I’m having a bad case of writer’s block right now. There isn’t a whole lot going on right now that I find worth discussing, or at least, not a whole lot worth discussing that doesn’t require me going into massive depth in order to do it the proper justice. There is for example, the ongoing Pizzagate online investigation of a possible massive child trafficking scandal, but that story is unconfirmed so far, so I would prefer to wait until confirmation before discussing it.
That, and I really haven’t any insights of my own to add to that particular topic. There are already thousands of people online involved in researching the evidence available who have a much better understanding of it than I do. I simply can’t do it justice, so rather than trying to, I would suggest that people look it up and become aware of it.
The more people who know about it, the harder it will be for the media to just dismiss it as nothing more than “fake news”, making it more likely that there’ll be demand for a proper investigation at some point which will either confirm the suspicions of those researching it, or put it to rest once and for all.
The people investigating it have brought up a very good point though. If the people being accused are innocent, why aren’t they doing more to defend themselves? That alone is very suspicious. I know that if I was being wrongfully accused of child trafficking and molestation, I would be up in arms defending myself, rather than staying quiet. I will say that I absolutely don’t endorse a “guilty until proven innocent” approach, but I do think that people need to at least be made aware of this potential scandal so that a proper investigation can be pushed for.
Anyway, I’m losing track of myself. For a guy who claims to be suffering from writer’s block, I sure wrote a lot there. I need to get back on topic. On two previous occasions, when I’ve had trouble writing for a while, I’ve made posts full of screenshots taken from the tumblrinaction reddit board, which illustrate some of the stupidity that is infecting the world, and therefore can potentially give us an insight into why things are going the way they are. These people aren’t funny, and should be seen as a threat. If more and more people start thinking like this, who knows what impact it will have on the world. Parts one and two of this series can be read here and here.
So now, I would like to present part three to you.
Anyway, that’s it for now. I can’t handle anymore craziness at this point. Plus, I gotta save the rest of my material for the inevitable part 4 in this series.
In the Islamic terrorist hotspot known as France, a would be terrorist attack on Disneyland Paris was thankfully foiled. I’m glad to know that nobody was hurt this time, but it is disturbing to know that these frequent attacks show no sign of stopping any time soon. They may have prevented a tragedy this time, but next time, they might not be so lucky.
Seven men arrested on suspicion of being part of a terrorist cell in France last weekend were likely planning an attack on Disneyland Paris and the Champs Elysees Christmas market, according to the latest reports.
The suspects, who were French,
What is the deal with all these “French Men” going around randomly trying to shoot, behead, and blow people up in France, the last few years? What has changed about France so much that suddenly lots of “French Men” are committing these horrible acts? We never used to see so many cases of “French Men” committing acts of terrorism, but by some strange coincidence, it seems to be happening a lot more ever since France allowed people from certain other parts of the world, in which terrorist attacks are quite common, to settle in France. However, these two incidents couldn’t possibly be linked in anyway, because the magical French air and soil alters the personalities and value systems of people to be more like those of the French people. At least, that’s what the media and our political elites have led me to believe and we know they would never lie to us.
Moroccan and Afghan were detained in Strasbourg and Marseille following Saturday night’s raids.
Those poor innocent Moroccans and Afghans. First, they manage to escape the brutal Syrian civil war which has spread to Morocco and Afghanistan, then when they finally arrive safely in France, they get tricked by evil “French Men”, into joining a terrorist cell against their better judgment. If only those “French Men” hadn’t tricked them into doing terrorism, they would have have used their wonderful skills and education to make France better somehow.
The operation marked the end of an eight-month monitoring operation by counter-terrorism police. Two of the men have since been released.
They probably got a stern talking to, realise now that terrorism is a naughty thing to do, and can be trusted not to try and murder anybody else in the future.
According to sources, the men had considered targeting a number of different sites, including Disneyland and the Champs Elysees, the Paris criminal police headquarters and a metro station.
The evil bastards probably chose Disneyland instead because there was more likely to be kids there to kill. If you’re going to commit a brutal act of terrorism, you may as well make it as heinous and despicable as possible, to really hurt and demoralise the country you’re targeting.
While Disneyland Paris have not released an official statement on the matter, a spokesperson for the amusement park told The Associated Press that the safety and security of guests is “our No. 1 priority. We work closely with state and local authorities, and constantly review the security measures we have in place.”
And yet nobody will take the most obvious step to guarantee security and safety. Putting a stop to immigration from countries with values incompatible with those of France, and mass deportations of people already in France who have set up ghettos and failed to integrate. What is the actual benefit to France and the French people having these people in their country? No emotional bullshit about “doing the right thing” or preaching some kind of vague morality. Purely in practical terms, what is the point? What are the benefits, if any, and how do these benefits outweigh the problems that these people bring? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
France remains under a state of emergency, which allows French security forces special powers of surveillance, search and arrest in times of acute crisis.
“Hey look, sorry you have to live under an Orwellian surveillance state. Unfortunately, because so many “French Men” turned into terrorists, around the same time we became a multicultural society without giving you the option to vote on it, we now have to live under these conditions, in order to keep you safe. There’s no other possible solution, and anyone who suggests there are alternatives (such as changing our immigration policy), is just a hate-filled Neo-Nazi, who shouldn’t be listened to.”
Earlier this week, the The US State Department warned Americans who were planning to travel over the festive period to “exercise vigilance” in tourist areas due to the “heightened risk of terrorist attacks throughout Europe”.
LOL, wow. You know things are bad when a country with as many murders as America is warning its citizens that Europe could be dangerous to visit. It really puts things in perspective.
