War

Israeli Group Caught Spreading Anti-Islam Propaganda via Right-Wing Facebook Pages

The Guardian reports that a mysterious Israel-based group has gained considerable influence over numerous “far-right” Facebook pages to sow anti-Islamic hatred within the United States:

“The message from Israel arrived on an otherwise unremarkable afternoon for 36-year-old Beau Villereal. At his family’s sprawling 42-acre property outside Live Oak in Florida’s rural north, Villereal sat alone in his bedroom trawling for news about Donald Trump to share on the rightwing Facebook page he runs with his mother and father.

The messenger, who gave her name as Rochale, asked Villereal to make her an editor of Pissed off Deplorables, a self-described “pro-America page” that feeds its thousands of followers a steady diet of pro-Trump, anti-Islam content.

“I totally understand you,” she wrote. “I’m from Israel and this is … really important to me to share the truth. Please give me a chance for a day.”

The Guardian article claims the Israelis are targeting the “far-right” but that’s probably not entirely accurate, as the real far-right despises Israel and Jews and would never be susceptible to coordinating with Israel. Plus, most real far-right social media accounts have long since been banned. In reality, what the Guardian is calling “far-right” Facebook pages are simply relatively newer, pro-Trump pages of the non-traditional variety. They consider anything on the right other than National Review and the Weekly Standard to be “far-right.” But in reality, much of what outlets like the Guardian and other leftwing Establishment outlets call “far-right” are actually pretty mainstream right.

At any rate, Israeli disinformation agents see right-wingers as their best way to gain a foothold in America. The inherent pro-Israel, anti-Islam bias of the American right makes mainstream right-wingers the perfect targets.

Let’s continue with the article:

“About 1,000 miles north in Staten Island, New York City, Ron Devito was tapping away on his laptop to the 20,000 followers of his pro-Trump Facebook page, Making America 1st, when he received a similar message, this time from someone using the name Tehila.

“She pitched to me that she was a good editor, she could provide some good content to increase likes and views on the page,” Devito told the Guardian. “Could I just give her a chance and let her post her stuff, right? So I figured, ‘What the heck, give it a shot’.”

Villereal and Devito weren’t the only ones. Over the past two years, a group of mysterious Israel-based accounts has delivered similar messages to the heads of at least 19 other far-right Facebook pages across the US, Australia, the UK, Canada, Austria, Israel and Nigeria.”

A Guardian investigation can reveal those messages were part of a covert plot to control some of Facebook’s largest far-right pages, including one linked to a rightwing terror group, and create a commercial enterprise that harvests Islamophobic hate for profit.”

This only makes sense when you accept the fact that we have been lied to about 9-11.

I am not yet completely certain who was really behind 9-11. Like with the Kennedy assassination, we can only speculate as the political and media establishments still maintain the “official story.”

But what I’m saying is that I do not believe 9-11 was merely a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda that caught America off-guard.

There are too many questions. For instance, Tower 7 collapsed despite not even being hit by a plane. It looked like a perfect controlled building demolition. And Larry Silverstein, the man who bought the World Trade Center just months before the 9-11 attacks, took out a massive insurance policy on the buildings that eventually netted him billions of dollars. That’s barely even scratching the surface; there’s much more.

9-11 was, if not orchestrated by the government, at least carried out with our government’s prior knowledge. Read about the Project for a New American Century, a neocon think tank founded in the late 1990s:

“The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. 

Richard Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan’s education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC’s seminal report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago [Note: article written in 2002] it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could “fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. This has happened. It said the United States should develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons and make “star wars” a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.”

Prior to 9-11, a think tank comprised of the same men who would eventually hold powerful posts in the Bush Administration expressed a desire to invade Iraq (among other “rogue states”) and said that a “Pearl Harbor-type event” was needed to spur the so-called “New American Century.”

These guys sure got their Pearl Harbor-like “catalyzing” event the following year, once they had all ascended to prominent posts in the US government.

Depending on who you talk to, you’ll get different explanations (“conspiracy theories”) regarding 9-11. The “Dancing Israelis” meme that has popped up in recent months is compelling, yet of course circumstantial, evidence that the Mossad was behind 9-11.

Now, again, the details on who was really behind 9-11 are still murky and probably will be for decades.

