ugly things that have come out of the other side of the man's mouth.

    Far more likely: President Trump will disappoint those who vote for him as some sort of street smart Ron Paul. Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush's rejection of nation building and/or Mr. Obama on, well, just about everything that disgusts most of us here.

    Gosh, you’re so cool. Where’d you get your crystal ball? I want one just like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    How many votes did you gain Mr. Trump with that gem? Not mine, sir.

    Look up and down these comments. Even questioning the questionable Mr. Trump here at UR seems to draw a lot of unenlightening flak of the type that one sees in threads on, say, Taki or ZeroHedge: short, witless, angry, and/or rude.

    It's not my fault that Mr. Trump's a golf buddy of Mr. Clinton, or that half of what leaves his lips is so bad that his supporters here have to say he doesn't really mean it, if they don't ignore it altogether.

    Deep down, that's really what has you upset, isn't it?
  55. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    That's right! This award-winning film is the handiwork of the remarkable Eric "Rhymes With" Hunt, pictured below on what we can only imagine was not one of his parents' provider days:

    ww2.hdnux.com/photos/10/75/13/2347749/15/920x920.jpg

    Indeed. ‘Rejoining Ash, the typical foul mouth retrograde Zionist. Just knowing he is is a Zionist says it all.

    Q.: How do you know a Zionist is lying?
    A.: They say or write something.

    Anyway, moving on.

    Also new:

    http://codoh.com/news/3359/

    Curated Lies
    The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions

    By Carlo Mattogno

    http://codoh.com/media/generated/generated/images/38l_big_big.jpg

    brief description:

    Since the early 1990s, revisionist historians have published an increasing amount of research about the infamous German facility at Ausch­witz in what is now Poland. This research surpasses the work of the Auschwitz Museum’s own research department in both quantity and quality while failing to find in the tens of thousands of available wartime documents any trace of plans for gas chambers for executing people at Auschwitz or any of its satellite camps.

    Because these facts contradict a great body of the history of World War II, Polish researchers at the Auschwitz Museum have been under enormous pressure to respond to this revisionist challenge. In 2014, the museum researchers issued a book, The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials, reprinting 74 original German wartime documents which they claim prove the construction and use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz by the German government and the German civilian and military forces who ran the camp. However, upon examination of the book, none of the “new” evidence or analysis holds water. In its main section, Curated Lies is therefore a point by point refutation of the Auschwitz Museum’s book. This main section is preceded by a section focusing on the Auschwitz Museum’s most coveted asset: the alleged gas chamber inside the Old Crematorium, toured every year by well over a million visitors. We begin Curated Lies therefore by exposing the many ways in which visitors have been deceived and misled by forgeries and misrepresentations committed by the Auschwitz Museum, some of which are maintained to this day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm curious to know what makes you think I'm a "Zionist." I'm actually curious to determine whether you could even define the term. "Authoritarian" seems to be a bridge too far for you...
  56. @RudyM
    Mr. Giraldi is being pretty selective about which of Trump's statements he focuses on, outside of his official foreign policy speech.

    "Time to Talk About Faux America-Firster Nationalist Donald Trump":

    http://winteractionables.com/?p=32811

    This http://winteractionables.com/?p=32811 should be read by all Trump enthusiasts who project on him their fantasies and wishful thinking.

    Read More
  57. @Unapologetic White Man
    Who cares if Iran survives?

    “Who cares if Iran survives?” – 70 million Iranians do care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unapologetic White Man
    300 million Americans don't.

    Screw Iran. They're lucky to still be standing after they took our embassy hostage. They've still got it coming.
  58. @Wally
    Indeed. 'Rejoining Ash, the typical foul mouth retrograde Zionist. Just knowing he is is a Zionist says it all.

    Q.: How do you know a Zionist is lying?
    A.: They say or write something.

    Anyway, moving on.

    Also new:
    http://codoh.com/news/3359/
    Curated Lies
    The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions

    By Carlo Mattogno
    http://codoh.com/media/generated/generated/images/38l_big_big.jpg
    brief description:


    Since the early 1990s, revisionist historians have published an increasing amount of research about the infamous German facility at Ausch­witz in what is now Poland. This research surpasses the work of the Auschwitz Museum’s own research department in both quantity and quality while failing to find in the tens of thousands of available wartime documents any trace of plans for gas chambers for executing people at Auschwitz or any of its satellite camps.

    Because these facts contradict a great body of the history of World War II, Polish researchers at the Auschwitz Museum have been under enormous pressure to respond to this revisionist challenge. In 2014, the museum researchers issued a book, The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials, reprinting 74 original German wartime documents which they claim prove the construction and use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz by the German government and the German civilian and military forces who ran the camp. However, upon examination of the book, none of the “new” evidence or analysis holds water. In its main section, Curated Lies is therefore a point by point refutation of the Auschwitz Museum’s book. This main section is preceded by a section focusing on the Auschwitz Museum’s most coveted asset: the alleged gas chamber inside the Old Crematorium, toured every year by well over a million visitors. We begin Curated Lies therefore by exposing the many ways in which visitors have been deceived and misled by forgeries and misrepresentations committed by the Auschwitz Museum, some of which are maintained to this day.
     

    I’m curious to know what makes you think I’m a “Zionist.” I’m actually curious to determine whether you could even define the term. “Authoritarian” seems to be a bridge too far for you…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Because only a Zionist or one of their mouthpieces would get worked up about the things you do.
    , @Wally
    Rejoining Ash, aka: Andrew Mathis asks:

    I’m curious to know what makes you think I’m a “Zionist.”
     
    You said so yourself:

    I am a Zionist, albeit a very left-wing Zionist.
    - Andrew E. Mathis
     
    http://www.faem.com/letters/j1007aem.htm

    Oops.
    I've taken your lunch yet again.

    next up we have:

    'U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays standard German air-raid shelter door, describing it as the door to a gas chamber at Majdanek'
    see text:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen.html
    images:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/two-to-3.GIF
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/doorcasting.jpg
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/gsPANZERL.GIF

  59. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Unapologetic White Man
    Gosh, you're so cool. Where'd you get your crystal ball? I want one just like it.

    How many votes did you gain Mr. Trump with that gem? Not mine, sir.

    Look up and down these comments. Even questioning the questionable Mr. Trump here at UR seems to draw a lot of unenlightening flak of the type that one sees in threads on, say, Taki or ZeroHedge: short, witless, angry, and/or rude.

    It’s not my fault that Mr. Trump’s a golf buddy of Mr. Clinton, or that half of what leaves his lips is so bad that his supporters here have to say he doesn’t really mean it, if they don’t ignore it altogether.

    Deep down, that’s really what has you upset, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unapologetic White Man
    Where in the world did you come up with the asinine notion that I was trying to get your vote?

    And "deep down," I'm not "upset" in the least. I'm simply making sport of you.

    Now then, you still haven't told me where you got your crystal ball. I want one just like it. I looked on eBay but no dice.
  60. btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.

    Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.

    Japs had it coming. I’m glad we nuked ‘em.

    Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.}

    Quite true: Japanese attacked US military at Pearl, not civilian targets.

    {Japs had it coming. I’m glad we nuked ‘em.}

    Yes, I am sure all those Japanese children and babies had it coming.
    And I am sure you are glad we murdered children.

    {Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.}

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.
    , @Unapologetic White Man
    Yeah, to hear some people tell it, Japan was just innocently minding its own business when out of the blue, the U.S. arbitrarily decided to bomb Japan.
  61. How many votes did you gain Mr. Trump with that gem? Not mine, sir.

    Look up and down these comments. Even questioning the questionable Mr. Trump here at UR seems to draw a lot of unenlightening flak of the type that one sees in threads on, say, Taki or ZeroHedge: short, witless, angry, and/or rude.

    It’s not my fault that Mr. Trump’s a golf buddy of Mr. Clinton, or that half of what leaves his lips is so bad that his supporters here have to say he doesn’t really mean it, if they don’t ignore it altogether.

    Deep down, that’s really what has you upset, isn’t it?

    Nobody gives a shit about the ad hominem armchair psychology of an anonymous coward (your psychological profile is obvious for everyone to see).

    Trump’s miles better than Clinton. That’s what you establishment/donor class trolls always ignore.

    Read More
  62. Abondoning ‘Priss Factory’ was a good idea, you seemed to not know the meaning of ‘prissy’.

    The ignorant often project their ignorance, as you have. “Priss” is likely a Blade Runner reference. Don’t worry about it, it’s above your pay grade.

    Read More
  63. @Priss Factor
    Invite/Invade is so stupid as policy.

    What would happen if you took a stick and smashed a hornet hive and then invited the displaced hornets into your home?

    Only a village idiot smashes a stick on the hornet hive, EU and US are Israel’s village idiots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Hi Kiza. Aren't you missing the bigger propaganda point: Miss Pissy's typically pejorative characterization of non-whites, in this case Arabs, as hornets. Hit with a stick, the European bee reacts the same way, and for the docile honeybee it's a suicide mission. The Zio-con and Judeo-nazi hornets come back to sting us again and again. So does Piss Society, with her endless diatribes.
    , @Ray Barnes
    Yes, and all this talk about white supremacism and european heritage works very well for those who know the power of divide and conquer. It helps them fight those other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc. How clever they are.
  64. @anonymous
    Is this wishful thinking on your part? One strain of those commenters enthusing about Mr. Trump seems to hope for some shenanigans that deprive him of the Republican nomination. In this "we wuz robbed" scenario, all of his warts can fall away, and each fan can cling forever after to the rhetoric they liked while ignoring all of the ugly things that have come out of the other side of the man's mouth.

    Far more likely: President Trump will disappoint those who vote for him as some sort of street smart Ron Paul. Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush's rejection of nation building and/or Mr. Obama on, well, just about everything that disgusts most of us here.

    “Just like those hopeful voters who believed Mr. Bush’s rejection of nation building ” – I was one of them. I was even hoping that GWB is going to avenge his father’s defeat in 1992 that was orchestrated by neocons.

    GWB to Prince Bandar in 1997: “There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy.” Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: “Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or who doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.” Bandar’s message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. “Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar continues. “This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”

    Anyway, it did not work. Neocons won. And they (perhaps in new incarnation) will win under Trump or whoever.

    Read More
  65. @woodNfish
    I think the reason the former eastern bloc nations have better held off the third world hoards is because they don't buy into the PC lies of the Left. They were once ruled by leftists and understand them and their lies making them more immune to the Left's deceit.

    This is somewhat misleading because Western PC is essentially Jewish liberalism in extreme form (or perhaps taken to its logical conclusion?), while the leftist states imposed on Eastern Europe were, for the most part, non-Jewish. This is esp. true post-Stalin. It is true Jews were disproportionately represented in some immediate post-war govts. like Czechoslovakia and Poland, but this was essentially an anti-fascist stratagem. PC in the West and the Eastern bloc nations were very different systems.

    Read More
  66. @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm curious to know what makes you think I'm a "Zionist." I'm actually curious to determine whether you could even define the term. "Authoritarian" seems to be a bridge too far for you...

    Because only a Zionist or one of their mouthpieces would get worked up about the things you do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You think only a Zionist cares about genocide denial?
  67. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm curious to know what makes you think I'm a "Zionist." I'm actually curious to determine whether you could even define the term. "Authoritarian" seems to be a bridge too far for you...

    Rejoining Ash, aka: Andrew Mathis asks:

    I’m curious to know what makes you think I’m a “Zionist.”

    You said so yourself:

    I am a Zionist, albeit a very left-wing Zionist.
    - Andrew E. Mathis

    http://www.faem.com/letters/j1007aem.htm

    Oops.
    I’ve taken your lunch yet again.

    next up we have:

    ‘U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays standard German air-raid shelter door, describing it as the door to a gas chamber at Majdanek’
    see text:

    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen.html

    images:

    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/two-to-3.GIF

    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/doorcasting.jpg

    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/gsPANZERL.GIF

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Can you stop polluting every thread on this webzine please?
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    Without clicking the link, I recall that I wrote that sixteen years ago. A lot can change in sixteen years. Israel's actions, particularly those since 2002, pretty much killed my Zionism.

    May I make a tiny suggestion? If you smear all your opponents as Zionists, particularly in a forum such as this one, which is rife with non-Zionists and anti-Zionists, you're going to get yourself exactly nowhere. There are plenty of people with no interest in Zionism whatsoever who nevertheless believe that the Holocaust happened.

    I'll let you slide on using my name since the topic actually called for it.
  68. @Kiza
    Only a village idiot smashes a stick on the hornet hive, EU and US are Israel's village idiots.

    Hi Kiza. Aren’t you missing the bigger propaganda point: Miss Pissy’s typically pejorative characterization of non-whites, in this case Arabs, as hornets. Hit with a stick, the European bee reacts the same way, and for the docile honeybee it’s a suicide mission. The Zio-con and Judeo-nazi hornets come back to sting us again and again. So does Piss Society, with her endless diatribes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    If I agree with one comment, it does not mean that I agree with the commenter. I seldom even read the long ("endless") diatribes of this commenter, only because I do not find them cognitive (emotionally charged but low learning value). Yet, I do find this particular analogy brilliant, without any pejorative thoughts about the non-whites (if the author had this view, it belongs only to him). But you know Robin, my people have been treated terribly by the Western scumbags and yet, it is almost like they turned the other cheek (they are Christian). I would have liked it more if they reacted like the hornets (Muslims). Therefore, any possible pejorative sense never occurred to me. I know that I risk now being accused of being a lover of terrorism, but to me terrorism has always been the poor men's way of war, of those without mighty millitaries and mighty propaganda machines. You are a terrorist if you fight back but you have neither of the two (even the 'brave' US soldiers are being terrorized by the guerrillas in Afghanistan according to several US generals).

    Imagine for a moment, please, that I am a Coptic Christian from Syria or a Urakami Christian from Nagasaki: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/.

    The second part is the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice, not for Israel but at least for its village idiots.
    , @anonymous
    Excellent point, RobinG, that the Pissy Ayn Rand league is fundamentally bigoted -- never misses a chance to demean Arabs and Blacks; Part of the anti-creative character of Dominique Francon.

    otoh, it's mighty white of Pissy Dominique to allow Dr. Phil Giraldi to write a few words to open the Ayn Rand League Main Event.

  69. @Svigor

    btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.
     
    Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.

    Japs had it coming. I'm glad we nuked 'em.

    Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.

    {Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.}

    Quite true: Japanese attacked US military at Pearl, not civilian targets.

    {Japs had it coming. I’m glad we nuked ‘em.}

    Yes, I am sure all those Japanese children and babies had it coming.
    And I am sure you are glad we murdered children.

    {Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.}

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    What do you find in responding to this uneducated moronic troll? He must have been smoking dope when the teacher taught about the US maritime blockade on Japan's oil supply before Pearl Harbor (a clear declaration of war except for the brainwashed US el stupidos). Oh, the US teacher never taught such lesson! Well this is why so many US people have the muscle for aggression where the brain should be. Except that today's Japanese have been so closely modelled after their victors.
    , @dahoit
    The Japanese had good reason to dislike US actions,which stopped raw materials necessary for Japans prosperity and war effort in China.And their diplomats screwed the pooch,and failed to deliver the state of war documents on time,in Washington.
    The true f*ck ups were the admirals and generals who didn't have their men on alert,or at least somewhat so,as they were caught with their pants down.And few civilians died,in fact america had almost none die in ww2,so the bloodlust for Japanese civilian deaths is suspect.
    And nuking civilians in 2 terror attacks was definitely not kosher(hoho),especially when the Japanese were on their last legs,but one also has to factor in the war weary American,British and other allied peoples tired of years of destructive and brutal war.And the presence of Truman in the WH,not the caliber of man that FDR was,an accidental POTUS.
    Invading Japan could have been a very problematic event,also,as guerrillas even today give our modern war machines many problems.
    Truman sucked actually,the CIA and Zion come to mind,along with the nuclear attacks.
  70. @utu
    "Who cares if Iran survives?" - 70 million Iranians do care.

    300 million Americans don’t.

    Screw Iran. They’re lucky to still be standing after they took our embassy hostage. They’ve still got it coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ray Barnes
    How do you feel about the regime change the US brought about in Iran in the early 1950s?
    Regarding the hostage crisis, Newsweek magazine had a cover with Khomeini's head on a dartboard...what a splendid piece of propaganda!
    , @utu
    "300 million Americans don’t." - It's not true. You are projecting. You are in minority.
  71. @anonymous
    How many votes did you gain Mr. Trump with that gem? Not mine, sir.

    Look up and down these comments. Even questioning the questionable Mr. Trump here at UR seems to draw a lot of unenlightening flak of the type that one sees in threads on, say, Taki or ZeroHedge: short, witless, angry, and/or rude.

    It's not my fault that Mr. Trump's a golf buddy of Mr. Clinton, or that half of what leaves his lips is so bad that his supporters here have to say he doesn't really mean it, if they don't ignore it altogether.

    Deep down, that's really what has you upset, isn't it?

    Where in the world did you come up with the asinine notion that I was trying to get your vote?

    And “deep down,” I’m not “upset” in the least. I’m simply making sport of you.

    Now then, you still haven’t told me where you got your crystal ball. I want one just like it. I looked on eBay but no dice.

    Read More
  72. @Svigor

    btw: US is the only country that has used nukes to kill/murder civilians.
     
    Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.

    Japs had it coming. I'm glad we nuked 'em.

    Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.

    Yeah, to hear some people tell it, Japan was just innocently minding its own business when out of the blue, the U.S. arbitrarily decided to bomb Japan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    There is evidence of strong US provocation of the Japanese which led to Pearl Harbor.

    https://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor
  73. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Here is a piece of gumbic twist of logic.

    Neocons are now bitching about how Trump has the support of ‘white nationalists’.
    Given the bitching-kavetching, one would think ‘white nationalism’ is a bad thing and that Neocons don’t want to have anything to do with people who espouse such feelings.

    But in fact, neocons would have no problem with white nationalists as long as white nationalists kept their white nationalism at home and channeled their repressed passions toward Israel.

    Neocons are not really upset with white nationalism per se. They are upset with white nationalism going public. Coming out of the closet and coming out of the house… as white nationalism.
    Neocons had no problem with white nationalism as long as it remained in the home and stepped outdoors as pro-Zionist or pro-Jewish-nationalist.

    In a way, Neoconservatism had depended on the very existence of white nationalism or white nationalist passions. Why? Because despite all the shibboleths about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘universalism’, ‘proposition nation’, ‘color blind society’, and etc, Neoconservatism is really about support of Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish nationalism.

    Neoconservatism will have little appeal to white people who are REALLY and TRULY committed to universalism and global identity. After all, the truly ‘progressive’ white Liberals are increasingly critical of Israel and Zionism. Why would white Libs who are truly obsessed with commitment to pure universalism be attracted to Jewish identity, interests, and nationalism, esp when it’s doing much harm to Palestinians?

    For the true agenda of Neoconservatism to be served, it has to harness the repressed nationalism of gentiles, especially white gentiles.
    Neoconservatism invoke ‘universality’, ‘equality’, and ‘diversity’ to the extent of suppressing and taming white nationalism, but it doesn’t want to totally extinguish white nationalism because white nationalism has to be repressed, reshaped, and channeled to serving Jewish nationalism.

    When a people’s nationalism is repressed and forbidden, it seeks release through approved outlets. And the approved outlet for repressed white nationalism has been Zionism, Jewish identity, and Jewish interests. By rooting for Jewish power and Jewish nationalism, repressed white nationalist passions found an outlet.

    THAT has been the dirty secret of Neoconservatism.
    Though it now rails against white nationalism that supports Trump, it has thrived over the yrs by feeding off repressed white nationalist passions that were channeled toward Zionism.
    Zionism is a nationalism(based on imperialism), so it isn’t easy to convince sincere universalists to support it. The Holocaust-guilt stuff isn’t as effective anymore because the Occupation has been going on for so long, Israel has turned more right-wing and religious, and Zionism forged close ties with the GOP. Also, the ‘left’ has run out of great causes and sees the Palestinian one as the last great one left.

    So, when Neocons now bitch about white nationalism, they aren’t really upset over its nature and existence. They are upset that it’s no longer repressed and taboo. If white nationalism is no longer repressed, it is more difficult to tame, irrigate, and channel toward serving Israel and Zionism. White nationalism unleashed and unchained will serve its own interests.

    It’s like a horse. A horse is a powerful and dangerous animal. Suppose someone wants to use the horse in battle. The horse must be tamed but it must remain powerful and dangerous. It just mustn’t be dangerous to the rider. The rider channels the horse’s aggression and explosiveness against his chosen enemies.
    So, not only does the rider have no problem with the horse’s power & dangerousness but he depends on those very qualities. Taming the horse doesn’t mean getting rid of its power and dangerousness. A war horse is useless if not powerful and dangerous. Taming the horse means directing its power and dangerousness at the enemy of the rider.

    But suppose the horse were to waken from its enslavement. Suppose it were to realize that it’s being exploited by the rider. Suppose it throws off the rider and tries to kick him.
    The rider might then revile the horse for being powerful and dangerous… BUT the dirty secret is that the rider had no problem with the horse’s power and dangerousness AS LONG AS it had served his interest.
    Indeed, he valued the horse for its power and dangerousness because they could be directed at his chosen enemies.
    So, it is disingenuous for him to bitch about how the horse is bad for being powerful and dangerous. He is really upset that the horse is now being powerful and dangerous for its own interest than being used as war horse by the rider.

    As long as Neocons could ride the repressed passion of white nationalism to serve Israel and Zionism, they were perfectly fine with white nationalism(as long as it took orders from Neocons). Indeed, they not only tolerated white nationalism but depended on it(as long as it could be repressed and channeled).

    But now that white nationalism has thrown off the neocon rider and is running wild and free, the neocon is kavetching that white nationalism is a terrible, terrible thing.

    Neocons told white nationalism to throw away or burn the Confederate Flag but raise high and wave the Zionist Flag. And that was like the last straw for many white nationalists. Enough was enough.

    Just think. Suppose all the white nationalists in this election cycle had decided to keep their white nationalism at home and come outside as Zionists willing to support anything Jews to do Palestinians, Russians, Syrians, and Iranians.
    Suppose this repressed white nationalism shouted hurrah to Jewish nationalist aggression against the Middle East and Ukraine. Do you think Neocons would be complaining? No. Indeed, Neocons loved people like Ann Coulter as long as their aggressive repressed-white-nationalism had been channeled to waving the Zionist flag 24/7.

    The whole trick of Neoconism was the science of repressing and channeling white nationalism to serve Jewish nationalism. From a psycho-political point of view, only repressed rightism can serve the rightism of another people.
    After all, it’s getting harder for Liberal Zionists to channel sincere universalist white Liberals passion toward supporting Zionist occupation/oppression of Palestinians.

    By conventional standards, what is happening in Israel is ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’, the kind that European nations once used to carry out around the world.
    White Liberals do support Israel(due to Holocaust guilt and coolness factor of smart Jews), but they feel increasingly uneasy about Zionists kicking Palestinian butt.

    In contrast, white nationalism is for identity, racial consciousness, and pride. In some cases, it can be hostile, aggressive, and even imperialist-minded. While such feelings about whites is taboo under PC, those are precisely the kind of passions that can be channeled toward serving the nationalism and imperialism of Jews that goes by the name of Zionism. White nationalists who can’t bitch about blacks and illegals in the US are likely to channel those passions toward cheering for Jews to kick Palestinian butt.

    So, when Neocons bitch about ‘white nationalism’, just tell them, ‘you had no problem with it when it was channeled to serving Jewish imperialism’.
    Neocons are just bitching about a horse that threw them off and ran off on its own to be free and serve its own horsey interest.

