Month: June 2019

New York Times & Bezos Washington Post Today: It’s Open Season on Any and All Enemies of the Uniparty Establishment

I used to call it the “Cold Civil War,” referring to the growing sense that America is coming apart along political lines. When you hear stories of Trump supporters being attacked in public, and of major corporations like Visa and MasterCard taking steps to cut off essential services from people who don’t hold Establishment Approved™ Political Positions, it’s hard not to think that this country is heading for a major rupture that may or not turn into a full-scale Second Civil War.

But now I’m mostly moving away from that term “Cold Civil War” and the rhetoric of an impending “national divorce” because I realize media coverage focuses almost entirely on the fringes of both left (Antifa) and right (Charlottesville) in order to create the perception that there is zero common ground between left and right. In other words, the extreme and often violent intolerance coming from the left is not, in fact, indicative of the entire left but rather its most radical and despicable elements.

So I no longer really believe we’re hurtling toward a Second Civil War because the reality is that the vast majority of everyday leftists are not viciously intolerant of us. We definitely can coexist peacefully with the vast majority of leftists.

No, instead of a “Cold Civil War,” what’s happening is two things:

  1. The Uniparty Elite wants to keep Americans divided along political lines. It does not want the populist left and the populist right to realize they actually have a lot in common, most notably an enemy: the Uniparty System itself. The Uniparty wants us fighting each other instead of uniting against it.
  2. The Uniparty Elite also wants to whip up violent hatred and direct it toward its political enemies and those who stand in the way of its goals.

Today, America’s two foremost “newspapers”–the New York Times and the Bezos Washington Post–have made this all abundantly clear:

Here’s the New York Times first:

“This is not an argument for doxxing.”

Huh? That’s exactly what it is.

“Atrocities”–let’s be clear here: if what the border patrol is doing now constitutes committing “atrocities” then Barack Obama’s border patrol also committed atrocities. Obama’s border patrol locked kids in cages, separated families and, worst of all, enabled and encouraged the whole “children at the border” crisis by instituting a “catch and release” policy towards apprehended illegals.

But here’s the truth the New York Times ignores: these people are trying to illegally enter our country by the thousands. There are so many of them we cannot possibly handle them all in a pleasant and timely manner. It’s not simply that our border patrol agents are Inherently Bad People, although Open Borders Extremists would very much like to create that false perception. It’s that they’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of illegals, who are encouraged to come to our border with children because current government policy, implemented under Obama, makes it more likely you’ll be allowed into America if you come as a “family,” or at least appear to be a family.

In other words, it’s not the border patrol agent’s fault he can’t offer illegal immigrants a glass of water and tuck each one of them in for bed. Maybe if thousands of Central Americans weren’t incentivized by terrible Obama policies to storm the border by the thousands every single day then they wouldn’t be treated so harshly.

And you can tell exactly what the NYT is getting at with its sentence about “hindering the recruitment of replacement” border patrol agents: it’s about erasing the US border entirely. Their real problem is not with how the apprehended illegals are being handled and treated by our border patrol, their problem is that we even have a border patrol apprehending them in the first place.

What the New York Times is doing is trying to mobilize everyday Americans against the policies of the Trump Administration. Dox, publicly shame and possibly even physically attack Border Patrol agents so they quit their jobs, and discourage others from ever pursuing a job with the Border Patrol. The end result will–at least NYT hopes–render Border Patrol totally impotent, and the Uniparty’s dream of an unending tidal wave of mass third world migration will be even closer to reality.

Now on to the Bezos Washington Post:

“How dare someone with different political views from me show their face in public!”

Yeah, that’s very healthy. That’s totally not going to lead to violence or anything. No way that’ll happen.

Pretty rich that the people spitting on others and kicking them out of restaurants for having differing political views are accusing us of “spreading hate.”

I’m sure I’m not the only who’s noticed that the same people who claim to be “fighting against hate” are literally the most hateful people in America today.


They have become the very things they claimed to want to destroy–the key word, of course, being “claimed.” The activist left has never been “anti-hatred.” They’re the most hateful people around today: viciously intolerant, often violent, and not to mention horribly racist against white people.

But being racist against white people “doesn’t count” as real racism for the same reason hating Trump supporters also “doesn’t count” as real hatred: because they deserve it.

Yeah: that not what every genocidal dictator in history told himself or anything.

News flash, you future mass murderers: Hitler did what he did because he believed with all his heart that the Jews deserved it. He didn’t think “Well deep down I know the Jews are innocent but fuck them, I’m evil so let’s just start the Holocaust anyway.” He really and truly believed he was doing the world a favor in going after the Jews. He didn’t think he was evil; he thought the Jews were evil.

Just like you delusional psychopaths think you’re doing the world a favor by going after Trump supporters and white people in general.

Trump supporters can’t be considered a persecuted group if they deserve it, right?

What the Bezos Post is doing in encouraging leftwing activists to hound and even assault prominent members of the Trump movement who happen to venture into public places is not just “irresponsible,” as the “Peacetime Conservatives,” aka “David French Conservatives,” aka the Ben Shapiro Wing of the GOP might classify it.

It’s not “irresponsible” if you know exactly you’re doing. The Post knows exactly what it’s doing here. It is deliberately inciting violence and encouraging people towards extreme intolerance.

That’s not irresponsible. That’s evil.

Today it’s prominent people in the Trump movement–like the President’s son Eric, and his former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders–being targeted, but tomorrow it will be everyday Trump voters.

If this continues–and there’s no reason to believe it won’t–then in the very near future we could live in a country where it’s simply not safe to publicly express any support for Donald Trump at all. Violently intolerant leftwing extremists now have the blessing of the two most prominent organs of Uniparty Propaganda–the NYT and the Bezos WaPo–to hound, dox and assault Trump supporters in public places.

Again, while I no longer believe this extreme intolerance is widely accepted among the vast majority of everyday leftists, I do believe the sentiment is growing and no longer totally contained to the radical fringe largely due to the “media” encouraging it.

