Category Archives: irrational leftism

Exceptional speech in the Dutch Parliament about the destruction of Europe via Coudenhove-Kalergi

Posted on by

This is interesting on a couple of levels. The actual content, which is a must see for sure, even if everyone knows the material. It is well packaged and I guess we can take some form of comfort seeing it expressed in official circles like this. But also because it does not take long till opposition manages to deflect the points he is making into a discussion about freedom of speech. This should not even be a discussion. We should all have it, and no less, Parliamentarians who are exposing the key strategic plan to destroy Europe forever.

But as you watch, even the speaker gets waylaid into losing his own point and engages in this distraction. Which speaks to Maj. Coughlin’s point perhaps, that you can know everything these is to know about Marxism and nothing about dialectics and we lose, but know everything about dialectics and nothing about Marxism and we win. Once you see these dialectical tactics deployed, it changes everything. They won’t work on you.

The good news is, he gets back on the horse and makes his points.

The most disappointing this is his claim that Geert Wilders’ party, the PVV, has entirely caved to globalism, and has only asked for the most trivial of changes to the mass immigration and EU demands.

A summary of his points is available at RAIR

Interview with James Simpson on his new book, Manufactured Crisis, explaining and exposing communism in the USA

Posted on by

I had the chance to do an interview with author and expert on communism, James Simpson a little while ago. He does a really nice, moderately paced explanation of why we are here in a very practical manner.

Some of his reveals alone make it worth the trip. Obama’s connection to Coward Piven, and the fact, (and this is something I feel embarrassed that I did not work out on the telos of the event alone) the Sub Prime Mortgage catastrophe was engineered like Covid, the Vaxx, and so many other leftist attack strategies.

Please feel free to leave a comment here or at RAIR, which has a summary of the interview here.

Data point for the deliberate nature of the destructive policies of the left, and the rhetorical attempts to hide it

Posted on by

The emphasis of this site and this author for the past little while has been trying to make the paradigm shift that is necessary to understand events around us in one specific way. That is the undoing of the intellectual sleight of hand known as ‘Hanlon’s Razor’. This is one of the more pernicious cons, as it allows people to see the consequences of profoundly damaging policy, even right in front of you, or that affects you directly, and dismiss it as mere chance due to incompetents. You get the satisfaction of thinking you are smarter than the people creating these circumstances, but are, by the same rhetorical tactic, self paralyzed into inaction.

Hanlon’s Razor goes like this: “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”. Or a dozen variations of the same theme. Some of them are as simple as, ‘Trudeau cannot possibly be doing what you are saying he is doing cause he is not that smart!’ This is fallacious on a couple of levels. For one, it is as already stated, a variation of Hanlon’s Razor. His intelligence is assumed to be low, therefore his policies must be well intentioned, but incompetent, The other is that great intelligence is required. But great intelligence is not a necessity at all.

Think of a 5 year old child in Peking speaking perfect Mandarin, or at least as perfect as a 5 year old would. Then think about the effort it would take us to learn Mandarin to that level if we didn’t speak a word of it now. We would have to use a lot of effort and intellect to learn it even close. So it goes with dialectical thought. It is a different system of thought, and easy if raised in it, but very difficult if not, and doubly so if you find it a repugnant way of thinking. Which it most certainly is.

Still, failure to understand the intent of the destructive policies around us and dismissing it as idiocy, (while often it may seem like a great comfort) is why no one mounts a defence. Even those who do understand the issue in depth have to be careful how to address the intent, as even those who wish to initiate a solution will swell with sanctimony and object to any solution that might actually work for failure to understand the intent of these policies. For example, people who might say that recognizing Islam as a threat doctrine, monitoring mosques, deporting any and all Muslims who preach sedition and jihad and insurrection and so on, will be met even from people who think they are on the side of the West with insults or sanctimonious defence of freedom of religion and other related but misapplied Western liberties. And just to crush this one right out of the box, The United States declared Political Shinto illegal after Pearl Harbour because, as the reasoning goes, one cannot use the Constitution to undermine the Constitution. The same is easily applied to Islam.

It is with this in mind that I post this older video from some point after Obama/Biden term 3 restarted the destruction of the US along Cloward Piven lines. The fact that Biden offered up for sale parts of the US border wall that President Trump built in his first term was more than even what is below. It was a direct insult to the American people. An act of contempt. Something we have seen from Obama/Biden numerous times now.

 

Hillel Neuer talk in Montreal, Friday December 6th 2024: Exposing the mass narrative attack against Israel and Jews

Posted on by

On Friday, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch came to speak to a small, but interesting group of academics and students in Montreal about the facts on the ground concerning the UN, Mass line narrative attacks against Israel, and a detailed expose of some of the UN principle people along with organizations who are clearly operating by Marxist beliefs and intentions, as well as in method. They are operating dialectically instead of any kind of procedures Westerners would consider an attempt at truth or understanding.

RAIR Foundation has an excellent write up. And for those who wish to send this talk to their associates, who may not be ready for how this site sees things, I recommend sending the RAIR link to them.

In terms of how we do see things, and how they dovetail with Hillel’s talk, there are two main points he raised which nearly rocked me back out of my chair.

  1. Hillel’s pointing out intersectional lines of action, using Genocide accusations against Israel to negate the value of the Holocaust as a deterrent for antisemitism and specifically to allow it to become mainstream again
  2. That the anti Israel messaging by media and in the streets by Muslims and leftists, is every bit as much of a mass line narrative attack as is global warming and the vaxx and covid, the religion of peace. etc. etc.

First, the presentation:

Here is the bit that caught my attention especially:

Below is one of the slides from Stephen’s presentation with us a few weeks ago. It is one of the most impactful from my particular understanding.

