Month: November 2019

Do Not Fight With Your Family Over Politics on Thanksgiving

Every year around this time we see a deluge of articles from mainstream sources instructing the easily-programmed liberals who consume a steady diet of propaganda on how to argue with their “crazy Republican relatives.”

Five Thirty Eight has a handy guide:

Vox even instructed impressionable young liberals on exactly what to say on a variety of different topics:

Imagine being a Super Intelligent, Free-Thinking™️ college-educated liberal and yet still needing a Vox guide on how to debate your family members.

Their guide to the immigration topic (this was from 2015) is nothing more than an instruction manual on how to blatantly shill for Obama’s policies:

And they get mad at us for calling them NPCs but Vox’s guides depict your family members as generic archetypes, as if everyone’s uncle is the exact same person with the exact same views. You, the enlightened 21-year-old college liberal, must spread the Gospel of Obama to the troglodytes.

Again that Vox guide was from 2015, when liberals still held the White House. Their condescending arrogance was quite obvious in the Vox piece, as they felt their power was entrenched indefinitely. They were all too eager to smugly lecture their dim-witted Republican relatives.

But now, three years after they shockingly lost power to Trump, they are angry. Very angry. No longer are they seeking to preach and lecture their conservative relatives; the new name of the game is to angrily confront those who took everything from them. Their Republican relatives are now considered “Nazis,” and Thanksgiving is war.

This is what they’re saying in 2019:

“Challenge your dad to a fistfight the second time he brings up Hunter Biden.”

I feel bad for this person, whoever he is, as well as the thousands of people who liked his tweet.

They’ve been brainwashed. At some point in the past 5-6 years the media began promoting this idea that Thanksgiving is a time to get into arguments about politics with your Republican (now Nazi) relatives. You see articles and social media posts about this around this time every year. And it’s getting out of control now.

Could it be any more obvious that the Uniparty-controlled media is trying to tear American families apart over politics?

Thanksgiving is a wonderful opportunity to catch-up with your family and spend quality time around the dinner table.

You do not argue with your family about politics. You argue with strangers on the internet about politics. Family time is sacred and not to be tainted with politics.

Family transcends politics but there’s a very clear and obvious attempt underway to reverse that. Clearly the elites want political affiliation to be more important than blood.

This is utterly evil and it goes to show that their treachery knows no bounds. There is no wholesome institution or tradition they will not attempt to undermine and poison. They do not take holiday breaks.

Do not spend your Thanksgiving bickering with your relatives about politics. You will never change their minds anyway. I’ve changed my mind about a great many things over the past few years and none of them were caused by someone DESTROYING me in an argument.

Thanksgiving is a holiday where Americans eat, drink and be merry. The annual tradition of everyone coming together strengthens family bonds, which in turn strengthen the country itself. It is a wonderful thing, and it would be a shame if the one day per year most American families spend together is wasted arguing about politics.

LBJ Killed JFK: The 56th Anniversary of the Coup of ’63

56 years ago today, also on a Friday, at around 12:30pm CST, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. While most Americans consider the Kennedy Assassination a tragic day in American history, that would only be true if the Official Narrative™ of the “lone nut” assassin were true.

But the reality is it’s more than a tragedy: given that Kennedy was assassinated not by a “lone nut” but by a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the most powerful men in the country, November 22, 1963 was the day The Deep State took power and the American Republic ended in all but name.

Most Americans reject the Official Narrative™ regarding the Kennedy Assassination, which states that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut named Lee Harvey Oswald. The Official Narrative™ claims that Americans don’t want to believe the beloved 35th President was killed for no reason at all, and so they cling to wild “conspiracy theories”–such as the “grassy knoll,” the mob, the Cubans, or the Soviets–in a vain effort to bestow some form of meaning on Kennedy’s untimely death.

But while most Americans reject the idea that Oswald was a lone nut who acted alone and that Kennedy’s death was not part of any grand conspiracy, most Americans are also quite cloudy on the truth behind what happened on Friday November 22, 1963 in Dallas. In other words, while Americans know Oswald didn’t act alone, they are not certain who was really behind Kennedy’s assassination. Americans’ feelings toward the Kennedy assassination can be best characterized as a vague distrust of the Official Story.

I’ve spent the past few weeks doing some research on the matter and I believe I now have a general understanding of what really happened: the main culprit behind the Kennedy assassination was then-Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as well as other high-ranking government officials who wanted JFK gone.

