The Sexual Sadist

In the Delphi Murders case, one of the early suspects who has since been completely cleared was rumored to like to drink and beat women when he had sex with them. Reportedly he beat one woman so badly that she had to go to the hospital. In the Karenna McClerkin disappearance in the same area of Indiana, one of the suspects is a Black firefighter who reportedly likes to beat his women when he has sex with them.

Although this behavior sounds horrific, it’s more common than one thinks. And even more bizarrely, there a quite a few women who actually like to get treated like this. Yep, they actually like guys to beat them up when they have sex with them. I’d like to avoid women like this as much as I can in life, although I once had a girlfriend like this who wanted me to inflict pain on her, like squeezing her nipples very hard. It didn’t do anything for me and I didn’t understand how this was supposed to be exciting. It just seemed sick to me.

Of course all of us men have a sadist buried inside of us from boyhood days. Not a sexual sadist because boys have no sex drive but a sadist, of course. It’s the natural state of the Boy in Nature. Nevertheless part of the process of honing a steel boy from the brittle iron of primitive mammalian boyhood via the fire of the cruel bootcamp that is involved in minting boys from men is to progressively stomp out this primitive mammalian sadist in the boy. It gets drummed into our heads as we move through boyhood more and more that this sort of thing is not acceptable in a man.

Young men still have a lot of sadism in them. This is part of the reason why they’re such assholes, and I say this as a former ill-behaved young man myself. As a man moves beyond 30, even this casual sort of social sadism, often written out as a male bonding practice via ribbing, teasing, etc. becomes increasingly “uncool.” At my age, late middle age, you’re just not supposed to act like this. Ever. With any man. No matter what. It seen as “uncool” and immature behavior.

Besides, it marks you as a huge dick. Feminists think we are monsters and a lot of red-pilled men agree with them. This isn’t really true but in the redpilled areas of the Manosphere range where the more toxic forms of masculinity play, you see quite a bit of it there tool. I find it ugly. I don’t like to fight with guys. I don’t even like to compete with them. I’m a Sigma Male. I don’t even have to compete. I look out and other men and think, “Competition? You call that competition LOL?” and never think of it anymore.

Anyway, the feminists need to know that it’s perfectly acceptable to be a real nice guy even in Man World, the world of masculine heterosexual men. You don’t have to be a dick. Honest.

Back to sexual sadism. Sadly there are probably lots of guys who like to beat and hurt women during sex, and just because some guy is screwed up like that doesn’t make him a murderer. And most guys like that probably never kill. They can definitely hurt women pretty badly though, that’s for sure.

The problem is it’s a bit hard to beat someone up “just a little bit.” Once you start beating people up, it tends to get out of hand pretty quickly.

Also this type, the sexual sadist, tends to get more excited as he hurts people, and hence he might feel his behavior escalating during the act. The disorder called sexual sadism tends to worsen with time, and it’s not unusual for these people, almost always men, to show up in therapist’s offices as their sexual sadism escalates concerned that the last time they did it they felt themselves escalating and had to stop themselves. They show up afraid they may kill someone next.

This disorder, like many mental disorders (at least to a point), tends to be progressive and worsen with time, at least without treatment. I’m not sure why that is but if I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that bad things tend to worsen, not get better, over time. Whether this is due to life sucking in general, Pynchonian entropy, the Spenglerian life process itself, or simply God being a Sadean sonofabitch is not known.

I recall a woman on the Net had some sick fetish where she wanted men to pretend to murder her during sex. So she had this sort of sex with ~10 different guys, and she said in a lot of the cases, the men got more and more excited as it escalated, and a number of the men said they had to stop themselves or they would have killed her.

These men may not have ever been full-blown sexual sadists. It’s simply true that sadistic violence tends to cause excitement in the male as the violence unfolds. As the excitement goes up, so does the violence in tandem. The end result can be seen in the crime pages of big papers every morning. You remember that feeling as a boy when you got more excited as your psychological or physical sadism progressed against your victim.

This type of sexual paraphilia is rather dangerous. Most never kill but it’s like handing someone a stick of dynamite and telling them to play with it.

A lot of people like to play around the edges with this sort of thing in sex, but they’re not seriously wrapped up in it as in the BD/SM lifestyle, which I regard as completely sick in its full-blown manifestation.

As long as it’s just a game that confines itself to the bedroom, it’s seems to be ok.

But in my opinion most serious sexual sadists and even sexual masochists are not very healthy people, and I’ve been studying this from a rather appalled distance for some time now. Women who come out of relationships with sexual sadists often appear damaged, and the damage often looks like a battered woman. The relationships themselves, when viewed from a distance, look precisely like the abusive male-female relationships you hear so much about, albeit in these cases, these precisely same relationships are completely consensual on the part of the woman.

It’s always consensual on the man’s part. He’s the one dishing it out after all. Most people who dish out abuse are quite happy to do so and guilt is not commonly experienced because the man most likely to feel guilt is the least likely to be abusive. As usual, the worst men feel the best and the best men feel the worse, and this applies to women too.

I’m not sure if there’s any safe or healthy way to do this crap. And in case you’re wondering, not that it matters, but this is not exactly my bag. I like to like and love the women I’m with, not hate them. But I’ve studied serial killers forever and this is a major part of their pathology. Also I work in mental health and a lot of the people I work with are dealing with antisocial thoughts – molesting children, committing homicide, etc. I specialize in this stuff.

Alt Left: Definitions: Rape, Statutory Rape/Illegal Intercourse

Rape: Non-consensual sex generally involving force, the threat of force, gross deception like pretending to be another person, or drugging the victim. Everything else is gray rape and most DA’s won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Realistically, if she is protesting and telling you to stop and you are forcing yourself on her, it’s rape whether a DA will take it or not.

Coercion is an odd word. Anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal. People have been coercing me all my life. It’s not very nice, but it’s hardly rape as long as she ends up willing. It’s important to limit our definition of rape because even stranger rape is rarely prosecuted.

Almost no one ever goes down on sex with an intoxicated woman, no matter what she is intoxicated on. The feminist line that intoxicated women can never consent to sex is odd.

By this logic, intoxicated men can never consent either. Conceivably, a sober woman having sex with an intoxicated man is guilty or rape!

By the same token, an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman are guilty of raping each other! Except of course only the man will conceivably ever go down on it.

And what of alcoholic women and women are drug addicts? Apparently every single time they have sex with anyone, they’re being raped!

Also, no one even knows what intoxicated means? At what point is someone drunk enough to not consent? Who knows!

What about other drugs – heroin, cocaine, cannabis, hallucinogens? At what point is one so intoxicated on this or that drug that they cannot consent? No one knows!

Obviously this law is ridiculously vague. All vague laws are unconstitutional and illegal because no one knows whether they are breaking them or not.

As usual, the intoxication is rape argument makes absolutely no sense, like almost everything feminists say ever. Which is a good reason to abandon feminism. It’s nothing but lies!

If you wish to know, DA’s will only prosecute on intoxicated sex as rape if she is passed out cold or passing in and out of consciousness. And even then, some video evidence might be nice. Case in point: the Steubenville boys. If she’s passed out, leave her alone! What are you, a necrophile? If she’s passing in and out of consciousness, forget it. She’s too wasted to enjoy it and half the time, you’ll be having sex with a corpse. In which case, what the Hell is wrong with you?

Logically speaking, you can coerce anyone into sex legally. If you make a condition of a job, it’s not illegal then either, but you can be sued as it’s a civil offense. As I said, anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal as long as there is no force or threat of force involved. If by the time she’s in bed, she’s awake and enthusiastic, it’s not important how you got her there unless you used force or the threat of force.

All affirmative consent laws are insane and stupid because no man has ever gone down on failing to read a woman’s mind properly. But if she looks terrified and unenthusiastic in bed as if you are forcing her to do something you don’t want to do, I don’t know pal, but that sounds awful rapey to me. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

Statutory rape (illegal intercourse): Of course teenage girls can consent, but in a legal sense we say some cannot with certain different-aged partners for various reasons, mostly that society finds the idea of adults having sex with teens of certain ages to be unsavory. Where it is consensual, the harm is almost zero.

Nevertheless, men should be advised that these laws are enforced, and nowadays they put you in prison. It’s mostly a non-issue compared to the others here. AOC varies but tends to be ~15-16 in most of the world. In European countries with AOC’s at this level, problems are very rare. This isn’t even really rape. It’s better to call it “illegal intercourse.”

Child molestation: Any sex with an adult and a child under 13 is child molestation. It has to be sex. Backrubs and shoulder pats don’t count. There has to be some sort of genital contact. As I noted in a previous post, harm varies with the degree of coercion.

Feminists should wish to recover all victims of child molestation to live full lives instead of being victims. Child molestation is illegal and should never be allowed. Some kids actually like it believe it or not (I’ve met adult women who enjoyed being molested), but we still need to keep it illegal because we do not wish to live in a society where adults have sex with kids.

Child rape: Sadly it is important to separate child rape from child molestation. This is because feminists and moral scolds have taken to conflating all child molestation as “child rape.” They’re not the same thing. Yes, small children cannot consent to sex with adults but that doesn’t mean it’s rape when it happens. Instead we use the word molestation to refer to the fact that little kids can’t legally consent. There’s no need to muddy the waters here.

Child molestation is generally “consensual” psychologically. However it is not consensual legally because we say that kids can’t consent to sex with an adult. Almost all sex with kids is molestation, not rape. Child rape does exist and it is a severe crime. It often involves strangers, abductions, threats, weapons, and violence. It’s always non-consensual by definition. In some cases, the children are physically harmed or even killed.

The consequences can certainly be long-lasting, even affecting the victim over a lifetime. Nonetheless, women seem to be able to get over rape. I know a number of women who were raped and got over it fine. I’ve only met one woman raped as a child and she won’t discuss it. And yes, it was pretty bad. Two 11 year old girls raped at knifepoint. As bad as it gets.

Pedophilia: This is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality that means the primary or sole attraction is to children under 13. Hebephilia (primary attraction to pubescents age 12-14) and ephebephilia (primary attraction to teenagers) are not included in pedophilia.

These men cannot help their condition and need to be helped to manage it so they do not offend. There are now organizations of virtuous pedophiles dedicated to pedophiles who have committed themselves to non-offending. Pedophilia cannot be combated or prevented because we have no idea what causes it. There’s no way to fight it because it simply exists.