The trend we’re seeing is no doubt disturbing because history has shown us that a majority of the population is not needed to perpetrate genuine atrocities on a large scale. A small minority of the population can and will do terrible things to those they consider their enemies if enabled by elites in government and media.

The NYT and Bezos Post today left no doubt that this is what they want. They’re encouraging and directing their very own American version of Mao’s Red Guard to purge society of their political enemies.

This is why they are, unequivocally, the Enemy of the People.

The Democratic Debate Revealed Just How Far Along the Plan to Fundamentally Transform America Is

I caught a bit of the second Democratic Presidential debate. I usually don’t watch Democratic debates because there’s literally nothing they can say that will make me vote for them, but in this case I kind of wanted to see how Biden handled himself as the frontrunner, as well as how Bernie has changed over the past few years. Plus I wanted to see if Andrew Yang could possibly seize the opportunity to get out his message of free money for everyone and gain some momentum (he didn’t).

A few takeaways:

1. The Whore (Kamala Harris) was really off-putting. There’s just something about her that is repellant. She’s way too theatrical, over-the-top. I just felt like she was acting. She was so animated to the point where it felt unnatural. When she spoke, I felt like I was watching a robot whose “passion” and “bombast” settings were turned up too high.

2. The idea of Biden vs. the reality of Biden appear to be colliding head-on. For some reason he had become, in people’s minds, a “dignified elder statesman”–a wise, stoic old graybeard–over the past five or so years because after the 2012 election, he really didn’t get much media attention. But he is and always has been a total buffoon who can’t go five minutes without sticking his foot in his mouth. Biden is a doddering old man who has run for President and lost (badly) twice in the past, and I hope people are starting to remember why.

The guy has zero—absolutely zero—appeal outside of being associated with the Great Liberal Messiah Barack Obama. If Obama had not chosen Biden to be his running mate in 2008, and Biden remained in the Senate for the past 10 years, he would not be running for President right now. The only reason Democratic voters like him is because they can’t vote for Obama a third time, so Biden must be the next-best thing, they believe. Biden remains the front-runner, but will he remain so after he’s been in the public eye for long enough that people start to remember why they didn’t like him prior to 2008?

3. Really odd strategy for “Mayor Pete” to make his main message “Republicans Are Bad Christians Because They Are Against Open Borders.” Why does this guy keep bringing up the Bible and using it to attack Republicans? Who does he think this appeals to? Angsty 20-year-olds who just dyed their hair blue and came out as “gender non-conforming” to lash out at their parents? The young urban professionals who think they’re smarter than everyone because they Went To College and watch Jon Oliver? Lame.

4. Why was Andrew Yang unable to seize the moment and vault into the upper echelon of contenders? Well it’s probably because he wasn’t allowed to:

That’s absurd! What a ridiculous conspiracy theorist Andrew Yang is! We all know the Democrats would never rig a primary!

Ultimately, though, what little of the debate I caught told me everything I have to know about not only the Democratic Party in 2019, but the country itself.

The portion I caught was them all tripping over one another to show they were more Against Borders than the next. “I’m gonna let them all in!” “Oh yeah? Well I’m gonna let them all in AND give them free healthcare!” “That’s nothing: I’m gonna let them all in, give them free healthcare, and then I’m gonna abolish ICE entirely so the rest of Latin America is allowed to pour into this country behind them!”

The Democrats are not the party of open borders; they are the party of No Borders. They do not see a distinction between America, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and the rest of Latin America. The debate proved that much.

At one point, the moderator asked Joe Biden point-blank if he thought people who had committed no crime other than crossing the border illegally should be sent back, and in a rambling answer he basically said no, they shouldn’t.

So the Democratic Presidential candidates are all on record saying it should not be illegal to move to this country without first applying for citizenship. Anyone on earth can be an American so long as they just walk across the border.

And the whole time I’m wondering: does this actually appeal to my fellow countrymen and women? There are people out there who actually agree with this?

I’m not the only one who thought this:

There is no pro-border Democratic candidate. They have no interest in winning “Middle America” as traditionally understood because they gave up on “Middle America” decades ago. They are the party of the wealthy and of the poor–everyone in between is of no interest to the Democrats.

But the larger point is that the definition of “Middle America” has changed.

What last night made me realize was that the Uniparty’s plan to demographically remake this country is pretty far along. It’s in advanced stages. When you have one party’s politicians fighting among one another over who will do the most to totally erase the border between our country and Latin America, you know things have gotten out of hand.

At this point all they’re really doing is arguing about how to best put the finishing touches on the demographic transformation of America. They’re all in agreement that America should be turned into an extension of Latin America, they simply disagree with one another on which one of them gets to oversee and accelerate the process.

But there is no disagreement on the fundamental question of “Should America simply fling open its door and allow potentially the entirety of Central America to migrate here en masse?” To that question they all answer yes.

We have already lost our country when one of the two parties’ presidential candidates are fighting among one another to be the most amenable and welcoming to illegal immigrants.

Even little Warmongering Ben noticed how obsessed the Democrats were with bending over backwards for illegals:

But little Warmongering Ben missed the point: those are mainstream positions. They might not have been mainstream positions in the America of, say, 20 years ago, but they are now. The Democrats have fundamentally remade our country.

Those candidates knew their target audience last night. Politicians only say something if it can help them appeal to voters and get elected. They wouldn’t be talking about opening the border if they didn’t think it would appeal to a large number of voters. And that’s the worst part of it: the realization that such a large number of voters—or, more accurately, “Americans”—are in favor of open borders.

The Democratic candidates were appealing to foreigners last night, straight-up. That’s their target audience. By “foreigners” I mean first or second-generation immigrants, legal or illegal. That’s the Democratic base. That’s who the Democratic Party now officially serves. Last night made me realize it.

At first I was going to say the Democratic debate shows that their party no longer represents America, but that’s not totally accurate: what it shows is that they have already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America. We are already living in post-America.

The definition of “American” has changed over the past several decades, and it is now becoming apparent. There are now enough foreigners living in America that the Democratic Party doesn’t even attempt to appeal to white Americans. Mass immigration has brought in so many foreigners over the past 40-50 years that the people who founded and populated this country for the better part of two-plus centuries are no longer even on the Democrats’ radar.

And that includes black people, too. Outside of their sporadic “Cops Are Racist!” outbursts, Democrats no longer really even pretend to care about black people because the black population is not booming the way Hispanic and immigrant populations are. In terms of economics, illegal immigration probably hits blacks the hardest. The media tries to downplay it, but it’s no secret that Hispanics and blacks don’t really like each other. In LA, Hispanic gangs are literally ethnically cleansing black neighborhoods. But the Democratic Party does not care. They take the black vote entirely for granted and focus on catering to the ethnic groups that are growing the fastest.

To us, the illegal immigrant-centric Democratic debate last night seemed bizarre and totally outside the mainstream. But that’s only until you realize that the definition of “mainstream” has changed along with the country’s demographics. Anyone who felt alienated by last night’s Democratic Debate needs to understand: you are not part of their vision for America’s future, or even its present. You are an obstacle, a hindrance to be done away with.

“I can’t believe these Democrats are talking so openly and brazenly about allowing illegals into my country!”

The Democrats’ reply: “Your country?”


One thing I did like was Bernie’s closing statement about taking on the money interests. On that point, I totally agree with him.

But, like Will said, he totally undercuts his whole “anti-establishment” message when he talks about how he wants to open up the border and shower illegal immigrants with free money, healthcare and government benefits.

Bernie is a fraud.

Body Language Analysis: Trump vs. Justin Trudeau

Recently the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to Washington to visit President Trump in the White House. The two took questions from reporters in the Oval Office while sitting on side-by-side, and the contrast between the two heads of state could not have been clearer:


These pictures told us so much about these two men.

Trudeau: meek, closed-off, uncomfortable, looks submissive and deferential to Trump. Seems as if he wants to curl up into a ball and disappear. Trudeau has shifted his body to one side of the chair closest to Trump and appears to be seeking approval through from proximity to Trump. His positioning makes him look like an afterthought, an attache, a hanger-on.

Trump: open body language, assertive, comfortable, dominant posture, in control of the situation and clearly the center of attention.

With regards to the reporters in the room, they were questioning Trudeau, whereas Trump was taking their questions. There’s a critical distinction between the two.

This image tells you basically all you need to know about the two men. They may both be heads of state but clearly one commands more respect than the other.

Canadians have taken notice of the weakness shown by their “leader”:

Trudeau, of course, is a globalist puppet who only became Prime Minister because his of his father, so of course he’s meek and unassertive.

Trump is an unapologetic nationalist outsider who crashed the Establishment party and took his office by overcoming incredible adversity and opposition from powerful elites.

One man earned his power despite significant institutional and Establishment hostility, the other was installed because he had significant institutional and Establishment support.

Trump carries himself like a man who answers to no one but the American people, Trudeau carries himself like a figurehead.

The Open Borders Propaganda Machine Goes Full Steam Ahead

They think you’re stupid. They think you’re an easily-manipulated rube who believes everything you see on the news, and this is why they’re trying to emotionally manipulate you into supporting open borders.

Everything you’re seeing right now as it pertains to the “humanitarian crisis” at the border is all connected; all coordinated and planned. It’s all part of the same effort. First came the “candid” photos of Ocasio-Cortez breaking down in tears while visiting the border and viewing Trump’s “concentration camps” for illegals:


Wow, so genuine. Not entirely clear what she’s looking at, but that doesn’t matter: we all know Drumpf is an evil fascist dictator holding brown people in LITERAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS just like Auschwitz. That must be what Ocasio-Cortez is so distraught over.

Within hours of these photos being released, lo and behold the Associated Press follows it up with this:


This is America’s version of the infamous Syrian Boy image that effectively opened Europe’s borders and allowed millions of Middle Eastern and African migrants to pour in. How conveniently timed.

Then last night, CNN’s Don Lemon–totally just a news anchor and not a political activist or anything–was choking up on air over the image of the dead migrants. Even though Don Lemon previously called the border crisis “manufactured” by Trump:

Guess Don Lemon’s marching orders changed. His producers must have informed him that he would no longer be dismissing the border crisis with a scoff, instead he would be crying about it.

It’s all Uniparty propaganda designed to guilt you into supporting open borders. Even if the images you see come from different “news” organizations, ultimately the agenda itself comes from the same Uniparty Establishment. CNN and AP alike both promote the Uniparty agenda and are just two of its many propaganda organs.


“Pride Month” is Excessive Cultural Overreach Which Could Backfire and Turn Everyday Americans Against Homosexuality

Pride Month is inadvertently redpilling lots of Normal Americans into realizing they are not in control of their country.

I live in Chicago. Everyone knows this city is overwhelmingly Democrat, extremely liberal, etc. And yet even people here are fed up with the rainbow flags literally everywhere. Even if they don’t have a problem with gay marriage and homosexuality in general, many will still tell you the whole Pride Month—which only really became a thing in the past few years—is way over the top. A whole month of virtually every business in the country draping themselves in the rainbow flag to signal their support for homosexuality is objectively excessive.

The whole “Pride Month” thing is a step too far for most normal Americans. It’s not that they are against gay people, but they are certainly not on board with promoting and celebrating homosexuality. That’s the difference now: it used to be that the LGBT movement wanted people to just be fine with gay people, now it is demanding we celebrate and even worship gay people.

I can tell you with near certainty that the vast majority of straight men—white, black, hispanic, Asian; it doesn’t matter—are not on board with this whole Pride Month Rainbow Flags Covering The Whole City. Maybe they won’t admit it because they’re afraid of the consequences of going against the Official Cultural Consensus, but it’s true.

This was not what we signed up for when over the course of the past decade or so we as a country changed our opinion on gay marriage. Most of us thought that once we legalized gay marriage, that would be the end of it. “Fine, go ahead and get married, we’ll stop telling you how to live your life; everyone just stay out of each other’s business, do what makes you happy, be who you are, live and let live.” That was what we thought the terms of the deal were.

But it hasn’t turned out that way. After gay marriage was legalized, we weren’t allowed to just go our separate ways and go back to not thinking about or caring what another person’s sexual preference is.

What is the point of all this? You’ve already gotten what you wanted, no? You got gay marriage legalized. Go forth and pursue your own happiness.

Do you believe you’re fighting for acceptance? The majority of the country already is fine with your lifestyle. Most Americans don’t have a problem with you. You’re not going to be attacked on the street for being gay. You’re not subject to harassment and discrimination for being gay. You have a far greater chance of being assaulted for wearing a Trump Hat than you do for wearing a rainbow flag hat.

Acceptance? Every corporation in America except Chick-Fil-A is currently going out of its way to virtue signal its support for your lifestyle.


What, then, is Pride month all about?

It’s about shoving it in your face. Normal Americans must now think about and be reminded of homosexuality for an entire month.

And that’s what Normal Americans are not cool with. They may not know what, exactly, it is about all the rainbow flags literally everywhere that rubs them the wrong way, but they know it just doesn’t sit right with them.

This is cultural overreach. Gay people got the right to get married, now they want to be celebrated and worshipped because they are gay. They want the rest of the country to not just permit them to be who they are, but to pay homage to them for a whole month because of who they are.

That’s where you lose most average Americans. That’s how you turn them from passive allies to conscious opponents.

A growing number of normal Americans now react negatively to the rainbow flag. It has come to evoke negative emotions. Where in the recent past most Americans were indifferent to the rainbow flag, now they roll their eyes because it brings to mind the in-your-face excess of the current LGBT movement in 2019.

United Airlines is hosting “Drag Queen brunch” in its terminals, while most normal Americans just want to catch their flight:


Most normal Americans don’t see this and think, “YAAASSS! You go, girl! Live your best life!!” They see drag queens at the airport and think, “For the love of God, just let me catch my flight in peace.” They feel bombarded, and they’re right to feel that way.

Gays are now demanding that we worship them and recognize them for a whole month simply because they’re homosexuals? As if it’s some sort of achievement? Most regular Americans are not on board with this.

There are even gay people who are not cool with the idea of Pride Month. Jeff Giesea is a gay conservative political pundit, and he is over the whole Pride Month thing:

Screen Shot 2019-06-23 at 11.10.43 AM.png

This is how you inadvertently redpill normal Americans. This is how Uniparty propaganda backfires. If even some gay people are starting to get annoyed by the over-the-top excesses of Pride Month, you can certainly bet millions of “everyday Americans” are, too.

Normally, Uniparty control isn’t so obvious and in-your-face. Most Americans live under the illusion that their country isn’t under the control of an omnipotent, antidemocratic oligarchy of multinational megacorporations married to big government. This is because the Uniparty’s propaganda is usually delivered to the masses subtly via Hollywood films, “pop culture,” Late Night Television hosts and Fake News outlets.

But not during Pride Month. Pride Month is when it becomes unavoidably obvious that there is a specific agenda being shoved in Americans’ faces.

They see the rainbow flags covering their neighborhoods, they see the megacorporations competing with one another to be The Most Pro-Gay, and it reminds them that they are not in control of their own country anymore. Somebody else is.

Ben Shapiro Really Wanted Trump to Bomb Iran, is Pissed it Didn’t Happen

If you’re unaware, the other day, Iran allegedly shot down an unmanned US drone.

In response, the bloodthirsty neocons, who unfortunately have infested the Trump White House, who have long been in control of the Pentagon–and, well, who are we kidding: basically the entire Washington Foreign Policy Establishment–prepared a “response” for the President to approve. It would have been an airstrike on Iranian soil, or “interests” or something, I’m not entirely sure. I believe it was a ship.

It was some form of retaliation that would have killed 150 Iranians, bottom line.

Listen to the President himself describe it:

Trump canceled the proposed airstrike at the last second because it would have killed 150 people. Simply unnecessary.

Remember in 2016 when All The Smart People In Washington™ said Trump was too stupid, too unhinged, too maniacal to be the Commander in Chief? Remember when they said Trump would blow up the world because the role of Commander in Chief would just be too overwhelming for him?

His presidency has been the exact opposite of what they described.

Trump is the one hesitant to use military force whereas the self-described Foreign Policy Experts™ are the ones chomping at the bit to bomb somebody every other week.

So cooler heads–meaning President Trump–prevailed: 150 Iranians didn’t have to die because their military shot one of our flying unmanned robots out of the sky.

And Ben Shapiro is not a happy camper about it!

I haven’t seen Ben Shapiro this worked up in quite a while.

Of all the issues that really touch a nerve for Ben, President Trump not bombing Iran is the one that sends him into fits.

I’ll repeat: not bombing Iran.


“Terrorism”? What “terrorism,” Ben?

Iran’s military shot down one of our military’s flying drones. It was not “terrorism.”

And what’s this about “disproportionate response”? What he’s talking about is massive retaliation. Iran shoots down one of our drones, we kill 150 of their soldiers. An arm for an eye. In one sentence Ben says we must pursue a policy of “disproportionate response” in order to show Iran we’re not to be messed with, yet in the next sentence Ben says the Iranian mullahs are quite aware that if they get into a full-on war with the US then they’re all dead, and hence don’t want war.

So if they’re already scared of us, why on earth would we need a “disproportionate response” policy to remind them that they should be scared of us?

Ben retweeted this:


Obama’s “red line” was different. With his “red line,” he said, “Syria, if you use chemical weapons, that’s something we won’t tolerate.” And then when Assad used chemical weapons–or at least our military intelligence said he did–Obama didn’t enforce his own “red line” pronouncement. When you say, “Don’t do that, or there’ll be consequences.” And then they do that and there are no consequences, you look like a chump.

That was what was so bad about Obama’s “red line,” although in hindsight it’s probably good that Obama balked at attacking Syria because there has never been any good reason for us to get involved there. Not now, not in 2013–not ever.

But this was no “red line” moment for Trump on Iran. Trump never said, “Iran, you better not shoot down any US drones or else you’re gonna pay.” There was never any proverbial “red line” drawn by Trump.

But of course, Shapiro and the neocons hope to goad Trump into taking military action against Iran by comparing Trump to Obama. “If you don’t go to war with Iran, you’re a big pussy just like Obama.”

Shapiro had more tweets expressing his displeasure with Trump not bombing Iran–I repeat not bombing Iran.

But as I said above, what was really interesting was that Trump not bombing Iran was the one thing that really set Ben Shapiro off unlike anything else in recent memory. I don’t remember Shapiro launching into angry, stream-of-consciousness tweetstorms over the record number of foreign invaders migrants streaming over the Southern Border. Or about the mainstream media trying to normalize pedophilia, among many other things.

No, on those things he really couldn’t be bothered. He might put out a carefully-crafted zinger tweet that will go viral, but that’s it.

In this case–again, Trump not bombing Iran–Ben Shapiro just could not contain himself. Trump not bombing Iran really touched a nerve for him. You can tell he’s genuinely upset about this.

When Ben Shapiro read the news that President Trump called off a planned airstrike of Iran at the last minute, he was furious. The guy who treats the President like a dog was probably angrily screeching “BAD TRUMP! BAD TRUMP!” when he learned that Trump would not be bombing Iran.

It really is amazing to see just how little Neocons like Ben Shapiro care about the lives of others. Trump was not willing to kill 150 Iranians because their military shot down a drone. Ben, on the other hand, couldn’t have been more gung-ho to kill those 150 people.

The worst part of it is, our country has been run by reckless, bloodthirsty psychopaths like this for the better part of the past 30 years. Not only do 150 Iranian lives mean absolutely nothing to them, they don’t care about American lives, either. Ben Shapiro will gladly send your son off to fight in a pointless Middle Eastern war. He and the Neocon crowd don’t give a shit about American lives, either.

I’m not sure, exactly, why Ben Shapiro is so gung-ho about going to war with Iran. The same question could be asked of a large number of people not only in Washington but within the Trump White House, in the “mainstream” media and last but not least, within the “mainstream conservative movement.”

We don’t need to go to war with Iran. Saying that might put me outside the “mainstream” of conservative opinion but whatever.

Are we endangered by Iran? No. I keep hearing that Iran is the “number-one exporter of terror around the world since 1979” but if I recall correctly 9/11 was carried out by Saudis. More recent terror attacks carried out on US soil were linked to ISIS, not Iran.

Iran might be the number-one exporter of terror worldwide but not in the US. Iran is not a direct threat to us. It might be a direct threat to other countries in the region, but I’m sorry, that’s just not our problem.

I think I speak for most Americans when I say I have absolutely zero appetite for another multi-trillion dollar war in a faraway country that’s going to claim the lives of not only several thousand of America’s best young men, but also the lives of hundreds of thousands–if not millions–of people in Iran, and which will turn millions into refugees overnight. And where will those refugees go? Europe? Will they come here?

I don’t want to destabilize another Middle Eastern regime and turn Iran into a power vacuum where ISIS can reestablish itself.

I just don’t really give a damn about the Middle East. In fact, things seemed to be going a lot better in the Middle East before we started messing around there in the past 40 years or so.

I may speak for most Americans on this matter but because I’m at odds with the Political & Media Establishment–which Ben Shapiro is very much a part of, no matter what anyone says–then I’m considered a “fringe voice” and even anti-American.

Screw that.

Isolationist and proud.


Tucker, as usual, is on point:

So Much White Privilege in America: Black Man Rapes White College Girl in NYC “Because of Slavery”

“Us minorities have been through slavery,” the man said:

She deserved it. Because of slavery.

This story broke on the 18th, two days ago.

Are you seeing it all over the news? Is it getting wall to wall coverage on CNN?


Because the exact opposite of white privilege exists in this country.

People in this country are led to believe that white people can get away with anything, but a black man can rape a white woman and claim it was “because slavery” and the media’s reaction is: 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️.

Further, what would compel a black man in 2019 to seek justice for slavery, which ended in 1865?

He was never a slave, the woman he raped was never a slave-owner. So why would he do this?

This is another example of the media and mainstream American culture radicalizing people and the real-life consequences of that indoctrination. No one ever calls the media out for its “inflammatory rhetoric,” or for inciting violence.

It’s always President Trump who is accused of inciting hate crimes–even though most of those hate crimes end up being hoaxes.

The media is never held to account for all the violence it instigates.

Yes, in Fact the Elite IS Trying to Normalize Child Molestation

All the biggest names in “Mainstream” news are publishing “thinkpieces” in an attempt to reframe society’s perception of pedophilia–aka child molesting.

Let’s not mince words: the word “pedophilia” is an attempt to somewhat cover up the disgusting reality of what it is: child molestation.

New York Times, the Guardian--it’s happening at nearly all the Mainstream Establishment Propaganda outlets now.

And earlier this month, Snapchat had a filter available on its app that said “Love Has No Age,” clearly a positive affirmation of child molestation. They are now trying to work pedophilia in to the LGBT movement, because after all, “Love is love,” they tell us.

We all now know that pedophilia is a massive problem within the highest reaches of the Catholic Church, and that it has been covered up for years.

On top of this, within the past few years, former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert–a man who was third in the line of succession to the US Presidency–was convicted of child molestation and served time in prison for it. He is the highest-ranking US government official to serve prison time in the history of the United States. And yet most Americans probably don’t even know this. The media was more interested in covering a Russian Collusion Scandal that never happened. Why was our media not asking questions about Hastert? Why were they not relentlessly trying to figure out if any other elite politicians were pedophiles like Hastert?

You know why: because our media does not exist to expose the crimes of the elite, it exists to cover them up and distract from them.

What’s next? Movies and television. Slowly but surely you’ll see them try to shift the “Overton Window” of acceptability. Obviously going from “thinkpieces” to on-screen Hollywood depictions of child molestation is a big jump, but they’ll make it nonetheless. First it will start with older men and barely-legal girls, then they’ll get bolder and bolder.

We’ve seen how Hollywood has “evolved” in its depictions of sex since the earliest days of film. At first a woman showing as much as an ankle was risqué, now we have full-frontal nudity, graphic sex scenes–everything. Everything that was once considered depraved and deviant and unacceptable is now not only fine but glorified everywhere.

Pedophilia is simply the next step for the cultural elites.

Opponents of gay marriage within the past decade warned that after gay marriage was legalized would come things like polygamy and pedophilia. They were dismissed and ridiculed ferociously as bigots, conspiracy theorists and all the rest. They were said to be commuting the logical fallacy of the “slippery slope.”

But now in 2019, just four years after gay marriage is was legalized, you have the major Establishment propaganda outlets trying to turn public opinion in favor of child molestation.

Why are they pushing this? I have no idea. It’s the one part of the Globalist Elite’s agenda I cannot for the life of me understand. Maybe it’s because our elites are generally sick and depraved people, truly wicked and satanic to the core.

If I had to guess the elite’s reason for pushing pedophilia, I’d say it’s part of their broader attempt to destroy traditional values, but I still don’t see how this would solidify and/or expand their power.

So I really think it’s just because a large percent of the elite are pedophiles. They’re truly evil, satanic people. Perhaps there’s not much more to it than that.

Again, I don’t understand why they’re doing this. But then, I don’t understand pedophilia in general, and yet there are still pedophiles out there.

Over two years ago, Paul Joseph Watson made this revealing and sickening video laying out the evidence–much of it circumstantial, but also much of it indisputable–that pedophilia is a common practice among the global elite. This video was what first introduced me to the possibility that our elites were more sick and demonic than any of us could possibly imagine, and it’s looking like Watson was right on the money:

In any sane and moral society, the minimum punishment would be mandatory castration for any and all convicted pedophiles. Instead we have our most prominent “mainstream” media outlets trying to convince the public that pedophiles are merely misunderstood and that pedophilia is not all that bad.

Trump’s Presidency Has Revealed the Dark Truth About the US Government

Two and a half years into his presidency, US President Donald Trump has revealed that the President is not truly in control of the federal government.

In theory, the Constitution vests the executive power in the President. He is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the highest-ranking federal government official. What the President says goes: the executive branch carries out the will of the President, as well as Congress when Congress passes laws.

This is how government is supposed to work: the People’s Elected Representatives, i.e. the President and Congress, give the orders, and the unelected executive branch staff and officials carry out those orders. The executive branch doesn’t get to make policy; it only exists to carry out the orders of democratically-elected officials like the President. In theory they exist only to turn the President’s vision into reality. In theory.

But that’s not how it actually works in America these days.

In reality, there’s the President, and then there’s the Government. The two are not necessarily one and the same, and the latter does not really have to answer to the former if it chooses not to.

Watch this clip of President Trump openly discussing the existence of a military industrial complex which pushes for endless wars in the Middle East. It’s quite an extraordinary thing for the US President to go on-record and say:


Well, I’m the one that talks about these wars that are 19 years, and people are just there, and don’t kid yourself, you do have a military-industrial complex. They do like war. You know, in Syria, with the caliphate, so I wipe out 100 percent of the caliphate. … I said I want to bring our troops back home. The place went crazy. You have people here in Washington, they never want to leave,” Trump said.

I said, you know what I’ll do, I’ll leave a couple hundred soldiers behind, but if it was up to them, they‘d bring thousands of soldiers in. Someday people will explain it, but you do have a group, and they call it the military-industrial complex. They never want to leave. They always want to fight,” he continued.

Wait, I thought the President was in control? I thought if he wanted the troops out of Syria, the troops leave Syria. Right? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Guess that’s only in theory. In practice, I guess there are other people who have a say in the matter—even though they weren’t elected by the American people.

This is what people mean by “the deep state” or the Permanent State or the Bureaucratic State. The Deep State is the name that has stuck, but they all basically mean the same thing. That is the true government; the unelected, unaccountable officials–whose names most Americans have never heard–pursuing their own agendas at literally all costs, and above all others, including that of the democratically elected President.

Another case in point of the President not really being in control of the government: Trump ordered John Brennan’s security clearance be revoked almost a year ago, but it hasn’t been.

“Once again, more evidence has emerged proving not only that the “deep state” is real, it has become an existential threat to the president of the United States and the security of the country he was elected to lead.

The New York Times published a report noting that Attorney General William Barr would be ‘professionalizing’ the effort against the intelligence community (the deep state’s core element) after POTUS Donald Trump “somewhat clumsily last year to revoke the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director who played a role in opening the Russia investigation.”

That would be former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the most vociferous anti-Trump voices on the planet clearly the guy who facilitated “Spygate” on behalf of a criminal president, Barack Obama.

Further, the Times noted, POTUS “then wanted to release classified documents to prove he was the target of a ‘witch hunt.’ Both attempts petered out, hampered by aides who slow-rolled the president and by Justice Department officials who fought Mr. Trump, warning he was jeopardizing national security. “The White House never followed through with the complex bureaucratic work it would have taken to strip the clearance, according to a person familiar with the process.”

The White House “never followed through,” huh? That’s the New York Times’ way of saying the Deep State overruled the President’s orders. Jon Dougherty remarks:

“Complex bureaucratic work?” Is the Times kidding? How about a) the president ordered it; so b) staffers carry out whatever work is necessary to fulfill the president’s order. Like other administrations.

The real story, then, is that a sitting, duly elected president’s orders have been purposefully ignored as though staffers within the intelligence community bureaucracy have the authority and the right to do so.”

John Brennan still has a security clearance against the President’s wishes. Why? Because the Deep State wishes it so.

Sen. Rand Paul said just as much:

“From the tone and tenor of the Times report, you get the impression that Brennan’s clearance was never revoked, and that elements within the deep state deliberately refused to follow the president’s order to do so.

That’s exactly what happened, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who says he witnessed the order first hand. “What do you think about this recent New York Times story that Brennan still has his security clearance?” CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Paul Wednesday evening during an appearance on the little-watched network.

“People talk about the Deep State, now the Deep State’s actually protecting their own and not listening to the President’s orders,” Paul said. “I was sitting in the White House when President Trump said ‘I want his security clearance taken’ and I saw the order given. I saw the Chief of Staff was there, not the current Chief of Staff, the previous Chief of Staff.”

