Sunday, October 20, 2019

DEAR MILLENNIAL VOTERS:


One Trillion Dollars in student loan debt - only exists because liberals subsidize education while still allowing them to charge foreign students four times the price, to take away your slots, too! Yay Free Stuff! If they had to charge you competitive market prices, your education costs would drop to almost zero!


HEY, KIDS!

When libertine "liberal" criminal politicians promise you endless "YAY FREE STUFF!" they are really trying to bribe you with your own money (while keeping a large chunk of it for them selves, allegedly as manager fees).

But, "NO!" you'll say; "They're really only bribing me with my PARENTS' money! Which is great because those stingy bastards won't die already and cough up what they owe me!"

Well ... WRONG AGAIN, Junior! What they're doing is looting YOUR inheritance, and because you're too scared of working for your self, you're letting them! (And even worse than your parents, they charge you more than half, just to "manage" it "for" you)!

And why is that? Because your parents are so much smarter and better able to earn money than you are? To which you'd reply:

"No, of course not! They're idiots! Obviously! But they're just lucky they grew up when there were more jobs around to have!"

Wrong again! They felt the same way as you do, about how lucky their own parents were. But, here's the thing: There were always more jobs in the past (except maybe during the Great Depression) ... until the working generations' kids ... voted liberal.

Then (spend and tax) there were less jobs available, but *therefore* also a lot more welfare and "YAY FREE STUFF!" available.

Then THEIR kids grew up (physically, anyway) and voted liberal. Rinse and repeat, and here you are now, about to make the exact same mistake as your recent ancestors and dumbass parents did, too. Does that make you FEEL proud, or want to THINK for your selves?


=======

Now, let's see what other huge lying sack-of-shit scams the liberal criminals are trying to sucker you into agreeing to and voting for:


1.) "Income Disparity!"
     ================


= "Your greedy rich parents took all the money, so there will be none left for you to inherit! 

So help us to help you to steal it back!"


BUT IN REALITY:


We've all seen entire pages (and/or entire books, even!) of libtarded articles spew forth whining victimology drek devoted to "Inequality" (of outcome, as opposed to inequality of opportunity).

Oh yeah; - "oh the tragedy, oh the humanity." But let's try this simple thought experiment out:

I see a guy who starts a company, employs say 100 people with low but decent salaries of say $50,000. each.

He gives him self a yearly salary of $100,000 for his troubles. So he's "1%" of his 100 workers, with double their income.

So he's getting TWICE their salaries! (And he doesn't even work with his hands at all)! "HOLYSHIT!" That's Not Fair - is it?! - liberals ask.

After a bit, he starts up a second, equally-successful company, so now he employs 200 people, and takes in $200,000 for him self.

"But wait!" The criminals moan - that's "Not Fair!" because now he's getting FOUR times their salaries! His income just DOUBLED, while theirs remained the exact same! And he's also just made him self part of the wealthier "0.5%!"

Holy crap, the liberals start losing their minds! "Not fair! Not Fair!! NOT FAIR!!!"

Sure, the guy's efforts have doubled the economy, and now twice as many people can feed their families, but the "gap" between the evil capitalist and his 'slave' workers has doubled! They didn't get any raises at all, the poor exploited dumb brutes, the extortive liberal victimologists moan!

Then he does it again (the greedy bastard)! He made yet another successful company and now employs 300 people! "But" they bitch, "while the workers still 'only' get $50,000 p/a each, the evil rich capitalist now makes almost a third of a million dollars a year! Holy shit - he's making SIX times what they make, and his worth just went up another 50% - AGAIN!"

Their salaries didn't go up AT ALL! "So, quick! We must rob and exile him and "redistribute" his bloated salary among the poor enslaved perpetually downtrodden working-man labor class at once!" they insist.

That way, they will each get a quick 2% raise at last! Of course, they will also then just as quickly lose their jobs and all have to go on welfare, because that rich capitalist traitor just sold his infrastructure and took all the jobs overseas, but hey - that's what "the government" (everybody else who works and pays taxes) is for - to subsidize libertine whiners - amiright!?


MORONS!



2.) "Voting Reform/Proportional Representation!"
     =========================================


= "Vote to help us rob your greedy rich parents (of YOUR inheritance)

so we can give you back some of it now to fritter away! Whee!"


BUT IN REALITY:



HERE'S HOW & WHY "PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION" IS VOTE-THEFT:

Here's both how and why this falsely-named and entirely hypocritical "FAIR VOTE CANADA!" Libetrayal PAC is anything BUT "Fair!"

"Proportional" representation really only means stealing votes from one riding to bolster party status in others, in order to form a "politicians' union" and enshrine political parties, not individual citizen voters, as the main arbiters of our laws.

It dilutes your votes and renders them worthless. People are supposed to vote for their LOCAL representatives, to represent their localities - because traditionally, that's where the citizens' jobs and families and homes are located. "Proportional" voting is for parties over people - for political party idols over real live human individuals.


Let's dummy this down to its most absolute basic, binary principle, to see how it works:


Let's imagine that we have only two main political parties, and only two political ridings next to each other. 

They each have the exact same population/number of voters; for convenience' sake, let's make it an even 100 voters per riding.

In the first one, the main employer is a large globalist corporation which only exists because of government tax grants.
Let's call it "SNC Liberalin."

In the second riding, there are only a few government bailouts, but most people work for small, unassociated private companies.

In the election, the first riding votes 99% Liberal (quel surprise) while the second riding votes 51% Conservative.

