5 Buzzwords Liberals Use To Smear Dissidents

When we were blue pills, some words would elicit in us Pavlovian answers. We would crawl at anything that appeared “racist” or tied to skin color. Anything deemed “Nazi” would immediately remind us of the infamous gas chambers. Getting thus determined in political thinking, with a negative conditioning on the right and a positive conditioning on the left—equality, diversity, democracy, such and such are good—, most of us would “spontaneously” lean leftwards… until reality started clashing with the expectations we were fed on.

The red pill metaphor means stepping outside an illusory world. Subconscious frames and conditioning, nevertheless, can efficiently prevent us from taking any way out. And the de-conditioning is not easy. Haven’t you ever been tempted to retort leftist categories against leftists, by claiming that “dems are the real fascists”—implying fascism is bad—or that “white urban elves are the real racists and privileged”—implying white racism and privilege are still the problem? Such arguments actually never step out of the left’s frames.

Here I step out of these frames to apply what the left did to our identities and culture: deconstruction. Nature is not a “social construction,” masculinity hasn’t been invented by men, but the Cathedral’s system has. Last week, I went through some of the smears they use against us, and here are some more.

1. “Racism”

Since the beginning of its negative use, this notion has had a rather convoluted path. The word “racism” appeared in print at end of the nineteenth century. It could, then, be used positively or negatively, depending on the user’s own view: a French anarchist called “racists” ethnocultural alliances, such as pan-latinism or pan-slavism, based on belonging to a particular breed we would hardly call a race nowadays, whereas a pro-identitarian review used the word positively some years later:

I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit. (Here, p.101)

Eventually, the notion would be used on a mass scale by heavily biased activists, such as the biology-denying anthropologist Franz Boas or Leon Trotsky. Its association with Hitler and the “Nazis”, then with a white colonization smeared as “oppression” and “exploitation”, achieved to bind it to an overly negative connotation, turning the word into a powerful instrument of ideological bludgeoning. The race card became a potent threat: if a white person dared to criticize the actions of some aggressive “person of color”, the latter would just have to mention the r-word for the former to waive.

In the most basic sense, the notion of racism means mostly a denial of human biodiversity. “We’re one humanity, noticing differences means constructing them, that’s reyciss!” But then some minoritist groups have been opposing the race-blind, one-humanity mindset under the guide of opposing “oppression”: “no, we’re not all the same, whites are denying us a proper identity!” This is of course a double bind. If we notice race differences, we’re racists, if we pretend they don’t exist or deny them, we’re also racists.

Two examples show what is really at stake here. First, remember the 90s, when whites were supposed to go colorblind and race became a taboo? In the mid-2000s the Left did a U-turn, and “race” was spread on many media and academic works. They were free to use the notion. We were not. Second, in 2015, NAACP manager Rachel Dolezal was outed as a white woman pretending to be black. The media wavered between mocking and blaming her. But if race is purely a social construction, why cannot anyone be white or black by choice? Blacks who shouted “Dolezal isn’t black!” clearly implied one is intrinsically black and not made so. In other words, they were race realists. Does that make them “racists”?

The word “racist” got a blurred, broad sense, to the point where interracial porn can be deemed so because a masculine white guy showing dominance over a black chick would be intrinsically “oppressive”, without the least hint of any biological theory of HBD. In truth, it is an instrument of Leftist bludgeoning, mainly if not only used against whites, and the polymorphous uses of the word only make it a more potent Damocles sword.

2. “Discrimination”

Michael Derrick Hudson had to pose as Yi-Fen Chou to bypass a genuinely questionable discrimination

Initially a legitimate word, “discrimination” has been widely appropriated by cultural Marxists as well. The Latin word discriminis originally meant discernment, that is, the ability to notice or properly assess differences and boundaries. Modern English kept this root in expressions such as “indiscriminately”, which refers to blindness, rashness, and the lack of consideration. In the classic sense, discrimination meant a sound judgment, based on the awareness of differences and determinations.

In the midst of the twentieth century, the rising Big Left appropriated the word and turned it upside down. “Discrimination” became synonymous with “deciding from abusive generalities” or “distinguishing from unfair criteria.” Combined with the demonization of “racism”, the so-called anti-discriminatory stance meant denying whites the right to protection from miscegenation and collective sovereignty.

Of course, there is a consummate hypocrisy at work here, as the Left constantly practices ideological and class discrimination. If you come from the Midwest and want to succeed in humanities, you’d better hide the social codes of your original milieu and mimic urban hipsterism. Likewise, being a conservative, nationalist, traditionalist, pro-white… in the milieus cornered by the leftist establishment can have you mistreated and barred from employment. Only 6 to 11 per cent of college teachers refer to themselves as conservatives. People on the right, though, are not less intelligent or able: they are just barred from institutions the left monopolized, including social networks moderation.

In the name of opposing “discriminations”, liberals actually discriminate through affirmative action and “diversity”, which mean dispossessing whites by handing out employments to less able people on the basis of their purported victimhood—which itself implies an anti-white, anti-male charge. What we have here is another tool of ideological bludgeoning. Those who control the institutions will shriek against “unfair criteria” of discernment while applying their own. The real victim and charged is always the same.

3. Phobia

This one has been used to medicalize and psychiatrize the debate. Instead of evaluating what someone says, for example when someone makes a warning about the potentially deleterious effects of mass immigration, liberals will attack the speaker by deeming him to be disordered or irrational. In ancient Greece, φόβος (phobos) or φόβια referred to aversion or negative proclivities towards something. The word was picked up by psychiatrists to refer to an irrational or excessive fear of something—with some fine-grained distinctions: fear of snakes in an environment full of poisonous ones isn’t a disorder, obsession over venomous snakes in a snakeless environment is.

Only later, of course, it was appropriated by you-know-who to smear conservatives and normal people who showed reluctant to leftward pushes. When we see how much those who warned about upsetting the Western racial equilibrium were actually right in their predictions—from Lothrop Stoddard to the 60s republicans—it becomes clear that speaking of “phobia” here is a mere slur.

Interestingly, Wikipedia warns us on the behalf of psychiatrists that “phobia” has a precise clinical meaning and should not be used too easily:

[Xenophobia and homophobia] are not phobias. They are derogatory terms for negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an invalid analogy with the medical usage of the term. These terms were coined with the purpose of shedding a negative light on the people within these opposing groups, by suggesting that everyone within has an irrational fear towards the objects of the terms.

Beyond the departments of psychology, it seems like the establishment dwellers didn’t get the memo. Some “scholars” tried to push forth a new buzzword, “multicultiphobia”, in a pathetic attempt to pathologize criticism of the multiculturalist ideology. Others got more success in demonizing any social restraint on gluttonous women as “fatphobia”, because steering them to be healthy is obviously a disorder.

