Putin Using Dirty Means to Eradicate Liberalism

Times Caption: A patriotic mural in Moscow dedicated to victory in World War II. The Kremlin is tapping into Russian pride in the nation’s victory over the Nazis to demonize Ukraine.
FEBRUARY 21, 2023

NY Times: One Year Into War, Putin Is Crafting the Russia He Craves

I have mixed feelings on what’s described in this article. The positive news from this whiny Times piece? The cancer of libtardation is being systematically eradicated in Russia as wartime anti-NATO patriotism continues to be stoked. The negative part? World War II mythology — specifically, the falsely stated cause of that history-shaping war and the absurdly inflated casualties of the Russians — is being used as a propaganda tool to whip up today’s patriotic “anti-Nazi” (anti-NATO) fervor. The big and virtually irrevocable lie about “Nazis” — a monstrous mendacity deeply drilled into the minds of Russian Normiedom for eight decades now — is serving the noble goals of nationalist revival and winning the propaganda war against the “Nazi” gangsters of NWO Ukraine.* From the article // The questionable means: “Schoolchildren learn in a new weekly class that the Russian military has always liberated humanity from “aggressors who seek world domination.”  (oh barf!) “New museum exhibits put on by the state have titles like “NATOzism” — a play on “Nazism” that seeks to cast the Western military alliance as posing a threat as existential as the Nazis of World War II.”* From the article // The noble ends:

“Liberalism in Russia is dead forever, thank God,” Konstantin Malofeyev, an ultraconservative business tycoon, bragged in a phone interview on Saturday. “The longer this war lasts, the more Russian society is cleansing itself from liberalism and the Western poison.”

Like I said, mixed feelings.

Now, the Russians may not be able to realistically revise the mentally embedded useful mythology, but once again — for the benefit of those of “you guys” here’s the deal: The German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was a 100% justifiable and necessary preemptive operation. Some background Information: With Germany preoccupied by its war with Great Britain (started by Britain):

• Stalin violated the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Poland in 1939
• Stalin violated the Soviet-Finnish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Finland in 1939
• Stalin violated a provision of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (1939) by invading Lithuania in 1940
• Stalin grabbed a piece of eastern Romania in 1940

Hitler knew that Stalin, in secret collaboration with the British, was planning to totally break the Soviet-German Non Aggression Pact by launching a massive surprise attack upon anti-Communist Germany. We’ll let Hitler explain, in his own truthful words:

“Already in 1940 it had become increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather to attack that which seemed incapable of defense … I may say this today: If the wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost. “Tell it, just Tell it!

But who will tell today’s Rooskies?

Millions of Soviet troops were quickly taken prisoner because they were packed along the front line, in OFFENSIVE positions. The Germans then advanced easily across undefended territory. There was so little defense behind the front lines because Stalin was planning an invasion of eastern Europe, NOT a defense of Russia. After the war, the prisoners shown above would be condemned to death in Stalin’s gulags. In Stalin’s mind, There were no prisoners of war, just traitors.

Ironically, the Russians of today and the Germans of the 1930’s-40’s are and were fighting the very same forces of Globalism — the “liberal New World Order” which Hitler referred to as “international hyenas” and Putin now calls “Satanic scum.” Another amazing similarity relates to the type of characters who fled Germany and the ones who are now leaving Russia.

* Hitler / 1933:

“The guilty ones are right here with us. They live among us and abuse day in and day out the hospitality granted to them by the German people.

In gratitude for that, while millions of our own people are without work and go to pieces, a clan of Jewish intellectuals, professors and businessmen agitate hate against us in the world.”

* Putin / 2022:

“The West will try to rely on the so-called fifth column, on national traitors, on those who earn money here with us but live there. And I mean ‘live there’ not even in the geographical sense of the word, but according to their thoughts, their slavish consciousness — I do not judge those with villas in Miami or the French Riviera or who can’t get by without oysters or foie gras or so-called ‘gender freedoms. The problem is they mentally exist there, and not here, with our people with Russia.

But the Russian people, will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors, and simply spit them out like a gnat that accidentally flew into their mouths, spit them out on the pavement.”

By the way, the two leaders were both talking about the same people as the headlines below, from 2022, confirm.

Ironically, and in a good way, the Hitler – Putin comparisons are actually spot-on correct…. but WW2 mythology lives on in Russia nonetheless.

Why Do White Libtards Virtue Signal

DECEMBER 6, 2022

NY Times:Her Family Owned Slaves. How Can She Make Amends?

Stacie Marshall, who inherited a Georgia farm, is trying on a small scale to address a generations-old wrong that still bedevils the nation.

About the only noise that grates worse than the skin-crawling sound of whinging & whining coming from some virtue-signalling, self-hating, cosmopolitan, White Yankee libtard prattling on about the lasting legacy of slavery and “White privilege” — is the similar whinging & whining coming from a virtue-signalling, self-hating, southern born & bred White Dixie libtard. You see, the former is merely a provincial ignoramus; whereas the latter is a dad-gum traitor to his kin. Heck, at least the self-hating Germans can falsely accuse themselves — if they are very old — or their parents or grandparents for the Holohoax. But this pathetic wench has to go back nearly 160 years to dig up and trash unknown ancestors for an institution which had actually been established in the Americas by “the usual suspects” who absolutely dominated the slave trade — and whose tribal descendants have pretty much scrubbed several excellent works on that subject from the search engines of Amazon (surprise surprise).

The article tells of how “long-blond-haired” ex-beauty queen Stacie Marshall slipped into a marketing seminar in Athens, Georgia which was attended by about  two dozen Black farmers. But St. Stacie wasn’t there to learn how to better peddle veggies. When the Black speaker, Matthew Raiford, asked if there were questions, our sanctimonious heroine raised her hand and cleared her soul. You see, she had inherited 300 acres upon which she was going to farm — thus making her the first woman in her family to own a farm. But St. Stacie had discovered something so horrific — so traumatizing — so guilt-inducing that it compelled her to show up at this all-Black farming seminar and make Holy Confession to Father Raiford.

