Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Globalism has officially failed -- why did no one tell us?

From here:

The trade war is morphing into a currency war as Europe and China devalue their currencies to make their exports less expensive.

How do countries devalue their currencies? They print more money – lots of money – which causes inflation. Can you say Venezuela? Can you say socialism? Do you remember when AOC was asked how to pay for the Green New Deal? She answered, just print more money. That was also Bernie’s response as how to pay for his programs. Socialism. Just print more money. The euro, yuan, dollar are all fiat, so just print more!

What American companies get hurt in the trade war between the U.S. and China? Those companies that invested $250 billion in operations in China, as stated by Bloomberg BusinessWeek for Aug 12, 2019. They bet against the United States. They are the ones who sponsor all the misinformation about how the trade war hurts Americans. They are wrong. They lie. And they know it. In your wildest dreams, did you imagine Democrats and Wall Street and U.S.-based global corporations being partners in politics? Well, they are/were – with Obama, with Clinton and with Schumer/Pelosi, to the detriment of average working Americans.

China exports close to $500 billion more in goods per year to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to China – including agriculture products. So if the U.S. and China stop doing all business with each other, then China loses almost $500 billion per year to its GDP and the U.S. gains $500 billion as American manufacturers replace products made in China with products made here (competitive product substitution).

In time, any product can be replaced. Just ask Detroit about what happened to the car business after 1970, which was the most capital intensive industry in its day. Any product can be replaced in time. Ask Intel. Ask U.S. Steel. Ask American textile companies.

Bloomberg also states that current Price-to-Earnings ratios are at an average of 30 when the normal average is 20. Why are stock P to E ratios so high? Because bond interest rates are so low. So why are bond interest rates so low? Because foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. bonds/Treasuries, which drives down interest rates – $6.5 trillion worth. It’s the same as what Quantitative Easing did when the Fed purchased $3 trillion of bonds when Obama was president. $3 trillion. The Fed cannot stop this. Foreigners are buying up lots of U.S. Treasuries/bonds because the interest rates in their home countries are negative or at zero. It has been that way for more than two years. Two dozen countries in Europe and Asia have been hiding their recessions (negative or zero interest rates) for more than two years. And now they are affecting the United States.

Trump is doing his best to isolate the U.S. from the impact of those foreign countries just as a doctor separates healthy people from sick people. This includes tariffs, new trade deals, canceling bad deals, separating U.S. currency from foreign currencies and nationalism (putting the interests of Americans first). Will it work? Hopefully … Otherwise, this will be a rough ride.

So far, so good. U.S. wages are increasing at 3.2 percent per year while inflation is averaging under 1.8 percent. Obama never had wages increase faster than inflation. The unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics and women are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs are unfilled. And all this is happening while the stock market signals a problem. But that problem is clearly because of Europe, interest rates and the FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), just as it has been for the last two years.

Globalism certainly will not work as the rest of the world has been hiding the fact that it has been in a recession for more than two years. Do we really want to be like the rest of the world? The economic downward spiral in Europe and Asia started more than 10 years ago. Even countries that are touted by liberals as positive examples of socialism like Denmark and Sweden now have negative interest rates. Europe tried to use immigration to augment decreasing internal demand for products and found that to be a losing strategy – just like it is in the USA.

So now what do Europe, China, Japan and Mexico do if they cannot keep milking the U.S. market teat? Now what do they do since they lost their self-sufficient independence?

The failure of globalism is the reason why nationalism is increasing all over the Western world. Nationalism, a focus inward, will save Europe just as it is saving America. Go Boris!

Don’t let the liberal mainstream media confuse you. Nationalism is not the same as supremacism. Those are not interchangeable terms as the media try to claim.

Let me ask: Who hid all of this from us for so long? Why do establishment politicians bet so much on globalism and sell out their home countries? What did those establishment politicians and U.S. globalist companies get out of it? And why is Trump the first to do anything about it?

- Michael Master -

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Self-Defense Isn't "Racist!"

From Dajjal:

"Racism is the conceit that your race is superior and others are inferior.* Trump supporters are intelligent enough to know that there is a bell curve that applies to all races. Individuals of all races can excel over Morons such as AOC.
As the founders declared, "All men are created equal"... . Some of them denigrate themselves by worshiping a deity who requires them to conquer the world and licenses them to kill us and plunder our goods. Condemning them is not racism, it is common sense.
Others denigrate themselves by eschewing honest labor in favor of a life of crime. Condemning them is not racism, it is common sense. Still others drive after consuming sumptuary substances resulting in the death of innocents. Yet others assault & rape. Condemning them is common sense, not racism."
However, there's nothing wrong with "racism" (aka pattern-recognition and one's free-association rights) either! Without "racism," (preference for people one finds compatible and similar to one's self) there would exist no "races" on Earth - not even the poor swarthy pets liberals love so much!
*Further, "it ain't bragging if ya done it!" Whites deserve the "privilege" of being generally more intelligent, via millennia of natural selection, than others who were born in other environments!
The dark unutterable truth is that there is a sort of white privilege. This came as a result of creating a superior civilization, and being children of that race; it is earned every day by paying almost all the taxes, committing relatively very little of the crime, creating basically all of the technology that gives us the highest standard of living humans have ever seen, and committing basically all of the fucking charity and do-gooding in the world.
It is whites who created 90% of all the technology that brought the greatest standard of living humans have ever seen, and then brought it around the world. Yes, whites took their spoils--because it's the human game to take spoils.
Not that they had to, but whites gave back. Literally no other race gives back to the world, to everyone not like us. Not only inventing the technology that brought modern civilization, but continuing to give. Whites must account for 90% of all the world's charity and do-goodism. And much of that goes to non-whites, and that's often <i>at the expense of lesser whites. 
Moreover, all Islamic charity goes to Moslems only. They add it to the white charity they get.
White people are the Medicins Sans Frontiers of humanity.
They invented everything great and then they went around sharing it with everyone else. Again: They took spoils because everyone takes spoils. But whites gave back, which is what makes them superior, which is why whites have earned white privilege.
Literally no other race gives back--and so very much, at the cost of our own people--to the world, to those not like us. Only whites.
Well now that superior civilization and do-goodism means whites are being forced to absorb the poor world's exploding hordes and this story will end.
Why can't rich nations like Japan, S Korea, Saudi Arabia/Gulf States take in some of the hordes? 
Why must only white societies become diversified?

Friday, August 16, 2019

The Western Suicidal Dilemma IS The Curse Called "Christianity!"

Why is "The West" so Hell-bent on committing suicide, and virtue-signaling their SUBMISSION all the way there?! Why do "modern secular atheist liberals" so very closely resemble their muslim brethren?

Leftopaths use "You're a RACIST!" as their knee-jerk response and to provide a place-holder "answer" to everything, no matter what the topic of discussion is - sort of exactly like muslims do when they use "Allahu-Akhbar!"

And of course as you already know, their screams of denial of reality, "ALLAHU-AKHBAR!" simply mean "Allah is Greater!" (than whatever is opposing and confusing them).

In the case of liberals, it would be:

"Allah is Greater than your silly 'facts and logic'!"

To leftopaths, it's certainly unjust to jail anyone for any "crime" ever, since we're all too stupid and life's too "complex" for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect (if such things even exist!) so without any *mens rea* criminal intent, there's no such thing as a "criminal" anyway - because after all, we're all really ever only a bunch of equally helpless fellow victims, at the mercy of mysterious, unknowably unknown (yet also mysteriously known to be) inevitable forces beyond our comprehension or control, so we're helpless victims of "society" (or, as their prophit, Karl Marx put it, of "historical predeterminism") mere products of our environments, and of course proud slaves of almighty Allah! And as we all know, all such victims must always be pitied and never censured by feewings-hurting anger (aka "hate!") just for being the kind of victim who always seems to choose to attack thereby innocent other people (er, I meant "victims") first, as opposed to the allegedly "law"-abiding kind who seem to always choose not to. In fact, hating "crimes" and the "criminals" who seem to commit them, is the only real, hateful "hate crime" in itself! (CAPISCE?)!

And so, 'SINCE' all so-called facts are therefore really only opinions, the leftists' entirely fact-free subjective opinions are also the diversely opposite EQUALS to those silly Conservatives' so-called objective facts! Whee!

Our opinions are always facts, and your silly facts are really always only opinions!

Now that's real hypocrisy in action!

Just as Muhammad himself was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

Conclusion? "Cognitively" and I use that term very loosely! all muslims are also libertine "liberal" criminals, and vice-versa!

BUT - "WHY!"? we must ask our selves, before it's too late!

I blame Christianity, TBH.

I blame basic Christianity for inducing virtue-signalling guilt and masochism in the populace as a form of mind-control. In fact, given Jesus' own example, suicidal masochism is Christianity's highest virtue. Paul openly endorsed government slavery for us.

If the denial of white superiority, self-liquidation of their own race and nations and suffering about guilt were merely a part of the "misery of the human condition" (or in Biblical terms, as payment for some distant "Original Sin" and resulting "Fallen" condition), then WHY AREN'T MUSLIM ARABS, WHO ARE NOT BORN INTO A RELIGION WHICH BELIEVES IN ANY "ORIGINAL SIN," ALSO AFFECTED IN THE EXACT SAME WAYS?! After all, Arabs are technically, according to geneticists, Caucasians!