But I do know this:

  • Israel wants America to hate Muslims.
  • Israel’s ultimate goal for, at least the past 20 years but probably the last 40 years, has been to manipulate America into destroying Iran, Israel’s greatest enemy.

As with the Kennedy Assassination, in order to demystify things, it’s important to simply look at the aftermath: who benefitted? Who got what they wanted?

With 9-11, the beneficiaries were the neocons in the government (all of them hardcore Zionists) and Israel itself.

Just months after 9-11, President George W. Bush used his first State of the Union address in January 2002 to define the “Axis of Evil,” which according to him was comprised of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, as well as Libya, Syria and Cuba. That “Axis of Evil” is better described as the Neocon Regime Change Wish List. By early 2003, we were at war in Iraq. Libya’s government was toppled eight years later by NATO. Syria’s government has been under constant assault for the past seven-plus years of civil war, but has managed to hang on with help from Russia. This is why the neocons in Washington are so irate that Trump has not only rebuffed their numerous attempts to lie us into greater involvement against Assad in Syria, but that he is pulling us out of Syria entirely.

And of course, Beltway chatter has been building about starting a war with Iran–which, thankfully, Trump has also fended off.

This was all planned out two decades ago. And it was all predicated on 9-11, which got Americans into the mindset of accepting wars in the Middle East against supposed “terror-supporting nations.” It relies on Americans hating Muslims.

If you accept, or merely allow yourself to entertain the possibility, that the official 9-11 narrative of a cut-and-dry terrorist attack isn’t true, then most of the reasoning behind our anti-Muslim hatred collapses.

In other words, I said to myself, “If Muslim terrorists weren’t actually behind 9-11, then I don’t really have much of a reason to dislike Muslims, do I?”

We are being used.

The best way to understand all the “foreign influence” in America is to recognize that America’s military is the most powerful force on the planet, and that a great many nations–especially our “allies”–are constantly seeking to steer it and manipulate it into doing their dirty work for them.

In this light, it makes perfect sense that a shadowy Israeli group (undoubtedly Mossad) would seek to sow anti-Muslim on the American right.

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.

Frauds and Shills Exposed Themselves Today in Their Furious Reactions to Trump’s Decision to Pull Out of Syria

Today, President Trump announced long-overdue plans to fully withdraw from Syria:

btsbgdfhsgfhdfgh.PNG

fqwerfqwetfads.PNG

geravaervarv.PNG

fgawerafsdasf.PNG

“We can always go back and BLAST!” LOL. This guy, man.

However, the decision did not go over well with Conservative, Inc.:

yjtjtyjytjtyjty.PNG

Just say no to Nikki Haley 2024, or for that matter Nikki Haley 20ever. She’s a business-as-usual Bush-McCain neocon globalist.

Look at Meghan McCain’s palpable anger when discussing the matter:

https://twitter.com/TrumpPatriotPL/status/1181260062070902785?s=20

She’s shaking with rage. She can barely contain herself. This pampered, rich, elitist Washingtonian is irate at the prospect of American soldiers no longer having to fight and die in Syria. And you’re a “feckless coward” if you disagree with her.

Got that? She’s the brave one–sitting there in a television studio shaking her fist with rage demanding a neverending war in Syria which she personally will never be negatively affected by in any way–and you’re the feckless coward for questioning her.

Lindsey Graham, who never saw a conflict he didn’t want America to get involved in, calls this “a disaster in the making”:

fgsgdfher453er.PNG

You can tell where Ben Shapiro got his marching orders from, because he said basically the exact same thing:

gerasrghgfdfafasf.PNG

You know Mitt had to chime in as well:

ghweyhsdfgefdfg.PNG

The Kurds, the Kurds, the Kurds.

We need to remain in Syria to ensure that our allies, the Kurds, aren’t attacked by Turkey–which is a NATO member country, meaning ostensibly our ally.

But wait. Why would our allies want to bomb our other allies?

If Turkey truly is our ally, then why wouldn’t we support its crusade against the Kurds? Or perhaps the Turks are not really our allies, yet nevertheless they’re in NATO?

Do these war shills truly grasp that in expressing concern about the Turks massacring the Kurds, they expose the rotten truth about our whole complex web of “allies,” which is that many of our ostensible allies–countries that we send billions of dollars in aid money to each year, and have pledged to go to war to support–are not actually our allies at all?