Under the current and traditional, status-quo first-past-the-post (one person, one vote) system we have now, the people have just elected one Liberal, and one Conservative, to represent them in Parliament. Seems fair, no?

But under "proportional" representation, those votes get added together, then divided ('averaged') such that we get a grand total of 148 votes for the Liberals, and 52 votes for the Conservatives - averaged (added, then divided into 2) that means we end up with 74% voting Liberal, and only 26% voting Conservative. 

Therefore the Liberal Party gets another representative in Parliament, so now there's 2 Liberal MPs and only 1 Conservative one.

This is, of course, what the Liberals call "Fair!" while in the past, "one person, one vote," they called "Unfair! Not Fair!"

(And, of course, after Trudeau's crushing majority win last time, there was obviously no way the hypocrite would want to dilute his votes by mixing and matching riding votes in this proposed manner, which is why he reneged on his promise to do so). 


Get it, yet?
;-)

The bottom line is: No matter who you think benefits most from party-directed government largesse - poor areas or the largest political-donor mega-corporations, like the Liberal Party's SNC Lavalin globalist "Quebec" engineering firm - the so-called "Mixed: Member-Proportional (MMP)" voting reform system allows the politicians, not voters, to skew their votes and enshrine a perpetual self-perpetrating politicians' union into our laws, while 'ranked' voting merely enshrines "Free Stuff!" tax-looting.

The traditional "First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) voting system is "One Person, One Vote;" and it can't get any more fair than that!


(CAPISCE?)!


FURTHERMORE:

People who want to "reform" (change) our traditional First-Past-The-Post, one person/one vote system, whine:

"The ruling party only got 40% of the total vote! 
That means 60% voted against them! 
That's not fair!"

This is a standard statistical distraction tactic which is always used by liberals; don't fall for it!

Say it goes like this:

40 % Conservatives
30 % Liberals
20 % Outright Commies
10% all others (fringe parties/flakes).

=100 %

OK, so the vote is to hire ('elect') ONE representative, who "only" got 40 % of the votes (because we, as the 'companys' owners' decided she was the most qualified of the 4 job-applicants).

There was only the one job opening, so it also doesn't mean anybody owes the losers any second-place jobs!

Also, although overall the winners DIDN'T get the WHOLE other 60 % of the vote, it doesn't mean ALL those nay-sayers and dissenters voted against them, either.

In fact, it also really only means that, although 60 % of the people didn't vote for the winner, nevertheless, a full 70, 80, and 90 % of the people also didn't vote for the other (losing) candidates, respectively, either!

It also means that, contrary to often-butthurt liberal propaganda hyperbole, which falsely extrapolates that "It's Not Fair, because the other 60% voted AGAINST the winner!" what really happened is they divided their votes by voting FOR whomever they chose as the best candidates and parties. 

Had they really wanted to vote AGAINST the eventual winner, they would have voted strategically FOR the most likely (and least disliked) other major party as their only real option to defeat the winners.

So, once again: it can't get any more 'fair,' than:
"One Person, One Vote!"

Saturday, October 19, 2019

SO - WHAT IS JUSTIN TURDEAU (AND ALL OTHER LIBERTINE CRIMINAL HYPOCRITES) REALLY UP TO?

We Canadians wear plaid shirts because our nation was settled by Scots (and Krauts & Frogs). "Progressives" follow the religion of hypocrisy. Concerned Conservatives: "Hey, that proposal won't work because reasons!" Delinquent heedless reckless careless criminally negligent libertine "liberal" criminals: "I don't care what you say because I have hope ("Belief!" Faith!") that it will work, so I'm going to do it anyway! Whee!" (Rinse & Repeat). Generally, this translates into concrete terms as this: Conservative citizens: "Some people choose to become and remain criminals because they assess risks vs rewards and notice you libs let them get away with it! We should stop them!" Libs: "No that will never work because there's no free will and so no criminal intent. So we will only always coddle criminals as equally-helpless fellow victims. All punishment is mean and hateful and always wrong, and never a crime deterrent. Hope is a plan and ignorance is bliss! Whee!" Observation: as with all religions, delinquent criminals negligently invoke hope (aka: "Faith!" and/or "Belief!") and see ignorance AS bliss! Many such delinquent libertine criminal hypocrites are also passive-aggressives, enslaving people through flattery: "I'm sure you're better at that than I could ever be (so: YOU do it)!" Whee. For example, libertine politicians claim they can afford to run up debts because the economy is run by hard-working honest entrepreneurs who always know what they're doing, so, as the economy "inevitably" improves because of them, so will the amount of taxes paid increase, which will "naturally" counteract their proposed loan interest payment increases too. Whee. A famous recent example: "THE BUDGET WILL BALANCE ITSELF!" - Justine "Sunny Ways" Turdeau - Meanwhile, Conservatives always get portrayed as mean-spirited, nasty and OCD obsessively restrictive bean-counters who always put money before people. In short: (Libs:) "Hire (elect) me because, since there's no problems, there's nothing to fix - so there's this huge tax windfall just waiting to be spent" (yes, to them, tax money always just seems to magically arrive, apparently dropping from the skies like manna from heaven) "which we can then give back to you and spend on giving it back to you as 'FREE STUFF!' Government is Robin Hood, and our only job is delivering the goodies to you! We study "DELIVEROLOGY!" 'Whee,' indeed. Similarly, Turdeau claimed that his THE SKY IS FALLING carbon tax wasn't going to actually affect anyone, because he was going to give it ALL back in rebates. What's the point of a tax if and when one is going to simply refund it all?! What good does that do to stop or deter pollution, heal the planet, etc?! Either apparent liberal stupidity ("libtardation") really does approach the level of technical insanity - or the level of deliberate hypocrisy they show demonstrates how very stupid they are willing to risk their political careers betting on that the average voter is. Of course it's the latter, which is also why such hypocrites always pretend to value form over substance and image over reality; "etiquette" and "civility" (aka Tolerance of crime) over one being able to honestly and directly display anger while accusing a criminal of its crimes. They assert "We" (i.e: you) "all did, still do, or should do it" (go along with the criminal lie that there are no criminals) to get along (with all the other 'equally helpless fellow victims) too!" But all it really means is they pretend that not hurting feelings is more important than facts. That's why they demand pity (aka: "forgiveness" - because, to those who intentionally, deliberately and habitually always choose to attack thereby innocent other people in advance, pretending it's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission) as to them, all is allowed unless and until very specifically disallowed in advance, and so they are always entitled or "at liberty" - in their own heedless, reckless careless and criminally negligent, libertine way - to do whatever they want TO you, whenever and wherever they want to do it, at least as long as they can also pretend to have done it FOR your own good, too! Conservatives, of course, hold the opposite to be true: That all is disallowed in advance, that one can do nothing either TO, nor FOR, anyone else, without first getting their express permission in advance. The Golden Rule of Law principle which most simply defines all morality as "Do Not Attack First" ('attacks' being whatever one did not agree to accept) and that one must pay for what one takes. Criminals think they can use mob-rule might-makes-right 'democracy' to vote to change that, because it's not a crime if we all agree to do it, too, in advance. Republicans believe there are some rules which nobody can vote to change. And that's why all libertine "liberal" criminals are also Democrats, and all law-abiding, sane, non-hypocrite individualists are 'republicans' at heart, whether they know it or not. CAPISCE?