At the simplest level, you have the method of attack, or the ‘oppressed group’ to be used as an attack vector on the bottom half of the wheel, and the thing being attacked, an attribute of Western civilization at the top half. These are called, “Intersectional lines of attack.” And after watching Hillel’s presentation, we could add accuse Israel of Genocide on the bottom of the wheel with a new line to the top which says taboo on antisemitism.

Stephen’s recent interview/briefing below:

So the punch line is that the accusations of an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians is exactly the same tactic derived from the same strategy as: Global Warming, The Vaxx, Covid lockdowns, and every other mass line narrative attack we face all the time now. All meant to be destructive, and all being very effective at it.

Anyone interested in seeing Hillel’s Herculean efforts at the United nations should search YouTube for UN Watch, or Hillel Neuer.

No, it isn’t corruption

Posted on by

Reading social media, or talking to people on the street, now that more and more of them have noticed something is very wrong, we encounter two ideas that are counter to any hope of restoration of a Republic style state. One is “two tier policing” which we wrote up here previously, and the other is the idea that our government is corrupt in some way. as opposed to what it actually has become. And what has happened is a fundamental ideological shift which we may as well call communism unless a better term appears. But communism is a shoe that fits well enough that anyone would buy them.

So let’s get into why it is not corrupt, (although it certainly contains element of corruption in the trivial sense, elites taking vast sums of money under false pretences) but is something much worse and darker.

some 20 or 30 years ago, I had a chance to talk to expat Columbians, as well as frequent tourists to that country when it was at a peak of actual corruption. I was told that when driving, you would often get pulled over by a military officer for no reason, or for a trivial reason, and when the soldier got out of the car, you could tell by the uniform, how much of a bribe you would have to pay to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare.

So if it was a private who pulled you over, maybe you would pay less than a dollar. A general, maybe USD$20.00. Back then that was a lot more than it is now, especially in Columbia.

That is corruption, and like Cancer, over time is fatal to a society. But it can be cured, and often is.

What we see is ideological subversion. Police don’t give a damn about the law, and likely new recruits, lets take the UK as an example, don’t know anything about the law. They are in fact state thugs. They know they are well paid for a job they are not qualified to do, or put another way, much like Trudeau’s cabinet, are people with very limited competence and nearly no accomplishments that justify that much pay, prestige and power.

But they know they like the money, prestige and power. And doubly so if they get to be thugs for it, so long as they are thugging the target population. Again, from the Dystopian future movie, A Clockwork Orange:

As this revolution up to now as been in no small part about the use of language to get us to subjugate ourselves, it is important that we do not trap ourselves in their language, or even language that appears to be in opposition to the revolution, but in fact is a kind of assistance to it, but misdirection.

A short list then.

It is not corruption, it is subversion, capture, communist revolutionary.

It is not two tier policing. It is a different system of policing that is nearly perfectly internally consistent with communist principles, and assists the revolution.

It is not fake news. It is enemy propaganda, or a weapon of the COMINTERN against the people. A delivery system for mass line narrative attacks.

It is not the deep state. It is the anti-state. People embedded in government that are working against the Constitution in the US, or against Republic style principles in other countries. The Deep State normally lubricates and acts on rule of law. The Anti-state dismantles it.

There are many more expressions in common use which work against our ambitions to restore an individualist society. This will have to do for now.

Tucker Carlson interviews Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov

Posted on by

Communism and Satanism, a description of the activist communists as demon possessed

Posted on by

Imagine yourself transported back in time to ancient Greece. Or even a student of ancient Greek culture and you notice an anomalous behaviour by a faction of Greek society in a particular time and place. On investigating, you might find that a certain group believed in say, the Greek Gods of ???? (chaos) or Eris. Or Hades. That this group of people had come to believe in the attributes of these deities and acted on those beliefs. There would be real consequences to Greek society based on the actions as a result of those beliefs. And I think that even Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris would look at the events that way, rather than walk the streets of Athens in 1500 BC demanding people not believe in these Gods.

Politics, as Stephen Coughlin says, is downstream from philosophy. Religion carries a great deal of philosophical baggage. And Karl Marx was a satanist for a decade or more before he got into communism. He wrote a book of poetry to Satan, and dedicated a book to that particular deity.

Some people will watch this, what I feel to be, a very insightful and interesting video and take it quite literally. And that’s great. And others who may read this site may balk at the very Catholic nature of his reasoning. Fair enough although I have to give the good Father and Exorcist that his reasoning is really rather good overall and is grounded in observation. But I would ask that those who find the Catholic nature of this video, awkward, to give it a watch as if you were the historian looking at a culture with a set of Gods that have no direct impact on you emotionally. Although overall it is two hours and fifty minutes long, it is quite interesting and even entertaining at times. And more importantly has insight to offer as to the nature of leftism.

Whether or not there is a Satan, or demons or angels is not the issue. Marx was a Satanist. HIs work was to destroy. All lines of effort by communists are destructive in nature and nothing else. No other purpose. So in the practical, this father has it more accurately than most analysts on the nature of the left, as the left is purely an exorcize (pun intended) in destruction of every aspect of our humanity.

This speaker is not dismissing those who are the architects of our destruction as demon possessed and therefore not culpable. (As an aside, those who find that concept entertaining are well advised to watch the excellent 2023 horror film, Nefarious, which is entirely about that exact issue)

This speaker is describing the attributes of the left, and with a great deal of insight, as well as the attributes of demons along with their motivations.

There I find it tricky. I am uncertain about the motivations of people and dogs I know very well, let alone beings who may or may not exist from another dimensional plane of existence. But the video otherwise may have some interesting insights and offer a way of looking at leftists and their actions with greater clarity and that is always a good thing.

Please leave your thoughts in the comments should you choose to watch some or all of it.

The attack on the family from both sides of the feminist dialectic

Posted on by

A few months ago, Stephen Coughlin did a very interesting half hour on the Marxist attack on the family we all know as Feminism. He makes the case that feminism was always and has always been a weapon against the traditional Western family.