And if the Neocons are truly as concerned about the safety of the Kurds as they say they are, then why aren’t they itching to go to war with Turkey? The Neocons are real tough when it comes for agitating for easily-winnable wars, but when it comes to a formidable country like Turkey, where is all that bravado then?

If you don’t actually want to go to war with Turkey to save the Kurds, then I’m going to assume all your Concerned Rhetoric regarding the Kurds is B.S. Because the logical conclusion to all this talk about “saving the Kurds” is that we should go to war with Turkey because Turkey wants to kill the Kurds.

But I don’t hear anyone demanding we go to war with Turkey. Guess they don’t really care about the Kurds that much, huh?

It’s almost as if “MUH THE KURDS!!!!” is a flimsy excuse to justify a neverending military presence in Syria, one which benefits virtually no Americans outside of card-carrying members of the Military Industrial Complex and the Deep State.

Trevor Noah, a guy who claims to be Just A Comedian, took time to lecture his viewers on just how vitally important it is that we not abandon the Kurds, who were so incredibly crucial to our efforts to stamp out ISIS:

w465yergwgrerdgf.PNG

And CNN had corrupt former intelligence community boss James Clapper on to explain why Orange Man Bad and Forever War Good:

yugfibibuyibiuy.PNG

With cratering viewership and zero traces of credibility remaining, the sole reason now for CNN’s continued existence is to serve as a platform for ex-intelligence community operatives and officials to advance the Deep State’s agenda. CNN is the official home of the Deep State Coup (est. 2016).

Actually, scratch that: basically all of cable news is now a platform to allow the Deep State to continue its efforts to undo the result of the 2016 election:

vasdfasdgagawere.PNG

Tune in to CNN to hear from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper! Flip over to ABC to hear from former National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Virtually all of cable news is now Deep State propaganda. What an era we’re living in.

There was plenty more neoconnery, but by now I’m sure you get the idea: despite seemingly differing party affiliations, they all seem to be on the same side here. The Uniparty is real:

dsfgdgfdsfgdsfgdgf.PNG

The Permanent Warfare Shills never actually get around to telling us just how long we should be staying to ensure all of our hard work doesn’t go to waste.

For example, if Trump says, “We should get out of Syria right now,” an honest opponent who actually has a legitimate counter-proposal would say, “No, we need to be there for another year or two, and then it will be OK to leave.”

But they don’t say that. They don’t have legitimate counter-proposals. They don’t have a proposed alternative withdrawal date. They’re not honest.

Instead, their response to Trump is, “NO! We can’t leave!”

So the choice is between leaving now and staying indefinitely, with no timetable or clearly defined (and realistically achievable) objectives.

They never get around to telling us what, exactly, it will take to make it “safe” for us to leave a given country that we’ve occupied. Kurt Schilchter explained it well:

jytdyjgytykkutyk.PNG

In reality, our Sisyphean attempts to fix the Middle East will never, ever succeed. We’re over there trying to snuff out terrorist insurgencies which we probably funded at some point way back when. Why did we fund them way back when? Because at the time they were portrayed as “moderates” who could help us defeat some other terrorist insurgency–one which we probably funded even longer ago under the rationale that they, too, were “moderate rebels” who could help us take out some other dangerous group (that we probably at one point in time also funded.)

See the neverending futility of it all?

The only way to break the cycle is to pull out forever.

But we can’t do that! Because that would endanger our latest pet jihadis-in-training, who are suddenly the most important group of people on the planet the moment the subject of withdrawing from the Middle East comes up.

All of the sudden, the Washington elite set erupts in rage about the danger our withdrawal will put the Kurds in, so vitally important are the Kurds.

It’s funny: today they’re all shrieking about how much they love the Kurds, but I don’t recall any of them ever mentioning the importance of the Kurds prior to today.

If they cared about the Kurds as much as they’re now claiming they do, then why are they only now mentioning them?

Tucker Carlson had one of his finest monologues ever on the matter, and that’s saying a lot because this guy nails it on everything:

“The only point that everyone here can agree on is that the interests of foreigners are way more important than our own interests. “It is immoral,” they are telling us, “to look out for own people. But it is virtuous to suffer for others–particularly for those who hate us.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans die from drugs manufactured from our enemies abroad, Mexico and China. How do our leaders respond? They shrug. They couldn’t care less. They do nothing.