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Reminder: Media framed Russia to frame Trump


From here:

Exclusive: Jack Cashill notes how Dems turned against Moscow after years of cooperation




As late as 2015, no one would have predicted that within a year Russia would emerge as a monstrously subversive country hellbent on throwing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

No one would have predicted this scenario because it defied common sense. Russia had a proven pawn in Obama and a friend in Hillary. It did not need Donald Trump.

The campaign to sell the Trump-Putin collusion scenario could not have worked had not the media shoveled tons of information down a Grand Canyon-sized memory hole. There was much to forget.

Among the memories to be disposed of was the White House's courtship of Russia starting immediately after the January 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama.

Speaking at a February 2009 security conference in Munich, Vice President Joe Biden told the audience, "It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."

A month later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Russian foreign minister in Geneva and presented him with a red plastic "reset" button.


Two years after proposing the reset button, Biden made a revealing speech at Moscow State University. There he listed the many new areas of cooperation between Russia and the United States and cited with pride the fruits of that relationship.

During his speech Biden boasted of visiting a high-tech hub on the outskirts of Moscow called "Skolkovo." Biden openly encouraged American venture capitalists to invest there, promising that Skolkovo held the potential to become Russia's Silicon Valley.

Even apolitical observers were troubled by this happy exchange of capital and information.

EUCOM, the American military's leading intelligence think tank in Europe, called American involvement in Skolkovo "an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage – with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently."

Always on the prowl for a quick buck, Bill Clinton secured State's permission to meet with Skolkovo honcho Vekselberg. Clinton happened to be in Russia at the time to give his notorious $500,000 speech, paid for by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

On that same trip Clinton met with senior Rosatom official Arkady Dvorovich. The media scarcely noticed or cared.

Rosatom controlled all things nuclear in Russia, including the arsenal. At the time, Rosatom was seeking the State Department's permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with vast U.S. uranium reserves.

Even the New York Times noticed this fandango. In April 2015, too late to stop the transaction, the Times reported how the Russians took control of Uranium One in three distinct transactions from 2009 to 2013.

During this time, said the Times, "a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

For those who want to know more, Peter Schweizer does a great job documenting the transactions executed by Hillary's State Department in his books "Secret Empires" and "Clinton Cash."

Obama was hardly blameless. "She works for me," he proudly said of Hillary during the 2012 town hall debate with Romney. "I'm the president, and I'm always responsible."

During that 2012 campaign, Obama beamed about the happy state of U.S.-Russia affairs. In March 2012, Obama met with outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Seoul, Korea.

A live microphone picked up a private conversation between the two. "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space," said Obama, the "him" being incoming president Putin.

Obama continued, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Replied Medvedev, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Obama showed his Russia-friendly chops during his final debate with Mitt Romney in 2012. Earlier in that year, Romney had called out Obama for his not-so-secret overture to Putin.

"This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe," said Romney. "They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."

During the debate, Obama answered with a rehearsed comeback: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." The media laughed off the Russian threat along with Obama.

Of note, Vladimir Putin served as prime minister during Obama's first term and was elected president eight months before Obama blew off Romney's concerns.

Obama had a friendly relationship with Russia during those first four years and expected to get even friendlier, especially with his new "flexibility."

Of course, Putin read Obama's flexibility for the weakness it was. Russia promptly annexed Crimea, refused to accept international inspection of its nuclear sites and gave fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden a home.

For all that, Obama continued to laugh off Russian potential. In July 2015, tensions between the White House and the Kremlin eased considerably when Obama called Putin, thanking him for his much needed help securing the Iran nuclear deal.

Obama had reason to be grateful. No foreign leader had more pull with the mullahs than Putin. "We would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia's willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal," Obama told the Times.