I am certainly not claiming to be the first person to advance this theory, especially given that I have come to believe it through the work of others who have looked into the matter. But my aim here is to provide some clarity on the Kennedy Assassination for those who only know that they reject the Official Narrative™ but don’t have a coherent alternative explanation, as well as to place the JFK assassination into proper context in American history.

Obviously, Johnson stood to gain the most from the assassination: the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, LBJ was sworn in as the 36th U.S. President. Johnson’s motive was as clear as day, and it’s a wonder more people don’t view him as the prime suspect.

In any murder mystery, the best strategy is to look for the person with the strongest motive to carry out the murder, and LBJ undoubtedly had the strongest motive to get Kennedy out of the way. Not only did he personally dislike the Kennedys, he had everything to gain from getting them out of the way.

Because JFK was his superior, LBJ largely tolerated President Kennedy, and vice versa. Kennedy didn’t much care for Johnson, either.

But LBJ didn’t hold anything back when it came to the President’s younger brother Bobby, also the U.S. Attorney General.

LBJ biographer Robert Caro characterized Johnson’s feelings towards Bobby Kennedy as “hatred,”:

“You don’t want to use words like this as a historian, but hatred is the right word to describe Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,” Caro said. “They hated each other from the first time they met. Someone said the first time they met, it was like two strange dogs walking into a room and there was a low growl and the hair rises on their neck. It never stops. … (Robert Kennedy) can humiliate Johnson and he humiliates him at every opportunity and then with the crack of a gunshot, the world is reversed and Johnson has the power over Bobby Kennedy.”

Awfully convenient for Lyndon Johnson, no? It really is interesting just how well things worked out for LBJ following JFK’s assassination.

In 2011, the Daily Mail reported that in the wake of her husband’s murder, Jackie Kennedy privately expressed her belief that LBJ was behind the assassination:

“Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”

After all, the assassination did take place in Johnson’s home state of Texas. If ever there were a place where LBJ could execute a cover-up from the ground-up, where he had the most pull and clout and connections, it was in Texas. It just makes sense.

In 2007, Rolling Stone ran a lengthy piece in which it was claimed that the late notorious former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt–a man who was part of both the JFK assassination and the Watergate burglary–admitted on his deathbed to his son that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination:

“[I]n Miami, with [E. Howard Hunt’s son] Saint by his bed, and disease eating away at him, and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

“By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock,” Saint says. “His whole life, to me and everybody else, he’d always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn’t like Johnson. But you don’t falsely implicate your own country, for Christ’s sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that’s the last thing he would do.”

Then there’s also the story about what LBJ allegedly said to his mistress, Madelein Duncan Brown, the night before the assassination took place. Watch from the 2:36 mark:

She claims Johnson, in a rage, said to her, on the night of November 21, “After tomorrow, those sons of bitches will never embarrass me again!”

Given that Johnson was the obvious and immediate beneficiary of Kennedy’s death, and that the assassination took place in Johnson’s home state of Texas, it appears to me likely that Johnson was behind it.

LBJ had the motive, but he needed to have backing. There’s no way coup could’ve been pulled off if only LBJ wanted to get rid of Kennedy. There had to be others with the same motive. And there were.

Certainly J. Edgar Hoover, the notorious head of the FBI and arguably the most powerful man in America for nearly four decades prior, was a part of the conspiracy. Bolstering the case that Hoover was part of the plot is this:

“In 1964, just days before Hoover testified in the earliest stages of the Warren Commission hearings, President Lyndon B. Johnson waived the then-mandatory U.S. Government Service Retirement Age of 70, allowing Hoover to remain the FBI Director “for an indefinite period of time.”

In 2017, the Trump Administration authorized the release of previously classified documents pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination. One of those documents was this  particular memo from J. Edgar Hoover:

“Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

It’s not clear from the memo whether Hoover thought there might have been a conspiracy but didn’t want it to be known or whether he sincerely believed Oswald acted alone and hoped to head off public fear and confusion.”

If Oswald truly was the “lone assassin,” then why would Hoover be so concerned with convincing the public he was?

As far as a motive for Hoover, it is said that Hoover and the Kennedys never liked each other. In 1987, there was even a TV miniseries called “Hoover vs. the Kennedys,” which detailed the deep rift between the two sides. Apparently Hoover had tried to blackmail Kennedy over his affairs and feared Kennedy would fire him.