Alt Left: “Child Molester” and “Pedophile” Are Not Synonyms

~75% of child molesters are non-pedophilic molesters. They’re no more pedophiles than any other man. This shows again that there is a difference between the terms pedophile and child molester. Most of this molesting tends to be in the family whereas pedophilic molesters tend to molest outside the family, in part because they often have no children of their own.

There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.

Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.

It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.

Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles  – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.

They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.

A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.

Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage. 

In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.

There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.

Alt Left: Two Different Types of Sexual Orientations – Gender/Sex and Age

There are different types of sexual orientations.

Sex/Gender Orientation

First is the orientation to persons or objects of attraction. Heterosexuals are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are mostly attracted to their own sex. Bisexuals have significant attraction to both sexes.

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior Are Not Synonymous

Sexual orientation is somewhat independent of behavior. Heterosexuals are quite capable of homosexual behavior, and many homosexuals engage in some heterosexual sex. Bisexuals may be behaviorally heterosexual or homosexual for long periods of time.

Orientation is what you are primarily attracted to – behavior is who you have sex with. In cases such as ancient Sparta, the two did not line up very well at least for teenage boys and young men.

Age Orientation

The second is age orientation.

Teleophilia

Most people, including me believe it or not, are teleophiles – that is, they are primarily attracted to mature persons. This usually means age 16+ because 16-17 year old adolescents are almost indistinguishable from adults in terms of their sexual features.

As the age of the person declines below age 16, teleophilic attraction tends to decline, however, all men still have measurable but much lower attraction even to girls aged 7-13. Some studies show that normal male attraction to girls declines steadily from age 16 to a very low level at age 7, and below age 7, there is no measurable attraction. This is probably correct and any man with significant attraction to very small girl children below 7 is no doubt quite pedophilic.

Girls still have female features of women, especially after age 7, and these features grow more prominent from age 7-12. Around age 10-11, most girls develop very long legs; in short, the legs of a woman. Normal males are attracted to girls this age mostly to the extent that they like their legs, since their legs look like an adult woman’s.

The more a minor looks and acts like a woman, the more attractive she will be a normal male. The more a minor looks and acts like a child, the less attractive she will be to a normal man. The opposite is true for a man with a pedophilic or hebephilic attraction.

For instance, letting little girls under age 13 wear makeup is probably a very bad idea because many normal men say that when little girls put on makeup, they start to look a lot more attractive to men. I can concur that this occurs. It also makes me very uncomfortable. A little girl is not a sexual creature, as she has no sex drive per se. Why sexualize a non-sexual creature? Childhood for both boys and girls below age 13 should be sexless. Normal children have little or no interest in sex.

Note that since teleophiles react maximally in the lab to 16-17 year old girls and most Americans consider such a strong attraction to be “pedophilia,” the remarkable conclusion is that the current feminist and social conservative hysteria about “pedophilia” means that 100% of normal American men are pedophiles! That sounds like the very definition of a mass hysteria right there!

Ephebephilia

There are also ephebephiles like Jeffrey Epstein who are primarily attracted to girls age 15-19 or mid to late adolescents. Girls this age often have significant to fully developed adult features and bodies. Psychiatry has decided that ephebephilia is completely normal, therefore, there was nothing wrong with Epstein psychologically.

Epstein was not a pedophile in any sense of the word despite continuous descriptions of him in this way. Nevertheless, most men are probably not ephebephiles.

Women reach their peak attractiveness to normal men at age ~23. Men reach their peak attractiveness to women at age ~27. As you can see, women prefer their men a bit older and men prefer their women a bit younger. This seems to be a natural tendency of the human race as even the Romans remarked up this fact of human nature.

A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is White), but a woman’s time is short.

– Roman saying of unknown provenance.

Hebephilia

Hebephiles are primarily attracted to pubertal persons around the age 12-15. All attraction is gone by age 16. Hebephilia is quite a bit more normal than you might think. 26% of all men react as strongly or stronger in the lab to 12-14 year old girls than they do to women.

In most cases there is strong attraction to mature females too, so most of these men never act on this attraction as adults. Hebephilic attraction is generally antisocial in adults, whereas attraction to mature persons is pro-social. Faced with strong prosocial and antisocial attractions, most probably focus on the prosocial attraction and repress or suppress the antisocial one.

Considering that idiot popular culture (99% of people) would say that any man as or more attracted to 12-14 year old girls as to adult women is clearly a pedophile, our ludicrous culture would easily class a minimum of 26% of all men as pedophiles. That’s 28 million “pedophiles” in the US, idiots. Good luck executing all of them or locking them all away forever!

It is important to note that hebephilia per se is not considered to be a mental disorder in any way. In other words, it is quite normal. Nevertheless acting on it is a moral and legal problem but probably not a psychological one as in mental health we don’t deal with crime as mental abnormality per se. We are only concerned if people are crazy or disordered or not.

Pedophilia

Pedophiles have a primary attraction to children under age 13. It is quite common. 3% of adult men or 3.3 million American men are pure pedophiles of this type. Substantially more common are men who are as attracted to children under 13 as they are to mature persons. 18% of all US men fall into this category for a total of 21% of all men being as attracted to children under 13 as they are to adults, a shocking figure. Our current culture would clearly call all of these men pedophiles. So once again we end up with 20 million “pedophiles.” Good luck executing or imprisoning for life 20 million American men, moral hysterics!

Note that we don’t even bother to call all men who react maximally to children under 13 pedophiles! We would have to call 20% of all men pedophiles, and no one wants to do that. In mental health, we are mostly concerned with the 3% pure pedophiles because the only way they can satisfy their sexual urges is with a child under 13. This makes these men dangerous almost by definition. Hence it is recommended that they get with an empathetic therapist regularly to keep from acting on their attraction and offending.

Here probably even more than with hebephiles, most of this 18% of men above probably repress or suppress the antisocial attraction to children under 13 and instead focus on the equally strong attraction to mature persons.

In contrast to hebephilia, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder if it is upsetting to the person or if they have acted on their urges with children under 13. It is interesting to note that pedophiles who have never molested children and are not bothered by their attraction are considered to be completely normal psychologically.

Alt Left: Verbal, Physical, and Sexual Abuse Does Not Automatically Have a Lasting and Detrimental Effect on Victims

This is from a session about a paper called “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather. There were many problems with this paper, including repeated conflation of pedophilia, a sexual orientation, with child molestation, an act that is typically a crime. There were numerous remarks about fighting, preventing, combating pedophilia.

Pedophilia can be neither fought nor combated. It’s a sexual orientation. It simply is. It exists. Once it sets on in a man, it’s for life. 3% of men are primary pedophiles who are more attracted to children under 13 than to mature persons. That’s 3.3 million men in the US. Good luck putting them all in prison! Pedophilia needs to be managed.

Pedophiles who have not offended deserve our compassion. They didn’t choose their orientation. Pedophiles need to get with a caring therapist and see them regularly to keep from offending. Many pedophiles can go decades without offending. A followup of pedophiles released from prison found that 25 years later, only 50% had offended. So 50% of a cohort of offending pedophiles were able to go 25 years without molesting a child.

Consequently, pedophilia cannot be prevented because we do not have any idea what causes it in the first place. We simply know that 3% of US adult males end up with this orientation.

Here in the UK we have finally come around to the understanding that any form of abuse, be it verbal, physical or sexual will have a lasting and detrimental effect on the victim.

From a comment from a session on “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather

There is no evidence that this is true. See Ritter et al for the definitive statement on CSA. Far be it for me to defend psychological, physical, or sexual abuse of children, but there’s no evidence that any of those has lasting harmful effects on everyone subjected to it. My whole family was subjected to a lot of psychological abuse. I’m certainly not harmed by it but choice of my own.

I have no idea about physical abuse. Most people can work their way out of whatever damage this sort of thing caused. Of course, in some cases, there is long-lasting harm.

I work in mental health and I seldom find a client who is damaged from a bad familial upbringing, barring extreme situations. Instead most seem damaged from peer relations, especially those from junior high and high school. Many of these folks are still suffering decades later in their 30’s.

It’s not helpful to tell the hundreds of millions subjected to this sort of thing growing up that they are damaged for life unless you want to create hundreds of billions of professional victims, which I suspect is the feminist project.

Back to child sexual abuse, meaning molestation of children under 13. That leaves out all the childhood sex play, peer sex among teens, and statutory rape, which usually leave no ill effects at all.

I certainly don’t wish to advocate CSA of little kids.

However, in many cases there was no coercion. That is, the molestation was consensual. Kids can consent to sex of course; it’s just that legally we say they can’t because they are too young to make that decision.

At any rate, molestation is divided into with and without coercion. Even coercive molestation usually does not rise to the level of rape. Child rape is terrible and should never be conflated with run of the mill molestation. It is usually done by a stranger, a weapon is often used, the child is often abducted, and injury or death is not uncommon.

The psychiatric literature is clear. Coerced child molestation can and is often quite harmful to the child, with harm extending to adulthood. However, non-coerced child molestation usually does not leave lasting ill effects. That is, most subjected to it simply work their way out of it over time. I have been involved with a few women who were molested and worked their way out of it without lasting harm.

The fact that many are able to get over being molested does not mean it should be allowed. Most of us don’t want to live in a society where adults have sex with little kids, regardless of whether the kids work their way out of it eventually or not.

Promoting perpetual victimization or lifetime victimization is not a feminist value IMHO. It certainly does not benefit the victim.

Alt Left: Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

There Is No Society

Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.

Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.

Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.

Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.

I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.

Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.

Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.

Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.

I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.

They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.

They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.

They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: Keynesianism, Social Liberalism, and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism, Social Liberalism and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism isn’t sustainable because the inevitable reactions against it will always swing neoliberal. So Keynesianism simply gives way to neoliberalism. Not to mention that they entire corporate class despises Keynesianism so they wage war against it the whole time it’s in. The corporate class wants neoliberalism and only neoliberalism all over the world. They have since the 1500’s. My brother had to read various tracts for his political science degree. One was by a businessman in Italy in the 1500’s.

He could have been Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan. He had no use for the state at all and preferred it to exist at as low a level as possible. He wanted absolutely nothing out of the state and mostly just wanted it to get the Hell out of the way and leave him alone as much as possible. He had no use for society either, as he felt it didn’t even exist. All that existed was money and the things you could buy and sell with it. So you see, capitalists haven’t changed since their birth in nascent form in Italy 500 years ago. They’ve always been the same and they’ll always be the same. It has to do with a Marxist notion called “the laws of economics.”

