The Ugly Truth Of Leftist “Heroes”

Leftist politics is basically a religion these days, including a litany of saints. Many had cults of personality, some ongoing. Criticizing them gets the same reaction as telling a fundamentalist that a Biblical prophet was a nut.

Many have been greatly over-hyped, their flaws often overlooked. As usual with the leftist worldview, fair is foul and foul is fair. You’ve heard of the accomplishments of these plastic idols ad infinitum, but now we’ll cover the truth your professors and the mainstream media neglected to mention. Standard disclaimer: not all the people I compare them to were spotless either. Now let’s barbecue some sacred cows in approximate chronological order.

Jean-Paul Marat

hasta la vista Marat

One less demagogue, a positive population adjustment

Famous for: Martyr of the French Revolution

The reality: He’s not so famous today, but people were sure crazy about him earlier. He began as a doctor with an interest in optics. He became a demagogue who fanned the flames of the French Revolution. He published a radical paper called The Friend of the People (L’Ami du Peuple), where he regularly incited violence, for example:

Why haven’t you renounced your vain babbling and followed the advice of your friend, armed yourself with rope, with daggers, and ended the days of those of your defeated enemies who would have the audacity to rise up again.

When heads started rolling, Charlotte Corday whacked him to stop the demagoguery. She explained, “I killed one man to save a hundred thousand.” After that, his cult of personality ascended into orbit. During the goofiest days of the French Revolution, his image replaced crucifixes in the churches of Paris. Two years later, though, everyone got sick of it and decided he was a nut.

Dirty laundry: Acquired a very smelly chronic skin infection while hiding in the sewers.

Superior meanie right-winger: Napoleon Bonaparte, who quickly turned this mess around and brought forth France’s finest hour

Superior leftist: Voltaire

Karl Marx

Marx the bum

Would you trust this man to be an expert on economics?

Famous for: Founder of Communism

The reality: He was basically a bum, mooching off his pal Engels, and a frequent flyer at the pawn shop. Four of his children died of starvation because he wouldn’t man up and support his family. (Still, his followers were far more effective at starving people.) Apparently plotting global revolution from a London pub was more fun than working. This isn’t exactly the best qualification for economics expertise. Disasters followed wherever Marxist policies were applied. Groucho was a better theoretician.

Dirty laundry: Probably knocked up Helene Demuth, his unpaid servant, though his long-suffering buddy Engels took the fall

Superior meanie right-winger: Joseph de Maistre, a theoretician with far more substance and clear thought

Superior leftist: Jeremy Bentham

Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi


Not too bad, but massively overrated

Famous for: India’s independence from the British Empire

The reality: He’s the best one listed. Still, all the hype is pretty cloying. In the 1982 biographical movie, he practically walked on water. (Have any Bollywood movies deified George Washington?) He did live by his principles, including nonviolence. The problem is that only works with opponents who won’t take the opportunity to stomp on you. Always being peaceful is as problematic as always being warlike.

After India seceded from the British Empire, Pakistan and Bangladesh soon seceded from India. That sparked massive rioting, claiming perhaps as many as two million lives. His response was to go on a hunger strike. Rioters must be dealt with harshly before things really spiral out of control, a lesson quite relevant today.

Dirty laundry: Drank his urine, slept with girls to test his chastity (including his grand-niece)

Superior meanie right-winger: Ian Smith, whose only faults were trusting the British government to stand by Rhodesia and listening to Henry Kissinger

Superior leftist: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

pull my finger comrades

Marx sucked, but Lenin swallowed

Famous for: Dictator of the Soviet Union

The reality: Although the Communists presented him as a grandfatherly figure, an image still surviving today, he began the Soviet Union’s descent into massive political violence. “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” as he put it. He wasn’t nearly as bad as his successor, though if he’d lived longer he might well have been. His efforts at implementing goofy Marxist economics led to massive starvation.

Dirty laundry: Died of neurological syphilis complications

Superior meanie right-winger: Benito Mussolini, who among world leaders has a ridiculously high ratio of bad reputation to bad things he actually did

Superior leftist: Nikita Khrushchev

Mao Zedong



Famous for: Dictator of the People’s Republic of China, ripping off Hillary’s wardrobe

The reality: Chairman Mao was a decent military leader, well-schooled in the Asian style of warfare, but he sucked as the leader of China. His first catastrophe was the Great Leap Forward. That involved starting iron foundries in farming villages, without giving them the proper training or equipment. As for actually growing the crops, he had some goofy agricultural notions that were supposed to quadruple output but failed miserably.

If he’d started small-scale experiments and not relied on ass-kissers telling him everything was going great, tens of millions of lives could’ve been spared. He got sidelined after this, but resumed power by stirring up the Cultural Revolution. Part of that involved orchestrating a factional dispute leading to great bloodshed.

Dirty laundry: Slept with hundreds of groupies and didn’t get his venereal diseases treated. His popularity is surprising, since he had terrible hygiene. Other than that, his fourth wife was a vicious bunny boiler.

Superior meanie right-winger: Francisco Franco, who ended the Red Terror in Spain, and took baths

Superior leftist: Deng Xiaoping

Ernesto “Che” Guevara

Saint Che

Communism killed tens of millions, but at least we got a kewl T-shirt out of it

Famous for: His image on T-shirts and posters

The reality: Although his iconic picture is widespread, especially on college campuses, most people have no idea what he did. He helped Castro take over Cuba, and fought for Communism in the Congo and Bolivia. While in Cuba, he lived in a palatial house and gleefully executed hundreds or perhaps thousands of political prisoners.

Dirty laundry: Textbook sociopath, beginning with torturing animals as a child

Superior meanie right-winger: Otto Skorzeny, who radiated panache and led many daring commando raids

Superior leftist: Ho Chi Minh

Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK mugshot

MLK, the saint that ain’t

Famous for: Civil rights martyr

The reality: MLK wasn’t nationally known until Time put him on the cover of their magazine. (Thanks, mainstream media!) It’s odd that his name is still prefixed with Dr., since he plagiarized much of his doctoral dissertation. As for the Reverend part, that too seems odd since his personal life made Bill Clinton seem like a monk. He partied with booze and hookers on the SCLC’s dime. Sometimes he’d beat them—a “moral giant” indeed!

Dirty laundry: Recorded on surveillance tape saying “I’m fucking for God!” and “I’m not a Negro tonight!” while with three White prostitutes

Superior meanie right-winger: Father Coughlin, a fellow demagogue who had a squeaky clean personal life

Superior leftist: Jesse Jackson

Nelson Mandela

Winnie, Nelson, and their buddy Joe Slovo

Famous for: ANC leader, President of South Africa

The reality: Most people assume this grandfatherly teddy bear was a political prisoner; jailed only for protesting apartheid. Instead, he was a terrorist jailed for a bomb plot, yet he’s been bestowed a ridiculous number of honors including the Nobel Peace Prize and the Lenin Peace Prize. Despite pleading guilty to 156 charges, the government later offered to free him if he renounced violence, but this “man of peace” refused.

Other than that, he was a closet Communist. After he assumed power, he fumbled the ball on the AIDS issue, leaving South Africa with one of the world’s worst infection rates. Also, beginning with his administration, the New, Improved South Africa went from being an industrialized country to a crime-ridden Third World hellhole.

Dirty laundry: His wife, Winnie Mandela, was bestowed the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, yet endorsed “necklacing”. This involved using a gasoline-filled tire to burn people to death for disagreeing with their politics. As she put it, “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.” Further, she was complicit to kidnapping. One of the victims—fourteen year old James “Stompei” Moeketsi—was hacked to death, but she got off with a fine on appeal.

Superior meanie right-winger: Augusto Pinochet, who saved Chile from ruin

Superior leftist: Ted Kaczynski

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Oblabla-halo-composite 2

How objective the press is! Doesn’t this just warm your heart?

Famous for: President of the United States, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush

The reality: Huge chunks of the life of this tremendously overrated “community organizer” are shrouded in mystery, all the way back to his birth. Thus, all those low-information voters had little idea who they were electing. He has many interesting associates, such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Emperor Palpatine George Soros, and his buddies at ACORN.

While a junior Senator with an unremarkable legislative record, he entered the 2008 Presidential race and got sold by the media as a messiah figure. He broke a whopping number of campaign promises about what he’d do in his first year: heal the economy, halve the deficit, withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, close Camp X-ray, etc. He continued many of Bush the Younger’s policies, but got praised for doing the same things that got the Shrub condemnation.

His major legislative triumph was a socialized medicine scheme which caused healthcare prices to skyrocket, even though all those politicians swore up and down that wouldn’t happen. Nearing the end of his term, Wall Street is peachy again, but the economy still sucks for the real people.

Dirty laundry: Used to sell dope, which he’s surprisingly honest about, but it’s still not a great qualification for the Presidency

Superior meanie right-winger: George W. Bush, who wasn’t batting 1000 but at least nobody deified him

Superior leftist: Jimmy Carter

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read more:  3 Things I Learned From Being A Marxist

341 thoughts on “The Ugly Truth Of Leftist “Heroes””

  1. I’m looking forward to next week’s article on why right wing bad guys really weren’t that bad. Saddam, Ghaddafi, Mussolini. After all, none of them are Literally Hitler.

    1. Are Libya and Iraq doing any better right now? While I won’t call those two great leaders, they definitely understood what their populace required to maintain a modicum of civility.

      1. All of my right wing friends were all about “get rid of that sumbitch!” when Dubya was beating the war drums. I pointed out that Iraqis by and large were normally heavily armed and that if they wanted him out, they could easily dispatch him with their own guns. That never went over well, which helped me muse light heartedly about their thoughts regarding the 2nd Amendment. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

        1. Funny you brought that up. I pointed out to many that prior to the U.S. invasion in ’03, Iraq had one of the best intel networks in the Middle East and if Dubya had been serious about Al Qaeda, he could have utilized not only Iraq but Syria as well.

        2. There were far too few people using their brains or common sense or simply questioning the beating of the war drums, backed up by full 24/7 media coverage, particularly on the right. Props, GoJ.

        3. The public cried for blood and we got it.
          No one cried for DHS but we were saddled with that anyhow. Why is it that supposedly right-wing Republicans have created some of the most heinous expansions of big government?

        4. I have to wonder how much that really means as Saddam had one of the largest and well-funded armed forces in the world and they proved some of the sorriest soldiers ever seen.

        5. Saddam would ride in motorcades in convertibles while the crazed Arab hordes around him fired guns in the air in approval.
          Yeah, they hated him.

        6. Most CH republicans are simply a marginally better douchebag than the lefties. One thing I like about Trump is that he’s turning on the light, and making these cockroaches scurry.

    2. I was never actually sure why Saddam was so hated. I mean I don’t like the man, but he didn’t seem anywhere as bad as the leaders in the Muslim nations that surrounded Iraq. Hell, he had a secular nation that was on the path to respecting rights in the “all equal before the law” notion if he’d stayed in power. The Kurds, whom it is rumored that he gassed, have been raising hell and hurting people and things for as long as time has known of them. Turkey rather hates them too, as does any other nation that houses them. They are not “nice” people. Now is that an excuse to gas them? I dunno, maybe, maybe not. I don’t believe in “no violence, ever” and sometimes you have to deal with the pipe bomb throwers with more than kind words and a soft smile.
      Ghaddafi I have mixed thoughts about. On the one hand, he kept Libya pretty stable. On the other hand, he dressed like it was still the year 1977 and did himself no favors in the “easy to ridicule” department. He was kind of like the last two leaders of North Korea in that respect.
      Mussolini was a douchenozzle. He was an anarcho-socialist in the 1920’s who took that political philosophy and re-labled it “fascism” and that, really, isn’t something I think anybody should be proud of. Anarcho-socialist being, basically, communism with a different hair-do.

