Freedom-Fighters for Tyranny!: How “Race-Blind” Libertarianism Is an Ally of Race-Obsessed Wokism

“The left can be divided into three groups: the stupid, the deluded and the evil.” That’s the best summary of left-wing politics that I know. The only difficulty can be in deciding who on the left belongs where. For example, Hillary Clinton and Merrick Garland are clearly evil. But is the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn merely stupid or deluded? It’s hard to tell. However, I’m becoming clearer about one of the noisiest groups on the British left: the fearless freedom-fighters who gather under the flag of Frank Furedi at the web-zine Spiked Online.

Charismatic crypto-rabbis

I used to think that the Spiked collective might be mostly deluded or stupid rather than evil. But their dishonesty gets more glaring by the day, so it gets harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. And their dishonesty is at its worst on the topics of race and mass migration. Spiked grew out of a Trotskyist cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which had broken away from a larger Trotskyist cult called the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). And just as Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshteyn) was Jewish, so were Tony Cliff (né Yigael Gluckstein), the founder of the SWP, and Frank Richards (né Ferenc Füredi), the founder of the RCP. All three men are excellent examples of a long-standing pattern identified by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish intellectual life: that of the charismatic crypto-rabbi-guru who recruits, indoctrinates and closely controls a group of devoted disciples.

In Trotskyism and other branches of communism, the disciples of the crypto-rabbis tend to be either Jewish or drawn from another disaffected minority, like Irish Catholics, that seeks power over and revenge on the racial and religious majority. This attraction to authoritarian leftism may even be partly genetic. For example, the Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, didn’t know that they were half-Jewish until long after both had been members of Yigael Gluckstein’s earlier Trotskyist cult, the International Socialists (IS). The self-important gas-bag Christopher Hitchens never repented his support for the mass-murderer Trotsky. He merely updated it when he became a neo-conservative and cheerleader for Israel-friendly wars in the Middle East. Peter Hitchens, by contrast, has genuinely repented of his Trotskyism and regularly apologized for it. He issued this mea culpa in the Daily Mail back in 2013:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. …

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too). (How I am partly to blame for mass immigration, The Daily Mail, 1st April 2013)

In short, authoritarian leftists love mass immigration because mass immigration strengthens authoritarian leftism. Big business loves mass immigration too, because it drives wages down and destroys the cohesion of the working-class. That’s why the highly authoritarian and business-friendly New Labour opened Britain’s borders to both Eastern Europe and the Third World under the malevolent guidance of the anti-White Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche. But another Jewish member of Blair’s government, Maurice Glasman, didn’t share Roche’s love of open borders and hatred of the White British. In 2011, Glasman lamented what he called “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class.” He said of mass immigration: “obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.”

A simple solution to any border crisis

Like Peter Hitchens, the Spiked collective know all about authoritarian leftism and why it supports Third-World immigration. After all, they’re former Trotskyists too (or not so former). But do they ever mention their personal experience during their incessant railing against “Critical Race Theory” and other forms of leftist lunacy? Do they explain why authoritarian leftists are such enthusiasts for open borders and the maximum movement of maximum Muslims into Western nations?

No, they don’t. And not only do they keep quiet about why authoritarian leftism loves open borders: they loudly express their own love of open borders. For example, as the Belarussian tyrant Alexander Lukashenko tried to force migrants across the Polish border, Spiked explained how “The EU has brought the border crisis on itself.” Spiked’s solution to the problem is breathtaking in its simplicity: there would be no border crisis if there were no borders. The European Union should simply accept anyone who wants to come here, thereby removing any opportunity for tyrants like Lukashenko to cause trouble.

The last line of the defence

And if some of the vibrant newcomers then try to commit terrorism, well, Spiked has two responses to that. If the attempt isn’t successful, Spiked will celebrate “the incredible heroism of ordinary people” who “are our last line of defence against barbarism.” That was their rhetoric after a failed-but-never-removed asylum-seeker called Emad al-Swealmeen attempted a suicide-bombing in Liverpool and was foiled by a White taxi-driver called Dave Perry. Spiked didn’t, for obvious reasons, consider that ordinary people would not have to be the last line of defence if the first line of defence – secure national borders – were in place. When you don’t have barbarians entering your country, you have no problems with barbarism.

Spiked have another response when the newcomers successfully translate desire into deed and commit terrorism on a large or small scale. After the mass-murder at the Manchester Arena in 2017 and the mensch-murder of a Tory MP in 2021, Spiked had the same response: we must push aside political correctness and have a fierce and fearless “debate” about Islamism and the terrorism it inspires. For obvious reasons, Spiked never mention that the people who don’t want such a debate are the same people who want maximum Muslim migration. And who are those people? Authoritarian leftists, of course. Unlike Spiked, authoritarian leftists can see how good Muslim migration is for authoritarian leftism and its campaign to censor and control public discourse. Or do Spiked see the truth but refuse to admit it? I’m starting to think that dishonesty is a much better explanation of their behavior than delusion.

The power of “parents”

For example, after the Republican Glenn Youngkin won a “shock victory” in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Spiked attributed his success to “the parents’ movement.” But they neglected to qualify the noun “parents” with a certain crucial adjective. They analyzed Youngkin’s victory under the headline “The parents’ revolt in Virginia,” then explained that “parents have had enough of woke education.” The article used the unqualified word “parents” again and again, and triumphantly concluded that “In Virginia at least, the parents’ movement has defied the sneering and derision to secure its first big electoral upset. More power to them.” But who was directing “sneering and derision” at the “parents”? Why, it was the authoritarian left. However, the authoritarian left weren’t sneering at and deriding them simply as “parents,” but specifically as “white parents.”

And the authoritarian left were right: It was Whites in general and White parents in particular who secured the Republican Youngkin’s victory over the Democrat Terry McAuliffe. As the authoritarian leftist Michael Harriott explained in the Guardian: “Nearly nine out of 10 Black Virginians voted for McAuliffe, as did two out of three Hispanic and Asian voters. Youngkin didn’t simply win the white vote; he won only the white vote.” That was Harriott’s emphasis: “only the white vote.” But Spiked dishonestly concealed that crucial truth. Parents in general aren’t revolting against wokism and Critical Race Theory (CRT): White parents are. If only non-Whites voted in Western elections, wokism would win everywhere. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t oppose wokism. Why would they? Wokism demonizes Whites and deifies non-Whites. It says that Whites are greedy, selfish and oppressive, that all their so-called achievements are the result of theft and fraud, and that non-Whites are the moral superiors of Whites and deserve endless compensation for all that they have suffered from White evil.