An inflatable raft full of young, military aged, Sub-Saharan African men (what else is new?), who were fleeing the brutal Syrian civil war, which as we all know, has apparently spread to the entire third world, encountered a Tunisian fishing vessel en route to Europe. The idiotic invaders on board mistook the fishermen for the Italian coastguard and stupidly sank their own boat on purpose, assuming they would be rescued and brought back to Europe to live on welfare, get free stuff, and rape as many white women as they can get their hands on, in much the same way their predecessors have. Instead the Tunisians, who aren’t afflicted with the horrible mental illness known as white guilt, decided to nonchalantly leave the migrants to drown and record it as it happened. Here is the footage.
This amateur footage, taken by a Tunisian crewman of a fishing ship, shows the disastrous consequences of the EU’s open border policy that permits and encourages the continued scam of illegal African immigrants that deliberately sink their own boats near coast guard vessels to receive a shuttle service to Europe under the disguise of so-called “Syrian refugees”.
You would think it would be fucking obvious now to people what is actually happening. Syria is an Arab country. So is Libya (the one other country in which you could arguably justify refugees coming from). Yet instead of seeing Arabs on these boats, we keep seeing young black men who are coming from safe, albeit impoverished Sub-Saharan African countries. They aren’t fleeing any civil war, they’re heading to Europe purely for economic reasons, because they want to be able to feed off the benefits that our ancestors created for us. Unfortunately, most people are too intellectually lazy to think critically about what’s going on and instead react emotionally, and just follow along with the “poor refugees fleeing war” narrative that our lying media and crooked politicians feed us.
As the African males approach the ship, they capsize their own boats, pretending to be in distress at sea because they assume the ship is equipped to pick up refugees. Is it only after they realize the crew atop the fishing boat is physically unable to provide help that the situation escalates and the Africans start screaming for their life as they drown.
The sailor repeatedly shouts “calma” (stay calm) in Italian in the hope that the immigrants heading for Italy prepared with some basic Italian and understand him.
I doubt these people can even read and write in their own language, let alone have any basic understanding of the language of the country they’re heading to.
The crew were reluctant to help since letting them on board would have been a serious security risk as it would have them outnumbered 10 to 1. There is also the risk of piracy with hijackers posing as refugees as camouflage. They also appear to only have two lifeboats, so throwing one down just so the migrants would sink it would have made no sense for the crew.
The only way to help would be individuals of the crew rappelling down to to the sea line, which would most likely result in their own death as the immigrants would drag them down.
Of course, the lives of the crew won’t matter to the white guilt infested liberals back in Europe. You can be sure that they would virtue signal about “doing the right thing” and helping these invaders, all from the safety of their own home. Personally, I really can’t blame the crew for not trying to save them.
The EU politicians and all the Leftists supporting the human traffickers and mass invasion of African males by sea are directly responsible for every single death by drowning.
My thoughts exactly.
If the EU were to pursue a “NO WAY” policy that denies citizenship to anybody illegally approaching the country b boat, such as Australia has done, Europe could successfully reduce the total amount of illegal immigrants coming by sea to zero.
Of course that would never happen, because the whole point of the policies currently being pursued isn’t about saving lives. If lives really mattered to the political establishment, they never would have pursued policies which destroyed Libya, and are attempting to destroy Syria right now. The real reason for the current policies, is the ethnic cleansing and replacement of the indigenous peoples of Europe, in order to undermine the concept of nation states and therefore make it easier to bring in a one world government. That has always been the aim ever since the 1920s when Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi first proposed it.
Just really think about it, and put all emotion aside. Which narrative makes more sense? That the global elite deliberately starts destructive wars in countries and then take in people from these warzones (plus other third world countries which aren’t at war) to live in Europe (but not in any oil rich Arab gulf states which can easily afford them and are closer, both geographically and culturally to the migrant’s home countries) out of the goodness of their heart? And then, when they arrive and inevitably cause problems in their host nations, such as committing acts of terrorism, going on mass sexual assault/rape sprees, and become a massive drain on the country’s taxes, they ignore the problem because they expect that somehow it will just go away by magic, and they’ll end up integrating and contributing to Europe eventually? Or, does the narrative presented in the link above about the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan make more sense, based on everything we’ve seen happen?
I know which narrative I believe, and clearly I’m not alone. More and more people are beginning to see what’s really happening, and they’re angry. On a public forum like Facebook, people are naturally going to virtue signal and act as if they care (perhaps some genuinely still do). On an anonymous forum like the YouTube comments sections however, people tend to feel comfortable making more controversial statements which are more likely to be in line with their true views, and from looking at the comments on YouTube, a lot of people seem to really hate these migrants and are glad that they drowned. Lets take a look at some of the comments from the video.
There’s even another longer version of the video available…
…and the comments are equally hostile.
But this hostility doesn’t surprise me anymore. Here in Ireland, we’ve been fortunate enough to have been sheltered from this mess, so people still buy into the debunked narrative that they’re all just poor innocent victims fleeing a war, and who have a good education and skillset to contribute to our economies. The reality, which most other European countries are now well aware of, is that this is a hostile invasion force coming here, not to flee a war, or to contribute, but to plunder and conquer. People in other European countries have had enough of this and are no longer hiding their anger out of fear of being thought of as racist. It is a perfectly natural response to feel relief and even pleasure watching a video like this, knowing the kind of problems these men would have caused if they had reached Europe. Hopefully, it will get back to Africa and dissuade others from trying their luck in the same way.