In previous interviews I have done with specialists in Feminism, a woman who’s name escapes me at the moment, once explained that the original suffragette manifesto was just the Communist manifesto by Marx, where proletariat was scratched out and women was written in its place as the oppressed group.

I am not totally sure how literally she meant it, but the point was well made.

Below is Stephen’s talk for those who have not seen it. If it seems dense at the start, stick with it. The point is worth waiting for and is clear as day.

Let’s have a look at what appears to be a reaction to feminism, but in fact is at least an equally effective attack on the family in a way that could be used to define controlled opposition. In fact even totally unwitting controlled opposition:

There are MANY many men who do this exact thing in different flavours. Each explaining the dangers of romantic relationships with women. And they do so to the great satisfaction of men who have been brutalized by a now Marxist legal system. One so lopsided that women would probably have a great deal of difficulty not taking advantage of their enormous power within it.

These videos, (and I don’t mean to pick on this one man below. There are many but it is these two examples that inspired me to set it to paper) why men should never commit to women in a relationship. More on that after the examples.

One might even wonder why something that appears to be so anti-women would be allowed on YouTube. And the hundreds or thousands of other videos that are well monetized which also carry the same messaging.

It all makes sense if you look at the net result. The end of love. Commitment. Perhaps most importantly, having character and the kind and amount of character it takes to sustain a loving relationship with someone through the trials and tribulations of raising children and other occasional hardships.

This along with Feminism’s tripling of what is expected of men and explaining to woman that any constraint whatsoever on anything they wish to do is oppression, In other words, to curtail one’s immensely powerful sexuality in all facets is being oppressed, while with men, any expression of masculinity or heterosexual normalcy is oppression. So the creation of videos such as the one above is a clear and logical consequence of the legal and cultural reality of the deconstruction of heterosexual relationships by a century of a Marxist line of operation.

Whether or not the creators of these videos are aware of what they are doing is irrelevant. None of them are doing anything to try and fix the situation. All of them are trying to make it worse. Destroy any residual trust. Increase the inertia of a system that has turned men and women against each other. Their insight is usually limited to the practical results of feminism and what may be the motive for women to take advantage of the system as it is. The word, “Hypergamy” can be heard often. But usually in a context that is negatively interpreted.

Same guy:

In the clip above, he warns men against women who want a traditional life because of a problem that is very likely true in many cases, without offering a solution to the problem. This is an attack on the family whether he knows that or not. And does the exact kind of damage feminism does, but from the other side of the dialectic. The counter-thesis.

And we do know solutions exist. Until recently, marriages mostly lasted till one person died. The surviving partner was usually torn in half by grief. A good indicator that they were well and properly bonded to their partner. Divorce was rare. Now jokes like, “Next time I feel like getting married I am just going to walk up to a strange woman and buy her a house”. Or: “When I go on a date with a man I ask myself, is this a guy I would want my future kids to spend weekends with?”.

The fact that the jokes work are pretty good indicators of where the culture is.

I want this to be short. So no lengthy explanations of how to solve these problems. But the answer lies in the culture, and willingness on all parties develop character. And this means specifically that one uses one’s freedom to choose a path, and then limit oneself in one’s subsequent choices after that initial decision to walk the path in order to achive success and overall happiness.

From a game theory point of view, one tends to value things proportional to the sacrifices you make for them. In no small part this explains our attachment to our children, along with the emotional attachments of course.

Having character means making sacrifices to make a relationship work, for the greater satisfaction and long term happiness that comes with success in that endeavour. So making the sacrifices for a relationship can make one value it more, with the right attitude. Of course, can also make you resentful with a bad one.

Taking issues with these proposed solutions is fine. I don’t pretend to expertise in this area. But the central point is the thesis-counter thesis, solution of feminism and male anti-relationship culture, who’s presence on YouTube makes a lot more sense if one sees it as the other side of the attack on the family, as opposed to criticism of women as an oppressed ‘minority’.

Yet another solid indicator of just how close the US (and all of us) came to total authoritarian National Socialism

Posted on by

I’m a little lost for the right term, so I settled on National Socialism because it was clearly a kind of limited corporate/State alliance for total control of the population, which is the usual definition of fascism. Also they clearly intended to maintain some aspects of the US as a polity, perhaps just to wage wars on other areas to maintain control of the public and waste human production. In any case, watch these really short clips and decide for yourselves what the name of the style of governance the US was weeks away from establishing if so many had not woken up in time.

Zero Hedge offers an opinion here.

Marc Andreessen, the billionaire investor and co-founder of the influential Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, revealed in a new episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast that after an “alarming” meeting with Biden administration officials earlier this year was the moment he would have no other choice but to support Donald Trump. 

For decades, Andreessen has supported Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. However, a troubling spring meeting with Biden administration officials caused major concerns. During the meeting, officials explained their plan to control AI through government regulatory capture—a strategy reminiscent of Communist policies in China.   

“We had meetings [Biden officials] this spring that were the most alarming meetings I’ve ever been in. Where they were taking us through their plans, and it was – basically just full government – full government control – like this sort of thing, there will be a small number of large companies that will be completely regulated and controlled by the government, they told us. They said don’t even start startups – there’s just no way that they can succeed – there’s no way that we’re going to permit that to happen.”

More from the podcast:

9 minute clip of the salient section. Very worth listening to.

This is happening in Canada. We have spoken with many people who have been debanked for political reasons. Most famously, a Canadian veteran who asked her bank with whom she had a mortgage and dealt with for many years, to fly 1 Canadian flag and 2 pride flags instead of just 3 pride flags.

The entire Joe Rogan podcast is here.

New: Stephen Coughlin on intersectional lines of attack and the Maoist insurgency model

Posted on by

This is maybe the clearest explanation of the phenomenon destroying the West across multiple lines of attack yet by Maj. Coughlin. There is a summary of the interview at RAIR. But watch the interview. It is well worth the time.