But the primary agency behind the assassination was undoubtedly the CIA. Notorious for orchestrating foreign coups and assassinations, the Kennedy assassination was the CIA’s first ever domestic coup and assassination. What, you think the CIA wouldn’t do that here if it felt its institutional interests were threatened by the President?

The thing to know about government agencies is that they inevitably become more and more self-interested over time. The “national interests” take a back-seat to the interests of the agency, and by the 1960s, the CIA, which was founded in the late 1940s as a re-organization and rebranding of the WWII intelligence agency the OSS, had become very powerful and unaccountable. The CIA had come to believe it, rather than the democratically-elected President and Congress, knew best how to manage America’s foreign affairs.

When Eisenhower, in his farewell address in January 1961, warned of the growing power of the “Military industrial complex,” that included the CIA. The Military Industrial Complex wanted to ramp-up the war in Vietnam, but in October, 1963–a month before he was assassinated–JFK signed National Security Action Memorandum 263, which authorized the withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 total U.S.military personnel in Vietnam by the end of December, and said that the goals of our Vietnam military operation would be achieved by 1965.

Upon taking power, LBJ pretended to agree with the assessment of NSAM 263, but by August of 1964, the entirely fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident would provide Johnson an excuse to massively escalate the Vietnam War–just as the Military Industrial Complex wanted all along. The CIA, of course–the beating heart of the Military Industrial Complex–was heavily involved in American operations in Vietnam dating all the way back to 1955.

In the 1950s under Allen Dulles (the longest-serving CIA Director in U.S. history), the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddegh, deposed democratically-elected Guatemalan Prime Minister Jacobo Arbenz, carried out the MKUltra mind control project (which the media would have you believe was both a failure and a conspiracy theory), and in 1961 bungled its attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (Bay of Pigs).

President Kennedy was so furious over the Bay of Pigs debacle that he was reported by the New York Times to have said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Instead he fired Allen Dulles, but left the CIA itself largely intact. This was likely the move that turned the CIA–and of course the hugely powerful Dulles–against him and ultimately sealed his fate. One week after Kennedy was assassinated, newly sworn-in President LBJ appointed Allen Dulles as one of the seven commissioners on the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s death–or, more likely, cover it up.

There were undoubtedly more people than just LBJ, Hoover and Dulles involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But they were the biggest names behind the coup.

What about the alleged shooter himself, Lee Harvey Oswald? He never confessed to the shooting, and on the night of the assassination, he declared his innocence and said “I’m just a patsy!

It’s one thing for Oswald to claim he’s innocent and that they’ve got the wrong guy, but it’s another entirely thing for him to say “I’m just a patsy!”

That would indicate he knew more about conspiracy to the kill the President, and was more than just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oswald proclaiming to be a patsy is a tacit admission that there was a wider conspiracy behind the killing. He knew he was set up to be the fall guy.

Oswald was correct that he was “just a patsy.” He knew there was a larger network that had set him up to take the fall. And that’s precisely why he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby not even 48 hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead. A loose-end tied-up.

Somehow Jack Ruby (real name Jacob Rubenstein) was able to kill Oswald while Oswald was in police custody. Ruby was able to make it into the basement of the police station where Oswald was in the process of being transferred to an armored car, get in with a group of reporters, and then get a clean shot at Oswald at point-blank range.

According to Ruby’s Wikipedia page (meaning information about him that the Uniparty is okay with the public knowing), Ruby was a career criminal and lowlife:

“There was evidence indicating Jack Ruby had been involved in the underworld activities of illegal gambling, narcotics, and prostitution.

A 1956 FBI report stated that their informant, Eileen Curry, reported that in January of that year, she moved to Dallas with her boyfriend, James Breen, after jumping bond on narcotics charges. Breen told her that he had made connections with a large narcotics setup operating between Texas, Mexico, and the East, and that “in some fashion, James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.”

Former Dallas County Sheriff Steve Guthrie told the FBI that he believed Ruby “operated some prostitution activities and other vices in his club” since living in Dallas.

Dallas disc jockey Kenneth Dowe testified that Ruby was known around the station for “procuring women for different people who came to town.”