But then Turkey threatens to invade northern Syria–a place not one in a thousand Americans could find on a map–and guess what that is? It’s a historic crisis, and Lindsey Graham won’t stand for it!

What you’re looking at is a set of priorities so mindless, and so perverse, there is in fact no fixing them. In the end, the only solution may be the obvious one: relocate the Kurds to Youngstown, Ohio. Only then will Washington finally care.”

Immaculate. This guy is a national hero.

But he won’t get any credit for it because he’s going against the Establishment Current.

That’s how this whole thing works:

grwerfdy5egd.PNG

It’s noteworthy that Republican politicians are only considered “brave” and “courageous” when they agree with the media. Wow, how commendable it is to agree with the media, Hollywood, academia, Fortune 500, the Military Industrial Complex, and the intelligence community! So much at risk, so brave!

And then, of course, Republicans are called “cowards” who “won’t stand up to Trump” when they do something that is unanimiously condemned by the corporate media, the intelligence community, big business, Hollywood, the Military Industrial Complex and academia. Disagree with the media and they’ll slander your name with negative and outright dishonest coverage. They’ll even try to destroy your career and livelihood. And for the unluckiest of the bunch, the media will work with Congressional Democrats to attempt to frame you for sexual assault if you get on their bad side.

But sure: it’s the people who agree with the media who are the brave ones.

Do leftists realize there is literally nothing brave at all about being a leftist? You cannot possibly be taking a bold, brave stance when the entire Western power Establishment agrees with you.

Taking a courageous stance means–and stay with me here–actually going against the crowd. It means being in the minority. It could even mean losing friends, or even your job.

Don’t like it? Nobody said it was gonna be easy.

You can fit in and be on the same side as the Celebrities and Cable News Media, or you can speak the truth.

But not both.

At some point in the future, there will for every last one of us come a time for choosing: stand for what’s right, or fit in with the cool crowd. It sounds like a corny Dad Lecture from an 80s family sitcom, but it’s the truth.

I hope that readers of this site (and myself!) will ponder the matter and truly understand what all this entails. You will be hated, mocked, scorned and abandoned by fake friends for speaking the truth and standing for what’s right.

It’s not the easy path in life. In fact, your life and career path would be a lot easier if you simply decided it wasn’t worth it to stand up to the warmongers, the abortionists, the secularists, the multinational corporations, your radical college professors, the government bureaucrats, the social justice warriors, the globalists.

But it’s worth it. If this country is ever going to turn around and return to its former glory, it will be due to regular people like you and I making the conscious decision to stand for what’s right and speak the truth rather than fitting in.

It requires an acceptance of the hard truth that you will be forever at odds with–and hated by–Hollywood Celebrities, Blue Checks, People On TV, and in all likelihood some of your friends. People will talk shit about you behind your back and even outright refuse to associate with you, but just know that it’s not because you’re wrong–it’s because they’re wrong. Either they have chosen the cowardly path and prioritized fitting in with the crowd, or their heads have been filled with lies. It’s probably a bit of both.

But never lose heart. Even when it seems like you’re surrounded by brainwashed NPCs and the fight is futile, know that there are plenty of us out there on the right side. The Silent Majority–or, more accurately, the Silenced Majority–remains just that: the majority. Speak up and you’ll be surprised at how many people you know actually agree with you, but are too afraid to let it be known outside of the privacy of the voting booth.

We’re trying to retake a country that has been stolen from us by terrible people. We’re fighting for our posterity, so that they won’t have to live under the rule of these devious occupiers and usurpers.

The odds seem stacked against us, but we have the truth on our side, which means all the lies, propaganda, coercion and dirty tricks don’t stand a chance. All we need is the courage to tell the truth.

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.

D9med4SWkAAWE59.jpg

“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:

D9med4TWsAEBseq.jpg

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:

If India and Pakistan Go to War, We Are All Fucked

India and Pakistan escalate tensions in the highly disputed Kashmir region:

“(Bloomberg) — It’s the biggest escalation between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals in decades and with a bitterly contested national election in India just weeks away, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to exploit his military’s air strikes on a terrorist camp inside Pakistan Tuesday. 