From the article:

“My family owned seven people,” Ms. Marshall said. She wanted to know how to make it right.

Mr. Raiford was as surprised as anyone in the room. “Those older guys have probably never heard that from a white lady in their entire lives,” he recalled.

For almost three years now, with the fervor of the newly converted, Ms. Marshall has been on a quest that from the outside may seem quixotic and even naïve. She is diving into her family’s past and trying to chip away at racism in the Deep South.”

Wethinks St. Stacie watches too much TV — and that the publicity surrounding her virtue-signaling was either contrived in advance or sought after the fact.

1. St. Stacie is following in the footsteps of St. Harper Lee — the Alabama traitoress who proudly pooped-out the anti-southern “To Kill a Mockingbird” that has since been force-fed to scores of millions of High School students and made into several plays and a “classic” movie. // 2. The flag stands for heritage and culture — not “racism.” // 3. I wonder if St. Stacie — the ageing former beauty pageant winner — is ridin’ dirty with farmer Raiford as a form of “reparations.” …. Yeah, I think she is.

Now, about this matter of libtard virtue-signaling and excited tail-wagging in the presence of “people of color ( I guess I’m including myself).” What we have in such cases are not examples of well-intentioned people being stupid; nor really “self-hate” as much as it is a bizarre  and unhealthy form of self-love. These are mainly rotten and ego-driven people trying to exalt themselves above the rest of common humanity. To we the observant, they are vice-signaling by declaring:  “Hey! Look at me everybody! I’m trashing my White ancestors for owning slaves! Look at me!” — or — “Hey! Look at me everybody! I just adopted a Black baby from Haiti or a Brown/Black baby from the Dominican Republic!” There is absolutely ZERO “virtue” in that sort of spectacle-making behavior.

Let us hearken back to our New Testament Sunday School lessons to better understand what virtue-signaling libtards like St. Stacie are really about. Some excerpts from Matthew, Chapter 6:

“Be careful not to perform your righteous acts before men are seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men.”

“And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.“

“When you fast, do not be somber like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting.”

Tell it, Jesus. Tell it!

1 & 2. Never trust a virtue-signaling or “philanthropist” libtard who craves to “be seen of men.” // 3. I know, Jesus. I know.

These character types aren’t virtuous; they are self-aggrandizing and potentially dangerous neurotics — even if their advertised deeds do sometimes serve for the good. Put St. Stacie in a time machine and transport her back to Atlanta 1861; and she’ll be front & center (where she loves to be!) hosting fundraisers for the Confederacy as she conspicuously drops jewelry into the donation basket. “Look at me everybody!I’m supporting the cause! Oh -Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.”  — Bitch, please.

Libtards like St. Stacie needs to be called out at every turn as phony virtue-signalers, and promptly yanked down from their posturing pedestals when they act like this. The moral high ground is not for show-offs – especially ones who betray their own for personal gain. If you want to be a good “non-racist,” it will suffice to simply treat “people other than white” with the same degree of respect you’d like anyone else to show for you — no more, no less; and just leave it at that.

We need to remember, assholes come in all colors.

1. Southern-born actress Sandra Bullock with Black baby (who seems to be thinking: “Dis White bitch cray cray.” // 2. South African-born actress Charlize Theron proves to all that she is truly anti-Apartheid. // 3. Anorexic nutcase and CIA asset Angelina Jolie also showing up and doing her part.

How & Why Deep State Ruined Richard Nixon

1974: President Nixon resigns.

The resignation from office of President Richard Nixon (over some petty nonsense) in 1974, after a year-long “impeachment process,” marked the first and only time that a US president has ever been forced out of office — while living, that is. Technically, it was a “resignation” because Nixon hadn’t been impeached. But the Democrat House certainly had enough votes to impeach and the Senate had enough gutless Republican’ts to convict him of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress related to a break-in at Washington’s Watergate Hotel by some low-level operatives looking for dirt on Democrats. Nixon, oblivious of the “burglary,” was crucified not for the minor act, but for the cover-up.

In those pre-Talk Radio / pre-cable TV / pre-Internet / pre-Twitter days of total media monopoly, the Big Five Jew bullhorns — New York Times: (Sulzberger) — Washington Post: (Meyer-Graham) — ABC: (Goldenson) — NBC: (Sarnoff) — CBS: (Paley (Paloff)) — controlled the public perception of reality — totally ! Nixon was defenseless. Their official fairy tale of Watergate — which is why all subsequent political scandals carry the suffix “gate” — holds that two young crusading reporters from The Washington Post, Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward – supplied with information by an anonymous source called “Deep Throat” — took down an evil, duplicitous scoundrel of a president for the good of the country. The real story is something different.

A book review of the latest Nixon book to be puffed-up by the New York Times raises a question that many other “historians” have pondered, specifically: Why has Nixon’s name not at all been rehabilitated by the passage of time?

From the Times review of Michael Dobb’s Nixon and Watergate — An American Tragedy

“Yet for a spell in the late 20th century, some commentators and a few historians imagined that this dark stain on our democracy would quickly fade away. Some of Richard Nixon’s loyalists predicted that his foreign policy would soon overshadow his lawlessness.

But it never came. No Republican Party convention ever invited him to speak. Retrospective rankings of our chief executives always placed him low.”

It’s no mystery to us. We have our own ideas about the reason why the Nixon name must remain forever tarnished, and it’s something much deeper than libtards simply not liking him.

1. The famed Watergate Hotel where a minor “burglary” took place. // 2. Nasty Yenta Katherine Meyer (cough cough) and her hit-men reporters, Carl Bernstein (cough cough) & Bob Woodward). // 3. Nixon resigns before a stunned TV audience. He was an imperfect and ambitious man who had his flaws — but he was never one of “them” and might have done some great things in his second term.