We have charted major increases in violence and kinetic tactics during communist-Islamic anti Western demonstrations, usually under the rubric of “Anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” events.

For the past year however, the mask slips now and again, and we hear coded and sometimes open calls for the destruction of the Nation state. Sometimes, the states with the most famously individual rights and individualist constitutions, such as The United States, Canada and the formerly great Britain are named for destruction.. For example in the video below, there is no hidden language. The intention is now overt.

It is also evident that the State never use even a fraction of the force the authorities have available to it, or has used in many cases, even against peaceful pro-rule of law, and pro-patriotic protests such as Ottawa’s Freedom Convoy in 2022, and peaceful pro-AfD demonstrations in Germany among others.

So we went to Stephen Coughlin, retired US Military Intelligence officer and lawyer to ask for his perspective on the the nature of these protests, understanding their language and motives, and what we can do to deal with the threat effectively.

The following interview is a little under 90 minutes long. And you will not come out the other side unchanged. Understanding the roots of these movements from Karl Marx back to Hegel and ultimately to the classical philosophers of ancient Greece shines a light on the various devices used to trap us into enemy territory and even becoming unwitting accomplices in our own destruction is critical for effective defence.

Trudeau’s classical communist misdirection: War on climate change means sacrificing food and shelter security

Posted on by

The video below has been edited slightly from the longer one put below it. But the idea is intact. Trudeau is amplifying a global climate crisis which does not appear to be even remotely happening, to justify more and more authoritarian measures which will impact our general wealth and well being.

We have been making many allusions to 1984 recently, but hey. If the shoe fits…

2:38 version without cuts at the key points

https://twitter.com/PopeSeabass/status/1858890974283395366

In 1984, a war which may or may not even be happening, is most certainly being used as a distraction for the public in order for them not to question the degree to which they are oppressed.

The following excerpts are from Goldstein, the alleged counter revolutionary leader within 1984’s book

The war is waged by each ruling
group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make
or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society
intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would
probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to
exist.

[...]

“The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.”

When reading things like Rules for Radicals, one thing jumps out. A great deal of Frankfurt School tactics appear to be extrapolations and abstractions of baser Marxist thought. Especially Critical Theory. Lots and lots of Marxist tactics heaped upon us all today is at its essence, critical theory. Homophobia, Transphobia, climate denialism and so on are all mere abstractions on ‘racism’, itself a critical theory attack on Western Civ. After all, in pretty much every other nation and culture in the world, racism as it is defined by the left isn’t just ubiquitous, it’s actual policy. Just ask any white or black man in Japan. Or China. And anyone from the wrong tribe in Africa etc. etc. This was abstracted into an actual crime by the marxists, but for the denizens of the West only.

In this example, the argument is that the war on Global Warming is an abstraction of the perpetual war described in Brave New World. That it is a tool of control of oppression of the non-elites. That Trudeau can say in his usual clumsy direct-indirect fashion, that people should prioritize the climate, meaning the ‘fight to stop global warming’ over their own shelter and feeding their children. War you see, is peace.

Unfortunately the left appears to also be ramping up an actual kinetic war, the effects of which are verifiable for the moment.

But that information is all over the place and until we have something to add, there are many links in the comments and of course on Twitter about what Russia will or will not do, and is or is not doing. Also lots about what NATO is or is not doing, and probably most of that info is utter rotten tripe planted by more sides than we are likely even aware of and for purposes that are not always clear.

But Trudeau’s constant appeal to fighting climate change to justify every authoritarian bill and policy he puts forward is transparent enough to have some real certainty that it is what it appears to be if you look behind the curtain just a tiny tiny bit. A stammering, informal, ‘I’m just like you’ tyrant who fully intends to pull the temple down on self governance forever in every way he possibly can, and using every critical theory attack he can muster up. And most obviously, the utter scientific nonsense of “climate Change” from human produced, CO2.

Five items and the greatest trick the communists ever played: Links post 1 for Nov. 16, 2024

Posted on by

1. Pierre Poilievre tweet makes curious comparison

So I asked the AI that is now part of Brave Browser and is free (Everyone should use Brave Browser for a lot of reasons) about Nelson Mandela and the practice of putting burning tires around the necks of counter-revolutionaries and burning them to death. This is the answer I got:

Nelson Mandela, Necklacing Counter-Revolutionaries

Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa and anti-apartheid revolutionary, did not directly condone or engage in the practice of necklacing, which involved burning people alive by placing tires around their necks and setting them on fire. However, his ex-wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, a prominent figure in the African National Congress (ANC), did endorse the practice.

According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established by Mandela’s government, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela was “politically and morally accountable” for the gross violations of human rights committed by her security detail, the Mandela United Football Club. This included the notorious murder of 14-year-old Stompie Sepei, whom they kidnapped and killed.

Necklacing was primarily used against black police informants and those deemed counter-revolutionaries by the ANC and its allies. The practice was widely condemned by the ANC’s executive body, and Mandela himself never publicly endorsed it.

In fact, Mandela’s leadership and commitment to non-violent resistance, as well as his later efforts to promote reconciliation and healing, were in stark contrast to the violent tactics employed by some ANC members and supporters, including necklacing.

It’s essential to note that Mandela’s own revolutionary activities during the 1960s, as documented in historian Paul Landau’s book “SPEAR: Mandela and the Revolutionaries,” focused on armed resistance against the apartheid regime, but not on targeting civilians or engaging in practices like necklacing.

In summary, while Nelson Mandela’s ex-wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela did endorse necklacing, Mandela himself never condoned or participated in this violent practice, and his leadership and legacy were marked by a commitment to non-violent resistance and reconciliation.