Speaking to a huge, cheering crowd at an election rally in the state of Rajasthan, Modi twice stated that India was “in safe hands” and declared it a “glorious day,” without explicitly mentioning the attack. 

India’s fighter jets destroyed a major terrorist camp in Pakistan early Tuesday “in the face of imminent danger,” Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said in New Delhi. More than 300 people were killed in the air strikes on militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, according to an Indian official speaking on condition of anonymity.”

Both nations are nuclear-armed.

Here is a map of the area:

760x-1.png

Pakistan had its own version of events. After scrambling its jets in response to India’s early-morning incursion across the border, it released photographs of missile remnants it said had fallen on unoccupied territory. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s office said Pakistan would respond “at the time and place of its choosing,” rejecting India’s claim that it had hit a terror camp or inflicted heavy casualties. “Once again the Indian government has resorted to a self-serving, reckless and fictitious claim,” a statement from Khan’s office said.

Facing the first major geopolitical challenge of his term, Khan directed the country’s armed forces and the public to “remain prepared for all eventualities.” 

Relations between the two countries have been tense since a Feb. 14 suicide car bombing in Kashmir, claimed by the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, killed 40 members of India’s security forces.”

The question now is how will Pakistan respond. 

“There will be some form of escalation,” Kamran Bokhari, the director of Strategy and Programs at Center for Global Policy with the University of Ottawa, said by phone. “Pakistan will have to strike back — I am not saying this will lead to an all out war, but I don’t see that it’s over.” 

Today’s strikes represent the worst escalation since 2001, when Pakistan and India moved ballistic missiles and troops to their border following an attack on parliament in New Delhi that was also blamed on Jaish-e-Mohammad. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars since partition and independence in 1947. 

“The last time the Indian Air Force crossed the line of control intentionally and publicly to conduct air strikes was 1971,” said Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, referring to the Indo-Pakistan war over Bangladesh.”

“While details of the attack remain murky, we are already seeing India claiming a massive success while Pakistan is downplaying the true extent of the damages,” said Uzair Younus, a South Asia director at Washington-based consultancy Albright Stonebridge Group LLC. “The upside is that it’s likely that neither side will go up the escalation ladder following this attack.” 

The airstrike may well have been a political move by Modi to appear tough on Pakistan, but that does not mean it is insignificant.

The bottom line is, if India and Pakistan go to war and nuke each other, the whole planet is fucked. 90% of all people will starve to death due to a giant smoke cloud covering the whole planet:

This war would plunge us into nuclear winter.

Even though it does not appear to be a serious situation on the verge of escalating beyond control, we cannot take this lightly.

#RESISTED: Senate Votes to Remain in Afghanistan, Against Trump’s Wishes

Take THAT, Drumpf! You WILL NOT put a stop to our Endless Wars:

“The U.S. Senate cannot agree on anything. They are so mired in partisan gridlock, a resolution declaring the sky to be officially the color blue would fail along party lines. But there is one thing and one thing only they agree on: 17 years of our troops dying in Afghanistan isn’t long enough.

By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers (mentally and physically), or spent enough money. All for a now-aimless conflict in a part of the world Americans don’t even care about.

What began as an attempt to hunt down Osama bin Laden has now become a generational conflict where sons are patrollingthe same areas as their fathers did. This no longer a war. This has become a hopeless mission to tame a part of the world that has never been and will never be tamed.

Afghanistan is a rugged, tribal nation with different interests than ours. As with so many parts of the world, the strong will rule over the weak there, and there is precious little America can do about that. That is why we’re now resigned to negotiating a peace deal with the very Taliban we’ve been fighting for 17 years.”

Orange Man has been RESISTED! Yaaassss! Slay, queens! The Senate is lit!

Screen Shot 2019-02-05 at 10.33.19 AM.png

It is absolutely imperative that we remain in Afghanistan for, what reason, exactly?

What are our objectives? How can we “win” this war that has been going on for over 17 years now?

What would a victory look like, how long would it take to achieve, what steps need to be taken to achieve victory, and what is the probability of achieving that victory?

We don’t have any answers for those basic, essential questions that you would assume our Elected Leaders would be asking about any war.

We don’t have those answers now, nor have we at any point in the past 17 years.