There’s the President, and then there’s the Government, and more and more these days it seems as if they are two separate entities.

We’re now learning that just because you install an outsider–a person at odds with the Uniparty agenda–in the White House, does not mean you can actually change the government’s policies. Just because we changed the President doesn’t mean we have changed the Government. Over the decades, the power of the unelected deep state has grown exponentially, and now it is collectively more powerful than the President.

The corruption runs very, very deep in Washington. The Uniparty’s power is entrenched more deeply than any of us could’ve imagined just a few short years ago. This is not to say Trump hasn’t made any difference, but it is to say that Trump winning the 2016 election was merely the beginning of what will be a very long, difficult battle against a sprawling, ossified beast.

What Trump has revealed since becoming president is that the President isn’t really in charge. It’s not a pleasant truth; it should bring no one any pleasure that this has been confirmed, but at least we know it for sure now.

The Real Reason NBC-owned Vox Media is Trying to Destroy Steven Crowder

If you hadn’t heard, the NBC-owned Vox Media recently launched a war against conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder:

“On Thursday, Carlos Maza, who writes Vox’s “Strikethrough” video series, launched a campaign to pressure YouTube to ban conservative commentator and comedian Steven Crowder. Crowder’s crime? Producing a series of rebuttal videos to “Strikethrough” that include mocking references to Maza’s identity.

In response, YouTube says its now looking into Crowder’s channel and has reportedly already begun demonetizing some of his videos.

On Friday, Crowder responded by condemning this as yet another example of “corporate censorship” of a conservative voice and making clear that “this is a war … we will fight to the absolute bitter end both legally and publicly.”

Now, the stated reason by NBC–I mean Vox’s Carlos Maza–was because Crowder Said Mean Things about a Gay Man Of Color, who we all know are the most sacred of cows.

But that’s not the real reason. That’s the excuse for the real reason. The real reason is because Maza’s employer NBC wants to destroy Crowder because Crowder is popular, dissident and above all because he represents the Future of Media in the era of cord-cutting.

If you think about it, this, more than anything else, is why the Legacy Media has suddenly become so intolerant of conservative voices: because now, in the era of online media, the traditional media–cable news, newspapers–has never been less relevant.

Until quite recently, I believed the recent turn towards political censorship by the media and Silicon Valley was all about silencing dissident voices who dared speak the truth. But that’s only part of it. There’s more to it than simply getting rid of conservative voices.

There have always been conservatives in the mainstream media. Not just on Fox News, but conservative voices have always been given platforms on all the major media outlets, from NBC to CBS to ABC and CNN, even MSNBC. New York Times and Washington Post have always had their token conservative opinion columnists, even if the rest of the paper was in the hands of archliberals.

The mainstream legacy media, while definitely leaning way to the left, has not until quite recently been intolerant of conservatives. At any time over the past 25 years or so, you could always turn on Meet the Press and see conservatives on the show. All the major Sunday talk shows feature voices from both sides.

So it’s not just a war against conservatism being waged by the traditional media and Silicon Valley: it’s a war against the new, online media, which, incidentally, is mostly dominated by conservatives, who first turned to online media out of necessity because the left had a stranglehold on the traditional media.

Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson–these guys are not only targeted for censorship by the Blue Checked Mainstream Media “journalists” because of their political views, but because of the existential threat they represent to the legacy media. They represent a future where the legacy media has lost control of the narrative.

The guy trying to destroy Steven Crowder is Vox’s Carlos Maza. Vox is owned by NBC. This is not a coincidence. NBC is siccing its trained attack dog on Steven Crowder in an attempt to destroy a New Media Threat.

If you’ve ever wondered why it seems like so many of these blue-checked “journalists” are nothing more than glorified hall monitors tattling and whining to Big Tech anytime a conservative pundit Says A Mean Word, now you know why. CNN’s Oliver Darcy’s entire job appears to be to Destroy Alex Jones and InfoWars by tattling on them violating the terms and conditions of social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Carlos Maza’s job is to take down Steven Crowder.

The legacy media wasn’t intolerant of conservative voices when they were confined to the controlled environment of Uniparty-run cable news. It was fine to allow George Will and William F. Buckley and all the other conservatives of past eras to be fixtures in the mainstream media, because they were still playing on the Uniparty media’s turf. They were controlled, almost like tamed animals.

But now, in the era of online media, conservative voices don’t have to be kept in captivity like zoo animals by the Uniparty media. They can express their opinions freely online, completely unbeholden to the traditional media system. No longer is the Uniparty media the gatekeeper through which all views and opinions may enter the public debate.

Because of YouTube and social media, there is no gatekeeper anymore. Well, at least there was no gatekeeper, until the old gatekeepers, in their desperate attempt to regain control of the narrative, demanded the new social media companies put the clamp on all these new right-wing voices.

The Uniparty Legacy media’s tattletale “journalists” realized that although conservative New Media figures no longer have to play by the Uniparty Media’s rules, they still have to play by the social media companies’ rules, and this is where Tattletale Journalism comes from. “Dear YouTube: This is CNN’s Oliver Darcy. I am writing to inform you that Alex Jones has violated your terms and conditions. According to your policies, Alex Jones must be banned from YouTube. You’re welcome. Signed, Oliver.”

So the old gatekeeper is still trying to play gatekeeper by demanding the social media giants get rid of all threats to the Legacy Media.

It’s not even really about the profits, either. The New York Times’ profits have been declining since 2003:


You didn’t see the traditional media desperate to silence and censor conservatives in 2005 when the NYTimes‘ profit was in the midst of a serious decline. It’s only now that they’re trying to ban people.

Long gone are the days when traditional media companies were seriously profitable. The whole newspaper industry nationwide has shrunk by nearly two-thirds since 2006:


And in terms of money, the big cable networks don’t even make that much in the grand scheme of things. In 2014, Morgan Stanley estimated CNN to be worth around $10 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but consider that AT&T, which recently bought CNN’s parent company Time Warner, and thus CNN itself, is worth over $235 billion.

That means CNN represents 4.2% of its parent company AT&T.