THE TRUTH ABOUT “WATERGATE”

• 1948: As a young Congressman (R-CA), Nixon co-sponsored a “Mundt-Nixon Bill” to address the crisis of internal communist subversion. The bill provided for registration of all Communist Party members and required the monitoring of “printed and broadcast material issued by Communist-front organizations.” The bill passed the House, but died in the Senate.

• 1949-1950: Nixon served on the anti-Communist House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). In that capacity, he played a part in exposing the communist traitor and Soviet agent Alger Hiss — who would be convicted of perjury in 1950. Nixon relished his role in the exposure and earned the ever-lasting animosity of the Establishment Left for it. Harvard boy Hiss was one of theirs, and people like Eleanor Roosevelt never forgave Nixon for serving on HUAC.

• 1950: Nixon easily won a seat in the US Senate after suggesting that his ultra-liberal Democrat opponent, Helen Gahagan Douglas, might be a communist. Eleanor Roosevelt was again incensed, and continued to trash Nixon for this for many years to come. Once in the Senate, Nixon supported the efforts of the great Joseph McCarthy.

• 1952: In order to bolster his anti-communist / conservative credentials among Republicans, the Leftist traitor and all-of-a-sudden “Republican” Dwight D. Eisenhower selected Nixon as his Vice Presidential running mate. Two months after having stolen the Republican nomination from Ohio Senator Robert Taft (a true conservative patriot), Eisenhower, who was certain to defeat the Democrat Adlai Stevenson in the general election, left Nixon twisting in the wind as the Fake News accused Nixon of inappropriate use of campaign funds. (((They))) wanted Nixon off the ticket. His place now in doubt, Nixon delivered a TV address in which he defended himself, attacked his opponents, and urged the audience to contact the Republican National Committee (RNC) to keep him on the ticket. During the speech, Nixon cleverly and cutely stated that he intended to keep a black-and-white dog that was gifted to him, and his children had named Checkers. This speech became known as “The Checkers Speech,” and it saved him — no thanks to Eisenhower!

1. Nixon the ambitious anti-communist showman holding newspaper telling of the conviction of communist Alger Hiss, which he helped to bring about. // 2. The “Checkers Speech” — Nixon, citing his new dog, takes to the airwaves to beg Republican voters to keep him on the Eisenhower ticket. // 3. Eisenhower, that FDR-loving butcher of German prisoners, never truly supported Nixon — but needed his anti-communist credentials in order to cover up the Marxist stench.

• 1953 – 1961: Nixon, though basically a conservative and a patriot, was always an ambitious politician first. He faithfully served the Globalist bastard Eisenhower — even helping to clip Joe McCarthy‘s wings when called upon to do so — until he himself could run for the White House.

• 1960: Nixon ran for president and lost a very close election to John F Kennedy.

• 1968: Nixon was elected president, with “far right” Spirow Agnew (R-MD) as Vice President. Both men — we only know now but the all-knowing “usual suspects” surely must have known back then — held “anti-Semitic” views. (here) and (here)

• 1972: Nixon & Agnew were re-elected in a historic landslide — winning 49 out of 50 states!

1. Nixon vs JFK: Election 1960: As Senators, Nixon and JFK had both supported Joe McCarthy and were never really part of “The Establishment.” They would both become American presidents, and both be removed. JFK by murder, and Nixon by “scandal.” // 2. Election 1968: Nixon’s VP, Spiro Agnew, was a rock-solid conservative not afraid to fight. // 3. Election 1972: The secretly “anti-Semitic” Nixon & Agnew won EVERYTHING except libtarded Taxxachussetts and mostly Black District of Colombia. Nixon would have had a lot of power and would probably have ended “The Cold War” in Term 2.

• October 1973: Vice President Agnew was forced to resign over a fake “tax evasion” scandal hyped up by the Fake News. Globalist / Trilateralist , JFK assassination cover-upper Congressman Gerald Ford of Michigan was then forced upon Nixon as new Vice President.

• August 1974: Nixon resigned. The Watergate “scandal” over a low level “burglary” was nothing more than a “Deep State” coup — led by Katherine Meyer Graham‘s Washington Post — not unlike what we are witnessing today in the effort to remove Trump. Nixon’s resignation elevated Rockefeller puppet Gerald Ford to the presidency.

• November 1974: “The Watergate Babies” — A whole bunch of Bolshevik Democrats won House seats due to a backlash caused by the Fake News and their manufactured “scandal.” America’s political landscape was fundamentally altered by the influx of these Marxists

1. Deep State & Fake News take out VP Agnew // 2. Deep State & Fake News takes out Nixon. // 3.The damage done to the Republican brand ushered in the Democrat “Watergate Babies” of 1974.

Young hippy trash Killary Rodham worked for Watergate Judiciary Committee until being fired for unethical behavior.

ACTUAL QUOTES

• December 1974: Globalist Ford chose “Republican” Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President. Rockefeller had been Governor of New York State and was known for his presidential ambitions. The problem for Rockefeller was that heartland Republicans hated him — and had already rejected him in 1964.

• September 5, 1975: Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a member of the Charles Manson cult, pointed a handgun at Ford and pulled the trigger at point-blank range. As she did, a Secret Service agent grabbed the gun. Fromme was arrested and served 34 years in prison. Nelson Rockefeller came that close to becoming president.

• September 22, 1975: As Ford left a hotel in San Francisco, another mind-controlled assassin, Sara Jane Moore, fired a handgun at the president — missing him only by a few feet. As she fired a second round, a retired Marine grabbed at the gun and deflected her shot. The second bullet struck a wall just six inches above Ford’s head, then ricocheted and wounded a taxi driver. Moore served 32 years in prison. Once again, over the span of just three weeks, Globalist Golden Boy Nelson Rockefeller came within inches of becoming the 39th president of the United States. How convenient would it have been, eh? It is interesting to note that when Ford ran for president against Jimmy Carter in 1976, he dumped Nelson Rockefeller!

And that, dear reader, is the real story behind the back-to-back “scandals” which took out VP Agnew first — and then President Nixon one year later.