    White nationalism without Neocon masters = white horse without a rider.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Neocons are not really upset with white nationalism per se." Yes, particularly when it carries a "healthy dose" of islamophobia. Within European nationalists there is practically no anti-Israel sentiments. Actually Israel in its belligerence is viewed as a shining example. The only genuine white nationalist movements are the ones that have Christian anti-Judaic components. Anyway all those movements are completely penetrated and many of them are funded by the usual suspects.
  74. @Anonymous
    “Trump Says U.S. Should Shoot Russian Planes If Diplomacy Fails”

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-should-shoot-russian-planes-if-putin-calls-fail-454902

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump has vowed to shoot down Russian jets approaching U.S. military assets should the Kremlin reject calls to stop.

    Trump, who declared himself the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican party after another round of sweeping primary victories last week, was speaking to BuzzFeed radio show K File on Sunday, ahead of campaigning in Indiana.

    He was asked about the recent swathe of incidents involving Russian military aircraft zooming at high speeds past U.S. navy vessels in European waters. The latest incident occurred when a Russian Su-27 plane did a barrel roll over a U.S. ship in the Baltic Sea last week.

    “It just shows how low we’ve gone where they can toy with us like that,” Trump said, describing such scenarios as “terrible.” He insisted that the problem is Russia’s lack of respect for U.S. President Barack Obama.

    “Normally, an Obama—let’s say a president, because you want to make at least a call or two—but normally Obama would call up Putin and say, ‘Listen, do us a favor, don’t do that, get that maniac, just stop it.’ But we don’t have that kind of a president. He’s gonna be out playing golf or something,” Trump said. “But I don’t know, at a certain point, you can’t take it.”



    “I mean, at a certain point, you have to do something … you just can’t take that,” Trump said. “But it should certainly start with diplomacy and it should start quickly with a phone call to Putin, wouldn’t you think?”



    According to Trump, if Russia rejects calls to stop the approaches, the U.S. should open fire.

    “And if that doesn’t work out, I don’t know, you know, at a certain point, when that sucker comes by you, you gotta shoot,” Trump said. “And it’s a shame. It’s a shame. It’s a total lack of respect for our country and it’s a total lack of respect for Obama. Which [sic] as you know, they don’t respect.”
     

    When he gets into office or even now as his “security briefings” have begun, he will be made aware that the USA cannot do as he says since the Russians have the ability to switch off their air defenses with a device these reported fly bys have all included in their onboard eqipment despite being un-armed as reported. They were also ensuring the US naval vessels in question were just as un-armed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We can then just put Patriot missiles in Poland and the Baltics.
  75. Hillary’s record is one of unmitigated belligerency. She enthusiastically supported her President-husband’s devastation of the Balkans in the 1990s,… And she also signed on to the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 carried out by the George W. Bush Administration.

    As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence in spite of misgivings by President Barack Obama.

    And, in this excerpt from a recent letter, the she-wolf herself explains the driving force behind all this “unmitigated belligerency”:

    If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

    Here is the text of the letter (addressed to David Stern, chair of the Israel Action Network, and Susan Stern vice chair of the Jewish Federations of North America) in full:

    [MORE]

    Dear David and Susie:

    Thank you for your letter, and for your organizations’ continued leadership in confronting so many of the important issues and challenges our world faces.

    More than three decades ago, my husband, Bill, and I took our first trip to Israel, walked the ancient streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, and fell in love with the country and its people. Israel became a special place for us, and I am lucky to have had many opportunities to return and to make many dear friends there over the years.

    As Senator and Secretary of State, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the biased Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter the venue, I have made it clear that America will always stand up for Israel. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

    It is because of my longstanding commitment to the Israeli people and to the security of Israel that I am writing to express my opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement, or “BDS,” the global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges. I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority, and that we need to work together—across party lines and with a diverse array of voices—to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else. The Jewish state is a modern day miracle—a vibrant bloom in the middle of a desert—and we must nurture and protect it.

    I believe that BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace. I remain convinced that Israel’s long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. But that can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians; it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions. As Secretary of State, I convened the last round of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders; I know how hard this will be, but it is an effort to which I would be committed as president.

    Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Fighting for Israel isn’t just about policy; it is a personal commitment to the friendship between our peoples and our vision for peace and security. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society—not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere. We must never tire in defending Israel’s legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, and taking our alliance to the next level.

    Please know that I am grateful for your work, and that I stand ready to be your partner as we engage all people of good faith—regardless of their political persuasion or their views on policy specifics—in explaining why the BDS campaign is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and harmful to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

    With best wishes, I am

    Sincerely yours,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/calling-miracle-clinton/

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Sometimes the shiny stone found at the seashore is not the Rosetta Stone for Linear A. Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.
  76. Spot on about Hillary. I went to the peace demonstrations in DC in the early first decade of our present century and carried a sign warning of Hillary and AIPAC. It did garner some attention and I felt it made much more sense than those stupid Dove signs many were carrying that day.
    She is the woman of wall street, the fed…the woman of war. Trump has had to pay obligatory homage to the Israel firsters, but one hopes he may somehow rise above that if he gets elected…with Hillary, there is no such hope.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Trump has had to pay obligatory homage to the Israel firsters, but one hopes he may somehow rise above that if he gets elected" - Yes, one hopes but one should not not be that foolish.
  77. @Unapologetic White Man
    300 million Americans don't.

    Screw Iran. They're lucky to still be standing after they took our embassy hostage. They've still got it coming.

    How do you feel about the regime change the US brought about in Iran in the early 1950s?
    Regarding the hostage crisis, Newsweek magazine had a cover with Khomeini’s head on a dartboard…what a splendid piece of propaganda!

    Read More
  78. @Kiza
    Only a village idiot smashes a stick on the hornet hive, EU and US are Israel's village idiots.

    Yes, and all this talk about white supremacism and european heritage works very well for those who know the power of divide and conquer. It helps them fight those other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc. How clever they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally

    ... other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc.
     
    How is "white supremacism" any different from Jewish supremacism, black supremacism, brown or yellow supremacism?

    Proof that only "white supremacists" want to end the fed is where exactly?
  79. @RobinG
    Hi Kiza. Aren't you missing the bigger propaganda point: Miss Pissy's typically pejorative characterization of non-whites, in this case Arabs, as hornets. Hit with a stick, the European bee reacts the same way, and for the docile honeybee it's a suicide mission. The Zio-con and Judeo-nazi hornets come back to sting us again and again. So does Piss Society, with her endless diatribes.

    If I agree with one comment, it does not mean that I agree with the commenter. I seldom even read the long (“endless”) diatribes of this commenter, only because I do not find them cognitive (emotionally charged but low learning value). Yet, I do find this particular analogy brilliant, without any pejorative thoughts about the non-whites (if the author had this view, it belongs only to him). But you know Robin, my people have been treated terribly by the Western scumbags and yet, it is almost like they turned the other cheek (they are Christian). I would have liked it more if they reacted like the hornets (Muslims). Therefore, any possible pejorative sense never occurred to me. I know that I risk now being accused of being a lover of terrorism, but to me terrorism has always been the poor men’s way of war, of those without mighty millitaries and mighty propaganda machines. You are a terrorist if you fight back but you have neither of the two (even the ‘brave’ US soldiers are being terrorized by the guerrillas in Afghanistan according to several US generals).

    Imagine for a moment, please, that I am a Coptic Christian from Syria or a Urakami Christian from Nagasaki: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/.

    The second part is the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice, not for Israel but at least for its village idiots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice
     
    except that the revenge that is wreaked by those understandably pissed off people who've had their countries destroyed is always exacted upon those on the bottom of society. Syrian refugees will end up no where near any policy makers or "defense" contractors or neocons. Rather they'll be housed next to some working class family who've also lost a loved on in the Eternal Wars for the fun and profit of the scumfucks.

    The scumfucks destroy Kosovo and Iraq and Libya and Syria, and then set about destroying the way of life of some small town in S. Dakota (who voted for Obama to end the wars) and inserting the hatred and strife you're lauding as a form of justice, upon a class of people who've harmed no one. I don't see the ironic justice in that, just more misery visited upon the powerless.

    Now if you were to say that these refugees would be moving in with John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Hillary, then I couldn't agree more. But I know too many simple working people who've wished harm on no soul alive, but are expected to bear the brunt of the hornet's nest. This I see no justice in.
  80. @Avery
    {Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.}

    Quite true: Japanese attacked US military at Pearl, not civilian targets.

    {Japs had it coming. I’m glad we nuked ‘em.}

    Yes, I am sure all those Japanese children and babies had it coming.
    And I am sure you are glad we murdered children.

    {Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.}

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.

    What do you find in responding to this uneducated moronic troll? He must have been smoking dope when the teacher taught about the US maritime blockade on Japan’s oil supply before Pearl Harbor (a clear declaration of war except for the brainwashed US el stupidos). Oh, the US teacher never taught such lesson! Well this is why so many US people have the muscle for aggression where the brain should be. Except that today’s Japanese have been so closely modelled after their victors.

    Read More
  81. @geokat62

    Hillary’s record is one of unmitigated belligerency. She enthusiastically supported her President-husband’s devastation of the Balkans in the 1990s,... And she also signed on to the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 carried out by the George W. Bush Administration.

    As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence in spite of misgivings by President Barack Obama.
     
    And, in this excerpt from a recent letter, the she-wolf herself explains the driving force behind all this "unmitigated belligerency":

    If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.
     
    Here is the text of the letter (addressed to David Stern, chair of the Israel Action Network, and Susan Stern vice chair of the Jewish Federations of North America) in full:


    Dear David and Susie:

    Thank you for your letter, and for your organizations’ continued leadership in confronting so many of the important issues and challenges our world faces.

    More than three decades ago, my husband, Bill, and I took our first trip to Israel, walked the ancient streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, and fell in love with the country and its people. Israel became a special place for us, and I am lucky to have had many opportunities to return and to make many dear friends there over the years.

    As Senator and Secretary of State, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the biased Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter the venue, I have made it clear that America will always stand up for Israel. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

    It is because of my longstanding commitment to the Israeli people and to the security of Israel that I am writing to express my opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement, or “BDS,” the global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges. I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority, and that we need to work together—across party lines and with a diverse array of voices—to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else. The Jewish state is a modern day miracle—a vibrant bloom in the middle of a desert—and we must nurture and protect it.

    I believe that BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace. I remain convinced that Israel’s long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. But that can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians; it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions. As Secretary of State, I convened the last round of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders; I know how hard this will be, but it is an effort to which I would be committed as president.

    Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Fighting for Israel isn’t just about policy; it is a personal commitment to the friendship between our peoples and our vision for peace and security. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society—not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere. We must never tire in defending Israel’s legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, and taking our alliance to the next level.

    Please know that I am grateful for your work, and that I stand ready to be your partner as we engage all people of good faith—regardless of their political persuasion or their views on policy specifics—in explaining why the BDS campaign is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and harmful to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

    With best wishes, I am

    Sincerely yours,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/calling-miracle-clinton/
     

    Sometimes the shiny stone found at the seashore is not the Rosetta Stone for Linear A. Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.
     
    Are you suggesting there isn't a causal link between these two statements:

    1. As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence...

    2. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.
     
  82. @Ray Barnes
    Yes, and all this talk about white supremacism and european heritage works very well for those who know the power of divide and conquer. It helps them fight those other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc. How clever they are.

    … other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc.

    How is “white supremacism” any different from Jewish supremacism, black supremacism, brown or yellow supremacism?

    Proof that only “white supremacists” want to end the fed is where exactly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ray Barnes
    I don't believe in supremacism. I think we should end the fed. What I was trying to get at is this: Thought police are very good at discerning differences among people because they know that there is strength in numbers. They will use these differences to divide people so that they cannot unite on the issues in which they agree. So, a white supremacist and a non-white supremacist who happen to agree on an issue such as for instance the belief that we should not support Israel as much as we do can be held apart because of their different views regarding white supremacy.
  83. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @RobinG
    Hi Kiza. Aren't you missing the bigger propaganda point: Miss Pissy's typically pejorative characterization of non-whites, in this case Arabs, as hornets. Hit with a stick, the European bee reacts the same way, and for the docile honeybee it's a suicide mission. The Zio-con and Judeo-nazi hornets come back to sting us again and again. So does Piss Society, with her endless diatribes.

    Excellent point, RobinG, that the Pissy Ayn Rand league is fundamentally bigoted — never misses a chance to demean Arabs and Blacks; Part of the anti-creative character of Dominique Francon.

    otoh, it’s mighty white of Pissy Dominique to allow Dr. Phil Giraldi to write a few words to open the Ayn Rand League Main Event.

    Read More
  84. @Kiza
    If I agree with one comment, it does not mean that I agree with the commenter. I seldom even read the long ("endless") diatribes of this commenter, only because I do not find them cognitive (emotionally charged but low learning value). Yet, I do find this particular analogy brilliant, without any pejorative thoughts about the non-whites (if the author had this view, it belongs only to him). But you know Robin, my people have been treated terribly by the Western scumbags and yet, it is almost like they turned the other cheek (they are Christian). I would have liked it more if they reacted like the hornets (Muslims). Therefore, any possible pejorative sense never occurred to me. I know that I risk now being accused of being a lover of terrorism, but to me terrorism has always been the poor men's way of war, of those without mighty millitaries and mighty propaganda machines. You are a terrorist if you fight back but you have neither of the two (even the 'brave' US soldiers are being terrorized by the guerrillas in Afghanistan according to several US generals).

    Imagine for a moment, please, that I am a Coptic Christian from Syria or a Urakami Christian from Nagasaki: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/.

    The second part is the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice, not for Israel but at least for its village idiots.

    the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice

    except that the revenge that is wreaked by those understandably pissed off people who’ve had their countries destroyed is always exacted upon those on the bottom of society. Syrian refugees will end up no where near any policy makers or “defense” contractors or neocons. Rather they’ll be housed next to some working class family who’ve also lost a loved on in the Eternal Wars for the fun and profit of the scumfucks.

    The scumfucks destroy Kosovo and Iraq and Libya and Syria, and then set about destroying the way of life of some small town in S. Dakota (who voted for Obama to end the wars) and inserting the hatred and strife you’re lauding as a form of justice, upon a class of people who’ve harmed no one. I don’t see the ironic justice in that, just more misery visited upon the powerless.

    Now if you were to say that these refugees would be moving in with John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Hillary, then I couldn’t agree more. But I know too many simple working people who’ve wished harm on no soul alive, but are expected to bear the brunt of the hornet’s nest. This I see no justice in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I cannot disagree with you Rurik, your point is quite strong. However, in the long run, if the normal people in the EU and US live worse and worse because of the machinations of their elites, do you not believe that they will wake up and get out with pitch-forks one day? Or will we all leave our still relatively comfortable lives in the West and be saying at the telly: "Ah those ungrateful Iraqis, we spent so much money and lives to bring them democracy and a better life and they are trying to blow us up", as one very stupid (and wealthy) US person said in front of me. Maybe the hornets will wake up more of the good people from their stupor, to get out and do something about the future of their children (who will really suffer from the presence of the hornets). Maybe, for example, the good old French people will wake up that the terrorism they experienced is due to outfits such as CRIF driving the policies of their own government! The whole charade of the Coalition of the Sponsors of Terrorism (COST) fighting ISIS must come down: the terrorists are those supposedly fighting terrorism. The mountain of lies has to crumble! Maybe the introduction of the hornets into the societies will be the catalyst for change.
  85. @Wally

    ... other things which the white supremacists usually believe in such as end the fed etc.
     
    How is "white supremacism" any different from Jewish supremacism, black supremacism, brown or yellow supremacism?

    Proof that only "white supremacists" want to end the fed is where exactly?

    I don’t believe in supremacism. I think we should end the fed. What I was trying to get at is this: Thought police are very good at discerning differences among people because they know that there is strength in numbers. They will use these differences to divide people so that they cannot unite on the issues in which they agree. So, a white supremacist and a non-white supremacist who happen to agree on an issue such as for instance the belief that we should not support Israel as much as we do can be held apart because of their different views regarding white supremacy.

    Read More
  86. @Ray Barnes
    Spot on about Hillary. I went to the peace demonstrations in DC in the early first decade of our present century and carried a sign warning of Hillary and AIPAC. It did garner some attention and I felt it made much more sense than those stupid Dove signs many were carrying that day.
    She is the woman of wall street, the fed...the woman of war. Trump has had to pay obligatory homage to the Israel firsters, but one hopes he may somehow rise above that if he gets elected...with Hillary, there is no such hope.

    “Trump has had to pay obligatory homage to the Israel firsters, but one hopes he may somehow rise above that if he gets elected” – Yes, one hopes but one should not not be that foolish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ray Barnes
    You have to work with what little you have. Trump was the only candidate who initially said he would try to be neutral concerning the Israelis/Palestinians while the other candidates from the git go assured us they would not be neutral but firmly in Israel's camp. If we give up hope, what alternative do we have?
  87. @Unapologetic White Man
    300 million Americans don't.

    Screw Iran. They're lucky to still be standing after they took our embassy hostage. They've still got it coming.

    “300 million Americans don’t.” – It’s not true. You are projecting. You are in minority.

    Read More
  88. @Wally
    Rejoining Ash, aka: Andrew Mathis asks:

    I’m curious to know what makes you think I’m a “Zionist.”
     
    You said so yourself:

    I am a Zionist, albeit a very left-wing Zionist.
    - Andrew E. Mathis
     
    http://www.faem.com/letters/j1007aem.htm

    Oops.
    I've taken your lunch yet again.

    next up we have:

    'U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays standard German air-raid shelter door, describing it as the door to a gas chamber at Majdanek'
    see text:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen.html
    images:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/two-to-3.GIF
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/doorcasting.jpg
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/gsPANZERL.GIF

    Can you stop polluting every thread on this webzine please?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Spoken like a truly desperate hasbarist, anti free speech Zionist.

    It's liars like you who are doing the polluting.

    I do find it curious that people like you want 6M Jews to be dead, I don't.
    Revisionists have brought good news to Jews.

    I note you cannot refute the damning information I have posted which debunks the impossible '6M Jews'.

    Here's more about your partners in crime.

    http://news.sky.com/story/678761/israeli-army-t-shirts-mock-gaza-killings
    'Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings'
    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-736x414.jpg

    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-522x293.jpg
    Pregnant women and children being targeted.

    and:
    Two teenage Israeli girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: "Hating Arabs is not racism, it's values."
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02962/jewish-girls_2962213c.jpg

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/16/pro-israel-lobby-conservatives-channel4-dispatches
    Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film shows that 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members

    , @I.W.
    Sam, I doubt your request will be honored, pollution being the objective. Most sayanim on message boards do little else.
  89. @Priss Factor
    Here is a piece of gumbic twist of logic.

    Neocons are now bitching about how Trump has the support of 'white nationalists'.
    Given the bitching-kavetching, one would think 'white nationalism' is a bad thing and that Neocons don't want to have anything to do with people who espouse such feelings.

    But in fact, neocons would have no problem with white nationalists as long as white nationalists kept their white nationalism at home and channeled their repressed passions toward Israel.

    Neocons are not really upset with white nationalism per se. They are upset with white nationalism going public. Coming out of the closet and coming out of the house... as white nationalism.
    Neocons had no problem with white nationalism as long as it remained in the home and stepped outdoors as pro-Zionist or pro-Jewish-nationalist.

    In a way, Neoconservatism had depended on the very existence of white nationalism or white nationalist passions. Why? Because despite all the shibboleths about 'spreading democracy', 'universalism', 'proposition nation', 'color blind society', and etc, Neoconservatism is really about support of Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish nationalism.

    Neoconservatism will have little appeal to white people who are REALLY and TRULY committed to universalism and global identity. After all, the truly 'progressive' white Liberals are increasingly critical of Israel and Zionism. Why would white Libs who are truly obsessed with commitment to pure universalism be attracted to Jewish identity, interests, and nationalism, esp when it's doing much harm to Palestinians?

    For the true agenda of Neoconservatism to be served, it has to harness the repressed nationalism of gentiles, especially white gentiles.
    Neoconservatism invoke 'universality', 'equality', and 'diversity' to the extent of suppressing and taming white nationalism, but it doesn't want to totally extinguish white nationalism because white nationalism has to be repressed, reshaped, and channeled to serving Jewish nationalism.

    When a people's nationalism is repressed and forbidden, it seeks release through approved outlets. And the approved outlet for repressed white nationalism has been Zionism, Jewish identity, and Jewish interests. By rooting for Jewish power and Jewish nationalism, repressed white nationalist passions found an outlet.

    THAT has been the dirty secret of Neoconservatism.
    Though it now rails against white nationalism that supports Trump, it has thrived over the yrs by feeding off repressed white nationalist passions that were channeled toward Zionism.
    Zionism is a nationalism(based on imperialism), so it isn't easy to convince sincere universalists to support it. The Holocaust-guilt stuff isn't as effective anymore because the Occupation has been going on for so long, Israel has turned more right-wing and religious, and Zionism forged close ties with the GOP. Also, the 'left' has run out of great causes and sees the Palestinian one as the last great one left.

    So, when Neocons now bitch about white nationalism, they aren't really upset over its nature and existence. They are upset that it's no longer repressed and taboo. If white nationalism is no longer repressed, it is more difficult to tame, irrigate, and channel toward serving Israel and Zionism. White nationalism unleashed and unchained will serve its own interests.

    It's like a horse. A horse is a powerful and dangerous animal. Suppose someone wants to use the horse in battle. The horse must be tamed but it must remain powerful and dangerous. It just mustn't be dangerous to the rider. The rider channels the horse's aggression and explosiveness against his chosen enemies.
    So, not only does the rider have no problem with the horse's power & dangerousness but he depends on those very qualities. Taming the horse doesn't mean getting rid of its power and dangerousness. A war horse is useless if not powerful and dangerous. Taming the horse means directing its power and dangerousness at the enemy of the rider.

    But suppose the horse were to waken from its enslavement. Suppose it were to realize that it's being exploited by the rider. Suppose it throws off the rider and tries to kick him.
    The rider might then revile the horse for being powerful and dangerous... BUT the dirty secret is that the rider had no problem with the horse's power and dangerousness AS LONG AS it had served his interest.
    Indeed, he valued the horse for its power and dangerousness because they could be directed at his chosen enemies.
    So, it is disingenuous for him to bitch about how the horse is bad for being powerful and dangerous. He is really upset that the horse is now being powerful and dangerous for its own interest than being used as war horse by the rider.

    As long as Neocons could ride the repressed passion of white nationalism to serve Israel and Zionism, they were perfectly fine with white nationalism(as long as it took orders from Neocons). Indeed, they not only tolerated white nationalism but depended on it(as long as it could be repressed and channeled).

    But now that white nationalism has thrown off the neocon rider and is running wild and free, the neocon is kavetching that white nationalism is a terrible, terrible thing.

    Neocons told white nationalism to throw away or burn the Confederate Flag but raise high and wave the Zionist Flag. And that was like the last straw for many white nationalists. Enough was enough.

    Just think. Suppose all the white nationalists in this election cycle had decided to keep their white nationalism at home and come outside as Zionists willing to support anything Jews to do Palestinians, Russians, Syrians, and Iranians.
    Suppose this repressed white nationalism shouted hurrah to Jewish nationalist aggression against the Middle East and Ukraine. Do you think Neocons would be complaining? No. Indeed, Neocons loved people like Ann Coulter as long as their aggressive repressed-white-nationalism had been channeled to waving the Zionist flag 24/7.

    The whole trick of Neoconism was the science of repressing and channeling white nationalism to serve Jewish nationalism. From a psycho-political point of view, only repressed rightism can serve the rightism of another people.
    After all, it's getting harder for Liberal Zionists to channel sincere universalist white Liberals passion toward supporting Zionist occupation/oppression of Palestinians.

    By conventional standards, what is happening in Israel is 'racism' and 'imperialism', the kind that European nations once used to carry out around the world.
    White Liberals do support Israel(due to Holocaust guilt and coolness factor of smart Jews), but they feel increasingly uneasy about Zionists kicking Palestinian butt.