The split between legitimate, clinic uses of the word “phobia”—with a precise meaning attached—and fuzzy bludgeoning uses everywhere else bears analogy with another case: for long, someone like Stephen Jay Gould has been considered by non-specialists as an eminent specialist of evolutionary theories, thanks to the cooperation of media machine and New York intellectuals, whereas any real specialist knew he had no legitimacy and spread misinformation. Shut up, researcher, Big Left took your stuff.

4. Populism

The very concept of populism shows how much the establishment separated from any loyalty or care to the ordinary people. Blaming “populism” is a way to reject people wholesomely: people ought to lose sovereignty because, y’know, managers know it all better than you and democracy could lead to bad events—understand: people freeing themselves from globalism—; people are no more the people of a country but a boundless mass with no inheritance and no ethnocultural identity; people are no more a being endowed with particular rights…

What has been dubbed populism is nothing else than supporting the concerns of ordinary people. Now, the very existence of peoples is denied through postmodernist deconstructionism, and at least white peoples have no right to owning their territory, their countries, or to even protect themselves from unwanted arrivals. Yesterday, you were an American and I was French, but now we’re just random atoms floating along the channels of Big Market.

Peoples were never treated so badly through history. In the Middle Ages, so much smeared by complacent modern historians, the Third Estate was integrated into a cast system, free peasants were sovereigns of their fields, prices and selling rights were regulated so that each productive agent could make ends meets. Skilled craftsmen belonged to guilds, not to mention fraternities. Most people weren’t that rich, but at least they were acknowledged as the people of the country and were part of the social edifice.

Today, most of us are more or less disintegrated, thanks to massive outsourcing of jobs, legal and illegal immigration blurring all boundaries and taking the resources, unrestrained female hypergamy meaning no more trustworthy mate for the average Joe… up to the denial of our condition of autochthons bearer of rights. “Populism” is about becoming acknowledged, integrated to our own societies, and endowed with dignity again.

5. Fascism

This word has become associated with military marches, scary music, and virtually synonymous with oppression, violence, no thought and no freedom of speech. Retrospectively, I don’t understand neither the hate of the military nor its amalgamation with a particular form of government. The military field has always been a masculine institution, part of our life experiences and initiation rituals, and now, we’ve got a militarized police without much courage.

According to a smart contemporary, actual fascism rose mostly as an answer to the hostile attitude of workers and Bolshevism against the middle classes. Downgraded, numbed, dispersed and threatened by wannabe Red Guards, middle class people organized as well and struggled to maintain the social edifice. Eventually the fascisti leaders would seize the power, and then, create a working society, based at least in part on a healthy recognition of differences in abilities and vocations.

It can be said that fascisti were often defiant towards “phrase-worshipping”: they were realistic enough to go beyond the smokescreen of “Democracy”, “Representation” and so on and see who was using these. But even then, thinkers such as Julius Evola were able to publish under the Fascist regime almost completely freely—before getting outcast by left-leaning decision-makers after 1945.

What liberals call “fascism” can be spotted mostly in Leftism itself. SJW violence destroying careers and personal lives, subtle repression through political correctness, are far more oppressive to any healthy and legitimate citizen than historical fascism was.


Leon Trotsky theorized about the “permanent revolution” his political family should aim to push. Leftism, indeed, is all about perpetual discontent and pushing. It lives only through perpetually waging a metapolitical war. Conservatism may be stultifying, but at least it cannot be honestly accused to foster social division or cultural conflicts.

Identifying and rejecting the very thought structure of liberal bias will free us of being vulnerable to bludgeoning or ideological conditioning. Next time a mangina calls you a “fascist”, asks him about why he thinks fascism was actually bad. Failing a satisfactory response, I’m sure he will at least show a priceless expression.

Read Next: 5 Ugly Framing Tactics Leftists Use To Smear Dissenters

199 thoughts on “5 Buzzwords Liberals Use To Smear Dissidents”

  1. Three words that directly apply to the mindset of liberals, feminists and SJWs –
    1) Alethephobia – A fear or dislike of the truth.
    2) Delusional – Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
    3) Psychosis – An abnormal condition of the mind that involves a “loss of contact with reality”.
    SJWs are psychotic, delusional, alethephobes.

        1. Oh good God. The former is a mealy mouthed screeching harpy and the latter is a disgusting sack of congealed fat that’s been left rotting in the noonday sun *shudders*. Sorry-I have to go purge now.

        2. Her eyes look a bit like she’s a female serial killer but that doesn’t deter me from banging her.

  2. For the busy leftist on the go that doesn’t have the time for 5 words, you’ll still be able to enjoy all the benefits of name-calling by using the all encompassing short form: “Literally Hitler”.

    1. I was paid 104000 bucks previous 12 months by doing an internet based job as well as I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours each day. I used work opportunity I stumbled upon on the web and so I am delighted that I was in a position to earn such decent cash. It’s undoubtedly newbie-friendly and I’m so pleased that I discovered out about it. Look into exactly what I do… http://b1z.org/37W

  3. Really nowdays when you look at the lefts “debates” and realize there is no point arguing you realize why bloody revolutions happen people cant take back the country unless they take over the media ,education system and the political atmosphere

      1. They give out Metro for free on the trains in London! Kinda goes to show the quality of that rag!

  4. A nationalist dictatorship is superior to democracy
    As it prevents the dysgenic effects of the low i.q outcompeting & outbreeding the high i.q, through sheer force of numbers
    It also preserves the genetics of a stable gene pool, & prevents corruption of a countrys greatest wealth, its dna free of defects
    A government exists not to preserve freedom, it exists to ensure the continuation & survival of a countries race, skin & racial culture & heritage
    This is why immigration & race mixing are perversions of government

    1. A bowl of Jello brand pudding is better than democracy. That’s a pretty low bar you set to justify dictatorships.
      Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll live my life a free man, so….I’ll just take a pass on the whole dictatorship thing.

        1. I learned in my last sensitivity lesson that that you shouldn’t have to watch anything. Consequences are just a social construct, man!

      1. Missed the nationalist part?
        Dictatorships are usually used to benefit the ruling party, at the expense of the people.
        A dictatorship designed to preserve race for the benefit of the people, has far more freedom then a democracy which leeches & parasites off your labour …

        1. No, I saw the Nationalist part. Nationalism is an add on to a political ideology, but not an ideology in and of itself. America was a Constitutional Republic that was, until the mid 1960’s, quite nationalist.
          If you think that some dictator will do you right just because he presents himself as a benefactor, you’re in for a whole world of pain when you come to understand that this is not how human nature works. The saying “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely” is no accident, it’s the truth.

        2. Those words sound to me like somebody who’s never actually seen a real tyranny up close and personal. No offense man, everything sounds great on paper, but the real life part of dictatorships sucks hind tit real fast. It reminds me of how people sometimes go on about wanting everything to collapse, it just informs me immediately that they’ve never had truly hard times in their own lives, because true collapse is a horror story for everybody, not just your enemies.