I don’t fully get it. Were Nelson and Winnie married at the time? Did they hang out together and discuss things at all? Either way he was a communist and created the communist revolution in South Africa. The country is now worse off for all people and even the animals for that matter, than it was under the people who founded the state of South Africa.

So I asked why he was in jail initially…

Nelson Mandela’s Initial Incarceration

Based on the provided search results, Nelson Mandela was initially jailed for his involvement in the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), which he co-founded in 1961. The group’s primary goal was to overthrow the apartheid government through sabotage and guerrilla warfare.

Mandela was arrested on August 5, 1962, while attempting to leave the country for military training in Ethiopia. He was charged with illegally leaving the country and incitement to strike, and later, during the Rivonia Trial, he was found guilty of planning and preparing acts of sabotage against the apartheid government.

The sabotage campaign, which included bombings of military and infrastructure targets, was intended to disrupt the government’s ability to maintain its oppressive regime. However, the campaign also resulted in civilian casualties, including the Pretoria bomb, which killed 19 people in 1961.

Mandela’s involvement in the armed struggle and his leadership role in Umkhonto we Sizwe led to his life imprisonment sentence in 1964, along with nine other ANC members, including Walter Sisulu and Denis Goldberg. The sentence was handed down by the Supreme Court of South Africa, and Mandela spent 18 years on Robben Island before being transferred to other prisons.

Getting into the rights and wrongs of his politics is a long and difficult discussion. The narrative is strong on that one. But I do remember articles at the time about black skinned South Africans in the wealthy parts of Soweto, and yes, there were parts of that black area that had black owned mansions with nice cars etc., buying guns legally from white owned gun stores in order to protect themselves from blacks from the poorer parts of Soweto, indicating that this was actually a communist class war disguised as a race war. But … that could never happen… right? … I mean, certainly not in the West… right?  I mean… Not in Canada or anything where there never was slavery and all the blacks in this country came voluntarily for a better life… right? So … Maybe Mme. Mayor is right after all.

2. Been sitting on this for days. Here is what a communist agitpropagandist sounds like

The total and complete lack of truth, to be better understood as an imposed pseudo-reality, can normally be interpreted as stupidity when in fact it isn’t. But with Goldberg, the jury is still out but appears to be heading back into the court with what looks like 2 verdicts.

In this case, we might assume Goldberg didn’t know Biden was not an MD. But stating that “she is a hell of a doctor. She’s an amazing doctor”, is a flat out lie consistent with propaganda, but in this case likely means Goldberg is not that clever, and absolutely a liar.

3. Norway is advancing communism quickly. Those of you with a Twitter account, click through and read the whole thread. There is a lot of substance in it.

One of the comments should seem increasingly familiar to Canadians and Brits and depending on the state, Americans for the moment.

Screenshot

At the moment it is a “wall of shame”. But how long till the people on that wall are changed with “conspiracy against the people” or something similar, and found guilty en absentia. And then how long till the UN passes a compact or resolution to make such a conviction actionable world-wide?

4. One powerful evidence of Canada’s communist nature is how they are treating doctors.

Growing up in Canada, people would say reflexively that whenever someone saw a doctor and a diagnosis and course of action was recommended, that “you must go get a second opinion!”

Now, a Canadian cannot even get a real first opinion if in any way, it is not in line with the state mandated course of action. In other words, if the first doctor you see has a medical opinion and experience that deviates from the state mandated answers, then you don’t even get a first opinion. This applies to nearly everything. A doctor or dentist has little to no latitude to deviate from what the colleges, who are informed by the state, determine what must be done in all conditions.

Full text

BREAKING NEWS: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has applied to have me put in prison for 83 days, in retaliation for my wife filing complaints with the Edmonton Police and RCMP against AHS & the College (for threatening our family)

I was working on the file of a 5 year old girl with cancer (leukemia), trying to find ways to help her and her family, when I received the news from AHS lawyers.

Alberta Premier
@ABDanielleSmith
has just applied to have me put in prison for 83 days, in retaliation for my wife filing complaints with the Edmonton Police and RCMP against AHS & the College (for threatening our family).

I may be the first doctor in Canada to go to prison during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and for trying to defend my family against threats and extortion from Alberta Health Services and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.

This is the only way they have to try and silence me.

Fake Court Applications, fake costs, fake penalties – all issued by
@JustinTrudeau
appointed and bribed Alberta Judges like Justice Avril Inglis (who has been managing this extortion against my family)

This application is being brought by Premier Danielle Smith’s Office, as all the documents behind this application were illegally leaked by staffers in her office directly to AHS lawyers throughout 2023. I’m certain it was with her knowledge.

AHS is now escalating the threats and extortion against my wife and my family and they are collaborating with Premier Danielle Smith’s Office, now that she has secured 91% support from Albertans with cheap trinkets: a fake Alberta Bill of Rights and watered down Parental Protection Legislation. Albertans have been played.

I’m going to continue to fight for my family and I’m going to do it publicly.

Most Albertans may have given up on their province and the future of their children (Danielle Smith has successfully dismantled all conservative grassroots organizations like Take Back Alberta and APP, and scattered them to the winds).

Only 2 weeks after the UCP AGM of Nov.2, and AHS feels more emboldened than ever to continue abusing Albertans. The honeymoon with Danielle Smith sure didn’t last long. Albertans have given their province away.

But I will fight for my family with everything I have. It will take a lot more than 83 days in prison to stop me.

Maybe there are a few decent Albertans left, who will help me in this fight.

I will be giving daily updates on this latest scandal, the “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Prison Scandal”

I will be hiring lawyers and I will reach out to
@ElonMusk
‘s legal team as well, as AHS has repeatedly said they want to silence me due to my Twitter and other social media posts.

Please pray for my family. ?

#cdnpoli #ableg

Personally I have spoken with, interviewed, and am friends with enough Canadian and even some US doctors to believe Dr. Makis’ claims with no vetting. I have watched CPSO hearings online, and other similar hearings like Helen Grus etc. to know how these star chambers actually function. Every possible method is used to arrive at a politically expedient verdict as opposed to a truthful one in the public interest.

This morning I had a minor epiphany.

There is an old expression which is in common use. “The greatest trick the devil played, is convincing the world he doesn’t exist”.

It is just in the last 24 hours I have come to understand, or think I understand this expression’s meaning and value.

The reason communism has made it so far in terms of taking over our countries, and lives and liberties, is because people simply cannot recognize what is taking place or why. Even its victims. I really see that in Twitter comments by people on our side, so to speak, of the issues. They are horrified by events by the various emergent communist polities like England and Germany and so on. And because they can’t see it, they can’t oppose it effectively. And this is by design. The use of what Stephen Coughlin calls, “Initiate Language” is intended to signal to the people in the know on the left, one thing, and to the rest at best be incomprehensible, like listening to Kamala Harris’ ‘word salad’, or deliberately misleading. Calling turning children into monstrous simulacrums under the term, “Gender Affirming Care” for one example. And of course the various terms for numerous laws to criminalize speech which challenges state narratives. Usually under one form or another of the “hate speech” rubric.

“Climate denialism” “Residential schools denialism” and so on are all variations of hate speech laws, named as variations of “Holocaust denialism” which to all our great misfortunes, is a crime in Germany. Unfortunate not because the Holocaust did not happen. The German government around 15 or 20 years ago, declassified 10 miles of filing cabinets with hundreds of thousands of documents by the Nazis themselves detailing what they did. They were proud of it. And the Germans then and now are meticulous record keepers.

No, it is unfortunate because the state should never mandate what you have to believe or think. And no matter how much evidence you ever have for a thing, it will not convince people who do not want to believe it, or feel it should not be believed. Think flat-earthers. But the act of making it illegal to hold and express a particular viewpoint adds fuel to suspicion that the denialists may be right.

But now it seems more sinister.

The purpose of making something like Holocaust denial a crime, is to create a precedent where the state can breaching an absolute fundamental attribute of a republic. Freedom of speech on all things political, and religious  (historical is just a sub category of political)  Once you have that breach in the dyke though, using an issue most people would at least have some sympathy with such as the Holocaust, then you can make it about the real objective. Total control of what people can say or think. And without them even noticing the actual motive or goal.

“The greatest trick the devil played, was convincing the world he doesn’t exist”.

Both Marx and Saul Alinsky dedicated books to Satan. And Marx was a satanist for at least a decade before he started up with communism. He even published a book of poetry to Satan.

(As an aside, that also might explain why communists claim to be atheists yet seem to hate God. One cannot hate a thing they do not believe exists. Communists seem to have no problem with Thor or Zeus.)

And so one might say, ‘The greatest trick the communists ever played, was to convince the world that the horrors they see isn’t communism.’.

You can add to that, the greatest lie of the 20th century. The common belief that the Nazis are somehow ‘right wing’.

5. The Canadian Government is going after the Amish as is the US government. In this case:

The link resolves to: https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/tdf_reopen_additional_quarantine_act_tickets_ontario_amish

Thank you all for checking out this site.

Some of Trump’s cabinet picks, and a couple more examples of the Ministry of Justice as it is in the UK today

Posted on by

One reason we haven’t said much about the Trump cabinet picks is that I’m afraid I’ll wake up and find out it was all a dream.

Also, the expectation that there is a plan in place to greatly damage both America and the incoming Trump admin 2.0. Fauci in 2017 made it clear that they would do exactly that to his first term. Many people feel, and with great justification, that a financial catastrophe which has been created by the Democrat COMINTERN govt since Obama is ready to be launched like a torpedo against us all with Trump in the big chair. Or, in some other sector, or another pandemic with the UN Pandemic treaty being the goal this time as well as other forms of submission to the “new world order”. So enthusiasm is being kept on a leash for now.

 

So here are a few items of hope, as well as policy statements that at least for the moment look like knock-it-out-of-the-park counter revolutionary moves.

1. A few words on Israel and policy by and about the new Trump defence pick:

2. This item is to make two points. The first being choosing RFK Jr. as the top dog in all agencies concerning public health and medicine, could not possibly be a better choice. I have read roughly 2/3rds of his book, The Real Anthony Fauci and his case on the problems is based on science and historical facts. More interestingly, Fauci has not made any moves to try and sue him for defamation whatsoever. Much like David Fisman has not made a peep about the excellent and important book, Fisman’s Fraud around the exact same issues concerning Covid deceptions and the vaxx lies in Canada. The author, Regina Watteel Ph.D., even named her book as lawsuit bait and nothing. The second point is how CTV spins and spits it:

Technically this is more lie and enemy propaganda than spin. RFK has never been against all vaccines and has stated so frequently. Anyone who bothers to listen to him speak his own mind knows this. CTV operates under dialectical lines of operation though. The phrase, ‘anti-vaxxer’ was created to be a pejorative for anyone who questioned the safety or methodology or necessity of the mRNA shots for Covid. He is also against all other vaccines which have not met the prescribed medical safety testing, or has been shown to do more harm than good over the term it has been in use. Calling a person like that an “anti-vaxxer’ is like calling someone who objects to forcible raping of women “anti-sex”. And this is what makes it a dialectic. The clever commie trick of switching levels of abstraction in order to create the wrong impression but the results the communists want. Here is Dr. Peter McCullough on the issue.

3. This one is unconfirmed, but interesting. Kash Patel Reportedly in Consideration for FBI Director

Kash Patel, one of the leading figures in discrediting the Democrats’ Russia Collusion Hoax and defending Trump, is reportedly being considered for the role of FBI Director in the next Trump Administration. 