The Qur'an and ahadith are full of white supremacist statements!

Muhammad was allegedly "the Whitest of men" and proud of it!

And even the Christian majority (which at this time is blacks in Africa!) are equally destructive towards their own cultures, too!

Islam seems to be winning across the globe, not because of its inherent superiority, but because it's a creed of offensive violence demanding OTHERS' Submission, while ours is a creed of inherently pacifistic submission, where pity* for all criminals and enemies is held to be the highest moral virtue, and useful constructive criticism and dynamic crime-discouraging anger (aka "Hate!") is seen as the most vile "sin" or crime! Muslims see hate as a holy virtue, and useless pity is regarded as the weakest and dumbest of mistakes and even as a crime itself.

And I also think the whole premise of literally thought-killing, "psychotic" demands for people to at least pretend to endorse this false "FAITH!" over what they really know, is thought-control: a mind-corrupting denial of reality.

I'd have to say pretending to "believe" something I don't have enough information on to assess, just because I'm threatened with hypothetical Hell-fire not to, would be the bigger crime or "sin!" Any god who would condemn me to Hell just for being honest, isn't a god worth even pretending to follow or obey, much less one who also demands my unearned "love!" as its allegedly highest commandment.

Even little kids already know that neither respect nor admiration (much less "love") can be demanded or commanded - they must always be earned, and in the case of demands for faith over facts, that can never happen!

So we should ask our selves this: Which of the two main religious fantasy characters is more likely to invent and use logic facts and reality: God or the Devil? Who's more likely to use fact-free fantasies (aka lies) and demand unthinking submission to them?

The only real difference between the binary carrot-and-stick, greed-and-fear islamic warnings and promises and the christian versions of same, is the violence; and even that isn't much of a difference, as Christians say "Do this and that, obey and Submit to silly nonsense rituals, or GOD will get you!" while the muslims say "Do this and that, obey and Submit to silly nonsense rituals, or WE will get you ('for God')!" Not really all that much difference after all, is it? And I've even heard devout Christians claim that God uses the muslims to punish us, too! Just like OT Jews used to claim, right in the Bible, that God used their enemies to punish them for being disobedient! So how is that any different from those same enemy muslims claiming the same?! "We are punishing you infidels for disobeying God!" That's islam's basic message to us.


But as a basic evasion tactic, liberal (and even Conservative) Westerners will try to pretend that islam isn't a "real" religion; it's only a crime-gang pretending to be one, so it's not a problem of religions in general. But not all religions have to be (or, obviously, are) good, by anyone's definition of them! Worse:


Here's the simple differences between philosophy, science, and religion:

1). Philosophy is speculation, presented AS speculation.
2). Science is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
3). Religion is speculation, presented AS fact.

So ALL religions are lies, because they present unprovable speculations AS FACT.

And lying is the most basic form of theft - it's the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth.

All crimes are forms of theft, and all criminal thefts are forms of slavery, because when a criminal takes what you earned and/or simply that to which they are not entitled by dint of not having earned or otherwise paid for them selves, by attacking you first without getting your permission, (including the theft of your time and so life itself) they have also then retroactively forced you to have worked for them for free. That's slavery.

All religions are idolatry - static images models and templates re-presenting and trying to replace the cause-and-effect dynamics of life presented to us, in order for the criminal hypocrites who create the lies to be able to enslave their intended victims to themselves, through their victims' unwitting belief in those same lies.

And as one might expect of hypocrites, religions always foster double-standards using emotions, because no amount of logic rationality facts and truth will ever be able to justify those double standards, where they are always right, and victims, while everyone who disagrees with them is always wrong, and an oppressor. This self-inflicted paranoid masochism ("You're always all out to get me, SO I'm always your victim! I'm always a victim! Waaaah!") is at the root of all so-called "mental illness" which itself is nothing more than a pitiful excuse to avoid responsibility: "I didn't do it! My brain made me do it! And in fact, I didn't do it at all! Only my brain did it! Whee!" Just substitute the words "God;" "The System;" and "my procedures" for "my brain" in the above sentence, to see exactly how prevalent this hypocrisy still is.

In this way, all religions ARE "theodicies" (excuses for what to say if and when things go wrong, and reality tries to prove you're not always the victim, but trying to be is a choice you made which confirms you as the predatory criminal aggressor, and them who your victim-blaming slanders implicate as your 'oppressors,' as your innocent victims)!

In Christianity, when something goes wrong, it's always the fallible "fallen" humans' fault, but when it goes right, it's all praise to 'God' alone.