After the Iran deal no particular Russian provocation made the administration turn against Russia. Hell, Russia had been meddling in American politics since the Sacco and Vanzetti case in the 1920s, and Obama published his first article in 1983 in support of the KGB-inspired anti-nuke mania.

The event that dimmed the White House enthusiasm for Russia was Donald Trump's emergence on the national scene. To frame Trump the White House had to frame Russia too.

No doubt, Putin provided the framers ample ammunition, but Putin had been in power either as president or prime minister since the presidency of his buddy Bill Clinton. "He kept his word on all the deals we made," said Clinton in 2013.

Putin had not changed. Neither had Obama and his inner circle. They had been spying on the media, punishing whistleblowers, harassing honest reporters, even imprisoning politically inconvenient people for the past seven years.

They had the experience and the media support to execute this one last epic, Soviet-style, character assassination and silent coup.

Or so they thought.

;-)

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Mein Kampf Mit Der Alt-Rechten Wiederbelebung Der Neonazis

aka: "My Struggle With The Alt-Right Neo-Nazi Resurgence:"


Re: "Why Radical INDIVIDUALISM in a TRIBALIZING Society Wont Work" by Black Pigeon Speaks:  https://youtu.be/lrVyXdwft8E Regarding "white nationalists" (since white "supremacy" is a scientific given: Jews and even their Arab cousins are classified by geneticists as "Caucasians" whether they like it or not)! - By all scales of reference, Caucasians are more intelligent (have better speed of thought and memory) than others. But simply being more intelligent doesn't make one any smarter or wiser, and often it's a distinct impairment to wisdom, because it can enable one to do stupid things faster and more accurately, too!

THE WHITE CURSE

Jews suffer from the same White Curse as the rest of us Whites do! Let's define terms: Intelligence is speed of thought and memory. Smarts or wisdom is how one uses that intelligence (hint: honesty is the best policy, and deliberately self-inflicted paranoia leads to all other ultimately stupid "mental illnesses"). The White Curse is that increased intelligence leads to a certain type of stupidity denied to the less intelligent breeds: the one and only real drawback of White intelligence is that the ability to see so far into the future leads some of the more weak-minded ones ("liberals") to see all the potential problems as inevitable, and so they become paranoid masochists who hypocritically pretend to instantly compromise with - to go along (with their criminal lies, mostly to the effect that there are no criminals or crimes, but only equally helpless fellow victims) to get along (with the scary lying criminals) - and tempt them to Submit to - and actually cause, and/or induce others to cause - those very same problems which cause those pains they fear the most! That way, they can pretend to 'control' and cancel the additional pains caused by fearing them! Notice how all the destructive self-hating "liberals" are whites/Jews! No other breeds on earth act that way!

So I think the real cause of the resurgence in worldwide anti-White crime advocacy and anti-Semitism in recent years is pretty obvious – LIBERAL COWARDICE. See, the big, bad, scary and swarthy muslims blame the Jews for everything (it’s right in their Qur’an). Muslims outnumber Jews, and often SEEM to outnumber others (especially bedwetting crybaby liberals) SO of course the liberals will turn on the small numbers of harmless, mostly pacifist Jews in their midst, if they think they can appease the scary muslims by sacrificing the Jews to them in habitual ritual human-sacrificial offerings, as they seem to do every day in public in the leftist-dominated enemedia and university campuses. It all fits with the liberal criminals' inherent masochism as well, where they always try to pretend to "control" their fears BY causing the very same worst-case-scenario problems and mistakes which cause the pains they fear the most! Beyond that, I think conservatives and libertarians who fall into this same trap are affected by a fear of the other races being promoted all the time (and, honestly, by the fact that liberal Jews, at least some of whom do openly endorse Israel's own openly ethno-state status, nevertheless seem to be against the West being for whites as their own natural homeland. Globalist cries for "More Diversity!" and "Multi-Culturalism!" seem to be aimed only at whites); we never hear about how "We need more whites, blacks and Dravidians in Asia, because it's too full of "racist" exclusionary Asians!" Nor (ditto for Africa) "We need more whites Dravidians and Asians in Africa, because it's too full of "racist" exclusionary blacks!" So, noticing these very real patterns, they look back in recent history to the only real, almost successful but apparently powerful figure of a racist white nationalist, and see only ... Adolf Hitler. Then, exactly as blacks have been seen to do (also successfully) they whine and complain and blame the mentally superior Jews for their own, implicitly mentally inferior failings! 

"The Jews seem to be in charge, ergo everything that ever went wrong, is their fault!" is no different from blacks' historic claims of same regarding whites in general. It's only a pathetic, fearful projection of their own lazy failings onto others. And, while it is true that total-control wanting criminal gangster slavers of all stripes ("leftists;" "communists;" "socialists;" "fascists;" "nazis;" and "muslims") are trying to use mob-rule and group-might-made-right "democracy" to get the majority to Submit to group idolatry over any and all real live individual human rights, the way to stop them isn't to fight fire with more fire (by joining a neo-Nazi party whites-only club to protect our selves from the reckless and criminally negligent libertine "liberal" criminals' own racist identity politics gangs) but to remind everyone - of all races - that they are individuals who should have only the exact same equal human rights and responsibilities as everyone else. Either we enforce one law for all individual human citizens, or remain enmeshed in group-might-made-rights "Oppression Olympics" chaos forever. And we must teach our children that rights can only come with concomitant, corollary reciprocal responsibilities - give up one and lose the other!