A little over a year ago, Salon.com published an article by a self professed paedophile under the title “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster.” At the time I remember thinking to myself “Oh here we go, they’re trying to normalise paedophilia now, and we’re going to see more of this soon”, but fortunately, most of them tend to prefer to avoid the spotlight rather than embracing it. However, the aim of normalising it still stands, so if they can’t get more paedophiles to go public about their sickness, they’ll do the next best thing, and get that same paedophile to go public again. Gotta keep the message fresh in everyone’s minds.
A ‘non-offending’ paedophile is on a mission to change society’s understanding of underage attraction.
You see everyone, there’s nothing inherently wrong with paedophilia apparently. We’re all just stupid and need to be educated better so that we can understand it properly.
Todd Nickerson, from Tennessee, who sees paedophilia as a sexual orientation, wants to encourage other paedophiles to seek help and support for their sexual inclinations.
This much at least, I can agree with. I acknowledge the fact that this is just how these people are wired, and they can’t choose not to be attracted to children, anymore than a gay person can choose not to attracted to people of the same sex, or a straight person to people of the opposite sex. However, I think the kind of help and support made available to these people should be limited to a counselling service of some kind, and chemical castration, and it should be kept private. They shouldn’t be looking for sympathy and acceptance from the general public for their sickness, because once we start tolerating his sickness, who knows what the next step could be.
The 43-year-old is a moderator for the online forum ‘VirPed’, short for ‘virtuous paedophiles’, which already has a few thousand users.
Scary to think just how many of these people are out there.
‘Virtuous paedophiles’ is a term given to people who are attracted to prepubescent children but control their urges and refrain from watching child pornography or seeking sexual contact with minors.
Nickerson said: ‘I am a paedophile. I’m not a monster. I have the attraction but I don’t act on it.
Does this guy want a medal or something for being good enough to not molest children? Just really think about what’s happening here. He knows damn well that his desires are wrong, and claims to be a good person because he doesn’t act upon them. Yet at the same time, instead of just going about his life as a “virtuous paedophile” in silence, he’s going public about his desires, trying to illicit sympathy from the public about it, with the aim of changing how people think of paedophiles. Why would he be bothered trying to change how people view paedophiles, unless he wanted to make it something that was seen as normal and acceptable?
‘I have never ever sexually abused a child and I never will. I do not look at child porn, I never will. I obey the laws, I respect the laws, I respect society’s position on this. I understand it and agree with it.’
Interesting. So he claims he will never abuse a child or look at child porn, then at the same time specifically mentions that he obeys and respects the laws on the matter. I can’t help but worry, that the only reason he doesn’t act upon his desires is because he fears punishment under the law, and that if those laws were to change, and society’s attitude towards paedophiles was to become more tolerant (the latter of which he is actively working towards), would he still refuse to ever do those things? They way I’m interpreting this is that he only doesn’t do them because it’s forbidden to do so and he fears the consequences.
Nickerson describes himself as a non-offending minor attracted person (MAP) and says paedophiles are capable of living a happy, productive, law-abiding life.
I’m sure they are, but that doesn’t mean they should go public about their attraction and try to change how the rest of society views them. They should just keep quiet, not harm children, and just get on with things.
He said: ‘Not all paedophiles are child molesters not all child molesters are paedophiles.
‘A paedophile is strictly speaking just somebody who has sexual attraction to children – they may act on it they may not.
‘A lot of people think that if you are attracted to kids, you have some kind of unusual degree of urge to go out and attack kids and it’s not like that.
BUT YOU LITERALLY DO HAVE THAT URGE!!!
He’s right when he says that it doesn’t mean they’ll actually do it. However, all paedophiles, whether they act upon it or not, literally have an “unusual degree of urge” to do sexual things with children, which would be classified as an attack, because children don’t have the maturity to give informed consent to those acts.
‘The people that struggle with it have self control issues and we just try to encourage them – sometimes we have to use tough love because one problem with paedophiles at times is that they are very good at deluding themselves.’
Nickerson went public as a paedophile in a blog for American liberal news site Salon in September 2015, and by doing so, received dozens of hostile replies on social media.
Yes, and we all know what a great source for top notch journalism, Salon is.
But that’s liberalism in general these days. It’s always about finding something new to liberate. After making so many strides in achieving equal rights for racial minorities, gay people, women, etc., they have to look further and further afield for new “victims” to liberate, so we inevitably see far left publications like Salon trying to liberate groups like paedophiles from all the “oppression”, “intolerance”, and “bigotry” they experience.
However, he also received a large amount of positive feedback – including messages from people who had suffered at the hands of paedophiles.
This is how it’s going to go.
Step 1: “We’re not monsters. We just have desires to engage in sexual acts with children, but we never act on them. Please tolerate us.”
Step 2: “We need to lower the age of consent. Children are sexual beings too, and should have the right to explore their sexuality.”
Step 3: Age of consent is already lowered, and those “virtuous paedophiles” obviously care about the well-being of kids seeing as they’ve never hurt them. Maybe we should trust them, and allow sex between adults and children.
Step 4: Anyone who objects is shamed and ridiculed as a “paedophobe” with backwards ideas that have no place in modern society. How dare they object to adults having sex with children. It is *current year* after all.
This is honestly how I see it going. I think we just need to look at the history behind the normalisation of homosexuality to see this. I’m not saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable, but there was a time when homosexuality was as opposed by the majority of society as paedophilia is today. Yet today, homosexuality is accepted by almost everybody and we are amazed that there was ever a time when people thought differently.