Is it a stretch to say that some law enforcement agency like J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI made Ruby kill Oswald? They certainly had a lot on Ruby and probably threatened to put him away for a long time if he didn’t comply with them.

Ruby was then sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas, but the decision was appealed and Ruby was granted a new trial. Before this trial could be completed, however, Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism in 1967.

Let’s get back to Oswald. As for the actual shooting itself, here are the details:

  • JFK’s limo was traveling at about 11mph.
  • Oswald was allegedly situated in the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and was 81 meters (265ft) away from Kennedy when he fired the killing shot.
  • Oswald allegedly fired the three shots from a bolt-action rifle in a span of six seconds, maintaining his aim on a moving target while using the bolt-action rifle.
  • Of the three shots Oswald allegedly fired, the first was said to have missed, the second hit Kennedy in the upper back, and the final shot hit the President in the side of the head.

Seems like an awfully tough shot. And it’s odd that the first shot was said to have missed given that you’d expect the first shot to be the most accurate, not the least. Think about it.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura tried to replicate the shot with the same rifle at the same distance and was unable to get three shots off in less than about nine seconds. And his target was stationary, unlike Oswald’s:

Now it’s certainly possible that Oswald was a phenomenal shot and pulled off the assassination himself. But an investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there was “a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President” and that the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.” That’s the official conclusion of a U.S. Congressional Committee.

The Committee claims the fourth shot missed, but if you watch the Zapruder film of the assassination, the killing headshot appears to have hit Kennedy from the front given the way his head snaps back and left:

This is why the “grassy knoll” theory is so popular.

However, even if the fourth shot missed, as the Committee claimed, the fact that a U.S. Congressional Committee went on-record and claimed there were two shooters decimates the credibility of the Official Story™. For goodness sake it is all based on the claim that Oswald was a “lone nut” who acted alone.

The purpose of this post is to get into the conspiracy to kill JFK rather than debate how the assassination truly unfolded on that fateful Friday, so I won’t spend much more time discussing the shooting itself, but if you’re interested in this subject I’d recommend checking out this video of Joe Rogan debating the “Single bullet theory”:

The thing is, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether Oswald was the lone shooter or whether there were other shooters. The heart of the matter here is whether or not Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Oswald may well have fired the killing shot all by himself, but the real question is whether or not you believe he acted entirely alone and was simply a lone nut.

For most Americans, the answer to that question is no. It does not seem plausible that a President could be killed for no reason at all. But that’s what Official Washington and its television propaganda department would have you believe.

Trust your instincts. Do not allow “experts” and “authority figures” to overrule your common sense and gut instincts. Do not be distracted or confused by their long and complex explanations. They try to muddy the waters by using big words and using terminology you don’t understand, but don’t lose sight of the only things that matter here: the who, how and why.

Who killed JFK? How did they pull it off? Why did they do it?

It doesn’t take an 880-page Warren Report to answer these simple questions, but they would have you believe it does.

The gatekeepers go into lengthy and absurd explanations on how a single bullet ricocheted all throughout JFK’s body and then managed to hit Texas Governor John Connally, where it also ricocheted around and then exited, whereas common sense would tell you simply: there were multiple gunmen.

This country would be so much better off if people simply trusted their common sense and didn’t listen to the spin doctors and lying “authorities.”

Most crimes are rather simple, but the gatekeepers’ job is to complicate simple matters in order to obfuscate the truth. If a President is murdered and a number of powerful people had good reasons to try to get rid of him, it’s a good bet that they were behind the murder. That’s it.

To understand why something happened, it’s important to look at the aftermath: who got what they wanted because of the event? For example, gun controllers get what they want after mass shootings: gun control. The government got what it wanted after 9/11: endless wars in the Middle East and vastly expanded surveillance powers.

It’s easy to understand these major events when you look at them this way.

It is glaringly obvious that LBJ was behind the Kennedy Assassination given that it took place in his home state and he was the single greatest beneficiary from it. Yet the Deep State and its minions in the media did an excellent job muddying the waters, casting doubt into Americans’ minds and causing us to override our common sense and instincts.

***

So how should we view the Kennedy Assassination in the context of American history? Well, if you believe that LBJ was behind it, then it cannot be viewed as anything other than a full-scale coup d’etat, which is why Mark Gorton refers to it as the “Coup of ’63“. I recommend reading Gorton’s essay, because it does a good job putting it all into context.