It is not about the money and profits. If CNN went belly-up tomorrow it would barely be a blip on AT&T’s bottom line. CNN is not important financially.

It’s important in terms of power.

You don’t get into the media business for the money. It’s about power and influence.

The Uniparty Legacy media’s turn towards censorship and against freedom of the press is not some desperate ploy to save their collapsing profits. Their profits have been collapsing for years. It’s not about the money.

It’s about preserving their power and influence.

Conservative New Media figures represent an existential threat to the Uniparty media in the age of cord cutting and smartphones.

The Uniparty Media was at the height of its power when everyone in America had to get their news from either TV or the newspaper. Up until the mid-2000s, the Uniparty Media was the gatekeeper through which all Americans got their news and information.

But with the rise of blogs, social media sites, YouTube and other online media starting in the mid-late-2000s, the Legacy Media’s status as Gatekeeper was put in serious jeopardy.

Over the past decade or so the legacy media has been in an existential struggle not for survival–because NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, and WaPo will always exist in some form–but for power and influence over the minds of 320 million Americans.

Want to know why the media was so blindsided by Trump’s victory in 2016? Because it believed there was no way his populist, anti-immigration ideas would be popular with a significant number of voters. The media, believing itself to still be in control of Americans’ minds and the primary shaper of their political views, was confident that it had inoculated the American public against Trump’s brand of right-wing populism.

The real shock to the media in 2016 was not only Trump winning, but the media realizing how little sway it had over the minds of millions of Americans. They thought they had conditioned Americans to reject Trump’s ideas, but they were wrong.

Tens of millions of Americans had their views shaped and developed somewhere else. Somewhere other than cable news and the newspapers.

The first time a parent hears their young child swear, their first question is “Where did you learn that word?!”

That was the Legacy Media’s reaction to Trump winning in 2016: “Where did all you voters get exposed to these right-wing populist ideas?! Who red-pilled you!?!?! Who exposed you to non-Uniparty-Approved Ideas!?!??!”

In the wake of Trump’s victory, the Uniparty media came to the collective realization that it had lost its control over Americans’ minds.

After gathering themselves, they went to work figuring out exactly how all these non-Uniparty-Approved Ideas had made their way into Americans’ minds. The culprits were clear: conservative New Media like the blogosphere, Twitter, YouTube and the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web.”

They branded it all with a name: “the alt-right” which, of course, means “NAZISM.” No matter how much you protest being called alt-right, it doesn’t matter: anyone on the right who is not George Will, Brett Stephens or National Review Magazine is considered “alt-right.” In other words, if you’re on the right and you don’t harbor an obsessive, almost religious-level of hatred for President Trump, you’re “alt-right.”

And that means NAZI, of course.

Now, there were mentions of the “alt-right” by the media prior to Trump’s victory. There was some awareness that a different type of conservatism was rising in the Republican Party. But until Donald Trump won 306 electoral votes on the night of November 8, 2016, there was never any serious concern that the “alt-right,” a.k.a. the Non-Uniparty-Approved Version of Conservatism, had gained serious influence in the GOP.

If you look at Google Trends, interest in the term “alt-right” did not peak until after the 2016 election, when the media was trying to identify a culprit for Trump’s victory:

Screen Shot 2019-06-07 at 2.15.37 PM.png

The media calls the New Right “alt-right” because the term “alt” signifies illegitimacy. It’s not the true right, but merely an alternative to Mainstream Conservatism. It’s meant to portray right-wing populism as a fringe sect of illegitimate extremists.

The Uniparty media hates the New Right and tries to slander it with a Nazi-associated term like “alt-right” because the Uniparty media very much liked the Old Right as embodied by Mitt Romney, John McCain and the Bush family. They represented the Uniparty-Approved Version of Conservatism. They knew their role: they were to somewhat indulge the passions of the party base so that passion didn’t boil over into a full-on revolt, but ultimately lose graciously to a Democrat. Or, in the event they won the election, they were expected to strictly adhere to the Uniparty-Approved Version of Conservatism and under *NO CIRCUMSTANCES* do anything of that stuff they promised their voters they’d do, like cut government spending, reduce the federal debt, reign in the federal bureaucracy, and pare back the welfare state (see “Bush, George W.”)

The Uniparty-Approved Version of Conservatism is pro-immigration (“Diversity Is Our Strength!”), pro-foreign wars (Neoconservatism), pro-corporate tax cuts and free trade (“Economic Freedom!”) and nominally anti-gay marriage and pro-life, but ultimately too afraid to say so publicly, much less actually act on those sentiments legislatively.

All the way up until election night 2016, the media was operating under the assumption that the Republican Party was still the party of the Uniparty-Approved Version of Conservatism. This was why the media was so confident that Trump would lose: because the Uniparty media believed Trump’s agenda of anti-immigration, anti-foreign war, anti-free trade policies was simply not that popular in the Republican Party.

But it was. Or, rather, it had become popular with Republican voters in the few years prior to the 2016 election. And it happened right under the Media Gatekeepers’ noses.

No longer was YouTube for silly cat videos and the Evolution of Dance. It had become a full-on competitor to the legacy media. By 2016, people were actually getting their news from YouTube, Twitter, the blogosphere and Facebook instead of from the Uniparty Legacy Media.

That’s where people discovered Non-Uniparty-Approved Conservatism. That’s why the Legacy Media has been on a two-year mission to destroy any and all New Media conservative voices. Steven Crowder is the latest.

Ultimately, the Uniparty Media’s attempt to retroactively punish those they hold responsible for Trump’s victory in 2016 is a futile effort. They cannot put the genie back in the bottle. They cannot regain their status as Gatekeepers after the gates have already flung open. It’s like trying to put the Berlin Wall back up. It ain’t happening.

You can ban and censor all the people you hold responsible for Trump’s victory in 2016, but it’s not going to make their ideas disappear. It’s not going to make their fans turn against them. It’s not going to make Republicans turn back to Romney and Bush-style Uniparty-Approved Conservatism.

The Uniparty will never regain control of the narrative. They will never again be the Gatekeepers who control what we see, hear and learn.