There are only two relevant sides in the Syrian civil war. There is the legal Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad. Then there are the terrorist groups, of which, ISIS is the largest and the most infamous. Now we’re all well aware of the kind of atrocities that ISIS have been committing. There are plenty of stories and videos of them beheading western hostages, throwing gay men off the top of buildings, destroying irreplaceable ancient Roman era artefacts, taking women as sex slaves, claiming responsibility for the epidemic of terrorist attacks happening all across Europe, etc. Yet despite all this, Western policy and Western media seems more interested in demonising Assad, a popular, secular, and democratically elected ruler, rather than ISIS, even though Assad is fighting against them. I’ve discussed the stupidity of the narrative surrounding Assad in this post here already.
Now if you have any critical thinking skills, you might ask yourself, “Why is this happening?”. Lets assume that Assad really is guilty of the atrocities that the West claims that he is guilty of (and just for the record, I don’t actually think he is guilty of them at all). Well, if atrocities are the reason why the West is so opposed to him, then surely ISIS have him beat in that regard, even if he really did do all the things that they’ve accused him of. There’s no logical reason to go after Assad for “committing atrocities”, while ignoring the much larger list of atrocities committed by his opponents. If atrocities were the only concern, then the logical thing to do would be to deal with the greater evil (ISIS) first, bring the Syrian civil war to an end, and then when that is done, present any evidence of Assad’s alleged atrocities to the UN Security Council and his Russian allies, and negotiate his removal this way instead.
So when you realise that there is no logical reason behind the “Assad needs to be removed because he commits atrocities” narrative, there must instead be another explanation. One of the explanations I’ve heard put forward is that the west actually supports ISIS, because Assad is allied with Iran (Israel’s greatest enemy), and taking out Assad will help isolate Iran, and therefore strengthen Israel’s position in the region. This theory is also confirmed by Wikileaks. However, you would understandably then ask the question “Why would Israel support ISIS? Aren’t they the enemies of the Jews?”
Well, going by this story taken from The Times of Israel itself, apparently not.
Former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon on Saturday said the Islamic State terrorist group in the Syrian Golan Heights “apologized” for attacking an Israeli unit.
“There was one case recently where Daesh opened fire and apologized,” Ya’alon said, using the terror group’s Arabic nickname.
Just think about this logically. Why would ISIS apologise for attacking Israeli forces, if they were enemies of Israel? They fight against the Assad forces in Syria, against Iran, and Hezbollah, all of whom are enemies of Israel. So in other words, ISIS fights the enemies of Israel, but when they accidentally attack Israeli forces, they apologise. I think it’s pretty obvious what this suggests.
This was an apparent reference to a clash that took place near the Syrian border last November, in which IDF troops exchanged fire with members of the Islamic State affiliate. After a brief gun battle, the Israeli military attacked the terrorist group with airstrikes and tank fire, killing four of them.
Israel and much of the Western world considers the Islamic State affiliate in the Syrian Golan Heights, known as the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, to be a terrorist group. Communication with them is technically illegal under Israeli law, constituting contact with an enemy agent.
It won’t actually matter in practicality though.
Ya’alon was speaking at an event in the northern city of Afula. He was interviewed on stage by Eli Levi, a Channel 10 news correspondent.
His comment about the Islamic State’s apology was made as part of a broader point about Israel’s policy for Syria, which is largely non-interventionist.
LOL, non-interventionist, sure.
You’re not fooling anyone.
Ya’alon was explaining that Israel carries out strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces in retaliation when spillover fire hits the Israeli Golan Heights.
Golan Heights is actually internationally recognised Syrian territory, that has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967. If they don’t want to get hit by any “spillover fire”, then they should just hand back the territory that they stole.
Ya’alon’s officer refused to elaborate on how exactly the Islamic State expressed its apology to Israel after the attack. The IDF also declined to comment.
I don’t think we’ll be getting an answer any time soon either. Something tells me that this isn’t the kind of thing he was supposed to say publicly.
Syrian officials have accused Israel of directly aiding the Islamic State and other rebel groups, a claim Jerusalem vociferously denies.
Yet we’re supposed to believe that ISIS just apologised for attacking Israeli forces, because they’re nice guys and didn’t mean to do so.
Lets really analyse the magnitude of what this all means. ISIS have claimed responsibility for pretty much every terrorist attack that has happened in the Western world the past few years. I’m not saying necessarily that they actually are responsible for them all, but the point is that they clearly support them all. Israel, which is supposedly the great ally of the Western world is supporting ISIS, because ISIS is useful to them.
Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that when you combine this latest story about them clearly working with ISIS, with everything else, that they are proving the antisemites rights about them. They are proving that they are no friend or ally to us at all. They are in fact the greatest threat facing us. Just think of it this way. They have been expelled from where they were living 109 times that we know of from recorded history. Are we really supposed to believe that all 109 times, that they were just innocent victims of irrational hatred, and never deserved what happened? Or, is it possible that they were causing problems for their host society, and the expulsion was just a backlash against them for all the trouble they were causing? Surely, 109 different groups, separated by both geography and history, can’t all have been irrational, hate filled bigots, right?
A little under a week ago, I wrote a response post to an article published by the Huffington Post, in which the author, a self described feminist, called for the “temporary” disenfranchisement of white males , supposedly in the name of “equality” and “progress”.
The article attracted a massive backlash online, to the point were the Huffington Post deleted the original article (archived here), and used the original link to the article to re-direct to this response.
Huffington Post SA has removed the blog “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.
We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that, until now, have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.
We will hold discussions on putting in place even better quality controls.
In addition, we note the commentary on the content of the blog post and will submit it to the South African Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe for his analysis of the opinion we carried.
Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: “We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
We further understand that universal enfranchisement followed a long struggle and we fully support this.
In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.
5. Discrimination and Hate Speech
5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.
5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
The thing is, I don’t think they were actually sorry at all. This was purely done as a matter of self-preservation. At one point in my response to the article, I made this comment about it.
The more I read on, and see how ridiculous it is, the more I start to think it’s a satirical article, just to annoy people like me. Then again, the Huffington Post really has been terrible in the past, so it probably is real. At the very best, the article might have been submitted by a troll, and isn’t intended seriously, but the Huffington Post still published it, so at the very least, they approve of its message, serious or not.
And it turns out, the article really was satirical in nature. It was actually written by a South African, White man, with the express purpose of proving a point. The idiots at the Huffington Post, so blinded by their hatred of white men, were happy to publish an article that fit their narrative, without any regard for fact checking, discrimination laws, or even if the article was written by a real person. The details behind his motivation for doing what he did can be read here.
Some relevant extracts:
“I just thought you can say almost anything you want . . . not necessarily attacking white men. I think there is a lack of fact-checking in South African journalism. I thought, would it work?
Roodt explained he didn’t target HuffPost specifically and that his main motivation was “the lack of fact-checking in journalism”. He also identified a few stories published by South African media which he believes are inaccurate and which served as his motivation.
He says his blog – which promoted the idea that white men are the cause of a lot of societal malaise and should therefore be denied voting rights – might have been too aggressive or angry. Roodt, however, argues both white and black South Africans tend to generalise about other groups and that these generalisations often go unchecked.
Roodt says he believes the resultant furore might lead to a debate in society about race relations and journalistic ethics. This, he added, was a good thing.
So there you have it. A white South African man creates a fake profile, submits a satirical article to it that is highly discriminatory in its message towards white men, and the Huffington Post happily publishes it, without any regard for the accuracy of the information contained, or the highly offensive nature of it. To think, that there are actually people out there who think this a real news source. It’s nothing more than Buzzfeed tier, garbage of the highest degree.
Anyone who thinks this organisation is trustworthy needs help.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately, a lot of soul searching if you will, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I was wrong, completely wrong about everything. I look back on this blog, and everything that I’ve written over the past two and a half years. Do you know what I feel? Shame, nothing but shame. I’ve written terrible things, despicable things, filled with irrationality and hatred. However, I realise that it isn’t too late to do the right thing, and so I’ve decided to make a very big change today.
I have come to the conclusion, that the only solution to my moral dilemma, is to covert to Islam, and dedicate my life to complete submission to the will of Allah. It makes perfect sense anyway, seeing as Islam is the inevitable future of all of Europe, so doing this now, while I’m still young, will make the transition a lot easier for me. 1.6 Billion (and counting) people couldn’t possibly be wrong after all. Lets get on the winning team, or get left behind.