But again: the takeaway is that the JFK assassination should not be viewed as merely a tragedy but also a full-scale coup.

Though killed for different reasons, JFK was killed in essentially the same manner as was Julius Caesar: betrayed in a plot by other high-ranking government officials. At least the Roman Senate had the decency to own the fact that they collectively murdered the Caesar. The Cabal behind the JFK plot blamed it all on a patsy and their propagandists in the media still maintain that “lone gunman” Official Narrative™️ 56 years later.

So what is the relevance of the Coup of ’63 to today’s America?

It’s no secret that the Deep State is currently in the middle of yet another attempt to oust President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve kept their attempts to remove him strictly in impeachment, rather than assassination, territory.

(Although a story the other day suggests that someone may have tried to poison Trump.)

So this can mean a few things:

  1. Either Trump has not yet posed a serious threat to them to make them desperate enough to try to kill him.
  2. Our Deep State in 2019 has gone soft compared to the outright animals who were running the show in the 1960s.
  3. They feel like killing Trump would make him a martyr and make his political movement more powerful than ever, whereas they feel impeachment is a far better way to discredit him.

Remember, the same people that pulled off the JFK assassination also pulled off the Watergate Coup in ’74, so they’ve got experience with both ways to carry out a coup. Given the way Americans view Kennedy today (near-universal admiration and reverence) vs. the way people view Nixon today (widespread disapproval, consensus that he’s the most corrupt and nefarious President in history), it should be obvious that the impeachment route is the better way for the Deep State to carry out a coup d’etat.

(And yes, I am aware that Nixon wasn’t impeached. But he only resigned because his impeachment and conviction were inevitable and he knew it.)

So I don’t expect the Deep State to try to assassinate Trump. At least not yet–they’re not desperate enough for this yet.

But understanding the Coup of ’63 makes it much easier to understand what’s going on today with Trump. There exists a shadow government in Washington that calls the shots, and when the President is not under their control, they will go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of him.

Whatever you want to call them: the Cabal, the Deep State, the Uniparty, the oligarchs, the men behind the curtain, the puppeteers–they all refer to the same people.

November 22, 1963 was the day they officially seized power, and they still have it today.

Of course, the original conspirators are long dead, but they passed the baton on to succeeding generations of the Deep State.

It’s Finally Time For the U.S. Military to Defend the Homeland

At arguably no point in the lifetime of any living American has the U.S. military been used to defend U.S. soil. Our Middle Eastern forays over the past few decades were completely unnecessary and ultimately probably made us less safe than if we had never gotten involved there in the first place. Vietnam resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and over 2 million Southeast Asians.

There is a case to be made that the Korean War was ultimately a just war given the stark contrast today between the half of the Korean Peninsula we liberated (South Korea) and the other half that we didn’t (North Korea). But at the end of the day, communism in Korea doesn’t affect America at all. I’m not talking about “U.S. Interests™” (a globalist term used to justify going to war in faraway places). I’m talking about American soil itself. We were never under any sort of threat by the Korean communists.

Many would say that World War II was the last “just war” this country ever fought, and up until quite recently I would have whole-heartedly agreed. But Pat Buchanan makes an excellent case that WWII was not worth it, and he’s convinced me to view WWII in a whole different light. After all, it began as a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland over a small bit of land (Danzig) that Germany rightfully felt was unfairly taken from it at Versailles following WWI, and ended up as the bloodiest conflict in human history:

“Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

After the war, every country in Europe east of Austria was under Soviet Rule. An estimated 20 million people were either starved or murdered by the Bolsheviks by the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and millions more were enslaved in the gulag archipelago–a network of labor and torture camps that put Hitler’s to shame. Some estimates even put the final Soviet death toll at over 60 million. And this does not even include the 70-85 million combined civilians and soldiers killed during WWII.

Was WWII worth 100 million+ lives, especially considering it also resulted in the collapse of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet Union?

And don’t tell me the Nazis were seeking GLOBAL DOMINATION. They were never going to try to invade America. For Pete’s sake their navy couldn’t even conquer Britain, and that was before we entered the war. How were they ever going to cross the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America? The idea is laughable.