It was only after decades of campaigning and a relentless push for mainstream approval (starting with just looking for tolerance and to be left alone in peace, followed by acceptance, eventually reaching today were we practically see gay people being celebrated as superior), that we reached the point were we’re at today. I do genuinely worry that we could see a similar “Paedo-rights” movement in the near future, modeled on the tactics used by gay rights activists in the past.
I only hope that people will keep in mind that there is a very big difference between two consenting adults of the same sex looking for equal rights as two of the opposite sex, and paedophiles looking for the same rights to engage in such acts with children. However, most people tend to think emotionally rather than logically, so I really wouldn’t be surprised if people could be manipulated into accepting paedophilia eventually, if they’re persistent enough, and the right emotional appeals are made.
He said: ‘Publicly, there was a lot of backlash but privately it’s been very different. I got hundreds and hundreds emails from people who were very supportive, a lot of which were from people who were survivors of abuse.’
That’s disturbing if true.
Nickerson has admitted that he is attracted to children as young as 3 or 4, but that his attraction peaks with children aged around 9 or 10 years old.
Although he is adamant he has never offended, he says he did have a moment of temptation when he was 18 while babysitting a five-year-old girl.
This is also disturbing.
Nickerson says his goals are twofold now – to end the demonisation of paedophiles and to encourage other offenders to seek support.
And that first goal is something I can’t ever approve of.
He said: ‘I’m a pioneer, I’m out here doing something that really needs to be done, raising awareness and letting people what people like me deal with and struggle with.
‘I am neither proud nor ashamed of being a paedophile, at this point I just accept it – it’s who I am.’
That’s fine, accept yourself if you want. Just don’t go expecting the rest of us to accept you in the same way.
You might wonder to yourself, what could possibly be behind the push to normalise paedophilia? Well it’s quite simple really. There are a lot of very powerful and influential people in the world who have this perversion, and would like to see it normalised.
This isn’t about compassion for the “poor non-offending paedophiles who can’t help being attracted to children”. This is purely an attempt by powerful figures with sick urges towards children, to use their influence and that of the media to manipulate the masses into accepting, and eventually legalising their perversions. I only hope that people remain steadfast in their convictions that this is something we should never show even the slightest amount of tolerance for.
Between Brexit, the Migrant Crisis, and the Trump phenomenon, one of the most annoying things to see as of late, has been the huge amount of celebrities, coming down from their ivory towers to lecture all of us dumb little people about how terrible we are for having the audacity to have sociopolitical opinions that they personally disagree with.
For example, remember when that unhygienic walking bio-hazard, Bob Geldof, took time out of his busy schedule of avoiding the shower, to instead give the finger to a bunch of poor English fisherman for supporting the leave option in the Brexit Referendum?
How about George Clooney, constantly virtue signalling about how more needs to be done, to help those millions of young, military aged, African men, who are coming from various Sub-Saharan African countries to Europe, allegedly to escape the brutal Syrian civil war? Well, when a migrantcamp is setup close tohis Italianmansion, we don’t hear a peep out of him volunteering to open his own door to them. You see, it’s only us little people who have to actually do more to help, and it’s only us little people who have to suffer the consequences of making such stupid decisions. Big time celebrities like George Clooney just have to appear in public and talk down to rest of us, without actually paying the price.
One of the vocal celebrities discussing political matters as of late, has been former Star Trek actor George Takei, a guy who once used his social media presence to just post funny memes, but has in the past year or so, used it to lash out at Trump non-stop. Now look, I’m not saying he has no right to express his opinion on the new President-Elect. Nobody, including Trump, is above criticism or scrutiny. As much as I joke around with the whole “Glorious Leader” shtick, I am in actuality well aware of the fact that Trump is far from perfect and indeed, has character flaws of his own. I’ve just always felt that the alternatives to Trump were a whole lot worse, as well as genuinely agreeing with him on many issues. However, the kind of hysteria being directed against him at times is just ridiculous and quite frankly, stupid. So stupid in fact, that it’s no surprise that the Huffington Post of all publications, has decided to give it a platform.
Anyway, so lets take a look at what Takei had to say.
They interned Japanese-Americans during World War 2, because they were at war with Japan at the time, and they feared the possibility of spies and saboteurs, loyal to their homeland, working against their war effort from the inside. They did the same thing to German-Americans and Italian-Americans too, because they were also at war with these countries at the same time. You can debate the morality behind this action if you wish, but it wasn’t done just for the sake of it. They were genuinely concerned about a possible threat to national security and to the country’s survival, and did what they thought was in their best interests at the time.
If anything, I think this just reinforces the point that multiculturalism is a ridiculous, flawed idea. If having a multicultural society results in such a scenario were people of differing cultural backgrounds, living within the same borders, under the same government, mistrust each other that much, that a single crises causes one group to round up and intern others, out of the fear that they could be enemy collaborators, then how could it possibly be considered a good thing? As the old saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall”. That’s why I believe that diversity is not a strength. Unity is, and there are plenty of scientific studies that back this up.
The idea of a database that tracks Muslims, promoted by Trump early on the campaign trail, was seconded by Carl Higbie Wednesday. In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Higby, who served as spokesman for a pro-Trump super PAC, said the proposal would “pass Constitutional muster.”
“There is precedent for it,” he said.
Yep, I mentioned it 9 months ago in my post about “Why I support Trump”. It’s a perfectly legal action to take. The only dilemma is the ethical concerns surrounding it. However, what is worse? Without allowing your own population a vote on the matter, importing millions of followers of an ideology, which for the past 1400 years, has proven itself completely incompatible with Western liberal values and democracy, is still proving so to this day  , and allowing them to run amok in your society? Or, taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent the deaths of your own people, at the hands of the followers of that ideology?