You might be wondering, what’s with the sudden change of heart? Well, it’s quite simple really. After all my research, it turns out that they’re right, white people (particularly straight, white, males), really are the source of all evil in the world. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Or rather, evidence doesn’t matter. If my fellow Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Feminists, Transgender people, and of course, God’s chosen people themselves, the Jews, all agree that straight white males are to blame for everything bad in the world, then who am I to disagree? Evidence is not necessary. We can just take them at their word. “Evidence” and “reality” are just horrible concepts invented by the straight, white, male, patriarchy, to oppress others. Feelings should take precedence over these concepts.
Not only will I be converting to Islam, but I’ll also be laying off Sweden from now on. It’s a fantastic country, and I think the rest of Europe can learn a lot from them. I long for a day when every country in Europe decides to ethnically cleanse its own population, by flooding it with infinity people from the third world. Diversity is our greatest strength. Someday, Europe will resemble some combination of Africa and the Middle East, and that’s good, very very good. Who needs the native populations of Europe, the descendants of the people who built it, when we can instead have the cultural enrichment of “diversity”? A few terrorist attacks, rapes, and an erosion of European culture, is a small price to pay, for these benefits, benefits which are so vast and obvious, that nobody ever needs to explain what they are.
I want to reassure my readers (all 2 or 3 of you), that this isn’t the end of Methodical Insanity. No, it’s just a new beginning. From now on, the purpose of the blog will be to post my favourite extracts from the Quran, and then discussing what these extracts mean in the modern world. Remember, just because an extract may call for the death of the infidels, that doesn’t mean it literally means death to the infidels. Islam is a religion of peace, no different than any other (except it’s obviously better, hence why I’m converting to it).
Yes today, April 1st, 2017, marks a new beginning in this blog. I hope you are as excited about it as I am.
OMG, I’m actually laughing so hard right now. As I’m sure people have seen, the media has been flooded with stories about an apparent increase in hate crimes, ever since Trump became president. Just check out some of the headlines below that show up in Google searches for the term “increase hate crimes Trump”.
Most of these alleged hate crimes usually end up getting debunked very quickly and appearing on fakehatecrimes.org, a few days later. The media never gives as much attention to the debunking of course, as that doesn’t fit the narrative. Therefore, even after they do get debunked, most people still continue to believe that there is some massive epidemic of Neo-Nazi, white supremacists, committing acts of evil against minorities, in the name of Trump.
Anyway, one group that has claimed to be getting targeted a lot as of late, has been the Jews. First of all, there was the story about one of their graveyards getting vandalised. Then there was the stories about how there were dozens of bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions. The media went into a frenzy over these “antisemitic hate crimes” and started screeching for something to be done to protect the poor innocent Jews, from all the hate they were experiencing (for absolutely no reason of course). Well, the graveyard vandalism, turned out to not be vandalism at all. But sure, the bomb threats were still real, right?
The typical “anti-semitic” hate crime, follows a very predictable trajectory. Usually, a crudely drawn swastika and hate filled message (often poorly spelled for extra effect) are found on the wall of a Jewish business or home. The media goes crazy and starts demanding something be done and there is a big moral panic over the “alarming increase in racial hatred”. A few days pass by and people start asking questions. Suddenly, holes start turning up in the original story, and this causes suspicion. Then the Jew who faked the hate crime is exposed
Israeli police say a 19-year-old man with American and Israeli citizenship is suspected of making threats against Jewish institutions worldwide.
Everyone with any understanding of these situations, predicted this would be the case. Lets just look at it logically. There were dozens of bomb threats being called in against these Jewish institutions, and there was never any actual bomb, not even once. A real antisemite wouldn’t waste time with dozens of hoaxes, because they’d know damn well that the only people who would benefit from it, are the Jews themselves, because of the victimhood points it would give them, and the fact that it could potentially have been used as an excuse to crack down on antisemites.
Police arrested the suspect in the south of Israel on Thursday morning over threats against Jewish communities in the US, New Zealand and Australia.
He was detained by Israeli cyber-fraud police, after an inquiry with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Last month an ex-US journalist was arrested for several of the threats.
Yeah, that was some black guy who probably had real mental health problems (not the fake kind the media talk about every single time there’s a Muslim attack), who was more than likely just doing a copy-cat crime, after seeing all the attention the previous bomb threats got.
In fact, that was almost certainly the point in the first place. Make bomb threats against their own people, give these fake threats massive coverage in the media, and hope for some attention seeking lunatic to copy them, then blame it all on Trump and white supremacy. Too bad it was a black guy who copied it instead.
But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said on Thursday the latest suspect’s motives are unclear.