There’s little evidence Hitler wanted to annex anything more than the land Germany had lost following World War I, which is to say Danzig, Czecholslovakia and the Rhineland. Here’s a map of Germany in 1944 at the height of Nazi power:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 1.16.38 AM.png

And here’s a map of the German Empire prior to WWI:

external-content.duckduckgo.jpg

Almost identical, no? Hitler’s aim was to retake all the territories he felt were unjustly ripped away from Germany at Versailles. Nothing more. He only went to war with France because the French declared war on Germany first, after Hitler invaded Poland. This is an indisputable historical fact.

The point here is to illustrate that virtually none of the wars of the past century were worth it. Don’t even get me started on World War I: if we hadn’t gotten involved in World War I, there would have never even been a World War II.

The U.S. military has been consistently and repeatedly misused for the past century-plus.

Importantly, none of what I’m arguing here is to disparage or belittle the troops or anything our boys have done on our behalf–don’t take it that way. Our troops obey their superiors and have fought valiantly wherever they’ve been sent.

What I’m saying is that the people in charge have not for a very, very long time used our military justly and deservedly. My ire is directed entirely at the people in charge, not the troops.

The purpose of the military is to defend the homeland from immediate threats, and it hasn’t done this since the 19th century.

The major reason our military hasn’t been used to defend the homeland in well over a century is simple geography: America benefits from the fact that it only borders two other countries, Mexico and Canada, and is sandwiched by two vast oceans which insulate it from the chaos of the “Old World,” i.e. Europe and Asia. After our great nation had established itself as a major power around the start of the 20th century, none of the old world powers in Europe and Asia wanted any trouble with us. It’s not difficult to see why: our economy had become a juggernaut, our relative size advantage made us formidable, and our location an ocean away made it generally unnecessary for us to meddle in the affairs of the old world.

This is how things have traditionally been in human history: nations used to only go to war with neighboring countries. Up until the era of imperialism–and its successor, globalization–there was never any reason for America to go to war with Japan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany. Rome never went to war with the Han Dynasty in China.

Everything used to be more or less regional.

When you look at our military from the perspective that it exists for no other reason than to defend the homeland, the logical conclusion is that the only “just war” we could ever fight would be one with Canada or Mexico, or perhaps some country/countries in the Caribbean (Communist Cuba specifically comes to mind) or in South America.

In light of that, and given the present state of affairs in our corner of the world, the only situation that would truly justify mobilizing the U.S. military would be going to war with the Mexican drug cartels, an idea President Trump floated today in light of the news that nine Americans were brutally murdered by the Mexican drug cartels just 42 miles from the U.S. border:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.07.50 AM.png

The details of the massacre are sickening, and as such now have many Americans entertaining the idea of a war with (more accurately, in) Mexico for the first time since the 1840s.

At first blush, the idea of going to war in Mexico seems crazy. We Americans are not used to the idea of a war being fought on our doorstep. We’re used to our wars all being fought “over there.” And it’s not as if Mexico’s government itself has done anything to warrant us declaring war on it.

But the crucial fact here is that we wouldn’t be going to war with Mexico, we’d be assisting Mexico’s government in its war on the cartels.

In the Mexican Drug Cartels, America may now, after well over a century, have a true, genuine reason to actually go to war.

The drug cartels must be destroyed primarily because their drugs are destroying America. Drug-related deaths have skyrocketed over the past 20 years in America to never-before-seen levels, and this is mostly because of the cartels.

Drug culture in America is out of control. Just about everyone knows someone–either in their community or their own family–that has either died or had their life ruined due to drug use. Many millions of Americans’–young and old–lives revolve around drugs, and this is because of their ready availability due to the cartels.

Drug trafficking into America has become an enormous business. The main cartels in Mexico rake in more money than many of the companies on the S&P 500. The famous kingpin of the Sinaloa Cartel “El Chapo” Guzman had a net worth of over $12.6 billion by the time he was sentenced to life in prison this past July. A 2017 study found that the global drug trade was worth at least $462 billion per year, and the Mexican cartels represent a large chunk of that.

Most of the drugs that enter America come from either Mexico, Peru or Colombia, and the cartels facilitate the whole process. Business Insider has a bunch of maps that show where all the drugs come from, but here’s the main one:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.21.09 AM.png

The majority of the drugs that make their way into the U.S. from their South American origin points come through Mexico by way of the cartels. Stories of the cartels’ violence have grown more and more common with each passing year.