1. Nelson Rockefeller wanted the presidency. // 2 & 3. President Ford, though a loyal Globalist soldier, was expendable. Two very close assassination attempts on him, just 17 days apart, could easily have put Rockefeller into the office which Nixon had held just 1 year earlier.

1. Nixon letter to Donald Trump (1987): “… whenever you decide to run for office, you will be a winner!” // 2. Nixon and Trump all chummy at a 1980’s black-tie event. // 3. CIA rats Woodward & Bernstein were dragged out of mothballs to help ignite another coup — this time against Trump. But this time around, the old media magic was gone. Most people under 55 don’t even remember the role that these two wicked has-been played in Watergate.

How to Talk to Crazy Conspiracy (Analysts) Theorists…

DECEMBER 21, 2022

NY Times:How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories

Fringe movements will persist. Here’s how to help.

By CHARLIE WARZEL

No matter how many shells the Judenpresse Armada fires at us, we “conspiracy tanalysts” not only remain afloat but — as even the Times acknowledges — we continue to grow our ranks with each passing day. As a public service to the bewildered boobs who worship “the paper of record” and Fake News in general, Times scribbler Charlie Warzel has so graciously taken it upon himself to put together  a tutorial on “how to help” the viral crazies now popping in every family and circle of friends — and just in time for holiday gatherings with family members too.

Warzel sets forth six strategies that “concerned” normies should use to “help” their crazy loved ones — and he prefaces his advice with the following word of caution about dealing with “conspiracy theorists”–

“Reminder: This advice pertains to friends or relatives with whom you are already close and who are not demonstrating unstable or violent behavior. It’s important to exercise restraint and good judgment in all cases.”

Fuck you Weasel. It’s the Left that’s “unstable” and “violent,” not us. And it is the standard practice of every liar, criminal and psychopath to label his adversary as “crazy.” Let’s review and rebut these six pieces of Warzel’s excrement.

1. Charlie Weasel tells people how to “help” the critical thinkers in their circle. // 2. Crazy Uncle Bob needs a family intervention. // 3. Of course, the Q Anon movement is featured in this story.

1. Ask Where the Information is Coming From.

Rebuttal: Genetic Fallacy Alert! Genetic Fallacy Alert! It doesn’t matter where the data comes from. What matters is whether a thing is true, or whether it is false. Although it is perfectly natural and logical to be skeptical of information coming from a dubious source; a wise man never automatically disregards data based on source alone. Never ask: “Where did you read this?” — Always ask: Is this true — and can it be independently confirmed or debunked?

2. Create Some Cognitive Dissonance — (By acknowledging that certain past conspiracies were real and have been exposed — and then asking why the conspiracy in question has not been exposed by “whistle-blowers”).

There are indeed whistle-blowers usually associated with the big conspiracy of (fill-in-the-blank). But because the press itself is part of the Deep State, you may not always come to know about it. Why would you assume that just because a certain whistle-blower or victim has been ignored by the corrupted corporate media, that he or she does not exist or is not legitimate? Do you blindly worship the Fake News?

3. Debunking is Difficult — (*Because people form emotional attachments to their beliefs.)

That works both ways, Weasel. People, in general, regardless of intelligence or “education,” are pridefully slow when it comes to changing their minds. But what strikes me about you Q Anon / Satanist “debunkers” is that you NEVER even attempt to “debunk” the data — such as the disgusting child-abuse artwork preferred by the Podesta Brothers — or the shocking images and texts posted on social media by the perverted Pizza-gate clique.  Are those stomach-turning images and posts that have so repulsed so many millions of people real — or are they not real? Is the Hunter Biden laptop real (public disclosure coming soon), or is it not real? Please answer.

1. All that matters is if a thing is “True” or “False.” Fixating on the “source” of the data point is a diversion. // 2. “There are no whistle-blowers, eh Warzel?” — Vicky Polin on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 1989 reveals how she was raised in a Satanic Jewish cult that sacrificed “breeder” babies (video here). She then ran the Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault — a support group which, after years of being attacked by “the usual suspects,” finally closed in 2014. // 3. No one has ever even tried to “debunk” Demonrat big-shot Tony Podesta’s favorite works of “art.”

4. Don’t Debate on Facebook — (too confrontational)

Rebuttal: Why not, Mr. Weasel? I’ve seen in-person “debates” between normies and truthers get pretty nasty (been there myself!). Could your advice to avoid Facebook debates have anything to do with the fact that online exchanges allow a truther — who may not be so articulate or well-versed in the subject matter — to instantly drop a link to one of the countless excellent articles and videos out there which provide powerful proofs for “conspiracy theories” ™? Indeed, some of the assigned anti-conspiracy monitors at You Tube were themselves converted by some of the very videos they were tasked with reviewing for censorship! Weasel is trying to prevent naive “debunkers” from fighting in a highly populated arena more favorable to truthers.

5. Mocking and Scolding Won’t Work

Rebuttal: You see that? Behind our backs, he mocks us and tells our normie friends & family that we are essentially insane little children in need of an “intervention” — but then instructs them to conceal their scorn from us — as if we astute “empaths” wouldn’t be able to instinctively sense and be properly offended by the concealed condescension of these sneaky, snarky, back-stabbing mental midgets in our midst! Oh that just does wonders for a family relationship (been there too) eh, Weasel? Typical manipulative Marxist.

6.Know When to Walk Away.

There it is!!! The payoff punch — the truth at last!

Weasel knows bloody damn well that once one has contracted the truth-virus, there’s no going back to the overlapping tyrannical Kingdoms of Libtardia and Normiedom. It is a mental and moral impossibility — notwithstanding these FAKE stories we hear about “reformed” conspiracy cultists who now “have a warning for others.” Hence, Warzel’s previous five pieces of advice were all just part of a grand smoke-screen. What this devious (((devil))) really wants is for people to “walk away” and — as a natural consequence in many cases — alienate the truther from “polite company” and even family gatherings.