        3. Im not talking about some tinpot dictatorship, a tightly knit military dictatorship designed to preserve a countries race, based on race & identity & pride in your country.
          Ideally the population too should be armed & organised to prevent over reach.
          Is far more beneficial & less corrupt then a faceless democracy infested with a corrupt bureaucracy which fucks over its population on a daily basis.

        4. When arguing dictatorships to me, you may want to avoid the either/or comparison with democracy, because I’m bound to agree with you about every single bad point of democracy, and generally, I loathe the very existence of democracy as a form of government.
          People are not wired to act altruistically for everybody all the time. Whatever principles a government may been founded upon last, at most, a generation, sometimes less than that. You see, there’s the whole “I chose this and agree to it” thing that goes away fast after the founders of the government start passing away. No matter how rigidly pure the ideology of the founders, no matter how hard they try to indoctrinate the next generations, the next generation just hasn’t done the same level of buy in and will, like clockwork, start using the levers of power for personal gain and poof, there goes your government. Eventually you end up the opposite of your founding principles. America, for example, founded on human liberty is now in most ways its antithesis (not all the way through that though, there’s still work to do). China, that little commie hell hole, seems to have produced a people and culture that are all about the market place. Your benevolent nationalist racial dictator will form a society that will, mark my words, turn into a society so racially cucked that it will make modern day Germany look like it was still being governed by the National Socialists.
          We’re biologically and intellectually hard wired by nature for self interest. There’s no getting around it. Even North Korea has dissenters and they’re as clamped down as it is possible to be.

        5. People fail to make the distinction that The United States were set up as a representative republic, not a democracy. And that our government structures were designed in a milieu of hate and distrust. Every one of the founding fathers hated and mistrusted those from other states or of other sects of Christianity. They feared, more than anything else, those others getting an upper hand and oppressing them. Of course this was because they all wanted the to oppress others with their beliefs.
          The Puritans/Pilgrims fled religious persecution in England and immediately set up a religious persecution in their colony, as did founders of other colonies. There were several New England colonies where is was perfectly legal to steal the property of Catholics. Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics from the religious persecution they suffered in one form or another in the other colonies.

        6. Thats where we disagree, a people working for the betterment of their race, is hardwired to be altruistic to your own race.
          Irrespective of the future repercussions, a nationalist dictatorship is far superior as long as it is maintained …
          A racially curated nation which aggressively selects for intelligence & race, has a much greater chance of surviving & developing the necesssry technology, to survive the decay & degeneration all civilisations go through.

        7. Germanic tribes wandering England were at constant war with each other, until another Germanic tribe of Danes showed up and started setting thatch huts on file, which was solved just in time for the Germanic peoples across the channel (The Franks) to get into a constant pissing war with the Germanics in England. This, in a time period where they could all more or less still understand each other and where they shared the same God(s), same basic culture and same looks. Even after they’d all been de-Paganized, they still fought tooth and nail over any ol’ bullshit they could use to justify the fighting.
          And don’t even get me started on the Gaels.
          The “as long as it is maintained” is where I think you’re making your mistake. You’re very idealistic about human beings, that is not how history does or has ever played out. If you put a bunch of us Saxons in a room together, eventually you’re going to have us separated into Wessex, Sussex and Essex corners of the room (it’s a triangle shaped room) and ready to plunder each others stuff in short order.
          I get what you’re saying to an extent, and I think that racism is more or less hard wired to an extent in everybody, which comes I think from the fight or flight instinct. You see something “different” and it triggers an emotional response. Got it, no question, agreed. But just because I’m Nigel and you’re Cedric, doesn’t mean that we can’t and won’t act against each other.

        8. Erm nope, hitler germany showed it is feasible, britain along with large parts of europe have been stable, in terms of gene pool & racial stability for quite a few centuries now.
          Im not discussing the lack of enmity, war etc., im discussing the merits of a stable racial gene pool as a nation, as per a nationalist dictatorship … war & strife are an inevitable part of any nation state irrespective of the solidarity …

        9. “hitler germany” was a 12 year period of time. Half of that was war, and it ended with the country bombed into the stone age, split in half and placed under adult supervision.
          Not the best example of stable anything.

        10. Oh? Hitler Germany showed it feasible did they? How many generations did that last again? 1? Not even 1? Huh…I figured that if it was feasible it would still be here.
          I’m sincerely not interested in any kind of dictatorship. As a rational human being, I can make decisions about whom I wish to procreate with all without the help of some benevolent dictator. Turns out, I’ve done just that and have wonderful kids who are likely more European than most Europeans these days, so thank, but….no.
          Besides, again, you are assuming pure motives, incorruptible character and a complete lack of any self interest impulse, which are things that have been true of 0% of humanity since we’ve been humanity. Outside of Jesus I mean.

        11. By that standard, today’s weirdo cultish society is also “feasible”, since, well, here we are.

        12. Your use of “feasible” is meaningless. As below, today’s society exists, so a LGBQDSFWER freak can rightfully claim “Well, the U.S. in 2017 showed that a culture based on deconstruction and pseudo-socialism is *feasible*, lol”
          The true test of feasibility as you’re wanting to use it is durability. Any ol’ group of people can get together for a short time and form just about any kind of political association. Big whoop.

        13. Yes, exactly he showed it was feasible, whether it meets your standard of usability is beyond the point …
          A country taking on the ideology of ww1 germany, doesnt automatically goto war with the global axis … lol

        14. So we’re to embrace your fantasy because for a very few short years a Nazi government existed, then started doing really stupid shit to its neighbors and then exploded?
          You wouldn’t last twenty minutes in the real Nazi Germany in 1939. You have no idea what a tyranny really is like in real life and seem to be working off of some Stormfront fantasy. Sorry guy, but you’re espousing a pipe dream and nothing more.

        15. Actually yeah, I kind of do. Your lack of even a basic awareness of human nature is glaring brightly, kid. The more you get cornered, the more you think throwing “lol” on will help, but it doesn’t.
          You’re just some spoiled, soft, untested young guy who lives with fantasies in his head to make him feel powerful, probably due to a lack of real power or control in his real life. You need this strong man fantasy to wreak revenge on your personal demons, and nothing more. There are serious proponents of National Socialism who lay down rational arguments, but you are not one of them. Throw in “MGTOW” and I’m confident that everything I’ve just said, is true.
          The rest of the bulk of humanity, ain’t interested in your need to slobber on the dick of a strong man, and that includes me.
          We’re done here. I sense that you desperately need the last word, so, well, go ahead, but I’m not going to read it or respond.
          Me Heil.
          That is all.

        16. I’m a white nationalist myself but am extremely skeptical of national socialism and Hitler. My ideal is more so Victorian England (which was probably the pinnacle of human social development) or the general period after the Franco-Prussian War until WW1.

        17. But dodging the Gestapo while scavenging for food gives you the six pack abs to impress your HB10 Aryan princess.

        18. Yeah, but your dictators are likely to be Jews ….. and you ain’t a Jew ……. so it isn’t gonna be good for you.
          Lemme see how its going for you at the moment …..
          Trump is in charge, all his family are Jews …. yep, just as I thought.