^See above. I think I figured out the motive very easily. This is pretty common behaviour for Jews. They seem to have a natural inclination towards paranoia, and are constantly expecting the next persecution to occur, at any time. If they aren’t being persecuted, they invent persecution against themselves instead, either to justify their paranoia, and demand some kind of compensation from the rest of society, or to use it as a weapon against their enemies (Trump in this case).
In one of the threats made against a Jewish Community Center (JCC) on 18 January, a caller is heard saying: “In a short time, a large number of Jews are going to be slaughtered.
“There’s going to be a bloodbath that’s going to take place in a short time.”
I wish I could find the video again. I remember listening to it at the time, and it was blatantly obvious it was a Jew making the threat. The voice was a bit distorted, but even so, you could easily make out the stereotypical, nasally, New York Jew accent.
Imagine this voice, but distorted and making threats.
Doron Krakow, president of the JCC Association of North America, said he was “troubled” to hear the suspect is Jewish, adding that he is “hopeful” that the threats have come to an end.
We’ll just have to see. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other Jews who were involved as well.
Investigators say the Israeli teen used camouflage technologies to disguise the origin of the dozens of calls.
“He didn’t use regular phone lines. He used different computer systems so he couldn’t be backtracked,” Mr Rosenfeld said.
Very clever. Just not clever enough, it seems.
In the US, more than 120 hoax bomb threats have been made against Jewish schools, synagogues and cultural centres since earlier January, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
And the media was having a frenzy, blaming Trump and Trump supporters for it.
There have also been at least three vandalism attacks made against US cemeteries in recent months.
At least one of which we know was caused by mother nature. I wouldn’t be surprised if the other two were vandalised for real though… but by Jews.
The teen is also suspected of making threats against Delta Air Lines, forcing a plane to make an emergency landing in 2015 in order to be searched for explosives.
Israeli’s minister of public safety Gilad Erdan congratulated the police for the arrest.
“We hope that this investigation will help shed light on some of the recent threats against Jewish institutions, which have caused great concern both among Jewish communities and the Israeli government,” he said in a statement.
There is a court order in place preventing the media from reporting the man’s name.
But not his ethnicity ^_^
He will be held under arrest until 30 March, the court ruled.
According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the army had refused to draft him on personal grounds, after determining that he was unfit for service.
Probably mentally unfit from the sounds of it.
A reported spike in anti-Jewish incidents led to criticism of the Trump administration, with some saying they did not react quickly or forcefully enough to the hate threats.
Which was the whole point. Fake hate crimes against themselves, then use it as an excuse to criticise Trump. It was so predictable. As soon as I heard about bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions, I knew a Jew was behind it, just from previous cases.
Last month, the White House denounced the threats and rejected “anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest terms”.
But that damn antisemite, Trump, didn’t denounce them quickly enough. Sure, didn’t you hear that Trump is apparently a Holocaust Denier , just because he didn’t specifically mention the Jews by name, in his speech commemorating the suffering of Holocaust victims? He still acknowledged that it happened of course, but just talked about all “the people” who had suffered, rather than “the Jews”. What a horrible monster he is.
It pledged to provide “support to groups affected by these incidents to enhance public safety”.
And of course, in order to provide this support, they need more funds from tax-payers, and draconian hate speech laws implemented against people who dare criticise the Jews in any way. If they don’t get this money, and these laws, we might see more fake hate crimes being committed.
I’m a day or two late posting this, but we just passed the 100th anniversary of Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication of the Russian throne. I think this is a pretty important event to remember, because this was the incident that directly preceded the rise of the scourge that is Communism, and was arguably the beginning of a series of events that led us to where we are in the world today. RT has posted a video to commemorate the event.
The comments section makes for some very interesting reading.
So yeah, noticing a bit of a theme with the comments there? An awful lot of people seem to blame “the Jews” for Communism. This sort of thing has long been considered an “antisemitic canard“, and is usually brushed off by people who hear it as nothing more than a “Nazi conspiracy theory”. Here’s the thing though, it isn’t technically inaccurate at all. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that Jews were disproportionately responsible for Communism.
Keep in mind that even in a country like Russia, which would have had a pretty large Jewish population in comparison to other countries at that time, their population percentage was probably about 5% at best. Even that is probably a generous estimate. To be so over-represented among the leading figures in the Bolshevik party, couldn’t possibly have happened by chance.
Even, if we look at reports from that time period, it more or less confirms that it was pretty common knowledge at the time that the majority of leading Bolsheviks were Jews.