Alt Left: The Alternative Left Is Failing Just Like Liberal Race Realism Failed.

Bartleby TDV: I’m not sure. I’ve given up trying to decide. Whaddya think??

I think I’m just “alt-” for now. It’s like all these gender types they pull out of their asses.

I’m alt-neutral.

I just hate elites and I want to see them disappear from the planet. So we can revert to some primitive society and in about 2,000 years we’ll have a whole new crop of them, but that’s a long way off.

I don’t know. What are your views on economics? Right and left is mostly about economics. All the rest is just BS. Scott Alexander and I are Alt Left – anti-PC, anti-SJW, anti-woke, anti-Cultural Left liberals and Leftists. The others are just rightwingers, especially Mercer, Hansen, and Bloody Shovel. I’m a “conservative socialist.” A socially conservative liberal to Left socialist. I wouldn’t link to those three if you paid me. I really dislike reactionary politics. I’ve looked at your site and you are 100% down with Trumpian conservatism. Which is just fine, of course. You’re right at home on this site.

Sadly the link between culture and economics is as deep as ever. Everyone who has had it up to here with the woketards decides that they are “conservatives” and need to vote Republican. I keep telling people that they can mix and match and be left on some things and right on others, but basically 0% of the people I talk to follow my advice.

The problem of course is that PC, SJWism, the Cultural Left, Identity Politics, and Woketardism is seen by 100% of the population as “the Left.” It’s also seen as “the Democratic Party”, “liberals”, “liberalism”, the DNC, on and on. And of course in a sense it is. It seems that the very idea of a liberal-Left that is opposed to PC and SJW retardation is seen by almost everyone as simply not possible.

For instance, for a long time, the only people who ever read here are rightwingers. And here I am, practically a Communist, and my site is nothing but conservatives. Liberals and Leftists come here sometimes, but we’ve always had White Supremacists on here, and the first time they open their mouths, these guys take off. Or the first time I start spouting my social conservatism.

The idea of socially conservative liberals and Leftists simply does not compute. I’m starting to wonder if I’m the only one.

How many people mix and match? I am starting to think zero. None, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. If you’re against PC insanity, you go rightwing on everything and I do mean everything. Against mass immigration? You go full rightwing Republican on everything. Race realist? 99% of race realists are hardline reactionaries? Against the insanity and idiocy of modern feminism? You go rightwing and usually hard rightwing at that. I think that Liberal and Left anti-feminists and MRA’s basically just don’t exist at all.

The problem of course is that everyone on the Left who sees through the stupidity of ID politics gets thrown out of the Left, and boy do they throw you out hard! They also call you Republican, conservative, reactionary, and especially fascist and Nazi. I’ve been called all these things so many times that I have started to believe that this is what I actually am. I have searched all of the conservative and reactionary movements in the US and the world over and I dislike or despise almost all of them. I simply hate the very notion of conservatism itself. It’s crap. I’ve started to wonder if I was a fascist or a Third Positionist or a National Bolshevik. I can’t be any of those things. They’re all just fascists. I searched through all variations of fascism abroad including Third Positionism, Strasserism, and National Bolshevism, and while it is more appealing on economics, the rest of it is simply horrible. I despise anything that even smells like fascism. It’s a monstrous ideology. I can never support it.

The only project I might be able to get with is the Russian conservatism of Vladimir Putin. Russian conservatism is the left of the Democratic Party on most important things, although there is an element of social conservatism running through it. I dislike the autocratic nature of Putin’s rule.

Lukashenko in Belarus is similar. He is even more left than Putin but he’s also a social conservative. He’s also much more of a dictator than Putin, albeit he is quite a popular dictator, with 80% support. Both of them crack down on minority languages as they are both nationalists involved in a nation-building project, Putin’s around the Russian language and Belarus’ around the same, believe it or not.

People on the Left like me who despise the woketards get cancelled and deplatformed everywhere on Earth to the point where the only places I can post at are rightwing websites. I despise rightwing politics.

I created the Alt Left to create a safe space for liberals and Leftists who had had it up to here with the Woketard Left, but it seems it’s as much of a pipe dream now as when it started. At one point, we had 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook. I renounced most of them. Some were just warmed over Cultural Leftism, such as anti-TERF feminists, trannies, and gays.

Many others were just rightwingers. A vast number were Libertarians, Ancaps, etc. I had to go around and keep renouncing all of the new factions sparking up because it was nothing but rightwingers and reactionaries, at least on economics. Quite a few were simply Muslim-haters. These are pretty much Cultural Left on everything except Islam. And they’re all hard right on economics, 100% of them, no exceptions. Not one person on the Left will speak against Islam, and as soon as anyone does, they quickly move all the way to the Right.

A continuous problem in all Alt Left groups was continuous invasion by conservatives. We had to keep throwing them out. And a lot of even the top Alt Lefties were not very leftwing. Most were hardcore capitalists, albeit being opposed to neoliberalism and supporting Keynesianism.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

If you haven’t noticed, there’s no more social democracy or democratic socialism in Europe. Probably the only thing left is Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, and Russia. Possibly Iceland because they told the banks to go pound sand. Greece elected a Leftist government, Syriza, that quickly went full-blown neoliberal, reportedly out of necessity. What has happened to social democracy is something that any Marxist could have predicted – the incompatibility of even trying to have any sort of socialist society in the midst of a capitalist economy.

The fate of social democracy is the what has always been the fate of social liberalism in the US and its counterpart in Canada and Australia. All of these variants have never been anything but reactionary on foreign policy – smashing the slightest sign of liberalism anywhere in the world if it even dared to peek its head out. Many governments in Latin America were overthrown for the crime of raising the minimum wage.

And most of these were overthrown by “liberal” Democratic governments. Bill Clinton set the stage for the overthrow of Aristide. Aristide’s crime? He dared to raise the minimum wage. He had investments in some factories there. So did Hilary. Hilary overthrew Honduras. The crime? Raising the minimum wage.

Even FDR, the most progressive President of the 20th century, was a raving reactionary freak on foreign policy. “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

Teddy Roosevelt was progressive at home but an imperialist brute overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

The standard formula for all of these countries has always been some form of liberalism at home combined with hard right or ultra right policies that favored rightwing dictatorships, death squads, the genocide of the Left, and out and out fascism overseas. Liberal at home, reactionary abroad. And now Joe Biden, one of the most liberal Presidents in modern memory, is already treading down the same worn path.

And now the social democracies have undergone the same transformation that social liberalism, etc. has had from the start. One gets the feeling that liberalism or socialism at home in a capitalist country will always have to co-exist with ultra-right, pro-fascist politics overseas. In other words, a foreign policy of imperialism.

Most of Europe is whored to the ultra-rightwing NATO. The EU is for all intents and purposes the civilian state and NATO is the Defense Ministry of that state. Even Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are hard right countries when it comes to their NATO alliance. Finnish foreign policy has always been rightwing, a legacy of their hatred for Russia. Dutch, French, British, and Spanish foreign policy have been horribly rightwing forever now under social democratic and conservative governments both. Indeed in Europe, there is little difference between the two.

Spain strides around Latin America like a brute. Apparently they still think they rule the place as they once did.Most of this involves threats, arm-twisting, sanctions and whatnot every time countries try to assert more control over their resources, which are inevitably being exploited by Spanish corporations. Bolivia’s nationalization of oil and gas is instructive in this regard. The social democratic Spanish government was just as reactionary as the conservative one.

The French are cruel and colonialist towards their former colonies and do not allow any independent governments to form there, especially in Africa. The French and Canadians were deeply involved in the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, apparently for the crime of raising the minimum wage. In addition, France is still demanding that Haiti repay it for its losses when the slaves of Haiti were freed and the slave-holding families were massacred. France is a social democracy.

The Dutch held a phony inquest in the M17 false flag shootdown where a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down an airliner in order to blame it on Russia. The EU was also deeply involved in this plot and especially the coverup. As were the British and in particular the BBC, the official organ of the British state. The British stole $4 million in gold from Venezuela by confiscating it. British foreign policy mimics US foreign policy in every reactionary thing we do. The UK is a social democracy.

Italy led the charge against Qaddafi and helped steal billions of his gold reserves. Italian corporations also quickly tried to get on Libya’s oil. Italy is a social democracy.

100% of the EU is sanctioning Venezuela for the crime of trying to create a social democracy in America’s backyard. No socialist country would ever sanction Venezuela. Same with Nicaragua. They’re all sanctioning Nicaragua too. Nicaragua’s even less socialist than Venezuela and Norway’s probably a lot more socialist than Venezuela.

So you see, these countries may have some sort of socialism at home (increasingly threadbare) but in foreign policy, it’s straight up full-blown reaction and imperialism, support for rightwing dictatorships and out and out fascists. The reason is simple. The economies of all EU countries are based on their multinational corporations.

Multinational corporations want nothing but rightwing dictatorship, preferably fascist, when they cannot elect hard Right democratic states. These corporations will not tolerate the slightest socialism or even liberalism overseas because they all operate on a predatory model towards the Third World.

Hence the foreign policy of all of the EU “socialist” countries is all about what’s good for the corporations that run their economies. Their corporations wish to go abroad and rape, ruin, exploit, destroy, and stripmine the economies of the Third World by exploiting their resources such that the corporations get almost everything and the countries themselves barely get a nickel.

This has always been the model and it always will be the model. So the EU social democracies have the same problem of the Democratic Party – while they can be leftwing at home to some extent, they all go hard rightwing and pro-fascist and rightwing dictatorship overseas due to their fealty to the corporations that run their economies.

Computer Went Down

Sorry folks. Hard drive failed. And then when I got it back, my keyboard and mouse were not working right. I went and bought a new mouse and it still wasn’t working. Then my brother monkeyed with it and now it works. I’ve lost a lot of my passwords though and all my old settings are gone. Also I lost all my add-ons to my browsers. Lucky I saved a lot of my passwords in another file or I would have been surely screwed. Fixing the hard drive cost me $200. Could have been worse I guess. I had ~200 bad sectors on there. On the bright side, I have a new wireless mouse. Anyway, I’m back, folks!