    In contrast, white nationalism is for identity, racial consciousness, and pride. In some cases, it can be hostile, aggressive, and even imperialist-minded. While such feelings about whites is taboo under PC, those are precisely the kind of passions that can be channeled toward serving the nationalism and imperialism of Jews that goes by the name of Zionism. White nationalists who can't bitch about blacks and illegals in the US are likely to channel those passions toward cheering for Jews to kick Palestinian butt.

    So, when Neocons bitch about 'white nationalism', just tell them, 'you had no problem with it when it was channeled to serving Jewish imperialism'.
    Neocons are just bitching about a horse that threw them off and ran off on its own to be free and serve its own horsey interest.

    White nationalism without Neocon masters = white horse without a rider.

    “Neocons are not really upset with white nationalism per se.” Yes, particularly when it carries a “healthy dose” of islamophobia. Within European nationalists there is practically no anti-Israel sentiments. Actually Israel in its belligerence is viewed as a shining example. The only genuine white nationalist movements are the ones that have Christian anti-Judaic components. Anyway all those movements are completely penetrated and many of them are funded by the usual suspects.

    Read More
  90. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sam Shama
    Can you stop polluting every thread on this webzine please?

    Spoken like a truly desperate hasbarist, anti free speech Zionist.

    It’s liars like you who are doing the polluting.

    I do find it curious that people like you want 6M Jews to be dead, I don’t.
    Revisionists have brought good news to Jews.

    I note you cannot refute the damning information I have posted which debunks the impossible ’6M Jews’.

    Here’s more about your partners in crime.

    http://news.sky.com/story/678761/israeli-army-t-shirts-mock-gaza-killings

    ‘Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings’

    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-736×414.jpg

    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-522×293.jpg

    Pregnant women and children being targeted.

    and:
    Two teenage Israeli girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: “Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values.”

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02962/jewish-girls_2962213c.jpg

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/16/pro-israel-lobby-conservatives-channel4-dispatches

    Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film shows that 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    How many people here have to tell you the same as Sam to understand? I have been skipping your comments since forever, highly recommend the same to others. Then maybe you will go away, because you cannot tell apart the good guys and the Zionists.
    , @Sam Shama
    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.
  91. @Rurik

    the irony of pissing people off (by killing their loved ones) and then letting them into your country. I must admit that I actually feel good about this part. It is the beginning of the cosmic justice
     
    except that the revenge that is wreaked by those understandably pissed off people who've had their countries destroyed is always exacted upon those on the bottom of society. Syrian refugees will end up no where near any policy makers or "defense" contractors or neocons. Rather they'll be housed next to some working class family who've also lost a loved on in the Eternal Wars for the fun and profit of the scumfucks.

    The scumfucks destroy Kosovo and Iraq and Libya and Syria, and then set about destroying the way of life of some small town in S. Dakota (who voted for Obama to end the wars) and inserting the hatred and strife you're lauding as a form of justice, upon a class of people who've harmed no one. I don't see the ironic justice in that, just more misery visited upon the powerless.

    Now if you were to say that these refugees would be moving in with John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Hillary, then I couldn't agree more. But I know too many simple working people who've wished harm on no soul alive, but are expected to bear the brunt of the hornet's nest. This I see no justice in.

    I cannot disagree with you Rurik, your point is quite strong. However, in the long run, if the normal people in the EU and US live worse and worse because of the machinations of their elites, do you not believe that they will wake up and get out with pitch-forks one day? Or will we all leave our still relatively comfortable lives in the West and be saying at the telly: “Ah those ungrateful Iraqis, we spent so much money and lives to bring them democracy and a better life and they are trying to blow us up”, as one very stupid (and wealthy) US person said in front of me. Maybe the hornets will wake up more of the good people from their stupor, to get out and do something about the future of their children (who will really suffer from the presence of the hornets). Maybe, for example, the good old French people will wake up that the terrorism they experienced is due to outfits such as CRIF driving the policies of their own government! The whole charade of the Coalition of the Sponsors of Terrorism (COST) fighting ISIS must come down: the terrorists are those supposedly fighting terrorism. The mountain of lies has to crumble! Maybe the introduction of the hornets into the societies will be the catalyst for change.

    Read More
  92. I look forward to Philip Giraldi’s articles for “telling it straight” and am never disappointed. There are decent men in U.S. Intelligence, used to be anyway, and he’s one of them. In this article to do with foreign policy, his area of expertise, Giraldi states very clearly why Trump is his choice. Given how far (and fast) we have fallen, we’re lucky Trump is running.

    ***
    How bad it is from another courageous American with integrity (E. Michael Philips): https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/i-accuse-them-all-traitors-all/

    Read More
  93. @Unapologetic White Man
    Yeah, to hear some people tell it, Japan was just innocently minding its own business when out of the blue, the U.S. arbitrarily decided to bomb Japan.

    There is evidence of strong US provocation of the Japanese which led to Pearl Harbor.

    https://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unapologetic White Man
    No need for the link. I am already aware of all the phony counter-narratives. Japan had it coming. Okay?

    Now here's my narrative: UNZ is crawling with a bunch of Blame-America-First lunatics, and you are one of them.
  94. @Wally
    Spoken like a truly desperate hasbarist, anti free speech Zionist.

    It's liars like you who are doing the polluting.

    I do find it curious that people like you want 6M Jews to be dead, I don't.
    Revisionists have brought good news to Jews.

    I note you cannot refute the damning information I have posted which debunks the impossible '6M Jews'.

    Here's more about your partners in crime.

    http://news.sky.com/story/678761/israeli-army-t-shirts-mock-gaza-killings
    'Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings'
    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-736x414.jpg

    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-522x293.jpg
    Pregnant women and children being targeted.

    and:
    Two teenage Israeli girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: "Hating Arabs is not racism, it's values."
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02962/jewish-girls_2962213c.jpg

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/16/pro-israel-lobby-conservatives-channel4-dispatches
    Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film shows that 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members

    How many people here have to tell you the same as Sam to understand? I have been skipping your comments since forever, highly recommend the same to others. Then maybe you will go away, because you cannot tell apart the good guys and the Zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you to believe in the impossible.

    If indoctrinated people are going to raise the issue of the bogus 'holocaust' /'guilt', etc. here then you can be assured that it will be vigorously rebutted.

    You are working from a false premise when debating critical issues of our time if there is assumption of '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers', simple as that.

    Of course debates sites like www.forum.codoh.com are blowing up with big numbers of hits.

    So why do you want 6M Jews to be dead?

    see:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    Then there’s:

    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    Israel tech site paying “interns” to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
    , @Sam Shama
    Dear Kiza,
    I thank you for adding your voice on this matter. As always I try not to [nor can I] stop anyone from commenting. However, this fellow is really tiresome.
    , @utu
    "the good guys and the Zionists" - Not being a Zionist makes you good? There are lots of Jews who are not Zionists and they are as bad as you can imagine. Israel and Zionist is often a distraction from much bigger problems. Zionism did not create Jews but Jews created Zionism.
  95. Maybe the introduction of the hornets into the societies will be the catalyst for change.

    nope, it will only cause more strife and hatred and division, which is what it’s intended to do.

    how well have the Muslim hornets in Kosovo served to teach the Serbians to repudiate their government’s collaboration with and fealty to COST?

    there certainly is a lot of ignorance abounding over America’s role in the world, but no doubt there are plenty of Aussies who also think they too were honorable with their efforts as part of the Coalition of the Willing in the Iraq war. Not everyone can be expected to see behind the curtain at the scumfuck pulling the levers and turning the knobs of the matrix we all marinate in. Especially when there’s been no one to pull back the curtain and show them.

    do you not believe that they will wake up and get out with pitch-forks one day?

    when America voted for Obama both times, they knew he was a racist commie who hated America, and they didn’t like that about him, but they held their collective noses and voted for him anyways, because the alternative was McCain or (double the Gitmo) Romney = more war. Americans are trying everything in their power to end the Eternal Wars. And that is what Donald Trump represents. Americans with their pitch forks and shovels telling the elites to fuck off. No more hornets and no more wars. We’re trying, and the elites are doing everything in their power to crush this effort to restore sanity to America’s foreign policy.

    It’s us against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    [Americans are trying everything in their power to end the Eternal Wars. And that is what Donald Trump represents. Americans with their pitch forks and shovels telling the elites to fuck off.]

    I agree with this portion.

    Questions:
    (1) How do you think the Donald ought to go about persuading women in this country to vote for him?
    (2) How do you propose the Donald insulate himself from the powerful financial interests [ and I concede, some of whom are indeed Jewish. I know, the Fed...well that is a discussion on which we agree to disagree]

    How?

    Perhaps Kiza's point has validity, in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.
  96. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kiza
    How many people here have to tell you the same as Sam to understand? I have been skipping your comments since forever, highly recommend the same to others. Then maybe you will go away, because you cannot tell apart the good guys and the Zionists.

    IOW, you to believe in the impossible.

    If indoctrinated people are going to raise the issue of the bogus ‘holocaust’ /’guilt’, etc. here then you can be assured that it will be vigorously rebutted.

    [MORE]

    You are working from a false premise when debating critical issues of our time if there is assumption of ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’, simple as that.

    Of course debates sites like http://www.forum.codoh.com are blowing up with big numbers of hits.

    So why do you want 6M Jews to be dead?

    see:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    Then there’s:

    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    Israel tech site paying “interns” to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Read More
  97. I bet it chaps a lot of lefty anti-war asses that White Nationalists were and are monolithic and vociferous in their opposition to Iraq Attaq II, adventurism in west Asia, etc. Much more so than the left. Don’t worry lefties, you can still point and sputter “raciss!”

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.

    It’s totally patriotic when it prevents hundreds of thousands of deaths of your own countrymen in a nasty land invasion. You lefty anti-war globalists are so far gone, you don’t even know what patriotism is.

    You don’t even have much of a grasp on lefty anti-war globalism, either; those two decisive nuclear strikes probably saved a whole lot of Japanese civilian lives, too. We would not have been able to invade Japan without killing a lot of Jap civilians.

    There is evidence of strong US provocation of the Japanese which led to Pearl Harbor.

    There’s certainty that the decision was all in Japanese hands.
    There’s certainty that there was strong Japanese provocation of the US, which led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Japan certainly would not have hesitated to use nuclear strikes to end the war, if they’d had the capability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    How can you be so "certain" of the truth, assuming you weren't a high ranking nephew of Uncle Sam at the time?

    Many here see pretty clearly through today's PTB when they lie about Saddam's WMD, Iraqui soldiers unplugging the incubators in the Kuwaiti nursery, the "genocide" prevented in the Balkans and Libya, Assad "gassing his own people," etc. But a goodly proportion turn raging red-white-blue when anyone dares even question the Hollywood version of WWII. Is that a daddy thing?
  98. @Kiza
    How many people here have to tell you the same as Sam to understand? I have been skipping your comments since forever, highly recommend the same to others. Then maybe you will go away, because you cannot tell apart the good guys and the Zionists.

    Dear Kiza,
    I thank you for adding your voice on this matter. As always I try not to [nor can I] stop anyone from commenting. However, this fellow is really tiresome.

    Read More
  99. @Wally
    Spoken like a truly desperate hasbarist, anti free speech Zionist.

    It's liars like you who are doing the polluting.

    I do find it curious that people like you want 6M Jews to be dead, I don't.
    Revisionists have brought good news to Jews.

    I note you cannot refute the damning information I have posted which debunks the impossible '6M Jews'.

    Here's more about your partners in crime.

    http://news.sky.com/story/678761/israeli-army-t-shirts-mock-gaza-killings
    'Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings'
    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-736x414.jpg

    http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-522x293.jpg
    Pregnant women and children being targeted.

    and:
    Two teenage Israeli girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: "Hating Arabs is not racism, it's values."
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02962/jewish-girls_2962213c.jpg

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/16/pro-israel-lobby-conservatives-channel4-dispatches
    Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film shows that 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members

    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Sam,

    I keep getting responses and to those I will respond.

    See research which demolishes the impossible '6M Jews'canard:
    'Holocaust Handbooks'
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holocaust-Handbooks-1min-640x360.mp4

    , @SolontoCroesus

    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.
     
    Whyever not, Sam? Don't you consider it extremely important to know what is true? If a thousand voices in a mob clamored, "There's a fire down on East Street," and one lone voice gathered evidence and knew within a tolerable level that the fire was actually on West Street, on the opposite side of town, and that the fire on West Street had been set to cover up a bank heist at the West Street Bank & Gold Depository, and that the mob had been hired to induce people to believe that the fire was on East Street so that all the attention, and firemen and policemen would be involved on East Street and the dastardly deeds on West Street could carry on without a hitch -- don't you think people who raise the alarm about the true location of the fire are performing an important function in their community?

    Ratchet it up a notch: The criminals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr56HuPf-9o involved in the West Street arson and bank heist have been planning it for years; they have composed numerous programs for altering the cognitive map of the masses such as The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, authored by Frank Luntz, following on principles developed by Edward Bernays. (In other words, the criminal gang has bastardized the entire language and communications system to enable their crimes.)

    Against this organized effort of subversion, there's BobbyBeGood's "tiresome" warnings that something is amiss.

    The American lexicon celebrates -- or used to, once upon a time -- heroes like Paul Revere who, tiresomely and at his own peril, warned his compatriots of threats to their wellbeing.

    I think Bobby BeGood fits that category. I applaud his efforts.

    That you labelled as "pollution" Bobby BeGood's efforts at truth-telling implies more about Sam Shama than about Bobby BeGood.
  100. @Wally
    Rejoining Ash, aka: Andrew Mathis asks:

    I’m curious to know what makes you think I’m a “Zionist.”
     
    You said so yourself:

    I am a Zionist, albeit a very left-wing Zionist.
    - Andrew E. Mathis
     
    http://www.faem.com/letters/j1007aem.htm

    Oops.
    I've taken your lunch yet again.

    next up we have:

    'U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays standard German air-raid shelter door, describing it as the door to a gas chamber at Majdanek'
    see text:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen.html
    images:
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/two-to-3.GIF
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/doorcasting.jpg
    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen_files/gsPANZERL.GIF

    Without clicking the link, I recall that I wrote that sixteen years ago. A lot can change in sixteen years. Israel’s actions, particularly those since 2002, pretty much killed my Zionism.

    May I make a tiny suggestion? If you smear all your opponents as Zionists, particularly in a forum such as this one, which is rife with non-Zionists and anti-Zionists, you’re going to get yourself exactly nowhere. There are plenty of people with no interest in Zionism whatsoever who nevertheless believe that the Holocaust happened.

    I’ll let you slide on using my name since the topic actually called for it.

    Read More
  101. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Because only a Zionist or one of their mouthpieces would get worked up about the things you do.

    You think only a Zionist cares about genocide denial?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    What genocide?
    You are missing the point, there simply is no proof,

    In what other mass murder cases where human remains supposedly exist in locations supposedly known, go without being excavated, identified, and shown? None. And we're talking about an alleged 11,000,000 people, '6M Jews, 5M others'.

    The claims are impossible.

    And why do you want 6M Jews to be dead? I don't.

    The embarrassing high school-like drama of Nazi human skin lampshades & shrunken heads stagecraft is absolutely exposed here for the fraud that it is.
    Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil
    By DenierBud
    http://codoh.com/library/document/1529/

    more here:
    Nazi Shrunken Heads
    A 24-minute free video about lies which justify war
    By DenierBud
    http://codoh.com/library/document/1528/
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    In a word, yes. You don't see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed. The ONLY reason this is a hot-button topic is because it concerns Jews and their political interests, i.e. Zionism. If every preposterous thing the Germans have been accused of doing happened to some other group, we would rarely hear about it as opposed to almost daily.
  102. @Rurik

    Maybe the introduction of the hornets into the societies will be the catalyst for change.
     
    nope, it will only cause more strife and hatred and division, which is what it's intended to do.

    how well have the Muslim hornets in Kosovo served to teach the Serbians to repudiate their government's collaboration with and fealty to COST?

    there certainly is a lot of ignorance abounding over America's role in the world, but no doubt there are plenty of Aussies who also think they too were honorable with their efforts as part of the Coalition of the Willing in the Iraq war. Not everyone can be expected to see behind the curtain at the scumfuck pulling the levers and turning the knobs of the matrix we all marinate in. Especially when there's been no one to pull back the curtain and show them.


    do you not believe that they will wake up and get out with pitch-forks one day?
     
    when America voted for Obama both times, they knew he was a racist commie who hated America, and they didn't like that about him, but they held their collective noses and voted for him anyways, because the alternative was McCain or (double the Gitmo) Romney = more war. Americans are trying everything in their power to end the Eternal Wars. And that is what Donald Trump represents. Americans with their pitch forks and shovels telling the elites to fuck off. No more hornets and no more wars. We're trying, and the elites are doing everything in their power to crush this effort to restore sanity to America's foreign policy.

    It's us against them.

    [Americans are trying everything in their power to end the Eternal Wars. And that is what Donald Trump represents. Americans with their pitch forks and shovels telling the elites to fuck off.]

    I agree with this portion.

    Questions:
    (1) How do you think the Donald ought to go about persuading women in this country to vote for him?
    (2) How do you propose the Donald insulate himself from the powerful financial interests [ and I concede, some of whom are indeed Jewish. I know, the Fed...well that is a discussion on which we agree to disagree]

    How?

    Perhaps Kiza’s point has validity, in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.
     
    Sammy, Sammy, Sam,

    >>sigh<<

    as if you didn't know that the wars are being contrived to fuck over and destroy the lives of everyone considered a potential threat to Jewish/Zionist/bankster absolute power, and that includes the white people of the West (Nazis) even more so than the assorted Arabs and Muslims and Persians, etc.. of the Middle East and elsewhere.

    you're trying (pathetically) to make the case that Americans lives being destroyed is going to "chasten" the elite, [HA!] when it's that very same elite who're doing everything in their power to destroy the lives of as many (white, Christian) Americans as they can.

    You know the wars are being waged by the elites in direct opposition to the will of the American people

    and you know that massive and uncontrolled immigration is also being foisted by that very same elite in order to fuck over and destroy as many lives of as many Americans (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians) as they can possible fuck over and destroy in as rapid a way as possible, also in direct opposition to the will of the American people. (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians ; )

    so this hysterical fabrication of some mysterious elite who actually care about the well-being of the American people is a silly fantasy, and you know it ;)

    and it's that unavoidable reality that is responsible for the rise of a man like Donald Trump, who is talking about running the country for once in a way that isn't calculated and intended to fuck over as many (white) Americans as possible, while using them as cannon fodder die in wars for Israel. {duh}

    and it's rather a bit misogynistic to be so dismissive of the intelligence and character of women as to suggest that they're somehow too vapid and shallow to care enough about these important things and vote simply based on mindless identity politics, don't you think?
  103. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Indeed, ‘a lot can change in sixteen years’.
    Which means you are now a right-wing Zionist instead of a left-wing Zionist.

    And indeed, there are also lot’s of people who believe in court proven witchcraft, complete with “confessions” & “eyewitnesses”.

    The same people are up to their old tricks:

    ‘Fake Jewish graves in Muslim cemeteries’: UNESCO slams Israeli occupation of Palestinian sites

    https://www.rt.com/news/340037-israel-unesco-palestinian-sites/

    discussion here:
    ‘Jews created fake Jewish graves’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10337

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Indeed, ‘a lot can change in sixteen years’. Which means you are now a right-wing Zionist instead of a left-wing Zionist.
     
    Wonderful, you've made an assertion. Now prove it.
  104. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sam Shama
    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.

    Sam,

    I keep getting responses and to those I will respond.

    See research which demolishes the impossible ’6M Jews’canard:
    ‘Holocaust Handbooks’

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Read More
  105. @Wally
    IOW, you to believe in the impossible.

    If indoctrinated people are going to raise the issue of the bogus 'holocaust' /'guilt', etc. here then you can be assured that it will be vigorously rebutted.

    You are working from a false premise when debating critical issues of our time if there is assumption of '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers', simple as that.

    Of course debates sites like www.forum.codoh.com are blowing up with big numbers of hits.

    So why do you want 6M Jews to be dead?

    see:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    Then there’s:

    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    Israel tech site paying “interns” to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    You’re not winning any popularity contests here…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Don't make me laugh. As if you are.
    I suggest you read the comments aimed at you.

    But at least I'm right.

    Those that see my posts, read or un-read, will never be the same.
    The days of the invincibility of the 'holocau$t' Industry are over.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    "The only reason the average American is more likely to agree with Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people. They’ve convinced enough Americans that Arabs don’t actually mind losing their children to Israeli bombs."
     
  106. @Sam Shama
    Can you stop polluting every thread on this webzine please?

    Sam, I doubt your request will be honored, pollution being the objective. Most sayanim on message boards do little else.

    Read More
  107. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rabbitnexus
    When he gets into office or even now as his "security briefings" have begun, he will be made aware that the USA cannot do as he says since the Russians have the ability to switch off their air defenses with a device these reported fly bys have all included in their onboard eqipment despite being un-armed as reported. They were also ensuring the US naval vessels in question were just as un-armed.

    We can then just put Patriot missiles in Poland and the Baltics.

    Read More
  108. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    You think only a Zionist cares about genocide denial?

    What genocide?
    You are missing the point, there simply is no proof,

    [MORE]

    In what other mass murder cases where human remains supposedly exist in locations supposedly known, go without being excavated, identified, and shown? None. And we’re talking about an alleged 11,000,000 people, ’6M Jews, 5M others’.

    The claims are impossible.

    And why do you want 6M Jews to be dead? I don’t.

    The embarrassing high school-like drama of Nazi human skin lampshades & shrunken heads stagecraft is absolutely exposed here for the fraud that it is.
    Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil
    By DenierBud

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1529/

    more here:
    Nazi Shrunken Heads
    A 24-minute free video about lies which justify war
    By DenierBud

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1528/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Why don't you give it up?

    Look at this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzibpBS1-Gw

    It seems like Kissinger lost a bunch of relatives in WWII.
    Indeed, there are many stories of Jews who lost relatives in WWII.
    And there were civilians, not soldiers. How could so many Jews have lost so many relatives unless there was something like the Holocaust happening?

    Now, the lesson of WWII and Jews is twofold, and both sides need to learn.

    Extremism of the kind exemplified by Hitler and Himmler was evil. It ended up killing lots of innocent people.
    The other lesson is that Jews need to stop acting crazy, because Jewish craziness will lead to counter-craziness. Now, it's true that Jews were not the ONLY crazies that created the conditions that led to rise of Hitler and WWII. But too many Jews were involved in radical socialism, robbery-financial-capitalism(on a global scale, as in Russia during the 90s), and cultural degeneracy. When Jews do stuff like that, it's either going to subvert society or lead to a counter-revolution that can be sound or sick(as in Nazism).
    Now, Nazism was no way to deal with the Jewish Problem. Furthermore, the Nazi imperialist ambitions killed millions of Slavs as well.

    The terrible reality of today is Jews are doing so many crazy stuff that is half-validating Mein Kampf. All this homo-tranny-degeneracy, all this pornification of mainstream culture(look what Jews did to Disney; it is now Jizney), all this bad behavior on Wall Street, all this war-mongering that led to horror for millions, this war on Russia in a new 'cold war'(that should be called Kosher War), this pressure on EU to take in tons of Muslim refugees displaced by Kosher War in the Middle East, this push for borderless world that destroys races and cultures, this Jewish hypocrisy that invokes Free Speech but pushes 'hate speech laws' to silence critics of Jewish power, and etc. Jews keep this up, and the West will decline and die for good OR there will be a violent counter-revolution that might go after Jews again. Both are pretty dire and depressing.

    If Jews act sane, we can avoid all of that, and everyone can return to normal.