      1. Saddam was hated because he murdered a ton of people, and not just Kurds.
        Not uncommon for a coworker or family member to just vanish. No reason to ask questions, because you could be next. They’re still finding mass graves to the day.
        His sons would frequently crash weddings, and rape the soon-to-be brides.
        Saddam wasn’t a pleasant man by any stretch of the imagination.

        1. I wasn’t actually advocating for him. What I’m saying is that among Middle Eastern leaders, there are many, many more who do much worse things and who had actual ties to 9/11. Like, oh I don’t know, the House of Saud for example.

      2. Ghaddafi actually kept Libya racially stable. Which as we know is sometimes THE most important thing. I have to say, not ALL countries are like the West. Some peoples work better been governed by dictators.

        1. I agree. I got the country wrong too, corrected. Heh.

        2. Actually, the West worked much better when it was governed by dictators.
          We called them Kings. Worked pretty well for, oh, ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY up until the clusterfuck we are in now.

      3. My comment was tongue in cheek, but Saddam was actually one of the best leaders in the entire region in hundreds of years. He revolutionized the education and infrastructure of the country, improved health care, secularized the government (Christian churches were common in Baghdad and Christian missionaries were protected and rather common).
        He received a UNESCO prize for fighting illiteracy in 1982. He instituted free and universal education, focused on technology, and offered large scholarships for Iraqi students to study abroad at the best universities. He built special gifted schools for education of the top tier students (the contrary idea of the dumbed down Prussian system we have with No Child Left Behind in the USA).
        He modernized farming and agriculture, ensured that clean water and electricity were provided to every village, diversified the economy to plan for the future after oil, constructed multiple dams for hydroelectric power, built dozens of factories so that local Iraqi products could be sold to the people instead of importing everything from China, and developed a first rate health care system with free basic medical care for all.
        If you openly criticized him or joined a rebel group that opposed him, yes, he would respond violently, as would any leader, including Obama who has droned striked innocent teenage boys because their father was preaching anti-US propaganda (al maliki). Remember what the US government did in Waco because one guy bought a shotgun that was shaved off a fraction of an inch too short? They wiped out the entire complex in a military operation. You can bet if there were an armed insurgency against the US government they would respond with violence and death. It would be portrayed differently in the media than the Saddam killings, but the end result would be the same.
        Saddam’s administration did brutally torture dissents, and likely some innocents, and was of course trained in these tactics by the CIA when he was a US ally. His main crime was killing between 50,000 and 100,000 rebel Kurds in 1988.
        Yes, that’s wrong and possibly genocidal, but compared to the death and destruction the US has caused in Iraq in the intervening years, that is a drop in the bucket. Not to mention the fact that if one wanted to live peacefully and prosperously in Iraq one only needed to stop being a douchebag Kurdish rebel, whereas innocent people are bombed and murdered every day in Iraq today just by walking down the street. If I know I have to shut my mouth and not criticize the King or I’ll get injured, that’s far different than just being randomly injured because I live in a dangerous warzone.
        I think someone did question a Bush administration person about how many innocent people would be too many to remove Saddam. They couldn’t answer the question. I mean, really, if you are going to avenge the death of 50,000, you should have SOME upper limit of death and destruction where you realize your solution is far worse than the problem. But that’s usually the case with government.

      4. Ghaddafi tried to unite African nations and wanted them to trade amongst themselves. He was actually making good progress too. He was a threat to US interests. I remember watching this video where he was in a world leader meeting, saying something like “the US decided to kill Sadam; they could do it to any one of us.” He seemed frustrated that people weren’t taking him seriously; Asad openly laughed. Guess he’s not laughing now…

        1. IMO it’d be better stated that he was a threat to globalist interests.
          I doubt very many Americans outside of DC believed we needed to wage 0bama’s private war to depose Ghaddafi (or even who Ghaddafi was).

      5. Given how pathetic the Iraqi military was, I’m rather surprised that the Iranians were unwilling to conquer Iraq militarily decades ago.
        Ghaddafi was nuts, and I wonder how up he was on Hillary’s gun-running, but I seriously doubt he deserved the (illegal) beatdown from Western armed forces that his regime received, or his death that resulted from being sodomized by a bayonet.
        I’d like to think that the US military plane lost (with all crew surviving unharmed) over Libya was Ghaddafi getting a “parting blow” in.

      1. I don’t buy the left/right paradigm. People will call them both. They were both fascists, which is typically labeled “right”. There was also some socialism, which is typically labeled “left.” The terms are meaningless.
        I’m a laissez faire free market kind of guy but I can also see the appeal of national socialism (that’s not what America has). It’s not a left/right black/white issue.

        1. They believed in absolute power of the state, which sure sounds like socialist to me. certainly not “right”

  2. I also like to remind people that Mother Theresa believed suffering was how people became closer to God. Instead of working to heal the sick, she just tried to feed them while they died of easily treated diseases.
    She got millions in donations to help those dying in her clinics, but sent it all to the Vatican instead of using it. Doctors donated antibiotics and supplies, but she wouldn’t use them. She’d use the same needles long after they became dull, and never sterilized any of them.
    Not that the sort of people who hold up these icons care one whit about the truth.

        1. Go to the website and find out the real truth about mother Theresa from unbiased observers

    1. Yeah mother Theresa was kind of a shit. Just sainted with some pretty dubious qualifications which were like, I don’t know what, healing cancer with force lightening and chasing the Jews out of Calcutta or something.
      Pretty sure it is well known that she used to roll the windows in her car up and fart before people goy in. Totally whack

  3. By far Karl Marx is the most despicable of the bunch. At least the others made an effort to keep their family and household in order, as dysfunctional as it may have been.
    Marx couldn’t be bothered to find a job, even when he owned the only pair of pants and his own children were starving to death.

    1. “Capitalism is a broken system. By the way, Freddy, you’re out of milk, so you should probably pick some up on the way home from the office.”
      At least Bernie Sanders eventually went into politics, which resembles work.

      1. That’s been his only job.
        Though the only “work” Sanders has done has been to see which way the political wind blows and adjust his positions to take advantage of it, while still maintaining his “maverick” status.
        I still think Bernie should’ve found the time to read Art of the Deal as he could’ve gotten a lot more out the DNC than a $600,000 vacation palace.

        1. He got unlimited access to the company plane too.
          You ever looked at his finances? For over 20+ years in Congress, he doesn’t have shit for money and assets. It’s almost impossible to be so inept with money.

        2. I don’t know if he’s really inept at making money via Congress, slightly more honest than the average Congress critter or if he’s just really good at hiding his ill-gotten gain.
          Then again, he couldn’t hide his image-destroying $600,000+ bribe to take a dive and his wife did bankrupt a college in Vermont so maybe I’m giving Bernie too much credit by considering that he might be cunning instead of inept.

    2. I’ve always hated selfish creative types for that reason. Like, are they really doing so much writing/painting/sculpture that they couldn’t hold a 9-5 and get their art on in the evening?

      1. Eh…I dunno man. If somebody is creating great art (and I mean actual great art) then a 9-5 is going to basically kill their drive and inspiration. The trick is to get paid for creating great art, I suspect.

        1. Fair enough.
          I just keep thinking about my 30 year old cousin who thinks he’s a mystery novelist. Writes a few pages every other day while the wife works to support his ass.
          Maybe patronage should become a thing again.

        2. I’d love to join this discussion, but it’s difficult to use Tolstoy as a substitute for another word.

        3. Or you do it like Franz Kafka: Work on the day, sleep in the evening, write at night. A true hustler.
          Sadly he died a virgin.

    3. I went to art school & like I said above went to normal school with many aristo’s. They are exactly like Marx. Never seem to have any money & very incapable of living in the real world. At first it was fascinating to me-I have always had to work for extras but my Dad would shelve out for ‘good education’-and fun talking about philosophy and drinking wine etc but after a while, you realise these people have a sort of sociopathy-it’s NOT personal & it’s clearly nurtured-but it makes them unbearable friends or/and family.

      1. The first generation makes money, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it.

      2. I dunno, I grew up in Greenwich CT surrounded by insane wealth. We all were driving Corvettes, Trans Ams and Porsches in high school. Nobody dressed like a bum and we pissed away money like water at the Yacht Club.
        Guess we weren’t left wing enough.

  4. Gandhi was nothing more than a very shrewd, casteist politician and a pervert. He isn’t even liked by most people in India.
    I’ve never understood the western fascination that glorifies him as a sort of divine champion of non-violence.
    No wonder he’s so exalted by the liberal hippy crowd.

      1. Oh, not that Molyjew again..who thinks that Soros isn’t anything worth to focus on…just another guy who wants to make a bit of business.
        Stefan is such a good goy.

        1. Stefan has solid content and does a great job of debunking Leftist mythology but I have to agree with you.
          I’ll change my opinion of him when he invites E. Michael Jones or Kevin B. MacDonald on his podcast.
          Until then, dude is not to be trusted entirely.

    1. Ghandi was not some mystical guru. That guy was a shrewd, cunning attorney and knew -exactly- what he was doing.

    2. Jinnah did a lot more and he hid his declining health for the sake of his yet to be nation as he was dying. And he never got caught for anything illegal and therefore never jailed. Smarter than Ghandi. He did drink though

    3. He also fought FOR the british multiple times. Talked Endless shot on his wife. Slept naked with hot young chicks. Supposedly not banging them. Yea right. And he was super obsessed with poop

      1. I can’t be mad at him for sleeping with hot young chicks. I do the same.
        I bang ’em though.

    4. if it wasn’t for America wanting to end the British empire and stoping them from barraging with their warships the coastal town in India i which he had the biggest support, noone would know him now…

    5. He famously slept with a lot of hot virgins in order to test his resistance to sex, something that seems perverse, probably because it is.

  5. Marx was basically a bum, mooching off his pal Engels
    This is the story they try to sell because of the ideology he was promoting but it is not true.
    He came from a rich family, his father was a rich lawyer and his mother was a Pressburg (Preßburg), a family of very wealthy Jewish merchants. On top of that Karl Marx’s grandmother Nanette Barent-Cohen was the first cousin of Henriette Barent-Cohen, who married Nathan Mayer Rothschild.
    Marx was pretending to look like a bum but his the Rothchilds, the Phillips and the Pressburgs were all bankrolling the Communism project and he was their agent.

    1. So he just wacked his kids for no good reason then?

      1. Fabricated story to create the portrait of the struggling communist.
        Marx’s wife Jenny von Westphalen was an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling class. You think she would live in poverty voluntarily? The marriage looks arranged to me, for political purposes, which means Ludwig was probably in on the con.
        Also note that all of his alleged daughters were named Jenny after the mother. That’s a red flag as it’s stupid thing to do.

        1. Fabricated story to create the portrait of the struggling communist.
          Well, clearly you can produce actual evidence of this then, right? Show me. I mean specifically evidence that the well documented death of four of his seven daughters is a “fabricated story”. It’s pretty easy to check death records from that time period, and even disregarding his laziness, it wasn’t hard to lose a kid to death in the 19th century.
          So yeah, cool, show me.