And, Jews are inherently racist, having declared them selves God's Chosen People (those from their 12 tribes, at least) have always considered them selves to be mentally and spiritually superior to the other nations (the Hebrew word for 'nations' is "goyim") BUT, when they got expelled and disperced from their ancestral homeland by the Romans in the 'diaspora,' had to pretend to go along to get along with those whose lands they were forced to ask permission to live in - so they invented and adopted from their most infamous rebel son, the universalist creed that all humans are equal, and thus promoted open borders and "tolerance of diversity" and "equality" at least in public, while remaining separate exclusivist supremacists at home. That's how and why they were behind Communism, too. But the other peoples who were gracious enough to host them sooner or later became aware of their double standards, and evicted them again and agin, 109 times so far. Because when someone insists you have to be more tolerant of diversity, it implies you are inherently intolerant bigot - which, coming from such dedicated hypocrites, can only be a form of "projection." And nobody likes to be slandered all the time, except for maybe Christians, and whose great idea was that, too? And even now that the Jews have finally reclaimed their ancestral homeland, and while they demand their right to their "ethno-state" for the protection of their own race, they still also hypocritically continue to embrace that same universalist creed of open borders and tolerance for diversity in everyone else, as they find it a useful tool to destroy those they assert had evicted them - in other words, all the non-Jews in the world. This attitude was always very similar to islamic mindset, from even before they got evicted, although back then their preferred tactic to fulfill their global conquest and slavery strategy was peaceful usury, not violence.
But if they can trick their enemies into destroying their own houses from within, by tricking violently intolerant uniform-wearing fascists into doing their work for them, under the guise of being diversely tolerantly anti-fascists, then they will.  

The only real problem with "Jews in general," is that they are all so tribal, so clannish, that they will support each other (or at least never oppose one another in public) for being responsible for the worst atrocities - i.e: when the Rothschild banksters support both/all sides in every conflict, indiscriminately, because that way, in the end, the losers end up still owing them and the winners, the winners still owe them, and then they both have to take out even more loans to pay for reconstruction, so the banksters end up owning everything; it's always WIN/WIN for them, and LOSE/LOSE for the rest of us. But this never happens to any Jews - when Goldman-Sachs prints free money, they give it to other Jews for free, to buy up monopoly ownership of say all the aluminum in the world (they actually did that). No Jews complain. So then I say: With group rights, comes group responsibility.

Monday, October 14, 2019

Google's stealth plan to defeat Trump in 2020



The only way Trump can lose in 2020

WND's David Kupelian lays out the battlefield and explains Democrats' secret weapon

Thomas Paine famously said "These are times that try men's souls." And right now really seems like one of those times.

A dark cloud of madness has settled over the Democratic Party. After convincing themselves and millions of Americans, without evidence, that our democratically elected president is a traitor, a secret double agent serving an enemy power, the Mueller report finally revealed that the "Trump Russia collusion" narrative was the worst political hoax in U.S. history. But instead of slinking away in disgrace – or, heaven forbid, apologizing – the Democrats took a couple weeks off to rest and regroup, then launched another "Trump is a traitor" hoax – this time moving on from Russia to its next-door neighbor, Ukraine.

In keeping with Democrats' trademark tactic of projection, everything they are now accusing Trump of doing – colluding with Ukraine to rig an election, personally profiting from his high government position, etc. – they themselves did. Repeatedly, provably and brazenly.

Meanwhile, their party's presidential hopefuls – at least all their top-tier candidates – are corrupt, compromised, deranged people who lie as easily as breathing.

Do I exaggerate?

Consider that Sen. Bernie Sanders insists that convicted terrorists – specifically including Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who in 2013 slaughtered three and maimed close to 300 with nail-filled pressure-cooker bombs – should be allowed to vote. Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill in June that would grant reparations for homosexuals. "Beto" O'Rourke promises to send police to your home to confiscate your legally purchased firearms or drag you off to prison – plus, now he says he wants to eliminate tax exemptions for all Christian churches that refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage!

Meanwhile, if you’re a Trump supporter, all of these candidates regard you as an ignorant racist at best, and see President Trump as another Hitler.

And yet, one of these candidates (or else Hillary Clinton if she jumps into the race as many increasingly expect) may well be elected president of the United States a year from now.

If that happens – sorry, but kiss your country goodbye.

Again I ask: Am I exaggerating? If you pay attention to the news, you know I am not.

But how, you might well ask, could such a deranged person as any of the top Democratic presidential candidates possibly win, seeing as they all support suicidal and frankly idiotic policies like open borders, free healthcare for everyone in the world, emptying out our prisons and so forth? How could American voters possibly choose one of them?

Well, consider the forces arrayed on their side: America's educational system, almost entirely in leftwing hands, is busily indoctrinating the next generation, from our colleges and universities down through high school, middle and elementary school, all the way to pre-school, where toddlers are regularly subjected to demonic "drag queen story hour" indoctrination sessions.

Then there's the entire elite news media, the bureaucratic Deep State, the permanent elite ruling class in Washington, D.C., the entertainment media, "woke" corporations like the NBA, and on and on.

And then – as if this battle wasn't already lopsided enough – consider that people of this same radical elitist leftwing mindset have stealthily taken over the internet through their mega-monopolies of Google, Facebook, Amazon and others. As a result, vital prolife, conservative and Christian voices, including WorldNetDaily – as we have long documented – are daily banned, de-monetized, de-platformed, suppressed and otherwise made to "disappear." Free speech and a free press are definitely NOT leftwing values.