    In a way, Jews have promoted degeneracy and diversity to undermine white majority gentile power, but in the process, Jews might end up achieving the very opposite: a violent backlash and uprising from whites who've had enough(and we are seeing inklings of this in Europe; they bitch about Muslims today but it may come around to naming the Jew). Also, even if whites do lose forever due to Diversity, are Jews assured eternal victory? Look at UK and maybe not. With all those nutty Moos and a Moo mayor and with the Labor Party being anti-Zionist, this diversity that Jews to promote divide-and-conquer might just unite gentiles against Jews. In the UK, the British Left, Moos, and Millennials are united against Zionism.

    The lessons we learned from WWII is incomplete. We learned the important lesson of the dangers of radical racism of Nazism. We also saw how militant imperialism messes up civilizations; Hitler was a pan-European imperialist who messed up other nations. (To be sure, the Nazi evil in Western democratic eyes was that a European nation invaded other European nations. Brits and French obviously had no problem with their own imperialist conquest of much of the world.)
    But we didn't learn the other lesson: The one about all the crazy lowlife things that Jews did to make so many gentiles hate them and even collaborate with Nazis to round them up and kill them. The Holocaust was so horrible that extra-sympathy for Jews was somewhat understandable. Also, Jews and gentile Left had control of most of media and academia in postwar era, so they controlled the narrative.

    To totally discredit the Right, the Nazis had to be made totally evil and insane. I would say Nazis had some rational ideas and valid arguments but those were jumbled with radical racial craziness and pathological imperialist ambitions that poisoned everything.
    But because Nazi evil was so evil, even good Nazi ideas got discredited by association. And then, all critics of Jews and Jewish power(even if they were non- or anti-Nazi) got discredited too. The postwar logic was as follows: Evil Nazis killed Jews, so everything about Nazis must have been evil and everything about Jews must have been good. Since Nazis were totally evil and hated/killed Jews who are totally good and always blameless, ANYONE who holds critical or hostile feelings about Jews must also be a closet-Nazi and evil.
    But in fact, there were plenty of sane and rational critics of Jewish power. Winston Churchill had been one of them too. Indeed, even many Jews found problems with Jews(just like many Wasps found problems with Wasps).

    This sacralization of Jews messed up discourse and our understanding of reality.
    We should not pretend that Jews were pure angels just because they suffered the Holocaust. We can sympathize with Jewish victims, but that doesn't mean all Jews were blameless for what happened.

    It's like this: Consider Japanese and Germans. Many suffered in WWII. Indeed, many innocent Japanese and Germans were harmed or killed in WWII. When bombs fell from the sky, they didn't discriminate between good Germans and bad Germans, pro-Nazi Germans and anti-Germans, etc. When the Bomb dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it didn't discriminate between war-mongers and children/old folks. Nagasaki had a dissident Christian community hated by the militarist government, but they weren't spared by the Bombing either.
    So many innocent Germans and Japanese suffered in WWII. There were many innocent persons or individuals among them.
    Indeed, there are innocent individuals in any nation or society.
    BUT, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent PEOPLE in WWII. The leaders of Germany and Japan embarked upon aggression and war, and sufficient numbers of Germans and Japanese supported those regimes. Now, the concept of a Guilty or Non-Innocent People is unfair because even in a nation ruled by aggressive leaders who are supported by the majority, you are still going to have many people who don't support the leaders and disagree with the agenda. (Also, even the supporters may not be as radical or crazy as the leaders. Many good people supported Nazism or communism for jobs, security, and bread than for ideology.)
    But there is a critical focal point and critical mass in any society. When enough people support a certain kind of power, that community is defined by that power and its agenda.
    So, even though many Germans and Japanese individuals/persons were innocent, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent People in WWII. So, even though many innocents did suffer in Germany and Japan due to bombing, invasion, rape, and occupation, German People and Japanese People got punished for their 'collective' or 'critical mass' behavior.

    This must apply to Jews as well. While many Jewish individuals were innocent, Jewish People as a whole acted abominably in the interwar yrs. Many of them were involved in Soviet Communism and have serous blood on their hands. They spread radical craziness all over. And these crazy leftist Jews were funded often by capitalist Jews who hated conservative gentile societies more than even Jewish-run communism. Jewish capitalists in the West preferred that Russia be ruled by Jewish communists than by Russian nationalists. (And nothing had changed in this regard. If it takes Pussy Riot and other scum to culturally corrupt Russia so that Jewish-Homo globalists can gain total control of Russia, a lot of Jews in the West are fully supportive of that.) And so many Jewish finance capitalists were doing in the interwar yrs what today's Jewish crooks are doing in Wall Street and all over the world. Just look at the likes of George Soros and Paul Singer. And just how is it that Sheldon Adelson, the nut who called for nuking of Iran(that has no nukes), is allowed to be a major player in US politics?

    So, even though the Holocaust cannot be justified and many innocent Jews died, it wasn't merely the product of German radical sickness targeting a wholly innocent people. It was a violent pathological over-reaction to all the horrible things Jews had done and were doing in the interwar period. Also, even many powerless Jews were supportive of that garbage.
    Even today, most American Jews are not powerful. They are just ordinary professionals doing work and raising families. But even many such people support crazy agenda like the homo-tranny-supremacist agenda, AIPAC nuttiness that wants more wars, and anti-Russian mania all because forever-revenge-for-pogrom-mentality among Jews dreams of total revenge on Russians and total takeover of power.
    While Russian anti-Jewishness was a problem, Jews fail to understand that Russian violence toward Jews was pipsqueak stuff compared to Jewish bloodletting against Russians during the early yrs of Soviet Communism when millions, not mere thousands, perished.

    So, while there are many innocent Jewish individuals, the Jewish People in the 2oth century have not been an Innocent People. They've been one of the great movers-and-shakers of world events, and they were involved with a lot of bad stuff. Of course, many Jews were involved in many good stuff(like many Germans and Japanese did a lot of good in the 20th century). Also, there were Jews who did good and bad, just like there were Germans and Japanese who did some good and some bad. History is usually not about total good guys and total bad guys , or cops and robbers.

    So, unless we see Jews in the 20th century as a Great Powerful People(who did a lot of good as well as good) than an Innocent People, we are not gonna understand truth and reality.

    Same goes for homos and blacks. While we can sympathize with homos who died terribly due to AIDS in the 80s and 90s, the fact is homos brought it upon themselves by buggering one another like rabbits. Even if Harvey Milk had been president in the 80s, the same number of homos would have died because homo behavior was out of control and because effective treatment for AIDS was yrs away.
    But homos, having been sacralized by the Jewish media, blame everyone but themselves.
    If even fuddy duddy Allan Bloom died of AIDS cuz his ass was being humped by who-knows-how-many-guys, imagine what the wilder homos were doing? And homos like Michel Foucault continued to bugger guys EVEN WHEN he knew he had AIDS. And rightwing Jew homo Roy Cohn acted the same way. These vain and crazy homos!
    But homos never take any responsibility.

    And then you got the Negroes. Sure, we can sympathize with Negroes cuz of slavery and Jimmy Crow. But the sacralization of Negroes has made it impossible to look at racial reality honestly since the 1960s when the Black Rampage began. Blacks act the way they do because they are a tougher, bigger, and more aggressive race. But in a world of so much black lunacy, the official face of blackness is the Noble Negro of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD who be so innocent and shi*. Or it's the mountain-sized Negro with a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE.
    With such horseshi* narrative, we are not gonna understand the true nature of the racial problem in America. Especially when so many Negroes are singing vile and ugly rap, the pretense of seeing Negroes as Magic Negroes is especially sickly as Victim Nostalgia.

    Given what blacks have been up to since the 1960s, they are not an Innocent People.
    True, many blacks are law-abiding and not thuggish, but the fact is many blacks are thuggish. Worse, many non-thuggish blacks make excuses for the thugs or scream 'racist' when anyone tries to honestly discuss race problems.
  109. @Sam Shama
    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.

    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.

    Whyever not, Sam? Don’t you consider it extremely important to know what is true? If a thousand voices in a mob clamored, “There’s a fire down on East Street,” and one lone voice gathered evidence and knew within a tolerable level that the fire was actually on West Street, on the opposite side of town, and that the fire on West Street had been set to cover up a bank heist at the West Street Bank & Gold Depository, and that the mob had been hired to induce people to believe that the fire was on East Street so that all the attention, and firemen and policemen would be involved on East Street and the dastardly deeds on West Street could carry on without a hitch — don’t you think people who raise the alarm about the true location of the fire are performing an important function in their community?

    Ratchet it up a notch: The criminals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr56HuPf-9o involved in the West Street arson and bank heist have been planning it for years; they have composed numerous programs for altering the cognitive map of the masses such as The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, authored by Frank Luntz, following on principles developed by Edward Bernays. (In other words, the criminal gang has bastardized the entire language and communications system to enable their crimes.)

    Against this organized effort of subversion, there’s BobbyBeGood’s “tiresome” warnings that something is amiss.

    The American lexicon celebrates — or used to, once upon a time — heroes like Paul Revere who, tiresomely and at his own peril, warned his compatriots of threats to their wellbeing.

    I think Bobby BeGood fits that category. I applaud his efforts.

    That you labelled as “pollution” Bobby BeGood’s efforts at truth-telling implies more about Sam Shama than about Bobby BeGood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey SC.

    While I laud Bobbies efforts to seek the truth, I do find it slightly distracting to have every thread turned into a debate on the Holocaust. Some issues should be allowed to be debated on a platform specifically set up for the purpose. And not relentlessly hijacked for a different issue, no matter how worthy.

    We're not talking about a fire here, and imminent death. We're talking about an historical event, that I agree is important, and deserving of debate, but should we turn every discussion into a debate on the Holocaust?

    I consider 911 to be an issue that needs fleshing out, and getting to the truth of, but I think it would be in poor taste to demand that everyone consider my views on the subject on every thread.

    Also there's the consideration of alienation. If a poster is an advocate for a certain position, then perhaps it would behoove them not to alienate readers who clicked on a thread to read about that particular issue. No?

    Just trying to help here. I advise what Jonathan Revusky did, and write a treatise on the subject and perhaps Mr. Unz would publish it and we could all have a go. Or stick to threads that are at least somewhat aligned with the subject of the Holocaust in some way.

    Those are just my suggestions, and I'm in no way attempting to diminish Bobby's positions or points, many of which have definite merit. Just that I find the relentlessness slightly, well, counterproductive.
    , @Sam Shama
    The art of persuasion can be pursued, surely something you are attempting this very moment; repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].

    You might have noticed no one actually changes their mind? So therefore, it is pollution. And tiresome.

  110. @utu
    "Trump has had to pay obligatory homage to the Israel firsters, but one hopes he may somehow rise above that if he gets elected" - Yes, one hopes but one should not not be that foolish.

    You have to work with what little you have. Trump was the only candidate who initially said he would try to be neutral concerning the Israelis/Palestinians while the other candidates from the git go assured us they would not be neutral but firmly in Israel’s camp. If we give up hope, what alternative do we have?

    Read More
  111. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    You're not winning any popularity contests here...

    Don’t make me laugh. As if you are.
    I suggest you read the comments aimed at you.

    [MORE]

    But at least I’m right.

    Those that see my posts, read or un-read, will never be the same.
    The days of the invincibility of the ‘holocau$t’ Industry are over.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    “The only reason the average American is more likely to agree with Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people. They’ve convinced enough Americans that Arabs don’t actually mind losing their children to Israeli bombs.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I see one other person than you responding to my posts. I see one person other than you responding to your posts positively. They are the same person.
  112. @Kiza
    How many people here have to tell you the same as Sam to understand? I have been skipping your comments since forever, highly recommend the same to others. Then maybe you will go away, because you cannot tell apart the good guys and the Zionists.

    “the good guys and the Zionists” – Not being a Zionist makes you good? There are lots of Jews who are not Zionists and they are as bad as you can imagine. Israel and Zionist is often a distraction from much bigger problems. Zionism did not create Jews but Jews created Zionism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    The clash is between the elite (the 0.01%-ers, the Anglo-Zionists) and the rest of us, because of the social contract obliterated by the elite (stealing everything they can lay their hands on, foreign or domestic), much less about religion or ethnicity or race or anything else.

    Not being a Zionist makes you good?
     
    Think about it as Zionist=rotten bad and non-Zionist=everything else.

    Zionism did not create Jews but Jews created Zionism.
     
    This is a catchy (like advertising) but rather senseless phrase, especially because there are so many goyim servants of Zionism, worse than the Zionists themselves (e.g. Dick Cheney).
    Ordinary Anglos and ordinary Jews are the rest of us.
  113. @Sam Shama
    [Americans are trying everything in their power to end the Eternal Wars. And that is what Donald Trump represents. Americans with their pitch forks and shovels telling the elites to fuck off.]

    I agree with this portion.

    Questions:
    (1) How do you think the Donald ought to go about persuading women in this country to vote for him?
    (2) How do you propose the Donald insulate himself from the powerful financial interests [ and I concede, some of whom are indeed Jewish. I know, the Fed...well that is a discussion on which we agree to disagree]

    How?

    Perhaps Kiza's point has validity, in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.

    in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.

    Sammy, Sammy, Sam,

    >>sigh<<

    as if you didn't know that the wars are being contrived to fuck over and destroy the lives of everyone considered a potential threat to Jewish/Zionist/bankster absolute power, and that includes the white people of the West (Nazis) even more so than the assorted Arabs and Muslims and Persians, etc.. of the Middle East and elsewhere.

    you're trying (pathetically) to make the case that Americans lives being destroyed is going to "chasten" the elite, [HA!] when it's that very same elite who're doing everything in their power to destroy the lives of as many (white, Christian) Americans as they can.

    You know the wars are being waged by the elites in direct opposition to the will of the American people

    and you know that massive and uncontrolled immigration is also being foisted by that very same elite in order to fuck over and destroy as many lives of as many Americans (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians) as they can possible fuck over and destroy in as rapid a way as possible, also in direct opposition to the will of the American people. (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians ; )

    so this hysterical fabrication of some mysterious elite who actually care about the well-being of the American people is a silly fantasy, and you know it ;)

    and it's that unavoidable reality that is responsible for the rise of a man like Donald Trump, who is talking about running the country for once in a way that isn't calculated and intended to fuck over as many (white) Americans as possible, while using them as cannon fodder die in wars for Israel. {duh}

    and it's rather a bit misogynistic to be so dismissive of the intelligence and character of women as to suggest that they're somehow too vapid and shallow to care enough about these important things and vote simply based on mindless identity politics, don't you think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    As usual you misunderstand. Perhaps deliberately.

    I simply speculated that the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites, might indeed act as a deterrent. But, forget that line of thought and your resulting emissions.

    Also a little less of the f-bombs and bs would be helpful, including that idiotic charge of misogyny. Like the Donald, I love and respect women, ok? [including Megyn]

    How do you reconcile your position with the fact that the overwhelming majority of polls reveal an average of a 25 point disadvantage for DT among women? And have you any ideas about how to go about remedying it? There is no chance on earth he wins nationally with those handicaps! Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds. If you have any serious answers let us know.

  114. @Wally
    Don't make me laugh. As if you are.
    I suggest you read the comments aimed at you.

    But at least I'm right.

    Those that see my posts, read or un-read, will never be the same.
    The days of the invincibility of the 'holocau$t' Industry are over.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    "The only reason the average American is more likely to agree with Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people. They’ve convinced enough Americans that Arabs don’t actually mind losing their children to Israeli bombs."
     

    I see one other person than you responding to my posts. I see one person other than you responding to your posts positively. They are the same person.

    Read More
  115. @Wally
    Indeed, 'a lot can change in sixteen years'.
    Which means you are now a right-wing Zionist instead of a left-wing Zionist.

    And indeed, there are also lot's of people who believe in court proven witchcraft, complete with "confessions" & "eyewitnesses".

    The same people are up to their old tricks:

    ‘Fake Jewish graves in Muslim cemeteries’: UNESCO slams Israeli occupation of Palestinian sites
    https://www.rt.com/news/340037-israel-unesco-palestinian-sites/

    discussion here:
    ‘Jews created fake Jewish graves’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10337

    Indeed, ‘a lot can change in sixteen years’. Which means you are now a right-wing Zionist instead of a left-wing Zionist.

    Wonderful, you’ve made an assertion. Now prove it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Your own words and low class actions have already proved it.

    Only a desperate Zionist in a state of panic would do this?


    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.
     

    Internet extremist Andrew Mathis admits to collecting IP's!
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6975
    Ouch !!

    This is way too easy.

  116. @SolontoCroesus

    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.
     
    Whyever not, Sam? Don't you consider it extremely important to know what is true? If a thousand voices in a mob clamored, "There's a fire down on East Street," and one lone voice gathered evidence and knew within a tolerable level that the fire was actually on West Street, on the opposite side of town, and that the fire on West Street had been set to cover up a bank heist at the West Street Bank & Gold Depository, and that the mob had been hired to induce people to believe that the fire was on East Street so that all the attention, and firemen and policemen would be involved on East Street and the dastardly deeds on West Street could carry on without a hitch -- don't you think people who raise the alarm about the true location of the fire are performing an important function in their community?

    Ratchet it up a notch: The criminals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr56HuPf-9o involved in the West Street arson and bank heist have been planning it for years; they have composed numerous programs for altering the cognitive map of the masses such as The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, authored by Frank Luntz, following on principles developed by Edward Bernays. (In other words, the criminal gang has bastardized the entire language and communications system to enable their crimes.)

    Against this organized effort of subversion, there's BobbyBeGood's "tiresome" warnings that something is amiss.

    The American lexicon celebrates -- or used to, once upon a time -- heroes like Paul Revere who, tiresomely and at his own peril, warned his compatriots of threats to their wellbeing.

    I think Bobby BeGood fits that category. I applaud his efforts.

    That you labelled as "pollution" Bobby BeGood's efforts at truth-telling implies more about Sam Shama than about Bobby BeGood.

    Hey SC.

    While I laud Bobbies efforts to seek the truth, I do find it slightly distracting to have every thread turned into a debate on the Holocaust. Some issues should be allowed to be debated on a platform specifically set up for the purpose. And not relentlessly hijacked for a different issue, no matter how worthy.

    We’re not talking about a fire here, and imminent death. We’re talking about an historical event, that I agree is important, and deserving of debate, but should we turn every discussion into a debate on the Holocaust?

    I consider 911 to be an issue that needs fleshing out, and getting to the truth of, but I think it would be in poor taste to demand that everyone consider my views on the subject on every thread.

    Also there’s the consideration of alienation. If a poster is an advocate for a certain position, then perhaps it would behoove them not to alienate readers who clicked on a thread to read about that particular issue. No?

    Just trying to help here. I advise what Jonathan Revusky did, and write a treatise on the subject and perhaps Mr. Unz would publish it and we could all have a go. Or stick to threads that are at least somewhat aligned with the subject of the Holocaust in some way.

    Those are just my suggestions, and I’m in no way attempting to diminish Bobby’s positions or points, many of which have definite merit. Just that I find the relentlessness slightly, well, counterproductive.

    Read More
  117. @SolontoCroesus

    Even if all you claim is true, does not make your incessant pollution any more tolerable.
     
    Whyever not, Sam? Don't you consider it extremely important to know what is true? If a thousand voices in a mob clamored, "There's a fire down on East Street," and one lone voice gathered evidence and knew within a tolerable level that the fire was actually on West Street, on the opposite side of town, and that the fire on West Street had been set to cover up a bank heist at the West Street Bank & Gold Depository, and that the mob had been hired to induce people to believe that the fire was on East Street so that all the attention, and firemen and policemen would be involved on East Street and the dastardly deeds on West Street could carry on without a hitch -- don't you think people who raise the alarm about the true location of the fire are performing an important function in their community?

    Ratchet it up a notch: The criminals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr56HuPf-9o involved in the West Street arson and bank heist have been planning it for years; they have composed numerous programs for altering the cognitive map of the masses such as The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, authored by Frank Luntz, following on principles developed by Edward Bernays. (In other words, the criminal gang has bastardized the entire language and communications system to enable their crimes.)

    Against this organized effort of subversion, there's BobbyBeGood's "tiresome" warnings that something is amiss.

    The American lexicon celebrates -- or used to, once upon a time -- heroes like Paul Revere who, tiresomely and at his own peril, warned his compatriots of threats to their wellbeing.

    I think Bobby BeGood fits that category. I applaud his efforts.

    That you labelled as "pollution" Bobby BeGood's efforts at truth-telling implies more about Sam Shama than about Bobby BeGood.

    The art of persuasion can be pursued, surely something you are attempting this very moment; repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].

    You might have noticed no one actually changes their mind? So therefore, it is pollution. And tiresome.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Sam Shama: "repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]
     
    from The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, by Frank Luntz, for The Israel Project,

    We recommend you use all three because the sound repetition drives the point home with three times the effectiveness.
     
    and

    These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social, and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.
     
    and

    A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say “Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!” But don’t confuse messages with facts. All messages must be factually accurate, but the point is to bridge back to your message—for example, to show that Israel is a democracy that wants peace.
     
    and

    K.I.S.S. and tell and tell again and again. A key rule of successful communications is “Keep It Simple, Stupid”. Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values—such as democracy and freedom—and repeating them over and over again.

    Have I written often enough yet that you need to. . . remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again?
     
    and

    we need to repeat the message, on average, ten times to be effective. Go back to the message triangle and practice bridging to your message on Israel.
     
    and

    Yes, we have repeated these concepts over... and over... and over... throughout this dictionary, but that’s just our way of obeying yet another Rule of Effective Communication – Keep It Simple Stupid and REPEAT!
     
    and

    [this use of "repeat" is particularly cynical-- notice how the repetition diametrically shifts the message:]

    WORDS THAT WORK

    . . .
    Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza.
     
    and this use of repetition reveals the Israelist fear that Palestinian voices and messages may pre-empt, or tell the lie to, Israelish messaging:

    You may not want to hear this but the side that seems to want peace more will win the support of the non-aligned public. This is exactly why the Palestinian spokespeople are repeating the word “peace” again and again. [i.e. it's not because Palestinians actually want peace, it's because Palestinians want to win the propaganda battle, per this author.] Unless this explicit desire for peace is conveyed in Israeli communication efforts, Israeli support will erode.
     
    and

    The idea that the fence is not the end—but rather a means to an end— is a point worth making and repeating.
     
    , @SolontoCroesus

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].
     
    My Father was injured and permanently disabled while fighting in WWII.

    Jewish leaders were in the vanguard of those who started the war.

    Indeed the killing caused by the war in Europe was "one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself," and Jewish and zionist leaders were, as noted above, key among those who set that genocide in motion; suffered the least from it; among the chief beneficiaries of it; and the loudest and most shameful in claiming victimization, which was the predictable and even planned outcome of it.

    The dishonesty with which the history of that "great genocide" is told and imposed guarantees that it will occur again, as indeed the very same methods and processes that provoked war in 1933 are being deployed by much the same actors against Iraq, Syria, Russia, Iran, and Palestinians, etc. today.

  118. What I find interesting about many of the comments is how they tend to focus on anything and everything negative about Trump. Sure he could be full of BS on this, it could all be for show. But on the other hand you know what you will get with Hillary and it’s absolute disastrous.

    Considering that there are exactly two people who stand any chance of being the next president who do you choose? The one you know for a fact will continue the welfare/warfare state unabated? Or do you pick the man who at least says he will try and end the perpetual state of war we are currently in?

    I fully understand being skeptical but come on. Give the man a chance or sit there and do nothing but preach your defeatist rhetoric which will only help Killary. Another option is to simply get the hell out of the way. If you can’t personally support Trump because you fear being fooled then at least don’t rip on anyone who is willing to take a chance, with fingers crossed, that he means what he says.