        2. A red flag!
          The worst part is that you aren’t clever enough to have done that intentionally.

        3. George Foreman named all five of his sons George Foreman. Apparently they must be alleged sons and, as it follows, a red flag.

        4. Apparently so. I mean the red flags are there for all to see.
          Which also means, I think we all realize, that he owns casinos.

        5. How would you check authentic PAPER death records from the period unless you physically go the local archives? Enlighten me.
          Just because they were listed on sites like, it does mean they were real?

        6. How would you be able to disprove that they died then, if any record keeping in legit format that has been going on for centuries is called into question? Ok, so you discredit the long established sources of documentation. Great. So where’s your proof of your claim? If nothing can be trusted as authentic, then your words mean nothing just like nothing else can mean anything. It’s all chaos.

        7. He also named his alleged grill a george Forman grill so that probably doesn’t exist either

        8. I only speculate here based on logic. A detective’s work, if you wish.
          Marx came from a very rich background, his wife came from a very rich aristocratic background, their children were dying like flies and no-one blinks an eyelid.
          It’s simply a huge red flag.

        9. So basically, you can’t back up your claim.
          You specifically stated that he didn’t have four daughters who died and that it’s a front story (apparently), and I think I also detect a hint of “if they even really existed in the first place” in your post.
          Dude, going through life making leaps of logic that require a booster rocket to complete seems rather silly.

        10. Or maybe they should have, at least this way the confusion around dinner table would be complete.

        11. Wait! Yes! That also makes him a (((Navajo))), Donald Trumps grandfather and , o course, literally hitler

        12. Huge Red Flag! Twice. Man, you are basically like a notch above mayonnaise on the evolutionary scale. I mean I knew you were stupid but somehow you surpass expectations every single time

        13. I have a feeling, based on that he never seems to respond to you, that he blocked you a ways back.

        14. yeah, i think so. Still, I enjoy. I mean, what is the point of having a mental midget yammering about stupid shit if you can’t poke fun. His awareness of it doesn’t make it better for me as he is too dim to comprehend it anyway. I do things for me.

      2. Since when are the rich not careless? That has much ado about nothing. I went to a boarding school (UK) with some v aristocratic people-they are batty. Many looked and behaved like hobo’s until parents sent them money and they STILL behaved and dressed like hobo’s.

        1. So you’re suggesting that he just up and let his daughters die in order to “keep in deep cover” as FO3 is suggesting?

        2. I don’t exclude the possibility that both parents were careless but considering that there’s some much disinformation surrounding Marx’s life, this might be just another one.

      1. True but Marx was not a socialist in the true sense of the word, his role was to infiltrate the rising socialist movement at the time.

        1. It is not entirely implausible, though, is it.
          Like Hillary announced the Alt-right to the public.
          Take a smart person who tries to infiltrate a movement of idiots. The smart person totally overdoes it by using their great intellect to get into their favors. And suddenly that person is their messiah. Heh.

        2. To buy that however would be to reject every single piece of writing that documents his life and history by countless sources, both sympathetic and antagonistic to his viewpoint. So…we can flush the entire sum of what we know about him that was documented by so many of his contemporaries and later scholars throughout history and transcending nations in order to believe sheer speculation without evidence backing it up, or….
          Well, you see my point.

        3. You’re too amusing to block. I don’t have to partake to laugh. I’ll be content to spectate from the sidelines.

        4. Well, GOJ, who says that you are not a noodle bolognese floating in space around Alpha Centauri and happen to have telepathic internet access?

        5. there were many socialists before Marx, and rival socialists contemporaneous to Marx. The fact that he basically sabotaged every rival form of socialism (c.f. Proudhonism in France for instance) does lend a small amount of credence to the idea that his agenda was primarily destructive of alternatives. I don’t buy that it was wholly cynical though

        6. That is literally Hitler. He was a military spy on the German socialist workers party, decided to join, took it over, and changed it’s name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis)

    2. Sweetheart, as a gal who grew up with many wealthy Euro aristo’s…this is EXACTLY what they do! Bum! They NEVER have money. Always bumming off me. They are not middle class upbringing or set of values. They literally have no concept of structure or order.
      Only a very entitled wealthy person would come up with communism & spend most of his time in the pub drinking! Hello…?

      1. Marx was financed on a specific mission. Considering his backers, he had access to almost unlimited resources. Your hypothesis that they were careless rich bums is perhaps the only one that might explain what happened (if we accept it to be true).
        The official narratives is that the children died due to poor living conditions. False.
        p.s. Plus Marx did not come from an aristocratic background, only his wife.

        1. I’m sure. The idea that Marx worked alone as some lone visionary is too fantastical.
          I just knew people of that ilk/class & they really do live in a life of airheadyness mixed with dissaray. It’s very destructive if you get close to them.
          And it’s hard for ‘normal’ folk to make sense of it too. You should read about our (UK) Royal Family/Aristo’s. Barmy!

      2. “Only a very entitled wealthy person would come up with communism & spend most of his time in the pub drinking!”
        It’s not implausible. How else come that the most wealthy and well-populated areas of the US are the most socialistic?

        1. Because the hordes vote for gibmedats.
          The county I live in is so conservative that Genghis Khan would be called a pussy Leftist if he showed his face here. Richest county in the state of OH-IO.

        2. St Albans, Welwyn, Hampstead! So wealthy, and so close to LUTON. 10 miles or so from jihadi territory, I say let em have a party.

        3. I doubt anyone who lives in Hampstead would ever go to Luton if they even know it exists. It’s a poor people’s airport

        4. Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?! I let you know that the Burger King joint is pretty OK and second only to the general airport literature shop.
          You don’t live in London do yo?

        5. Hopefully so would Pastor-in-Chief Governor John “Prince of Light” Kasich.
          As “Karate” Kasich was ashamed to show his face at the Cleveland convention, I hope that’s a sign of Ohioans statewide getting wise to Kasich.

        6. left london a few years back. You may think that WH Smiths makes Luton the cultural capital north of the M25 but if it don’t stock the morning star it’s got nowt to do with literature

        7. ok tom, I’ve checked the lyrics, can you explain what that has to do with communists living in hampstead

    3. Like any good hipster today! Look all beat and hardscrabble, shopping a the thrift store and all, but spend your summers on the Cape.

    4. I strongly doubt capitalists would support a genuine communist (he, unlike his cultural marxist contemporaries, is not an agent of the elite trying to raise taxes on businesses; rather, he’s trying to put them under worker control).

  6. Nice piece…Gandhi was a loyal subject of the British Empire. He studied law at the Inner Temple in London –
    The Natal Indian Ambulance Corps was created by Mahatma Gandhi for use by the British as stretcher-bearers during the Second Boer War, with expenses met by the local Indian community (nice touch, that one). Gandhi and the corps served at the Battle of Spion Kop. It consisted of 300 free Indians and 800 indentured labourers (so Gandhi helped wipe out the poor for the British, basically, at this battle – and made the Indian community pay for his stretcher service; those elite have a funny sense of humor…).
    Gandhi laid a wreath at the pedestal of the statue of Queen Victoria in Durban, South Africa (curious, for a man who allegedly fought against British might).
    Gandhi was an avowed casteist. His first fast was in protest to a change in the underlying fundaments of the caste system, which gave special privileges to the Untouchables (he didn’t like that, so he fasted in protest).
    RCA/Columbia produced “Gandhi”, the Oscar-winning film, in 1982. Supposedly, non-violent resistance is the key to significant social change – that was Gandhi’s angle. Uh…do you think a film produced by the elite, is going to hand out the recipe for bringing them down? I don’t think so. Rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide.
    Two of the film’s stars – Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ben Kingsley – were knighted by the Queen, for services rendered to the cause as loyal subjects of the British Empire. And that puts a nice, big, bright-pink bow around the whole thing…

    1. A loyal subject until he led the greatest rebellion in world history against Zionist England and crown stopping all production in salt mines and other slave shops.

  7. Zhou Enlai is also worth a look since “superior Leftists” are on the table. The guy try to steer Mao away from various bad decisions, adopted orphaned children, and was a shrewd negotiator.

  8. Jesse Jackson the FBI informer? The guy who got King killed? Who steals money from Blacks in the form of activism? Are you on crack??!!

    1. Yea, I thought that was a weird one as well. MLK’s worst sin is that he was a huge womanizer and hypocrite. In the Pantheon of the Lefties, that’s nothing.

      1. Yeah. More then anything, Baryard Rustin-the gay dude-was the one who was the mastermind behind King. Like you said, King’s sin was that he was just a dumb-ass. He was actually really stupid-Rustin did all the work, writing, strategies etc but was kicked out because of his sexuality and as it was in those days as a gay man-was framed and accused of sleeping with young men.
        All v convenient. He was then ousted and made a pariah. After that King went super social justice, as Rustin was actually quite anti-welfare and making blacks as the only victims of poverty.
        King was the perfect ‘front’ the FBI wanted but Jesse J was jealous as he got to much power and rumor has it snitched to get him kill. Now HE’s the don of civil rights.

      2. During the Lewinsky scandal, one woman said to me that it’s only sex and nothing to be concerned about. She was a lefty and whenever something about the right came up, she went up like a firecracker. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot, she was screaming that Sarah Palin caused it. That was due to the map of the congressional districts that had a crosshair sight in them that Palin sent out. All I could do was think, yeahhh righhhttt!

        1. Morality is a seamless web. You cannot separate private morality from public morality. If a leader betrays his wife, he’ll betray his country sure as sunup.

      3. You’ll find that most outspoken/bold individuals who led movements throughout history have had a thing for sugar walls. And it’s not like women dislike leaders either.

      4. MLK pushed for liberal democrat politicians and was yet another race-baiting poverty pimp.
        He tried to cajole the government into coughing up billions (in 1965 dollars) to the black community as he believed that blacks being granted equal rights wasn’t enough to get them to whitey’s level.

        1. MLK died before he could really do the damage he was poised to. All signs pointed to him leading a massive socialist movement.

        2. ROFL, nice troll job.
          Though if you’re serious, MLK actually did call for billions of tax dollars to be doled out to the black man, with the specific reasoning that he believed that equal rights alone wouldn’t get the black man on whitey’s level.
          No one denies this, it’s even on Wikipedia, a place that is downright adulatory of MLK.

      1. I’m beginning to think maybe the best thing possible is to end welfare, close off the ghettos and just let the inhabitants murder each other.

        1. Alternatively, we could just dust off and implement Abe Lincoln’s repatriation plan and solve the problem without upping the kill count in the USA.
          It’s interesting that politicians who had the power and belief to implement such plans (eg:FDR, Woodrow Wilson) never did.

        2. No one has the power (Republicans) or the will (Democrats) to do it. It would probably kick off a small-scale civil war.

        3. Probably so, but they’d solve our problem in one fell swoop. Deportation is on the table nowadays so the odds are higher than they’ve been since the 1950s.
          I’m not really seeing another solution that is better.

        4. With that logic, of course, we could use deportation to send back all the Irish, Italian and Slavic peoples who live here. Rates of corruption increased significantly when these peoples first arrived here in large numbers a century or so ago, and it can be argued that this corruption remains today.
          All slopes are slippery, after all.