Water-pistols at a gun-fight

By being dishonest about the true nature of CRT and the other “excesses” of anti-racism, Spiked are assisting the cause of the authoritarian left. They are freedom-fighting for tyranny. In another article, they’ve announced: “If we are to rediscover a sense of social solidarity, we need to reject racial thinking in all its forms.” In other words, Spiked want Whites to attend a gun-fight armed with water-pistols. Leftists are not going to abandon “racial thinking.” Why would they? It has been very successful in advancing their authoritarian agenda and it appeals strongly to an ever-growing part of Western electorates: non-Whites. Why would Blacks accept responsibility for their own failures when they can blame Whitey? Why would successful Chinese and Indians abandon wokism when it guarantees them more success, more power and more opportunity to import their relatives from abroad?

But Spiked do occasionally (albeit obliquely) admit the truth about the harm caused to social solidarity and traditional Western freedoms by mass immigration and ethnic enrichment. As I’ve described previously, their crypto-rabbi Frank Furedi has praised Eastern European nations like Poland and his birthplace Hungary for successfully resisting “woke politics.” But he doesn’t explain why Poland and Hungary are resistant to an ideological infection that is ravaging Western nations like Britain, America and France. He’s being dishonest, just as he’s trained his disciples to be. He won’t admit that Poland and Hungary resist wokism because they have not been ethnically enriched. They are still true nations whose secure borders contain overwhelming majorities of Whites with a common history, genetics, language, culture and religion.

“Getting real about Islamist terrorism”

Suppose that the European Union took Spiked’s insane advice and solved every “border crisis” by abolishing its borders, whereupon Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe became enriched with millions of Muslims and other non-Whites. What would happen? It’s obvious: woke politics would begin to flourish there and so would Third-World pathologies like terrorism and violent crime. And Poland and Hungary wouldn’t be able to follow more of Spiked’s advice and have a fearless “debate” about their newly acquired pathologies. Why not? Because the woke left there would use the same non-Whites who were causing the pathologies to argue that any such debate would be “divisive” and “discriminatory.”

That’s how it works in Britain and all other ethnically enriched Western nations. The more non-Whites you have, the less you are able to “debate” the pathologies caused by non-Whites. But suppose that we could somehow have such a debate. According to libertarian Spiked, “We need to get real about Islamist terrorism.” There are serious problems festering in our vibrant Muslim communities thanks (they claim) to mistaken leftist policies. So what can the solution be except much stricter policing and monitoring of Muslims and much more interference in their lives? It seems that Spiked want us to strengthen the authoritarian security and surveillance state. I don’t think Muslims will react well to that. And I myself don’t want to police and monitor Muslims more strictly. I don’t want to police and monitor them at all.

No Third-World people, no Third-World pathologies

I want to do what Hungarians and Poles do: admire Muslims and their vibrant behavior from afar. That is, I want Muslim immigration to end and all Muslims currently on Western soil to return where they belong. As Hungary and Poland clearly demonstrate, when you have no Third-World people on your soil, you have no Third-World pathologies and no justification for authoritarian leftists to maintain an aggressively anti-racist, anti-White security state. Just as it’s impossible to make omelettes without eggs, it’s impossible to justify “Critical Race Theory” and “Islamophobia Awareness” when there are no vulnerable non-Whites to be protected from White oppression. When Spiked simultaneously support limitless liberty and maximum Muslim migration, they are supporting an obvious contradiction. And it becomes harder and harder to believe that they don’t realize this. Take these stirring words by the Spikedster-in-Chief Brendan O’Neill, as he explains “why the elites are so desperate to avoid discussing radical Islam”:

At root, they want to protect their ideology of multiculturalism from serious democratic interrogation. And thus they must quell, with distraction and dire warnings, any kind of public scrutiny of how divided and tense Britain has become under this system of cultural and ethnic separatism, to such an extent that religious violence is now a fairly regular occurrence in our society. (David Amess and the terrorism amnesia industry, Spiked-Online, 29th October 2021)

Spiked Online editor Brendan O’Neill

O’Neill must be well aware that “the elites” began evading “serious democratic interrogation” way back in the 1950s, when mass immigration from the Third World was imposed on the unwilling White majority. After the far-sighted Enoch Powell spoke out against the Third-World invasion in 1968 and prophesied the ever-growing conflict it would cause, he became the most popular politician in the country. But traitorous politicians in all the mainstream parties vilified Powell as a “racist” and refused to listen either to him or to the White majority that supported him. The former Labour deputy-leader Roy Hattersley has openly boasted that “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my White constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

Supporting what they oppose

And New Labour, the most woke and authoritarian British government to date, opened the borders precisely because, in Maurice Glassman’s words, it “was hostile to the English working-class.” The elites wanted Third-World immigration to advance an authoritarian, anti-White agenda. And their plan has worked perfectly. The same people behind the “multiculturalism” so passionately opposed by O’Neill and his comrades are behind the mass immigration so passionately supported by O’Neill and his comrades. Spiked claim to support ordinary people and to oppose the elite and its wokism. In fact, they are enemies of ordinary people and allies of the elite and its wokism.

O’Neill has also said this: “Solidarity is incredibly important in people’s everyday lives, as are the communal networks that tie people together. Anything that threatens solidarity is incredibly dangerous.” If O’Neill looks at any ethnically enriched Western nation, he will see that nothing does more harm to “solidarity” and “communal networks” than mass immigration by non-Whites practising radically different cultures, speaking unintelligible languages, following alien religions, and committing far higher levels of violent and acquisitive crime. But solidarity-supporting O’Neill doesn’t oppose solidarity-destroying immigration: he passionately supports it.

Freedom-fighting Bolsheviks

This leads me to apply some simple logic. There are three possibilities: either Brendan O’Neill and his comrades are stupid or they’re deluded or they’re evil. I don’t think they’re stupid and they aren’t deluded when, among many other examples, they deliberately conceal the true nature of the “parents’ revolt” in Virginia. So I conclude that Spiked are evil.

I also conclude that I was stupid ever to think otherwise. After all, Spiked are unrepentant disciples of the mass-murderer Leon Trotsky. If they’d come to power as the Revolutionary Communist Party, they would have created the same horrors as the freedom-fighting Bolsheviks created in the Soviet Union. And you can be sure that if the mass-murdering tyrants Lenin and Trotsky were alive today, they would be passionate supporters of open borders. After all, nothing is better for authoritarian leftism than Third-World immigration. Why else do authoritarian leftists love open borders so much?