The thing is though, it doesn’t just stop with Russia. Lets also take a look at Germany for example. In my post about the Berkeley riots, I briefly made reference to the attempted Communist Revolution in Germany in 1918-1919. Take a look at the names of the leaders of the Communists.
Someone else noticed a certain pattern here as well.
Again, notice how just like in the successful Communist revolution in Russia, the unsuccessful Communist revolution in Germany was overwhelmingly led by Jews, a people who made up a very tiny percentage of both countries’ populations at the time?
Oh, but it doesn’t just stop there. It isn’t even limited to Europe. Lets take a look at China next. Yes, the leader of the Chinese Communists, was the Chinese national, Mao Zedong, but there were plenty of Jewsin positions of power in that movement as well.
And those are just a few examples. Again, for such a tiny minority, does it not seem strange to see so many of their names coming up, even moreso in regard to a country like China? Russia and Germany are one thing. At least those countries had a relatively long history of Jewish settlement, and had fairly large Jewish populations. China is something else entirely though. It makes no sense to suggest that this could just have been a coincidence.
Oh and I’m still not done yet. How about the situation in South Africa, you know, that once successful country that is gradually heading towards failed state status? Everyone is always told about how great Nelson Mandela was and if you didn’t know better, you would think he was nothing more than a peaceful protester who spent decades in prison for political reasons. In reality, he was a Communist terrorist who was willing to use violence to further his goals, and that was why he was imprisoned.
You may say that this doesn’t matter, because Apartheid was an evil system, that needed to be abolished by any means necessary. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have (though personally, I reckon Apartheid South Africa was a paradise in comparison to its modern replacement). However when you consider the fact that the only Jew majority state on the planet, Israel, is an Apartheid state itself, and the Palestinians are treated far worse than the black South Africans ever were (black people flocked to South Africa during Apartheid, but nobody flocks to the Palestinian territories), it just really shows the hypocrisy that exists. I don’t believe that someone like Joe Slovo was opposed to Apartheid because he believed in “muh human rights”. I believe he was opposed to it for the same reason the Communist Jews in Russia and Germany were opposed to the systems in those countries… because he wanted to take power for himself and his own kind, and the disenfranchised blacks were a useful battering ram against the existing system, in much the same way that the working class was in Russia in 1917.
And on that note, I’d like to focus a bit more attention on this concept of using certain demographics of society as “battering rams” against the targeted culture. In the years preceding the outbreak of the First World War, it was generally believed by most Marxist intellectuals that if a great war ever broke out in Europe, that the working class all across the continent would eventually refuse to fight and would turn against the capitalists and aristocracy of their nations, in favour of pursuing their class interests instead. As we saw, that was exactly what did eventually happen In Russia, but in the rest of Europe, the people didn’t rise up at all.
So the leading Marxist intellectuals at the time had to go back to the drawing board. They needed to figure out where their theories went wrong and what should be done differently in order to lead to the global Communist revolution that they wanted. Eventually in the early 1920s, two of these leading Marxists, Antonio Gramsci of Italy (a Gentile), and Georg Lukács of Hungary (a Jew) both independently came to the conclusion that the reason why Communism failed to take off in Europe, despite the horrors of the war, was because of the strength of Christianity and Western Culture, and the loyalty that the ordinary people had to these things. People were more loyal to their culture than to do their social class. Therefore, Christianity and Western Culture needed to be undermined and eventually destroyed in order to facilitate the gradual transition towards Communism.
This concept of undermining Western Civilisation was adopted by an organisation that became known as the “Frankfurt School” and led to development of the philosophy known as “Critical Theory“. The basic concept behind critical theory was literally to analyse every single norm in society and to criticise it, in the hopes of eventually changing it. The idea behind criticising these norms, was to pathologise them, so that we would eventually be conditioned to lose faith in them, and therefore weaken our loyalty to the culture that spawned them.
By the way, if you were to look at this list of “notable theorists” who were a part of the Frankfurt School…
… with the possible exceptions of Habermas, Schmidt, and Honneth (whom I can’t find confirmation on either way), every single one of these men were Jews.
Anyway, the Frankfurt School was active in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 their members fled, mainly to America, where they became affiliated with Colombia University. After WW2, some returned to Europe, but others, including Herbert Marcuse, remained in America.