The cartels are now so powerful that they’re going toe-to-toe with the actual Mexican Army and winning. You may recall hearing last month about how the Sinaloa Cartel tried to spring their new boss, Ovidio Guzman Lopez (El Chapo’s son and successor), from police custody by waging a full-on firefight with the Mexican Army in the city of Culiacan. The Mexican government attempted to portray the cartel’s attempted prisonbreak as a “failure” but wound up releasing Lopez to purportedly “defuse” the situation. Does that sound like something a government solidly in control of its own country would ever do? Of course not. They were militarily overpowered by the cartel.

And this is all happening just on the other side of our border.

Another major reason the drug cartels must be destroyed is that they are also destroying Mexico itself, and that affects America. A major driver behind mass immigration (both legal and illegal) is the simple fact that America is much safer than cartel-controlled Mexico. Lots of Mexicans are simply trying to flee the violence that now ravages their country.

The power of the cartels has grown so much over the past few decades that it now rivals and arguably exceeds that of the Mexican government itself. They have destabilized the Mexican government to the point where it now poses a direct threat to actual U.S. interests (as opposed to “U.S. Interests™” in the globalist sense).

The cartels are destroying the fabric of our communities with their drugs. Their violence is causing an immigration surge that America cannot handle. And now they are brutally murdering Americans who happen to cross their paths.

A wall alone is not enough to keep America safe from the failed state south of our border.

At long last, it is time to call upon the American military to do the one thing it exists to do, yet has not been ordered to do in more than a century-and-a-half: defend the homeland from immediate danger.

All-Female Terminator Reboot Fails Spectacularly at Box Office, Projected to Lose $120 Million

I don’t really pay attention to Hollywood anymore because nearly every movie they’ve churned out over the past half-decade has been awful, so I don’t know much about this new “Terminator” movie other than that it’s supposed to be an all-female “reboot” of the franchise. Once I heard that was the case I was even less interested in the movie than I otherwise would’ve been for any other new Hollywood release–which is to say already very uninterested.

Apparently Ahhnuld is in the movie, but he’s not the main hero of the story. The heroes of the story are a trio of #Empowered and #Badass women.

However, in a development that anyone with a functioning brain could see coming, this all-female Terminator movie completely bombed at the box office and is now projected to lose Paramount Studios $120 million:

“Sorry for fans of the Terminator franchise, but it may not be back again for a long time. “

Okay, but this is not “the Terminator franchise” anymore. It’s just a film that happens to share the name of the once-proud franchise.

Terminator: Dark Fate opened at the U.S. box office this weekend and the results were nothing shy of abysmal for a massive budget blockbuster. The movie is guaranteed to be a big flop at this point. The only real question is, just how bad is it going to flop? Based on some new industry estimates, the sci-fi sequel could lose $120 million or more during its theatrical run.

According to a new report, Skydance Media, Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox stand to lose around $120 million in total, given the long-term prospects of Terminator: Dark Fate bombing at the box office. The movie, directed by Tim Miller (Deadpool) and produced by franchise creator James Cameron, made just $29 million in its domestic debut, which was far below industry estimates, which had it taking in around $40 million. Even that number wasn’t great, but it gave Sarah Connor and the gang a fighting chance.”

Now, will this financial disaster cause Hollywood to stop making all-female “reboots” of popular action franchises?

Of course not. Because the point wasn’t really to make money: the broader goal is to culturally disenfranchise men (specifically white men) by replacing them with with women wherever possible. And I’m not just talking about in movies–I’m talking about in politics, in the boardroom–in basically every high-profile position of power and every high-paying job. (They’re most certainly not trying to move men out of “dirty jobs” like garbage collecting, construction and logging. Only the well-paying white collar jobs.)

The point is to culturally appropriate all male-dominated sectors of society and shift them over to women. Hollywood is doing its part by taking popular movies that in the past starred male actors and “rebooting” them with all-female casts. The Ghostbusters movie (which also bombed), and “Oceans 8” are more examples. You’ve also got Disney shoehorning Captain Marvel in as the Most Badassest and Most Powerful Avenger.

The fact that these all-female “reboots” consistently lose money and yet Hollywood consistently keeps making them should tell you that making money is a secondary concern behind culturally disenfranchising men and re-shaping traditional gender roles in America.

Still, it’s nice to see that Americans are rejecting Hollywood’s forced cultural revolution by not going to see these terrible movies. Thankfully there remains a wide disconnect between the values of the degenerate elite and everyday Americans.