In his own words, while quoting a “conspiracy researcher” named – get this – Mike Rothschild:

“If you have legitimate concerns about their health and safety, that is usually a job for professionals. In some cases, it’s important to realize there may be little you can do in the moment, some cautioned. Mr. Rothschild told me: “If you have to, be ready to walk away from them. There comes a point where you may not be able to have that instability in your life.’”

Too late for you Bolshevik bastards to isolate this writer, Mr. Weasel and Mr. Rottenchild. You see, though I will tolerate disagreement — I’ve already distanced myself from anyone and everyone who actually thinks me mad — and with zero regrets (yet with deep and persistent sorrow).

1. (((They))) want normies to stay out of Facebook debates for fear of what they may discover — and then spread. /// 2. “That weirdo thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Ja Ja Ja (oh, sorry) Ha ha ha ha.” // 3. The lonely walk of a truther is never easy.

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’”

– St. Antony the Great

When Libtards Write “Letters to the Editor”

DECEMBER 1, 2022

NY Times (Letter to Editor) :Dialogue Is Not Possible With ‘Opposing Views of Reality’

One need only peruse the “Letters to the Editor” section of “the paper of record” to find enough diagnostic evidence to prove that the demented denizens of Libtardia are indeed crazed members of an “authoritarian” cult. No matter how nonsensical or misinformed a given opinion may be; they all repeat the same talking points; they all engage in the mirroring of their journalistic or academic icons; they all read (or at least buy to collect dust with) the same books; they all psychotically project their own vices and madness onto those that they hate; they all have an inverted sense of reality; they all engage in Orwellian “double think;” and they are all consumed with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance and holier-than-thouism…. OK, maybe not all — but certainly above 95% are indeed deranged.

After previous reviews of Letters-to-the-Editor, some of “you guys” have suggested that the New York Times might be faking its own letters. Though (((they))) are certainly capable of such tactics, we “The Editorial Board” of the Anti-New York Times have had enough personal interaction with “educated” libtards — most memorably with those residing in the quaint but snooty New Jersey college towns of Montclair and Princeton —  to understand that there would be no need for Sulzberger’s henchmen to have to fake such idiotic responses. This is exactly how these creatures “think.”

Let’s analyze / psychoanalyze some of the Marxist madness recently submitted to the Times in response to an article originally titled, “We Don’t Have to be Fanatics” then changed online to “Is There a Way to Dial Down the Political Hatred?” by Molly Worthen — in which the writer argued, sensibly, that people “on both sides” should overcome political “fanaticism” and try to reconnect.

1. Historian Molly Worthen suggested that the political factions in society should “moderate” and try to get along better. // 2. For that, her reasonable, non-political piece was criticized by a pair of insane letter writers. // 3. The stained glass window from the Headquarters of the socialist Fabian Society of Britain depicts leading members (Sydney Webb & George Bernard Shaw) molding the world. An inscription reads: “Remold it nearer to the heart’s desire.” Beneath the floor of the workshop, a cult of gullible ‘”educated” idiots (libtards) fanatically worship (and recite from) the books that the Fabians above have fed to them.

To the Editor — by M. Zimmerman:

Writer: Dr. Worthen’s prayer that we get past the hatred characterizing contemporary American politics is not merely futile — it embodies a false equivalence. The brutal reality is that Democrats and Republicans are divided by fundamental values, as well as by opposing views of reality, and that the G.O.P. is just wrong.
Analysis: Demonrats = right — G.O.P. = wrong. End of discussion as far as he’s concerned.

Writer: I don’t regard all Republican voters as malign individuals. But I am convinced that their party and its leaders are indeed a force for evil,
Analysis: He believes that many Republican voters are simply the innocent dupes of “evil” individuals (presumably led by Trump). Very well, the writer is entitled to his opinion, especially if he can back up his claims. But the cult-like stupidity / insanity lies in what he will now define as “evil.”

Writer: … as they propagate the false claim of a stolen election,
Analysis: How can he say that the claim is “false” when the ballot audit results haven’t been completed yet? A reasonable man — politically inclined or not — would at least wait until the process has ended before condemning those who ordered the audit as “evil.”

Writer: … attack voting rights,
Analysis: In no way, shape, manner or form does the tightening of Voter ID requirements and mail-in ballot controls infringe upon anyone’s “right” to vote. How does one even begin to have a dialogue with someone who holds to such a distorted “view of reality?”

Writer: … foment political violence,
Analysis: By any objective observation, the heated and hateful class-warfare and race-warfare rhetoric routinely bellowed out by so many leading Demonrats, dwarfs Trump’s “incitement” of January 6th.

Writer: … defend authoritarianism,
Analysis: “Authoritarianism,” eh? Says the fool whose beloved Demonrat Party would have had us all forcefully locked down and masked up in perpetuity, and then vaxxed with microchips while under threat of punishment.

Writer: … pander to racism,
Analysis: “Racism,” eh? Says the moron whose beloved Demonrat Party degrades and disparages White people at every turn.

Writer: … promote white supremacy, and in the end move to destroy our democracy.
Analysis: “White supremacy,” eh? Says this probable member of “The Tribe” (surname Zimmerman) which proudly lords supreme over the White Man of North America and Western Europe.

Writer: I am not ashamed that I would be appalled if my son or daughter were to marry someone who voted for these evils.
Analysis: So, your child’s marital bliss would be secondary to your twisted politics? Sounds a bit “authoritarian,” doesn’t it? Goodness gracious. As much as I have always detested their libtardation, I have never personally hated the Demonrat voters in my extended family.

Dear Libtards:

If the idea of organized voter fraud is such a “baseless” “conspiracy theory” — then why have so many people (usually of color ™) been arrested for it over the years?

To the Editor — by J. Levandusky:

Writer: Unfortunately, Molly Worthen’s article is a few years too late. We appear to be beyond a point in America where respectful listening may be a viable path to reconciliation.

Analysis: Agreed.

Writer: Indeed, the debate has gotten too extreme and too divorced from factuality on one side.

Analysis: And which side is that?

Writer: As the Republican Party ….