I’m not one to get into scaremongering and witch hunts, but at the same time, I think we need to be vigilant and to look out for our own wellbeing first and foremost. Western civilisation was not built by the followers of Islam. Indeed, for most of our history, we have been fighting to keep Islam out of our lands. They have absolutely no moral claim to share in the benefits of the societies that our own ancestors created for us. In the last 70 years or so, we’ve relaxed our immigration policies towards them, and this has been a disaster for us.
Ideally, I would prefer to see a sane immigration policy brought in again, in which we still allow the immigration of qualified professionals (Doctors, IT specialists, engineers etc), regardless of their racial, religious, or national background, but don’t allow unskilled workers in anymore. We have no need for them, and we have no moral obligation to take them in. I think this would be the best solution. However, I can’t see that changing any time soon, so at least having a way to monitor those coming in would be a nice start. If they don’t like it, then they’re quite free to just not come. Our safety in our own countries is more important than making sure that they’re not offended in countries that they are CHOOSING to come to.
None of the above videos are in any way comparable to a “Muslim database” obviously, but the point I’m trying to make by posting them is that it’s nothing unusual for them to show up and get offended by things in their host nations, even though they willingly chose to come to them.
“It is not a precedent,” Takei said in the MSNBC exchange. “It is the most disgraceful chapter of American history.”
Really? I thought slavery was. Or possibly the eugenic program. Or perhaps those pointless wars in the Middle East which were based on lies. Or maybe it was the conquest of the American landmass in the first place. The “most disgraceful” chapter tends to change, depending on the narrative being pushed at the time.
“Registration of any group of people, and certainly registration of Muslims, is a prelude to internment,” he said later. “This is something that we cannot have happen again. It is dangerous and it is a moral bankruptcy. We’ve got to stand up and resist this, and I would urge all good Americans to write to your congressional representatives and the president-elect and tell them that this is not what we stand for as a nation.”
Very touching George. Your concern for Muslims is most impressive, especially seeing as you yourself are an openly gay man. Lets take a look at these two maps.
The first is a map of Muslim majority countries in the world.
Next, we have a map of countries in which being gay is illegal.
Notice the amount of overlap between the two maps? And with the huge number of Muslims who seem to agree with these laws, even in the West, I can’t help but wonder, would they be as concerned about his well-being as he is about theirs?
Good news everyone. Trump has made it clear that he is interested in working with Russia, rather than against them in the ongoing Syrian conflict. As well as guaranteeing peace between these two great nuclear powers, it will also likely bring the Syrian civil war much closer to its end. Not only will this benefit the Syrian people themselves, but it will take away a lot of the justification for the continuing migrant crisis currently destroying Europe, meaning that when the invasion inevitably continues anyway, more people will hopefully understand what isactually going on and will hopefully start waking up in greater numbers. The only real losers in this situation are the Syrian opposition forces.
President-elect Donald Trump has reaffirmed his campaign trail position that assisting the Syrian government in fighting Isis should be the US’ main objective in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad.
Oh yes, all those “moderate rebels” whodon’treallyexist, are pleading with Trump to help them overthrow Assad so they can install a functioning democracy instead… just like the one that was installed in Libya after that horrible, Assad-like dictator Gaddafi was overthrown by rebels with the help of NATO.
I just don’t understand how Trump can look at the great success of Libya, and not want something similar for the Syrian people. He must have a heart of stone… or perhaps he just has a functioning brain and can see what a stupid idea it would be to keep going down this path.
“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of Isis,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
Mr Trump has stated that while he “did not like [Mr Assad] at all”, shoring up his regime is the best way to stem the extremism that has flourished in the chaos of the civil war and threatens the US.
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend”.
You don’t have to like Assad, but this just seems like basic sanity to me. ISIS needs to be crushed. ISIS are a far greater threat to the world than Assad is. How many terrorist attacks have been orchestrated in the West by Assad compared to those orchestrated by ISIS? In fact, forget actual attacks, how many times has Assad even threatened to use terrorism against the West? I sure can’t think of any, so it makes absolutely no sense to aid ISIS in this conflict.
He has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.
“Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who those people are,” he told the Journal, referring to the hardline Sunni Islamist elements present in rebel ranks. If the US attacks Mr Assad, “We end up fighting Russia,” he added.
Which was of course the main reason why I supported Trump over Hillary. Yeah, there were plenty of other reasons for my support too: his contempt for political correctness, his opposition to free trade agreements like TTIP (which he hasalreadykilled off ), his calling out of international finance controlling the world, his opposition to prolonging this Syrian civil war, his stance against illegal immigration, etc., but it was his desire for peace and cooperation with Russia, that was the most important issue to me. I genuinely feared that with the decline in US/Russian relations, that we were on the verge of seeing WW3 break out, and that a Hillary Clinton victory would have all but guaranteed it. I’m so happy to see that things are turning out for the better now.
Mr Trump’s shock victory in the US election this week was welcomed by Moscow and Tehran, as well as Damascus, where aides to Mr Assad were cautiously optimistic in interviews on Thursday. The president is “ready” to cooperate with Mr Trump going forward, they said. To date the US has tacitly supported rebels in Syria both logistically and financially, along with Turkey and Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Yep, the US and their allies have been funding the rebel groups. However, it has also come out in Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actually been funding ISIS itself, and that Hillary Clinton (and therefore presumably the Obama government) was well aware of this. So you have America funding and arming Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funding and arming ISIS, and America knows this, meaning that America is knowingly funding and arming ISIS through proxies, while at the same time telling the public that they’re only funding and arming these non-existent “moderate rebels” who allegedly have similar goals to ISIS in regards to toppling the Assad government.