48 replies
  1. Devon
    Devon says:

    Spiked is a controlled-opposition outlet funded by the Koch Foundation designed to herd any White people beginning to wake up towards the safe enclave of hyper-individualistic libertarianism and “anti-wokeism” . They constantly push back on any talk of White people rationally collectivising in their own interests.

    Another key reason for Brendan O’Neill being evil alongside the conclusion above is his defence of the p*do film Cuties back in 2019. Very creepy guy.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” They constantly push back on any talk of White people rationally collectivising in their own interests.”

      [ Collective ] is primarily a Jewish concept that is the basis for the leadership of a group to spuriously claim supremacy over any and all individual rights
      ( in particular , those such as the world renown supreme individualist sovereign “unalienable Rights” to Life , to Liberty , and to the Pursuit of Happiness )
      that may be in conflict with or contrary to collective supremacy assumptions .

      An explication of the spurious assumption of collective supremacy over any and all individualist supreme “unalienable Rights”
      is beyond the scope of this comment .

      Please consider using the word “organization” and its derivatives , instead of “collective” and its derivatives , whenever it would be proper to do so
      ( such as when referring to any group that upholds the essence of individualism where sovereign individualist “unalienable Rights” are a priori supreme and not subordinate to spurious collective supremacy assumptions )
      in order to avoid , as much as possible , satanic imputations of the primarily Jewish word “collective” and its derivatives .

  2. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    Yes, there certainly are many “libertarians” who are DE FACTO allies of the enemies of our kind; but most of the “color-blind Conservatives” I encounter are CHRISTIANS (well, some may be libertarian as well). I find these slugs where’er I turn, whether online or in the streets. These are people who’ve been mind-conditioned to believe that people are people, that all are “equal” before their god, that racial in-group preference is bigotry….

    I began to worry much more about them last year and in January when there was hope that Trump could, by exposing the electoral fraud, remain in office. In Republican-Party meetings and at demonstrations I met one fundamentalist Babble-thumper after another–all of whom had “faith” that Trump would be reelected and then, when the election was stolen, that Pence or SCOTUS would vindicate Trump. They “knew” that God was on our side; they even quoted chapter and verse which prophesied that the said entities would save the day.

    Actually, it’s not only these people’s lack of racial consciousness that has dismayed me. It’s also that in our ranks there are so many adults who need asinine fables to get through life. That greatly reduces the size of our effective forces…. I mean, are THESE our warriors? What chance have such people against the elite corps of the anti-White juggernaut–namely Leftist Jews, ethno-cultural Jews who scorn Abrahamic superstition and focus on what really works in the real world?! Goldfish versus Northern Pike.

    Over the last few days I’ve been controverting some of these people in the Social Media forum Gab. There are quite a few of them there, and perhaps that’s what prompted Nick Fuentes recently to say that the average IQ in Gab is 50. In point of fact, Andrew Torba, Gab’s chief, is one of them.

    Yesterday, in any case, I wanted to provoke anti-abortion commenters there, and so under one of their devoutly Pro-Life posts I commented “I believe that abortion should be illegal only for White women impregnated by White men. I favor abortion for blacks–as much of it as possible; in fact I believe blacks should be paid to abort.” Naturally this induced the poster to endeavor to show me the error of my ways. “A human life is a human life,” the civnat Hannity-Repub said, “whatever the color.”

    Now, of course, I don’t believe that denying abortion to Whites or paying blacks to abort is likely to become official policy. I was merely stating “my druthers.” Yes, I druther that no White women aborted White men’s children and that black women–who already use abortion more than any other demographic–aborted more than they do. Also, I wanted a pretext for informing the poster and his cronies of facts that he and they would almost certainly never learn otherwise–certainly not from Hannity.

    I laid out certain facts from crime stats–specifically from the 2017 DoJ study by Rachel Morgan, Ph.D. and that by Edwin Rubenstein for American Renaissance, “The Color of Crime.” I said that blacks have waged war on Euroamerica for many years now–that “I love Euroamericans, my people; and anyone who harms them is my enemy.”

    The DoJ study, focusing on four of the Obama years, 2012-15, found an annual average of 540,360 violent black-on-White crimes (compared with 92,810 White-on-black)–which works out to about 1480 PER DAY. Rubenstein focused his study on 2013, using the same data as Morgan did, and said there were about 660,000 black-on-White crimes that year, meaning a daily average of over 1800…. He also calculated that 85% of violent crime involving blacks and Whites is black-toward-White, and that a black is 27 times likelier to attack a White than vice-versa…. Fact is, the race war started a long time ago (Cf. the Pallone and Hennessy study, 1999); it’s just that Whites–who could crush the primitives if they willed–aren’t fighting back; and I think Rabbi Saul of Tarsus had a hand in that.–4-black-violence

    Anyhow, I said that abortion has filtered an estimated 20 million blacks out of the pipeline, about 50% of the total black-American pop of 40ish mill. I don’t find it illogical to infer that that’s prevented another 740 or 900 attacks on Whites per day–and that without abortion the daily average might well be 2220 or 2700. I think this may even be conservative, because but for abortion the black pop wouldn’t be only 60 mill but would include the progeny of the unaborted; moreover, in more crowded, impoverished conditions there’d likely be a greater proclivity toward discontent and therefore violence.

    Since I draw my inspiration from pre-Rabbi-Saul, native-European sources–namely Pagan Hellas and Roma–I have no problem with abortion inasmuch as it might benefit Whites; and so I truly am no opponent of abortion per se. Though I know that such things aren’t the answers we need in order to save the race, I’m thankful for the stratospheric rates of black abortion and of black-on-black homicide–the latter another factor that’s kept down the numbers of the natural and necessary enemies of our kind; and I’ll remain thankful until deliberate and fundamental solutions arrive.

    But I know that christians, whether in Gab or elsewhere, aren’t likely to feel racial loyalty to any useful degree, let alone the uncompromising degree to which I feel it; and I can’t imagine that that won’t remain among our movement’s chief problems.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” But I know that christians, whether in Gab or elsewhere, aren’t likely to feel racial loyalty to any useful degree, let alone the uncompromising degree to which I feel it; and I can’t imagine that that won’t remain among our movement’s chief problems.”

      No doubt .