        19. I live under a military dictatorship, if I were to say anything negative about them, I would likely disappear. It’s lucky that I love my general and his policies.

        20. But that only works if you are part of the same race as your rulers. Your rulers are Jews and you aren’t a Jew.
          Your previous ruler was black ………. I’m thinking you’re not black either?

        21. Feasible assumes you can find white women to breed with you.
          This appears to not be the case for many white men these days.

        22. Only the weak ones. Masculine Millenial men (they exist) have their choice of the top shelf young women (thin, not dyed hair, hot, etc).

        23. There you go, that’s far more reasonable. You can be free, white and nationalist all at the same time without having to be a “Nazi”.
          We should do a meet and greet and have some drinks sometime. I’m near Columbus. Email address in profile.

        24. I meant breed, not fuck too
          I’m going to have lily white grandchildren.

        25. This is what happens when you politely try to debate low i.q average joe chumps, they loose their shit & inanely repeat the same statement multiple times like some broken record …
          Go back to your white picket fence & tv remote, your lawn needs mowing …
          Average joe chumps & ricketty old coots, the bane of white suburbia …

        26. Even if you got lucky and had a benevolent dictator, the odds that their children/successor would be also is nearly slim to none.

        27. Governments are legalised mafia. Taxes are forced upon you like the mafia forces you to pay pizzo (protection money)

        28. The only dictatorship I want to live under is that in which I happen to be the dictator.

        29. I’m with GOJ on this.
          “…It also preserves the genetics of a stable gene pool, & prevents corruption of a countrys greatest wealth, its dna free of defects
          A government exists not to preserve freedom, it exists to ensure the continuation & survival of a countries race, skin & racial culture & heritage…”
          That sounds like a justification for “eugenics” policies, and forced sterilization of people deemed “undesirable,” and other sick, twisted policies like that. I do not want to live in a world where the government plays an active role in “strengthening the gene pool” and “weeding out bad DNA.”
          That being said, I believe true monarchies can be superior to democracies.
          Rob, you’re right that even if you have a benevolent dictator, the odds that all of his children/successors will be good is slim. However, it is in a king’s best interest to do right by his country and make sure his subjects are taken care of. Otherwise, he risks being overthrown. A king has every incentive to leave his country in the best condition possible for his son and future successors.
          On the other hand, in a democracy like modern America, the president knows he will be gone in 8 years and a new president (unrelated to him) will be elected, so he has far less incentive to do right by his country and keep it in good condition for his successors. Just look at all the bullshit Obama tried to pull on his way out just to fuck with Trump.

        30. Just look at his username. “Pua Mgtow” is a contradiction. Shows how much of an idiot this guy is.

        31. “Statism.”
          As opposed to what? No state? Anarchy?
          If the state disappeared tomorrow, someone would come in to fill the void and become the new state.

        32. Statism was a fill in for communism, fascism, dictatorships, tyrannical monarchies, etc.
          There is a difference between having a government and the entire country revolving around the government.

        33. “statism” as you define it (i.e. the government having total and complete control over thr daily lives of its citizens) is only possible because of modern technology.
          in the middle ages, before modern technology, even in the most oppressive monarchies, the average man had more freedom than he does in America today. he might have been poorer and had a harder life than the average man today, but he had more freedom.

        34. You sound like a real faggot. You fear the swastika. Good. Rats scurry from scary things can can stomp their face in

        35. The only answer is a computer to rule over us. Peace and contentment, in Landru!
          Sorry, Star Trek reference. 🙂

        36. Not sure I’d agree with that. Average Westerner today can own land, criticize its government, protest its government, marry anyone of any station, start their own business or work in thousands of types of jobs, move 3000 miles away for any reason, no debtor’s prison, practice any religion you want, right to a trial by jury, 5th amendment / non-torture, etc. Do you think that was possible in 1200AD?

        37. These idiots don’t seem to understand that “national socialism” only worked (sort of) because GERMANS did it.

        38. Yeah, that’s my point.
          And yet you praise Hitler’s National SOCIALIST (i.e. leftist) government and consider it to be a good example for how to run a country.

        39. Yes, I do think most of that was possible in 1200 AD.
          Let’s go through your examples one by one:
          Owning land:
          This is possible due to the advanced economy created by modern industry and technology. I specifically stated that life was harder for the average man in the middle ages. There was more poverty, starvation, etc. I’m not claiming that the average man in 1200 AD had an easier life than the average man today, just that he had more freedom from government control over his life.
          Criticizing/protesting one’s government:
          Sure, you couldn’t criticize the king to his face, or in the public square. I think it is an exaggeration to say that any criticism of the king/government would get you jailed or killed. You would only be jailed or killed (or exiled) if the king perceived you as a genuine threat to his power. Also, you could criticize the government in private and among friends all you wanted, and nobody would know. Even if they did find out, they would have to hunt you down and find you, which was a lot harder to do without modern technology/record keeping. Nowadays, the government knows where you live, where you work, etc. Like I said, people in 1200 AD had more freedom than people today.
          Marrying anyone you want:
          I could be wrong about this, but I don’t believe many governments had laws explicitly forbidding marriages between people of different social classes. This was more of a societal/familial pressure. When I say people were “more free,” I mean in terms of the government.
          Move 3000 miles away for any reason:
          This is only possible due to modern technology (cars, planes, etc.). Proves my point.
          Debtor’s prison:
          Sure, there’s no debtor’s prisons, but there are people who go to prison and become lifelong felons (losing their 2nd amendment rights for life) because they were caught with a little bit of drugs one time when they were 18. And with modern-day computers and record-keeping, it’s not possible to just move to a new town and start over. If you have a criminal record, even a minor one, it will haunt you for the rest of your life. I’ll take the debtor’s prisons.
          Practice any religion you want:
          Ok, I’ll give you that one. But the fact of the matter is, the reason we can practice any religion we want is because modern Western governments ALLOW us to. In Communist Russia, you were not allowed to practice any religion, and the Soviet government was able to enforce this by using modern military technology. In the middle ages, it would be easier to get away with practicing a religion the government didn’t like, as long as you kept it on the down low.
          Trial by jury, 5th amendment, non torture, etc:
          These are very specific freedoms granted to us by the constitution. But the fact of the matter is that while governments in 1200 AD may have been less WILLING to grant freedoms to their citizens, they were also far less ABLE to enforce unfair laws and restrictions, keep records on all their citizens, etc.

        40. I think you are nuts and seen too many movies that romanticize medieval times.
          “Sure, there’s no debtor’s prisons, but there are people who go to prison and become lifelong felons (losing their 2nd amendment rights for life) because they were caught with a little bit of drugs one time when they were 18”
          While I agree that drug laws are awful, you realize you could be killed during the medieval times for killing a (“king’s”) deer? Or calling a noble by the wrong title? Burned at the stake because someone accused you of being a witch? Not to mention most were so poor they were serfs to the land and their noble lord and had no mobility or job prospects. Hell, even the nobles had to revolt for the magna carta in 1215 for even THEM to have rights.