Perhaps most concerning right now: Leaders of Google, the most powerful company in the world, believe Trump's 2016 electoral triumph represented a huge failure on their part – they just didn't try hard enough on Hillary Clinton's behalf. And we know, thanks to multiple courageous ex-Google whistleblowers, that Google fully intends to get the job done right this time. That's right: They mean to make sure Trump loses in November 2020 and that one of their neo-Marxist candidates ends up as leader of the once-free world.

One of Google and Facebook's most crucial strategies for making sure this happens is to silence powerful voices of truth that expose their schemes and lies and effectively inform and rally the pro-American "troops" to preserve, protect and defend their great nation.

As Jefferson wrote in his 1823 letter to Lafayette, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed." Unfortunately, Big Tech is intent on America not having a free press, in shaping public opinion in its leftist image, and in suppressing dissenting voices like WND's. And that's the only way any of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates could possibly win a year from now.

Bottom line: Big Tech's two most urgent tasks right now are defeating Trump in the 2020 election and making dissenting voices disappear. They're still kicking themselves for having failed during the 2016 election and don't intend to make the same mistake again. Incredibly, says top Google researcher Dr. Robert Epstein, Google is now poised to swing as many as 15 million votes in next year's presidential election – toward the Democratic candidate!

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

"EAT SHIT AND LIVE!" Liberal shit-heads claim fecal transplants and donor stool capsules needed to maintain mental health!

HOLY SHIT! 

Liberal "professor" and chief of psychiatry at the University of Calgary suggests:

"POOP PILLS AND PROBIOTICS COULD BE GAME-CHANGER - CAN MENTAL ILLNESS BE TREATED THROUGH THE GUT?!

From here:

The rise of 'psychobiotics'?

No area of psychiatry is as hot, or controversial today as the idea of manipulating the gut to alter the mind

- The Stupid just keeps coming!

"We now think mental illness is essentially a brain illness, and it may be that it isn’t."Getty Images




The calls started pouring in soon after word spread that Dr. Valerie Taylor was testing fecal microbiota transplantation — transferring poop from one body to another — for bipolar disorder.
The mental health condition is different from depression. It comes with mania, the “up” swings that can make people feel superhuman. “But so many people with depression called wanting to take part in the study we felt we had an obligation to try,” said Taylor, chief of psychiatry at the University of Calgary.
Dr. Valerie Taylor Handout
Two years after spearheading the bipolar study, the first of its kind in the world, Taylor has now launched a second study testing fecal transplants in people with depression, as well as a third for depression in people who also have irritable bowel syndrome.

“The literature that we’re on to something has grown,” said Taylor. “But we’re not Goop,” she added, referring to Gwyneth Paltrow’s often airy lifestyle brand. “We want to know if there’s something here or not.”

No area of psychiatry is as hot, or controversial today as the idea of manipulating the gut to alter the mind. The trillions of bacteria living in the human gut have been shown to play a crucial role in gut-brain communication, researchers write in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. The hope is that enhancing good gut microbes — whether with probiotics, fecal transplants or capsules filled with donor stool, or by adding sauerkraut or other fermented foods to the diet — may be the answer to intractable depression, the kind conventional treatments can’t touch.
It could also fundamentally alter the way we conceptualize mental illness. “We now think mental illness is essentially a brain illness, and it may be that it isn’t,” Taylor said.

Gastro-intestinal problems are common among people with depression and anxiety, and studies suggest people with depression have a different gut flora than people without. Intestinal bacteria also produce serotonin, dopamine and other brain chemicals that regulate mood.

There are also direct connections via the vagus nerve, which connects nerves in the gastro-intestinal system to those in the brain. Years ago, doctors used to cut away the vagus nerve as a way to treat peptic ulcers. But people who underwent a “vagotomy” showed higher rates of psychiatric illness post surgery.

Recent estimates put the number of bacteria in the human gut at slightly more than the total number of human cells. “The collective genome of these bacterial cells, the gut microbiome, vastly exceed the amount of human DNA present in the body, such that, for every one human gene we have over 100 bacterial genes,” Mary Butler, of University College Cork in Ireland and her co-authors wrote in the psychiatric journal.
We want to know if there's something here or not
The field is still in its infancy, the authors wrote, and it’s premature to suggest “psychobiotics” or poop transplants are ready to replace standard treatments. For one thing, to be successful, donor bacteria has to attach to the recipient’s gut.

Just how gut bacteria communicate with the brain, and the brain with the gut, isn’t entirely clear, though Taylor suspects the immune part is paramount. Gut bacteria influences the immune system. Stress causes inflammation and inflammation can lead to conditions like gut dysbiosis, which has been linked with altered brain function.

There is some evidence certain probiotics — particularly bifidobacterium and lactobacillus supplements — can improve human moods. Results for anxiety have been mixed, though one small study found fermented, probiotic-containing foods appeared to protect against social anxiety disorder in people with higher-than-normal levels of neuroticism, Butler and her co-authors reported.

Fecal transplants, for their part, have a near 100 per cent success rate in curing antibiotic-resistant Clostridium difficile, a hospital-acquired super bug, and Taylor believes they do a better job at recolonizing the gut than probiotics.

The hope is that enhancing good gut microbes may be the answer to intractable depression. Getty Images
Part of her enthusiasm comes from “really profound” animal studies showing that when stool from depressed humans is transplanted into germ-free mice — mice raised in ultra-sterile environments and free of intestinal bugs — the rodents show depressive-like behaviours.

“Humans aren’t mice and mice aren’t humans,” said Taylor, who moved to Calgary from Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital a year ago to take on the headship of the U of Calgary program. “But there’s clearly a signal.”

The Calgary depression studies will be comparing fecal tablets — poop pills — against a placebo. The bipolar study, still underway in Toronto, involves injecting specially prepared stool from a donor into the recipient’s colon via colonoscopy. It’s a randomized trial: some are injected with donor faces, others re-infused with their own poop.

“We really wanted to look at quite ill individuals and say we’re going to take out the entire gut microbiome and introduce a new one and see if we can recolonize,” Taylor said.

But there are caveats: Stool donors have to be rigorously screened. “It’s easier to donate blood than feces,” Taylor said. One Toronto stool donor program recently reported that, in the first two years of the program, only two of 322 prospective donors — 0.6 per cent — ultimately passed screening.
Can you cause schizophrenia if you gave somebody stool from someone with schizophrenia?
Donors also must have zero history of mental illness, in either themselves or first-degree relatives.
“Can you cause schizophrenia if you gave somebody stool from someone with schizophrenia? We don’t know,” Taylor said. But certainly the mouse studies suggest these behaviours are transferrable.
There are other potential disasters: In June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an alert and halted all fecal transplants after two immune-compromised people contracted drug-resistant E. coli infections from the same donor. One died.

“In the U.S. there are people doing this in unlicensed and unregulated ways,” Taylor said. In Canada, the fecal matter used in the transplants is considered a “biologic drug,” and regulated like one, by Health Canada.

Taylor is cautious, noting in a recent editorial that charlatans and self-appointed wellness gurus have been all too happy to suggest cleaning out the colon can instantly improve wellbeing. We need to manage the hype, she said. Still, something needs to be done to help people for whom standard treatments provide little relief, or unbearable side effects.


“I would love to be able to show this actually works and that it’s potentially game changing,” Taylor said. “We’re not there yet. But I think we’re getting there.”














Tuesday, October 8, 2019

One UN To Rule Them All...!



One UN to rule them all, 

Many drones to find them,

One LEOforce to jail them all, 


and in ignorant darkness bind them,

In the Land of Brussells where Politicians lie




Today's Question:

Why is the elitist establishment so obsessed with meat?

I don't know how many people have noticed this, but in the past three months it has been impossible for a person to throw a beef burger patty in any direction on the compass without hitting a news article on the "destructive effects" of the meat industry in terms of "climate change" as well as articles on the supposedly vast health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet. This narrative has culminated in a tidal wave of stories about vegetable-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and their rise to stock market stardom. The word on the street is, meat based diets are going the way of the Dodo, and soon, by environmental necessity, we will all be vegetarians.

For at least the past 10 years the United Nations has been aggressively promoting the concept of a meat free world, based on claims that accelerated land use and greenhouse gas emissions are killing the Earth. 

In the west, militant leftists with dreams of socialist Utopia have adopted a kind of manifesto in the Green New Deal, and an integral part of their agenda is the end to the availability of meat to the common man. Some of these elitists have argued in favor of heavy taxation on meat products to reduce public consumption; other have argued for an outright ban.

The problem with this dietary revolution is that it is based primarily on junk science and cherry-picked data, along with outright lies and propaganda. The majority of studies and articles covering this issue are decidedly biased, left leaning and collectivist in nature. 

Now, I plan to touch on this issue, but what I really want to zero in on is the "why" of the matter — why are the elites targeting human meat consumption, and why are they willing to lie about its effects in order to get us to abandon our burgers and steaks? What is the real agenda here...?

First, lets tackle the climate change issue. The U.N. claims that human food production must change drastically in order to stop global warming and damage to the environment, and these changes must focus mainly on meat production and 'methane gases.' 

In other words, they assert that cow farts are killing the planet. This is a rather convenient story for the elites as they push their carbon taxation agenda. It seems everything we do as humans must be monitored, restricted or taxed, from breathing to procreating to eating meat, otherwise the Earth is doomed.

In past articles I have written extensively on the direct ties between the U.N.'s global warming hysteria and the push for global government. In particular, I've mentioned the writings of former U.N. assistant secretary general Robert Muller. In his manifesto collected on a website titled "Good Morning World," Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of "protecting the Earth" and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental doomsday, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary edifice to keep society from destroying itself.

Muller initiated such programs in the early 1990s, which were similar in tone to the Club of Rome think tank, a group of consultants to the U.N. which called for a stop to human population growth. In their white paper titled 'The First Global Revolution,' the Club of Rome stated:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The statement comes from Chapter 5 — The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

From public admissions from U.N. officials and the Club of Rome, we can see that climate change is a narrative driven by ideology, not science, and that the real goal is global governance, not saving the planet. As for the "science" these ideologues say supports their demands, there is none.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the claim that a cause and effect link between carbon emissions and rising temperatures exists. In fact, there is more evidence to show that the reverse is true — that higher temperatures result in greater animal populations and thus more carbon emissions and thus more food for vegetation. Ask any global warming "expert" from the NOAA, NASA or the IPCC what percentage of a temperature increase is caused by cars versus cows and what evidence there is to support their assertions? They won't be able to produce an answer.

They will simply claim that the evidence is irrefutable because the temperatures are rising and so are carbon. In other words, their argument is that correlation always equals causation. But are temperatures really rising? What if the entire basis for global warming hysteria is fabricated?

The NOAA has been caught on multiple occasions doing just that. By going back to previously recorded temperature stats and tweaking them to make them lower, the NOAA then makes it appear as though the Earth is warming in a historic trend. However, the unaltered temperature record shows that the Earth has always had warming periods which run in natural cycles, followed by cooling and using tracking increased solar activity. 