The long-standing US position has been that Mr Assad must be removed from power and democratic elections take place to end the complex and multisided conflict, now in its sixth year.
Mr Assad’s military strategy – including air strikes targeting civilian infrastructure, siege tactics and alleged use of chemical weapons – has been responsible for far more civilian deaths since 2011 than rebel groups or Isis militants, analysts and monitors say.
And yet they never seem to provide any evidence to back up these accusations. I wonder, are these analysts and monitors, the same people who also claim that Assad has no mandate to rule despite being democratically elected. Also, how do they explain the idea of the Syrian people choosing to re-elect Assad in a landslide victory in 2014 in fair and transparent elections, after three years of him allegedly committing war crimes against them? Which of these three narratives makes the most sense?
Assad commits brutal atrocities against his own people, but they choose to re-elect him anyway in legitimate elections because they’re stupid/suicidal.
The international observers who say the election was legitimate are all liars.
The international observers are all telling the truth and it’s actually the US who are lying, just like the times they lied in the past about the reasons for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I know which narrative I believe.
Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton had proposed a no-fly-zone over Syria, a position rebels had been hopeful could stem the aerial attacks that have turned the tide of the war in Mr Assad’s favour since Russia began lending the Syrian government military support in September 2015.
And as I’ve mentioned many times in the past, such a policy could have resulted in America shooting down Russian planes, thus starting a world war between America and Russia.
So with everything we know so far, does it make any sense that we could have potentially seen WW3 because America wanted to protect from Russian planes, non-existent moderate rebels, who are fighting for similar purposes as ISIS against a democratically elected ruler, who was later democratically re-elected by his people, despite apparently horribly oppressing them and committing war crimes against them (with no evidence to support any of this), in elections that were fair and transparent, according to international observers who were present at the time?
Yes, my head hurts trying to comprehend this insanity too.
After Mr Trump’s victory this week, the main Syrian opposition group the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) reached out to his staff asking him to protect civilians.
President Anas Al-Abdah said the SNC had sent Mr Trump its congratulations and was in touch about a “comprehensive new approach” to Syria.
Might I suggest unconditional surrender as the “new approach”?
The US must “establish peace in our region and to find fair and swift solutions for the threat of terrorism… especially the state terrorism practiced by the Syrian regime against the Syrian people,” Riad Hijab, head of the opposition High Negotiations Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Still waiting to see the evidence of this state terrorism. I’m sure Assad is no saint himself, but when you look at the opposition, as well as some of the other regimes in the region that the US is allied with, he sure seems like one in comparison.
Other rebels on the ground were less enthusiastic, predicting more bloodshed no matter what Mr Trump’s policy ultimately ends up being on a war which has killed more than 400,000 people to date and driven half the Syrian population from their homes.
All so needless and pointless too. If only the US hadn’t caused this unjust war for Israel’s benefit, those people wouldn’t have had to lose their lives. Hopefully, when Trump is officially in power, and this war is brought to an end, the architects behind it will be brought to justice for their crimes.
“I guess most Syrians are reacting in a similar way today, trying to hide their disappointment by making [jokes],” said Wissam Zarqa, a rebel media activist in besieged east Aleppo.
“We live in hope… but the only bright side to this is that we will not live on false promises now,” he added, referring to the international community’s inability to stop Russian air strikes on the area’s 250,000 trapped civilians.
“With [US President] Obama, we had enough of his false promises and fake red lines.”
Abu Hamed, head of the military council of rebel group Liwa al-Haq Brigade, was similarly dismissive. “The Americans were never honest with us,” he said, speaking from Hama. “They left us in a quagmire that drowned the Syrians… everyone is trading with our blood and suffering.”
Of course they weren’t honest with you. They never gave a damn about any of you. You were all just tools to be used to their advantage.
This article fills me with a lot of optimism. After a scary year or so that seemed to be getting worse and worse in the past month or so, we’re already seeing some potential good coming from Trump’s victory, and the man isn’t even inaugurated yet. Who knows what more we could see happen in the near future.
So apparently snow plowing as we know it is sexist. I never knew that myself, but that’s probably because I’m a straight white male who is too blinded by his own privilege to notice. Luckily for us, our favourite nation of politically correct lunatics Sweden, were able to recognise this serious issue for what it is, and have made a point of making snow plowing more equal. “How so?”, you might ask. Well, read on.
The equality snow removal, has not worked, according to the opposition Vice Mayor Cecilia Brinck (M). According to her, they have not focused on plowing bike paths.
Snow removal should be equal, it has the rödgrönrosa majority in the town hall held.In practice this means that pedestrian and bicycle paths should be prioritized before the roads. Women walking or riding public transport more often than men more often choose car. But the opposition asking themselves how well the equality snow removal really worked.
So let me see if I understand this correctly. They have this idea that when it snows, they should plow pedestrian and bike paths as a priority over plowing roads because women on average are more likely to walk than men, who are more likely to take a car. They are doing this because of “equality” somehow.
Ok… lets see how this turns out.
“Just as bad for everyone”
– Some places have not snöröjts at all, and it’s just as bad for everyone. We have received quite a lot of reports that it has prioritized bike lanes in front walkways.