        41. I have not seen ANY movies in my life that romanticize medieval times. I’m not much of a movie person.
          You seem to take seriously what they taught you in high school history class about what the middle ages were like (i.e. most kings were brutal dictators who had total domination over the lives of their subjects).
          For the last time, I AGREE that life was harder back then for the vast majority of people, and most people were far poorer than they are today.
          I even agree that in this day and age, we have concepts like “rights,” “free speech,” and “fair trial by jury” that did not exist in the middle ages. And surely, there were SOME kings (not all) who imposed ridiculous and unfair laws on their subjects.
          What I am arguing is that even if a medieval king decided to impose an unfair law, it would be much harder to enforce. People were harder to track. If you got on the king’s bad side, you could leave town and live in exile (as opposed to going to prison for years if you get on the government’s bad side today).
          For example, in this day and age (at least in America), the government practically owns your kids. If the government decides to take your kids away, there’s nothing you can do. With modern technology and record-keeping, it is easy for the government to track you down. In medieval times, if the government wanted to take your kids, they would have to track you down first, and you could just leave town, change your appearance, or whatever.
          If you want to join the military, for example, the government will go through all its records, and if you’ve been arrested for any reason at any point in your life, they will likely reject you. In medieval times, anybody could join the military if they wanted. Modern record-keeping didn’t exist.
          These are just a few examples. They might not be the best examples, but they illustrate my point.
          All I am saying is that while modern technology allows us to live easier lives, it also allows the government to have way more power over its people (and therefore the people are less free).

        42. And he resents success too. No surprise. I mean, you are a proponent of socialism and totalitarianism, so it’s kind of assumed that you create nothing and succeed at little else other than bladder control.
          Slainte mhor.

        43. Good job. You totally disproved everything I said [/sarc].
          I’ll bet you any amount of money that a significant number of people on this forum would agree with me that the average person was more free in the middle ages than now, and also that society in general was less degenerate. Men were expected to be manly and fight in wars, women to be feminine and save themselves for marriage, and society was way less degenerate.
          I guess we’re all “nuts,” according to your stupid ass.
          Sure, there was more poverty and life was harder in a lot of ways for the average man, but that doesn’t disprove any of what I said.
          You were obviously taught in high school that “monarchy is bad” and “the middle ages were dominated by brutal dictators” and horseshit like that, and you believed it all and continue to believe it. Sure, some kings were violent and mean, but the vast majority were not (because they didn’t want to risk being overthrown)
          You know nothing about REAL history. You just blindly believed everything your high-school teacher taught you (monarchy and imperialism is bad, etc.).

        44. Less degenerate? Sure – the # of people in London – one of the largest city in medieval times – was smaller than small and medium size cities in the USA today – that is to say everyone knew everyone and there were repercussions for EVERYTHING said and done so people generally behaved to what the rulers and aristocracy wanted (and I include the Church in the aristocracy). Which goes back to my point – you are NUTS if you believe they were more free then. I’ve already said a dozen reasons including religion, right to ownership, right of mobility, not stuck to the land through serfdom, not having enough money to eat hardly much less freedom to travel etc, freedom of religion, right to a jury trial, etc. That you want to want to believe otherwise is your issue, not mine and very few on this board will agree with you – including GOJ. There is a reason the murder rate in the western world in medieval times is estimated at 10-40x that of the Western world today – it wasn’t a very safe place for anyone. There was little freedom. Freedoms for the average person or at least landowners grew out of 1700s philosophers.

        45. I think you’re missing my point. Yes, life was hard. Most people were poor. People didn’t have the “freedom” to travel around the world (because cars and planes did not exist). People were afraid to go against societal norms for fear that they would be shunned and ostracized, which likely meant death.
          Men did not have the “freedom” to become flaming faggots, nor women to become raging sluts, as they do today.
          All I am saying is that modern governments are able to exert mass control over their people, and stay in power despite massive unpopularity, because of modern military technology.
          Here’s a freedom that people in the middle ages had, but people today don’t have, and it’s a pretty important one: the freedom of the people to come together and overthrow the government if they feel the need to do so. When the (American) Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution, they said one of the main reasons why citizens should be armed was in case the government became tyrannical and needed to be overthrown.
          No king can rule alone. If enough of his subjects turned against him, he would be ousted. That is how different dynasties rose and fell. However, due to modern military technology, it would pretty much be impossible to overthrow the government, even if 90% of the population turned against it (at least in a country like the US). The only way it would happen is if military leadership turned against its own government, which is unlikely.
          The reason the murder rate was 10-40x higher in medieval times is because today (at least in the developed world) if you murder someone, there is a very, very high likelihood you will get caught and go to jail for a long time (even if you had a good reason to kill the person). Obviously, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it goes to show how much more control modern governments have over their citizens than medieval governments did.
          You’re right that in the middle ages, we did not have the “ideals” of freedom that we do today (i.e. freedom of speech, freedom to protest against the government, etc.). And I would even say that people in America in 1850 (non-slaves) had more freedom than people in medieval Europe. But today, that just isn’t the case. Governments are just too powerful due to modern technology.
          Let me ask you this: do you think the Bolsheviks could have held onto power in Russia for 80 years in medieval times, without modern weaponry, tanks, artillery, etc?

        46. We can keep going round and round in circles on this – the answer is people today in the West – politically, religiously, and economically – have far more freedoms than 1000 years ago – period – especially if you are minority or had a different opinion than the ruling class. And you drastically understate the value of economic freedom. 1000 years ago people were 100% tied to a lord and a small plot of land and no education.
          “Let me ask you this: do you think the Bolsheviks could have held onto power in Russia for 80 years in medieval times, without modern weaponry, tanks, artillery, etc?”
          WTF do you think the Romans did to all of Europe for ~500 years? Or the Mongols did in China? It was far easier to control information and dissenters could be killed or imprisoned without a trial and in fact much of the population 1000 years ago was disarmed. 100% of the media – church, criers, written documents, etc – were controlled by the state then. Of course, 1000 years ago you also never knew if your neighboring country or nearby country wasn’t going to attack and kill you at any point, either.

        47. Governments today can still commit genocide, murder dissenters, enslave people, etc. In fact, with modern technology, it is far easier for governments to do these things. The only reason they don’t do it is because they CHOOSE not to (at least in the West).
          I think we can both agree that the average person in medieval Europe had more freedom (from government tyranny and control) than the average person in North Korea today.
          If the governments of Western countries really wanted to, they could control and oppress their people just like North Korea does. They choose not to based on the ideals you talked about (free speech, trial by jury, self-determination, etc.), and that is great.
          In medieval times, though, I’m sure there were a lot of kings that would have loved to be like North Korea and have that level of control over their subjects, but they were not able to because they didn’t have the technology to do so.
          And are you seriously comparing the ancient Romans to the Bolsheviks? Come on, man.