You know that giant nuclear reactor in the sky that is 1.3 million times bigger than the Earth? Yeah, it has a lot more to do with the Earth's climate patterns than cow farts do...

If one compares NOAA data on temperature changes over the past century from 1999 to the data the NOAA has released over the past few years, it is easy to see the adjustments they made to their own older data in order to make it appear as though steady global warming is taking place. The NOAA's changes also make it appear as though temperature changes are closely tracking rising carbon emissions.

Here we see the climate change hoax in action, as well as the U.N. and the Club of Rome conspiracy to engineer an environmental threat that will provide a rationale for global government. But what does all this have to do with meat?


The climate change myth is simply a means to multiple ends. And, one of the things the elites are using it to unravel is society's eating habits. The purpose behind the war on meat is less clear, but I do have some theories based on historical evidence as well as scientific evidence that shows ruling oligarchies have always tried to restrict meat consumption by the "peasant class" whenever possible.

In feudal Europe in the Middle Ages, the presence of meat in a diet was very rare for the peasant class. Farm animals were strictly controlled property, given to peasant farmers as tools for working the land, not for eating. Hunting wild game was difficult as the ruling royal families often claimed ownership of all the best hunting grounds within the country. After multiple peasant revolts, such as the Great Peasant's Revolt of 1381 in England, the elites banned hunting parties, as they were suspected of being used as cover for peasants to train in military tactics and to plan rebellions.

Peasants caught poaching "the king's deer" were punished severely — including hanging, castration, blinding and being sewn into a deer carcass and chased down by ferocious dogs.

This did not stop peasants from eating meat at times though. When possible they would eat small game. But their diets consisted primarily of pottage and porridge mad from grains, beans and root vegetables, along with black rye bread.

In feudal Japan, meat eating, not just hunting, was specifically banned for over 1,000 years, starting in 675 AD. The ban was based on the melding of Buddhist beliefs and Shinto. Of course, while the law was enforced for peasants, the elite ruling class and the samurai warrior class never actually gave meat up. Meat was often eaten by the elites, under the auspices of improving health. When given as a gift to a feudal lord, pickled meats were labeled "medicine" in order to avoid open defiance of the laws.

This selective ban continued until the Europeans arrived on Japanese shores, and the reintroduction of meat dishes began to spread. By the late 1800s the meat ban was officially lifted. It was believed by the Japanese of the era that Westerners had superior physiques because of their meat-based diets and that Japanese physiques had been subdued by their vegetable and grain based diets. There is some truth to this observation.

Today, the vegetarian ideology is tied inexorably to ideologies such as socialism, globalism and extremist forms of environmentalism. There are every few vegetarian promoters that are not politically motivated. This has caused a rash of propaganda, attempting to rewrite the history of the human diet.

Even though human beings have been omnivores for millions of years, the anti-meat campaign claims that humans were actually long time vegetarians. They do this by comparing humans to our closest evolutionary relatives, like chimpanzees and gorillas, and arguing that these animals have a strict vegetable diet (which is not exactly true).

Of course, Native American tribes, living closest to how our prehistoric ancestors lived long ago, had meat heavy diets, but don't expect the environmentalists to accept this reality. What they conveniently do not mention is that over 2 million years ago human ancestors broke from their vegetable diet and began eating meat. 

Not only this, but the diet changed our very physical makeup. 

We grew far stronger, and smarter.

Yes, that's right, the rise of meat in the human diet tracks almost exactly with the rise of human intelligence and advances in tools and technology.

Vegetarian and vegan diets have been shown to lower overall IQ due to lack of nutrients required for brain health. This is because the human brain needs fatty acids such as Omega 3 which are only found in saturated fats in meats. There is no substitute in the plant world. Saturated fats from animal protein have been shown to increase cognitive function as well as memory.

The brain uses almost 20 percent of the human body's calorie intake in order to function, and much of this intake requires saturated fats and even cholesterol. Contrary to decades of misinformation, animal fats are good for you.

Pro athletes also must revert to a meat-based diet in order to build up superior muscle structure, and another factor which is rarely mentioned is the increase in estrogen-like compounds in plant based foods (mainly soy), which can reduce testosterone.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. It is perhaps by mere coincidence, or perhaps just observation on the part of elitist dynasties, but meat consumption has always been connected with an unruly peasant class. This is because meat eating contributes directly to greater cognitive function, as well as better memory and muscle mass.

While much is discussed about how artificial meat like Beyond meat has effectively copied the taste or appearance of a normal hamburger, very little is discussed about what is lacking. Beyond meat has zero cholesterol and no amino acids or fatty acids like Omega 3 or vitamins like B12. It uses coconut oil to mimic saturated animal fats, which does not duplicate their value to the human brain or body. Essentially, a Beyond Meat burger is designed to copy the taste of a burger without any of the benefits.

My theory? That meat is a cognitive enhancer as well as a strength enhancer, and the elites are seeking to remove it from our diet based on lies because such a change could contribute to a dumber and weaker population that would be easier to control.


Fake meat is also highly processed and uses a complicated method to mimic beef protein structures. It can only be created in a lab and mass produced in a factory. You will never be able to make your own Beyond Meat burger. Meaning, by banning or taxing meat into oblivion and replacing it with an industrial substitute, the establishment will have made society effectively dependent on them for a significant portion of their dietary needs. Not only do they hope to make us dumber and weaker, they also hope to make us desperately dependent.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith