Month: September 2019

Modern Society is One Big Humiliation Ritual, and *You* Are the Target

It’s all so clear now:

The left’s entire agenda revolves around waging war on you and everything you love. It’s designed to dispossess you and break your spirit.

They want to take your guns away not only to disarm you and weaken you, but because you consider owning a gun to be a major part of your culture, and they want to annihilate your culture.

They would prefer to take them from you by force, actually.

You enjoy a nice steak dinner. You consider it, whether consciously or unconsciously, part of your culture. After all, the steak dinner is a quintessentially American thing. Other cultures eat beef, but not like we do.

But the left wants to deprive you of steak dinners as a way to rob you of your culture, which you love and value.

Instead, the New York Times wants you to eat bugs:

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at 11.34.50 AM.png

And they even admit there’s nothing appetizing at all about eating bugs, yet they still hold it against you for not wanting to.

They claim it’s to “save the planet” but it’s really about humiliating you.

And the left is sexualizing your children because they want to rob you of all that you hold dear.

They want your kids to be like Desmond, the 11-year-old drag queen who was featured on Good Morning America:


“Housewives of America: behold this #Amazing 11-year-old drag queen. Isn’t he just FABULOUS? Don’t you want your kids to be #Amazing and FABULOUS, too?”

Why do you think gay pride parades are such ostentatious affairs? Why is there now a whole Pride Month where every man, woman and child in the country must genuflect before the LGBT Community? Because the whole point is to rub your nose in it. The cultural elites know the truth, which is that no matter what Americans may say about homosexuality —“It doesn’t affect me!” “Let them get married, I don’t care!” “Love is Love!”–deep down, most regular Americans are uncomfortable with it. And that’s precisely why Pride Month is so in-your-face, so unavoidable. They want to drive home the point that this is not your country anymore.

“Look at me: I am the captain now.”

It is all about conquest and humiliation. They want you to know you have been defeated and dispossessed: everything you value and stand for has either already been dismantled or is in the process of being dismantled. Everything you fear and reject is being forced upon you.

More from Edward Chang on the matter:

“Nothing about the world we live in will ever make sense to you unless you understand you live under occupation and are thus subject to the rules of an occupation. If you do not start from there, you will furtively search for multiple explanations and rationalizations

Humiliation attacks everything that is important to a people by bringing them to their lowest level in front of everyone else. Or it makes a vicious mockery of the conquered by denying them any bit of dignity.

So when I look at the culture today and when I look at what institutions and media outlets who have an ungodly amount of power and privilege over the average American are pushing, and you ask me *why* they do this how can I come up with any other answer?

Do any of my detractors actually believe that the average American is in charge of their own culture? They can try to lie if they want but their cynical way of speaking about the institutions of the country and their assumption of bad whites as poor and stupid betray them.

[Why] do people who supposedly share the same culture view each other as alien, or speak of the other side in dehumanizing terms the way the leftist whites and Jewish people view what they call the Trumpenproles? These are tribal differences viewed in a war lens.

Normal Americans value their right to bear arms and the American culture of having the right to do as you please, shoot guns, eat red meat, have big open spaces with big houses, and have a nice, normal family.

So they are going to make you eat bugs and live in pods.

People often get it backwards because their brains are poisoned by complex ideology so they overcomplicate this with explanations. They puzzle over *why* they want to destroy this stuff, and while there are many reasons, the main one is simple: Because it’s something you value.

So when you ask me about why I harp on the big humiliation so much, it’s because you need to stop getting caught up in the extant explanations.

If you don’t think humiliation is key to all of this you’re *wrong*”

It’s not about political ideology. It’s far simpler and more primal than that. It’s about power: they have the power, you and I do not, and they want to remind us of that fact every minute of every day.


Trump-Ukraine Call Transcript Released: The Real Scandal is that the Bidens Were Up to No Good in Ukraine

The transcripts of Trump’s July 25 call with the new Ukrainian President have been released.

This all started when a few weeks ago, a “whistleblower” came forth and alleged that President Trump had engaged in a “quid-pro-quo” with the Ukrainian President in an attempt to launch an investigation into Joe Biden’s son’s shady dealings in Ukraine. It was even claimed that Trump threatened the Ukrainian President if he did not do as Trump asked.

We’ll get to everything, but first: The “quid pro quo” angle. I’m not going to say there’s no hint of a quid pro quo in the transcripts. Trump opens up the call by reminding the Ukrainian President how good the United States has been to Ukraine, and then later in the call asks for two favors, one pertaining to the Crowdstrike server, the next pertaining to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Any requests Trump makes or favors he asks for should be viewed in the context of what he initially said about the US having been very good to Ukraine. Basically Trump is suggesting the Ukrainian President owes him one.