Analysis: Of course. Just like the other writer — Demonrats = good — G.O.P. = bad. This is the type of personal hatred which leads to genocide.

Writer: …. slides ever closer to full-on fascism,

Analysis: Putting aside the misunderstood and misapplied term “fascism”  — (for the sake of argument) — and thus misdefining it as a repressive “authoritarian” system of total thought control — 100% of the recent Amazon book banning, You Tube censoring, Facebook / Twitter removals, Google algorithm-rigging, PayPal account terminations and career-killing events involves the silencing of “the right” by folks on “the left.” Can anyone cite a single occurrence of a Marxist or Libtard author or blogger ever having been subjected to such cyber “fascism?”

Writer: … there appear to be few remaining with whom to engage.

Analysis: He misses the phony Paul Ryans, John McStains & Liz Cheneys of the pre-Trump Republican’t Party.

Writer:  Can you have a respectful dialogue with someone who believes that the election was stolen from Donald Trump Analysis: Ya know, “you guys” really do seem a bit too concerned about election fraud coming out.

Writer:  … or that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor?

Analysis: No. Killary ran the Haiti child kidnapping operation. That was James Alefantis who owned that pedo-pizzeria with the revolting Instagram and Twitter posts. You could at least get your facts straight before you distort them. And y’all seem a bit too concerned about the pedo-sex stuff as well.

Writer: …..Can you have a civilized conversation with people who violently storm the Capitol and beat up police officers?

Analysis: Uh, those were actually CIA / Antifa agents. I know, I know… “conspiracy theory.”

Writer:  We are facing a profound threat to our democracy.

Analysis: The single most “profound threat to our democracy” is Demonrat voter fraud, with online censorship and cancel culture a close second and third. Historical precedents of Republican’t voter fraud are actually very few; and almost always involve one Republican’t stealing an election from another.

Writer: There is a need for stronger, more strategic measures, lest our country go down a path not unlike Europe in the 1930’s.

Analysis: Oh how I wish that would happen! But you needn’t worry too much about a 1930’s scenario, Boobus. Though some good things may be coming, Americans haven’t got the moral or mental stuff to go full-blown Hitler. Too bad.

These loony letter writers may be actual Communists who KNOW that they are spouting lies — or they may just be Libtard cultists blindly repeating what their media masters tell them to. It’s a difference without a distinction. The late philosopher, conservative author and recovered communist James Burnham once put it this way:

“The only difference between a Communist and a liberal is that the Communist knows what he is doing.”

Tell it, Mr. Burnham. Tell it!

 1. Kari Lake’s now nearly 1-month-old refusal to concede defeat in the yet-to-be-certified Arizona steal has got the Left very worried. // 2. Image from the Instagram page of Comet Pizza shows two naked homosexuals licking a cheese pizza. “Cheese Pizza” is code language used by child-rapists. // 3. Tony Podesta — a disgraced Demonrat big shot and collector of disgusting child abuse / torture “art” — is pals with “James Alefantis” (openly homosexual owner of Comet Pizza) whose fake name loosely translates into “I Love Children” in French (J’aime les enfants).

10 Ways to Change a Liberal’s Mind…

Have you ever talked with a liberal and made a comment that shuts him down completely?  “Trump sure is getting a raw deal with that FBI raid, isn’t he?”  His eyes go glassy, and he starts to look for the exit.  Or he repeats something automatically, like “Trump deserves anything he gets.” 

This “orange man bad” mantra is often called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  It effectively shuts down all communication between disagreeing sides and prevents any kind of meaningful dialogue, even between good friends or family members.  Even intelligent people who are suffering greatly from Biden/liberal policies, through loss of jobs, high gas and oil prices, rapid inflation, high taxes, or curbs on religious freedoms, won’t be able to change their minds and consider voting for a conservative or moderate candidate once he is somehow linked to Donald Trump. 

They say, “If Trump is for it, then I am against it” even if that means they pay $5 a gallon for gas, can’t get formula for their babies, or can’t afford to heat their homes this winter. 

Why does this happen?  How do people make up their minds, and why do they stubbornly refuse to change them? 

You would think that people would evaluate important issues logically, like a math equation where 2+2=4, but this is not true with beliefs, especially when politics is involved.

Keith M. Bellizzi, professor of human development and family sciences, from the University of Connecticut, is among many who study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, and his article on the subject is a good start.  He explains that there are survival systems that are hard-wired into our brains that actually cause stubborn adherence to wrong beliefs.

“Belief perseverance” is one such system.  “Being presented with facts — whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations — that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened.”  They will reject the evidence, and often their original beliefs will become stronger.

“Confirmation bias” is “the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs.  Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias.”  This is why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. 

The brain itself is hardwired to reinforce existing opinions and beliefs, even if this might cause harm.  When you win an argument, your body releases a rush of pleasurable hormones like dopamine and adrenaline.  In a high-stress or threatening situation, cortisol is released, which depresses your logical mind and triggers the more basic part of your brain, which controls fight or flight.  You “see red,” voices are raised, fists get clenched, and it’s much more difficult to understand what the other side is saying. 

Other sociologists have identified other biases that effect logical vs. emotional thinking.

“Believing people from your tribe” 

Humans developed in tribal cultures, which continue to this day.  You are much less likely to believe an outsider.  Nowadays, a tribe is not just a reference to ethnicity or religion, but also belief systems in global warming or abortion, where members are easily identified by how they look or what they say. 

“The big lie” 

People, by nature, are well intentioned, and they assume that others are as well.  So when they hear a lie, they tend to believe it.  Interestingly, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed because they assume that no one would lie about something of such importance.  

All of these factors are related to survival going back to the earliest days of mankind.  If you constantly have to be re-evaluating your beliefs, such as “growling tigers are a reason to run,” then you might consider having a chat with such a tiger — and end up being his lunch. 

So how can you reach people with closed minds? 

1. Be from within their tribe.  Start by reinforcing what the two of you have in common — you may have lived in the same city, had similar jobs or similar backgrounds.  