While this at least fosters a meager sense of guilty free-will choice if not actual self-reliance, islam goes one step further - and even worse, specifically claims that unknowable, unknown 'Allah' is responsible for both the good and the bad, and all humans are nothing but his helpless slaves anyways - but at least it gives muslims the perfectly wrong might-makes-right excuse to be delinquent towards their own responsibilities to not attack thereby innocent other people first - because guilt and innocence are achieved by results alone, so that if and when a criminal like their founder, Muhammad, tries to commit some crimes (and he tried them all, frequently, and, in stead of feeling guilt or remorse, invited others to join him in the fun) and gets away with them, then they get to retroactively claim that, since they did get away with them, then 'Allah' must have wanted them to, and so they were never really crimes in the first place, but actually retroactively valid, 'god-inspired "holy" punishments for their thereby 'guilty' victims!

Every instance of people using idolatry (fraudulent lies to avoid responsibility) is to excuse their chosen delinquency towards their only Golden Rule principle of responsibility - to not attack thereby innocent other people first.


People only create ALL such "inevitable force" idols (including cognitive idols such as "religions") as alibis to excuse their own criminal desires and actions!

People should focus on how and why ALL religions are the same, in that even if such gods existed, with all the powers their followers claim they have, they still aren't worthy of anyone's worship, and especially never worthy of worship based on blind faith! No version of gods or "the god" are anything more than might-makes-right powers behind the usual fear-and-greed, warnings, threats and promises behavioral conditioning binary! Human morality is most simply defined by The Golden Rule of Law as "Do Not Attack First!" yet one cannot "not attack first" one's way into an eternally pain, fear and greed (and therefore also hope and, ultimately consciousness)-free heaven - because such a place logically can never truly exist, no matter how much raw power a superior being might have to use for it!

So we can completely deconstruct and so cognitively destroy all religions, starting with "Judeo"-Christianity and islam (because they are the most beguiling and dangerous) followed by Christianity's real main root (Buddhism) and then all pagan superstitions.

Further, religions, in attempting to refute reality, can only and therefore must try to reverse causes and effects, in a vague hope to be able to break the obviously eternal,"karmic" cycle of specific pain-causing damages, the generalized memories of those painful universe/god-inflicted attacks called one's 'fears,' and idolized as if such conceptions could be aggregated as a Real Thing called "Fear!" - the "Greed/y" still -fear-focused hope for a way to bargain one's way into less pain and fear, and the ultimately-useless hope for no more damage, pain, or fear at all, ever - in other words, the ultimately desired non-existence of true nihilism. The Jains, Buddhists, and Christians hope and pretend to "believe" that one can avoid the karmic dharma cycle by refusing to act or be - refusing to defend one's self; "Ignore reality, and YOU'LL go away!" while the pagan religions proffer all kinds of solutions, ranging from that extreme, to the islamic one: "This life is a test of blind obedience - to kill one's god's enemies for him, even though he could easily have done so himself, in order to earn one's way into his paradise - which, if truly 'eternal" can once again only be achieved through total unconscious non-existence.

Here's how Christianity attempts to reverse all causes and effects to do so:

Damage causes pain and then a fight/flight emotional response of fear/anger towards it; and later, a greed for less and a hope for no more pain-causing damage.

Religion (well, at least the Christian version) pretends that perpetual anger (aka "Hate!") causes pain and damage, while perpetual hope (aka "Belief!" and/or "Faith!") actually heals it!

And, worse, through the example of Jesus, it even asserts that the one and only real way to break the karmic cycle of dharma, is to "hope one's way out of it all," as Jesus allegedly did!

I blame Christianity for always invoking useless pity for all criminals ("sinners") as equally helpless fellow victims, while designating useful, crime-discouraging anger as evil "hate."

So like you, I find I have to constantly try to remind then that, "Hey Christians: your own emotions aren't even thoughts, much less morals!" Ditto for the perpetually-offended butthurt masochist liberals and muslims:

"Dear Snowflakes: Don't feel offended, but your hurt feelings really don't matter. Our emotions aren't even thoughts, much less morals or a sense of "spirituality." Emotions are always effects, never causes. They are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the solid past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): solid fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending, much less going to war over!"

So in the end, Christianity became nothing but an aid to government thought-control - it's really only the usual masochistic paranoid hypocrisy: Be nice to your enemies, or God will smite you! And this "God" is also a hypocrite - only he is allowed to smite his enemies; if and when you smite your enemies, or even those you might presume are also "God's enemies," you become God's enemies, too!

Thus, so-called "Judeo"-Christianity went from fear of god's anger to the despairing hope of ultimate non-existential nihilism; here's the real "alpha and omega" bracketing the two Biblical Testaments:

The Old Testament began with God making some stuff then condemning all of future mankind for making one bad free-will choice.

The New Testament ended with Jesus-as-God cancelling the whole thing by claiming man was too stupid to make free-will choices.