My younger brother was born three weeks after the War in Afghanistan began (official date October 7, 2001). In a little over 8 months time, my brother will turn 18 and be eligible to go fight in a war that began before he was born.

There is something deeply wrong with a ruling class that gives us that situation.

We often hear from neocons “We fight over there so they don’t come here.”

But these are the same people who viciously oppose any and all immigration restrictions, including a border wall that would only keep illegals out, and a travel ban that targets failed nations that have a high probability of allowing terrorists to travel here.

They claim to oppose terrorism, but what exactly would these open-borders neocon warmongers do about it if a terrorist actually did try to come here?

Beltway Neocons: “We need to keep fighting foreign wars so terrorists in those countries don’t come here and kill us on our soil.”

Trump: “How about we just stop fighting these endless, pointless and unwinnable wars and simply restrict travel from problem countries?”

Beltway Neocons: “UNBELIEVABLE! LITERALLY HITLER! RAAAAAACIST! ISLAMOPHOBIC! IMPEEEEEEEEEACH!!!!!!”

If a terrorist in Afghanistan or Syria got on a plane intending to go to the US, and Trump tried to deny him entry to the US, the left and the Neocon Establishment would be all over cable news and probably marching in the streets shrieking, “LET HIM IN! DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH! TRUMP IS A RACIST!”

In their minds, it makes more sense to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting foreign wars to keep terrorists out than it does to enact immigration policies that, I don’t know how else to put this, keep terrorists out.

God forbid we ever even consider curtailing the Military Industrial Complex’s cash cows. Don’t you dare entertain the idea of turning off the Democrats’ stream of new voters. Heaven help you if you even think about denying Corporate America more cheap labor.

Our ruling class is rotten to the core.

We can’t have a wall.

We can’t repeal Obamacare.

We can’t end a 17+ year war that we have no hope of winning.

Screen Shot 2019-02-05 at 10.17.25 AM.png

Our political system is too far gone. The Swamp will not be drained.

I don’t even get mad about this stuff anymore, honestly, because it only further solidifies my view that there will be a revolt in this country, like we’re seeing in France.

We tried to do it democratically, but our ruling class won’t allow that.

So eventually it will come to revolt.

Every time the Uniparty Ruling Class rejects the will of the people, it only further increases their chances of being overthrown.

Western Europe is Still Paying the Price for World War I

As we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, an often unremarked consequence of the war is the major demographic ruin Western European nations inflicted upon one another. This is just an example:

In the top photo, we see hundreds of young men who went off to war in 1914. In the bottom photo, we see that only 28 men returned.

An entire neighborhood in England saw its young men decimated:

Here is another tweet that places WWI in perspective:

Ann Coulter summed it up:

Nations like Germany, France and Britain are still to this day paying the price for the demographic ruin they inflicted upon each other in the Great War.

In just one battle, the Somme Offensive, Britain, France and Germany lost a combined 1.2 million men. In the Battle of Verdun, over 800,000 men lost their lives.

Countries do not simply lose almost an entire generation of young men and remain the same. They suffer the consequences long into the future.

In the normal course of things, “survival of the fittest” is the rule. The process of natural selection ensures that the strongest and fittest rule the gene pool and reproduce.

But if a great war wipes out most of a nation’s best young men, the whole process is turned on its head. The Great War not only robbed Western Europe of a generation of great young men, but also robbed it of future generations of great men.

This could explain why the British Empire declined and faded away so rapidly: on the eve of WWI in 1914, Britain was unquestionably the world’s preeminent power. At that time, the sun still never set on the British Empire and the Crown had colonies and territories on every continent. From India to Australia to Canada to Egypt, Britain quite literally ruled the world. But that was the peak. Within a generation from the end of World War II, Britain’s empire was gone:

British_Empire_evolution3

This gif shows the rise and fall of the British Empire from 1492 to 2007, and you can clearly see its rapid decline following the end of WWII.

This happened for a reason:  Britain had lost most of its good young men in the World Wars. They lost their future.

Britain, France and Germany today are shells of what they were in early 1914. The reason? They robbed each other of their demographic futures in the terrible battles of the First and Second World Wars.

The crumbling nations you see today are direct results of the unimaginable human devastation they wrought upon one another a century ago.