        48. You can believe whatever you want. You are in the small minority.
          Why can you not compare the Romans to the Bolscheviks? They both did whatever they want and took over neighboring countries, killed anyone who resisted, and only a small subset of the population under the Roman Empire and the USSR had any rights/control. In fact, on a % of the population basis, the Roman empire was far, far worse with murder and death (and slavery). Besides, not much difference between Stalin (dictator) and an absolute Monarch.

        49. Modern China is communist by name. Their system is more capitalist than America. The elites of China don’t care whether they sacrifice their bottom class people, as long as they get the benefits.
          Same with America except American elites are more behind the scene and less forward. The only losers are the lower class of both countries (china and USA).

    2. Please define “dna free of defects” and please point to a group of people with no defective genetics.

        1. Again, define free of defects and point to one group of people without defects.
          I’m just calling out your comment, it’s just a whole bunch of fucking bullshit… lol

        2. I’m not opposed to the idea of encouraging successful people to breed, and encouraging not so successful people to put off breeding until their circumstances have improved.

        3. Great, which leads to a stable gene pool relatively free of defects, caused by inbreeding & the low i.q out breeding the high i.q
          As witnessed in Britain & most of europe until the 1800’s with the exception of irish slavery …

        4. You still haven’t defined stable gene pool so your statement means nothing. For example, downs is prevalent equally across all races, classes, etc.

        5. I guess I want quantification of what stability is. The point being that no gene pool is “stable.” Mutations already exist and will continue to happen in any sample size. In other words, your idea of creating some superior genetic line is bunk to start.
          Inbreeding and dysgenics might be a concern, but a blanket statement like racial mixing is silly. Even assuming lower IQs of certain races, there will be a bell curve where a society would want that top percent to mix in its genes. Because unless you have an omnipotent understanding of genetic selection, its probably best left to nature to decide.

        6. But as I said before, you can’t make blanket statements like that. Not every member of a race with a lower IQ has a low IQ. Some have high IQs. You want to mix those genes in.

        7. I think it’s been proven that the idea of inbreeding producing defectives was merely Christian propaganda to shape family sexuality.
          Also High IQ parents don’t necessarily have high IQ children.
          (Regression to the mean)
          In other words Eugenics is a pile of horseshit.

        8. I know what it is, I do it every day.
          You won’t get me breeding with fat white girls.
          I’m sticking it in slim brown girls.

        9. Then why are some races generally smarter than others?
          And why do some dog breeds have traits better for one thing than another?
          Do you hook up a chihuahua to pull a sled? Why not, it’s a cannis familiaris, it’s a dog, right?
          Why are some dogs used for assistance dogs (blind leaders) and some not? Why can some handle hunting while others cannot? All the same general size even?
          Nature doesn’t give a shit about theory, compassion or leftism.

        10. Jews are considered the race with the highest IQ.
          Asians and blacks are really good at working hard in the fields all day.
          Tell me again what white women are good at?
          I can’t see any reason to breed with white women.
          The French always thought poodles were the best hunting dogs.
          And it’s generally accepted that mongrels are the cleverest dogs.

        11. Inbreeding does reduce i.q … ie muslim countries
          Thats why you need large families & polygamy, a high i.q family with 20 children has a much higher chance of producing high i.q kids …
          In other words you have no idea wth youre talkinh about …

        12. True, the whole “inbreeding produces retard babies” argument is a bit exaggerated, but there are other VERY good reasons why you shouldn’t fuck your own family members. It completely fucks with the dynamics of the family unit, which is the foundation of civilization.
          First-cousin marriage was considered acceptable up until very recently in Christian societies, so your argument about it being “Christian propaganda” is horseshit.

        13. You can’t compare dog breeds to human races. Dog breeds were deliberately created by humans, and did not arise naturally. Human races arose organically due to thousands of years of living on separate continents.

  5. In the remainder of this century, more and more white Americans will realize that “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” etc. denoted defensible views the first time around that we should have maintained, and that an abeyance of rationality and common sense happened in the progressive era now just ending.
    And it has to go this way because you just can’t extrapolate from the current progressive transwrecks and caricatures and not have society collapse. The culture of a healthy white society in 2050 will more resemble the culture of 1950 than today’s.

  6. There is an easy way to flip it around on them. When they start calling you phobic, call them phillic.
    Why are you such a xenophile?
    Wow, I didn’t realize you were a Judeophile (or Philo-Semite).
    Homophobic?? Not me! Why are you such a homophile?

  7. Phobia is easy to counter by making a declarative positive statement.
    “You’re a homophobe!”
    “Actually, I’m a heterophile!” *cheerful grin*
    “You’re an Islamophobe!”
    “Actually, I’m a Christianophile!” *cheerful grin*
    And so on.
    Racism/racist I just laugh at now, it’s ridiculous what it’s become. The Left doesn’t even know what it means, they just cling to it as a totem word, a fear inducer, but don’t quite grok that they are the biggest racists on the planet (as noted in the article). I pointed out on another thread that my daughter and her friends (and my son as well) go to mock that word by saying “Racist!” whenever you use the words black or white in any context. Somebody pointed out that he’s heard this increasingly too and, correctly, that this is a sign that SJW language is starting to un-mainstream and lose its potency.
    Discrimination is fun to agree and amplify.
    “You’re discriminating!”
    “Why yes, I am, I prefer the very best things in life and will settle for nothing less!”
    Fascism has become a joke word, and not just with Leftists, but with most everybody. I propose that 98% of the entire population of the West, outside of actual fascists and a few historians, has any real idea what actual fascism is. The Left calls everybody a fascist, and the right wing types seem to think it only means nationalism with a bit of racism and tend to completely overlook the anarcho-socialist base it was founded upon. It is, as they say, to laugh.
    Populism I think is trying to be made into a bad word by the media, but I see it used in positive contexts in real life. I’m no fan of democracy and all that rubbish, but if the common man is being put upon and pushes back, that’s fine by me too.

    1. Ah the old racist white and colored laundry joke. Never gets old.
      “Racism” is going out of style, everything is now “microaggressions” or “cultural appropriation.”

      1. I’ve honestly not heard any real life person say those words, I think that they’re so absurd that they stay firmly in academia where nonsense like that is not openly mocked and sneered at. The only place I really ever hear the words is on the interwebs. Somebody gives me the “microaggresion” spiel and I’ll go off on him that I only do macroaggressions because my time is far too important to waste on the chump change stuff.

        1. True. I have trouble figuring out what on the internet actually happens in real life. I do know that there are at 24% of the population who believe in this shit and voted so last election. I’d also assume you are much like me and avoid places where words like this are thrown around (demonstrations, hipster art enclaves, coffee shops, etc.).