In the end, by far, the greatest danger to the West isn't the primitive muslim savages who have been raised in the death-cult as holy-mobster members of the world's oldest and largest ongoing global crime-gang (islam's "muslims") it's the paranoid masochist criminal hypocrites - the self-hating, guilty white libertine "liberal" criminals who, despite being born and raised here with all the freedoms in the world, and enough free education to understand how it was all achieved, and at what cost - want to throw it all away simply because they KNOW islam is the greatest threat outside of them selves, but, as victim-blaming cowardly hypocrites, want to pretend to be able to control their fears, BY causing (and inducing others to help them cause) those very same, worst-case scenario problems which cause the pain-causing damages they fear the most - because that way, they cancel their own internal secondary fears' "pains" BY inflicting the real ones!

But, while it's still an obvious fact that islam IS the worst "religion," -  because it openly endorses offensive, not defensive (although there was a bit of a pretense towards that at it's beginning) violence, which began with Muhammad's retaliatory threat to having been insulted and spat on for demanding the pagan Quraiysh destroy their idols, was "I will bring you slaughter!" however, it's still even worse for us, and just as true, that, because we in the West HAVE been "culturally" (socially educated) indoctrinated in suicidal masochism by at least second-hand Christianity, even "secular liberals" who profess them selves to be shrewdly realistic atheists, still react in an automatically self-effacing way towards all perceived threats, internalizing the guilt, which is why they automatically feel there's something wrong (or "RACIST!") with them selves for fearing islam and its "muslims!"

Our sick societies are still enslaved to Christianity's underlying suicidally masochistic "Judge not - ever!" "Love your enemies!" "Forgive them for they know not what they do!" "ALWAYS turn the other cheek!" "Vengeance is The Lord's alone!" "thou Shalt Not Kill! (ever; even in self-defense!)" and, worst of all: "Resist ye not evil men!" memes (themes).


At best, Christianity is nothing more than the existentialist nihilism of Buddhism grafted onto the Judaic god.

But not even the Jews are that suicidally masochistic - they realize that the Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Murder" (as in: specifically not kill *unjustly*) and NOT "Thou Shalt Not Kill!" (generally) as Christians corrupt it!

Which is why the Israelis built a wall between them selves and the Falestinians and Western secular liberals refuse to do so - because "Jesus died for their sins," so they wouldn't EVER have to defend them selves from evil!

They sill live in the exact same fantasy-world as their duped ancestors did - it's our Judeo-Christian heritage which is, as you say, still holding us back from defending our selves, because it orders us to (irresponsibly!) defer our rightful responsibility to think and act for our selves to a "higher" authority!

"Resist ye not evil men" = "Let Evil Win! Trust Me - it's all for the best, and I'm on your side!"

- Jesus -

Sorry, but that makes no sense except as an attempt to enslave us all!

Monday, August 12, 2019

How we know gun control is not about the guns


Q: who always wants to keep others dummied-down, enslaved, low-info and stupider than they are?

A: Cowardly criminals! Some people are so scared of everyone else, that they go into politics in order to become "an Authority" (aka a slaver, as all "Authorities" automatically get to only have rights over others, and no responsibilities to them; while everyone else agrees to have no right to defend them selves from said "Authorities," and accepts that they only have the responsibility to become and remain their slaves) and so the political wannabes expend massive amounts of their personal energies on the campaign trail hustings, meeting and greeting the peons, and exhaustively pounding the pavement, all to virtue-signal how extra-hard they can go along (with criminal lies, that there are no real crimes or criminals because life's too complex for anyone to be able to understand causes and effects, if such things even exist, so there's no free will choice or criminal intent) to get along (with all the other scary lying criminals) and their false intent to become the very bestest, most magnanimous and altruistic public "servants" they can be, giving away the Makers' stuff to all the Takers - and all just to cover up becoming the biggest Taker of them all!

From Personal Liberty's Bob Livingston Alerts

How we know gun control is not about the guns

In the wake of three mass shootings over the course of a few days recently, all the political and anti-gun media class began their predictable calls for more gun laws and equally predictable blame-ascribing tactics.

As usual, 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls called for the passage of more laws like universal background checks, a ban on so-called assault weapons (a meaningless and amorphous code word term), so-called red flag laws and outright confiscation. Even Republican politicians advocated for more gun laws, as did President Donald Trump — who while campaigning in 2016 called himself the biggest friend to gun owners in history; a hollow promise, at best.

Never mind that none of the laws proposed — save outright confiscation — would have had any influence whatever on the most recent shootings. The shooters all obtained their legal weapons legally from licensed gun dealers after undergoing the standard background check.

Besides, if gun grabbers were really interested in stopping murder or saving lives they’d go after handguns, which are used in the overwhelming majority of shootings and mass murders.