2. Get permission to discuss — “Would you like to tell me about your views on global warming?”  This makes the idea of a discussion non-threatening. 

3. Resolve never to argue or raise your voice.  Don’t threaten or invoke fear.  If things start to become even a little heated, then withdraw — “we can always discuss this later” or “now may not be the time to discuss this.”  Getting into a heated argument is going to activate the liberal’s lizard brain and end logical reasoning.  

4. Start small.  Don’t try to convince the liberal that Donald Trump is the next George Washington.  Go for a smaller issue that doesn’t challenge one of his core beliefs.  “Should Iran have a nuclear weapon?” or “Would it be good for China to control our farmland?” 

5. Pick topics where you are well-versed.  Most of the people you will be talking with know very little factual information — they are used to hearing talking points and then parroting them back to you. 

6. Ask questions.  There is nothing threatening about asking an honest question, especially about something that is important to the liberal.  Make it clear that you are open and willing to listen to his side and willing to change your mind.  There is a brain/hormone thrill associated with converting someone to his side that will entice him to interact.  Your openness models good behavior — if you’re willing to change your mind, then he should be open-minded as well.

7. Ask “why?”  Few can survive three “whys” in a row.  The brainwashed rarely know the logic behind what they parrot.  

8. Focus on common sense and fairness.  “Does it make sense to spend $2 trillion to lower global temperature by 0.0006 degrees?”  “Does it seem fair to make a middle-class worker who never went to college pay for the student loan of a Harvard graduate with a women’s studies degree?” 

9. If you start to see the liberal’s resistance crumbling, share how you used to feel how he did, but you changed your mind when you learned new information. 

10. If you get him to change his mind on one topic, don’t gloat or insist that he admit he was wrong.  Just say, “I’m glad we had a chance to discuss this.  I learned a lot from you.  I hope we can talk again in the future.”  Then come back another time with a different topic that is more important.  

Changing minds is not a quick process.  Patience and self-control are essential.  Unless we can learn how to speak to our fellow Americans in a kind and understanding manner, we will never heal the divide in our nation. 

We Are Witnessing What Happens When Unrestrained Youth Gets Power

From Madison reading Cato and Cicero when framing the Constitution to the outsized impact both Rome and America had on the world around them, the United States has long been associated with historical Rome. There are great similarities, and there can be much to learn—and what’s happening now does not reflect well on either historical Rome or America.

When most of us think of the worst emperors in Roman history we think of names like Commodus, Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus. To a man they were vain, self-centered, bloodthirsty hedonists who took what they wanted and tortured and killed many thousands of Romans and provincials.

All emperors, including the great ones like Augustus, Trajan, and Aurelian had blood on their hands to one degree or another but most tried to maintain or grow the empire. Commodus et al didn’t. Their goal was to satiate their lusts, whether literal lust or gluttony or, sadly, bloodlust. While there were other bad emperors, these four are among the worst.

What makes this relevant today is the fact that all four of these “men” were spoiled, pampered, entitled sadists who were given free rein when they were still essentially children. Commodus was the oldest at 19, while Nero was 17, and both Elagabalus and Caligula were 16.

They were overindulged brats who never faced consequences for their behavior. They were given virtually anything they wanted or, just as often, allowed to take what they wanted with impunity. And at those ripe young ages, and with that upbringing, they were literally given the keys to the kingdom and unleashed on the Empire—and virtually everyone in it suffered as a result.

Every day in America we see modern-day Commoduses or Caligulas wreaking havoc on our streets and in our stores, restaurants, schools, and more. Instead of a single entitled Emperor, America in 2022 is being ravaged by a generation of young men—many of whom have grown up fatherless—who have been told that they can do and say anything they want and that, regardless of what they do, there will be no consequences for them.

Just as Elagabalus et al brought nothing but blood, despair, and dysfunction to the Empire, these 21st-century youth are bringing blood, despair, and destruction to America. A generation of Americans has grown up being given “time outs”, “participation trophies,” and grades that have nothing to do with actual academic success, while at the same time they’ve been told that all inequality is due to racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything other than individual choices or actions.

The consequence of this indoctrination is that far too many young Americans think they can do anything with impunity. If they want something they take it. If they’re mad about something they protest, disrupt the lives of everyone within shouting distance, and frequently riot. They assault, rape and, sometimes, even murder, increasingly with impunity.

Pat Moynihan predicted much of this 60 years ago in his “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In it he “…described through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior.”

While most of the scenes of flash mobs, carjackings, Knock Out Game punches, subway shovings, and daily shootings involve black male youth, this is not a race issue. Yes, the problem is disproportionately black, but White and Hispanic America is increasingly experiencing the same challenges of unwed mothers, school failures, and the lack of responsibility that underpins much of the dysfunction.

Whether a California college student getting 6 months for rape, a Texas boy getting no jail time for killing four people in a car crash, or charges being dropped against a South Carolina boy for killing someone in a boat crash, unaccountable America spans across races, wealth, and indeed the country itself. This is nowhere better demonstrated than by the legions of rioters who participated in the “peaceful protests” of 2020 who found their charges dropped or their bails funded by the glitterati.

How To Win The Debate On Abortion In 12 Clear Counterpoints

The same points keep getting made in the debate on abortion. Here are the many reasons the usual points in favor of abortion are wrong.

by ELEANOR BARTOW,

The Supreme Court has overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and now the issue of abortion will be part of our national debate as much as ever. Here are some of the many reasons the usual arguments in favor of abortion are wrong.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The government should stay out of people’s private lives. This is a woman’s choice, not anyone else’s, and a women’s rights issue.

Why It’s Wrong: Laws often restrict an individual’s rights, including the right to hurt another person or infringe upon another’s rights. In taking the life of an unborn child, a woman is taking away the most basic of all rights.

An unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but a separate, individual human being with his or her own rights. A child is not the mother’s property, just as parents are legal guardians of children but not the children’s owners and are not allowed to abuse their children.

Pro-Abortion Claim: When most abortions take place, in early pregnancy, a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells, not a human being. It doesn’t feel pain.