Alt Left: Evidence That Israel Attacked Syria and Lebanon With Nuclear Weapons

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

RL: [The August 2020 Beirut explosion]… was when Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Lebanon’s wheat supply in silo in the Beirut port. And Hezbollah was blamed…You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

Jackrabbit: The nuke theory is known to be false without a doubt. The characteristics of the fireball match that of an Ammonium Nitrate explosion and no radiation was reported.

Sun Tzu: There was no mysterious explosion in Beirut in August 2020. There was a predictable “waiting to happen” detonation of an Ammonium Nitrate Nitrate load unprofessionally stored for years in a port facility near a highly dense population center. There is wilful or criminal neglect of legal and well established international norms and regulations for the storage of dangerous goods UN placards 1942 / UN 2067. What exactly set it off, among the plurality of anecdotal and hearsay versions, is for forensic investigators to determine.

No Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer Explosion

There was no fireworks factory in the area. The explosion looks nothing at all like a fertilizer explosion. Ammonium nitrate sends up a yellow cloud and this cloud was reddish brown, which makes sense as according to Lebanese intelligence, the warehouse it hit was full of bags of rocks and dirt masquerading as fertilizer. Lebanese intelligence, as noted, said there was no fertilizer.

Anyway, the crater that was blown was so wide it probably could not even have been blown with 280 tons of fertilizer instead of the 2.8 tons that was said to be in there. In other words, the amount of fertilizer said to be in that warehouse was not large enough to blow a crater that size. In addition, the characteristic mushroom cloud seen afterwards is only seen after nuclear blasts. No other weapon can produce such a cloud.

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

Everything I have ever heard says it has to be mixed with fuel oil and then a flame or spark has to be thrown onto it. Otherwise nothing happens. If you drop a bomb on it, it’s like dropping a bomb on a pile of sand. Also notice that the liars who made up this story changed the story after a couple of weeks after this fact came out. The new story said that fuel oil had been absolutely mixed in with the fertilizer mix a couple of years before.

Furthermore, neither ammonium nitrate nor any other explosive device can blow a hole that deep in solid rock.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with a Tactical Nuclear Weapon

A mining engineer wrote a column saying that no known explosive could blow a crater that deep in solid rock. In fact, all known explosives blow upwards when they hit solid rock. The engineer said that because explosives can’t penetrate down into solid rock, holes must be bored deep into the rock. The explosive is placed deep inside the rock and detonated, as they can blow upwards into rock. The only known explosive that can blow a huge crater in solid rock is a tactical nuclear weapon. This includes bunker busters, which are actually small tactical nukes.

Syrian intelligence told another journalist team that the Beirut blast was caused by Israel bombing Beirut with a “new and experimental weapon.”

They also said that the explosion looked a lot like the one in Syria prior. I have seen photographs of that blast. The two explosion clouds look very similar. It is thought that Israel dropped a tactical nuke on Syria in that attack. I do not know what the target was.

The Russians were suspicious so they sent a team to the site. At the bomb site, the team did find low levels of radiation that could only have come there from a nuclear weapon. Based on video of the blast and the radiation found at the blast site, the Russian team concluded that Israel had bombed Syria with a tactical nuclear weapon. However, the Syrian government has never officially reported this.

No radiation was found in Beirut, sure, but also none was not found, as nobody even looked for any!

Anyway, with tactical nukes, you will only have small amounts of radiation in and around the crater after a day or two. They will linger for a week or so and then disappear. I am aware of a team from the US that arrived in Beirut by plane a day or two after the explosion. They had a lot of equipment with them, including radiation counters. The Lebanese military denied them entry to the country.

The nuclear arms control branch of the UN reported a large wave of radiation at their station in Sicily right around the time of the blast. I saw a printout from their data. The amount of radiation was consistent with either a nuclear explosion or a nuclear reactor failure.

An arms inspector for this UN agency, a Berkeley professor of Physics, reported told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. The Italian government told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. An addition, both Lebanese intelligence and the Lebanese military told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with No Mention of Tactical Nukes

Richard Silverstein reported that his source deep inside the Israeli government reported told him that Israel bombed Beirut and that the target was a Hezbollah missile depot. Israel was basically saying that the fertilizer report was a lie and what really happened was a missile depot was blown up.

Another team of journalists was told by Saudi and UAE intelligence that Israel attacked Beirut and blew up a Hezbollah missile depot. So these two intelligence agencies are also saying there was no fertilizer blast.

The Hezbollah missile depot story was put out by Israel in case the fake fertilizer story washed out. It did wash out, but fools keep repeating it anyway. The purpose was to blame Hezbollah for the blast and casualties by endangering the Lebanese people by carelessly storing missiles at the harbor, thereby leading to a loss of popularity for Hezbollah. This does not seem to have worked. All the usual idiots are sticking with the insipid fertilizer story.

A team of journalists was told by the Pentagon that Israel had attacked Beirut. No mention was made of a nuclear weapon. A group of generals then relayed this information to President Trump. Very soon afterwards, Trump said that the Beirut explosion was the result of a military attack.

Seven Different Countries and the UN Tell Five Different Teams of Journalists That the Blast Was Due to An Attack, with Most Saying It Was an Israeli Attack

We now have people from seven different governments telling five different journalist outfits that the blast was a result of an attack on Beirut.

UN: UN nuclear weapons control agency released a graph showing a large radiation release in the area at their station in Sicily. A US arms inspector for this agency reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

US: Generals report blast caused by attack on Beirut. Perpetrator and weapon used not named. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

Italy: Government reported that Israel attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon. (Journalist 1- Veterans Today)

Lebanon: Government, military, and intelligence reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut harbor. Intelligence said there was no ammonium nitrate in the sacks. There were only sacks filled with rocks and dirt, a result of a six year long Mossad plot the culmination of which was the nuclear bombing of the harbor.

Israel: Source deep inside government said that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 2 – Richard Silverstein)
An Israeli newspaper quoted a rightwing Israel Congressman as saying that Israel attacked Beirut. I am not sure if he mentioned a missile depot. He also said, “That blast was huge. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think we attacked them with a nuclear bomb.” He was laughing and dancing a victory dance when he said that. That is a very suspicious statement. (Journalist 3)

UAE: UAE intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4 – Asia Times)

Saudi Arabia: Saudi intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4- Asia Times)

Syria: Syrian intelligence reported that Israel attacked Beirut with an unknown experimental weapon and that it resembled the blast from an attack on Syria a year ago. That blast was later proven by a Russian team of having been a tactical nuclear weapon. The two mushroom clouds look almost identical (Journalist 5 – Voltaire Network)

To reiterate:

Five different teams of journalists were told by seven different governments and the UN that there was at an attack on Beirut.

The same teams were told by five governments and the UN that the attack was the result of Israel bombing the harbor.

Two teams were told by three different governments that Israel either attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon or with a new and experimental weapon.

One team was told by two different governments that the attack was conducted by Israel with a tactical nuclear weapon.

The “No Bombing Attack” Theory

Wow, talk about complete nonsense! Jets were both heard and seen by hundreds and possibly thousands of Beirutis.

There is video of the Armenian Quarter where men are pointing up in the sky – presumably at jets – and soon afterwards, a terrible blast is heard and debris is flying in the street.

There is a video where you can hear with your very own ears the sound of a fighter jet – it sounded like an F-16 to my ears – roaring in for about 10 seconds, followed by the huge blast. The people making the video can be heard asking, “What’s that?”

How is that hundreds to thousands of Beirutis reporting hearing or seeing jets prior to the blast? Are they all hallucinating?

Why are men in Beirut pointing up to the sky at unknown objects, followed by a huge blast that sends objects flying. Did all of these people hallucinate?

Did I hallucinate when I heard the clear sound a fighter jet for 10 seconds on a video followed by an explosion?

Did the UN fake a graph showing a radiation spike at its Sicily station?

None of this makes sense.

Furthermore we have statements from sources in six different governments telling five separate teams of journalists that the explosion was due to an attack on the harbor, with most of them adding that the attack was done by Israel. Are five different teams of journalists making this up? Were five separate teams of journalists fed false information that Israel attacked Beirut? How likely is any of that?

There were 3-4 US spy planes over Lebanon at the time. They showed up several hours before the attack and left several hours afterwards. US spy planes do not commonly fly over Lebanon. What were they doing there?

The Backstory

A few weeks prior, Israel said that if Hezbollah attacks Israel again, Israel will attack Lebanese economic targets.

Two weeks later and a week before the attack, Israel staged a fake Hezbollah attack on the border. They said a Hezbollah team had tried to plant a bomb on the border but they were eliminated by Israel. Hezbollah said there was no team. This attack was apparently completely made up.

Three days later, Netanyahu issued a speech in which he threatened Hezbollah in some of the strongest language ever used.

Four days later, Israel drops a tactical nuclear weapon on the Beirut harbor, blowing up the grain silo that contains all of Lebanon’s wheat supply for the next month. Notice that this is an attack on the economy.

1. Israel threatens to attack the Lebanese economy if Hezbollah attacks again.

2. Israel stages a fake Hezbollah attack on the border, which can now be followed via the threat by an attack on the Lebanese economy.

3. Israeli leader threatens Hezbollah in a speech containing some of the strongest language ever used.

4. Israel bombs a grain silo in Beirut harbor that contains the next month’s grain supply = attack on Lebanese economy.

Jackrabbit: You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

It is most certainly was not proven false.

In fact, seven different states and the UN told five different teams of journalists that the blast was due to a military attack on the harbor, with most saying it was an Israeli attack.

Three different states and the UN said or implied to two teams of journalists that Israel bombed Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon.

It’s imperative upon the doubters to prove that multiple governments lied and/or that multiple teams of journalists lied or were all fed the same false information. Most of these teams have a good record for advocacy, and half of the governments put out quite reliable information.

The Mossad Plot That Started It All

A team of journalists was informed by Lebanese intelligence that this whole episode was a Mossad plot dating back several years. They discovered that nothing about this ship made any sort of sense. All of the documentation about it was fraudulent, forged, or dishonest. Nothing added up. Mossad purchased a ship in Cyprus. Then they went on a rendezvous of three different countries, supposedly buying fertilizer. The last stop was in Georgia, where the ship purchased 2,800 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This is the ultimate source of the “fertilizer” on the ship.

There is a problem with this: Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not manufactured anywhere in Georgia, so the ship literally could not have bought this cargo there.