But even restricting the sale of handguns would be ineffective. According to a study by Department of Justice released in January, a survey of 283,000 prison inmates found that 90 percent of the guns used in crimes did not come from a retail source. And less than 1 percent were purchased at a gun show; which reveals that the so-called “gun show loophole” as just another gun-grabber lie.

This is prima facie evidence that gun control is not about the guns or about saving lives. It’s about control.

All national states have one thing in common. They want all uncontrolled arms of the people confiscated.

Why do all governments want to confiscate arms of their people? It is quite simple. The government political system fears an armed citizenry. Organized crime, no matter how legitimate it may appear, wants no risk of being overthrown and no personal risk of the politicians and bureaucrats. It wants no threat to the state that it cannot calculate and control.

New York Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler stated the aim of all politicians when he said in a 2012 interview:
One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.
If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane.
The state is therefore the enemy of the people. Otherwise it would not fear the people and want to disarm them. We can clearly understand disarmament because we recognize that the state and its bureaucrats and politicians are on one side and the people are on the other.

The frivolous debate of public safety against crime and criminals is laughable except media hype actually persuades more and more people of this pacifist nonsense.

The bold and insane issue of gun control is that the cause of gun violence is guns. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is creating violence with weapons of death all over the world.

The strategy of public persuasion with propaganda is far less risky to the state than physical force. Although, keep in mind that propaganda is force and leads as certain to conclusions in favor of the government.

Disarmament propaganda has been going on in the U.S. for a number of years along with stepped-up requirements of gun registration and piecemeal and continuous legislation.

Let’s look at some history and get the correct order of things. The German people had nothing to fear from the SS until the propaganda of the Third Reich prepared their minds for so-called National Socialism. When they “bought” National Socialism, they also accepted the SS and suppression of human liberty. In other words, psychological warfare conquered the Germans before the Nazi SS and their eventual military defeat. This is the order of events to keep in mind.

Authoritarianism or criminal government can never feel secure from fear as long as millions of people own guns. Likewise, when the people have no arms, they have no security and no hope of security.

Disarmament first comes by words and psychological warfare. The wide use of the word democracy is proof that people don’t know freedom from a house cat. The word democracy neutralizes and disarms the mind to the reality of authoritarianism and the danger to personal freedom. Hitler called his Nazi Germany “a great democracy,” and he disarmed the German citizens.

As long as the word democracy means freedom in the minds of the people, the long attrition of personal liberty will continue with or without gun ownership. The word democracy by and of itself has disarmed us. Yet, I hear people express great fear of loss of their firearms and at the same time use the word democracy like it was cotton candy.

Disarmament comes via democracy. As long as we defend democracy, we are for gun control whether we are conscious of it or not.

What, pray-tell, caused the great loss of freedom of the American people? Democracy, of course. Democracy is the American version of National Socialism.

Passive words like democracy disarm the mind, and then it is only a matter of time before you volunteer to hand over your guns. “To keep and bear arms” is the opposite of democracy.

The word democracy is an agenda quite different from its innocent sound. It is a euphemism for despotic government. Democracy is a term that conceals a system of manipulating people by manipulating their thought processes. The word democracy is the most politically correct word in America and in the entire world. Every politician uses the word democracy repeatedly to numb the people and disguise authoritarianism.

Democracy means disarmament of the mass mind into a state of apathy, resembling deep sleep. Change agents cleverly transferred the word republic into democracy for the purpose of the numbing of the senses. The word democracy and all that it implies destroys in our minds the relationship of cause and effect so that our own thoughts betray us. It has made us a pablum society wherein we unknowingly love evil and hate good.

To attempt to defend democracy and gun ownership at the same time is a masterpiece of cynicism and an illusion of the possible. It can’t be done. We have to love one and hate the other. But we must first know the difference. God help us!

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Sunday, August 11, 2019

The Role of Blacks Under Islam

From here:

Let's take a look at the Muslim Arab record on “white supremacy,” or rather, at what celebrated Arab and Muslim figures have written about black Africans over the centuries.
 These include hair-raisingly contemptuous remarks about blacks by many Islamic worthies, such as Ibn Khaldun, and even statements by Muhammad himself in the hadith. AOC should be asked to learn, too, about about the history of the Arab slave trade in Africa, especially that involving African boys who were castrated on site, with a mortality rate of 90%, a slave trade that began earlier, ended later, and claimed many millions more victims, than did the Atlantic Slave Trade. The Arab slave trade ended only because of pressure from Western Infidels. Saudi Arabia and Yemen officially ended slavery only in 1962, and several other Muslim countries ended it even later. Mauritania officially ended slavery in 2007, the last country to do so, but in fact, the Arabs continue to have black slaves, and the estimate of the anti-slavery groups is that there are now 600,000 black slaves in Mauritania, 200,000 black slaves now in Mali, and as many as 875,000 slaves in Niger. Hundreds of thousands of black Africans were enslaved by the Arabs during the civil war in the Sudan. In Libya, a slave market selling Africans has been operated by Arabs during the last two years; the slaves are black Africans who ran out of money while trying to get to Europe. All this deserves the attention of AOC. She needs to learn, too, that there never was an Islamic William Wilberforce, because Muhammad himself, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, bought, owned, and traded slaves. That might give her pause.
In the Hadith, we find remarks about blacks such as these:
“Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said to Abu-Dar, ‘Listen and obey (your chief) even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin.’ And this: Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, ‘Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.‘” (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p. 375)
And there is this from the celebrated Arab historian Al-Tabari: “Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants [Africans] would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his [Ham’s] descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” (Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21)
There is a long history of anti-black remarks among outstanding figures in Islamic history:
Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) was, among other things, an Islamic jurist, Islamic lawyer, Islamic scholar, Islamic theologian, and hafiz (one who has memorized the entire Qur’an). He is one of the most important figures in Islamic history. Here are two (among many) remarks he makes about black Africans in his Muqaddimah:
Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.
Beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.
Ibn Sina or Avicenna (980-1037), was another celebrated figure in Islamic history: a hafiz, an Islamic psychologist, scholar, and theologian and, by our lights, a racist: “[Blacks are] people who are by their very nature slaves.”
Ibn Qutaybah (828-889), was a renowned Islamic scholar from Kufa, Iraq: “[Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country.”
Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (1201-1274), was a Shia Muslim Scholar and Grand Ayatollah:
If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth –In no other peculiarity or property – except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent.”
“The Zanj (African) differ from animals only in that] their two hands are lifted above the ground,… Many have observed that the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj.”
Al-Muqaddasi (945/946-1000) was a medieval Muslim geographer:
Of the neighbors of the Bujja, Maqdisi had heard that “there is no marriage among them; the child does not know his father, and they eat people — but God knows best. As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.” [Kitab al-Bad’ wah-tarikh, vol.4]
Al-Masudi (896-956), was a Muslim historian and geographer, known as the “Herodotus of the Arabs”:
Galen says that merriment dominates the black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence.” (Al-Masudi, Muruj al-dhahab)
Ibn al-Faqih was a Muslim historian and geographer:
“A man of discernment said: The people of Iraq … do not come out with something between blonde, buff and blanched coloring, such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slavs and others of similar light complexion; nor are they overdone in the womb until they are burned, so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions, such as the Zanj, the Somali, and other blacks who resemble them. The Iraqis are neither half-baked dough nor burned crust but between the two.” (from his Mukhtasar Kitab al-Buldan, 903 AD)
There is much more in this disturbing vein, but what I’ve quoted here should be enough evidence of the deep racism of Muslim Arabs. These views justified the enslavement of blacks by Arabs that began in the 8th century and continued uninterruptedly until it formally ended, under Western pressure, in the 20th century. But in fact the enslavement of blacks by Arabs has continued, despite its official prohibition, in Mauritania, in Mali, in Niger, where a total of 1.5 million black slaves exist at present. There is also that new slave market, in Libya, where black Africans who became stranded in their attempt to make it to Europe by boat, and could not pay their smugglers, have then been sold into slavery by those to whom they owed money.

Israelis Sue Fascbook for Allowing Terror Posts

This is a very promising and overall good decision by a dissenting judge! Making some progress!

The general thinking on the CDA is that, if and since they have the right, as a presumed mere "carrier" and not a "content provider" not to be prosecuted for what others decide to post, they should also have a responsibility not to monitor anyone's posts, because in choosing in such a way to act as a content provider, they have demonstrated a willingness to, by way of *regulating* content, to have actually thereby become one.

So when they chose to make algorithms detecting and banning Conservative but not liberal posts, they demonstrated a willingness to police (and so, regulate the provision of content on) their pages; thus making them also liable for also deliberately choosing to look the other way when Muslim terrorists post anti-Semitic content. The right to self-regulate is evidence that not only can they do so, but also that they accepted the responsibility to do so; after all, rights can only come with concomitant, corollary responsibilities, and choosing to do nothing is also still a choice.


From a recent press release from 
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner
President of Shurat-HaDin:

The district court had initially rejected the lawsuit and the Israeli's arguments back in May 2017. Unfortunately, the judge ruled back then that a federal statute called the Communication Decency Act (CDA) provided internet platforms with a sort of blanket immunity for the content on its site, even if it was posted there by terror groups. The CDA provides that: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher of any information provided by another information content provider."  Under the district court's interpretation this meant that Facebook is not liable for anything published by a 3rd party on their site, even if its placed there by terror groups like Hamas.  The district court failed to really address their allegations that the mere act of providing social media services to a terrorist group was strictly prohibited under American law.  