    HUGO FUERST says:

    The best corrective to this sweeping, though by no means entirely mistaken, attack on SPIKED ONLINE is to read its articles past and present. It is not justified to describe all their contributors as “unrepentant disciples” of the “mass-murderer Trotsky”. This is as stupid as the current Jewish attack on the generous Alexander Mosley Trust donation to university science research on the ridiculously false grounds that his grandfather intended to set up “death camps” and was “sexually aroused” by a cavalcade in Rome nearly 90 years ago! Trots do still exist, but for all his mistaken views O’Neill is no longer among them; if anything he is too nice to Israeli Zionism, but that is another matter. Furedi has written a defence of borders. Their attack on “identity politics” in wokeism slides over the validity of English national and European racial identity, but they talk biological sense about gender.

  4. Hod
    Hod says:

    ”Stupid, deluded or evil” They aren’t mutually exclusive…
    But its not the authoritarian left that fit this its the ‘nice’ ones also.
    When the sheer scale of the mass rape of our children by non white filth became apparent it was the anti-racist crowd & liberal scum that told us all it was a ‘racist conspiracy theory’. I was stupid & naive back then & although i didn’t share the views of our ‘betters’ i thought they were honestly expressing themselves. I thought they believed their rhetoric. I actually thought that the establishment would do for us what we had been told to do for the non whites. I thought they would defend us on the same grounds of anti-racism just like they did with Stephen Lawrence and so many others. Their behavior revealed the truth: They knew all along what was & still is happening. They knew & they covered it up deliberately. When we found out they just denied it, lied about it then pretended it never happened. They always were liars & apparatchiks. They never believed in any of it.
    Now i know the truth: Racism is taking your own side in Darwinian struggle.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      YES–racism can proceed from LOVE as surely as from hate. Racism is not identical to racial bigotry. While all racial bigotry is racism, not all racism is racial bigotry.

      The essence of racism is discrimination based on race. It’s valuing and/or treating people differently on the basis of race–and the valuing and the treating can be favorable to their object, not necessarily unfavorable.

      I’m a racist because I love, am attached to and partisan toward one ethnic/genetic mega-cluster. While I don’t hate other clusters, I do discriminate. If I were not a racist, all people would be the same to me.

      (By the way, I don’t mean to say that my not hating along racial lines is necessarily better than hating: a learned writer here–I think it was Andrew Joyce–made a cogent case for the place of hate in human affairs; and I can’t refute his points.)

      In any case, loving and being partisan toward one’s race–and to be therefore a racist–redounds to the preservation of one’s kind. Assuming that individual self-preservation is a healthy function of organisms, to help preserve the race of which one is part is likewise a healthy function of organisms. Love-based racism (or racism of which love of “me and mine” is an essential component, though hate may be there too) is simply VIRTUE, not crime!

      “The effort for self-preservation is the first and only foundation of virtue….without it no virtue can be conceived.” –Baruch Spinoza (ETHICS, Part III, Proposition 22), to whose mind hatred was always an error.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Now i know the truth: Racism is taking your own side in Darwinian struggle.”

      Superb observation .

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I’m not really the man to accept your challenge, in no small part because both Amess-murder rationales—that of O’Neill and that of “State of the Nation”—strike me as lacking in-depth explanatory power.

      Who indeed has advanced as a consequence of the crime? Certainly not anyone who might reasonably be implicated in O’Neill’s widely seconded rationale! If there were even one prominent voice in either the UK or the USA calling for the expulsion of all Muslims, “radical” or otherwise,* or at the very least calling for the formal categorizing of all Muslims as enemy aliens; and if, furthermore, that voice had been David Amess’s, then possibly, just possibly, the O’Neill rationale might make a modicum of sense.

      As Langdon’s recent article “Murder of a Mensch” makes plain, however, Amess was miles and miles away from being that voice. He was thick as thieves with the Jews, for one thing. He was also no more a true Catholic, even a weak-tea conciliar Catholic, than Biden is. Thus, unless Langdon is dead wrong about everything, O’Neill’s rationale is as superficial as you suggest.

      As for “State of the Nation,” is its rationale any better? Did he or his committee indeed constitute a threat to the (((Establishment’s))) push for a universal vaccine mandate? If he was a threat, why was he praised by Jews, in life as well as in death, as a friend and ally?

      Do you know, or does anybody else, whether Amess is on record as having denounced the transformation of Australia into the world’s largest concentration camp? If he is, it will come as news to me. But rather more to the point, if he is, that stand might have left Klaus Schwab, the CIA, and the Mossad wondering whether Amess had become more of a liability than an asset.
      *By this I mean that anyone who denies that Islam itself is ipso facto 100 percent radicalized—hence, that ALL its adherents are radicals—is either a fool or a knave.

  5. JM
    JM says:

    @Tobias Langdon
    “And you can be sure that if…Lenin and Trotsky were alive today, they would be passionate supporters of open borders. After all, nothing is better for authoritarian leftism than Third-World immigration. Why else do authoritarian leftists love open borders so much?”

    If that is granted (and that’s a big “if”, based on inference rather than evidence) I would be equally sure that both would be writing and agitating against Globalising Imperialism and its proponents. Their primary target would be Finance Capital and its monopoly offshoots and nationalization and heavy State control would be their program. This latter is never heard from all these cults today because they have been totally co-opted/bought (in some cases, literally) by these same forces.

    The Far Left (aside from the clear cut Jewish cults like the “International (read “Cosmopolitan”) Socialists” and their offshoots and most recent American derived groups) has come a long way from their previous preoccupation with the economy and (e.g.) seeking to oppose the extreme levels of inequality that prevail today. Now they are part of the weaponry of the rulers.

    Given the above, I’d be unsurprised if most of the old communists were crucified by – what is now – the subversive Globalist “left”.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      They’d probably have some pretty reactionary social views too. Still think the author is correct though, as when in their own time, they’d do as in ours, and follow the fashionable leftist current that was subversive of everything that is good, true and beautiful.

      HUGO FUERST says:

      “The working-men have no country” (Marxism, and also Trotskyism as shown by its current tracts). The division of Jewish aspiration between Cosmopolitanism and Zionism, noted by a tediously quoted Wnston Churchill passage based on the pioneer but imperfect research by Nesta Webster, still continues, but what too many Judeophobes miss is is the recent abandonment of wokism by prominent Jews primarly because of its addition of Jewish nationalism in Israel to its condemnation of “white settler colonialism”. Not all the trees in a wood are the same.

  6. Swan
    Swan says:

    Excellent article. Henceforth I shall be referring to the woke Trinity: The stupid, the deluded,and the evil. Our task should be to do all we can to influence the first two. The evil are not redeemable.

  7. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    Open borders are one thing. Lavish social benefits, granted to all and sundry on sight, are something else. Immigrants WILL immigrate to the land of milk and honey, regardless of whether said milk and honey is extracted from the few who work or not.
    Mass immigration is not the problem. It is an inevitable symptom of a much-deeper problem: the welfare state.

  8. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    “The left can be divided into three groups: the stupid, the deluded and the evil.”

    Well said! But let’s remember that ‘stupid’ does not mean ignorant but rather not thinking clearly, and ‘deluded’ does mean deceived, oftentimes by evil.

    Hence, when describing the Left, I would suggest that calling them ‘stupid, deluded and evil’ is perhaps redundant. Perhaps the new arising word ‘Libtardian’ would be more concise.

  9. JM
    JM says:

    So now the “editor” prefers no comments (after more than a day) to my comment which he censored and which at least might have encouraged the mainstream type of – contemporary (because this wasn’t always so) – TOO blog participants to shoot my view down in flames or perhaps a bit less than this. I largely post for information by way of feedback anyway, vanity having gone out the window long ago.

    It appears that the person editing has a HUGE chip on his shoulder. And is leading NOTHING whatsoever.

    Or is there a technical problem at the site? If so, I apologize.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      What was your censored comment about?
      I’ve been censored here too, but only when I’ve got into b#tch fights with presumably sheltered, fragile old dotards who the mod obviously presumes would have some sort of break-down if I humilate them too hard.
      One person in particular here knows who I’m talking about lol.
      I get that there are secluded old men who comment here, who’ve probably spend 40/50 odd years insulated from the real world by their wealth, and probably genuinely, honestly cannot handle their comments, insults or intelligence being flayed mercilessly for all to see.
      I just sometimes forget words on a screen from a stranger can be so terrifying to them. Suppose it comes from them growing up in a gentler era?
      Although the mod really shouldn’t be white knighting for these wimps. All that does is makes sure they don’t learn, so they’ll eventually come across someone 100x crueler than me, who’ll end up putting them in cardiac arrest or something.

  10. Tom Briggs
    Tom Briggs says:

    Brilliant deductions on the science of lying. The one step backwards then three steps forward reasoning of the diabolical left.
    The uncanny and facile way that the leopard convinces his adversaries that he has stripes, not spots, paws and not claws.

  11. Maverick
    Maverick says:

    It is interesting that you mention Irish catholics .The United States is for all intents and purposes ran by a foreigner, Joe Biden,the only two times i have seen him mention his nationality recently ,he stated ” I am Irish” and Iam an Irishman “to the BBC and pope respectively .
    I’m sure you all remember the “Birther ” controversy with Obama ,he never once claimed to be Kenyan.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I saw Barry recently described as a gay prostitute from Hawai, I didn’t know that, though was obviously aware he was a crack smoking bl$w job artist called Bathhouse Barry in Chicago.
      And anyone who still thinks his ‘wife’ was born female needs their eyes tested.
      We shouldn’t hate Obama, as he’s obviously just progressed from being a homosexual to a political prostitute. It’s his pimps we should focus on, and to be fair, we do.
      When Obama showed he didn’t know there were 50 states in America, or when he pronounced the Marine Corps as corpse, as in a dead body, instead of core, pushing him as some sort of intellectual was even more fantastic than pushing Michelle Obama as a female.
      It’s all part of the same mocking and undermining strategy American elites have been running on the people since the 50’s. Same sort of thing generations of Germans have suffered under since the war, same as industrial scale sexual slavery run on little white girls by Pakistani Muslims in England.
      The purpose is the exact same as the old communist propaganda fed to those captive people, everyone knew it was lies, that wasn’t the point. The point was it was lies and you could do nothing, it’s all to make us feel helpless and demoralised.
      They’ve been running this program on us for decades, ever since the wrong side won WWII, it’s only now with vaxx mandates and the technotronic control grid coming into view, we see what the purpose of it all was.
      And we thought they were just typical Jewish sadists! How naive we’ve all been.

  12. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    Oh how Peter Hitchens likes to virtue signal how he has ‘fessed-up, and apologised for his evil Trot stupidity, and mock and jeer at his generation of a similar persuasion who absolutely avoid the subject at all costs.
    Hitchens cleverly pointed out that they do this, stay silent on the subject, because it is still deeply important to them.
    Well, Peter Hitchens has never once addressed in any way at all his own Jewishness(through his mother, so 100% Jew) and how this has effected his positions. Is this because this Jewishness is deeply important to him? By his own logic it must be.
    Like his brother, he has many Jewish traits, high intelligence, especially verbally, a consumate outsider, who as far as I am aware has never in his entire career spoken one single good word towards anyone who is even an inch to the right of him. He’s no matinee idol, neither is he particularly likeable, and he shows the same distaste, if not quite the fear & loathing, that Jews have towards the British working class.
    Don’t get me wrong, there is allot that is good in PH, he’s illuminated historical aspects of the betrayal of Brits by the elite that simply wouldn’t be well known without him. I suppose this is his patriotic English father in him.
    Still, at bottom, he is controlled opposition, a traiterous creature of the establishment. I get & forgive being mercenary in your heyday to stay in the MSM, with those TV & radio appearances & high wages to put his kids though a proper school.
    But what’s stopping him now coming out and speaking the truth? He’d lose his weekly Mail on Sunday gig, & get kicked off twitter, but they don’t really have him on the big tv or radio channels now anyway. So for money, money he probably doesn’t really need, he is going to carry on serving the establishment that he himself admits have destroyed his country?
    And he calls himself a Christian? He’s a disgrace.
    And anyone who knows him on twitter knows he searches out his own name, then interups others’ conversations mentioning him. So it’s guaranteed he’ll read this article mentioning him, he’s a moth to a flame the minute his name is mentioned, the comments as well.
    So hi Pedro! You know me, you’ve censored & blocked me many a time from your blog & twitter feed, for the dastardly crime of trying to ask you about your Jewishness. You, the big civil liberties man, what a joke!
    If only you had been the gentleman you fake being, I certainly wouldn’t be pointing out your Jewishness, and your total hypocrisy, on all the sites you can’t ban me from.
    What goes around, comes around. Perhaps next time best not be such a stuck-up toffee nosed stasi-wannabe. Your WWII book was tepid, cowardly garbage as well, and even that you wouldn’t have had the courage to write hadn’t Pat Buchanon’s much better book come out first.
    And you can rest assured this is no bother for me, I like doing it, you deserve it. People really should know the real Peter Hitchens. Clever, an interesting read for sure, but also a fatuous coward who betrayed the nation his father fought for, took his mother in, and gave him such a glamorous, privileged life. Something you contribute daily to denying the poor of this land.
    In a more enlightened era, you’d be hung, drawn and quartered, the quitisentual traitor to the people, along with all the rest.
    There’s no doubt. The Jew in Peter Hitchens is much stronger than the English patriot.

      HUGO FUERST says:

      I don’t think the literal evisceration in public of anti-communst writers because their mothers were Jewish would be an example of enlightenment. Hitchens’ “Phoney Victory” was a step in the right direction, as also his attack on warfare for Israel in Syria and Iraq, and once previously on the Frankfurt School. His mixture of pessimism and puritansm, however, is taking an odd turn, which is more explicable by encroaching senility than concealed semitism. He has to write within the permissible confines of the “Daily Mail”, which ran three dfferent articles almost in succession about Auschwitz with ridiculous details, but his highly individual “opposition” to wokism is hardly “controlled” or indeed totally ineffective.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Your wrong, when Hitchens critiques half-witted Western political prostitutes obliterating other people’s countries in the Middle East, he NEVER mentions that this is all done for the benifit of Israel. He’s against them, of course, but he lies to his readers that it do-gooder liberals, or hubristic idiots who like seeing big bangs and misses and sexy aircraft and posing with troops. He’d just as well take the dumb leftist line and say it’s all to steal their oil. The outcome is the same, the masses haven’t a scooby what it’s all about.
        I read his “Phoney War” it was garbage. Yes, he moved the needle 3/4 of a centimeter, well done.
        David Irving was telling truths 1000x stronger in the 1960’s. And books were even written, memory-holed by our friends of course, explaining Britain was bankrupt and her empire was lost due to the FUBAR policy of Churchill in 1940 that came out even before the war ended!
        I can’t remember the title just now, but I’ll find it if you doubt me.

  13. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    …” a long-standing pattern identified by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish intellectual life: that of the charismatic crypto-rabbi-guru who recruits, indoctrinates and closely controls a group of devoted disciples.”

    It seems to work very well for them .

    Does not The RCC also recruit and indoctrinate but does NOT closely control their groups of disciples and thus loses a significant degree of crucially important religious solidarity for defending against Talmudic Judaism ?

      HUGO FUERST says:

      Kevin MacDonald is a bit of a guru himself with a band of disciples. What matters is what the teachers teach.

  14. flyintheointment
    flyintheointment says:

    the real underlying psyops is religious, not race. The race issue jews push insistently is misdirection. I realize MacDonald is catholic, and will answer to the pope, my question is, is this a catholic site?

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        Not many people , do, Pierre .

        When Jesus said “love your enemies” He forgot to mention the OT ‘s instruction, viz., that it was OK to hate God’s enemies.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      If it is I never knew, the average peruser would probably think it’s a Jewish site. But that’s only because we are forbidden from discussing them anywhere else.
      Judaism is both a race and a religion. It’s not one or the other. The entire purpose of it, it’s problems in the past & it’s success today, is because it is a racial religion. At bottom, this is basically it’s alpha & omega.

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        A Racial Creed , rather than a Religion . Converts reluctantly accepted , usually through marriage and still a DNA test for dubious skin tone types who claim “Right of Return.”

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Very well characterized. I’d add only that, in the credal dimension (such as it is), Jews constitute their own supreme being. Or better put, they worship an eidolon of themselves.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          I feel ya, but I still say it’s a bit more than just a creed.
          It’s satanic and actually evil . You’ve probably read it, but for anyone else, Israel Shahak explains the Jewish religion. It pretty much blew th top of my head off. It’s just, you just couldn’t make this stuff up. And it explains EVERYTHING.
          It’s also a pretty short, sharp read, for th general reader . You quickly understand why all human religions on earth are taught at schools, university s.
          It makes the Aztecs look rational and scientific, th people’s temple an intelligent life choice. Nazism for wimps is silly because it doesn’t begin to paint a true picture.
          I will say this tho, when th Jews get caught slippin’, and th masses of humanity are taught what Judiasm is all about,they are going to be in serious sh*t.

  15. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Happy Channuka to the Shebrew and Hebrew readers out there! Thanks for the humungous candlestick deposited at my nearest tube station.

    News programme last week at 6pm “London Tonight” discovered with glee a wonderful trio of unlikely benefactors to an Afghan girls football team, Kim Kardasian, orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill in North London, and Leeds United football club and a rabbi in the United States. The project ‘surprisingly’ was to ship the female footballers all the way to the Great Britain, all thanks to the wherewithall of our talmud devotees and the financial clout of Kim Kasdasian no less. Strangely enough Israel doesn’t feature(?!)
    By the same journalist Sam Holder on the above news programme this week a group of Arab men are being sought for their abusive and threaten behaviour directed a orthodox Jewson board a bus out celebrating Channaku on London’s Oxford Street. ”Anti-semitic hate crime on the increase’
    So thanks, Peter Hitchens et al: all the irreparable damage wrought on this country. Superb work!

    Yesterday, traversing the hospital grounds spotting three ‘socialist workers party’ taped to a post with the mendacious slogan “Refugees Welcome” & “Abolish Borders”; with 26 ‘refugees’ on the move globally, my thoughts are that leftist are the following: genocidal and mad and bad. Fortuitously, it was easy to remove this highly offensive material (I duly placed it in the correct recycling receptacle).

  16. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    Sorry to bore the people, please ignore this comment unless you have absolutely nothing better to do.
    But I feel I didn’t quite do the malevelence of Peter Hitchens full justice in ma last comment.
    Why pick on him? It’s th betrayal. 20 years ago, PH was the only person you could read in th British MSM who would point out what th unhinged manic leftist maniacs were doing to destroy our country, and how th rest of th media were in on th plot.
    This was before th internet, or before a peasant like me had access to it, so u cld say he red-pilled me.
    This was when he spoke truth. Why doesn’t he do it now?
    When Jews attack for real, they, like any organism that wants to do it right, go for th foundations, the stable, nuclear family, th money supply, they uglyfy our surroundings, they destroy our music, history, culture. The basics.
    All this gay or BLM or culture war crap is just a sort of spell they throw up to keep us occupied & fighting over things of no meaning, to protect their main attack.
    Untill we learn to bypass th armies of Sauron & go straight to th heart of th beast we’ll get nowhere.
    Which brings me back to PH. Without doubt, until th virus regime, th ligitamacy of our elite to rule us was based on WWII and our leaders ‘saving’ us from Hitler.
    PH wrote a book describing th catastrophic mistake WWII was, so I (under another psuedenom)asked him obvious points even a layman like me cld see.
    1. If we had took Hitler’s peace in early 40′, we wldnt have been bankrupted, lost our empire(Hitler offered to shore it up if we were in trouble, even against his ally Japan), lost so many of our best men, and been on rations years after th war ended.
    2. No war, no ‘Holocaust’. What great crime, what great murders or genocides had th Nazi regime committed before 1940?
    3. No invasion of France, no invasion of Africa & no Brits stirring up trouble in Balkins, allowing Hitler to focus on all he wanted, his Lebensraum in th East. Why was Nazi rule in these lands, which are nothing to us, better than homicidal mass murdering Soviet rule?
    4. No war, no American occupation of Britain. This was when America was at peak civilisational confidence, a position were in 80 years previously, but now so broken by WWI our elite had basically given up. This occupation couldn’t have come at a worse time for us, from a worse nation. Even th Nazi occupation of France didn’t have th phycological effect on them that our Yank one did on us. It killed our original, & superier British way of life, & made us pathetic immitators of all that was shabby, crass, dumb and degenerate in American culture. Still to this day we r stuck with this slavish devotion to all that is garbage in America.
    These were th points, & more like them, I put civilly to PH. He could have just said, look, if I don’t say Hitler was th devil incarnate & it was worth blowing up th nation our ancestors had been building up wi their blood for a millenia, I wld be run out th business.
    Or if he had an extra half an ounce of courage, said, mmmhhh, interesting, why don’t u read such & such?
    But no. Gutless, yellow-bellied jellyfish he is, I just got blocked.
    A real champion of free speech. A true defender of our civil liberties. A patriotic man, he tells us!
    Physical cowardice I understand, most can’t help that. Moral cowardice is a choice. And bare faced hypocrisy, while feeding his millions of readers koshar safe garbage that keeps them ignorant, this, as th Godfather sais, I cannot forgive. Especially because his readers are our people. They only call themselves ‘conservatives’ because that is all that has ever been offered to them, again because it’s koshar.
    Conservative masses, in all nations, are just us without th knowledge(& a little bit of spirit).
    My compliments to whoever gets to th end of this rant.

      HUGO FUERST says:

      There are worst people in the world than Peter (“Abolition of Britain”) Hitchens.
      The case against war in 1939 and for proper defences was made most accurately by Oswald Mosley in 1939-40; and postwar events have completely justified his position. Curious there has been a recent huge flurry of lying attacks in the media, in books and on TV on this particular man, who died powerless over 40 years ago and has no responsibility for the mess that his opponents have made of the world against his advice at every stage. Hitler may have lost the war but won the TV ratings, however hostile; Mosley may have lost the game but has won the arguments, however suppressed.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        If Pedro was just an obvious baddy he wldnt so incite my hostility, of course there r worse, but PH is particularly damaging to our cause. I’ve read all he’s published th last 20 years, I cld write a book on his mendacity, it’s this Jew/patriotic Xtian battle in his soul that’s so interesting, & th Jew is winning.
        His Abolition of Liberty book was his greatest achievement, tho all his books r good. I learned all my early right wing points from him. It’s th same ‘lover scorned’ thing I have going on w th man.
        My book on him wld be long, but of particular disgust to me, and all th disgusting parts of th man r th obviously Jewish parts, is when he is asked what it is he loves about Britain, as even ur normie Question Time audience type is under th illusion he is a lover of Britain.
        He himself describes it thus: th contributions to th world, our religion, our literature, architecture, th paintings of Turner, th verse of Larkin, th music of Handel, th gentleness of our empire, th old sky line of London, th old railways, coins, policemen, he loves every last field and hedgerow. And so very much more in this vein.
        But what is always blazingly obvious by it’s absence is th actual British people themselves.
        He’s been councling our best & brightest to leave this sinking ship for a decade or more.
        He knows his history, he knows people. He knows better than most th diabolical terrors & sufferings awaiting th British poor. Yet his natural & intellectual instinct is to give up th fight and flee, and to promote this cowardly capitulation every chance he gets. In a long, long list of Jewish faults in his character, this is th one above all else that states to th world he is as Jewish as th most Jewish Jew in Judea.
        Th only hope for a nation is if people are willing to go down with th ship. Myself & 99 per cent of my fellow peasants haven’t a choice, but even if we cld flee, and intended to, to broadcast & promote this total betrayal is too much.
        Do you feel me sir? Can u see where I’m coming from?

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        The way they locked Mosley up in a damp cold cell that wrecked his health during th war, proves beyond any argument that Britian had no morality above their German enemies.
        Whatever you thought of Mosley, he was an icon to th working class ESPECIALLY WWI veterans, and a die hard patriot. It was th Jew controlled Churchill regime that lacked a shred of patriotism, love or even merci for the hundreds of thousands of gallant young men they sent to their graves so Israel cld be born, our empire winded down & world power transferred to Washington DC.
        Churchill’s only saving grace in my eyes, him being th greatest enemy Britain has ever faced, who did more damage to th British people than any other human in history, was th fact he was at least honest with HIMSELF, if not th public, of th catastrophe had led his nation into.
        It’s fitting Britain’s worst enemy is so lyionised by our Jewish controlled media, that he was voted th Greatest ever Britain at th turn of th millennium by th deluded public.
        It’s this aspect of Jews, they way they don’t just lie, commit crime, wreck societies, etc etc etc etc etc but completely invert reality, no matter what anyone sais, that is th calling card of Satanists, this 180 degree inversion of th good, true or beautiful.
        I don’t hate Jews for this, just like I wouldn’t hate fire if fire burnt down my house incinerating my entire family. That’s dumb, as is hating anything or anyone.
        I feel sorry for them, they’re cursed to suffer under a demonic religion that turns them into agents of th devil. I’ve no idea how many will burn in hell for their crimes, it’s not for th Christian to judge. But it is for th Christian to be awake to them, wise as serpants was th advice.
        In our Jewish society, which will not long last, as eventually they will run th thing into th ground, it’s fitting that Churchill is th hero and Mosley th villain.
        When we regain control of our nation’s and start again living in truth, Mosley will be th hero and Churchill th hated villain.

  17. TJ
    TJ says:

    “Racism” is offered up as axiomatically wrong or evil, as if racial equality has been established by unassailable proof. Therefore- the racist is evil or grossly stupid. In fact racial inequality has been proven. But the enemy rejects evidence based views, because such views cannot be correct DUE TO THE SENSES BEING WRONG [lying eyes syndrome]. This latter position has two major supporters- Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. Berkeley’s philosophy he called IMMATERIALISM- THAT TREE YOU “SEE” OUT THE WINDOW DOES NOT EXIST. Sense [visual mainly] based [science based] views are therefore wrong. What remains is subjectivism AND ABOVE ALL ELSE EPISTEMOLOGICAL EGALITARIANISM. Absurd views that could be proven as being absurd- IF one accepts the premise that the eyes are valid. If eyes are invalid, anything goes. [see Paul Feyerabend]

    Pay attention here- the senses-are-wrong views have been accepted as being PROVEN FOR ALL TIME. The opposite view- senses are valid- is correct, but few know this. No argument was ever offered for the pro-nonsense view! Nothing was ever proven, the kiddies in grad school are not informed. . .Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is considered the biggest mind rape of all time. . .

    The left misdirects from race to racism, AS IF RACISM WAS THE TOPIC ALL ALONG. We must push an evidence based view about race- brain size [black 5 cubic inches smaller], Intelligence Quotient [black not mulatto median is 67], violent crime for mulattoes 8X White, the real dark black numbers must be much worse, but the Dept of Justice tacitly claims the mixed race as being “fully black” [Candace Owens and others do the same]. They get smarts from the WHITE part of their genetics, not to be admitted. . .they get away with labeling themselves as “black.”

    Mr. Libertarian Rothbard was a big fan of The Bell Curve, and favored voluntary separation. See the writing of Hans Hoppe, a libertarian racialist. Linder is similar. The USA founded as a White nation with liberty- see Naturalization Act of 1790.
    All movements have been jew-infiltrated. Yes the Founders were White Racialists, NOT egalitarians. . .It was the Age of Reason
    . . . the Founders were White Nationalists. . .reason clearly supports the racialist position.

    Reason must be revalidated by revalidating the evidence of the senses, in order to remove this age of nonsense. And by removing the State from education. One may look at [with eyes wide open] at a book, The Evidence of the Senses [David Kelley]

    Science was replaced by Idealism and Romanticism

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is considered [edit: “by a few to be”] the biggest mind rape of all time. . .”

      Not by the establishment[s] at all. It was considered to be a mind rape by a very small and very perceptive minority.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Pay attention here- the senses-are-wrong views have been accepted as being PROVEN FOR ALL TIME. The opposite view- senses are valid- is correct, but few know this.”

      Superb observation .

      One of the greatest if not the greatest philosopher in history , Aristotle the Greek , held that our sense perceptions are normally stable and usually reliable .

      ALL computerized logic circuits worldwide are based on Aristotelian logic ; and Pcs will be indispensable for humanity to thrive-n-survive into the boundless future .

  18. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    You know, the Bolsheviks had the Cheka, later replaced by OGPU that morphed into the KGB.

    The main driver of ‘wokeness’ isn’t ideology but idolatry and of what? Jews control ‘wokeness’ and mainly use the idolatries of globo-homo and BLM.
    During much of Obama yrs, it was globo-homo. Jews didn’t worry about black loyalty cuz having a black president was enough for blacks to vote almost totally for The One, dey’s homey.

    But after Obama, blacks were less enthralled of the Democratic Party cuz, looking back on the 8 yrs under Obama, Jews and homos got most of the goodies(and immigrants gained a lot) while blacks got little by symbolism. And Trump increased his share of black vote. Not by much but every vote counts in some blue states. Also, in the 2016 election, many blacks in Michigan didn’t vote at all.

    So, in the final yrs of Trump’s presidency, Jews decided to go big on BLM or black idolatry.
    Thus, politics since then has been stoking black ego and erecting monuments to blackity blackness, like George Floyd statues, ROTFL. It even led to human sacrifice in riots and the bogus trial of Derek Chauvin who most certainly did not kill Floyd, the fentanyl junkie.

    Anyway, if early Soviet Union was terrorized by Cheka and its Chekists, one could say the current order is tyrannized by Blacka(or Bleka) and its Blackists(or Blekists). This is what it should be called. Blackism or Blekism(to play word game on Chekism). And it must be a rule of terror cuz it goes against truth and common sense.

    Communism lasted as long as it did in Russia not only cuz of terror and repression but because enough people at the top really believed in the nonsense they were peddling. So, even when the system was faced with crisis after crisis, they doubled down on their radicalism…. until finally they stopped believing and the whole system became one big cynical gamesmanship of position and status until that deteriorated too.

    For now, we must let Blekism run its course. Let the Blekists idolatrize blackness as innately noble and sacred. Let them blame all black problems on nonblacks. Let them sweep black criminality under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist or it’s justified. Let them do this until they can no longer deny the truth.

    This news story is beautiful:

    “They will next be robbing hotel guests room by room. I remember checking into an upscale hotel on Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana Beach sometime in the 1980s. I asked the clerk why the hotel had 30 armed guards with submachine guns in the lobby. He replied that last week a gang took over the hotel and robbed guests room by room. The same event can’t be very far in our future. Democrats already permit blacks to burn and loot the business districts of Democrat-controlled cities. Just ask any resident of New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta what life is like in Democrat cities.”

    It’s Blekism running riot and spreading terror. It’s like use of poison gas in war. You use it against the enemy but the wind blows in your direction and your side suffers.
    Blue city elites meant to use black terror against us but it’s blowing back in their face. It’s total LOL.

    So, I say let Blekism take over blue areas. Black-and-Blue, the new formula of ‘wokeness’. Let the blues believe blacks are saintly Emmett Tills being killed by rednecks when blackfists are wreaking havoc all over.

    Blue city folks won’t listen to us, so they will have to learn the hard way… just like communism finally failed of its own excesses.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” For now, we must let Blekism run its course.”

      That is the sheeple-way-of-life ;
      and it supports your self-fulfilling prediction ___

      “” “They will next be robbing hotel guests room by room.””

Comments are closed.