    If he does fool us then shame on him but at least the people who voted will have shown what they want from a president and this will embolden the next anti-war candidates. Vote Hillary in and all you have done is shown that war-hawks always win.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for the civility. However, isn't the best way for voters to "have shown what they want" through this nauseous process to vote for another ballot candidate or write in the name of someone who better reflects their views?
    , @alexander
    Here's hoping, Brad,

    What is so very tragic about our entire nomination process is that every single nominee , without exception,seems a wholly owned subsidiary of all the belligerent oligarchs, big banksters, and perpetual warmongers ,the American people really, really despise in the first place....

    Like the race is already lost before it has begun.

    Watching the debates it felt like you were witnessing gesticulating finger puppets of the invisible hand(s)in the back room, more so than ever.

    What was so great about Trump was he was so honest about it, the whole process....saying yeah, I'm a billionaire and I can tell you for a fact everyone up here is totally bought.....I know....because I did the buying.

    People love that stuff...because it punches a hole in the bogus pretense of "authenticity" the candidates all profess to have.

    Trump started out great, shooting and hitting bulls eye after bulls eye, ....people went crazy...they loved it....

    But it seems his message is slightly muddled now, like he is walking the line between throwing in the usual Oligarchic talking points while trying to stay on message....it sounds weird.

    Do you notice that also ?
    , @RadicalCenter
    Wholeheartedly agreed. I typically vote "third party" in presidential elections, but this time I will be voting TRUMP.
  119. @Ray Barnes
    How do you feel about the regime change the US brought about in Iran in the early 1950s?
    Regarding the hostage crisis, Newsweek magazine had a cover with Khomeini's head on a dartboard...what a splendid piece of propaganda!

    Wow! That changes everything!

    Read More
  120. @utu
    "300 million Americans don’t." - It's not true. You are projecting. You are in minority.

    If you say so.

    Read More
  121. @schmenz
    There is evidence of strong US provocation of the Japanese which led to Pearl Harbor.

    https://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

    No need for the link. I am already aware of all the phony counter-narratives. Japan had it coming. Okay?

    Now here’s my narrative: UNZ is crawling with a bunch of Blame-America-First lunatics, and you are one of them.

    Read More
  122. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Svigor
    I bet it chaps a lot of lefty anti-war asses that White Nationalists were and are monolithic and vociferous in their opposition to Iraq Attaq II, adventurism in west Asia, etc. Much more so than the left. Don't worry lefties, you can still point and sputter "raciss!"

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.
     
    It's totally patriotic when it prevents hundreds of thousands of deaths of your own countrymen in a nasty land invasion. You lefty anti-war globalists are so far gone, you don't even know what patriotism is.

    You don't even have much of a grasp on lefty anti-war globalism, either; those two decisive nuclear strikes probably saved a whole lot of Japanese civilian lives, too. We would not have been able to invade Japan without killing a lot of Jap civilians.

    There is evidence of strong US provocation of the Japanese which led to Pearl Harbor.
     
    There's certainty that the decision was all in Japanese hands.
    There's certainty that there was strong Japanese provocation of the US, which led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Japan certainly would not have hesitated to use nuclear strikes to end the war, if they'd had the capability.

    How can you be so “certain” of the truth, assuming you weren’t a high ranking nephew of Uncle Sam at the time?

    Many here see pretty clearly through today’s PTB when they lie about Saddam’s WMD, Iraqui soldiers unplugging the incubators in the Kuwaiti nursery, the “genocide” prevented in the Balkans and Libya, Assad “gassing his own people,” etc. But a goodly proportion turn raging red-white-blue when anyone dares even question the Hollywood version of WWII. Is that a daddy thing?

    Read More
  123. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Indeed, ‘a lot can change in sixteen years’. Which means you are now a right-wing Zionist instead of a left-wing Zionist.
     
    Wonderful, you've made an assertion. Now prove it.

    Your own words and low class actions have already proved it.

    Only a desperate Zionist in a state of panic would do this?

    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.

    Internet extremist Andrew Mathis admits to collecting IP’s!

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6975

    Ouch !!

    This is way too easy.

    Read More
  124. @Rurik

    in that the hornets might indeed at some point force us [including a much chastened elite] to realise the futility of gratuitous wars.
     
    Sammy, Sammy, Sam,

    >>sigh<<

    as if you didn't know that the wars are being contrived to fuck over and destroy the lives of everyone considered a potential threat to Jewish/Zionist/bankster absolute power, and that includes the white people of the West (Nazis) even more so than the assorted Arabs and Muslims and Persians, etc.. of the Middle East and elsewhere.

    you're trying (pathetically) to make the case that Americans lives being destroyed is going to "chasten" the elite, [HA!] when it's that very same elite who're doing everything in their power to destroy the lives of as many (white, Christian) Americans as they can.

    You know the wars are being waged by the elites in direct opposition to the will of the American people

    and you know that massive and uncontrolled immigration is also being foisted by that very same elite in order to fuck over and destroy as many lives of as many Americans (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians) as they can possible fuck over and destroy in as rapid a way as possible, also in direct opposition to the will of the American people. (and Europeans and Scandinavians and Canadians and Australians ; )

    so this hysterical fabrication of some mysterious elite who actually care about the well-being of the American people is a silly fantasy, and you know it ;)

    and it's that unavoidable reality that is responsible for the rise of a man like Donald Trump, who is talking about running the country for once in a way that isn't calculated and intended to fuck over as many (white) Americans as possible, while using them as cannon fodder die in wars for Israel. {duh}

    and it's rather a bit misogynistic to be so dismissive of the intelligence and character of women as to suggest that they're somehow too vapid and shallow to care enough about these important things and vote simply based on mindless identity politics, don't you think?

    As usual you misunderstand. Perhaps deliberately.

    I simply speculated that the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites, might indeed act as a deterrent. But, forget that line of thought and your resulting emissions.

    Also a little less of the f-bombs and bs would be helpful, including that idiotic charge of misogyny. Like the Donald, I love and respect women, ok? [including Megyn]

    How do you reconcile your position with the fact that the overwhelming majority of polls reveal an average of a 25 point disadvantage for DT among women? And have you any ideas about how to go about remedying it? There is no chance on earth he wins nationally with those handicaps! Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds. If you have any serious answers let us know.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites
     
    but of course that's the point. The elites are very far removed from any negative consequences of the hornets they unleash on the average citizen

    even if Angela Merkel wasn't an ugly slag, she still would have nothing to fear from the rapists and thugs she's inviting in to torment Germany. The elites live in an iron bubble of protection from the horrors they force their people to suffer.

    Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds

     

    not from what I'm seeing

    my personal polls show the women I know are enamored with the Don, and despise the blood-stained, lying gorgon

    and if the Don needs more support, perhaps I could join the ticket
  125. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Brad Smith
    What I find interesting about many of the comments is how they tend to focus on anything and everything negative about Trump. Sure he could be full of BS on this, it could all be for show. But on the other hand you know what you will get with Hillary and it's absolute disastrous.

    Considering that there are exactly two people who stand any chance of being the next president who do you choose? The one you know for a fact will continue the welfare/warfare state unabated? Or do you pick the man who at least says he will try and end the perpetual state of war we are currently in?

    I fully understand being skeptical but come on. Give the man a chance or sit there and do nothing but preach your defeatist rhetoric which will only help Killary. Another option is to simply get the hell out of the way. If you can't personally support Trump because you fear being fooled then at least don't rip on anyone who is willing to take a chance, with fingers crossed, that he means what he says.

    If he does fool us then shame on him but at least the people who voted will have shown what they want from a president and this will embolden the next anti-war candidates. Vote Hillary in and all you have done is shown that war-hawks always win.

    Thanks for the civility. However, isn’t the best way for voters to “have shown what they want” through this nauseous process to vote for another ballot candidate or write in the name of someone who better reflects their views?

    Read More
  126. @Sam Shama
    The art of persuasion can be pursued, surely something you are attempting this very moment; repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].

    You might have noticed no one actually changes their mind? So therefore, it is pollution. And tiresome.

    Sam Shama: “repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]

    from The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, by Frank Luntz, for The Israel Project,

    We recommend you use all three because the sound repetition drives the point home with three times the effectiveness.

    and

    These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social, and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.

    and

    A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say “Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!” But don’t confuse messages with facts. All messages must be factually accurate, but the point is to bridge back to your message—for example, to show that Israel is a democracy that wants peace.

    and

    K.I.S.S. and tell and tell again and again. A key rule of successful communications is “Keep It Simple, Stupid”. Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values—such as democracy and freedom—and repeating them over and over again.

    Have I written often enough yet that you need to. . . remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again?

    and

    we need to repeat the message, on average, ten times to be effective. Go back to the message triangle and practice bridging to your message on Israel.

    and

    Yes, we have repeated these concepts over… and over… and over… throughout this dictionary, but that’s just our way of obeying yet another Rule of Effective Communication – Keep It Simple Stupid and REPEAT!

    and

    [this use of "repeat" is particularly cynical-- notice how the repetition diametrically shifts the message:]

    WORDS THAT WORK

    . . .
    Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza.

    and this use of repetition reveals the Israelist fear that Palestinian voices and messages may pre-empt, or tell the lie to, Israelish messaging:

    You may not want to hear this but the side that seems to want peace more will win the support of the non-aligned public. This is exactly why the Palestinian spokespeople are repeating the word “peace” again and again. [i.e. it's not because Palestinians actually want peace, it's because Palestinians want to win the propaganda battle, per this author.] Unless this explicit desire for peace is conveyed in Israeli communication efforts, Israeli support will erode.

    and

    The idea that the fence is not the end—but rather a means to an end— is a point worth making and repeating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Point remains intact. Regardless of who uses the method and I excuse none. MPAI is the only reason it might succeed.
  127. @Sam Shama
    The art of persuasion can be pursued, surely something you are attempting this very moment; repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].

    You might have noticed no one actually changes their mind? So therefore, it is pollution. And tiresome.

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].

    My Father was injured and permanently disabled while fighting in WWII.

    Jewish leaders were in the vanguard of those who started the war.

    Indeed the killing caused by the war in Europe was “one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself,” and Jewish and zionist leaders were, as noted above, key among those who set that genocide in motion; suffered the least from it; among the chief beneficiaries of it; and the loudest and most shameful in claiming victimization, which was the predictable and even planned outcome of it.

    The dishonesty with which the history of that “great genocide” is told and imposed guarantees that it will occur again, as indeed the very same methods and processes that provoked war in 1933 are being deployed by much the same actors against Iraq, Syria, Russia, Iran, and Palestinians, etc. today.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    There were Jewish leaders and many, many more non-Jewish ones, lets be honest.

    You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false. However, if one believes it to be otherwise, one must then concede it implies an astonishing foresight and planning by Jews, spanning many centuries, which together with your assertion that the Holocaust did not really inflict any real pain on Jews, must then persuade you not expect anything different this time.

    But of course you can paint the board.

    Also I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.

  128. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    What genocide?
    You are missing the point, there simply is no proof,

    In what other mass murder cases where human remains supposedly exist in locations supposedly known, go without being excavated, identified, and shown? None. And we're talking about an alleged 11,000,000 people, '6M Jews, 5M others'.

    The claims are impossible.

    And why do you want 6M Jews to be dead? I don't.

    The embarrassing high school-like drama of Nazi human skin lampshades & shrunken heads stagecraft is absolutely exposed here for the fraud that it is.
    Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil
    By DenierBud
    http://codoh.com/library/document/1529/

    more here:
    Nazi Shrunken Heads
    A 24-minute free video about lies which justify war
    By DenierBud
    http://codoh.com/library/document/1528/

    Why don’t you give it up?

    Look at this video.

    It seems like Kissinger lost a bunch of relatives in WWII.
    Indeed, there are many stories of Jews who lost relatives in WWII.
    And there were civilians, not soldiers. How could so many Jews have lost so many relatives unless there was something like the Holocaust happening?

    Now, the lesson of WWII and Jews is twofold, and both sides need to learn.

    Extremism of the kind exemplified by Hitler and Himmler was evil. It ended up killing lots of innocent people.
    The other lesson is that Jews need to stop acting crazy, because Jewish craziness will lead to counter-craziness. Now, it’s true that Jews were not the ONLY crazies that created the conditions that led to rise of Hitler and WWII. But too many Jews were involved in radical socialism, robbery-financial-capitalism(on a global scale, as in Russia during the 90s), and cultural degeneracy. When Jews do stuff like that, it’s either going to subvert society or lead to a counter-revolution that can be sound or sick(as in Nazism).
    Now, Nazism was no way to deal with the Jewish Problem. Furthermore, the Nazi imperialist ambitions killed millions of Slavs as well.

    The terrible reality of today is Jews are doing so many crazy stuff that is half-validating Mein Kampf. All this homo-tranny-degeneracy, all this pornification of mainstream culture(look what Jews did to Disney; it is now Jizney), all this bad behavior on Wall Street, all this war-mongering that led to horror for millions, this war on Russia in a new ‘cold war’(that should be called Kosher War), this pressure on EU to take in tons of Muslim refugees displaced by Kosher War in the Middle East, this push for borderless world that destroys races and cultures, this Jewish hypocrisy that invokes Free Speech but pushes ‘hate speech laws’ to silence critics of Jewish power, and etc. Jews keep this up, and the West will decline and die for good OR there will be a violent counter-revolution that might go after Jews again. Both are pretty dire and depressing.

    If Jews act sane, we can avoid all of that, and everyone can return to normal.

    In a way, Jews have promoted degeneracy and diversity to undermine white majority gentile power, but in the process, Jews might end up achieving the very opposite: a violent backlash and uprising from whites who’ve had enough(and we are seeing inklings of this in Europe; they bitch about Muslims today but it may come around to naming the Jew). Also, even if whites do lose forever due to Diversity, are Jews assured eternal victory? Look at UK and maybe not. With all those nutty Moos and a Moo mayor and with the Labor Party being anti-Zionist, this diversity that Jews to promote divide-and-conquer might just unite gentiles against Jews. In the UK, the British Left, Moos, and Millennials are united against Zionism.

    The lessons we learned from WWII is incomplete. We learned the important lesson of the dangers of radical racism of Nazism. We also saw how militant imperialism messes up civilizations; Hitler was a pan-European imperialist who messed up other nations. (To be sure, the Nazi evil in Western democratic eyes was that a European nation invaded other European nations. Brits and French obviously had no problem with their own imperialist conquest of much of the world.)
    But we didn’t learn the other lesson: The one about all the crazy lowlife things that Jews did to make so many gentiles hate them and even collaborate with Nazis to round them up and kill them. The Holocaust was so horrible that extra-sympathy for Jews was somewhat understandable. Also, Jews and gentile Left had control of most of media and academia in postwar era, so they controlled the narrative.

    To totally discredit the Right, the Nazis had to be made totally evil and insane. I would say Nazis had some rational ideas and valid arguments but those were jumbled with radical racial craziness and pathological imperialist ambitions that poisoned everything.
    But because Nazi evil was so evil, even good Nazi ideas got discredited by association. And then, all critics of Jews and Jewish power(even if they were non- or anti-Nazi) got discredited too. The postwar logic was as follows: Evil Nazis killed Jews, so everything about Nazis must have been evil and everything about Jews must have been good. Since Nazis were totally evil and hated/killed Jews who are totally good and always blameless, ANYONE who holds critical or hostile feelings about Jews must also be a closet-Nazi and evil.
    But in fact, there were plenty of sane and rational critics of Jewish power. Winston Churchill had been one of them too. Indeed, even many Jews found problems with Jews(just like many Wasps found problems with Wasps).

    This sacralization of Jews messed up discourse and our understanding of reality.
    We should not pretend that Jews were pure angels just because they suffered the Holocaust. We can sympathize with Jewish victims, but that doesn’t mean all Jews were blameless for what happened.

    It’s like this: Consider Japanese and Germans. Many suffered in WWII. Indeed, many innocent Japanese and Germans were harmed or killed in WWII. When bombs fell from the sky, they didn’t discriminate between good Germans and bad Germans, pro-Nazi Germans and anti-Germans, etc. When the Bomb dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it didn’t discriminate between war-mongers and children/old folks. Nagasaki had a dissident Christian community hated by the militarist government, but they weren’t spared by the Bombing either.
    So many innocent Germans and Japanese suffered in WWII. There were many innocent persons or individuals among them.
    Indeed, there are innocent individuals in any nation or society.
    BUT, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent PEOPLE in WWII. The leaders of Germany and Japan embarked upon aggression and war, and sufficient numbers of Germans and Japanese supported those regimes. Now, the concept of a Guilty or Non-Innocent People is unfair because even in a nation ruled by aggressive leaders who are supported by the majority, you are still going to have many people who don’t support the leaders and disagree with the agenda. (Also, even the supporters may not be as radical or crazy as the leaders. Many good people supported Nazism or communism for jobs, security, and bread than for ideology.)
    But there is a critical focal point and critical mass in any society. When enough people support a certain kind of power, that community is defined by that power and its agenda.
    So, even though many Germans and Japanese individuals/persons were innocent, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent People in WWII. So, even though many innocents did suffer in Germany and Japan due to bombing, invasion, rape, and occupation, German People and Japanese People got punished for their ‘collective’ or ‘critical mass’ behavior.

    This must apply to Jews as well. While many Jewish individuals were innocent, Jewish People as a whole acted abominably in the interwar yrs. Many of them were involved in Soviet Communism and have serous blood on their hands. They spread radical craziness all over. And these crazy leftist Jews were funded often by capitalist Jews who hated conservative gentile societies more than even Jewish-run communism. Jewish capitalists in the West preferred that Russia be ruled by Jewish communists than by Russian nationalists. (And nothing had changed in this regard. If it takes Pussy Riot and other scum to culturally corrupt Russia so that Jewish-Homo globalists can gain total control of Russia, a lot of Jews in the West are fully supportive of that.) And so many Jewish finance capitalists were doing in the interwar yrs what today’s Jewish crooks are doing in Wall Street and all over the world. Just look at the likes of George Soros and Paul Singer. And just how is it that Sheldon Adelson, the nut who called for nuking of Iran(that has no nukes), is allowed to be a major player in US politics?

    So, even though the Holocaust cannot be justified and many innocent Jews died, it wasn’t merely the product of German radical sickness targeting a wholly innocent people. It was a violent pathological over-reaction to all the horrible things Jews had done and were doing in the interwar period. Also, even many powerless Jews were supportive of that garbage.
    Even today, most American Jews are not powerful. They are just ordinary professionals doing work and raising families. But even many such people support crazy agenda like the homo-tranny-supremacist agenda, AIPAC nuttiness that wants more wars, and anti-Russian mania all because forever-revenge-for-pogrom-mentality among Jews dreams of total revenge on Russians and total takeover of power.
    While Russian anti-Jewishness was a problem, Jews fail to understand that Russian violence toward Jews was pipsqueak stuff compared to Jewish bloodletting against Russians during the early yrs of Soviet Communism when millions, not mere thousands, perished.

    So, while there are many innocent Jewish individuals, the Jewish People in the 2oth century have not been an Innocent People. They’ve been one of the great movers-and-shakers of world events, and they were involved with a lot of bad stuff. Of course, many Jews were involved in many good stuff(like many Germans and Japanese did a lot of good in the 20th century). Also, there were Jews who did good and bad, just like there were Germans and Japanese who did some good and some bad. History is usually not about total good guys and total bad guys , or cops and robbers.

    So, unless we see Jews in the 20th century as a Great Powerful People(who did a lot of good as well as good) than an Innocent People, we are not gonna understand truth and reality.

    Same goes for homos and blacks. While we can sympathize with homos who died terribly due to AIDS in the 80s and 90s, the fact is homos brought it upon themselves by buggering one another like rabbits. Even if Harvey Milk had been president in the 80s, the same number of homos would have died because homo behavior was out of control and because effective treatment for AIDS was yrs away.
    But homos, having been sacralized by the Jewish media, blame everyone but themselves.
    If even fuddy duddy Allan Bloom died of AIDS cuz his ass was being humped by who-knows-how-many-guys, imagine what the wilder homos were doing? And homos like Michel Foucault continued to bugger guys EVEN WHEN he knew he had AIDS. And rightwing Jew homo Roy Cohn acted the same way. These vain and crazy homos!
    But homos never take any responsibility.

    And then you got the Negroes. Sure, we can sympathize with Negroes cuz of slavery and Jimmy Crow. But the sacralization of Negroes has made it impossible to look at racial reality honestly since the 1960s when the Black Rampage began. Blacks act the way they do because they are a tougher, bigger, and more aggressive race. But in a world of so much black lunacy, the official face of blackness is the Noble Negro of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD who be so innocent and shi*. Or it’s the mountain-sized Negro with a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE.
    With such horseshi* narrative, we are not gonna understand the true nature of the racial problem in America. Especially when so many Negroes are singing vile and ugly rap, the pretense of seeing Negroes as Magic Negroes is especially sickly as Victim Nostalgia.

    Given what blacks have been up to since the 1960s, they are not an Innocent People.
    True, many blacks are law-abiding and not thuggish, but the fact is many blacks are thuggish. Worse, many non-thuggish blacks make excuses for the thugs or scream ‘racist’ when anyone tries to honestly discuss race problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Kissinger? Great you bring up a known mass murdering Zionist war criminal as someone you find compelling. Hardly credible.

    Just saying 'I lost 500 relatives in the holocaust' doesn't make it true.
    Why?
    Because there are huge incentives for Jews to make up stories. They are biased with a conflict of interest.


    "There's no business like Shoah business"
     
    Because they have no proof.

    Thousands upon thousands of people claimed to have been victimized by witches, werewolves, sorcerers. Believe it?
    see 'Witness to Witchcraft'
    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Thz8d65BL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Tell me how these Jews supposedly died.
    Absurd gas chambers that were scientifically impossible?
    see:
    'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

    Shot into enormous pits which have never been excavated, verified, and actually shown?

    also see:
    'Sites Where Excavations Are Physically Obstructed, Blocked'
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9171

    Or how about the only forensic report on the alleged murder weapon presented at Nuremberg, submitted by the Soviets, 'proving that STEAM CHAMBERS killed millions of Jews'?
    Is that how millions of Jews died? Steamed to death like lobsters.
    see:
    'Jews murdered in "steam chambers" presented at Nuremberg'
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8492

    Hey, were just the messengers.

    The entire matter is laughable and so are liars that claim such things.
    see:
    'what "eyewitnesses" & Believers actually say
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7254
    See the Jew who 'escaped and was raised by wolves', or 'the Jew who swallowed her diamonds everyday only to shit them out and repeat the process daily', see 'the Jew who survived SIX gassing attempts', or the 'Jew who breathed through a keyhole' to avoid being gassed, etc., etc.

    Yeah, that IS the 'holocau$t'.

  129. @Wally
    Your own words and low class actions have already proved it.

    Only a desperate Zionist in a state of panic would do this?


    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.
     

    Internet extremist Andrew Mathis admits to collecting IP's!
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6975
    Ouch !!

    This is way too easy.

    You blew it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    No, you have made a fool of yourself yet again.

    "I am a Zionist"

    - Andrew Mathis
     

    The facts:

    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.
     

    from Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let's us know who the prime owners of slaves really were.

    see:
    Suppressing Jewry's Role in Slavery / Familiar Tactics
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7909

    and:
    Dr. Tony Martin - The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

  130. @SolontoCroesus

    Sam Shama: "repetition however, is the ill-endowed stepchild of revelation, and will so remain forever [not to belabour the point, but in many instances, champions of denial are statistical draws from the shallow end of the gene pool as well]
     
    from The Israel Project’s 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY, by Frank Luntz, for The Israel Project,

    We recommend you use all three because the sound repetition drives the point home with three times the effectiveness.
     
    and

    These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social, and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.
     
    and

    A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say “Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!” But don’t confuse messages with facts. All messages must be factually accurate, but the point is to bridge back to your message—for example, to show that Israel is a democracy that wants peace.
     
    and

    K.I.S.S. and tell and tell again and again. A key rule of successful communications is “Keep It Simple, Stupid”. Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values—such as democracy and freedom—and repeating them over and over again.