Accordingly, they disagreed with the decision, believing instead, that the court was interpreting immunity under the CDA way too broadly and appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

This past week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Israelis in a 2-1 decision. What is noteworthy, however, is that the Chief Judge, Robert Katzmann, wrote a 35 page dissenting opinion supporting some of their arguments! 
This is a very powerful development. It means that the most senior judge in the influential Second Circuit believes the law supports their argument that Facebook, by providing services to the terror groups, might be liable in aiding and abetting the terror attacks.  The judge agreed that Facebook's powerful filters and algorithms played an active role in allowing terrorist users to connect with others with the same extremist motivations and assisted them in connecting with the terror groups. In particular, the judge agreed with the contention that Facebook could be held liable for its affirmative role in bringing terrorists together and the CDA did not provide a defense for this. .

Based on Judge Katzmann's remarkable opinion they will make a motion for the Court of Appeals to rehear the case en banc, that is with a larger panel of judges, to reconsider the validity of our arguments.

The Israelis are the first group to be challenging the mega-powerful social media platforms over their provision of material support to terrorist organizations like Hamas and are hopefully gaining some traction. 

Please see a link to the Chief Judge’s dissenting opinion HERE.

The ignored common denominator in mass shootings

(From Bob Livingston Alerts via his Personal Liberty Media Group)

It's as predictable as day following night that when a mass shooting occurs, the propaganda media and gun-grabbing politicians will immediately blame the gun. Their ravings will be echoed by the mindless lemmings on the left. But there is a common denominator that the media and the politicians never touch: psychotropic drugs.

If mentioned at all, mental illness touches off a hysterical backlash from the Left who only want the banning of guns discussed. And a mass shooter's drug use is just a footnote in media reports. But it is all-important.

The latest shooters are no exception. The Dayton Daily News reported that shooter Connor Betts' friend Will El-Fakir said Betts was using drugs and "was definitely not in a right state of mind." Heavy.com reports that some of his tweets dealt with drugs. And some of those drugs will have certainly been recreational. But digging into the latest shooters' backgrounds will almost certainly lead to indications that they had myriad emotional problems and mental difficulties, or that they were suffering from depression, and will also virtually inevitably reveal that they are or were on some type of medication for anything from ADHD to autism spectrum disorders and/or depression.

The top medications for prescribed to help manage symptoms of autism have side effects of agitation, confusion, depression, mania, irritability, aggression, anger, abnormal thoughts, psychotic disorder and schizophrenia.

The Aurora movie shooter, the Columbine killers, the Charleston church shooter and the Garland church shooter were all on psychotropic drugs.

Antipsychotics were originally intended to treat extreme personality disorders like schizophrenia, and many experts believe that using them to suppress milder more manageable emotional disorders can lead to a buildup of tension and violent outbursts in some patients. These drugs have in the past been linked to school shootings and other violent behaviors in adolescents.

According to a study published in the journal PLoS One and based on the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System, even seemingly safe drugs like Prozac and Chantix lead to violent thoughts and actions.

The website SSRIstories.org  has a collection of more than 6,000 stories from various media documenting the link between violent incidents and mind-altering drugs. Reader Scott R. wrote to me and said, "18 years ago I was put on moclobemide, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, due to an intolerable work situation. It led to feelings of unreality, and insomnia. Friends said that I appeared to undergo a change in personality…"

The Food and Drug Administration, which approves these drugs, recognizes that more 100,000 adverse drug reaction (ADR) deaths occur each year. ADRs is the fourth leading cause of death, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths.

Yet the MSM talking heads and trend setters and their mindless lemming followers say politicians won't touch gun laws because of the NRA and its deep pockets. But Big Pharma spends far more buying politicians and advertising in the mainstream media than does the NRA.

So if the left wants to blame someone other than the killer, perhaps it should focus its attention on Big Pharma, its vaccine schedule (which creates autism spectrum disorders and other mental health issues), its mood altering drugs and the doctors prescribing them.

Gun violence and gun ownership are not the same thing. Let me remind you that 327 million Americans did not shoot anyone last weekend. But the gun grabbers want to take away our guns anyway.

I don't recommend calling or writing your congressweasel on many issues, as you already know. However, letting your elected representatives know just how many of his or her constituents support gun rights wholeheartedly lets them know where they stand as far as staying in power goes. It's never a bad idea to remind them what your expectations of them are regarding the torrent of gun laws.

Do keep an eagle eye open for any attempt to establish national gun registration. Federal registration of every gun gives Washington all it needs to confiscate guns if and when it should choose to do so. If you don't think that's possible, remember that with the stroke of a pen, President Franklin Roosevelt confiscated all gold in 1933. As simple as that.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™