Why It’s Wrong: A new life begins at conception and should not be destroyed by human interference.

First, one-third of abortions take place after nine weeks of pregnancy. Yet from the moment of conception, the zygote has its own unique DNA structure, is alive and growing, and is equipped to become a mature human being.

Six weeks after conception, the unborn child’s heartbeat is detectable — but began beating before then. At week three, neural development begins. At week four, the eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form. At week six, the mouth and lips are present. At week seven, the embryo looks like a baby.

The beginning of life could be defined by many different points of development — fertilization (the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cell), implantation, the first movement, heartbeat, or brain waves, consciousness, or birth. Any point you choose could be just a day’s difference between life and death for an unborn child.

Drawing the line at the point of viability is also problematic — that point will continue to get earlier in the pregnancy as medical advances create better means of keeping the unborn alive outside the womb; indeed, viability is now weeks earlier than it was when Roe was decided.

Yet the unborn child did not become a person because he could survive due to modern science. Newborns are not technically viable either, as they cannot survive on their own. By this logic, we should consider it acceptable to kill newborns.

Nor does the absence of pain at early stages make it moral to kill the unborn child, just as it would not with an adult. Abortion can involve sucking a baby out of the uterus (or as Planned Parenthood puts it, “the suction machine is turned on and the uterus is gently emptied”), causing a stillbirth by injecting a salt solution into the uterus, and other horrors.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion can’t be a crime against nature if fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried in nature.

Why It’s Wrong: The occurrence of an event in nature does not justify deliberately mimicking that event. The elderly die of natural causes, but that doesn’t make it right to kill them. And many miscarriages are associated with extra or missing chromosomes.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Birth control isn’t 100 percent effective. When it fails, women have been responsible and need abortion as another method to avoid having a child.

Why It’s Wrong: Seven percent of women report having sex without using some form of birth prevention in the past three months, not including 8 percent who have such sex but are seeking pregnancy or already pregnant. Many people who use birth control do not do so effectively.

The pregnancy prevention rate of birth-control pills used consistently and correctly is 99 percent. For that small portion who correctly used birth control but it did not prevent conception, they have to accept the risks of sexual activity, which include a child. Contraception is free with most health insurance plans and easily available.

Pro-Abortion Claim: In the case of rape or incest, when a woman was an innocent victim of an involuntary act, she should not be forced to carry a child. She would be forced to suffer even more.

Why It’s Wrong: One percent of women say they want an abortion because they were raped, and less than 0.5 percent say they are pregnant as a result of incest. Even in such very rare cases, an unborn child should not be killed because of another person’s evil deed. The pregnant woman needs love and support, not more trauma.

An estimated 800,000 abortions take place in the United States each year. Common reasons given for seeking an abortion are that a child would disrupt the mother’s education (38 percent), interfere with job or career (38 percent), or be unaffordable (73 percent). About half of respondents said they didn’t want to be a single mom or were having relationship problems.

About a third said they didn’t want any more kids; 25 percent said they didn’t want people to know they had sex or got pregnant; 32 percent said they weren’t ready for a child; and 22 percent didn’t feel mature enough to raise children. More than half of those seeking abortion have had at least one previous birth.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Minors are too young for the responsibilities of parenthood.

Why It’s Wrong: About 3 percent of females who get abortions are younger than 18, and 8 percent are 18 to 19 years old. Parents of minors should teach their children about the consequences of sex, the benefits of abstinence, and the limitations of contraception, among other things: Sex can lead to pregnancy and if it does the unborn child should not be killed.

Accepting truths that you don’t like is part of maturity, and sex should be reserved for mature people ready to care for a child.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were made legal only in cases of rape or incest, women would lie.

Why It’s Wrong: The court system could settle the truth of their claims and more reporting of rape and incest would help bring perpetrators to justice.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.

Why It’s Wrong: Even if abortion is safer than pregnancy, that doesn’t make it right. But with modern medicine, the death risks for both abortion and pregnancy are very low.

Pro-Abortion Claim: It would be better for abnormal fetuses to be aborted than to live with poor health or a disability.

Why It’s Wrong: In the case of the small minority of fetuses with a potentially life-threatening abnormality, a natural death may result, but, if not, the child should be given the benefit of the doubt, not be killed. It’s wrong to kill disabled people for their disabilities.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were outlawed, women would just get riskier, dangerous abortions.

Why It’s Wrong: People break other laws with repercussions too, but we don’t avoid that outcome by not making those laws. Outlawing abortion would save millions of unborn babies’ lives.

It is difficult to know the number of abortions resulting in death before abortion was legalized, because many illegal abortions went unreported. Education is the best alternative, so women know the risks of trying to get an abortion illegally, how to effectively use birth control, and how they can receive assistance as mothers.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The right to an abortion has led to a more prosperous society as women have continued in their careers and low-income couples have not been burdened with an additional expense. Abortion has reduced the child abuse and crime that arise from unwanted children.

Why It’s Wrong: Abortion has been bad for our society, as it devalues human life and the fulfillment that only family and children, not a job, can provide. If women want to put careers first or can’t afford children, they should practice abstinence or correctly use birth control and make plans for accepting the consequences if that fails.

If women are poor and do have children, the government provides assistance. Adoption is also a better option than killing an unborn child. Many loving, screened, financially stable parents are waiting to adopt babies.

As for whether studies prove that abortion has reduced crime or abuse, this is a dangerous line of argument. Should we abort babies of certain groups more likely to be criminals?

Pro-Abortion Claim: A woman has a right to privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and to make her own decisions about her life and happiness.

Why It’s Wrong: Roe v. Wade was so strongly resisted because it was a deeply flawed decision.

The legal arguments are lengthy, but the short answer is that the constitutional right to liberty simply does not grant the right to kill another person, and an unborn child is a person.

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, and about half of Americans consider themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Overturning Roe will not end abortion rights but return the issue to the states, allowing for a more democratic process — the debate will continue, but the truth remains the same.