By the late 1960s, the first half of the baby boomer generation (people who were born in the few years following the end of the War and had therefore never experienced any of the hardship associated with either the war itself or the Great Depression that preceded it) were at the age were they would be attending college. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Frankfurt School (particularly Marcuse), had at this point spent the past 30 years or so, gaining power and influence in the American academic system, and now had plenty of followers to do their bidding. Do you remember how I mentioned before how Communists uses certain demographics as battering rams to achieve their aims, and originally, the working class had been the battering ram of choice? Well, after the working class had failed to live up to expectations, and after realising that the enemy was Western culture, a new battering ram had to be found.
In previous times, the struggle had always been the “working class against the capitalists and aristocrats that exploited them”. Now, the capitalists and aristocrats had been replaced with the architects of Western Culture… straight, white, Christian, men. The working class was replaced with anyone who didn’t fit into those categories. It’s no coincidence that the black civil rights movement, second wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the 60’s counterculture in general, all happened at roughly the same time, and all had their origins on American college campuses. It was all based on Frankfurt School Critical Theory being taught in American Academia and it was actually all about attacking the dominant straight, white, Christian demography of America, under the guise of “progressivism” and “human rights”. The baby boomer college students were the perfect useful idiots to promote it, because they had never experienced any real hardship themselves and were naive enough to buy into it.
Indeed, just to briefly focus on the the Civil Rights Movement specifically, Martin Luther King Jr. was educated in a suspected Communist institute. The real brains behind his speeches and the organisation of his events as well was the Jew, Stanley Levison. This doesn’t necessarily prove that the civil rights movement was entirely a Jewish movement to attack white America in order to bring in Communism, but once again, it’s a very strange coincidence isn’t it? Even the NAACP, an organisation which exists to promote the interests of black people, was actually founded by William English Walling (white man with Jewish wife), Mary White Ovington (white woman), and Henry Moskowitz (Jew), rather than black people. In a country where Jews make up roughly 2% of the population (probably even less at that point in time), this again is a pretty strange coincidence.
I’ve already discussed before how, Jews are widely over-represented in the feminist movement, and are also widely over-represented in the push for multiculturalism in Western societies.
Multiculturalism for everywhere… except Israel of course.
The logic behind these two moves is divide and conquer. By promoting the very worst aspects of feminism, they turn men and women against each other. Women are encouraged to think of Western culture as inherently misogynistic and sexist, and therefore become a battering ram against men. People from different cultural backgrounds (which often times actually ARE misogynistic and sexist) are imported by the millions (whether there is any need or justification for their presence or not) and they are encouraged to think of Western culture as being “racist” and full of “white privilege”. They in turn become a battering ram against the white majority. This instills a sense of guilt and shame in the white majority, and a sense of anger and entitlement in the non-white minorities.
Identity politics in general is played up based on everything you can think of: race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability, etc., to the point were there is no unity, and people are left with little faith in the institutions of society. Even today, rather than reporting honestly on anything, the mainstream media (dominatedby Jews) fans the flames of organisations like Black Lives Matter, constantly brings up debunked feminist myths such as the “wage gap“, or tries to blame every Muslim terrorist attack on either “mental illness” or as a response to white racism, rather than on an ideology that is completely incompatible with the Western Culture that they wish to destroy. And that is the key point. Everything they currently promote: multiculturalism, globalism, identity politics, etc., is done so as part of a century long plan to destroy Western Civilisation the world over, and replace it with a form of Communism.
I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent in this post. I just saw that video and found the comments pretty interesting and wanted to discuss what they were saying in more detail. I never expected to go this far with it. Nevertheless, I hope I’ve provided an interesting read, and explained properly why the idea of “Jews being responsible for Communism” is not a conspiracy theory at all. It’s simply a historical reality.
There’s an old Vladimir Lenin quote that rings true even today. And that quote, is this:
A few days ago, in my post about George W. Bush condemning Trump’s “racism”, I briefly mentioned the point that the reason why he’s coming out to condemn Trump, but stayed silent on Obama, is because the establishment Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, and only exist as controlled opposition to one another, in order to give people the illusion of choice. The same can be said in pretty much any two-party dominated political system that exists in the world. One party gets voted into power, and makes decisions that benefit a small handful of elites in power, at the expense of everyone else. The people get pissed off and then vote for the other major party in the next election. This other major party gets into power and makes the same decisions (with maybe a few superficial differences in issues of minor importance), once again for the benefit of a small minority of elites, at the expense of everyone else.