It’s a very general, nebulous “quid pro quo” but it can basically be summarized as “You know the United States has been a very good friend to Ukraine under my watch. Now would you please do me this favor. . .”

Of course, there’s nothing specified by Trump. It’s far less of a quid-pro-quo than Obama’s infamous “more flexibility” comment he made to former Russian President (aka figurehead) Dmitri Medvedyev in 2012. And there’s definitely not any “threat” to withhold foreign aid, or pressure being exerted.

What Trump said does not constitute any sort of pressuring or intimidation. It’s not like Trump said, “Hey, you better investigate Joe Biden and his crackhead son or else I’m gonna hang you out to dry.” There’s nothing like that.

But I don’t even care about whether there was any “quid pro quo” between Trump and the Ukrainian President. That’s not the real issue here.

The real issue here is what were the Bidens up to in Ukraine?

It was a pretty ingenious move by Trump to release the transcripts because of this relevant bit:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.23.27 AM.png

Trump: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . It sounds horrible to me.”

Any honest person reading the transcript should be far more alarmed to learn that Joe Biden’s crackhead son (who also slept with his deceased brother’s widow) was being prosecuted in Ukraine–and that Joe Biden himself stepped in to get him off the hook–than that Trump was trying to get the matter investigated.

I bet most people were unaware that Biden’s son was being prosecuted in the Ukraine. But now, after Trump released the transcripts, more people know.

This has been my view the whole time: the same Democrat politicians and media propagandists who have spent three years demanding politically-motivated investigations into Trump over made-up scandals are now #Outraged that Trump is trying to investigate their side?

And didn’t they employ a British spy named Christopher Steele to investigate Trump’s supposed corrupt dealings with Russia?

The same people now screeching “Abuse of power!” had no problem at all with the Hillary Campaign working hand-in-hand with the Obama intelligence community to investigate Donald Trump both during the 2016 election and over the first couple years of Trump’s presidency.

Obama’s actions against Trump in 2016 objectively constituted the greatest abuse of power in the history of our country. It’s not even up for debate. Using the intelligence community to spy on and undermine the Republican Presidential nominee over a made-up scandal during an election is unprecedented corruption, and Obama did it.

But beyond that, it all goes back to this question: “Investigate Biden for what, exactly?”

The blue checks are shrieking stuff like this:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.50.44 AM.png

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps Joe Biden and his son did something wrong and need to be investigated?

No. In their minds, Democrats are completely above the law. Our “reporters” are totally uninterested in the question of whether the Bidens did anything wrong. In the spirit of the famous Nixon quote, the media’s mantra is “If a Democrat does it then it’s not illegal.”

So what, exactly, was Hunter Biden being prosecuted for? Rep. Jim Jordan summarizes:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.55.20 AM.png

So. . . . . let me get this straight: the Democrats are claiming President Trump abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor, but it was actually Joe Biden who abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor?

They really are unbelievable. I say this all the time but it always turns out to be true: whatever crimes they accuse our side of, it is they who will inevitably be found to be guilty of those very same crimes.

It wasn’t Trump strong-arming Ukraine for favors, it was Biden.

Here’s the Biden Scandal in more detail, via Fox News:

“In March 2016, then-Vice President Biden told Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko that the Eastern European nation would not get a $1 billion U.S. government loan guarantee unless it fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings — a natural gas extraction company whose board of directors included Hunter Biden, the veep’s son.

Shokin told The Hill’s John Solomon that plans for his probe “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

The bottom line: the media and the Democrats are worried about what will happen if the Bidens are investigated. This is an attempt to cover-up a potentially damaging scandal for Joe Biden, who much of the D.C. Establishment views as their best hope of getting Trump out of office in 2020 and getting the Globalists back in power in America.

This is very calculated. It’s not simply Trump Derangement Syndrome insanity and trying to get Trump impeached yet again.

They’re trying to squash any investigation into the Biden family. They know this could potentially blow up on them.

Biden knows it:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.56.19 AM.png

Just because they’re trying to make this into a Trump scandal, don’t be under the impression that they’re not totally aware of what the true scandal is here.

But, of course, the D.C. Establishment is collectively not very bright and unable to control its burning hatred for Trump, so this is likely to blow up in their faces: now more and more people are aware that Hunter Biden was being prosecuted in Ukraine.