Kash Patel, one of the leading figures in discrediting the Democrats’ Russia Collusion Hoax and defending Trump, is reportedly being considered for the role of FBI Director in the next Trump Administration.

It was previously reported that according to GOP sources, Kash Patel was rumored to be in consideration for the head of the CIA. However, President Trump announced on Tuesday that John Ratcliffe would be the new Director of the CIA.

Still, as The Gateway Pundit reported, Patel is rumored to be in consideration for head of the FBI. GOP Sources have also independently confirmed this to The Gateway Pundit.

Additionally, Congressman-elect Abe Hamadeh, when asked Wednesday if Kash Patel would have a place in the Trump Administration, told The Gateway Pundit, “He’ll do amazing at the FBI,” noting that “he’s been very loyal to President Trump since the first Russia Collusion Hoax.”

Going from memory, I think 4 or more US presidents have pretty clearly stated the danger that the Intel agencies are to the Republic. I think even Biden mumbled something about not crossing those guys. So whoever he picks will be one to watch. I still think the Babylon Bee headline says it best:

“FBI discovers that it is harder to solve crimes they did not actually commit”.

4. Trump on dealing with college antisemitism:

I find it interesting that this is also how he restored freedom of speech to universities in his first term. He explained that all federal funds to universities that denied the first amendment rights of non-leftist clubs on campus and denied the speakers they chose to come and speak would be suspended. The next day, students who had been denied club status etc. got calls from the dean’s office for a meeting about getting the clubs going. The freee market solves a lot of problems. Like Canada’s current postal strike, getting rid of the law that says no private company can compete with the post office for regular mail would make the strike totally irrelevant, which means it would not happen at all.

In this case, Trump is not denying the 1st amendment rights of people who want to slander Jews. He is just not paying for it. Fair enough. This is an order of magnitude better than applying hate speech laws, which are a communist dialectic and are to hate speech, what gun control laws are to violent crime and what Global Warming BS is to fixing pollution. It is the correct solution, to stop federal funding.

5. Trump explains that Biden has two waves of illegals. The known ones from Mexico etc. And a massive wave of jihadis.

6. New US Director of Intel: Tulsi Gabbard

https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1857087137822171314?t=qzhkt_7p5YDbUlA0gxZwxg&s=19

Thank you all for your kind attention.

Here are a couple of items that probably should be added to yesterday’s post:

U.K. police continue sweep of arrests over ‘offensive’ social media posts

[…] Aside from murder, Rudakubana is facing charges of producing the poison ricin and the possession of an al Qaeda training manual.

The wave of arrests in the U.K. for so called hate speech and offensiveness via social media continues. On Friday, video surfaced of a man being arrested for saying online that he does not want Palestinian flags displayed across the U.K. 

Police officers came to his home at 4 a.m. 

In another case, Irish teacher Enoch Burke was arrested at Wilson’s Hospital School after a series of events involving his refusal to endorse and affirm transgender ideology, reported Sky News.

Burke is currently in prison for breaching a court order.

Some Canadians are worried Canada under Justin Trudeau is heading in the same direction as the U.K. and other countries when it comes eroding civil liberties and censorship.

According to a Fraser Institute report, Canada’s Online Harms Act contains “tucked within it amendments that are not about anything online but are hate-related offences.”

And this item:

No, it is not “two tier policing”

Posted on by

 

From The Telegraph: My visit from police on Remembrance Sunday is living proof of our two-tier justice system

A knock on the door to be accused of a non-crime hate incident from a year-old tweet is not what people fought and died for in the war

9.40am: All my things were laid out ready for Remembrance Sunday. Black dress, black opaque tights, coat, a new poppy to go with the vintage enamel one that glints in my jewellery box awaiting its annual outing. I was still not dressed when Himself called up to say that there were police at the door for me. I did vaguely wonder what on earth they were doing here – something to do with our road being closed for the parade? But I went downstairs to greet them at the door and apologised to the two young constables standing outside for still being in my dressing gown. I wasn’t sorry for long.

PC S, the one on the left, who did all the talking, told me that they were here to inform me that I had been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI). It was to do with something I had posted on X (formerly Twitter) a year ago. A YEAR ago? Yes. Stirring up racial hatred, apparently.

WHAT? I stood there in my slippered feet trying to take in what the police officer had said; our market town was filled with the sounds of preparation for the forthcoming parade – a distant drummer, the metallic clang of barriers going up. Life going on as normal, but this wasn’t normal; it was far from normal.

“What did this post I wrote that offended someone say?” I asked. The constable said he wasn’t allowed to tell me that.

“So what’s the name of the person who made the complaint against me?”

He wasn’t allowed to tell me that either, he said.

“You can’t give me my accuser’s name?”

“It’s not ‘the accuser’,” the PC said, looking down at his notes. “They’re called ‘the victim’.”

Ah, right. “OK, you’re here to accuse me of causing offence but I’m not allowed to know what it is. Nor can I be told whom I’m being accused by? How am I supposed to defend myself, then?”

In Stephen Coughlin’s recent briefs, he describes bread crumbing the circle. By this he means that those of us with counter revolutionary beliefs are fed allowable opposition narratives by places like FOX News and too many social media accounts to name. Allowable opposition narratives mean the illusion of opposition, but actually allow the main dialectical effort, or by this I mean line of destructive actions against our freedoms and liberties of a specific kind to go forward while we focus on the misleading aspect of it.

The example I like a lot because you see it on Canadian TV nearly every day, is where they get a bureaucrat, politician, or government appointed ‘expert’ who you never heard of before, to come on as an interview, and ask what sound like tough questions, but are really supporting the state narrative.