Then, instead of voting for any true opposition, the public goes back to voting for the other major party who have seemingly “changed their ways” or “brought in fresh blood with new ways of thinking” or whatever. Any genuine opposition parties are pushed to the fringe, and the controlled media will either ignore them completely, or will slander them as radicals, who can’t be trusted with power. The fact that the two major parties have already proven themselves untrustworthy multiple times already, whereas these “radicals” have never even been given a chance, is never actually addressed of course. The media exists solely to maintain the status quo for the elites, by feeding the ordinary people information that is part of the approved narrative. It doesn’t exist to actually inform people of the truth. God forbid, if the people were actually well informed on what’s going on and were inclined to support policies that go against those that are approved.
However, it stands to reason that eventually, a lot of people will lose faith in this controlled media as time goes by, as they start to lose credibility for constantly pushing unpopular narratives, or for exposing themselves as liars. This discontent from the public, allows a market niche to develop for alternative media from the mainstream, media which will tell people things that the mainstream media won’t. The establishment have been able to foresee this eventuality, and have taken preemptive strikes to control this opposition, by setting up their own controlled “alternative media”.
These controlled alternatives then try to direct the energy of the opposition away from important issues, by instead focusing their attention on low hanging fruit such as radical feminism, or mass Muslim immigration. While focusing on these easy targets, they tend to ignore, or in some cases (as the video I’m about to post shows) dismiss the real issues that are of concern to us as a people, and which the powers that be want to cover up. Those real issues being, that white people are being targeted for genocide on a global scale, and that the masterminds behind this genocide, are overwhelmingly Jews.
Lets take a look at this video. This video was produced by “Rebel Media”, an organisation owned and run by the Jew, Ezra Levant, which tries to portray itself as edgy and cool, all while arguing within the established limitations that are approved for controlled opposition to discuss. The video claims that white people who think they have a right to live in an ethno-state are stupid for thinking this way. Meanwhile, Ezra Levant is a supporter of the Jew ethno-state, Israel. Of course for anyone in the know, this is hardly surprising. The double standards and hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed “God’s chosen people” is well documented at this point.
So the black dude from the so called “Rebel” media makes a video sneering at “alt-right white nationalists” for wanting to pursue policies that will stop us from going extinct. He also denies the very concept of “white genocide” even existing, and suggests that people who believe in these things are just as bad as “Black Lives Matter” protesters. Of course, this comparison is completely idiotic because:
Alt-Right white nationalists aren’t rioting in the streets, burning cars, or attacking innocent people of different races, unlike BLM.
White genocide is actually a real thing, unlike the idiotic hoaxes that BLM’s entire premise is based upon (a topic I’ve addressed before).
The video is getting absolutely hammered in the comments section, and in the “like to dislike” ratio.
So lets take a look at some of the comments, just in case they get deleted, or the comments section gets closed down later. Believe me, the people are really pissed off about this video. Rebel Media obviously underestimated just how much of their audience is made up of the “Alt-Right White Nationalist” crowd that they’re trying to direct people away from.
It’s nice to see that the video got this (deserved) reaction. I must admit that overall, I’ve generally enjoyed Rebel Media’s content, because they do at least talk about some issues that I think matter. However, when the whole concept of the “Alt-Right” first appeared, they tried to brand themselves as such, and redirect it away from the most important issues of all. This tactic failed miserably, because the true Alt-Right were too stubborn to give an inch in regards to their ideology and didn’t give a damn how controversial they were. Not wanting to be associated with the more taboo elements of the ideology, Rebel Media, much like the rest of the controlled opposition to the mainstream media, has instead tried distancing themselves ever since, and videos like this are a desperate attempt to feign respectability in comparison.
Unfortunately for them, that leaves them in an awkward position. Both sides of the ideological divide are getting more and more extreme, and the center is starting to disappear. Those who are left in the middle are pretty much being forced to take a side or get left behind. To the Antifa, anti-Trump, SJW crowd, organisations like Rebel Media are just as bad as actual Nazis. To the Alt-Right crowd (which yes, does include genuine Nazis), Rebel Media is nothing more than a “bunch of leftist cucks”. In a sense, Rebel Media is going to be left in a position where they appeal to nobody, and are hated by everybody. They’re too hardcore for the mainstream, but they’re too soft for the rapidly growing counter-culture.
It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the likes of Rebel Media and other controlled opposition to the mainstream. Will they move further to the mainstream, eventually settling into a more “Fox News for a younger audience” like position? Or, will they try to keep appealing to the audience they were set up to appeal to in the first place? Honestly, I can’t see them pulling off either of these positions. I think the most likely thing is that they’ll see their audience shrink and either cease to exist in a few years time, or hit a certain level that they’ll never be able to grow beyond again.
The New York Times is widely considered to be one of the most reliable and trusted new sources in the Western World, and has been considered arguably, the gold standard of journalism for more than a century. The New York Times has also been one of the most vocal critics in the media’s current ongoing war against Trump. With the possible exceptions of CNN (which has seen its credibility collapse at this point) or the likes of the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed (neither of which really qualify as news anyway), no organisation has been more vicious in its attacks against Trump, than the New York Times. With all the credibility that the NYT has built up over the past century, it’s perfectly understandable that people will be inclined to trust them. When you have an organisation like the NYT opposing you, and have the likes of Fox News supporting you, it really doesn’t do much to help your own credibility. However, I believe that there’s a major conflict of interest for the NYT in regards to Donald Trump, and I believe this conflict of interest can potentially bias their reporting on him.
Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim has taken a financial hammering since Trump rose to political prominence. In dollar terms, at least, nobody has lost more, Bloomberg reports.
By Bloomberg’s reckoning, the telecom magnate’s personal fortune fell from just below $67 billion on June 15, 2015—the eve of Trump’s presidential bid commencement—to about $51 billion this Wednesday. Where he’d once held pole-position on the Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index, he’s now in sixth.
A drop of $16 Billion in the space of a year and a half, is an awful lot. If such a loss really could be attributed to the actions of one man (Trump), you could probably expect him to hold a grudge against him.
Asset losses are a multi-factored affair and Slim’s personal value actually peaked in October 2014 when he was worth $81 billion—but Trump’s Mexico-bashing has apparently hacked away at the value of his asset base. In 2015, Forbes listed him as the year’s biggest billionaire loser. Although the Peso has rallied in recent weeks, it plummeted through 2016, forcing Mexico to raise interest rates. And when the Peso slumps, so does Slim.
Or so the thinking goes.
Just wait until the Glorious Leader actually builds the wall. If the Peso (and by extension, Slim’s fortune) is taking this much of a beating already, can you imagine how bad it will get for him when the wall is finished?
But a surprising flip-side to the 77-year-old telecoms tycoon’s monetary losses has been his gain in popularity. When Slim met Trump in Mar-a-Lago for, what the latter described as “a lovely dinner with a wonderful man” last December, many Mexicans were impressed. A poll conducted by El Universal the following month reportedly showed Slim pipping populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the Mexican considered best-suited to face Trump.
Yeah, but I’m sure if given the choice he’d prefer to have the 16 Billion Dollars though.
“16 Billion Dollars in exchange for greater popularity? Hmm, I’d be happier with the 16 Billion Dollars.”
According to Bloomberg, it’s not only Slim’s defiance of Trump but his calls for greater economic self-reliance that have appealed to Mexicans. A price war and regulatory crackdown pushing down cell phone bills might have helped too.
Anyway, you may be wondering how this article about a billionaire losing 16 Billion Dollars because of Trump has anything to do with the NYT. Well, it’s very simple. Look at who the biggest single shareholder in the NYT is.
Now lets be realistic here. A newspaper is just like any other business. Its main purpose is to work towards the interests of its shareholders. A successful Trump presidency, in which he manages to accomplish the goals he has set out to accomplish, will damage the financial interests of the NYT’s largest shareholder of all. Therefore, is it really a stretch to say that it is in the interest of the NYT to undermine the Trump presidency as much as possible, in order to prevent him from accomplishing his goals, and thus in the process, protect the financial interests of their largest shareholder?
I fully support the concept of an uncontrolled and independent press, who are free to report on things, without fear of government suppression for doing so. However, ordinary people seem to forget that journalists are ultimately just employees who have employers to answer to, and these employers are human beings with interests of their own. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source for news. Every news source is run by a human being, not an emotionless robot, and so it stands to reason that every news source has the potential to reflect the interests and biases of the person in control. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re automatically going to be wrong when discussing certain topics because of it, but it does mean that people should consider these potential biases and conflicts of interest, instead of automatically taking whatever they say on board. Sure, this blog is also completely biased, but at least I’m upfront and honest about it.