No matter how much they try to avoid this part of the story and make it about Trump’s supposed “abuse of power,” they can’t.

If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not been so impulsively desperate for impeachment, then perhaps they could have prevented the American public from finding out that the Democrat frontrunner for President’s son was being prosecuted by the Ukrainian government.


Greta Thunberg is Media-Manufactured Propaganda

First the media employed David Hogg to scream at us about how we need to disarm For The Kids, now they’re using a 16-year-old Swedish kid named Greta Thunberg to guilt us into Taking Action™️ against Climate Change (which isn’t real), also For The Kids.

Hogg was an insufferable brat, but this Thunberg kid is something different.

There’s something deeply creepy about her:

Right off the bat, my first thought is that there’s no way this weird girl appeals to any significant number of people. She’s not charismatic at all, and I think most people would agree she’s pretty creepy with her constantly-on-the-verge-of-tears, Super Duper Impassioned act.

I’m just not buying it. It’s just not convincing to me. 

She’s either an actor or she’s been badly brainwashed by cruel adults who hope to use her to push the climate change angle of the assault on Western Civilization. “Don’t reproduce because Greta Thunberg says so!”

It’s probably both.

But again, I just don’t see the appeal of this girl. It feels put-on, contrived.

I can’t see any way in which she became this popular naturally and on her own. I don’t hear any normies talking about her.

Which means if there’s no organic support for her, it must be a propaganda operation. She did not become this big of a figure on her own.

But sure enough, the media is treating her as if she’s an organic viral sensation.

This is one of those all-too-common scenarios where the media coverage is the tail attempting to wag the dog of public opinion: she’s not receiving tons of media coverage because people are buzzing about her–instead, she’s being shoved down our throats by the media in order to push an agenda on us.

It’s important to recognize when this is happening, because these days it’s most of the time. People need to stop and ask themselves why, all of the sudden, every legacy media outlet is bombarding us with nearly identical “coverage” of this creepy Swedish teenager. It’s deliberate.

They’re rarely just “covering the news” or reporting on what’s happening. Instead, they’re creating the news, and selectively informing us only on what they want us to pay attention to–even if they have to create the story themselves.

The media did it with Barack Obama in 2008, turning him into a worldwide phenomenon and eventually US President. Their nonstop positive (and positive is a major understatement) coverage of Obama was what made him so popular.

This is what they’re doing with Greta Thunberg, only on a smaller scale. It should be obvious by now that it’s a faux-viral story coordinated by the biggest names in the legacy media:


CNN even ran a column by a former Obama State Department PR official:


Rolling Stone was on the same page:


The coordination is so obvious. “Powerful.” “Unforgettable.” “Passionate.”

The media makes Greta Thunberg important by “covering” her non-stop, and then the media continues to cover her because she’s important. It’s Fake News from beginning to end. At no point was there any organic origin here.

The whole Greta Thunberg thing feels like an elaborate PR operation foisted upon us by wealthy, powerful liberal elites. It’s Astroturfing 101.

So I want to know:

  • Who funded her trip and her tour of America?
  • How did she get to meet Obama?


  • How did she get to give a speech at the UN?
  • How was she allowed to testify before Congress, as if a 16-year-old from Sweden’s “insight” is somehow unique and valuable to lawmakers in America?
  • Why is her face all over the media?

If I had to guess, I’d say Soros is behind it.

Some are already suggesting this, and this photo has been circulating:


This woman, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, who is frequently pictured with Thunberg and appears to be her handler or something like that, works for the “ONE Foundation,” which is rumored to be run by Bill Gates, Bono and yes, George Soros.

But my own research hasn’t turned up any definitive proof of this, so I cannot report it with certainty.

Still, I don’t doubt that Soros is behind all this.

And finally, why is Thunberg (or, rather, her handlers) wasting time in the US? China is far and away the world’s biggest polluter and carbon emitter. In fact carbon emissions in the US have gone down over the past 20 years:


Why doesn’t Greta Thunberg go yell at China and India to stop reproducing and to give up all their sovereignty to the UN?

Because the people shoving her down our throats don’t want control of China and India, they want control of America and Europe.



Why Was Israel Trying to Spy on Trump?

From POLITICO comes a rather damning story about our supposed “greatest ally” spying on President Trump’s White House, and more:

“The U.S. government concluded within the past two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cellphone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.”

Apparently the Israelis were using fake cellphone towers to intercept calls and texts.

“The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” mimic regular cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.

The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, one of the former officials said, as well as his top aides and closest associates — though it’s not clear whether the Israeli efforts were successful.”

We should definitely assume they were.