    Have I written often enough yet that you need to. . . remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again?
     
    and

    we need to repeat the message, on average, ten times to be effective. Go back to the message triangle and practice bridging to your message on Israel.
     
    and

    Yes, we have repeated these concepts over... and over... and over... throughout this dictionary, but that’s just our way of obeying yet another Rule of Effective Communication – Keep It Simple Stupid and REPEAT!
     
    and

    [this use of "repeat" is particularly cynical-- notice how the repetition diametrically shifts the message:]

    WORDS THAT WORK

    . . .
    Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza.
     
    and this use of repetition reveals the Israelist fear that Palestinian voices and messages may pre-empt, or tell the lie to, Israelish messaging:

    You may not want to hear this but the side that seems to want peace more will win the support of the non-aligned public. This is exactly why the Palestinian spokespeople are repeating the word “peace” again and again. [i.e. it's not because Palestinians actually want peace, it's because Palestinians want to win the propaganda battle, per this author.] Unless this explicit desire for peace is conveyed in Israeli communication efforts, Israeli support will erode.
     
    and

    The idea that the fence is not the end—but rather a means to an end— is a point worth making and repeating.
     

    Point remains intact. Regardless of who uses the method and I excuse none. MPAI is the only reason it might succeed.

    Read More
  131. @Brad Smith
    What I find interesting about many of the comments is how they tend to focus on anything and everything negative about Trump. Sure he could be full of BS on this, it could all be for show. But on the other hand you know what you will get with Hillary and it's absolute disastrous.

    Considering that there are exactly two people who stand any chance of being the next president who do you choose? The one you know for a fact will continue the welfare/warfare state unabated? Or do you pick the man who at least says he will try and end the perpetual state of war we are currently in?

    I fully understand being skeptical but come on. Give the man a chance or sit there and do nothing but preach your defeatist rhetoric which will only help Killary. Another option is to simply get the hell out of the way. If you can't personally support Trump because you fear being fooled then at least don't rip on anyone who is willing to take a chance, with fingers crossed, that he means what he says.

    If he does fool us then shame on him but at least the people who voted will have shown what they want from a president and this will embolden the next anti-war candidates. Vote Hillary in and all you have done is shown that war-hawks always win.

    Here’s hoping, Brad,

    What is so very tragic about our entire nomination process is that every single nominee , without exception,seems a wholly owned subsidiary of all the belligerent oligarchs, big banksters, and perpetual warmongers ,the American people really, really despise in the first place….

    Like the race is already lost before it has begun.

    Watching the debates it felt like you were witnessing gesticulating finger puppets of the invisible hand(s)in the back room, more so than ever.

    What was so great about Trump was he was so honest about it, the whole process….saying yeah, I’m a billionaire and I can tell you for a fact everyone up here is totally bought…..I know….because I did the buying.

    People love that stuff…because it punches a hole in the bogus pretense of “authenticity” the candidates all profess to have.

    Trump started out great, shooting and hitting bulls eye after bulls eye, ….people went crazy…they loved it….

    But it seems his message is slightly muddled now, like he is walking the line between throwing in the usual Oligarchic talking points while trying to stay on message….it sounds weird.

    Do you notice that also ?

    Read More
  132. @SolontoCroesus

    There are people on this board, who happen to have direct, or at least the direct benefit of first hand testimony regarding what happened during WWII, including Kiza and I. Having made my position on the matter clear: It is unimportant to me what the precise numbers killed [Jews and others] were, only that it was very high; that it is one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself; I suggest each group remember their own, if only as a deterrent for the future[not likely].
     
    My Father was injured and permanently disabled while fighting in WWII.

    Jewish leaders were in the vanguard of those who started the war.

    Indeed the killing caused by the war in Europe was "one of the great genocides man inflicted upon himself," and Jewish and zionist leaders were, as noted above, key among those who set that genocide in motion; suffered the least from it; among the chief beneficiaries of it; and the loudest and most shameful in claiming victimization, which was the predictable and even planned outcome of it.

    The dishonesty with which the history of that "great genocide" is told and imposed guarantees that it will occur again, as indeed the very same methods and processes that provoked war in 1933 are being deployed by much the same actors against Iraq, Syria, Russia, Iran, and Palestinians, etc. today.

    There were Jewish leaders and many, many more non-Jewish ones, lets be honest.

    You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false. However, if one believes it to be otherwise, one must then concede it implies an astonishing foresight and planning by Jews, spanning many centuries, which together with your assertion that the Holocaust did not really inflict any real pain on Jews, must then persuade you not expect anything different this time.

    But of course you can paint the board.

    Also I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    There you again, alleging the absurdly impossible' holocaust' storyline.

    Follow the money.

    www.forum.codoh.com
    , @RadicalCenter
    I don't think we should be thanking or praising any WW2 veterans for helping the Soviet Union to defeat Germany and thereby enslave tens of millions of people across central and eastern Europe.

    I respect the man's bravery and his doing what he thought was his duty to his country, but he was deceived and misguided and did not do any good on balance.
  133. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    Why don't you give it up?

    Look at this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzibpBS1-Gw

    It seems like Kissinger lost a bunch of relatives in WWII.
    Indeed, there are many stories of Jews who lost relatives in WWII.
    And there were civilians, not soldiers. How could so many Jews have lost so many relatives unless there was something like the Holocaust happening?

    Now, the lesson of WWII and Jews is twofold, and both sides need to learn.

    Extremism of the kind exemplified by Hitler and Himmler was evil. It ended up killing lots of innocent people.
    The other lesson is that Jews need to stop acting crazy, because Jewish craziness will lead to counter-craziness. Now, it's true that Jews were not the ONLY crazies that created the conditions that led to rise of Hitler and WWII. But too many Jews were involved in radical socialism, robbery-financial-capitalism(on a global scale, as in Russia during the 90s), and cultural degeneracy. When Jews do stuff like that, it's either going to subvert society or lead to a counter-revolution that can be sound or sick(as in Nazism).
    Now, Nazism was no way to deal with the Jewish Problem. Furthermore, the Nazi imperialist ambitions killed millions of Slavs as well.

    The terrible reality of today is Jews are doing so many crazy stuff that is half-validating Mein Kampf. All this homo-tranny-degeneracy, all this pornification of mainstream culture(look what Jews did to Disney; it is now Jizney), all this bad behavior on Wall Street, all this war-mongering that led to horror for millions, this war on Russia in a new 'cold war'(that should be called Kosher War), this pressure on EU to take in tons of Muslim refugees displaced by Kosher War in the Middle East, this push for borderless world that destroys races and cultures, this Jewish hypocrisy that invokes Free Speech but pushes 'hate speech laws' to silence critics of Jewish power, and etc. Jews keep this up, and the West will decline and die for good OR there will be a violent counter-revolution that might go after Jews again. Both are pretty dire and depressing.

    If Jews act sane, we can avoid all of that, and everyone can return to normal.

    In a way, Jews have promoted degeneracy and diversity to undermine white majority gentile power, but in the process, Jews might end up achieving the very opposite: a violent backlash and uprising from whites who've had enough(and we are seeing inklings of this in Europe; they bitch about Muslims today but it may come around to naming the Jew). Also, even if whites do lose forever due to Diversity, are Jews assured eternal victory? Look at UK and maybe not. With all those nutty Moos and a Moo mayor and with the Labor Party being anti-Zionist, this diversity that Jews to promote divide-and-conquer might just unite gentiles against Jews. In the UK, the British Left, Moos, and Millennials are united against Zionism.

    The lessons we learned from WWII is incomplete. We learned the important lesson of the dangers of radical racism of Nazism. We also saw how militant imperialism messes up civilizations; Hitler was a pan-European imperialist who messed up other nations. (To be sure, the Nazi evil in Western democratic eyes was that a European nation invaded other European nations. Brits and French obviously had no problem with their own imperialist conquest of much of the world.)
    But we didn't learn the other lesson: The one about all the crazy lowlife things that Jews did to make so many gentiles hate them and even collaborate with Nazis to round them up and kill them. The Holocaust was so horrible that extra-sympathy for Jews was somewhat understandable. Also, Jews and gentile Left had control of most of media and academia in postwar era, so they controlled the narrative.

    To totally discredit the Right, the Nazis had to be made totally evil and insane. I would say Nazis had some rational ideas and valid arguments but those were jumbled with radical racial craziness and pathological imperialist ambitions that poisoned everything.
    But because Nazi evil was so evil, even good Nazi ideas got discredited by association. And then, all critics of Jews and Jewish power(even if they were non- or anti-Nazi) got discredited too. The postwar logic was as follows: Evil Nazis killed Jews, so everything about Nazis must have been evil and everything about Jews must have been good. Since Nazis were totally evil and hated/killed Jews who are totally good and always blameless, ANYONE who holds critical or hostile feelings about Jews must also be a closet-Nazi and evil.
    But in fact, there were plenty of sane and rational critics of Jewish power. Winston Churchill had been one of them too. Indeed, even many Jews found problems with Jews(just like many Wasps found problems with Wasps).

    This sacralization of Jews messed up discourse and our understanding of reality.
    We should not pretend that Jews were pure angels just because they suffered the Holocaust. We can sympathize with Jewish victims, but that doesn't mean all Jews were blameless for what happened.

    It's like this: Consider Japanese and Germans. Many suffered in WWII. Indeed, many innocent Japanese and Germans were harmed or killed in WWII. When bombs fell from the sky, they didn't discriminate between good Germans and bad Germans, pro-Nazi Germans and anti-Germans, etc. When the Bomb dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it didn't discriminate between war-mongers and children/old folks. Nagasaki had a dissident Christian community hated by the militarist government, but they weren't spared by the Bombing either.
    So many innocent Germans and Japanese suffered in WWII. There were many innocent persons or individuals among them.
    Indeed, there are innocent individuals in any nation or society.
    BUT, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent PEOPLE in WWII. The leaders of Germany and Japan embarked upon aggression and war, and sufficient numbers of Germans and Japanese supported those regimes. Now, the concept of a Guilty or Non-Innocent People is unfair because even in a nation ruled by aggressive leaders who are supported by the majority, you are still going to have many people who don't support the leaders and disagree with the agenda. (Also, even the supporters may not be as radical or crazy as the leaders. Many good people supported Nazism or communism for jobs, security, and bread than for ideology.)
    But there is a critical focal point and critical mass in any society. When enough people support a certain kind of power, that community is defined by that power and its agenda.
    So, even though many Germans and Japanese individuals/persons were innocent, Germans and Japanese were not an Innocent People in WWII. So, even though many innocents did suffer in Germany and Japan due to bombing, invasion, rape, and occupation, German People and Japanese People got punished for their 'collective' or 'critical mass' behavior.

    This must apply to Jews as well. While many Jewish individuals were innocent, Jewish People as a whole acted abominably in the interwar yrs. Many of them were involved in Soviet Communism and have serous blood on their hands. They spread radical craziness all over. And these crazy leftist Jews were funded often by capitalist Jews who hated conservative gentile societies more than even Jewish-run communism. Jewish capitalists in the West preferred that Russia be ruled by Jewish communists than by Russian nationalists. (And nothing had changed in this regard. If it takes Pussy Riot and other scum to culturally corrupt Russia so that Jewish-Homo globalists can gain total control of Russia, a lot of Jews in the West are fully supportive of that.) And so many Jewish finance capitalists were doing in the interwar yrs what today's Jewish crooks are doing in Wall Street and all over the world. Just look at the likes of George Soros and Paul Singer. And just how is it that Sheldon Adelson, the nut who called for nuking of Iran(that has no nukes), is allowed to be a major player in US politics?

    So, even though the Holocaust cannot be justified and many innocent Jews died, it wasn't merely the product of German radical sickness targeting a wholly innocent people. It was a violent pathological over-reaction to all the horrible things Jews had done and were doing in the interwar period. Also, even many powerless Jews were supportive of that garbage.
    Even today, most American Jews are not powerful. They are just ordinary professionals doing work and raising families. But even many such people support crazy agenda like the homo-tranny-supremacist agenda, AIPAC nuttiness that wants more wars, and anti-Russian mania all because forever-revenge-for-pogrom-mentality among Jews dreams of total revenge on Russians and total takeover of power.
    While Russian anti-Jewishness was a problem, Jews fail to understand that Russian violence toward Jews was pipsqueak stuff compared to Jewish bloodletting against Russians during the early yrs of Soviet Communism when millions, not mere thousands, perished.

    So, while there are many innocent Jewish individuals, the Jewish People in the 2oth century have not been an Innocent People. They've been one of the great movers-and-shakers of world events, and they were involved with a lot of bad stuff. Of course, many Jews were involved in many good stuff(like many Germans and Japanese did a lot of good in the 20th century). Also, there were Jews who did good and bad, just like there were Germans and Japanese who did some good and some bad. History is usually not about total good guys and total bad guys , or cops and robbers.

    So, unless we see Jews in the 20th century as a Great Powerful People(who did a lot of good as well as good) than an Innocent People, we are not gonna understand truth and reality.

    Same goes for homos and blacks. While we can sympathize with homos who died terribly due to AIDS in the 80s and 90s, the fact is homos brought it upon themselves by buggering one another like rabbits. Even if Harvey Milk had been president in the 80s, the same number of homos would have died because homo behavior was out of control and because effective treatment for AIDS was yrs away.
    But homos, having been sacralized by the Jewish media, blame everyone but themselves.
    If even fuddy duddy Allan Bloom died of AIDS cuz his ass was being humped by who-knows-how-many-guys, imagine what the wilder homos were doing? And homos like Michel Foucault continued to bugger guys EVEN WHEN he knew he had AIDS. And rightwing Jew homo Roy Cohn acted the same way. These vain and crazy homos!
    But homos never take any responsibility.

    And then you got the Negroes. Sure, we can sympathize with Negroes cuz of slavery and Jimmy Crow. But the sacralization of Negroes has made it impossible to look at racial reality honestly since the 1960s when the Black Rampage began. Blacks act the way they do because they are a tougher, bigger, and more aggressive race. But in a world of so much black lunacy, the official face of blackness is the Noble Negro of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD who be so innocent and shi*. Or it's the mountain-sized Negro with a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE.
    With such horseshi* narrative, we are not gonna understand the true nature of the racial problem in America. Especially when so many Negroes are singing vile and ugly rap, the pretense of seeing Negroes as Magic Negroes is especially sickly as Victim Nostalgia.

    Given what blacks have been up to since the 1960s, they are not an Innocent People.
    True, many blacks are law-abiding and not thuggish, but the fact is many blacks are thuggish. Worse, many non-thuggish blacks make excuses for the thugs or scream 'racist' when anyone tries to honestly discuss race problems.

    Kissinger? Great you bring up a known mass murdering Zionist war criminal as someone you find compelling. Hardly credible.

    Just saying ‘I lost 500 relatives in the holocaust’ doesn’t make it true.
    Why?
    Because there are huge incentives for Jews to make up stories. They are biased with a conflict of interest.

    “There’s no business like Shoah business”

    Because they have no proof.

    Thousands upon thousands of people claimed to have been victimized by witches, werewolves, sorcerers. Believe it?
    see ‘Witness to Witchcraft’

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Thz8d65BL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Tell me how these Jews supposedly died.
    Absurd gas chambers that were scientifically impossible?
    see:
    ‘Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

    Shot into enormous pits which have never been excavated, verified, and actually shown?

    also see:
    ‘Sites Where Excavations Are Physically Obstructed, Blocked’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9171

    Or how about the only forensic report on the alleged murder weapon presented at Nuremberg, submitted by the Soviets, ‘proving that STEAM CHAMBERS killed millions of Jews’?
    Is that how millions of Jews died? Steamed to death like lobsters.
    see:
    ‘Jews murdered in “steam chambers” presented at Nuremberg’

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8492

    Hey, were just the messengers.

    The entire matter is laughable and so are liars that claim such things.
    see:
    ‘what “eyewitnesses” & Believers actually say

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7254

    See the Jew who ‘escaped and was raised by wolves’, or ‘the Jew who swallowed her diamonds everyday only to shit them out and repeat the process daily’, see ‘the Jew who survived SIX gassing attempts’, or the ‘Jew who breathed through a keyhole’ to avoid being gassed, etc., etc.

    Yeah, that IS the ‘holocau$t’.

    Read More
  134. @Sam Shama
    As usual you misunderstand. Perhaps deliberately.

    I simply speculated that the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites, might indeed act as a deterrent. But, forget that line of thought and your resulting emissions.

    Also a little less of the f-bombs and bs would be helpful, including that idiotic charge of misogyny. Like the Donald, I love and respect women, ok? [including Megyn]

    How do you reconcile your position with the fact that the overwhelming majority of polls reveal an average of a 25 point disadvantage for DT among women? And have you any ideas about how to go about remedying it? There is no chance on earth he wins nationally with those handicaps! Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds. If you have any serious answers let us know.

    the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites

    but of course that’s the point. The elites are very far removed from any negative consequences of the hornets they unleash on the average citizen

    even if Angela Merkel wasn’t an ugly slag, she still would have nothing to fear from the rapists and thugs she’s inviting in to torment Germany. The elites live in an iron bubble of protection from the horrors they force their people to suffer.

    Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds

    not from what I’m seeing

    my personal polls show the women I know are enamored with the Don, and despise the blood-stained, lying gorgon

    and if the Don needs more support, perhaps I could join the ticket

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    why not ?

    Rurik for Vice President ! ? !
    , @Kiza
    This point does not stand - if our society falls apart, the elites will feel it - they still use the majority of the same societal facilities as you and I (for example, the streets). The only thing the elite can do and you and I cannot when the society goes to the hornets or the dogs (no pejorative meaning intended), is a dash to an escape pod - an island in the Pacific or a farm in New Zealand. Yet, in such escape pod they are losers too, because they do not have us, thus they are not an elite any more, only the survivors. Who is going to take out the garbage or clean their toilets there?
  135. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sam Shama
    There were Jewish leaders and many, many more non-Jewish ones, lets be honest.

    You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false. However, if one believes it to be otherwise, one must then concede it implies an astonishing foresight and planning by Jews, spanning many centuries, which together with your assertion that the Holocaust did not really inflict any real pain on Jews, must then persuade you not expect anything different this time.

    But of course you can paint the board.

    Also I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.

    There you again, alleging the absurdly impossible’ holocaust’ storyline.

    Follow the money.

    http://www.forum.codoh.com

    Read More
  136. @Brad Smith
    What I find interesting about many of the comments is how they tend to focus on anything and everything negative about Trump. Sure he could be full of BS on this, it could all be for show. But on the other hand you know what you will get with Hillary and it's absolute disastrous.

    Considering that there are exactly two people who stand any chance of being the next president who do you choose? The one you know for a fact will continue the welfare/warfare state unabated? Or do you pick the man who at least says he will try and end the perpetual state of war we are currently in?

    I fully understand being skeptical but come on. Give the man a chance or sit there and do nothing but preach your defeatist rhetoric which will only help Killary. Another option is to simply get the hell out of the way. If you can't personally support Trump because you fear being fooled then at least don't rip on anyone who is willing to take a chance, with fingers crossed, that he means what he says.

    If he does fool us then shame on him but at least the people who voted will have shown what they want from a president and this will embolden the next anti-war candidates. Vote Hillary in and all you have done is shown that war-hawks always win.

    Wholeheartedly agreed. I typically vote “third party” in presidential elections, but this time I will be voting TRUMP.

    Read More
  137. You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false.

    What is observably false is that S2C “suggested that non-Jews were completely hypnotized by Jews.” No such suggestion was made.

    It is, nonetheless, observably true that several of the most prominent proponents of war, who were closest to Franklin Roosevelt at crucial times and for the longest periods, were highly influential Jews, chief among them Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Rabbi Samuel Wise, Erich Mendelsohn, and Samuel Untermyer. These are irrefutable facts.

    It is also true that many non-Jews — in fact, loudly professing Christians — were also prominent proponents of war; they included Rockefellers, Henry Luce, Wendall Willkie, Francis Pickens Miller, Herbert Agar and a host of other (mostly) men, mostly scions of wealthy families, mostly graduates of East Coast prep schools and Ivies, most Anglophiles.

    Prominent Americans who opposed war were demonized then and are being demonized all over again today, in a bid to protect the fantasy narrative of WWII (see, for example, Dominique’s latest diaperful, @129*). Those persons include Henry Ford, Sr (his son, Edsel, was suborned into supporting war), SC Justice James McReynolds, and Charles Lindbergh.

    What is most important to absorb about the constellations arrayed — and the then-Jewish now Israelists within it — to promote and provoke American involvement in a war in which the USA had no real interests, and to which the American people were adamantly opposed in the run-up to World War II is that many of the same positions of influence held by Jewish persons then are held by Jewish persons now, and those positions are being used to the same effect — then, against Germany; now, against Iran and others.

    I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.

    Keep your hat on your head; Don’t insult my Father’s memory.

    What Franklin Roosevelt & Winston Churchill caused to be done to the German people and to millions of other Europeans and Japanese, civilians and disarmed military alike, were war crimes and crimes against humanity of the greatest magnitude the world has known. Allies killed more French civilians by terror bombing than Germans killed French soldiers in military action. In a round-table discussion recorded in Commentary magazine in the early 1960s, Charles Evans Hughes asserted that the firebombing of Germany was the first modern usage of weapons of mass destruction in a terror campaign.
    Like so many other WWII draftee-veterans, my Father never spoke of the war — and he never once expressed hatred or an ungenerous spirit. It occurs to me that his injury was a blessing: he left the battlefield before (to the best of my knowledge) he was forced to kill anybody.

    *Dominique’s fantasy fails on several essential points, chief among them at the level of chronology. A thorough refutation of the DFS fantasy narrative is for another day, but lest less critically alert souls take the words of #129 as gospel, it must be noted that Hitler and the NSDAP presented no evidence whatsoever of “imperial ambitions” from Jan. 30, 1933 until the dastardly Munich Agreement in 1938, yet in Feb. 1933 Louis Brandeis directed that “all Jews must leave Germany,” and by March 24, 1933 “International Jewry” published plans laid in a confab in Belgium earlier that year, to declare and prosecute war on Germany and “bring Germany to its knees,” and “destroy the export trade upon which the German economy depended.”
    Friendly Tip from one keyboard warrior to another (DFS): 1938 comes after 1933.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Your version of WW2 history, Hitler's statesmanship etc. is mostly bs. I might write about this in due course when I have more time. Better yet I recall reading commentator Random Observer 's brilliant posts on this very same subject. I'll try to find his responses, however if the gentleman happens to be reading this thread, I should like to request his thoughts on the matter.

    What else? Ah your 'Father' [I am curious about the capitalisation, unless you mean, well...crikey..... I'll certainly keep my hat in place ]

  138. @Sam Shama
    There were Jewish leaders and many, many more non-Jewish ones, lets be honest.

    You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false. However, if one believes it to be otherwise, one must then concede it implies an astonishing foresight and planning by Jews, spanning many centuries, which together with your assertion that the Holocaust did not really inflict any real pain on Jews, must then persuade you not expect anything different this time.

    But of course you can paint the board.

    Also I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.

    I don’t think we should be thanking or praising any WW2 veterans for helping the Soviet Union to defeat Germany and thereby enslave tens of millions of people across central and eastern Europe.

    I respect the man’s bravery and his doing what he thought was his duty to his country, but he was deceived and misguided and did not do any good on balance.

    Read More
  139. @Rurik

    the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites
     
    but of course that's the point. The elites are very far removed from any negative consequences of the hornets they unleash on the average citizen

    even if Angela Merkel wasn't an ugly slag, she still would have nothing to fear from the rapists and thugs she's inviting in to torment Germany. The elites live in an iron bubble of protection from the horrors they force their people to suffer.

    Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds

     

    not from what I'm seeing

    my personal polls show the women I know are enamored with the Don, and despise the blood-stained, lying gorgon

    and if the Don needs more support, perhaps I could join the ticket

    why not ?

    Rurik for Vice President ! ? !

    Read More
  140. @Rurik

    the hornets, if experienced up close by all, including elites
     
    but of course that's the point. The elites are very far removed from any negative consequences of the hornets they unleash on the average citizen

    even if Angela Merkel wasn't an ugly slag, she still would have nothing to fear from the rapists and thugs she's inviting in to torment Germany. The elites live in an iron bubble of protection from the horrors they force their people to suffer.

    Hillary is running the table in that regard if you take a moment to run the odds

     

    not from what I'm seeing

    my personal polls show the women I know are enamored with the Don, and despise the blood-stained, lying gorgon

    and if the Don needs more support, perhaps I could join the ticket

    This point does not stand – if our society falls apart, the elites will feel it – they still use the majority of the same societal facilities as you and I (for example, the streets). The only thing the elite can do and you and I cannot when the society goes to the hornets or the dogs (no pejorative meaning intended), is a dash to an escape pod – an island in the Pacific or a farm in New Zealand. Yet, in such escape pod they are losers too, because they do not have us, thus they are not an elite any more, only the survivors. Who is going to take out the garbage or clean their toilets there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    if our society falls apart, the elites will feel it
     
    not a chance Kiza

    I'm talking about the upper echelons

    the Dick Cheneys and George Soroses of the world. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers and Clintons and Bushes and Victoria Nuland and the rest of the Kagans

    these people don't use roads like the rest of us or ride in passenger jets, even in first class. They have private jets and use private airports. When's the last time John McCain's daughter was accosted by a Mexican or Muslim refugee who spoke little or no English? They wouldn't get within a city block of someone like her.

    Do you think Merkel has had a Muslim look crossways at her on a train or taxi cab? The only reason she's foisting those people on Germany is because there is exactly zero chance in hell that she personally is going to suffer any consequences other than the rage of the German people, which she doesn't care about, because she's protected by the .00000001% that tell her what to do.

    Just consider someone like Tony Blair, or George Bush. These guys have done more evil to the people of the world than any terrorist could possibly accomplish, yet they're completely and absolutely shielded and sheltered from any of the negative consequences of what they've wrought on the world. And they're the second or third tier down from the real elites that order them around like the sniveling cowards that they are.

    They don't need bunkers, because they travel in completely different modes than the people whose lives they ruin so casually. It's the working class Brits whose daughters will be gang raped and sold as slaves. Not the family of the queen, who presides over the destruction of England with haughty indifference.

    Men like Paul Ryan and John McCain betray their nations and people because they're promised a lifestyle that will protect them from the consequences of their treasonous actions. Wealth and security guaranteed for life. Exclusive golf courses and three star restaurants and island sex havens, so long as they continue to toe the line.

    Fuck up, and they get the Dennis Hastert treatment.

    That's the way of it. I believe most of these people have a deep and visceral hatred for the people of the countries they're betraying. I suspect they become like Caligula, and want to murder us all, for our ingratitude at their personal greatness.

    So no, I don't see any threat of Angela Merkel suffering harm for all the strife she's bringing on her country folk. Or Tony Blair or George Bush or Obama or any of the rest of them. They will be protected, by the true elites that they serve.
  141. @Sam Shama
    I must say my own path as a Trump supporter has been quite similar to your own, not to neglect the added attraction of his economic policies, which, if one correctly estimates, hold the potential to unleash long-term benefits for Americans. Trump understands debt very well and my suspicion is, he is deliberately playing fast and loose with his missives, to be fait accomplied in the fullness of time, with a major public briefing similar to his foreign policy speech, putting to rest, or rather in chaos, minds of the chattering class. I do so believe he wants to purge the neocon influence from the party and bring back some measure of Buchananite conservatism.

    My only worry now, concerns his true standing with women; for if one were to take the results of MSM polls and pronouncements, he is at a serious disadvantage, reversible only through ritual prostrations before the television matriarchy.

    Thanks also for the saved CT interview in TAC.

    Thew MSM polls have all been wishful thinking.The wish being the hell bitch.
    Trump will tear her a new asshole.
    But don’t count Sanders out yet,like the MSM wishes.(again)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I am inclined to agree with you, but can't be as confident. It seems women really do find Donald's attitude off putting at least, disgusting more commonly. About Bernie I am caught in two minds: he has a great deal of integrity, but socialism...no thank you
  142. @iffen
    Sometimes the shiny stone found at the seashore is not the Rosetta Stone for Linear A. Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.

    Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.

    Are you suggesting there isn’t a causal link between these two statements:

    1. As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence…

    2. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am suggesting that a sample of 1 does not indicate a pattern.

    Your diplomats are a combination of incompetent and political opportunists. Many of them actually believe in the idea that regime replacement will allow “democracy” to flourish. Most are publically obsequious to the lobby/Lobby and the Zionists in the US. If you take the pulse of America, most support the existence of Israel. Why shouldn’t their criminal politicians give them what they want? It is the same principle in operation with the Trump nomination. If that is what the majority wants, why shouldn’t they have it?

    I keep repeating my disagreements with you.

    Some Israeli politicians may think that chaotic non-states will be good for Israel. (I happen to think that they are wrong.) Some American politicians will play into that if they think that it is politically advantageous. I think what they would really like is something like Chalabi, as you pointed out. That Shah thing worked for many years.

    Most Americans support the existence of Israel. There is nothing sinister about political opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that’s the definition.

    There is no Jewish matrix.
  143. @Avery
    {Against a country that started a war against us with one of the most dastardly sneak attacks in history.}

    Quite true: Japanese attacked US military at Pearl, not civilian targets.

    {Japs had it coming. I’m glad we nuked ‘em.}

    Yes, I am sure all those Japanese children and babies had it coming.
    And I am sure you are glad we murdered children.

    {Lots of anti-war types repel patriotic Americans with their anti-American sentiments.}

    Nothing patriotic or American about killing children.
    Lots of anti-American, un-American warmongering types who get excited about murdering children repel true American patriots.

    The Japanese had good reason to dislike US actions,which stopped raw materials necessary for Japans prosperity and war effort in China.And their diplomats screwed the pooch,and failed to deliver the state of war documents on time,in Washington.
    The true f*ck ups were the admirals and generals who didn’t have their men on alert,or at least somewhat so,as they were caught with their pants down.And few civilians died,in fact america had almost none die in ww2,so the bloodlust for Japanese civilian deaths is suspect.
    And nuking civilians in 2 terror attacks was definitely not kosher(hoho),especially when the Japanese were on their last legs,but one also has to factor in the war weary American,British and other allied peoples tired of years of destructive and brutal war.And the presence of Truman in the WH,not the caliber of man that FDR was,an accidental POTUS.
    Invading Japan could have been a very problematic event,also,as guerrillas even today give our modern war machines many problems.
    Truman sucked actually,the CIA and Zion come to mind,along with the nuclear attacks.

    Read More
  144. @Anonymous
    You think only a Zionist cares about genocide denial?

    In a word, yes. You don’t see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed. The ONLY reason this is a hot-button topic is because it concerns Jews and their political interests, i.e. Zionism. If every preposterous thing the Germans have been accused of doing happened to some other group, we would rarely hear about it as opposed to almost daily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    You don’t see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed.
     
    Are you retarded or just not particularly well read?
  145. @Kiza
    This point does not stand - if our society falls apart, the elites will feel it - they still use the majority of the same societal facilities as you and I (for example, the streets). The only thing the elite can do and you and I cannot when the society goes to the hornets or the dogs (no pejorative meaning intended), is a dash to an escape pod - an island in the Pacific or a farm in New Zealand. Yet, in such escape pod they are losers too, because they do not have us, thus they are not an elite any more, only the survivors. Who is going to take out the garbage or clean their toilets there?

    if our society falls apart, the elites will feel it

    not a chance Kiza

    I’m talking about the upper echelons

    the Dick Cheneys and George Soroses of the world. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers and Clintons and Bushes and Victoria Nuland and the rest of the Kagans

    these people don’t use roads like the rest of us or ride in passenger jets, even in first class. They have private jets and use private airports. When’s the last time John McCain’s daughter was accosted by a Mexican or Muslim refugee who spoke little or no English? They wouldn’t get within a city block of someone like her.

    Do you think Merkel has had a Muslim look crossways at her on a train or taxi cab? The only reason she’s foisting those people on Germany is because there is exactly zero chance in hell that she personally is going to suffer any consequences other than the rage of the German people, which she doesn’t care about, because she’s protected by the .00000001% that tell her what to do.

    Just consider someone like Tony Blair, or George Bush. These guys have done more evil to the people of the world than any terrorist could possibly accomplish, yet they’re completely and absolutely shielded and sheltered from any of the negative consequences of what they’ve wrought on the world. And they’re the second or third tier down from the real elites that order them around like the sniveling cowards that they are.

    They don’t need bunkers, because they travel in completely different modes than the people whose lives they ruin so casually. It’s the working class Brits whose daughters will be gang raped and sold as slaves. Not the family of the queen, who presides over the destruction of England with haughty indifference.

    Men like Paul Ryan and John McCain betray their nations and people because they’re promised a lifestyle that will protect them from the consequences of their treasonous actions. Wealth and security guaranteed for life. Exclusive golf courses and three star restaurants and island sex havens, so long as they continue to toe the line.

    Fuck up, and they get the Dennis Hastert treatment.

    That’s the way of it. I believe most of these people have a deep and visceral hatred for the people of the countries they’re betraying. I suspect they become like Caligula, and want to murder us all, for our ingratitude at their personal greatness.

    So no, I don’t see any threat of Angela Merkel suffering harm for all the strife she’s bringing on her country folk. Or Tony Blair or George Bush or Obama or any of the rest of them. They will be protected, by the true elites that they serve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Fuck up, and they get the Dennis Hastert treatment. " - Can you elaborate why did they [who?] go after Hastert?
  146. @utu
    "the good guys and the Zionists" - Not being a Zionist makes you good? There are lots of Jews who are not Zionists and they are as bad as you can imagine. Israel and Zionist is often a distraction from much bigger problems. Zionism did not create Jews but Jews created Zionism.

    The clash is between the elite (the 0.01%-ers, the Anglo-Zionists) and the rest of us, because of the social contract obliterated by the elite (stealing everything they can lay their hands on, foreign or domestic), much less about religion or ethnicity or race or anything else.

    Not being a Zionist makes you good?

    Think about it as Zionist=rotten bad and non-Zionist=everything else.

    Zionism did not create Jews but Jews created Zionism.

    This is a catchy (like advertising) but rather senseless phrase, especially because there are so many goyim servants of Zionism, worse than the Zionists themselves (e.g. Dick Cheney).
    Ordinary Anglos and ordinary Jews are the rest of us.

    Read More
  147. @geokat62

    Sometimes it is just a shiny stone.
     
    Are you suggesting there isn't a causal link between these two statements:

    1. As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force behind “surges” of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, in demanding the attacks on Libya and the overthrow of its leader and in the arming of jihadis in Syria to bring about regime change. Bombing Libya was indeed a Hillary project, initiated at her insistence...

    2. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.
     

    I am suggesting that a sample of 1 does not indicate a pattern.

    Your diplomats are a combination of incompetent and political opportunists. Many of them actually believe in the idea that regime replacement will allow “democracy” to flourish. Most are publically obsequious to the lobby/Lobby and the Zionists in the US. If you take the pulse of America, most support the existence of Israel. Why shouldn’t their criminal politicians give them what they want? It is the same principle in operation with the Trump nomination. If that is what the majority wants, why shouldn’t they have it?

    I keep repeating my disagreements with you.

    Some Israeli politicians may think that chaotic non-states will be good for Israel. (I happen to think that they are wrong.) Some American politicians will play into that if they think that it is politically advantageous. I think what they would really like is something like Chalabi, as you pointed out. That Shah thing worked for many years.

    Most Americans support the existence of Israel. There is nothing sinister about political opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that’s the definition.

    There is no Jewish matrix.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    There is no Jewish matrix.
     
    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix. All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby... or do you agree with Hillary that the US has a "strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security"?
  148. @Beefcake the Mighty
    In a word, yes. You don't see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed. The ONLY reason this is a hot-button topic is because it concerns Jews and their political interests, i.e. Zionism. If every preposterous thing the Germans have been accused of doing happened to some other group, we would rarely hear about it as opposed to almost daily.

    You don’t see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed.

    Are you retarded or just not particularly well read?

    Read More
  149. @SolontoCroesus

    You are suggesting that the non-Jews were completely hypnotised by Jews, their own wills utterly subdued. That is observably false.
     
    What is observably false is that S2C "suggested that non-Jews were completely hypnotized by Jews." No such suggestion was made.

    It is, nonetheless, observably true that several of the most prominent proponents of war, who were closest to Franklin Roosevelt at crucial times and for the longest periods, were highly influential Jews, chief among them Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Harry Dexter White, Rabbi Samuel Wise, Erich Mendelsohn, and Samuel Untermyer. These are irrefutable facts.

    It is also true that many non-Jews -- in fact, loudly professing Christians -- were also prominent proponents of war; they included Rockefellers, Henry Luce, Wendall Willkie, Francis Pickens Miller, Herbert Agar and a host of other (mostly) men, mostly scions of wealthy families, mostly graduates of East Coast prep schools and Ivies, most Anglophiles.

    Prominent Americans who opposed war were demonized then and are being demonized all over again today, in a bid to protect the fantasy narrative of WWII (see, for example, Dominique's latest diaperful, @129*). Those persons include Henry Ford, Sr (his son, Edsel, was suborned into supporting war), SC Justice James McReynolds, and Charles Lindbergh.

    What is most important to absorb about the constellations arrayed -- and the then-Jewish now Israelists within it -- to promote and provoke American involvement in a war in which the USA had no real interests, and to which the American people were adamantly opposed in the run-up to World War II is that many of the same positions of influence held by Jewish persons then are held by Jewish persons now, and those positions are being used to the same effect -- then, against Germany; now, against Iran and others.


    I tip my hat for you father; I really do; for all WWII veterans. They destroyed Hitler.
     
    Keep your hat on your head; Don't insult my Father's memory.

    What Franklin Roosevelt & Winston Churchill caused to be done to the German people and to millions of other Europeans and Japanese, civilians and disarmed military alike, were war crimes and crimes against humanity of the greatest magnitude the world has known. Allies killed more French civilians by terror bombing than Germans killed French soldiers in military action. In a round-table discussion recorded in Commentary magazine in the early 1960s, Charles Evans Hughes asserted that the firebombing of Germany was the first modern usage of weapons of mass destruction in a terror campaign.
    Like so many other WWII draftee-veterans, my Father never spoke of the war -- and he never once expressed hatred or an ungenerous spirit. It occurs to me that his injury was a blessing: he left the battlefield before (to the best of my knowledge) he was forced to kill anybody.

    ---

    *Dominique's fantasy fails on several essential points, chief among them at the level of chronology. A thorough refutation of the DFS fantasy narrative is for another day, but lest less critically alert souls take the words of #129 as gospel, it must be noted that Hitler and the NSDAP presented no evidence whatsoever of "imperial ambitions" from Jan. 30, 1933 until the dastardly Munich Agreement in 1938, yet in Feb. 1933 Louis Brandeis directed that "all Jews must leave Germany," and by March 24, 1933 "International Jewry" published plans laid in a confab in Belgium earlier that year, to declare and prosecute war on Germany and "bring Germany to its knees," and "destroy the export trade upon which the German economy depended."
    Friendly Tip from one keyboard warrior to another (DFS): 1938 comes after 1933.

    Your version of WW2 history, Hitler’s statesmanship etc. is mostly bs. I might write about this in due course when I have more time. Better yet I recall reading commentator Random Observer ‘s brilliant posts on this very same subject. I’ll try to find his responses, however if the gentleman happens to be reading this thread, I should like to request his thoughts on the matter.

    What else? Ah your ‘Father’ [I am curious about the capitalisation, unless you mean, well...crikey..... I'll certainly keep my hat in place ]

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    We will remember you in our evening prayers, Sam Shama.
    , @L.K
    No, Sam Shame, it is the victor's version of WWII which is mostly BS, and, deep down, u probably know it too, even if just instinctively.

    Of course u are going to try and grab someone else's obfuscation, since you are clearly totally out of your depth re WWII.

    It also does NOT help that you r clearly a jewish supremacist and zionist shill, who lies as easily as most people breathe...

    Off the top of my head, I remember the following perls by Sam:

    - claiming Israel is the most diverse and multi-cultural country in the world, all those poles, russians, germans, iraquis, moroccans, etc... Good one, eh? These jewish supremacists think they are really clever.

    - weasily trying to deflect attention from the fact Israel is an Apartheid state by saying ZUSA is also, if in indirect ways, an Apartheid country. BS

    - defending the idf sissy criminals and their well established record for killing civilians, including children. After all, we should just believe Sam, who, after all, has buddies in the idf.

    - having the gall to claim that his idf sissies could not win - in fact they were badly defeated - in Lebanon in 06, due to very strict "rules of engagement", buhahahahhaha, what a dishonest, sad little liar. Israel carpet bombed lebanon, to the point even american military observers were apalled.

    And the list goes on and on...
  150. @Andrew E. Mathis

    You don’t see heated debates over what happened to the Armenians or how many people Stalin killed.
     
    Are you retarded or just not particularly well read?

    Both.

    Read More
  151. @iffen
    I am suggesting that a sample of 1 does not indicate a pattern.

    Your diplomats are a combination of incompetent and political opportunists. Many of them actually believe in the idea that regime replacement will allow “democracy” to flourish. Most are publically obsequious to the lobby/Lobby and the Zionists in the US. If you take the pulse of America, most support the existence of Israel. Why shouldn’t their criminal politicians give them what they want? It is the same principle in operation with the Trump nomination. If that is what the majority wants, why shouldn’t they have it?

    I keep repeating my disagreements with you.

    Some Israeli politicians may think that chaotic non-states will be good for Israel. (I happen to think that they are wrong.) Some American politicians will play into that if they think that it is politically advantageous. I think what they would really like is something like Chalabi, as you pointed out. That Shah thing worked for many years.

    Most Americans support the existence of Israel. There is nothing sinister about political opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that’s the definition.

    There is no Jewish matrix.

    There is no Jewish matrix.

    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix. All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby… or do you agree with Hillary that the US has a “strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix.

    I am saying that you write like you think there is one. It skews your thinking.

    All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby…

    Granted, but if you do it 50 times per day something is wrong.

    do you agree with Hillary that the US has a “strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security”?

    "I" do not perceive Israel's existence or non-existence as affecting what "I" would say is my nation's national interests. That does not change the fact that most Americans support the existence of Israel and will expect their political leaders to defend Israel against threats. What is or is not a threat to Israel can be up for grabs.
    , @L.K
    zio shill 'iffen' goes: 'There is no Jewish matrix'

    geokat replies: 'Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix. All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby...'

    Huh?? Do u, Geokat, think that the bloody Lobby exists in a vacumm??

    The Lobby is a component of something much larger; the matrix of Jew power.
    And what makes the Jewish power configuration so effective?
    The combination of the tribe overwhelming control of media, entertainment, academia/think-tanks, the financial 'industry'(aka, the looting industry), etc.
    All this in the hands of an extremely hyper-ethnocentric, highly cohesive group of people
    All this very well documented, just not well known.
    It's past time to call a spade a spade.
  152. @Sam Shama
    Your version of WW2 history, Hitler's statesmanship etc. is mostly bs. I might write about this in due course when I have more time. Better yet I recall reading commentator Random Observer 's brilliant posts on this very same subject. I'll try to find his responses, however if the gentleman happens to be reading this thread, I should like to request his thoughts on the matter.

    What else? Ah your 'Father' [I am curious about the capitalisation, unless you mean, well...crikey..... I'll certainly keep my hat in place ]

    We will remember you in our evening prayers, Sam Shama.

    Read More
  153. @dahoit
    Thew MSM polls have all been wishful thinking.The wish being the hell bitch.
    Trump will tear her a new asshole.
    But don't count Sanders out yet,like the MSM wishes.(again)

    I am inclined to agree with you, but can’t be as confident. It seems women really do find Donald’s attitude off putting at least, disgusting more commonly. About Bernie I am caught in two minds: he has a great deal of integrity, but socialism…no thank you

    Read More
  154. @Sam Shama
    Your version of WW2 history, Hitler's statesmanship etc. is mostly bs. I might write about this in due course when I have more time. Better yet I recall reading commentator Random Observer 's brilliant posts on this very same subject. I'll try to find his responses, however if the gentleman happens to be reading this thread, I should like to request his thoughts on the matter.

    What else? Ah your 'Father' [I am curious about the capitalisation, unless you mean, well...crikey..... I'll certainly keep my hat in place ]

    No, Sam Shame, it is the victor’s version of WWII which is mostly BS, and, deep down, u probably know it too, even if just instinctively.

    Of course u are going to try and grab someone else’s obfuscation, since you are clearly totally out of your depth re WWII.

    It also does NOT help that you r clearly a jewish supremacist and zionist shill, who lies as easily as most people breathe…

    Off the top of my head, I remember the following perls by Sam:

    - claiming Israel is the most diverse and multi-cultural country in the world, all those poles, russians, germans, iraquis, moroccans, etc… Good one, eh? These jewish supremacists think they are really clever.

    - weasily trying to deflect attention from the fact Israel is an Apartheid state by saying ZUSA is also, if in indirect ways, an Apartheid country. BS

    - defending the idf sissy criminals and their well established record for killing civilians, including children. After all, we should just believe Sam, who, after all, has buddies in the idf.

    - having the gall to claim that his idf sissies could not win – in fact they were badly defeated – in Lebanon in 06, due to very strict “rules of engagement”, buhahahahhaha, what a dishonest, sad little liar. Israel carpet bombed lebanon, to the point even american military observers were apalled.

    And the list goes on and on…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world - the victorious and the ones wish to be.
  155. @geokat62

    There is no Jewish matrix.
     
    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix. All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby... or do you agree with Hillary that the US has a "strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security"?

    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix.

    I am saying that you write like you think there is one. It skews your thinking.

    All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby…

    Granted, but if you do it 50 times per day something is wrong.

    do you agree with Hillary that the US has a “strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security”?

    “I” do not perceive Israel’s existence or non-existence as affecting what “I” would say is my nation’s national interests. That does not change the fact that most Americans support the existence of Israel and will expect their political leaders to defend Israel against threats. What is or is not a threat to Israel can be up for grabs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    It skews your thinking.
     
    Oh, my thinking is skewed. Listen, those of us who have been at this ever since 9/11 are not the ones whose thinking is skewed. We are the ones who were able to connect the dots early on that the Lobby was responsible for hijacking US foreign policy. We were the ones who knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. That he had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, that he had no weapons of mass deception.

    If we have to repeat things 50 times a day it's because of commenters such as yourself who are trying hard to convince the dumb goy that Israel had nothing to do with the regime change program that was launched to remove Saddam from Iraq, Qaddafi from Libya, Assad from Syria (still in progress).

    And you yourself have just provided another stellar example of what I'm taking about:


    “I” do not perceive Israel’s existence or non-existence as affecting what “I” would say is my nation’s national interests.
     
    You say this after supposedly reading Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, an essay in which these two truth-telling professors make a rock solid case that the Zionist project is a liability to the US - that it is harming the interests of the American people. No amount of obfuscation on your part or the part of other defenders of the Zionist project can change this irrefutable fact.
  156. @L.K
    No, Sam Shame, it is the victor's version of WWII which is mostly BS, and, deep down, u probably know it too, even if just instinctively.

    Of course u are going to try and grab someone else's obfuscation, since you are clearly totally out of your depth re WWII.