According to intelligence, there never was any fertilizer. Instead, the sacks were filled with rocks and dirt. The rocks and dirt labeled ammonium nitrate fertilizer were placed in the warehouse at the dock. They reportedly sat there for a number of years as buyers for the fertilizer supposedly fell through. Obviously there were no fertilizer buyers because there was never any fertilizer in the first place.

In addition, the ship’s owner, a Russian, went bankrupt and lost possession of the ship. This Russian ship owner may have been in on the plot. The fertilizer then had no owner.

Lebanese courts thought that the fertilizer was a hazard and issued a number of orders to remove it from the warehouse. None of these orders were followed. It is hard to explain this part of the story.

That part of the port of Beirut is owned by Lebanese Maronite Falangists, hardcore opponents of Hezbollah who formed the pro-Israel Southern Lebanese Army that enforced the Israeli conquest and annexation of Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah forced the Israelis to leave via continuous deadly or injurious attacks and the SLA had to flee for their lives. Most of them were quickly taken in by Israel but a few went to the US. One was arrested and imprisoned a few years ago when he came back to Lebanon. He was the head of a notorious prison in Southern Lebanon where resistance fighters were imprisoned and tortured.

It is certainly possible that these Falange worked with Israel on this plot. They may have been involved in the refusal to remove the “fertilizer.” We must also note that since the Falange control that part of the port, there is no way that Hezbollah could have stashed missiles there. So the “Hezbollah missile depot” story cannot possibly be true.

The figure of 2,800 tons is important. As noted, the crater of the blast was so large that it is dubious whether even 280,000 tons or 100 times that amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown a hole that big. And no amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown that deep crater in the solid rock below.  As noted, only a nuclear bomb, tactical or otherwise can blow a hole in solid rock. This is why all known bunker buster bombs are actually small tactical nuclear weapons. They have to be.

That the fertilizer was ammonium nitrate is also important. An Italian chemist noted that ammonium nitrate leaves a large yellow cloud when it blows up. The cloud in the explosion was red-brown. The chemist thought that may have been due to the Hezbollah missiles blowing up. But as we now know, there were no Hezbollah missiles. Lebanese President Auon himself said there was no missile depot at the port.

The Aims of the Attack

Also, note that the “fertilizer explosion” or “Hezbollah missile depot blast” occurred only a week before a corrupt UN investigation team was due to convict Hezbollah for killing former President Hariri. However, Hezbollah was framed for this crime as Hariri was actually killed by an Israeli drone overhead. This would be a one-two blow for Hezbollah. Hezbollah would be blamed twice in a week for serious catastrophes that befell the land. The idea was to make Hezbollah lose all its support.

In the event of the fertilizer explosion story, the intent there was to blame the Lebanese government. “The Lebanese government killed 1,000 Lebanese people!” This was then very suspiciously followed by a US-led color revolution supposedly outraged over the government ineptitude that caused the explosion in which a mere 3,000 paid demonstrators managed to overthrow the government. US government regime change specialists were spotted at these demonstrations with huge grins on their faces.

As soon as the government of Lebanon was overthrown, the (((Rothschild-controlled))) President Macron of France flew in and immediately began strongarming the Lebanese government into setting up a new government without any Hezbollah supporters. Lebanon was specifically threatened with consequences if they did not set this government up.

The US then put crushing sanctions of Lebanon that wrecked its economy. With the addition of a banking crisis that also collapsed the economy, the idea was to wreck the economy to make people so angry they would throw out the pro-Hezbollah government. It hasn’t worked yet.

In other words, the entire aim of the attack was to get Hezbollah out of the Lebanese government and marginalized in Lebanese society.

Very Suspicious Concurrent Attacks

The very next day after the attacks, US forces blew up several grain silos in Syria. Note that Israel’s attack blew up Lebanon’s entire supply of grain. So the US attack on Syria’s grain is concurrent with an Israeli attack on Lebanese grain. The US blowing up Syrian grain silos does not fit with an accidental fertilizer explosion. Why would we bomb grain silos because some fertilizer blew up?

In the next couple of days, a series of fires broke out at food warehouses in the southern Shia part of Iraq. Israel or the US is suspected. So the connection? In all three cases, food supplies for pro-Iranian populations were destroyed. The Lebanese people support Hezbollah by 65%. Their food was blown up. Syria supports Iran. Their bread was blown up too. The Shia in Southern Iraq support Iran. Their food supplies caught fire. The day after, a huge Iranian-owned mall in the UAE went up in flames. Israel or the US is suspected again.

Lebanon: Attack on Hezbollah and the people of Lebanon for supporting Hezbollah and Iran by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Syria: Attack on Syria, a pro-Iranian government, by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Iraq: Attack on the Iran-supporting Shia of Iraqi South by destroying their food supply.

UAE: Attack on Iran by setting an Iranian-owned shopping mall on fire, destroying it.

Why would an accidental fertilizer explosion just happen to destroy a country’s food supply. Why would it be followed by attacks on the food supply of two other populations which just happen to support Iran? Why would it also be followed by the destruction by fire of a shopping mall in the UAE that just happens to be owned by Iran?

All four of these attacks were obviously coordinated. Accidents are not followed by coordinated attacks destroying similar things that got destroyed in the accident. All attacks were against either Iran, or pro-Iranian armed groups, governments and populations.

Starting to get the picture?

The Coverup

A team of journalists was told by the Lebanese military and intelligence that all parties had agreed to cover up this incident and go with the fake fertilizer story. The Lebanese government wanted to cover it up so as not to spread panic in the population. Also it made the government look very weak in the face of Israeli aggression. Hezbollah wanted it covered up too because they have no effective response or deterrent now that the Israelis are using nuclear weapons against their adversaries.

They felt it would lead to disillusionment and defeatist thinking on the part of the Lebanese people with a resulting loss of support for Hezbollah: “Hezbollah is impotent to defend us against Israeli nuclear weapons, so why support them? Let’s just surrender. The war’s over.” In addition, Iran also wished to cover it up because they have no effective response to Israeli nuclear weapons either and admitting this might lead to similar disillusionment and defeatism on the part of the population. “Just surrender to the US and Israel already. We can’t win.”

As noted above, there is excellent evidence that Israeli dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Syria about a year before the Beirut blast. The Syrian government has not admitted this for the same reasons as the Lebanese, Hezbollah, and Iran above.

Israel will of course never admit to using tactical nuclear weapons for fear it would set off an increase in anti-Israel sentiments in the world. However, considering how Israel-cucked the US and increasingly the EU is, not to mention the Arab sellouts and traitors, I think a lot of the world would probably cheer that Israel was nuking the Arabs.s

The US will also not admit to using tactical nuclear weapons. Any mention of this will be relegated to the usual conspiracy theory tinfoil hat territory. We reasonably fear an increase in anti-US sentiment after such a revelation. But considering how US-cucked the Europeans are, I’m wondering if they wouldn’t cheer that America is dropping nukes on those dirty Muslims.

Israel started using tactical nukes as early as 2008 when they used them against the Hezbollah resistance. A very suspicious blast was investigated soon afterwards by a Russian team and they indeed found abnormal levels of radiation at the site. The Russians concluded that Israel had used a tactical nuclear weapon against Hezbollah.

There is now excellent evidence that the US used a few to several tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) against Al Qaeda’s cave fortifications at Tora Bora. In addition, we now know that the first US use of tactical nuclear weapons was in the first Iraq War in 1991, when we dropped a tactical nuclear weapon 13 miles east of Basra. This marked the first use of a tactical nuclear weapon by a military in the modern era.

Alt Left: Evidence for Massive Republican Election Fraud in the 2020 Election

154 million votes exit and pre-election polls

Biden                            83.5 million votes 55%
Trump                          71 million votes 45.5%
Separation:                12.5 million votes 8.5%
Pre-election polls: Biden +8.2%
Exit polls:                    Biden 7.9%
Match between pre-election and exit polls: Biden +0.3% (perfect)

154 million votes actual results

Biden                            80 million votes 51.1%
Trump                          74 million votes 47.2%
Separation:                6 million votes Biden +3.9%
Pre-election polls: Biden +8.2%
Match between pre-election and exit polls and actual results:                                          Trump +4.1% (large red shift)
Theft:                           6.5 million votes Trump +4.1%

This is a blatant example of massive election fraud by the Republicans via hacking of voting machines (mostly ESS machines) in almost every state because almost every state uses voting machines that in general cannot even be monitored or checked for election theft because the vote printout it gives you about your choices might be false. In other words, the machine would tell you you voted exactly as you did, but then it would mis-record your votes.

In states like Pennsylvania, it is even harder to prove election fraud. It necessitates actually looking at the hardware and software in a forensic sense. Recently, Virginia went to all hand-counted paper ballots for state elections. The next year there was a Democratic sweep of the state and polls and exit polls were right on the money.

It is important to note that aggregate polls and exit polls were right on the money in the US for decades until the onset of computerized voting in 2002. Computerized voting was put in in that year via HAVA – Help America Vote Act – written by Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff. This was actually the start of a plot to steal our elections.

A few voting machine companies were set up, all run by radical rightwing Republicans, often Christian Dominionists. The money behind all of the firms came from the Bush and Romney families. These families still own most of these voting machine companies to this day. Dominion was sold to another company and the new owners appear to be Democrats.

It’s not true that Democrats are in on the election theft too because only Republicans control the voting machines. But the hacking even involves Democratic elections. The Clinton-Sanders primaries were hacked by Republicans to give the victory to Clinton. In many cases, the hacks simply pick the most conservative candidate, even on the Democratic side.

Furthermore there appears to have been massive hacking of state elections all across the US, the result being Republican Legislatures, Senates, and Governors in many states that consistently vote Democratic. These state governments then put in gerrymandering rules that make it almost impossible for the Democrats to win. For instance, in Wisconsin, Democrats would have to win 65% of the vote to take over the Legislature and Congress due to gerrymandering.

Obviously all gerrymandering must be made illegal as it’s anti-Democratic. But Democrats engage in gerrymandering when they’re in power too. What happened was that in the last two decades, when the electorate was 10-20 points more Democratic than Republican, the Democrats suffered inexplicable losses all across the country. This makes no sense. A +15 point Democrat electorate should be winning elections for Democrats on a regular basis.

After 2002, for the first time, aggregate polls and exit polls started going off badly. The Idiocracy in our media and political classes twisted themselves into all sorts of doughnut shapes to try to explain this. The theories are many, varied, and all equally preposterous. Somehow we always seem to “miss” countless Republicans who never answer either pre-election or exit polls!

Even Nate Silver at 538.com has bought into the “terrible polling and exit polling failures” nonsense. The Democratic Party, especially the DNC and Markos at Daily Kos, has utterly refused to consider that our elections might be being hacked. That’s too much to bear for them. Their excuse is, “If we admitted our elections are being stolen on a massive scale, Americans would lose faith in our elections and in our democracy.”

There’s also the insane attitude of our media and political elites that conspiracy theory is always false. Hence the truth about our stolen elections is relegated to conspiracy theory and tinfoil hat territory. There is so much lying, misdirection, bias, provocations, tricks, false flags, fake attacks, and overt conspiracy theory in Western relations that I feel instead that conspiracy theory may be the only proper mode in which to analyze modern geopolitical reality in the West.

Put another way, here in the West, we are getting to the point where conspiracy theory is simply the normal, day to day operation of the state. This also extends to political parties and mass movements themselves.

In our modern era here in the West, it might be better to say that Life Itself Is Now a Conspiracy Theory. False flags have certainly become so common that they are nearly normal now.

Parables for Paranoids: As long as they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

– Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow (1973)

Well, we don’t have a democracy here. That should be clear to anyone, especially after two decades of election theft and election fraud along with gerrymandering and massive voter suppression at the polls. Any country that has gerrymandering, election fraud, and voter suppression as the hallmarks of its electoral process cannot possibly be a democracy. America has not been a democracy in a long time, probably for most of its history. The America as a shining beacon of democracy” lie is nevertheless believed by most Americans and millions of dupes and rubes around the world.

Notice that the aggregate pre-election polls were 8.2% and the exit polls were 7.9%. That is an almost perfect match. The exit polls were correct as usual. And the pre-election polls were also good if we look at the perfect lineup between pre-election and exit polls. But Biden won by only 3.9%, a theft of 4.1 percentage points or an astonishing 6.5 million votes.

List of Good to Excellent Clint Eastwood Movies

Rambo: And don’t forget The Outlaw Josey Wales, another Eastwood Western.

That is supposed to be an excellent movie.

This is a list of his movies that I would classify as excellent:

  • Unforgiven (nominated for Best Picture)
  • Mystic River (nominated for Best Picture)
  • Million Dollar Baby (nominated for Best Picture)
  • Letters from Iwo Jima (nominated for Best Picture)
  • Tarantula (early movie, little known)
  • Escapade in Japan (early movie, little known)
  • Where Eagles Dare (early movie, little known)
  • A Fistful of Dollars (Dollars trilogy – spaghetti Westerns)
  • For a Few Dollars More (Dollars trilogy – spaghetti Westerns)
  • The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Dollars trilogy – spaghetti Westerns)
  • Richard Jewell (documentary)
  • The Bridges of Madison County
  • Bird
  • Space Cowboys
  • J. Edgar
  • Escape from Alcatraz
  • Invictus
  • Dirty Harry
  • Coogan’s Bluff (western)
  • The Beguiled (western)
  • High Plains Drifter (western)
  • Pale Rider (western)
  • Kelly’s Heroes (western)
  • Joe Kidd (western)
  • Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
  • Honkytonk Man (western)
  • Sully
  • Tightrope
  • Thelonious Monk: Straight No Chaser (documentary)
  • White Hunter Black Heart
  • In the Line of Fire
  • A Perfect World
  • Grand Torino
  • Kurosawa’s Way (documentary)

This is a list of his movies I would classify, as good but not excellent.

  • Lady Godiva of Coventry
  • Changeling
  • Flags of Our Fathers
  • Heartbreak Ridge
  • The Eiger Sanction
  • Any Which Way You Can
  • Bronco Billy (western)
  • Indian Horse
  • The Mule

Everything else is a poor movie and I won’t list them unless you want me to.

Use the comments section to discuss any Clint Eastwood movies you wish. Keep in  mind that he started out as an actor and later transitioned to director and producer. Many of his later works were directed and produced by his own production company.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Yep, the classic Sergio Leone film from 1966. One of the original Spaghetti Westerns with Ennio Morricone’s classic score, some of the simplest but finest music ever made. Clint Eastwood was absolutely superb in the main role. I never knew he was so good. Highly recommended for anyone on here if you like Westerns. This is one of the greatest Westerns ever made! Ely Wallach and Lee Van Cleef are also superb in the two other titular roles. This movie is actually too good, assuming that’s even possible.

American Gangster

American Gangster. Just watched this movie on TV at home. Yes, I finally got TV. I’ve been living without TV for 11 years. I’ll tell you what. I barely missed a damn thing! Life without TV is quite possible and in a way, it’s interesting because in a sense it’s very freeing. No longer are we attached to this object which seems to become our source of, well, everything! I’m not sure TV is necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on what you watch.

It’s definitely a pretty passive experience though some action is necessary on the part of the watcher to pay attention to what is being said, the plot, or the storyline of whatever is on. Especially when you watch a movie on TV, I doubt if it’s much different from experiencing it in a theater or in any other way. I’m thinking reading is a more interactive experience, but perhaps I’m wrong and that’s just as passive as TV.

An interesting finding is that violence usually goes way up in any society about 10-15 years after the introduction of TV. The 10-15 year lag is probably due to the lag time it takes for children who grow up on TV to become adults where they are capable of committing crimes. This finding has been replicated in a number of separate countries. No one is quite sure why this effect occurs.

Lost Highway

Watched Lost Highway the other night on the Net. David Lynch again from 1997. I really liked this movie. Extremely weird but also very, very good. It was actually better than Wild At Heart, not that Wild at Heart was bad. Critics hated it when it first came out, but like many such movies, it’s become a cult film. Anything that’s become a cult film is usually pretty good. There’s a reason it became a cult film, and it’s not because it sucked. Basically Film Noir or Neo-Noir if you will, with all of the usual themes of the genre. Echoes of Detour, Kiss Me Deadly, and Vertigo, classic noir films of the 40’s and 50’s.

Wild at Heart

Watched Wild at Heart on the Net the other day. Early David Lynch from the 1990’s. I love Lynch’s movies.  Isabelle Rossellini is in it. Hadn’t seen her since Blue Velvet, another excellent movie. Nicholas Cage, Laura Dern are excellent as leads. Diane Ladd was great as the mother. Willem Dafoe is great as the creepy gangster type. J. E. Freedman was excellent as Santos, the gangster and hitman.

But ultimately, as we learn at the very end, it’s a love story, like so many great movies. And what a love story!

Alt Left: About Those “Iran-backed Militias”

That phrase doesn’t mean much. All it means is that this is an armed group in the Middle East who opposes US and Israeli hegemony. This includes Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, the Afghan Shia militias, and the PMF division of the Iraqi Army.

None of those groups takes orders from Iran. The group that we bombed does not take orders from Iran and they receive neither funding nor weapons from Iran. They are simply allied with the Iranian government.

In the case of the Houthis, there are Iranian advisors embedded in the group that help them plan and carry out some attacks. Iran sends weapons prototypes of missiles, rockets, and drones and then the Houthi modify them into their own native products. There are also Iranian advisors embedded in the Houthi forces.

In addition, Iranian advisors help the Houthi carry out some attacks. For instance, Iran helped plan and carry out the Houthi attack from Yemen against the Aramco oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. The US said Iran launched the attack from a base in Southern Iran, but that’s not true. We made that up because we would rather blame Iran than the Houthis for the attack.

It is important to realize that the US government, especially the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, lie constantly when it comes to US foreign policy against nations we consider our adversaries. And all major US news organizations get a lot of their foreign policy stories directly from the CIA.

Look up Operation Mockingbird. In this plan, the CIA had most of the top journalists in the US on its payroll, so in essence, the CIA was controlling almost every major press organ in the US. The owners of these media groups knew that they were under CIA control, but they didn’t mind because the US media always agrees with whatever aims the CIA and State Department has as the CIA and the American ruling class and corporations share the same aims. When it comes to opposition to US foreign policy in regard to our adversaries, there is no major opposition media in the US. Our press is as controlled as PRAVDA was in the USSR.

That is why it is important to be dubious to say the least about any foreign policy news story you read about a nation deemed an enemy of the US. Every single story you read about that country or group is going to be propaganda in one way or another. Stop believing the US media! Stop believing the US government! Stop believing the Pentagon! They’re all lying to you.

Banned from a Store LOL

The other day I was in a grocery store checkout line. There was an elderly lady there with a small child, a little girl, with her. The girl was maybe five years old. As soon as the kid sees me, she gives me the thumbs down sign! Kinda pissed me off. I’m picking up my bags for checkout, and I turn around, and the kid gives me the thumbs down sign again. I turn around and give the kid the thumbs down sign and say, “Thumbs down to you!” Then I grab my bags and leave.

I go to the same store today, and security comes up to me and tells me I’m banned for six months based on my conduct – my conduct with customers and with staff, I think he said. I told him I’d never had any negative interactions with the staff. I told him that some little kid was insulting me to my face and trying to start a fight, so I insulted her back.

Now I’m banned for six months, but I’m probably never going back. I’m sure they all think I’m a psycho in there.

Ok, peeps, tell me what I did wrong. Did I do something wrong by insulting that little brat right back? Were they right to ban me for six months?

Alt Left: US and Anti-Syria Coalition Back to Supporting ISIS Again

Western, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and UAE intelligence recently met with ISIS leadership and agreed to a plan whereby ISIS would resume attacks against the Syrian government with the support of the above countries.

It was written up on Russia Today.

Soon after this meeting, my Iraqi source tells me that the US moved many ISIS fighters that they had confined at Al-Tanf out of confinement to positions on the Iraqi-Syria border. The Al-Tanf triangle is occupied by the US and no one can go near in. Any forces that even come close to it get bombed by the US. For some time now, the US has been training, “Syrian opposition groups” at Al-Tanf.

My information is that we are simply taking ISIS people out of prison, giving them new names, and training them to attack Assad. I’m not sure why we are putting them on the border. Are we setting up ISIS to attack Iraq again. We were helping them attack Iraq a year or two ago.

Not aware that the US, etc. is involved in supporting ISIS in Iraq lately.

We were supporting ISIS in Afghanistan a while back,  but I haven’t heard anything since. I am not sure why we are doing that. Maybe to position ISIS to attack Russia’s southern flank. The area where we are dropping off ISIS fighters in black helicopters (Defense Intelligence Agency uses black helicopters), Nuristan, is close to the Russian border. Otherwise I’m at a loss why we are doing that. We were flying ISIS out of Iraq and Syria a while back and ferrying them to Afghanistan. Many Afghan villagers in that area have reported that we are doing this. Why would they make up lies about us?

Anyone ever notice ISIS never attacks Israel?! Hmmm.

Alt Left: More on Republican Election Theft Via Voting Machines

The Republicans have been using voting machines to steal elections since 2002. Apparently they have access to the software in the ESS machines somehow. And it looks like ESS is in on it. Diebold was in on it in the past. All the voting machine companies are run by radical rightwing Republicans. The plot started with Karl Rove and Jack Abraham’s HAVA or Help America Vote Act in 2002.

Our elections haven’t been right ever since. This is an operation being run by Karl Rove. Rove is on record as telling a woman that when it is within 3%, we can steal the election, but when it is more than that, we can’t because it looks too bad. But in this last election they tried to steal elections where they were 8-10 points down, so I guess they’re even chucked that courtesy.

The voting machine companies are in on it too, in particular ESS. They are owned by members of the Bush and Romney families, so it looks like the Bushes and Romneys are in on the election theft. McDonnell at least knows about. Trump stole the election in 2016 with machines. Same with Bush in the 2004 election. I do not think the Republicans have access to the Dominion machines anymore now that they have been sold. That’s why Georgia elections are pretty fair.

Look up a book called Red Shift. It documents the whole plot.

No one believes it. People I know have been screaming at the major media and the Democratic Party for years about this, but no one will touch it with a 10 foot pole. It’s “conspiracy theory.” Also these clowns say we can’t admit to that because “It will cause Americans to lose faith in our democracy.”

A lot of those Republican state governments were stolen in the same way. Now they are so gerrymandered that the Democrats can’t possibly win. To get back control of the Wisconsin Legislature, Democrats have to win 65% of the vote in the state – that’s how gerrymandered it is. A simple 51% won’t cut it anymore.

The “massive poll and exit poll failures” only started in 2002 with the placement of voting machines in our elections. Before that they were on the money. Aggregate polls and exit polls are never off in any fair election. When the results don’t match the aggregate polls and exit polls, it’s always due to fraud.

The Democrats are insane. They are willing to let the Republicans completely destroy the country and even our democracy so “Americans won’t lose faith in our democracy.” Idiots!

Alt Left: Israeli Ship Attacked in the Persian Gulf

First of all, Iran is not interested in directly striking US forces. Yes, they are committed to ejecting the US from the area, but that project has been outsourced to its armed allies in the region, should they wish to carry it out. Hezbollah, the PMF, and the Houthis are interested in attacking the US and they don’t take orders from Iran anyway. Instead the base attacks are being done by small underground Shia guerrilla groups and no one seems to know who they even are.

After the US bombed the Iraqi Army in Syria, falsely blaming it for mortar attacks on US bases, soon afterwards, an Israeli sea liner was attacked in the Persian Gulf. There were several small holes maybe three feet across in the hull. First reports said that the ship hit mines. It’s not from mines because the damage is above the water line and mines have to blow up underwater.

The information I am getting from Iranian sources is that the attack was done by either drones or cruise missiles. I don’t know who carried it out or from where. Yes, the possibility exists that it is a US or Israeli false flag and we or Israel attacked the ship, but there are some reasons that might not be true. First of all, The owner is one of the richest men in Israel, and he is very close to the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen. So it may be a symbolic strike.

Why would they US or Israel do a symbolic strike against the head of Mossad? That doesn’t add up. It’s a very sneaky thing to do and it’s just the sort of symbolism-laden attack that devious intelligence agencies like to carry out. A lot of intelligence agency operations is psychological operations intended to terrorize and terrify the enemy. That is why intelligence agency attacks often occur on certain devious anniversaries of significant events. It’s like a murder mystery. They’re leaving clues. It’s also very creepy and the intent of intelligence agencies is to creep out the enemy.

Also, note that for his shipping company,  having  his ships attacked like this is nothing short of disastrous. International shipping operates in tight schedules and deadlines and the idea that your ships have a tendency to get attacked is extremely bad for this man’s business as ports may not want to accept his ships due to the hazards.

A couple of months ago, an Iranian hit team eliminated a high ranking Mossad officer in Tel Aviv and managed to escape.

This follows an earlier attack a year ago where Iran helped the Taliban shoot down a US CIA spy-plane in Afghanistan. “Ayatollah Mike” Mike DeAndrea, a high ranking CIA agent who runs the Iran file, was said to be on the plane along with five other CIA officers. The claim was discounted in all of the Western press, and he was said to be quite alive. However, my information is that Mike has not been seen since that attack, so I am thinking he was killed.

I used to think Mossad was the best spy agency, but I must say that Iran intelligence is getting pretty damn good. They figured out that Mike was on that CIA plane and gave the Taliban missiles to shoot it out. Sounds like Iranian intelligence has penetrated the CIA somehow.

They knew who that Mossad colonel was, what kind of car he drove, and where he would be at a given time and place. No one knows any of these things, and the names of Mossad officers are not made public. It sounds like Iranian intelligence has penetrated the Mossad!

And now this ship is hit, a ship owned by one of the richest men in Israel who is also close to the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen. Looks like a symbolic strike at Mossad again. I wonder how many people know that the man who owns this ship is tight with the head of Mossad. That can’t be common information.

Alt Left: On James Mersieur and the White Helmets

BBC take on the White Helmets.

I don’t believe that article. It’s pretty clear that James Mersieur was intelligence. At first I was sure he was assassinated, probably by his own people, because he was no longer useful. But now I think he was a suicide. The allegations of corruption may well have been false. Perhaps his version of the story about the finances is the truth.

The Russians were probably right when they said Mersieur was MI6. White Helmets was an MI6 British intelligence operation.

And about the White Helmets, 50 different White Helmets members have recorded videos in Europe confessing that every chemical attack that the White Helmets were involved in was a false flag. None of them ever even happened in the first place! I think the tapes were submitted to some court in Europe, but then the story vanished. For some curious reason the MSM refused to run the story. And the leader of the White Helmets is Al Nusra. Actually all of the White Helmets are Nusra people. White Helmets is a Nusra-MI6 intelligence operation.

When I tell “liberal Democrats” about the 50 White Helmets making tapes saying the chemical attacks were all fake, they tell me it’s “conspiracy theory.” Everything that goes against the narrative is “conspiracy theory.” This is what we are up against.

Alt Left: Why Do “Liberal Democrats” Support US Foreign Policy to the Hilt?

Why do Americans support US foreign policy? Part of it might be apathy. They simply can’t be bothered. Americans don’t seem to care how many bombs we drop or people we kill as long as no Americans are getting hurt or killed. It’s a pretty sociopathic way of looking at the world.

Actually, it is not so much that they don’t care as they are brainwashed. Just about every “liberal Democrat” I know supports US foreign policy to the hilt. Every bomb we drop, every person we kill. They back it all the way. As finding out the truth about US foreign policy necessitates figuring out the constant to  regular lies, tricks, provocations, and false flags, a reality-based assessment of US foreign policy quickly starts looking like very quickly like conspiracy theory.

Most “liberal Democrats” reject all so-called “conspiracy theory,” no matter how true it is, even when the MSM uncovers it.

Of course it is the MSM pushing all of these lies, scams, tricks, cons, and false flags, so they almost never blow the whistle on the conspiracy theory. Even when they do, no one seems to care. I remember the NY Times proved that the mortar attack that killed the US contractor was done by ISIS, not be the PMF. Most “liberal Democrats” I know just said so what, the PMF has probably done other bad things.

Liberal Democrats are horrific on foreign policy. Democratic Party foreign policy has always been reactionary. But all the Democrats in Congress go along with it and so does the media. It’s very hard to get Congressmen to go against US foreign policy, and the media basically never does, as they get most such news from the CIA anyway. Remember Operation Mockingbird?

There is a “bipartisan foreign policy consensus.” It was smashed with Vietnam, and the Deep State regarded this with horror and spent decades trying to get rid of the “Vietnam Syndrome.”

Now the consensus is back. Part of the problem is that in order to go against US foreign policy, you need to side with the so-called enemies of America. When Democrats go against foreign policy, Republicans immediately accuse them of supporting the enemies of America.

But it all goes deeper than that. I’ve thought about it a lot and when liberal Democrats can oppose US domestic policy, they are not saying America is bad. America’s just fine. It’s just the evil Republicans who are bad. America itself is still good. It’s just been hijacked by bad people.

But when you attack US foreign policy, you are attacking the Army! And basically you are saying that America is bad, America is evil. Because foreign policy is never seen as basically good but only bad when it gets hijacked by bad people called Republicans. Instead it’s that US foreign policy under Republicans and Democrats is always 100% good. It’s always America itself that is doing this or that BS overseas. In order to attack US foreign policy, you have to say that America itself is bad or evil.

The vast majority of liberal Democrats don’t want to say that. A lot of them just believe the “America is 100% good” line. Others probably don’t want to be seen as traitors and America-haters. Patriotardism is the religion in America, even among liberals. And exceptionalism is the foundational myth of America that never went away.

Bottom line is “liberal Democrats” are complete crap. There’s nothing liberal about them! I respect Republicans more than these phonies. Republicans come right out and say they’re reactionaries and then act like them. At least they are consistent and true to their word. Liberal Democrats claim to be progressive but govern as reactionaries.

Ever notice that BLM and other woketards never attack US foreign policy? Like not even one time? Ever notice that they don’t even talk about economics? See? All they talk about is divide the working class Identity Politics Cultural Left insanity. Which for some odd reason gets the complete support of the US corporate class for reasons that are still uncertain for me. Those “hip, woke” corporations are still totally reactionary, like all corporations, on economics and foreign policy. They’re just left on cultural BS that doesn’t effect their bottom line or basic philosophy.

Alt Left: Blockbuster Report: Who Are the Iraqi Shia Guerrilla Groups That Are Attacking US Bases in Iraq?

Biden bombed the Iraqi Army in Syria on the Syrian border yesterday. Anywhere from 1 Iraqi Army soldier was killed and two were wounded. The only known casualty is a Sunni member of that division. The force there is known as the PMF, a pro-Iran militia that was formed a few years ago to fight ISIS in Iraq. The US calls the PMF an “Iranian militia,” but that’s not what they are. They were formerly independent but now they have been incorporated into the Iraqi Army itself. Probably most members are Shia, but there are also Sunnis, Christians, Yezidis, and Sabeans, in addition to both Kurds and Arabs in the PMF.

The group that Biden attacked is not really the group that carried out the attacks on US bases. US bases have been getting rocketed and mortared recently for some months now. The attacks are being claimed by shadowy, illegal underground Shia guerrilla formations. The US claims that these guerrillas are nothing but the PMF in disguise, but that’s not exactly true.

The following information about the nature of the illegal Shia guerrilla formations attacking US bases in Iraq comes from Elijah J. Magnier, a 30-year veteran war correspondent who has deep contacts in the Iranian and Iraqi governments and also in the PMF. His reporting has generally been on the money in the past. He is quite straightforward and puts little if any spin on his material, so it tends to be quite objective.

First of all, you must understand that Iraq is a very weak state and the Presidency is even weaker. Many Iraqis have decided for themselves to act independently to wage attacks on US forces, as they are seen as occupiers. The Iraqi government has ordered the US forces to leave Iraq, but the US has thumbed its nose at Iraq and says it’s not leaving! What arrogance. Hence, patriotic-minded Iraqis have taken it upon themselves to form guerrilla formations to attack the US bases and Embassy.

The question I have been asking for a long time now is, “Who exactly are these shadowy underground Shia guerrillas? Are they really just the PMF as the US  says?”

I have now learned who these groups are, but it is complicated.

As noted, many Iraqis have taken it upon themselves to act independently to attack US bases and embassies. In this role they are acting independently of the Iraqi Army and the PMF because the Army and the PMF are not interested in attacking the US in Iraq at the moment for a variety of reasons. These guerrillas are mostly Shia and use Shia names and symbols. They do not take orders from Iran. They don’t take orders from anyone.

To give you an example of their independence from Iran, Iran is not happy that these Shia guerrillas are attacking the US Embassy because Iran is opposed to  attacking anyone’s embassies or diplomatic missions. This is one lesson they have learned from 1979. However, these guerrillas march to their own drummer. They simply do what they want.

These guerrilla groups are known to locals because they operate in certain locales, so these are local Shia Iraqis who have formed illegal armed formations. They are very hard to find and catch because when they are not moonlighting as guerrillas, they hide in the Iraqi Army, the federal police, and the PMF. The Iraqi government is not interested in uncovering these forces anyway.

So the guerrillas are members of the Iraqi Army, federal police, and PMF who go off on their own to moonlight as guerrillas and carry out attacks on US targets and then return to their units to hide. They operate independently of all three units of the security forces.

One major question is where do they get their arms and funding. All of Iraq is a weapons depot anyway, so weapons should not be hard to find. I assumed that they were getting funding and arms from Iran, but I was wrong. The funding and arming of these Shia guerrillas who are attacking our bases comes directly from the Iraqi government itself. Nevertheless, even though they take a paycheck from the Iraqi government, they act on their own. They use Iraqi  military weaponry on their own too. They take it from Iraqi security forces arms depots.

If you are wondering why the Iraqi government doesn’t step in and disarm or at least try to find these Shia guerrillas, the truth is that no one can go against these groups. They are too powerful and have too much support. Look at the situation with Moqtada al-Sadr. The Iraqi government cannot tell Sadr what to do either. He’s too powerful. He gets to do whatever he wants. As I noted above, political and military structures in Iraq are weak.

There are different tendencies in the Iraqi Shia, and it comes down to the individual level. Even within the PMF itself, there are Iraqi Shia who are obedient followers of Iran, others that are pro-Iran but act independently, and others who are anti-Iranian Iraqi nationalists associated with the Marjaya religious establishment around Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf. There are also Sunnis and members of other confessions.

Also, the PMF takes orders from the Iraqi government, not from anyone else, including Iran. None of the “Iranian-backed militias” ever took orders from Iran. They would meet with the Iranians and Iranians might give them a list of possible attacks they might carry out. Then they could choose from the list. For example, to show you how that these groups do not take orders from Iran, wanted the Houthis to advance on San’a early in the war, but the Houthis decided not to turned them down as they thought it was too risky at the time.

Iran doesn’t even give orders to Hezbollah. But they don’t need to as Iran and Hezbollah have aims and philosophies that are in great accord with each other.

Alt Left: (((Biden))) Bombs Pro-Iranian Militias and Builds New Bases in Syria

(((Joe Biden)))* just bombed pro-Iranian militias in the Syrian War for the Jews today. Why in the Hell did he do that? Also, (((Biden))) is increasing the number of US bases in the Syrian War for the Jews. In addition, (((Biden))) will reportedly say nothing at all as Israel expands settlements in the West Bank in the next four years. In the past, it was a ritual that the US would condemn settlement building in the very mildest of terms that didn’t change a thing but at least were symbolic.

Meanwhile, (((the US))) vetoed all UN resolutions condemning Israel for building settlements. In addition, (((Biden))) will not change the location of the US Embassy from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. And worst of all, (((Biden))) is going to say nothing at all while Israel annexes the entire West Bank, including all of the Palestinian territories. This was always verboten and beyond the pale. Why is that US foreign policy regarding Israel seems to get worse and more reactionary with each passing year? I don’t get it. We just get worse and worse with no end in sight.

The Palestinians then will be residents of Israel in a sense, but they will not be included in population counts on censuses and they will not have any rights whatsoever. They will live in Israel only as ghosts, in effect, neither counted as residents nor as citizens  and without any rights of residents or citizens of the land.

Boy, those Jews sure are progressive people, aren’t they? Yeah, progressive in the Diaspora. Far rightwing ultranationalist fascists in their own country! What’s up with that anyway? Why are Jews leftwing in the Diaspora and far right fascists in their own land? What gives? By the way, what a bunch of lousy hypocrites, progressives and fascists at the same time. When they put on a progressive suit, they are progressive. Then they change clothes and put on a fascist suit and they are fascists. What a bunch of lowlifes these people are.

One thing I like about the US is all the choices we have, especially in foreign policy:

(((US Democratic Party))) foreign policy: More wars for the Jews!
(((US Republican Party))) foreign policy: More wars for the Jews!

Wow that’s some choice! I can hardly decide which one to choose!

P.S. Ever notice how silent the woketards are about Israel? You could hear a pin drop. And where is Black Lives Matter on Israel? How about on all these imperial wars we are involved in? How about US imperialism in general? Crickets. See? BLM and worketards are Fake Left. All they care about is Identity nonsense, abolishing police, jails, and prisons, playing the race card, hating White people, and opening US borders wide so 1/3 of the world’s population can flood in here completely unscreened. Economic issues? Foreign policy issues? On these questions, BLM’s silence is deafening. Fake Left!

*All Israel-firster  people and organizations get coincidence marks. You don’t have to be Jewish to get one. Really coincidence marks just mean Israel-firster.

Alt Left: Why Antisemitism Is Sometimes Mandatory for Gentiles

Why Antisemitism Is Sometimes Mandatory for Gentiles

A Jewish snake of a banker named Warburg (I think he had something to do with the Federal Reserve sleaze in 1912) played a significant role in funding both sides of the war.

In Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, there were many articles about this character, and I could not make sense of him. He was literally funding all sides in World War 1 all of the time. He would pull support for Germany and fund the allies and then pull support for the allies and fund the Germans. His shenanigans seem to know no bounds. I came away thinking that this guy was an amoral slimeball. He seemed to have absolutely no values whatsoever other than whatever his money could buy him in terms of influence and power. Other than that, he believed in nothing at all.

I’ve read issues of The Dearborn Independent in the 1910’s. It’s not particularly antisemitic. It’s more that US Jews were acting bad back then.

From 1900-1920, US Jews tried to take over the US Stock Exchange and almost succeeded until antisemitic Gentiles blew whistle on the scam and stopped it.

US Jews had already grabbed Hollywood. Four or five Jews from Galicia somehow managed to take over Hollywood from 1900-1920. This was around the time of Birth of a Nation and other extremely racist films coming out. Jews didn’t like that sort of racism because as a general rule, it tends to circle back around to the Jews sooner or later. So the Jews took over Hollywood not necessarily out of greed but to control the narrative and protect the Jews from racist and antisemitic White Christians.

Similarly, wealthy US Jews funded takeovers of many US newspapers from 1880-1920. The Ochs and Sulzberger families were among this group. They took over the New York Times in the late 19th Century and continue to run it to this day (talk about slimeballs – check out Sulzberger, the present owner of the Times).

In the late 1800’s all US papers were run by White Christians, and racist stories were the order of the day, as casual racism was normal in US society back then. The Jews became very alarmed at this and once again figured it would circle back around to the Jews at some point. Once again, the newspapers were taken over to the protect the Jews, not to make them a fortune. Much of this took place from 1880-1900 and beyond.

So many things the Jews do are for self-protection. You can’t understand Jews until you understand this fact. Jews are not so much wicked as they are paranoid, and they have a right to be somewhat paranoid.

US Jews also hatched a conspiracy to take over finance banking from 1910-1920, and they managed to take over most of these banks before antisemitic Gentiles got together and fought back.

During the same period, they then made a run at commercial banking and only made some headway before word went out,  antisemitic Gentiles blew the whistle, and stopped the Jews dead in their tracks. To this day, Jews do not have much presence in US commercial banking, but they continue to have significant presence in finance banking, and they are quite important to the New York Stock Exchange.

Ford’s paper was blowing the whistle on all of these Jewish shenanigans, and good for him! This was a very important thing for a Gentile to do at that time. The Jews had to be stopped before they took over the whole damn country, which seems to have been their plan.

You can also see here that when Jews wage ethnic warfare on other ethnicities as they are wont to do, Gentiles absolutely must become antisemitic and hatch antisemitic conspiracies to stop the Jewish conspiracies. So at times, a certain amount of antisemitism is absolutely necessary, and to fail to be antisemitic is basically suicidal.

As you can see, Jewish ethnic warfare is a direct cause of compensatory antisemitism in Gentiles. So Jews create antisemitism, to some extent anyway. This makes me angry. They go out of their way to directly cause anti-Jewish sentiment and then they scream and kvetch about it and play the victim. What a bunch of lowlifes.