Mister Quigley: You won’t believe what this Jewish rabbi thinks…

Damn, you had me there. I was thinking, “No, the old guy’s been smoking like a chimney for 40 years, drinking like a fish, etc.” hahaha.

Remember chaverim, if you have hangnails, it was da goyim! da goyim!

So Ms. Kessel has made it clear to us once and for all: “Humor” must not hurt anyone; it must be as toothless as an old man. Humor is not a wild wolf, but a poodle on a leash. It must be democratic, showing respect for everyone. “Humor” means accepting idiocy as norm. Anyone who breaks this rule is a patriarchal thought criminal!

The spineless clowns at Amren censor my humor out of most despicable cowardice. The perverted Jew-kissers secretly revel in it. Today I (as “Fritz”) commented: “When I see a hanged negro corpse, I feel sorry for the tree.” Recently, I advocated for untrained Indian gynecologists to treat “liberal” white women. That was censored, too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/opinion/lynchings-ayanna-pressley-investigation.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/09/shock-video-fake-indian-degree-racket-busted-kerala/

Democratic Dictatorship: Why We Need Anti-Democratic Resistance.

“Democracy” in the sense of majority rule is a dictatorship. A majority—as little as 50% plus one vote—rules over the remaining 49.99%. Democracy is a system based on self-interest and does not serve the common good. Democracy has nothing to do with justice, freedom, or self-determination

Democracy is the most extreme form of dictatorship because, unlike monarchies or so-called “dictatorships,” it is not overthrown even in the face of the most serious crimes, but is constantly reaffirmed through elections. If, for example, a king had devised the “COVID measures,” he would have been deposed—or, 200 years ago, even beheaded.

In “democracy,” they tell you that you can always vote for a different party in the next election. The modern form of “democracy” was introduced to gain total control over the people. Because democracies are no longer overthrown, and the people are kept busy hoping for the next election.

With the help of “democracy,” the people elect and tolerate their oppressors. Democracy can only function on a small scale—in a family, a clan, or a village community—where everyone knows each other personally. In such settings, it also makes sense to select people with special abilities for important tasks. These individuals do not rule over others but use their talents for the common good.

Aristotle, too, reflected on forms of government and distinguished between those concerned with the common good and those concerned with self-interest. The common good includes: monarchy, when only one person rules; aristocracy, when several people rule; and polity, in which rule lies not in the hands of an individual but with the people, and where governance is directed toward the common good.

Self-interest includes: tyranny, where one person benefits; oligarchy, where a few benefit; and democracy, the rule of the many (the people), in which those in power do not concern themselves with the common good but with their own benefit. Even back then, it was recognized that “democracy” is a system oriented toward self-interest.

Democracy is good only for those who currently benefit from it. However, it is not suitable as a communal project. And things get worst when political parties enter the picture. What exactly is a political party? Let’s take a look at a very official definition:

“A political party (from the Latin pars, genitive partis, ‘part,’ ‘direction,’ ‘side’), also known simply as a party, is an association of people organized in various ways who, within a broader political entity (a state or similar), strive to gain as much political influence as possible in order to achieve their own practical or ideological goals and/or to obtain personal advantages.”

“An essential part of gaining or exercising such political power is filling leadership positions in government and other institutions with party members or people close to the party.” Here alone we can see pure self-interest at work! To all those who are now constantly clamoring for “direct democracy”: What would “direct democracy” have done for you during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Absolutely nothing, because the propaganda of the “lying press” alone would have caused 60 to 70% to vote in favor of the measures and mandatory vaccination. And then what? Would you all have worn masks and gotten vaccinated because it was decided “democratically”? Would that be okay with you? Would you get vaccinated if 50.1% voted in favor?

Here’s a small example: We hold a referendum on a smoking ban in bars and restaurants, and 80% vote in favor. That’s a dictatorship over the 20%. Why aren’t they allowed to set up smoking-only establishments? It would be different if there were a consensus: instead of a referendum, there would be a public consultation. Here, it’s not just “yes” or “no” answers that are possible, but also concrete suggestions on how to do things better.

We analyze why, when, and where the 80% want smoke-free establishments, and try to find ways to make that happen. At the same time, we find ways for the remaining 20% to have their own smoking establishments. A vote isn’t even necessary on an issue like this. Essentially, the market should regulate itself here. If there is a demand for smoke-free establishments, they will emerge because business owners can generate revenue from them.

The rest is politically driven to divide people. Why do I say that we need anti-democratic—and not “apolitical”—resistance? Because, in principle, EVERY person participates in politics in some form. Politics means nothing other than participation in community life. Wherever more than one person lives together, agreements, rules, and so on will arise.

So being political doesn’t mean supporting a political party! Even a monarchist or an anarchist is politically active in some way if they give thought to how we live together. Thoughts on participating in elections: If elections actually changed anything, they would have been banned long ago.

You can’t put an end to a criminal, corrupt system by putting someone else at its helm. Democracy tries to force people to live together, even though it would often be better for them to simply live side by side. Democracy is the concept of convincing people that they’re too stupid to shape their own lives, but smart enough to elect someone to do it for them.

Voting is like trying to reach your destination by steering a merry-go-round. Why would a political party or government be interested in solving problems when the very existence of those problems is what sustains them?

Our “government” is a disease that masquerades as a cure. Voters are slaves who do not want to be free, but rather the new slave overseers. Voting is the illusion of influence in exchange for the loss of freedom. Those who vote do not think; those who think do not vote.