I’m assuming that “snöröjts”, which didn’t successfully translate, must refer to cyclists, based on the rest of the sentence.
Most of those bikes are men so I do not know how equal it is.
Although I’m sure in feminist Sweden, if most were women, it would be just fine.
Now pedestrians must walk on the bike lanes because they can not walk on her foot paths and cyclists and pedestrians may not even during good relationship get along really well on the same surface, says Cecilia Brinck (M).
Cecilia Brinck (M) says to SVT News Stockholm to snow removal so far is beneath contempt. Although the snow did Stockholmers by storm, so the city had been able to be better prepared.
So this equality snow plowing isn’t working out apparently. Lets read on to find out why.
Opposition: Insanely give fines
– This SMHI has warned for several days. So enough by the powers could have been better prepared to deal with these snow cover. After all, it is no surprise that it’s snowing in Stockholm in winter, says Cecilia Brinck (M). It is clear that with better preparedness could have been sure that it did not happen. Now it is apparently also true that you are out and give parking tickets to cars that have been unable to get out due to the snow.
So because they prioritised the paths rather than the roads, cars are unable to use the roads at all and through no fault of their own, the motorists are getting parking fines.
I think that also is completely insane. It is an extraordinary situation, and then you have to be flexible. It is the city’s task to remove the snow and before you have done that, you can not go around punishing motorists for not coming out.
And yet they do so anyway despite the fact that they’re the ones to blame. This is hilarious. They’re so concerned about gender equality that they chose to focus on plowing the less essential footpaths because women are more likely to use them, over the more essential roads, which are more likely to be used by men, and now they’re punishing the motorists, many of whom are probably women, for their own stupid decision.
Only in Sweden does this insanity make sense.
What do you think of the term “gender snow removal”?
I think “what the fuck is going on in this world? How did we get to this point?”
– I think it’s a little silly if I’ll be frank. In particular, since it does not really mean that big changes from how we worked before, except that then prioritizes bicycle paths higher than what we have done. We have not received any clear information on what this means in practice because it was relatively correct little snow last winter.
It’s going to get a whole lot worse. Let me give you a potential scenario.
Imagine there was a medical emergency (for example, an elderly lady has a heart attack), that requires an ambulance to be dispatched. Now lets imagine, that the ambulance is unable to make the journey, because the snow on the road is too deep. You do have snow plows, but instead of using them to clear the road, you have them clearing the footpaths instead. So that elderly lady ends up dying because the ambulance couldn’t get to her in time.
She literally just died in the name of gender equality. -_-
I am so happy right now. The Glorious Leader has done it. This is incredible. We have just seen history unfold before us in real time. I truly believe that what we have just seen will be talked about for generations, because this really is a game changer.
I wish I could say that my faith never faltered, but I must admit, that even though I knew the polls from the lying media were bullshit, that there were times when I worried, times when I really thought that it just wouldn’t happen. I tried to keep my faith, put on the brave face, and tell people that I discussed this topic with, that I was confident that he would do it, but the truth is I very often thought that having the entire media, political, and financial establishment against him, would be too much for one man to overcome. I often worried that the election could very well be rigged, or that the electoral college system which isn’t based on the popular vote might work against him. I also worried that the relentless smear campaign and propaganda against him might be too damaging to deal with.
Even watching the election unfold live, seeing states on the map switching back and forward between red and blue, then checking the corresponding electoral college map, to see how much each state was worth, was a completely nerve-racking experience. There were times when it really looked as if a key state worth a lot of votes might slip from his grasp completely. Even Texas turned blue a few times, as crazy as that might sound. It was very stressful and at times it seemed like he might have no hope.
I don’t normally like being wrong, but on this occasion, I can make an exception. I am delighted to be wrong.
I’m very overwhelmed with emotion right now. The past year has been a difficult one for me on a personal level. While this great news doesn’t necessarily ease the pain regarding any problems in my personal life, it at least gives me back a sense of optimism that there is still a possibility for good to happen in the world, for life to be worth living, and for Western Civilisation to stop going down the same dark path that was destroying us. With the alternative being a possibility of a nuclear war with Russia, as well as the continuation and normalisation of the migrant invasion of Europe (and that’s not including all the other lesser problems that could also have happened), I honestly think I would have become completely disillusioned with life in general if Hillary had won. I don’t have much else to say right now, as I’m feeling mentally drained from the emotional roller-coaster I just experienced from watching it all unfold live. I also really need to just sit back and process the whole thing.
I just know this much, tomorrow is a new day, and it’s going to be a very good day indeed.
Especially when I get to see all the meltdowns on Facebook. 😉
I remember about a year and half ago when Donald Trump first announced that he was throwing his hat into the US presidential race, that I really didn’t think too much about it. I figured it was just a dumb publicity stunt and although I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points he was making, and thought he was pretty damn funny with how blunt and unapologetic he was in regards to the outrage he was causing, I didn’t take him all that seriously at first. However, after seeing the types of political hacks he was competing against, as well as the passionate hatred he was inspiring in the controlled media and political establishment, I started paying more and more attention, and soon realised that there was a lot more to him than I saw at first. However, it wasn’t until roughly one year ago when I first became aware of the escalating tensions between America and Russia (something a Hillary presidency will only make much worse), that I came to this conclusion.
Donald Trump, that pompous, arrogant, obnoxious, reality TV buffoon, may very well be the world’s only hope for survival.
Once again, I am faced with a story that fills me with dread. We’re just one day away from seeing the big decision being made, and yet we’re still seeing an escalation in tension between Russia and NATO, as if a conflict between the two is inevitable. But it isn’t inevitable. There is still time to resolve these problems, if the right decision is made tomorrow.