        5. No, that logic does not hold up.
          Black criminality has persisted for centuries, as has their political exploitation. The European demographics who were problematic eventually got wise and cleaned up their act.
          From the Founders all the way up through Harry S. Truman, leading Americans made no bones about their thoughts-and reasoning why-blacks should be repatriated. The oddest thing is that those who had the power to act on that thought did not…
          Keeping millions of blacks here just to serve one purpose and one purpose only-to have their criminality harnessed and enhanced so politicians can exploit them-is pretty twisted IMO.

        6. Yes, the logic does hold up.
          Irish, Italian and Slavic immigrants are not the founding stock of this country. That would by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And no, these immigrant groups did not “assimilate.” Assimilation does not exist. They permanently changed the country. The alt-right harps on about how the 1965 immigration act “destroyed the country,” but the fact is by 1965 the country that Washington, Jefferson and the other founders had created had already ceased to exist for some time.
          If the “ethnonationalists” take back this country, some “white” groups will find out that they won’t be allowed to stay either. Hell, the blacks have more of a right to stay than the Italians and the Slavs. They’ve been citizens longer. If the blacks, who are citizens, can be repatriated, why not other groups, “white” or not?

        7. Assimilation does exist and as far as I can find it was pretty much expected to occur, albeit only with Western Europeans with similar backgrounds and beliefs, and only when admitted in very select, small groups to the USA.
          On a side note, the USA wasn’t entirely founded by “WASPs”, one of the original 13 colonies was founded as a Catholic enclave and was rather rife with ’em at the Founding. A Catholic-Charles Carroll-even signed the Declaration.
          I could see what you’re going for with the Slavs, but not with the Irish and not really the “Eye-tais” either.
          As for blacks, the intent of all blacks to be made citizens after the Civil War is fairly dubious as Lincoln, and indeed many of the abolitionist groups, thought they’d be repatriated. Even many Southerners sought that, and had sought it well before the war, though it was impractical at the time.

        8. I will admit, at the time, it didn’t make sense to keep the “black masses” in the south from a logical point of view. Having an illiterate, unskilled, uneducated population suddenly freed and living amongst the people who had previously owned them is not particularly a recipe for success. But regardless, the fact is they were not sent back. They are here now and they are citizens. Whether you like it or not, it’s not going to change.
          Yes, Maryland was founded as a colony for Catholics to practice their faith freely. However, in 1688, the colony banned the practice of Catholicism, and this ban continued until after the Revolutionary War. The founders, overwhelmingly did not have a particularly high regard for Catholicism.
          And no, assimilation does not exist. Not in large numbers. What happened during the first wave of mass immigration to this country? We imported large numbers of Irish, Italian and Slavic immigrants. So much that the country was permanently changed. If they had “assimilated” they would have become Protestants, among other things. But they didn’t. The area of the country in which I live, for example, has a heavy Catholic population. There’s a Catholic church in every borough. The founding fathers wouldn’t recognize it as they America they had envisioned. To this day, a large percentage of Catholics vote Democrat, even though white Catholics are seen as part of the larger “white” demographic today. (And you can’t blame that on the Hispanics. The Hispanic Catholic vote is only -7% of the 25% Catholic demographic, and though Hispanics generally vote Democrat, they are not nearly as monolithic a voting bloc as blacks tend to be.)

        9. They were farm machinery
          Irish and Italians actually produce and assimilate.
          Blacks are Eco leeches and crime factories.
          New Orleans had many Italians in the 1700s and was an eco powerhouse. Same with Boston and Chicago with Irish. Your post is borderline retarded

        10. White Catholics tend to be very pro life and therefore conservative republican. The state of mass is a rare exception

    1. Smart move by Chicago. Kind of like buying a gallon of whisky and a handgun as Christmas gifts for those noisy, alcoholic neighbors who are constantly fighting and arguing…

  9. I’m a little confused here. Maybe you guys can help me out. We all know conspiracy theories are crazy, right? Now I could be wrong, but this article is implying that these figures from history were part of a leftist/Commie conspiracy. And this is a bit much for me to wrap my shriveled little pea-brain around. Either conspiracies exist, or they don’t. And if they do exist, this means that some conspiracies are credible, while others aren’t.
    Isn’t the very nature of a conspiracy one of clandestine origin, something that is done in secret, and known only by the initiated? If that’s the case, whom might I consult, to verify the authenticity of any conspiracy. There must be some sort of National Conspiracy Clearinghouse, whose members, just like those of the Global Warming Cult (or the Mormons), are omniscient and beyond reproach.
    The very fact that certain people immediately attack the sanity of others who espouse a particular theory, implies omniscience on the part of some all-knowing group of final arbiters. I guess I just want to know the name of this group, as it will save me the trouble of having to think for myself. I’d much rather just go to them, for all my needs, and find out what is true and what is not. Like a child waiting for Santa Claus to come: “He knows when you’ve been sleeping, he knows when you’re awake.” So my question is, who is this omniscient, all-knowing group of men?
    Just tell me who it is – please – so I can stop thinking for myself. Because it’s so damned tiresome. It’s all too much for me to get my tiny mind around. I am going to take a little nap now, after I chug a 24-ounce Diet Choke and eat a GMO-coated pizza. And then I’ll sleep, and dream of the simplistic beauty of pure, straightforward, Left vs. Right narratives. Zzzzzzzz….

    1. It’s not a conspiracy, nor are they conspirators. Simply lionization of certain useful individuals by leftists.

      1. Could Joo be more clear? I am having trouble Joo-xtaposing this one. I need to write the answer in my Joo-rnal. I sincerely await the Joo-dicious explanation that is forthcoming…

        1. What’s in a name ? right wing/left wing is meaningless. Hitler was for expansive government, gun control, freebies for German citizens, racial based government policy, socialist economic system, etc. He was closer to Stalin (and Obama) than Rush Limbaugh.

        2. Indeed, he was more left wing. For out of ignorance though, people on the right have adopted him.

        3. He was kind of an effiminate closet homo that led one of the worlds mightiest military organizations to total ruins in 7 years.

        4. No, he was a confirmed socialist Leftist. He welcomed Commies into his party.

        5. Even the German communists voted for him over the SPD in the 30’s. The left vs right pardigm has been skewed beyound the original observation.

        6. Though he also created that world’s mightiest military organization from scratch.
          …it would’ve been a lot mightier if he hadn’t balked at the idea of having a mechanized supply line to keep pace with the armor. Horse-drawn cards and foot marches were too slow for the Blitz.

        7. Oh I suppose I will give him credit for coming up with the blitz after all a lot of our modern tactics are based in it but….he lost.

        8. No and nope. Never did.
          Germany’s socialism refers to a brotherly fraternal kind, not tax and spend, raise taxes and distribute, you idiot.
          Atheists, Marxists, Joos and Freemasons were all jailed and he presided over the worlds greatest economy in 3 years.

        9. Nope
          Hitler lowered the age for Germans TO own guns To 18, you nitwit.
          Race based Govt?
          You bet. You’d prefer the third world trash like that of today probably. Joos were destroying it and he arrested them and then Presided over the greatest economic miracle in history.
          Hitter Wiped out crime, unemployment, banned abortion, subsidized families with no interest loans, banned joo pornography, Germany set birth records, he made vacations mandatory and Germany became the happiest bation ever seen in a western civilization where the worlds richest sent their children to be educated

        10. Germany is the size of Arizona. Put that into perspective.
          Save 3 mistakes, Germany would’ve won. And we’d have no Obama, IRS, world bank, usury, feminism, abortion, gay marriage, transgenders or porn. So horrible

        11. Yeah, he did. Sorry chief.
          Germany’s socialism refers to Germany directing and controlling the means of production while retaining the illusion of private property. It failed. It could only be supported by constant warfare.
          Take your Stormfront ass somewhere where it’s more welcomed. Like hell, for example.

        12. Taxes were lowered under Hitler to around 15%!! The economy boomed. Joos stripped it all gold so Hitler issued worker credits. Brilliant!!
          The only things the Govt controlled was filth, like getting Joos out of porn, usury, and kosher slaughtering
          Germany became the happiest and greater nation that decade and did so with no war. German civilians were being attacked in the Danzig corridor cut off from the Morherland. All of Hitlers pleas to The League went unanswered. He had to defend their lives from Marxist joo terrorists who killed over 54k innocents in the Danzig. After the Bromberg Massacre, Poland was invaded

    1. he was more left wing, religion was just his platform to garner popularity in a primarily protestant germany, enormous welfare state, animals had more rights than jews, halted animal experimentation saying it was too cruel since they already had jews to experiment on, banned hunting, and hitler was a vegetarian

      1. Wrong
        Joos destroyed the nation. Within 3 yrs and with them out of banking and education, Germany became the wealthiest nation in Europe from the poorest.
        Welfare state? There was 60%+ unemployment s d starvation you idiot as Joos crashed the economy.
        Hunting was not banned and animals had no rights, Hitler banned the grotesque kosher slaughtering practices and got Joos out of porn. Germany became the happiest land in the world. A Photo essay on this topic for the unlearned like yourself:

    1. It’s fun to point out some of his magnificently blatantly racist quotes to them. Their little SJW heads will explode when you expose their “hero” as a virulent racist.

      1. Yeah did this once, got a lot of hate from all my fellow students. God damn, I am so happy that I am not on the campus atm. I really wonder If I shouldn’t skip the Master of Science and go working with my B. Sc. next year.
        I just dont wanna go back to fucking college. I would rather go to Guantanamo.
        Fuck I think the only shirt I have seen more often than that Che fuckface, is the ‘Refugees Welcome!’ one.

        1. Germany, also known as Germanistan, formerly known as Cuckmany.
          The mother of all leftists. AfD still just got around 20 % and Hillary would get 88 % according to the newest polls. Thank god, germans can’t vote in the presidential election.

        2. No way. Only 20% for AfD in a federal state that is totally conservative. Next weekend their is election in Berlin, the leftwing hellhole, AfD will only get around 10%.
          I can’t see a backlash. Yeah, AfD got more votes than the CDU of Merkel in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern but that’s useless when 80% of german people are utterly brainwashed and will not stop to support mass immigration until germany has completed the arab transformation.

        3. Then don’t go back my friend. I lightly started an M.S. Physics (considering a PhD eventually) just taking courses but stopped because it just didn’t feel like enough real world application. Loved studying on my own and have created a niche business that even engineers don’t fully understand. I took my B.S. Physics and asked questions, learned, invented, broke, repaired, got my hands dirty and my mind expanded. The B.S. and a pile of gumption is all I really needed – I bet the same is true for you. And I finished my degree 20 years ago… Save yourself the frustration and carve your own niche my friend.
          Buy and work through Dick Richards “Is Your Genius at Work?” to help discover your unique unifying values and gifts. Wish I’d been told this in my 20s but I’m happier than I ever imagined!