“But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.”

If this were the Russians, we would never hear the end of it from the media. The media would probably be trying to provoke full-on shooting and bombing warfare.

But this story was barely a blip on the major media’s radar.

For his part, Trump refuses to believe the report:

“After this story was published, Trump told reporters that he would find it “hard to believe” that the Israelis had placed the devices.

“I don’t think the Israelis were spying on us,” Trump said. “My relationship with Israel has been great…Anything is possible but I don’t believe it.”

It’s quite possible this story was fabricated by anti-Israel intelligence community officials in an effort to get Trump to turn against Israel. That’ll never happen because Trump has a major hard-on for Israel, but it’s at least possible that this is what happened.

After all, why would Israel do anything to poison the relationship with the man who ripped up the Iran deal and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem?

So it’s possible this story is made-up.

But if not–if the story of Israel trying to spy on the Trump White House is true–then it it definitely begs some very uncomfortable questions.

For example, if Israel is so grateful for everything we do for them–and again, Trump has done a lot for them, as have all past presidents dating back to 1948–then why would they need to spy on him?

Why would our “greatest ally” need to spy on us?

Well, perhaps, Israel is not actually our greatest ally, and instead only pretends to be in order to use us for foreign aid and to fight their Middle Eastern wars for them.

Maybe this is much-ado about nothing. It’s likely that we spy on the Israelis and every other supposed ally of ours, like Britain, France and Germany. Remember the story from several years back about how Obama personally approved wiretaps on the phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel?

Still, I think the story just goes to show you that you can never be completely trusting with any other country out there–even your ostensible “greatest allies.”

Trump needs to stop being so trusting with the Israelis. They may have a very powerful lobby in Washington, but that shouldn’t matter to the guy who is so rich he doesn’t have to listen to any lobbyists. After all, wasn’t that part of the inherent appeal of Trump from the start?

Israel acts in its own interests. Our interests are not always theirs, and vice versa. It’s time we started putting our own first–even ahead of Israel’s.

Attention All Men: Everything You Do Is Wrong No Matter What

Get a load of this headline:

Screen Shot 2019-09-07 at 3.16.44 PM.png

You men are all too broke to be worthy of marriage!

But I thought we lived in the era of #FemaleEmpowerment, where all women are strong, independent and don’t need no man.

Also, I thought we lived in an Evil Patriarchy where men hoard all the money and are responsible for a nefarious Gender Pay Gap rendering all women broke and destitute?

What the hell?

Do women require financially stable men in order to live decent lives, or are men hoarding all the money and holding women down?

Should I be outraged about the (nonexistent) Gender Pay Gap, or about the fact that it’s hard out here for a gold-digger?

The answer is: both.

Just hate men unconditionally.

When men make more than women, they’re WRONG AND BAD.

When men make less than women, they’re also WRONG AND BAD.

You can’t win.

And that’s the point.

Deaths of Despair: Modern America’s Existential Crisis

The Congressional Joint Economic Committee just put out a study on “deaths of despair,” meaning deaths in the U.S. caused by either alcohol, drugs or suicide. All three–drugs especially–have skyrocketed to record levels in the past 20 years:

Alcohol-related deaths, which were ironically falling prior to prohibition and rising after it was enacted, are now at a 100-year high.

Suicides are as high as they’ve been since the Great Depression.

Drug-related deaths are more than three times higher than they’ve ever been in all of history, and nearly twenty-fold since their low-point in the late 1950s.

Combine all these causes of death and you have what the Joint Economic Committee calls “deaths of despair”: people using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain, or outright killing themselves.

Many of us probably have a vague sense that something is deeply wrong with our country, but we’re told it’s all in our heads because we have iPhones and Netflix and because GDP is expanding.

No: something is wrong with America.

We are in the midst of a spiritual crisis. With religion and family in decline, and with our communities transformed by endless foreign immigration, it’s no wonder this is happening.

The only question is whether you believe this all happened by accident or whether it is by design.

There Is No Freedom Without Gun Rights

The reason we have a Second Amendment is to guarantee private citizens the right to defend themselves from both criminals and tyrannical government.

Without the right to bear arms, we are little more than subjects at the mercy of both our rulers and the barbarians among us.

It really is amazing that millions of Americans have simply accepted the idea that the government can tell you which guns you can and cannot own, or, worse whether or not you can own a gun in the first place.

The whole point of this “freedom” thing is that the government shouldn’t get to tell you what you can and cannot do, for the most part.

And this includes owning a firearm.

Without the right to own a firearm, you are not fully free and independent.