    It also does NOT help that you r clearly a jewish supremacist and zionist shill, who lies as easily as most people breathe...

    Off the top of my head, I remember the following perls by Sam:

    - claiming Israel is the most diverse and multi-cultural country in the world, all those poles, russians, germans, iraquis, moroccans, etc... Good one, eh? These jewish supremacists think they are really clever.

    - weasily trying to deflect attention from the fact Israel is an Apartheid state by saying ZUSA is also, if in indirect ways, an Apartheid country. BS

    - defending the idf sissy criminals and their well established record for killing civilians, including children. After all, we should just believe Sam, who, after all, has buddies in the idf.

    - having the gall to claim that his idf sissies could not win - in fact they were badly defeated - in Lebanon in 06, due to very strict "rules of engagement", buhahahahhaha, what a dishonest, sad little liar. Israel carpet bombed lebanon, to the point even american military observers were apalled.

    And the list goes on and on...

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus, Rurik
    • Replies: @geokat62

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.
     
    There are two types of people in the world - those who believe the end justifies the means and those who believe moral principles should be adhered to.

    For you to suggest people should be measured by the extent to which they are "victorious" implies that you belong to the Machiavellian camp.
    , @Art
    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    Sam,

    How short term of you - typical Jew think - have you ever heard of win-win?

    Win-win goes on and on -- whereas your win-lose is short lived.

    History says that all the victors are replaced sooner more often then latter.

    Your crazy Big Jew - Netanyahu - is setting you'll up for a fall - enjoy it while it lasts.

    Art

    p.s. We at the home will look out for Moshe - we love him - he is a mensch.

    p.s. He gets win-win - he doesn't see the world through your zero-sum Jew colored glasses.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    There are [mostly], two three types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be. -- and liars.
     
  157. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    It's been said WWI and WWII are responsible for the demise of Europe we are seeing today. All that white-vs-white animosity in the great wars led to fall of nations, loss of sovereignty to Jews and Americans, loss of moral confidence, shame of war and destruction, and etc. Europe bled itself dry, and so, it is now facing decline and death.
    There is some truth to that view. WWI and WWII were indeed horribly devastating.

    But as John Lukacs might say, "it's true but not true enough."

    After all, if war and destruction are to blame for the current downfall of Europe, how come Eastern Europe is faring better in standing up to the current migration-invasion crisis? How come nationalism is still alive and well in parts of Eastern Europe? This is all the more surprising when more people died in those areas than in parts of Western Europe, some of which were hardly touched by war, if at all.

    Some of the worst bloodlands were in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, and etc. But Poland is nationalistic. Hungary is nationalistic. Russia believes in nationalism. Ukraine is fervently nationalist. If it has allied with EU, it's only as counterweight against Russia.

    In contrast, nations like Spain and Sweden were spared both WWI and WWII. And Italy's losses in WWI and WWII weren't that huge, at least compared to nations like Poland and USSR. Norway was occupied by Germany in WWII, but it was hardly a main theater of war. UK sent soldiers to fight in France in WWI but English soil was not touched by the war. And damage to UK itself was limited during WWII. It was nothing like what happened on the continent.

    So, how is it that European nations that suffered less in WWI and WWII have lost their confidence and are surrendering to invasion and ruin?
    In contrast, how come some of the nations that were most destroyed by WWI and WWII are standing firm and being nationalistic?

    Could it be that the real reason for Western demise is not the death and destruction of WWI and WWII but the fabulously good times, peace, and prosperity that followed WWII? La Dolce Vita? The Sweet Life? Also, student radicalism of the 60s was largely the product of privilege and good times. It was mostly middle class kids play-acting as Che Guevara or Mao Zedong. It was like 'larping'.

    As destructive as the internecine wars in Europe were, they boosted nationalism & survivalism and harbored culture of suspicion. Sure, it was tragic that white nations fought white nations and white people killed white people. But when European nations distrusted one another, they were inclined to be more nationalistic, more particularist, more skeptical of outsiders. After all, white people who can't trust other white peoples aren't likely to trust non-whites. If Brits didn't trust the French, why would they have trusted blacks or Pakis? When Germans didn't like Poles, why would they have liked Muslims or Asians? After all, Israeli Jewish distrust of Palestinians boosts Jewish nationalism even though both Jews and Arabs are Semites. If Jewish Semites don't trust Arab Semites, they certainly aren't going to trust non-Semites. If Jewish Semites made peace with Arab Semites, Jews might become 'welcoming' of more non-Jewish peoples.

    As horrible as WWI and especially WWII were, Europe recovered fast in the second half of the 20th century. In a few decades, Europeans never had it so good. They had rising incomes, plenty of jobs, peace, prosperity, expanding college enrollments, generous welfare, more social trust, and etc. Also, more cooperation among nations. It should have been a happy story with Western Europe finally united under peace, prosperity, and trust.

    So, what went wrong? It could be that these very good things --- peace, prosperity, and trust --- undermined the nationalist, survivalist, and suspicious will within the European soul. When Europeans were mutually hostile and distrustful of one another, they knew better than to trust non-Europeans. White Christians who distrust other white Christians are certainly not gonna trust black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab/Turk Muslims.
    But when white Europeans began to trust one another in the postwar boom and to feel brotherly camaraderie with one another, this culture of peace, fraternity, and trust began to go universal and flow toward non-Europeans as well.
    The prosperity made Europeans more generous and complacent. With full stomachs, nice jobs, or generous welfare, they lost the survival instinct. It's like animals in the wild are all about survival and fighting instinct. But animals raised with plenty of food and protection in a zoo are very trusting and lacking in survival instinct. They are nicer and friendlier but also more naive, defenseless, and vulnerable. Surely a sheep raised to be friends with a coyote in a zoo will foolishly think nature is like that too.

    Also, once pan-European cooperation, trust, and brotherly spirit became defined as 'European values', the well-meaning Europeans thought those values could be applied to the entire world. If Europeans could trust one another and get along, why shouldn't they trust non-Europeans as well? When Europeans fought one another, they projected their own conflicts and tensions onto the world. They figured that since Europe was filled with tensions and conflict, the whole world must be also. So, the proper thing was to boost nationalism and be wary of other nations.

    But when Europe became peaceful, prosperous, and trusting, Europeans projected these happy realities on the rest of world. Europeans thought 'European values' could be shared with everyone through invite/invade foreign policy, and the world would become a happier and nicer place. Also, all that peace and prosperity made so many Europeans bored out of their minds. When Europe was riven with ethnic/national conflicts, many Europeans joined the military or did stuff to ensure national survival and cultural heritage. But when there was so much peace and prosperity in Europe, one could take the security and stability of one's nation for granted. There was a lack of urgency and meaning of life since the survival instinct was deactivated in a world of peace.
    To find meaning, Europeans looked to helping people in Africa or India or some poor country. Or life might be made more 'vibrant' by importing 'diversity' into Europe so that things would be less boring.

    Nationalism and imperialism had once made Europe more identitarian and tribal. Nationalism led to mutual distrust among nations. And imperialism, such as that of Russia, Germany, and Austria, made the subject peoples more nationalist as they dreamed of liberation and a nation of their own. Austro-Hungarian Empire boosted nationalist passions among the subject peoples. Nations under Soviet Imperialism became nationalist and hoped for end of Soviet occupation.
    Indeed, much of the nationalism we still see in Eastern European nations has to do with long history of imperial subjugation under Russian, German, Austria, or Ottoman Empires. Greeks were most nationalist when they struggled for liberation from the Turks. But of late, Greeks have lost their survivalist instinct since they got spoiled and pampered by entry into EU that fattened Greeks with welfare and good times(until things imploded recently, but even so, Greece has been bailed out over and over and over).

    Sweden avoided both WWI and WWII. Given such luck, you would think Sweden would be healthy and stable. After all, it is a high-trust society with a functioning economy and generous welfare. Yet, Sweden has been one of the most suicidal nations when it comes to invasion-migration, diversity, cuckery, and self-loathing. Why? Too much peace, prosperity, and trust led to complacency, boredom, apathy, anemia, amnesia, and decadence.

    And what was likely the main reason why European nations finally dropped their guards when it came to Jews? Some might say it was Holocaust guilt. Partly. But the bigger reason is the likelihood that people who become peaceful, happy, prosperous, and secure become more trusting and more generous.

    Since things got so good in Western Europe after WWII, Europeans took it easy and began to trust Jews. When times were much tougher in the past, many gentiles suspected Jews were behind economic crises that caused so much hardship and distress among the masses. But with so much peace and prosperity, there was no need to blame Jews for anything. So, Jews gained more and more power without any opposition. And once they had the Power, they actively began to destroy the pillars of Western Europe.

    In contrast, in communist Eastern Europe where things weren't so good, it was still normal to be very suspicious of Jews. Suspicion of Jews was part of a general suspicion of all outsiders. This did wonders for nationalism.
    But in the rich and peaceful West(and free and democratic too, even if under US military control), people became complacent and no longer suspected that Jews might do something that might harm society.

    One of the nations that suffered most in WWII was Poland, but it is now nationalist, 'far right', and saying NO to the Muslim migration-invasion. It has also gotten rid of the bogus Jewish-homo-controlled 'hate crime commission'.

    In contrast, UK and Sweden that were hardly touched by WWII and prospered in post-war era are now welcoming their decline. London now has a Muslim mayor, and Sweden seems to want to turn Muslim and black.
    If WWI and WWII are the main reasons for white European downfall, then current Poland should be totally hopeless since Polish lands were horribly devastated in both WWI and WWII. Also, Poles suffered under Russian occupation until 1989. Yet, Poles have more nationalist and survivalist spirit than Swedes who never experienced war and destruction in WWI and WWII or Brits whose land wan't touched by WWI and only minimally affected in WWII.

    Also, US mainland wasn't touched by WWI or WWII. Only Hawaii was affected in WWII, but the damage was relatively minimal compared to what happened in Europe and Asia. Given there was no great internecine conflict in the US, white Americans should be more proud and nationalist. But the fate of white Americans following WWII has been remarkably like that of Europeans. Too much peace, prosperity, and trust among white Americans led to complacency, loss of survivalist instinct, lack of tribal distrust of others. Once white Americans got affluent, content, and well-off, they began to just live for fun and being 'cool' and ignored massive invasion by immigration and the increasing threat posed by black thugs. And it is the nice, richer, and more trusting parts of the US, such as Minnesota, that are most committed to welcoming African and other kinds of refugees.

    So, it seems all the peace, prosperity, and stability are what made white Americans lose their survivalist instinct. Too much swooning over "Surfer Girl" made them lose sight of the fact that California was being flooded with illegal Mexicans.
    When white Californians had less and had to struggle with other whites for a piece of the pie, they had little trust of non-whites such as Mexicans and Chinese. Why would whites who are distrustful of whites be trusting of non-whites?
    But when affluence overflowed in California in the postwar era, whites grew overly trusting, generous, and complacent. They lost their survivalist instinct.

    If horrible wars are responsible for death of a race, then how come white Americans were so proud, aggressive, nationalistic, and robust after the Civil War? In that horrible white-vs-white war, so many white Americans died. It was so horrifying that one might think it would spell the end of America. But in fact, it had the opposite effect. America following the Civil War grew by leaps and bounds. And despite the freeing of the black slaves, white identity and white power remained as powerful as ever.

    Because WWI and WWII were horrific and took so many lives, we tend to associate them with the decline of Europe we are seeing today.

    But if WWI and WWII were so fatal, how did Europe recover so quickly after WWII and provide Europeans with unprecedented material wealth? It was only in the postwar era that France became a fully industrialized nation. And German industry in the postwar era went far beyond anything Germany had achieved before.
    So, even the horrible WWII was not fatally destructive to Europe.
    The real culprit for European demise is peace, prosperity, and brotherly trust.
    After all, the fate of Sweden(nation that dodged both the bullet of WWI and WWII) is no different than that of France or Germany.

    Now, suppose there had been NO post-war boom. Suppose Western Europe had been slow to recover and develop after WWII. Then, it is likely that Europeans would have been less trusting and less generous. They would have hunkered down like Archie Bunker. Western Europeans might feel more like the average Russian, Hungarian, or Pole today.
    Or, suppose the USSR had occupied all of Western Europe. Resentment of Soviet rule might have boosted nationalism in all Western European nations.

    Ireland is an interesting case. It was spared the ravages of WWI and WWII. Irish suffered a lot under the Brits. There was lingering conflict in Northern Ireland. But through all those hardships, the Irish were proudly Irish.
    So, how did things change to the point that Ireland came to embrace 'gay marriage' and 'diversity', especially of black Africans? Because things finally got good. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland, and there was an economic boom in the 90s. It made the Irish so peaceful and prosperous-feeling. And the Irish finally began to drop their guard and mindlessly join globalism with a trusting heart.

    This is why the EU idea is a bad one. Fostering cross-border unity among European nations fosters too much peace and trust... and such becomes the basis for European merging with non-Europe.

    While Europeans should try to avoid armed conflict and try to live in peace, having national borders and fostering some degree of distrust among European nations is useful in the sense that Europeans who don't trust one another are less likely to trust non-Europeans who keep coming to invade and take over.
    While it's good to trust your neighbor, the downside is that such a trust might turn into some kind of universal principle: "since I can trust my neighbors with good will, maybe the entire world is like my neighborhood."

    Now, obviously war is bad and should be avoided among Europeans at all cost. But peace can be just as or even more dangerous than war. War, horrible as it is, makes you want to defend your nation. In contrast, peace lulls you into just merging your nation with neighboring nations and then with the world. War is like trying to swim and remain afloat in cold water. It brings out your survivalist instinct, and you fight and struggle to stay alive. Peace is like sipping wine and falling asleep in a warm bathtub and drowning without even knowing what is happening.

    It was peace, prosperity, and trust that led to the current crisis of Europe. They are more to blame than WWI and WWII.
    Of course, we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.
    And those conditions seem to have enveloped Western Europe since people there never had it so good in the postwar boom yrs that lasted a long time and even after it ended, there was so much generous welfare and pop culture as Bread and Circuses.

    I find your thesis fascinating.

    However, I do feel that you are discounting the power of Western cultural imperialism.

    You’ve written at length about how the influx of black Africans, yellow Asians, or Arab Muslims seems to herald the decline of Western society, in short, because of the post-war Euro/American booms (at least in my interpretation). I would argue that the bulk of those refugees or immigrants actually has the same values – or at least has been influenced by them – as Western Europeans. A lot of countries in Africa, for example, do not have locally booming film or music industries – a lot of what is popular in those countries is pretty much the same as that which is popular in the US or Europe.

    If this supposition is correct, how can nationalism actually be an answer to “Western demise” as you put it? What threat are they posing? I can only assume that you think hegemonic, singular societies are the answers to world problems.

    You quite eloquently wrote that “we would all prefer peace, prosperity, and trust to wars that kill tens of millions, but we need to realize that peace, prosperity, and trust can lead to complacency, apathy, amnesia, decadence, naivete, and pathological altruism.

    Those wars began in the west; they were self-inflicted, so why all the fear? Who or what is/was this ‘survivalist instinct’ directed against?

    Read More
  158. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    You blew it.

    No, you have made a fool of yourself yet again.

    “I am a Zionist”

    - Andrew Mathis

    The facts:

    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.

    from Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let’s us know who the prime owners of slaves really were.

    see:
    Suppressing Jewry’s Role in Slavery / Familiar Tactics
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7909

    and:
    Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Today, the Peruvian cinema scholar got to see a photograph from a protest at the German consultate in Los Angeles from around 15 years ago. The hair is shorter than today, but the resemblance is extraordinary.

    If I see my name mentioned here or at your website again, she'll be shown page 128 of Dissecting the Holocaust, specifically the footnotes. Eventually, if you continue to push, we'll get to remarks by BBG about "brown people."

    Your choice.
  159. @Sam Shama
    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world - the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    There are two types of people in the world – those who believe the end justifies the means and those who believe moral principles should be adhered to.

    For you to suggest people should be measured by the extent to which they are “victorious” implies that you belong to the Machiavellian camp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    No suggestion of a measure. Simply an observation.

    I boast my lay of morals - ?
    but feign man's story for poetry,
    I will have - no truck
    For it to solve the riddle,
    we must first
    wit,
    the wee parable.

    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    There are two types of people in the world: those who divided people into types and those who don't.
  160. @geokat62

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.
     
    There are two types of people in the world - those who believe the end justifies the means and those who believe moral principles should be adhered to.

    For you to suggest people should be measured by the extent to which they are "victorious" implies that you belong to the Machiavellian camp.

    No suggestion of a measure. Simply an observation.

    I boast my lay of morals – ?
    but feign man’s story for poetry,
    I will have – no truck
    For it to solve the riddle,
    we must first
    wit,
    the wee parable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    No suggestion of a measure. Simply an observation.
     
    Fair enough, Sam. But of the two I suggested:

    1. those who believe the end justifies the means; and
    2. those who believe moral principles should be adhered to

    which would you pick and why?
  161. @iffen
    Who is saying there is a Jewish matrix.

    I am saying that you write like you think there is one. It skews your thinking.

    All my comment was underlining was the undue influence of the Lobby…

    Granted, but if you do it 50 times per day something is wrong.

    do you agree with Hillary that the US has a “strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security”?

    "I" do not perceive Israel's existence or non-existence as affecting what "I" would say is my nation's national interests. That does not change the fact that most Americans support the existence of Israel and will expect their political leaders to defend Israel against threats. What is or is not a threat to Israel can be up for grabs.

    It skews your thinking.

    Oh, my thinking is skewed. Listen, those of us who have been at this ever since 9/11 are not the ones whose thinking is skewed. We are the ones who were able to connect the dots early on that the Lobby was responsible for hijacking US foreign policy. We were the ones who knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. That he had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, that he had no weapons of mass deception.

    If we have to repeat things 50 times a day it’s because of commenters such as yourself who are trying hard to convince the dumb goy that Israel had nothing to do with the regime change program that was launched to remove Saddam from Iraq, Qaddafi from Libya, Assad from Syria (still in progress).

    And you yourself have just provided another stellar example of what I’m taking about:

    “I” do not perceive Israel’s existence or non-existence as affecting what “I” would say is my nation’s national interests.

    You say this after supposedly reading Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, an essay in which these two truth-telling professors make a rock solid case that the Zionist project is a liability to the US – that it is harming the interests of the American people. No amount of obfuscation on your part or the part of other defenders of the Zionist project can change this irrefutable fact.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @iffen
    I was about to give up but decided to give it one more shot.

    commenters such as yourself who are trying hard to convince the dumb goy

    I am trying to convince one reasonably intelligent person that they are picking and choosing their facts in order to arrive at a conclusion that they started with.

    that Israel had nothing to do with the regime change program that was launched to remove Saddam from Iraq, Qaddafi from Libya, Assad from Syria (still in progress).

    I am unsure of the exact weight (yes, some weight) that can be placed on the lobby/Lobby's and Israel's influence on America in our attempts to remake the world in our image. My reading of the M & W article is that they do not assign an exact weight either, rather they point to what they think of as substantial influence.

    And you yourself have just provided another stellar example of what I’m taking about:

    “I” do not perceive Israel’s existence or non-existence as affecting what “I” would say is my nation’s national interests.


    You misinterpret this sentence. Here’s a re-write: I don’t care all that much about whether Israel exists and in which form if it does. (Palestine either)

    an essay in which these two truth-telling professors make a rock solid case that the Zionist project is a liability to the US – that it is harming the interests of the American people. No amount of obfuscation on your part or the part of other defenders of the Zionist project can change this irrefutable fact.

    We don’t need truth-telling professors, we need fact telling professors. I am not trying to obfuscate; I am being as direct and clear as my ability will let me. There are no irrefutable facts(except this one).
  162. @Sam Shama
    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world - the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.

    Sam,

    How short term of you – typical Jew think – have you ever heard of win-win?

    Win-win goes on and on — whereas your win-lose is short lived.

    History says that all the victors are replaced sooner more often then latter.

    Your crazy Big Jew – Netanyahu – is setting you’ll up for a fall – enjoy it while it lasts.

    Art

    p.s. We at the home will look out for Moshe – we love him – he is a mensch.

    p.s. He gets win-win – he doesn’t see the world through your zero-sum Jew colored glasses.

    Read More
  163. @Wally
    No, you have made a fool of yourself yet again.

    "I am a Zionist"

    - Andrew Mathis
     

    The facts:

    Criminal Zionist Andrew Mathis, aka: ‘Thames Darwin’ and ‘Rejoining Ash’ is a stalking violence advocating hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, he posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked.
    He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All of this illegal activity is documented, recorded, and saved by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.
     

    from Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let's us know who the prime owners of slaves really were.

    see:
    Suppressing Jewry's Role in Slavery / Familiar Tactics
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7909

    and:
    Dr. Tony Martin - The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

    Today, the Peruvian cinema scholar got to see a photograph from a protest at the German consultate in Los Angeles from around 15 years ago. The hair is shorter than today, but the resemblance is extraordinary.

    If I see my name mentioned here or at your website again, she’ll be shown page 128 of Dissecting the Holocaust, specifically the footnotes. Eventually, if you continue to push, we’ll get to remarks by BBG about “brown people.”

    Your choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I suggest that if all this is true that you lawyer up.
    Cyber crimes, especially towards women are frowned upon.
    It's game time.

    Cyberstalking is a crime in which the attacker harasses a victim using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. A cyberstalker relies upon the anonymity afforded by the Internet to allow them to stalk their victim without being detected.

    FBI Internet Crime Compliant Center (IC3)
    http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

    Report a Cyberstalker
    http://www.fightcyberstalking.org/report-cyberstalking-case/
    Print the “Track. Save. Report!” Cyberstalking Incident Record Log sheet (in PDF format) to help you track, save, and submit your information to your local law enforcement agency. Simply print and fill out the sheet securely at home. No need to submit your sensitive information online.

    http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=166&issue_id=122003
    Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement

    5 Ways to Handle and Prevent Cyber-Harassment
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/We_Find_Them/ways-handle-prevent-cyber-harassment/story?id=15973742
     
  164. @geokat62

    There are [mostly], two types of people in the world – the victorious and the ones wish to be.
     
    There are two types of people in the world - those who believe the end justifies the means and those who believe moral principles should be adhered to.

    For you to suggest people should be measured by the extent to which they are "victorious" implies that you belong to the Machiavellian camp.

    There are two types of people in the world: those who divided people into types and those who don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    There are two types of people in the world: those who exchange most of their comments with BBG and those who don't.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    Touche.
    , @L.K
    Rejoining Ash, a Jewish Supremacist, goes: "There are two types of people in the world: those who divided people into types and those who don’t."

    Thanks for reminding us of that, Ash.
    Your tribe has indeed divided the world into 2 types: the chosen people( the tribe, aka, elite gypsies) and all the rest of the world, the goyim.
    The goyim are defined, by several important chosen religious teachers, as being inferior to the chosen, born to serve them.

    Anyways, good thing 'rejoining ash' reminded us of the fact that Jews, as a group, are amongst the most hyper-ethnocentric and racist people in the world.
  165. @Sam Shama
    No suggestion of a measure. Simply an observation.

    I boast my lay of morals - ?
    but feign man's story for poetry,
    I will have - no truck
    For it to solve the riddle,
    we must first
    wit,
    the wee parable.

    No suggestion of a measure. Simply an observation.

    Fair enough, Sam. But of the two I suggested:

    1. those who believe the end justifies the means; and
    2. those who believe moral principles should be adhered to

    which would you pick and why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    2.
    Feels better mostly.

    but 2 != 1 is generally not true, and I am sure you understand why.

    My little poem has been on my mind of late, and I need to fathom the reasons.
  166. @Andrew E. Mathis
    There are two types of people in the world: those who divided people into types and those who don't.

    There are two types of people in the world: those who exchange most of their comments with BBG and those who don’t.

    Read More