        2. Basically, yeah. Although I will walk around the art festivals in Columbus now and then with my Blackhawk slapped on the side of my leg. I figure, they want triggered, I’ll trigger the living bejeezus out of’em and scare the purple dye right out of their hair.

        3. Goodness, you carry a Blackhawk? That is a thigh workout from the weight of the ammo, alone.

    2. “Actually, I’m a Christianophile!” *cheerful grin*”
      Actually, I’m an atheist, something a lot of leftists are as well. Why don’t they think islam is as superstitous and irrational as christianity is?

    3. When I’m tagged with a label (though there was a campaign by the left against that some time ago), I merely ask the person to define what that label means. It fun to watch so-called educated and enlightened libertards respond like nervous school children, caught unprepared for a vocabulary quiz.
      I then smirk, laugh and turn away in silent mockery of their lack of understanding.

    4. True. I’ve been called “fascist” by people, usually when I express a contrary-to-left viewpoint or take a politically incorrect stance. In these situations, I like to say, “explain to me what exactly it is about the fascist (substitute Nazi when appropriate) ideology that bears an equivalency to my opinion?”
      Cue the blank look. When a lib-left termite denounces an organization, person or thought with which or whom they disagree as “Nazi!”, I always ask if they really mean Communist.

        1. He’s not actually shooting shotgun shells, he’s channeling pure energy awesomeness.

  8. Agree & amplify, alway agree and amplify!
    Nazi and Fascist? LOL in reality we are on the right side to Adolf Hitler, that pinko, hippie, bed-wetting liberal, who was too soft on the Jews anyway!
    Racist microagressions? Fuck that, what we want is to reinstate slavery and to re-colonise the Thirld World!
    Islamophobic? Not only that, we outright demand the Pope to kick-start a brand new Crusade, in order to liberate the Holy Land from the evil Israelites and Ismaelites, because it should belong to its rightful owners, the followers of Christ!
    And so on, and so forth… You will get the hang of this. Agree & amplify!

    1. They are so used to having their opinions accepted without a challenge, as if it was based on consensus, that they simply can not wrap their heads around the fact that it is not so any more. So used to talking ex cathedra from their non-existant “moral superiority” high horse, that they do not realise they are talking from the ground up, to the “peasants” who they think should accept everything on their say-so. And the “peasants” are talking back irreverently! Imagine their shock!

  9. When you counter a leftist using their own critical theory against them, they lose their shit. Like they are the only ones who are supposed to be able to use complex thinking in any debate or conversation. Such worthless individials they are.

  10. 99% of liberal arguments are the same logical fallacy. the appeal to emotion. aka-“muh feelins”

  11. The supreme irony of it all is that in their self righteous sloganeering, SJWs actually undermined the meanings of the words, watering them down to the point that they no longer carry the negative connotations they once did. The only people who still give a shit are the SJWs. Everyone else who isn’t a psychotic basket case has left the building.

    1. I wish that were true. Unfortunately, academia, the media and governments are powerful indoctrination centers. In Toronto, just last week, some thugs (likely hired by the likes of Soros) attacked and assaulted members of a peaceful protest of an “Islamophobia” Bill that the Liberal government will soon get passed. The government doesn’t want any criticism of Islam. Never mind what the word “phobia” literally (Hitler) means.
      Iranians and Pakistanis who know what it’s like to live under oppressive regimes which suppress and prosecute blasphemy, were among the peaceful protesters. They know where the media and government’s “Islamophilia” will lead. They’ve seen the end game. It’s not pretty.
      Tarek Fatah is a Pakistani Muslim who writes a Toronto Sun column. He’s been vilified by the SJW, Islamo-lovefest crowd, be they his fellow Muslims or their “useful idiot” supporters in the West.

    2. Indeed. If I’m call a ‘sexist’/’chauvinist’ or ‘misogynist’ I laugh and tell them to run along back to the kitchen and can whip me up a steak as apology for wasting my time. ‘Racist’, I will do a mock Chinese accent, ‘Islamophobe’ I reply ‘I like my head on my shoulders thank you very much’ or ‘Yes-I do have an aversion to stupidity and rampant inbreeding’, ‘Populist’ I say ‘I”m very much a man of the people’ or ‘I am a river unto my people’ and ‘Discriminatory’ I reply with ‘Of course, I enjoy the finer things in life and have very discriminating tastes-you can enjoy shit, I prefer the lobster.’
      When you mock them, you win because they resort to feelings instead of reasoned argumentation and it shocks them to have someone respond back by ridiculing them instead of being cowed into silence.

  12. There is a problem with the new power structure. Trump election definitely not enough. In the past, having the power on the throne was key. But now, the center is everywhere. Trump is like Gulliver surrounded by millions of Liliputians tying him down.
    The culture is everywhere and he is surrounded. It does not look to me that he is able to modify the narratives in the cultural sea we swim in.
    We are now in a matrix, but Trump controls a medieval tower. Something more is needed. Smear words mentioned in article are still the lexicon of our orwellian society.

  13. Don’t forget “isolationist.” It is the more well-manicured leftists’ replacement for the gauche, overused “racist” slur.

  14. Andre, good artcle. Especially about causing peach-fuzz lefties to come to terms literally (Hitler) when they call me or Trump a fascist. It’ll be a good to have more ammo. Up ’til now, my go-to response was Beau Albrecht’s plan: When I get called a racist (or other easy name like Fascist), I reply that racism is a social construct. Pisses ’em right off.
    Obligatory source plug:

    The Fantastical Myth Of Gender And Race Being “Social Constructs”

  15. Yup. I’m all those things. But don’t forget bigoted, hateful, insecure, uneducated, unenlightened, and intolerant.

  16. Fascism is bad in general because it is a form of socialism. And all forms of socialism lead to disaster in the end.
    When you take away the liberties of a man and put his economic decision making into the hands of the few, you will inevitably end up with destruction and mayhem. The best you can hope for is Swedish socialism, which we see now has totally emasculated their men

    1. “And all forms of socialism lead to disaster in the end.” No it doesn’t. The only form of Socialism that leads to disaster is Leninist Socialism, aka “state capitalism” aka hardcore socialism.

      1. Yeah, all of those socialist European nations are doing great.
        Outside of massive population replacement from Africa, massive debt and a huge decline in masculinity. But outside of that, they’re doing spiffy!
        Some socialism falls faster than others, but they all collapse.

        1. “Yeah, all of those socialist European nations are doing great.”
          Western Europe is not social democracy, not socialism. I only believe in socialism in certain aspects of society, but for the most part I support policies typical of a social democrat. But anyways, I’ll go along with your definition and call Western Europe socialist.
          “Outside of massive population replacement from Africa”
          That isn’t socialism, that is because a certain (((tribe))).
          “massive debt”
          Germany, The United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, and Spain all maintain lower debt to GDP ratios than the United States. Every state in Western Europe besides Portugal and Italy have a lower debt to GDP ratio than the US.
          “But outside of that, they’re doing spiffy!” Explain how this has anything to do with socialism please.