It’s not that complicated.

The whole point of the Second Amendment was to establish the fact that the government cannot take away your right to arm–and thereby defend–yourself.

But the idea of a natural right to self defense against tyranny and criminality goes way beyond even our Founding Fathers. In 350 B.C., in his book “Politics,” Aristotle wrote:

“As of oligarchy so of tyranny … Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”

The link above contains many more historical references to the right to self-defense, from Jesus in the Bible to Cicero in Ancient Rome, to Baron Montesquieu during the Enlightenment. The common theme is a simple one: people must retain the right to defend themselves.

An armed citizen is a more secure citizen. He knows that he has the ability to defend himself and his family from whatever trouble may come his way.

I really don’t understand how people can think, “Only the government should be allowed to have guns.” To think that you’d have to either be a tyrant or doing a tyrant’s bidding–wittingly or unwittingly.

What exceptions would I accept on the right to bear arms? None, just like with the right to free speech. Both are unbending and absolute.

Just as the government does not have the authority to tell you what you can and cannot say, it does not have the authority to tell you which guns you can and cannot own. Well, let me rephrase that: it shouldn’t have that authority, but over the years it has slowly but surely acquired it.

The Bill of Rights made it clear that gun control was simply not something that was to be under the government’s purview. It’s off-limits, not up for discussion, non-negotiable.

But essentially since the New Deal, the role of government in our society has expanded dramatically, and along with it, the American Public’s idea of what the government can and cannot do.

Today, the answer to the question “What can the government do?” is, “Basically everything.”

But it was not intended to be that way at the start. The Founding Fathers were very clear that they wanted limitations on the power and scope of government. For example, it took until 1913 for the federal government to gain the power to tax your income. Prior to that the government did not have the authority to tax you.

It sounds hard to believe now because we’re taxed so damn much, but it’s true. And now we live in a country where people just assume the government has unlimited authority.

My point is that the whole idea of gun control should be off-limits. We shouldn’t even be having this debate over gun control and AR-15s.

But unfortunately the exponential growth of government over the past hundred years or so has made people believe the government’s purview is everything.

Again, it wasn’t always this way. From the founding of the country until 1930, total federal spending averaged about 3% of GDP:

Outside of the Civil War, government spending between 1791-1930 never really went above 2-3% of GDP.

But the New Deal changed all of that. Under the guise of “getting us out of the Depression,” FDR’s countless programs and “efforts” enabled the government to amass an incredible amount of power. Government spending–which represents its authority and power–took off and never looked back.

Today, government spending is around 25% of GDP. We’ve been living in the era of Big Government for nearly 100 years–Bill Clinton was lying when he famously said “the era of Big Government is over.”

The whole point of this history lesson is to underscore the point that there was a time when Americans understood that there were limits on government power.

The prospect of the government banning certain types of firearms would be just as absurd to the founding generation as the prospect of the government imposing an income tax: to them, those simply weren’t things the government had the authority to do. To them, gun control would not even be up for discussion.

And that’s the way it should be: the Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reason is that Americans are supposed to be free–they shouldn’t need permission from the government to own a firearm.

The right to self-defense against both criminals and tyrannical governments is one of the most basic and essential of all natural rights.

I understand people want to Do Something about these mass shootings–believe me, I wish they weren’t a regular occurrence in our society today. Just because I oppose gun control doesn’t mean I am not concerned about these mass shootings.

In fact I largely see calls for gun control as a non-sequitur in response to mass shootings. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the people carrying them out and the society that produces sick, twisted young men that are capable of that type of evil.

Gun control is a dodge to avoid getting to the real problem: the fact that we now inhabit a very sick country that produces murderous psychopaths that go on shooting rampages every few months.

There is nothing that could convince me the Second Amendment is not of immense value to us Americans and our freedom. Mass shootings are terrible but they still do not mean law-abiding Americans should have to relinquish their right to self-defense.

Mass shootings don’t mean Americans have to give up their right to self-defense.

This is why so many of us on the right refuse to even discuss the idea of gun control: because any form of it is incompatible with a free society.

Hopefully this explanation makes it a bit easier for people on the left to understand, because it’s become apparent they have no idea why the Second Amendment exists.

People need to get out of this “ruler-subject mindset” that has taken hold of our country over the past 100 years. Just because the government now has virtually unlimited power doesn’t mean it should; there are areas where the government should have no power.

Americans: we are not subjects. The Founders intended the government to answer to us, not the other way around.

The moment you accept the premise of gun control, you give up any remaining pretense that America is a free country.