Up to 300,000 Nato troops have been put on alert amid rising tensions between Russia and the Baltic states.
Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of Nato, said the alliance hoped to speed up the response time of thousands of its troops to allow it to react to a combat situation more effectively.
And yet I still haven’t seen any evidence that Russia are the aggressors, so I don’t know what they would need to respond to. To me, it looks more like they’re getting these troops prepared, not as a response to possible Russian aggression, but rather to attack Russia themselves.
“We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways,” Mr Stoltenberg told The Times.
“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years – tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.
Can you really blame them though? With how much NATO has expanded since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the aggressive rhetoric being spouted against them from America, I honestly can’t blame them for building up their own military forces. It’s either that, or leave themselves defenceless against this aggression.
“We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”
What propaganda? This sounds like projection to me. I’ve heard plenty of propaganda against Russia in regards to Ukraine, their actions in Syria, and their alleged (but still no evidence for) hackings in America. What propaganda is Russia spreading?
Mr Stoltenberg refused to be drawn on the specific number of troops being put on alert, but Britain’s outgoing Nato representative Sir Adam Thomson said it was likely to be around 300,000.
Sir Adam said the aim was to find a way to mobilise the troops within two months, instead of the typical time of around six months.
To me that makes it sound as if they are trying to speed up the schedule of getting this war underway. I think it’s interesting to note that even if Trump does win tomorrow, he won’t actually be inaugurated until January 20th, plenty of time for Obama to start this war that the American establishment so clearly wants, before Trump has a chance to prevent it himself.
The proposition was discussed by Nato defence ministers at a conference in October. “There are a large number of people in the armed forces of Nato allies, we are looking into how more of them can be ready at shorter notice,” Mr Stoltenberg added.
Nato is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid warfare and cyberattacks by Russia and other non-Nato states, according to Sir Adam.
Alleged cyberattacks which they still haven’t provided any evidence that Russia is guilty of. This is just one of the many examples of the big lie in action yet again. Keep saying something over and over, and people will eventually believe that it’s true, no matter how little proof is provided.
The alliance’s response is in part a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as a bid to reassure ex-Soviet states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all Nato members, who fear Moscow could try a similar tactic again.
Not a fair comparison. Crimea was historically part of Russia even before the existence of the Soviet Union. It became a part of Ukraine for administration purposes during Soviet times, when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would always be one anyway. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remained a part of Ukraine, though its population has always been an ethnic Russian majority, who favour close ties with Russia. When the Billionaire George Soros paid a group of thugs to topple the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government, and replace it with a pro-EU/America, puppet government, Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own interests, and the Crimean people voted in a landslide to rejoin Russia (though I will admit, it is debateable if such a referendum can be considered fully transparent when Russia was in control of the region). The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Crimea to those other ex-Soviet states, and I don’t think Russia has any interest in annexing any of them.
Yeah, that really wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I reckon if it were not for America’s protection, Russia could probably overrun all of Europe pretty quickly, even the great powers like Germany, France, and the UK.
Nearly half of Russians fear Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian conflict could lead to World War III, a recent poll found.
And I think so too, though I don’t blame Russia (whose actions in Syria I believe are justified overall), I blame America.
I really have this weird fear that even if Trump does win, the establishment might just trigger the war anyway just before he takes power, making it that much harder for him to resolve things that it would, if he was to get in beforehand. Nevertheless, I still think from the point of view of peace, he’s the better choice. If the war does kick off between now and the time of inauguration, I would rather have him be the one to come to power in the hopes that he can make peace with Putin later. Hillary, will be only too happy to continue the war if she comes to power.
The choice is in your hands America. Please make the right one.
Here’s a brief, but very interesting video. A man with a camera goes up to some young white liberal women on a college campus to ask them if voter ID laws are racist. They agree that they are. Their reason for thinking this? Well check it out.
Guy asks Girl 1 if it’s harder for black people to go online and get an ID. She responds:
“I feel like they don’t have the knowledge of how it works.”
“For most of the communities they don’t really know what is out there just because they’re not aware or they’re not informed”.
Just think about that for a second. She’s generalising an entire race of people as being somehow too dumb to know the procedure on how to get an ID. I can’t understand the logic behind that kind of thinking. What evidence is she even basing it on? In a country where internet connected devices are omnipresent, and a simple Google search can provide answers to virtually any question that you ask, why does she think that black people are in general somehow too stupid to know how to go online and figure out how to get an ID so they can vote? And more importantly, how can she not see the racism in what she herself is saying? While her intentions are not malicious, she is still looking down upon an entire race of people as being less capable of performing a simple task than her own race. It’s insane that people can think this way and not see the problem.
Then we get on to Girl 2.
“I also think there is a repression of black voting with how if you’re a convicted felon, you’re not allowed to vote.”
“repression of black voting”
“convicted felon not allowed to vote”
Just as Girl 1 was making a racist generalisation of black people being too dumb to know how to get an ID, Girl 2 is making a racist generalisation by associating being a felon with being black. Where have I heard that before?
While it is true that in America, convicted felons are disproportionately black, the fact that this girl instantly thinks of “black voter suppression” when she talks about convicted felons not being able to vote, is clearly a racist attitude on her part, because it shows that she associates “black people” and “felons” in her own mind. I just think this is all very interesting. These girls obviously have good intentions behind what they are saying, but the fact that they see black people in general as being less capable and more criminal, really says a lot about their own biases.