Reporters would never ask any of the questions which challenge the why of illegal government measures for Covid, or asked what this meant to our freedoms. They never demanded to know why countless measures which directly lay in contradiction of laws and our constitution and individual rights were really necessary at all. Instead, they would ask why they are not locking down harder, pushing vaxx mandates with no reason to reject etc. I do not believe I ever even heard one ask why it made sense to allow COSTCO and liquor stores to remain open when you couldn’t go into so many other places like restaurants, and when you could go to restaurants, why you had to wear a mask to enter and leave but not to sit down and eat. Frankly the list of contradictory absurdities for Covid are too many to name. If it was a movie, everyone would have walked out by the intermission.

ABRACADABRA

I speak it into existence!

They never ask if mass unvetted migration is good for Canada, or the rest of the West upon which it is being imposed, but instead, push the dialectic that any opposition to mass migration of people with fundamentally different values to the host country can only be due to ‘racism’.

In other words, the media did not fail to do its job, and this is the critical thing: They did not fail to do their job, they did their job exactly right, but not the job you thought it was.

The job of the broadcast media for some time now, is to enforce state narrative attacks. They push the racist or transphobic narrative with all issues concerning the push to destroy sexual identity without asking why we need to sterilize children and mutilate them for an idea that never existed till a few years ago. That being the idea that one’s sex, with the dialectically applied language of “gender”, can be changed just by saying so. (One might argue this is Lamarckism V3.0)

Pretend-Right leaning media tends to oppose the policies, but leads people away from the point by using terminology that the public gloms on to, which distract from the greater threat. For example, the numerous ways the 2020 election was stolen from the people in the US without ever looking at the ways in which it actually was. Things about satellites and voting machines and methods which either could never be proved or were known to be flat out wrong when they were introduced in order to keep us all looking the wrong way. I am unaware if any media looked at the sudden appearance of 15 million voters (and subsequent disappearance of the same number in 2024) in 2020. Or the methods pointed out by De’souza’s 2000 Mules documentary. And of course, by that point, the election was stolen and entrenched. There was no changing things no matter how much proof was presented. Those who challenged it faced harsh prison time if they went to the Capitol on Jan 6. Those who merely supported Goldstein Trump are being raided by multiple state agencies even now.

The phrase, Two Tier Policing is wildly viral. It is objectionable because it detracts from the real case.

The UK has become a communist polity. There is a consistent and one tier enforcement policy, which is in effect similar to Canada, the US, certainly Germany and much of the West. And that is:

Anyone who is counter-revolutionary is a criminal. Anyone who notices out loud the methods of the revolution, like mass immigration, Islamic jihad, the lack of evidence for Global Warming, men are not women no matter what they say they are, is to be punished.

Screenshot

Anyone who calls out Islamic jihad as Islamic jihad, and not give it a pass as an oppressed person who is mentally ill, is a thought-criminal in the UK. The purpose of these visits by the police to hundreds or thousands of British people over social media posts is to create an atmosphere, a culture where CRIMESTOP is practiced.

From 1984:

A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites
from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred
of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and
self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents
produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards
and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the
speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude
are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first
and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young
children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty
of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to
perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if
they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train
of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP,
in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the
contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own
mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.
Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The
law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could
float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he
THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him
do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage
breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't
really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought
under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere
or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things
happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of
anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind.
Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger
of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to
have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a
dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic,
instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with
propositions--'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that
ice is heavier than water'--and trained himself in not seeing or not
understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy.
It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical
problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as 'two and two make
five' were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of
athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate
use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical
errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to
attain.

People already across the West put themselves in mental defence mode when you mention things which are clearly true but defy the party. Just for fun sometime, try explaining to people that the real conspiracy theory is that Western industry and driving cars will cause the planet to heat up creating a catastrophe of some kind. Mind you, if you do it entertainingly enough, it may get through. But if you bluntly state that Global warming from Carbon conversion is not true, that men are not women just by saying so, and a dozen other current and past mass line narrative attacks, you will people go rigid from CRIMESTOP.

The case of “Two Tier policing” is similar in that it prevents people from seeing the true nature of the polity they live in. That it is in fact perfectly consistent policing. It is that what is a crime has changed, but we were not told.

We all take it as given, that if you work for money, and buy something with that money, that thing is ours and we are allowed to buy whatever we want pretty much with that money. If someone takes that thing from you without your permission, or without meeting the terms set out for them to take it, such as paying for it, they are criminals and the state enforcement should deal with it appropriately.

Yesterday I got a communication from someone who works at a regional WALMART. They informed me that as they watched, two thieves entered the store, not once but twice, faces covered except eyes, and stole a bunch of stuff and left with impunity.

I have heard far more horrifying ones. In Ottawa, liquor stores are robbed by people just wandering in, taking stuff, all they can carry, and walking out bragging that there is nothing anyone can do. I wanted to make a film sketch of one of these guys setting up a stand in front of a liquor store, taking orders from people, and walking in and stealing it, and selling it right in front of the store for half price. And then, people down the block would rob that guy and set up another stand. But that wouldn’t work of course. Thieves understand mine and yours. Robbing the guy who stole the booze, that would not go well.

The way in which law is enforced is consistent both in terms of property crimes, and thought crimes. Both categories of central interest to the Communist International. Which is why it is not two tier policing any more than sharia law is two tier policing. It is merely a different system of values and crime than we are either able to accept, willing to accept, and the point of this post, being allowed to understand is the case by articles and media like the one quoted at the top of this post.

Controlled opposition often looks like it is on your side. That is what makes it effective.

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1820552987208765885

I would like to finish with this example of the way all law enforcement should be handled when they come to your home on a thought crime issue:

 

 

 

 

Superb example of how leftist initiate language is used by the CEO of NPR

Posted on by

First, watch this very short clip:

Now please watch this explanatory video on the Frankfurt School creation of the use of Consensus as part of Discourse Theory:

This one is simpler and perhaps more to the point. And less than 6 minutes long. But understanding both offers clarity:

Ok.

Now watch the super short clip again and see if it says something different this time.