        4. That was Merkels power base and strong hold and she got embarrassed. Refugee centers are being burned down but continue your diatribe and dismal predictions

        5. AfD won the election
          Trump got little more than 30% by comparison. It was a start. AfD is the fastest rising party in Germany and defeated Merkel ( nee Kasner) the jewess in her own backyard.
          And they live under the Zog jackboot where thought crimes are enforced with jail. They fought the same crap we now deal with 75 years ago, you fool

        6. It doesn’t take 80% to do anything, you fool.
          The American revolution consisted of a mere 3%!!!
          Read and study history

        7. Wrong
          705 Attacks on Invader Centers
          September 10, 2016
          New official figures from the Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA) claim that there have been 705 “attacks” on invader centers in that country this year so far—including at least 57 cases of arson.
          The number of attacks is on course to exceed the “unprecedented” 1,005 such incidents last year, BKA chief Holger Münch said.
          705 Attacks on Invader Centers
          September 10, 2016 by TNO Staff— in Europe · 0 Comment
          New official figures from the Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA) claim that there have been 705 “attacks” on invader centers in that country this year so far—including at least 57 cases of arson.
          The number of attacks is on course to exceed the “unprecedented” 1,005 such incidents last year, BKA chief Holger Münch said.
          Speaking in an interview with the Tagesspiegel newspaper, Münch said that by comparison, there had only been 199 such attacks in 2014. In that year there were only six arson attacks.
          Münch added that of the 705 incidents reported by the BKA, 124 involved “acts of violence.”
          As the establishment’s chief spokesman on such matters, Münch then went on to blame the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party for the rise in attacks.
          “The AfD has made xenophobia socially acceptable in our society,” Münch said. The party provides an “ideological breeding ground and legitimate cover.”
          If Münch was however honest, he would admit that the real reason for the increase in support for the AfD and the rise in attacks on the centers is in fact the wholesale invasion of Germany by millions of nonwhites—in other words, the policy of Angela Merkel and the German establishment parties.
          He added that it was “frightening” to realize that “around three quarters of the identified suspects were not previously known to the police as extremists.”

        1. The empress of eugenics?
          Back in her time though, wasn’t everyone keen on Eugenics? I thought it didn’t go out of style until the concentration camps were discovered by the Allies.

        2. That’s what I’ve seen as well, she took her eugenics and racial purity crazy-serious.
          I don’t know if she would’ve been keen on the idea of pushing black abortion in order to make bank peddling baby parts to the highest bidders per se though.
          I wonder if Sanger would’ve pushed her fanatical eugenics crusade so strongly and successfully if Lincoln’s plan to peaceably repatriate the blacks back in the 1860s had happened.

        3. I didn’t know about that idea of Lincoln’s. Not sure rational factors played much part in Sanger’s racism

        4. Sanger probably wouldn’t give a FF about baby parts, as long as a certain race was cleansed.

        5. Generally speaking, there is no rationality in racism.
          A simple glance at any alt-right or black nationalist blog’s comments section will reveal that.

        6. The one that advocated genocide of blacks and sterilization of the disabled when Hitler was only 18 years old a college boy who looked up to Margaret Sanger in fact he directly used her policies of eugenics into his eugenics program. Eugenics was as acceptable in California as environmental sciences back then. People today don’t even realize they speak as a eugenic sometimes. Don’t forget Margaret Sanger is also Hillary’s hero this and the fact that many libtards support eugenics is the reason I don’t want Hillary in office.

        7. PP today seems to me to have gotten distracted from Sanger’s goal of genocide-via-abortion by the money it gets from peddling baby parts.
          If it were to do what Sanger wanted, it’d really put a damper on their supply line of lucrative black baby parts.

        8. I both agree and disagree. Racists often seem to be typically emotionally driven and unstable. I don’t buy that their concerns are necessarily groundless though. There has been a tendency to pathologise any kind of racism, nationalism etc. I would be inclined to compromise: it may be an irrational response to concerns that may not be entirely imaginary: if you consider mass immigration for example, it’s not irrational to be concerned about that, but if in the process you find yourself turning into a race warrior for the great volk, then maybe things aren’t quite right

        9. Mass immigration can and often does have nothing to do with race. Mass immigration from anywhere is never good for a country. Doesn’t matter if it’s from the next continent or the next country over.

        10. Look back in American history when we imported large numbers of Irish, Italian and Slavic immigrants. The common answer is that “they were white, and they assimilated.” This is absolutely false. They did not assimilate, they changed the country. Assimilation does not exist. The country the founding fathers created in 1776 had ceased to exist long before the 1965 Hart-Cellar act.

        11. if mass immigration will not necessarily result in assimilation but change the country, isn’t that precisely the issue exercising people. And if so, are they necessary wrong to be so exercised. We’ve all seen the memes about ‘cultural enrichment’ (e.g. with a guy wielding a machete). Maybe that’s fear-mongering but even so, why is radical cultural transmogrification desirable, particularly if hasn’t been democratically determined?

        12. Mass immigration will NOT result in assimilation. Assimilation does not exist. Period.
          Limited immigration is a good thing. Mass immigration is not, no matter where the immigrants are coming from.

        13. Eugenics had been in practice in England and America decades before Hitler.
          Germany was starving and I see no reason nitwits, the insane and other freaks need to mate to produce nitwits that the state and people must care for.

        14. Brazil is your utopia then.
          Mostly mullato, mineral and resource rich, but a third world craphole.
          Gee I wonder why

        15. Sure it does especially when anti Christ Joos like Soros and Spectre are making and influencing policy to genocide host nations with third world trash

        16. Changed the country. ? Yea right. No believing in divorce, pro life, St Patrick’s Day, Little Italy and San Gennaro festivals changed everything. Yours is simply an idiotic post

        17. Mostly agree. Except if you reject assimilation entirely you’re effectively arguing multiculturalism – even if on a small scale

        18. Small scale immigration produces no harmful effects on a population, and in fact can be beneficial. The problem is, most countries (especially modern western countries) don’t seem to understand that there’s a middle ground between “no one in EVER!” and “Let’s let the whole world in!”
          As for multiculturalism, it can be argued that the United States has been multicultural from the very beginning.

        19. in europe it was the free movement thing. One might even suspect that they’ve allowed all the refugees in in order to limit that free movement. Or maybe they just haven’t a clue

        20. Because wishing to keep your blood and Dna pure, when at the end of the day it’s all you have, is such an overrated concept per the joo narrative. Let’s embrace all future generation of brown people like Brazil

      2. Could have sworn Gandhi virulently despised black people, or kafirs to him. Even followed this up with consistent regurgitation of the potential amongst the races which conceded he believed the Indians to be lower than white.

      3. Currently reading Che’s Motorcycle diaries and he’s got an episode in Chile where he made a move on someone’s wife right on the dance floor and had to leg it from the husband afterwards. Chilean wine is a hell of a smooth poison.

        1. If memory serves, that scene even made it into the movie version of his diaries.
          The movie ended with a blatant assertion that the CIA whacked him. If that were the case then I’d have to ask why they didn’t do it sooner.

      4. The fact he had a black bodyguard and was married to a mulatto woman seem to poke holes in that theory.

    2. I am glad to not be a college student these days. When I attended college is was in the end of the first wave of PC and it was bad. But there were still old school holdouts like professors that would not give in. Highly doubt that is the case on the modern campus.
      My prediction is that white men will stop opting into voluntary association with a system that actively promotes institutional discrimination against them and admission numbers will drop immensely over the next few years. Men will instead seek jobs in the trades which will boost unions (not a huge fan of but whatever) and also make “free” trade agreements like NAFTA increasingly unpopular.

    3. a few t-shirts picturing him torturing animals would probably start some debates amongst the vegan crowd.
      ROK t-shirts please

    4. Try suppressing your anger at having to look at all of the “Co-ed Naked Lacrosse” T-shirts on any college campus. If they still have them these days.

  10. Add Cecil Rhodes as a better man than Nelson Mandea and Lord Mornington (Wellington’s older brother) as better than Ghandi.
    Rhodes spread the idea of Civilization in Africa and Mornington oversaw the defeat of Mysore and the expansion of British power in India.
    Ian Smith is a good, but secondary choice to Rhodes. Black Rhodesians even asked him to run Zimbabwe again because Mugabe drove inflation and murdered people.
    In fact, add the whole British Empire as better than all leftists. Pitt, Wellington, Nelson, Disraeli, Churchill, Victoria, Frere, Rhodes, Peel, even Gladstone were all greater men (except Victoria) than any leftist hero.

    1. Except for, you know, disenfranchising entire races
      There’s a reason leftists can find a willing cash cow among non-whites.

      1. Disenfranchise is envy and jealousy to alleviate feelings of failure and acknowledging the same reality .
        We can’t create and build like you but we can whine louder. Muh feels

    2. Chris Barnhard is, in my opinion, the greatest South African that ever lived. He performed the first successful heart transplant in 1967. Many leftists will immediately cast all white South Africans as racist, overlooking the significant contributions that some of them have made to science.

      1. S Africa is now a craphole under black rule and officially third world, one who must import food for the first time in 300 years

    3. England hasn’t had a real leader since King Longshanks who expelled all Joos
      Those you mentioned were all joo puppets

  11. I’m not sure but I think you can find out more about leftist tactics in this magazine issue…

  12. good format made for an interesting article, even if some of the targets were a bit obvious.
    Another more obscure one, one could mention might be the marxist Althusser, the marxist feminist who murdered his wife:
    Marx himself is an obvious target but actually there does appear to be a lot of dirty laundry. Conspiracy theorist make the case that he was working for the Rothschild the whole time, but even if you don’t buy that, there still the fairly real possibility that he may have been an agent of the authorities ratting on his socialist buddies, to whom he was invariably arrogant and a bully. I was aware Marx had money issues but had no idea that he allowed his own children to starve to death. No doubt they were given equal proportions of nothing as they wasted away.
    Lastly re. Marx he wrote some poetry in his early life that could be described sympathetic to the satanic. It was nothing particularly garish, but it may help us to understand how ready he was to set the world on fire

  13. When Karl Marx was a young man he wrote numerous poems to Satan about how he wanted to destroy the world. In short, the guy was a religious whackjob although he’s portrayed as an atheist.

  14. don’t get confused by calling fascists “right wing” when they’re just a different flavor of socialist.

  15. How were Napoleon, Mussolini and Dubya right-wingers?
    They’re leftists, just a tad less crazy and closer to center than their counterparts.

    1. Napoleon, despite running the press like his own personal showpiece, did more for economic freedom than the entire revolution.
      Louis XVIII and his pet right-wing stooge Joseph de Maistre wanted to return to the system where the rich, poncy nobles paid no taxes whereas the productive class, the bourgeoisie, paid out their asses. That’s not freedom. Napoleon, despite being a megalomaniacal asshole who couldn’t tolerate being criticized, at least made the economy work.

      1. Did he make the economy work? From what I’ve gleaned over the years, the regular folks of his empire experienced subsistence living due to a tanked, Soviet-esque economy.
        Some of that can be chalked up to the British blockade, but when you own basically all of Europe, a lack of imports from the New World isn’t much of an excuse.
        On a side note, I’m given to understand that Napoleon was one of the greatest cuckolds of all time as “his” Josephine was his empire’s bicycle and everyone knew…because they got a ride.

        1. “Some of that can be chalked up to the British blockade, but when you own
          basically all of Europe, a lack of imports from the New World isn’t
          much of an excuse.”
          That was only caused by a British blockade. though favorable tariffs towards France did piss off his other vassals.
          “On a side note, I’m given to understand that Napoleon was one of the
          greatest cuckolds of all time as “his” Josephine was his empire’s
          bicycle and everyone knew…because they got a ride.”
          That was in his early time as general. Later, when he became emperor of Europe, the tables were turned on her and she became his plate.

    2. Lay off the bong water. Yours is one of the dumber posts I’ve read today
      It’s the Jews Stupid
      Curt Maynard
      I have long thought about writing this article but hesitated because I didn`t want the reader to conclude that I believed that all Jews are complicit in what amounts to a vast conspiracy to undermine western civilization and establish a Talmudic centered one world government. However, times have changed, and I feel obligated to write this and post it on the last bastion of freedom of speech, the Internet `“ before even that, in its present form is made unavailable to mankind.
      Of course all Jews aren`t engaged in this nefarious plan, but unfortunately most of them will come to the aid of those who are. There are some exceptions, on occasion one will criticize another, but as a rule, those who are in a position to publicly denounce one of their own are still pro-Israel/pro-Zionist in orientation. A Jewish conservative talk show host named Michael Savage recently condemned George Soros, a multinational Jewish Supremacist, for engaging in the kind of activities that according to Savage led to the holocaust more than sixty years ago.
      In a sense Savage is right, Soros is exactly the kind of Jew that inspired Germans to wake up and democratically elect Adolf Hitler in 1933, the financial shenanigans Soros engages in today, are pretty much the same thing German Jews were engaged in prior to the Second World War. Unfortunately, Savage can`t be looked at as a role model for Jews either; he`s a hard core Zionist and an Israeli apologist, blindly towing the line for this little provocateur no matter what it does or whom it does it to
      This little spat between Soros and Savage illustrates an important point and one I intend to thoroughly expand on in the next few pages. Savage is allegedly a `right wing` Jew and Soros is allegedly a leftist, both are Jewish, both have a voice, both have a platform, Savage`s is talk radio and Soros speaks through various organizations, like and whatever else his money and influence buys.
      You won`t hear any non-Jewish critics of Israel on the radio, television or on `“ they have no voice, no platform, not in the mainstream media anyway. The networks have gotten to the point where when Israel and/or Middle Eastern affairs are discussed; the experts and analysts are introduced, and they may as well be referred to as Jew #1, Jew #2 and Jew #3. I can`t tell you how sick it makes me when Fox News, the allegedly `fair and balanced,` network introduces Charles Krauthammer and William Crystal to their viewers as if either could possibly offer an unbiased opinion when it comes to Israel and/or organized Jewry, both are in every sense of the word Jewish Supremacists.
      Jews are today so over represented, so disproportionately prevalent, in just about every facet of American life, despite composing a very small numerical percentage of our population that I no longer believe, as I once did, that most people aren`t aware of it. Sure there are a few, busily engaged in acquiring as much money as possible, or watching American Idol, or engrossed in video games and MTV, that they aren`t fully awake, but in my opinion, for the most part anyway, those that deny the reach and omnipresence of Jewish influence in America today are either ignorant, delusional and/or complicit.
      One recent phenomenon that finally encouraged me to write, `It`s the Jews Stupid,` is this incredible short sighted and moronic tendency to compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler, or to bring up George`s grandfathers alleged relationship with the Nazi`s and to somehow suggest that this alleged relationship proves Bush is himself is a Nazi. This ridiculous theory is advanced by the same folks that suppress the abundance of evidence implicating the Israelis and a complicit and predominantly Jewish media in what happened in NYC and at the Pentagon on 9-11, people like Greg Szymanski, who by the way claims to live in a very small Idaho community known as Spirit Lake, but like his theories, this too is a lie, my mother lives in Spirit lake; and Szymanski doesn`t. Szymanski also loves to implicate a so called `Black Pope,` in every nefarious incident that has occurred over the last several decades; I can`t tell you who or exactly what this `Black Pope,` is, as I don`t bother to read Szymanski`s crap, he`s a moron and a crude propagandist, who would like to misdirect his readers attention to ludicrous ideas like Bush is a Nazi and/or a servant of this nebulous Black Pope. I have written Szymanski several times and pointed out to him that `it`s the Jews stupid,` but he refuses to respond to my missives, preferring instead to continue his pointless and misleading rants. I have since concluded that Szymanski isn`t just a fool, he`s a hired gun, and agent provocateur, granted, not a very good one, but one nevertheless.
      So, some of you might ask, `well how exactly do you know Bush is not a Nazi.` For anyone with the shallowest understanding of history as it relates to the Second World War, this isn`t much of a surprise, sadly most Americans are more attuned to their feelings of self worth than they are history in general, so they may be more susceptible to believing concepts that are so erroneous that those with a rudimentary knowledge just disregard out of hand. Hitler sought to exclude Jews from German life, especially their representation in government, academics and the German media, which was composed of newspapers, news magazines and radio in those days `“ their was no television, at least not available to the public `“ so this wasn`t an issue. George Bush has appointed Jews to some of the most sensitive positions in the American government, Michael Chertoff is the Director of Homeland Security, a position that places him in a position to do pretty much as he likes with our National Security apparatus, Chertoff is an ethnic Jew and a dual citizen of the state of Israel.
      Hitler wouldn`t have considered appointing a Jew to such a post period `“ it wouldn`t have happened, primarily because the German people, the Nazi Party and Adolph Hitler were entirely cognizant of the fact that German Jewry had collectively done their best to destroy the German economy and German nation after the First World War. Does this mean that every German Jew participated in this treasonous pursuit, that every German Jew became wealthy at the expense of their non-Jewish German neighbors? Of course not, but like today in America, most Jews actively participated in covering up the crimes of their criminal co-religionists, which makes them complicit to a certain extent. One can see the same phenomenon at work today in America, anytime anyone mentions that Jews are disproportionately represented in the United States government, in the American media, in academics, in the medical profession, in banking, which in fact they are, they are met with a coordinated assault by an incredible number of Jews, most of whom aren`t guilty of committing any actual crimes, who seek to silence them with various labels, i.e. anti-Semite, bigot, racist, etc`¦ One hears many excuses for this cohesive support, which only enables the criminals, fear of anti-Semitism, and/or fear of the next pogrom or holocaust. Unfortunately for collective Jewry, this excuse doesn`t wash `“ what they are doing, and what the Germans knew they were collectively doing in 1933, and what Americans are slowly becoming aware of now, is aiding and abetting their co-religionists to commit crimes that are tantamount to treason. In 1933 the German nation democratically elected a leader that promised them he wouldn`t allow this absolute and empirical reality to continue. George Bush on the other hand chose a Jew named Bernenke to replace another Jew named Alan Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve, a position that is without question perhaps one of the most powerful and influential positions in government today. In the words of Joseph Goebbels` if Hitler were to have done something like that after the German people had suffered through a decade of hyperinflation, and the deprivation so associated, the German people would have `boxed their ears.`[1]
      The fact is, George Bush is not a Nazi, he is not in the least sympathetic with Nationalism, let alone National Socialism; he is without a doubt the most Philo-Semitic President that has ever sat in the Oval Office period. Adolph Hitler sought to ostracize Jewish troublemakers; Bush seeks to make them his most influential foreign and domestic policy advisors. As Bush himself would say, `make no mistake,` our commander and chief is not critical of Israel and/or the disproportionate amount of influence Jews in the United States wield; he is their friend, their ally, and in the end, more concerned about their interests than he is in the interests of his own nation. There are those that would seek to convince you and I that Bush is a `Christian fundamentalist,` and it is for this reason that he supports Israel and Jews with such vigor, but this too is a chimera, Bush is an opportunist, not an ideologue, he has no loyalty to anything beyond himself and his own business interests.
      Goebbels` was somewhat of a prophet pariah, he understood organized Jewry like few Americans do today, he understood that their collective calls of anti-Semitism directed at the Nazi leadership and indeed the German people themselves was a technique they had successfully used, even perfected, in order to advance their interests while at the same time suppressing any dissent from the gentile majority. We see this same technique at work today, all around the world, anytime anyone honestly divulges the actions of a Jew in some crime; they are immediately smeared with the label of `anti-Semitism.` This is not a recent phenomenon, it has nothing to do with Zionism, as Noam Chomsky might suggest, it is an ageless technique developed by Jewry over an extended period of time, as evidenced by one entry Goebbels` made in his diary during the Second World War, more than sixty years ago.
      The Jews in England now demand laws to protect them from anti-Semitism. We know these tactics from our own past when we were struggling for power. I didn’t help much. We were always able to find loopholes in the law. Besides anti-Semitism cannot be eradicated by law once it has taken root with the people. A law against hating Jews is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews[2]
      Goebbels` also noted in his diary an inevitability that will catch up with Jewry once again, an inevitability that has caught up with them in the past `“ one they cannot seem to escape entirely, and one that should motivate any sane Jew to seriously reconsider their relationship with the so called Jewish state of Israel and its blatant disregard for what the majority of the people in the world want, and that is to live free of the Jewish yoke, whether that yoke be of an economic nature, and/or one of a socio-political-cultural character. In the following entry Goebbels` notes something that is becoming evident today `“ many Jews are becoming aware of the fact that non-Jews are beginning to scrutinize some uncomfortable facts that implicate Jews as being behind a great deal of the issues that most effect them `“ this is getting harder to cover up, people are beginning to notice that Jews are disproportionately represented in the areas of life that the non-Jewish majority is most concerned with, and that is the degeneracy of western culture, the degeneracy of American culture, the degradation of Christian values, the collapse of the American educational system and the rape of our economy. In their haste to cover up their involvement in these areas, Jews are exposing themselves as they never have before, and because of this Americans now know that Jews dominate Hollywood, the media in all its facets, our economy, our judicial process and in many respects our very government. Once again, this is nothing new, Jews had attempted the very same thing in Germany after the First World War and in France, and in Poland, and in Spain `“ in fact ethnic Jews have been tossed out of more countries, not for their faith as they today allege, but because of their collective behavior, than any other ethnic group in history. Despite what your history professor will tell you about their ejection from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella, it had nothing to do with the fact that they weren`t Catholic and everything to do with their behavior `“ they intentionally enslaved the Spanish people under their usurious yolk, they absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever ushered in the Moorish invaders from Africa and as a result they unquestionably committed treason, and the Spanish people knew it. It is for these reasons and no others that the Jews were ejected from Spain and you can bet there wasn`t a moist eye to be found among the Spanish victims. Bearing this in mind, carefully consider the words of Joseph Goebbels`:
      The Jews aren’t always so clever as they would like themselves to believe. Whenever they are in danger they prove to be the stupidest devils.[3]
      Goebbels` was of course correct, contemporaneously and in a modern sense as well, organized Jewry has in fact become desperate, they exposed themselves completely on 9-11, and if the media were in other hands, their Fifth Column would long ago have been neutralized and the war on terror ended. If it were not for the fact that the entire media apparatus was kosher, Americans would know that 150 Israelis were arrested in the United States following 9-11 for espionage and then quietly deported without informing the American public by the Jew and dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, who was at that time Assistant Attorney General under the flunky John Ashcroft. If it weren`t for the fact that the media is in a virtual and very Jewish stranglehold, Americans would know that five Israeli`s were arrested on 9-11 after they were witnessed filming the impacts of the airliners into the World Trade Centers while laughing, joking and clapping one another on the backs in a congratulatory manner. These Israeli Jews were also deported back to Israel without informing the American people that they had even been arrested, let alone what their behavior was purported to have been. If it weren`t for the complicit media and government, not to mention the corrupt judicial system, Americans would be familiar with the empirical fact that on January 2, 2004 an Israeli Jew named Asher Karni was arrested for having sold [past tense] more than sixty nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan, the world`s most unstable Islamic Republic and a country in which `Osama,` as in Osama Bin Laden, is the most popular name for a male child. If the American media wasn`t under the direct control of Jews, the American people would know that an American Jew named Yehuda Abraham was arrested in 2003 for conspiring to sell Russian made surface to air missiles to undercover FBI agents posing as Al Qaeda operatives with the understanding that these missiles would be used on American civilian airliners in the continental United States.
      The fact is, we don`t know whether the above named Jews are in fact Zionists, or even sympathetic with the Zionist cause, but we do know they are ethnic Jews and we know their names, identities, and actions are being hidden from the people of the United States, with the express intent of deceiving Americans into believing that Israel is their ally.
      It`s the Jews stupid!
      It doesn`t matter whether Jews appear to be leftists like Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, or whether they appear to be `right wingers,` like former leftist David Horowitz, or Michael Savage, or Norman Podheretz, William Krystal or Charles Krauthammer, they inevitably are intent on advancing what cannot be considered anything other than Jewish interests. Concepts like liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than angles to them to be manipulated and mastered for the advancement of Jewish interests as a collective whole. A perfect example of this incestuous predilection is how Jews on both the right and left look upon the criminal Oligarchs of Russia and their criminal acquisition of Russia`s entire infrastructure in the 1990s for pennies on the dollar. The Russian people led by their President, Vladimir Putin, have recently indicted several Jewish Oligarchs for this monumental theft, most of the indicted have escaped to refuse in Israel and/or Britain, nonetheless their assets in Russia have been appropriated, rightfully it might be added, and their ill acquired fortunes have suffered as a result. So what does organized Jewry do? They pull every string they can, they exert their unbelievable collective influence upon various members of Congress in an effort to get them to condemn the Russian government as anti-democratic, they compel President Bush to support the condemnations, they lobby anyone and everyone they can in an effort to enable these Jewish thieves to retain their stolen monies and property. You won`t see any articles written by Jews condemning the Oligarch`s for stealing billions from the Russian people, but you`ll see plenty of articles written by Jews condemning Putin and the Russian people for protesting the fact that they have been ripped off. We don`t really know if these Oligarch`s are Zionists and/or sympathetic to the Zionist cause. We do however know that they are ethnic Jews and that they quickly became Capitalists, despite having lived in a communist country for the majority of their lives, after the collapse of the USSR. Fortunately we know today that the Oligarch`s of Russia were financed by ethnic Jews in America, and that their primary apologists today are the very same American Jews `“ so once again, despite the smoke and mirrors of the all too predictable boogeyman of Zionism, `it`s the Jews stupid,` not their latest `ism.`
      Lenard Lieberman,[4] Vice President of Clear Channel Communications, one of the largest if not the largest corporate owners of radio stations across the United States, launched a billboard advertisement campaign in California a year or so ago, which claimed that Los Angeles was in Mexico, not California. The reaction was predictable, millions of Americans reacted negatively to the billboards, immediately demanding that they be taken down, which predictably led to catcalls of racism, and then the media just as predictably brought forward all kinds of pro-Mexican radicals that claimed California was part of Mexico and those that disputed this claim were racists.
      Hispanic front men for Lieberman and spokespeople for Clear Channel insisted that only `racists` wanted the signs taken down and stated against all opposition that the signs would remain up and for about a week they did. Initially the reactionary American population blamed Mexicans and Hispanics, it was only after an extensive Internet investigation that the facts came out – a Jewish vice president of Clear Channel named Lenard Lieberman was the brains behind the advertising campaign and had ordered the signs erected. Once this information was posted on the Internet, the signs immediately came down, overnight in fact. The media dropped the entire matter and not another word about the billboards has since been heard on American airwaves. Lieberman probably isn`t a `leftist` radical, considering that he`s the vice president of a large American Capitalist corporation, we don`t know whether or not he`s a Zionist, but we know he`s a Jew, and we can see by his surreptitious behavior that he was far more interested in fomenting division than he was in creating unity. The fact is, organized Jewry is the main impetus behind both legal and illegal immigration into western nations `“ those that dispute this absolute fact are once again, either, stupid, delusional, and/or complicit. Jews love to play all sides, as a matter a fact they are masters at it, by doing so they hope to control the agendas of any organizations that might one day challenge the established kosher order. Remember Cindy Sheehan? Ms. Sheehan is essentially a leftist who got it right when she sent a letter to a major news network stating that her son joined the Army to protect the United States of America, not Israel, her fame grew exponentially just preceding that letter and in it`s immediate aftermath `“ she showed up at Bush`s ranch in Texas demanding to see the traitor, all of the networks provided coverage, but someone got to Cindy and convinced her to retract her statement concerning Israel, and as a result she has been marginalized since. Sure the Jewish media throws her a bone every now and again, but she`ll never recover the momentum she had in the summer off 2005, she has since been relegated to speaking at `unity,` type churches, where the Jews can keep their eyes on her at all times.
      The entire immigration fiasco in America today is completely dominated by ethnic Jews, they ensure that no restrictive legislation is made into law and when individuals like the Minutemen form into groups and become a little too popular they start cranking out the media propaganda and the all to common denunciations of bigotry, and/or they get their front men, people like George Bush, to accuse the Minutemen of vigilantism. Fortunately few Americans take that fool seriously any longer `“ they have basically pegged him for what he is, a damnable traitor. So how do the Jews accomplish all this? Consider the following:
      The Jewish-Latino relationship is now viewed as an absolute priority for our [Jewish] community, said American Jewish Committee Washington, DC, area director David Bernstein. `We see them [Hispanics] as increasingly active politically and more and more willing to work with coalition partners in achieving our collective goals.` The phenomenon has been emerging in the last five to ten years. Groups such as the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Community Council have been forming coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens.[5]
      No doubt organized Jewry would love to cultivate this relationship, it would be good for Jews albeit devastating for Hispanics. After nearly eighty years of exploitation, the black community has finally managed to semi-extricate itself from the parasitic grip of organized Jewry. If in fact this relationship between Hispanic and Jewish groups develops further there is no doubt whatsoever that the relatively harmonious relationship between Hispanics and whites enjoyed today will end and become just like the seething, resentful, and negative relationship between the American white and black communities. The black community has been so exploited by Jewry over the last eighty years that they may be beyond recovery as a viable group in the United States. This isn`t to say that Jews have just focused on African Americans, oh no, they have victimized and stigmatized every black man and woman, and they have done so by convincing these blacks that the Jew is their only ally and friend, they then turn around and use the black race as a scapegoat for Jewish crimes `“ just as they have successfully done post Katrina, when the heat was on the Israeli`s and the Jewish media in regards to the Iraq War, along came Hurricane Katrina, and the displacement of a group of blacks so degenerate and handicapped by being third and fourth generation welfare recipients, that no white person in their right mind would want them as neighbors, yet the Jews came out in force, doing their best to relocate these blacks in the most unlikely of white regions, i.e. Utah, that for months white America had its mind on little else other than the depravity and ignorance of many of these near savages from New Orleans and ways in which to keep them out of their neighborhoods. Result `“ few were focused on what Israel was doing in Palestine or what was happening in Iraq and Iran.
      So how do the Jews exploit their relationship with minorities?
      David Horowitz was once a fairly well known Jewish leftist in the 1960s and 1970s. He has since `converted,` to neo-conservatism, which isn`t that much of an ideological leap believe it or not, the neo-cons are really nothing more than left leaning Trotskyites with an alleged `right wing,` foreign policy outlook, which is just another way of saying they support the state of Israel even at the expense of their host country the United States of America. In any case, Horowitz wrote an autobiography a few years ago, in it he tried to explain to his former leftist oriented readers how he came to reject the socialism he once advocated and instead embraced the neo-con [read Jewish Supremacist] agenda. His autobiography is entitled Radical Son, it isn`t very good, but fortunately Horowitz admitted to a few things that make writing this paper much easier. Consider the following passage and then bear in mind that organized Jewry has denied in leading role in directing the agenda of radical black organizations.
      Talking to Huey [Huey Newton `“ a well known black radical] as a kind of equal`¦. emboldened me to raise yet another difficult issue. A strain of anti-Semitism had developed in the Party [The Black panther party] during the years he [Newton] was in prison. Of course, the Panthers were not alone among black radicals in their attacks on Jews. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael and the leaders of the SNCC had expelled whites from the civil rights organization, accusing them of being a fifth column inside the movement. Since Jews were a near majority of the whites in these organizations, and had played a strategic role in organizing and funding the struggle, it was clear to everyone that they were the primary target of the assault. This was underscored by the support that Carmichael and the black left gave to the Arab states during their 1967 attack on Israel.[6]
      `Unfortunately most people aren`t aware of the fact that Israel preemptively attacked the Arab states on June 5, 1967, not the other way around. This is what I would refer to as `kosher revisionism,` and it is quite common in the world today, as a matter a fact, it`s the norm. Historical revisionism has developed a bad name primarily because kosher revisionism rules the airwaves, radio and television; ethnic Jews have a near monopoly on the media in all its forms, and for that reason, lies like Horowitz`s go unnoticed by most people. Horowitz predictably sets up his `admission,` i.e. that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement by first prostrating himself in such a way as to fool the reader into believing that he, Horowitz, was only able to influence Newton, because Newton, the black man in the relationship, felt that Horowitz was an equal. Many people will laugh at the very idea that a Jew would consider any black to be an equal `“ as a rule, Jews loathe blacks more than they do whites, but they find that exploiting blacks is advantageous to the advancement of their agenda, and it is for this reason, and no other, that they associate with blacks.`[7]
      Later in his autobiography, Horowitz again reinforces the above lie by reiterating it, but in a slightly different manner, but doing so with the same goal in mind, to convince his reader of a lie, i.e. that the Arabs attacked the Israelis in 1967 and to simultaneously smear Arab/Muslims in general:
      I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities `“ and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3% of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another. Jews had put their resources and lives on the line to support the black struggle for civil rights, and indeed two of their sons `“ Schwerner and Goodman `“ had been murdered for their efforts. But even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism as racism.[8]
      Once again, the Israeli`s preemptively attacked the Arabs on June 5, 1967, not the other way around, Horowitz isn`t confused, he knows this, but he is compelled to lie in order to fabricate history `“ a most common Jewish trait and one they have only been able to get away with because of their strategic stranglehold on the media and the publishing industry.
      The fact is, Zionism is racist, it is inherently racist, far more so than anything of the old Jim Crow variety. Judaism itself is a racist religion, it`s obvious enough, the entire foundation of Judaism rests on the idea that Jews are a `chosen people,` and the term `people` connotes race and `chosen,` connotes exclusivity `“ put the two together and you inevitably get `racism.` A no-brainer really – but an idea that Jews have successfully kept hidden from the Goyim cattle.
      The fact is, the Jews have exploited blacks going all the way back to the early 20th century, they founded, developed and financed the NAACP, a fact that history and political science professors are still too scared to admit openly, but a fact nonetheless.
      At this point, let us get serious. Let us reject, at least momentarily, the knee-jerk reaction to dismiss what is written below based upon our emotional response to it. Let us consider carefully the facts, let us then consider what they might mean, and in the end, let us consider what the ultimate ramifications of these facts may be in our not too distant future. When I ask for instance, what group, more so than any other distinguishable group, was responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution, and I then answer that question by saying, `it`s the Jews stupid,` don`t reject it as an arbitrary response; it isn`t arbitrary, it`s an empirical fact, and one that can be easily proven if the reader chooses to cast aside his or her emotional response and to engage in a few hours of research.
      What distinct group has been ejected from more counties over the last two millennia than any other group? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What distinct group has led more radical subversive movements within their host nations than any other distinguishable group? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What group has consistently avoided military service, especially in the front lines, than any other group? It`s the Jews stupid.[9]
      What group more so than any other has always had its patriotism questioned? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What specific ethnic/religious group more so than any other has consistently sought to ensnare and then exploit native populations under the yolk of usury?
      What ethnic/religious group dominates international finance? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group dominates the media in Europe and North America? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group dominates Hollywood? It`s the Jews stupid.[10]
      What ethnic group has done more to subvert true scientific inquiry in the sciences than any other `“ imbedding themselves in the disciplines of psychology, sociology and anthropology `“ and doing so in such a way as to hijack them and completely and totally politicize them? It`s the Jews stupid.[11]
      What ethnic group gave us `multiculturalism,` and followed that up with an indoctrination program that reinforced this divisive farce by reaching right into our job place, homes and schools via compulsory `diversity` and `tolerance,` training programs and presentations? It`s the Jews stupid.[12]
      Who brought us `Judeo-Christianity,` a concept that erroneously amalgamates two distinctly different and diametrically opposed religious and cultural views? It`s the Jews stupid.[13]
      What ethnic group has done more than any other to identify itself as the only real victims of Nazi Germany and the Second World War? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group has perpetrated one of the greatest frauds on mankind in the form of the so-called `holocaust?` It`s the Jews stupid! [This is an important point `“ please see associated footnote][14]
      What ethnic group dominates the Russian mafia? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group dominates the pornography industry? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group is more responsible than any other for the ongoing sex slave trade? It`s the Jews stupid.
      Members of what ethnic group intentionally attacked an American ship in 1967 named the USS Liberty, in what amounted to an act of war against the United States of America and then used their co-ethnics in the United States to cover that fact up? It`s the Jews stupid.
      Members of what ethnic group sought to bomb American assets in Cairo Egypt in the 1950s and blame it on the Arabs in an attempt to frame them and convince Americans to financially and militarily support the Zionist state? It`s the Jews stupid.[15]
      What group more than any other has sought to undermine Christian values and western civilization in an effort to divide and conquer? It`s the Jews stupid.
      What ethnic group was overly represented in the junk bond scandals of the 1980s? It`s the Jews stupid.[16]
      Members of what ethnic group were deeply involved in the Enron scandal but were able to utilize the Jewish medias influence and access to the American mind in such a way as to nearly eliminate their role? It`s the Jews stupid.[17]
      This list could go on and on, it would require a tomb the size of Moby Dick to encompass the many crimes ethnic Jews have committed against Gentiles just in the last decade. The point of writing this isn`t to convince readers that every Jew is deeply entwined in a plot to subvert Gentile society, but that Judaism is not a peaceful religion that seeks to coexist in harmony with non-Jews, the fact is Judaism is first and foremost a `supremacist` religion that advocates the dominance of non-Jews.
      Unless Gentiles become aware of the fact that Zionism is nothing but Judaism`s latest `ism,` preceded in the past by many others, i.e. feminism, socialism, communism, and that these `ism`s` are nothing more than tactics used in a grand strategy to weaken our will and western civilization itself, we`ll never get to the heart of the problem at hand, we`ll continue to fight wars for the Jews, to kill for the Jews, to arrest and incarcerate people for the Jews, to suppress the right to free expression for the Jews, etc`¦ etc`¦ ad infinitum. The time to liberate ourselves is now.
      – Curt Maynard

  16. I’m surprised the article made no mention of Gandhi’s time in South Africa.. where he was unabashedly racist against the “Kaffirs” (blacks).

  17. I’m not a fan of judging people and their ideas together… Venerable people are sometimes wrong, the same way despicable human rats have their moments of glory, too.
    It’s populism, and it will lead us nowhere. Run away from useless people, life is too precious to be wasted with them. Judge ideas on their value, that’s the measure of one’s intellect.
    Having said this, I loathe most of these people, especially Zedong and Mandela. Marx… I understand him, and he had indeed a great power of observation, comparable only to men like Napoleon, Adolf H or Machiavelli. He failed as soon as he sketched his personal utopia. He was likely intoxicated with his own narcisism

  18. With a the recent hate on mother Teresa being canonized, her “sins” pale to these nut jobs. Still, though, I would never endorse a Catholic or her actions.

      1. Yea taking care of the poor and living amongst them in a 3rd world craphole. Horrible.
        All her joo detractors have to smear her with is her charity. Yet she was hardly literate. The charity was run by Joos and Indian criminals.

        1. Good goy
          Those damn Crusades to reclaim Christian lands stolen and taken by Muslims, and
          inquisitioning and expelling Muslims and anti Christ Joos who ran the slave trade, financed Muslim war parties, tax. Collecting, is pure evil. Rolls eyes

  19. Joseph de Maistre strikes me as far too elitist to be considered a decent political thinker. His tendency of demonizing entire swathes of the population based on their status at birth is his achilles heel. His seemingly irrational view that an entire swathe of the population is full of good, righteous people rather than the self-interested scumbags we all are is why he’s not given most of the credit he deserves (and yes, Aurelius Moner, I am looking at you; the nobility was never full of nobles, it was full of the same people who gorge themselves on the fruits of others’ labor while talking about their titles) That being said, his views on absolute monarchy and how it maintains social order were excellent. If he just didn’t consider the non-nobility to be complex moral beings, that’d be nice.

  20. There is one glaring mistake you made. It is my hope that for this mistake you will have to watch 13 hours of Chris Wallace and Chris Matthews professing their unrequited love for each other.
    Your mistake was not referring to our Glorious Leader as “Saint Barack Hussein Obama II.”…….
    May he be a shining example to faggots, manginas and SJWs everywhere…..

  21. Superior leftist: Jimmy Carter. You know you suck when Jimmy Carter is considered a better leader than you.

    1. Carter was a nuclear scientist who inherited a mess post Milton Friedman, Nixon and Ford. He brokered the only lasting Middle East peace agreement and was a decent man.
      Ronnie Reagan was a borrow and spend, pro illegal, anti gunner- and former democrat surrounded by Joos who got hundreds of our troops killed in Lebabon by the Mossad op per Victor Ostrovsky

  22. Technical detail. Lenin was sent to Russia by Germans in the First world war to destroy Russia from inside. It was actually very easy. They weren’t any decent russian leaders who could oppose him. Yes there were czechoslowakian legionaries but Russians were too cocky to listen to them.

    1. Sure there was, but Lenin was well founded with tens of millions from NY Bankers- Schiff and Co. The Czar mounted opposing forces but in the end, Joos Jood.

  23. I’m surprised this article failed to mention that most of these leftist heroes(Marx, Gandhi, Guevara, Zedong, Mandela, Lenin) were also extremely racist even by the standards of their era, especially ironic considering Trotsky coined the term “racism.”

  24. MK had a dirty ass mouth the kind that SJWs and libtards have when they are losing a debate.
    When he watched Jacqueline Kennedy kneeling at the coffin of JFK Martin Luther King muttered “Look at her sucking him off one last time.”
    “Come on over here you big black motherfucker and let me suck your dick.” What MK said to Abernathy
    He was also a heavy plagiarizer. His dissertation required to get a PhD was plagiarized. Heck even his Nobel Prize lecture was plagiarized this guy is a fucking fraud
    It’s funny that militant black rights members are always talking about how whites stole everything from blacks when even their top freedom fighters are robbers of intellectual property.

  25. Some perspective:
    Che had no compunctions about killing. But neither did Pinochet. Neither was a slouch in the body count department. And speaking of Pinochet, Allende’s “sin” was wanting to make Chile non-aligned. Nixon and (((Kissinger))) couldn’t tolerate that. Pinochet put Chile back into the fold.
    Regarding Mandela, you’re blaming him for the sins of his estranged wife, who did most of her evil while Nelson was still on Robben Island. Anyhow, “Madiba” wasn’t perfect, but he did negotiate a soft landing for Apartheid. He could have been a Mugabe, heaven forbid.
    As for Obama, the whole media thing is a standard-issue GOP whine line. As for him being a socialist, he’s more like a Rockefeller neoliberal. And “obamacare” is the “Private Health Insurance Protection Act.” Again, hardly socialism. And to consider Jimmy Carter superior to anyone is risible. Ditto for Jesse Jackson.

  26. It’s weird that people say BO is this or BO is that. I don’t really see him as anything specific besides just a waste. I think he was smart enough to make it big, but quickly learned he was in over his head and was probably even dumber than Biden. I swear this isn’t trying to be funny, but I guess I would label him as a traveler or golfer. I don’t really understand what else he did.

  27. The left requires lies to base its beliefs as truth, its only power is a message that sais: you who do nothing and of no worth, by doing nothing and by having no worth you deserve everything for free and you will get it without trying.
    People fall for the lies for the message that is given, and will do everything to make truth from the lie.

        1. 90% of Israelis are atheists, relatives of those that killed 66 million white Christisns in ussr.
          Horowitz is a bagel Bolshevik

  28. You are absolutey wrong on King and Mandela.
    Kings only foible was getting some ass on the side-? That makes me.respect him even more. Think of the amount of stress he was under.
    Mandela is near blameless. He was fighting an evil and brutal system that had to be brought down by any.means.necessary.

    1. “Mandela is near blameless.”
      He was an unreptent terrorist and murderer whose ANC enforces an evil and brutal system today. The west has a hard time looking behind the myths the build. It isn’t black-and-white as you wish it to be.

    2. Mandela fought evil and brutal?
      What’s evil about living apart? Thats natural for Gods sake. If diversity was natural it wouldn’t need to be forced on us. That’s all apartheid us- living apart, and blacks were far better off under that system than the present one where they now have to import food for the first time ever
      Mlk was a communist trained Marxist thug who beat up prostitutes. A useful idiot if Jewry

  29. Yeah I would take all of this stuff with a grain of salt. While amusing it doesn’t get to the heart of any of these people. Which of us doesn’t have any dirty laundry? And if you want to be taken seriously you have to be factual. Nelson Mandela was convicted of sabotage and plots to overthrow the SA government, not a terrorist bomb plot. Any man that stands up and sacrifices his freedom to fight an oppressive government is a hero in my book.
    And I would say that Malcolm X is a far more superior leftist than Jesse Jackson.

    1. What’s oppressive about living separate and apart ?
      Israel does it.
      Or are you only ok with apartheid if it’s Joos?
      Plotting to overthrow the acting Govt using violent methods IS terror, you fool

        1. Read it again.
          Mandela your Marxist hero, used violence to overthrow the ruling Govt and you claim it’s not terror.
          All the South Africans desired was living separately -apart from primitive culture destroying, crime ridden like negros. It’s As natural as the birds snd bees.
          Here’s a photo essay on South Africa and Marxist black thugs that have taken It over and now cause it to resort to the third world

  30. ive always asked people who that was on their shirts but none of them replied which seemed even they didnt know so he was always a mystery to me

  31. Since when was Mao Zhedong a leftist hero? I was under the impression that he was generally disliked by all Americans.

Comments are closed.