    2. What youre talking about is Marxism. Under fascism, individual incentive to produce is still there, the govt only serves to ensure that corporate interest does not come before the national interest. National Socialist Germany went from ashes to a world power in 3 years under that system. Perfect? No, but a hell of a lot better than us praying for handouts from the Zuckerbergs of this world.
      As for scandanavia, feminism and other assorted (((influences))) have made those countries the mess they are; completely unrelated.

      1. The Nazis succeeded in the early stages for the same reason the Russian communists were able to compete in the early part of their careers, namely lots and lots of American cash were being pumped into both those regimes. In the case of the Nazis, they were the recipients of the best IBM technology at the time, as well as Standard Oil, etc.
        Not only that, but the Nazi corporations were also aided by the use of slave labor and the looting of countries they took over. You may as well argue that Islams wealth via looting and soave trading was a sign of being a good economic model.
        People look at “the man in the high castle” and think its an argument of how they would have been better off if the Nazis won. The “man kn the high castle” is a television show. It is not real.
        Freedom works. Liberty works. Giving men the right to do business and associate with whimever they want works. Getting out of the way of individual states so they enact rules that support whatever moral systems they believe in works. The state of Maryland used to have laws on the books mandating church attendance.
        I dont feel that I have a moral right to tell you what to do because I left the US for Israel, so you have to make up your own minds.
        For myself, I am absolutely convinced that top down control of the economy leads to stagnation and horrific levels of corruption, as well as causing a weakening effect on the male population. Im living in a country that has tried fascistic state control for years, and it has strangled the people, culture and economy to the point where we are utterly dependant on US aid, even tho there is no reason at all why we should be. More and more Israelis are desperate to break that control. If you prefer to enact it, thats your decision.

        1. If youre a Jew in israel, you get between 3 and 10 BILLION DOLLARS every year from my country. What you people know about running a country is limited to snivelling and coniving until someone gives you things for free. Your best move is probably to sit in your desert with your mouth shut, because like always, people are starting to get fed up with your kosher shenanigans.

        2. First off, that money isnt charity, it buys compliance in a strategically crucial section of the world. Personally, Id be happy to see that ended. But it isnt up to me.
          Second, you dont even know how much is being sent. 3-10 billion? If thats the range you are citing then it means you are just throwing numbers out there, either you are stupid or you dont give a damn about how much is spent or why, which shows you lack integrity. Either way, not someone Im interested in wasting time on.
          As for the rest, Im not impressed. If you think Israelis are “snivelers” then it means you know nothing about this country or its people at all.
          Which is just as well.

        3. Also, fuck you for the way you spoke to me. Next time you can make your point wothout being a cunt about it.

        4. 3 billion is the “official” number, which is still more aid than we send anywhere else. $10bn is the estimated number (“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” by Stephen Walk and John Mearshimer) based on sweetheart deals and the fact that the US goes in the hole to give that money all at once at the beginning of the fiscal year. Either way, an awful lot to hand out for a country the size of Wisconsin.
          And dont hand me “strategic advantage”. US soldiers dont base or even stop for gas in israel on the way to fight Arabs. I’ve deployed over there 5 times and never once saw an Israeli soldier securing their own time zone.
          So either youre oblivious to how parasitic your country is, or youre trying to keep it a big secret. Either way, the jig is up.

        5. First off, I don’t try to keep anything a secret. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because as a matter of conscience I try to be upfront about everything. I did not feel comfortable expressing my political opinions about a country I expated from without letting people know that I had a bias. I don’t expect points for that, but I do expect to not be baselessly accused of dishonesty precisely when I go out of my way to be honest.
          As for strategic advantage, you mistake me, I’m not interested in convincing you that it’s to your advantage to be allied. If you see it to your advantage, great. If you don’t, go elsewhere. The British stabbed this country in the back before it was even founded, and the Israelis found allies in the French, the French did the same, and the Israelis found allies in the United States.
          If you want to find different friends to work with, go ahead. Do what works for you.
          I have gratitude for the immense good the US has done for my family in particular and for Israel in general, just as I have gratitude for the immense good that the French and English has done. There were a lot of bad actors, but there were also a lot of people that quietly did a lot of good when they didn’t have to. I know some of those names, and I will remember them. All the same, not everything has to work out, and just because things don’t work out, it doesn’t mean you have to lie down and die. Life moves on, for people and countries.
          In any case, your argument was ridiculous. American soldiers do use this place, I see them all the time, there are American bases here, what they do, I have no idea. Besides which, the advantage of having a first world ally in the middle of the Islamic caliphate which is standing on a third of the worlds energy reserves should be obvious. In addition to which there are joint research and business projects the two nations partner on.
          But like I said before, you do whatever works for you. Feel free to partner with the Saudis or the Egyptians or whoever else you like. And good luck with that.
          As for the money, to expand on what I said before, I’d rather that money was not given or taken for the simple reason that I see it as a corrupting force that wrecks the culture and the political health of the country. The over reliance on the United States has wrecked the nations long-term plans and given them the excuse to avoid making the hard but necessary decisions, both in terms of external policy, and in terms of developing a healthy cultural view of our own.

        6. First off, I don’t try to keep anything a secret. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because as a matter of conscience I tried to be upfront of where I’m at.
          What Mearshimer and Walk said and how accurate they are, how they arrived at their calculations, and if they were honest, I’ll leave that to you. I don’t care either way because I don’t think that taking that money was ever necessary or a good thing.
          I think it’s ridiculous to say that there is no strategic value to the US to work with Israel. I could argue it, but it’s not really my way to try to convince people of anything. If it’s valuable to you, then it’s valuable, if you don’t see the value, then it’s not.
          I think too many Israelis obsess over the US-Israel alliance and rely on it instead of making the healthy political and cultural decisions necessary to develop the country. It’s made them too weak and led to a lot of bad policy.
          If they did not have that money, then they would be forced to become more realistic, their policy would be less fantasy, and far more pragmatic. This would be true for both internal economic and cultural policy and for external policy as well. It would have been tough in the short run, but far better in the long run. Had we not accepted that money from the beginning, we’d have been in a much better position by now on all levels.
          That’s my view anyway.
          Also the US-Israel relationship would have been far healthier.

  17. Excellent work on this. Beyond liberals, this could easily apply to everyone. People use these words because it becomes trendy. They don’t know what they’re actually saying, except they want to be part of this group.

  18. How about leftist, communist, socialist, marxist, sjw, nationalist, bigot, sexist….
    Americans are champions in overusing and misusing labels which end up being meaningles, they are used as an insult more than describing persons beliefs or character.
    It is not black and white, things exist on a spectrum, im sure we are all nationalists, bigots, racists, socialists, capitalists to some degree

  19. “[Xenophobia and homophobia] are not phobias.” Right, they are smear terms. Ever heard anyone on the left show such disdain for an arachnophobe?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *