Many of my readers have already seen Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov’s videos on ideological subversion, but on the off chance some of you have not, take a gander at this:
The stereotype of the KGB was that of a spy agency, a sort of spook counterpart to the CIA. But in reality, their primary weapon was ideological subversion, the deconstruction and brainwashing of a people, such that they can no longer come to sensible conclusions about anything. To use a modern and practical example, the human species has two genders, male and female, and an exceptionally small number of individuals who have very specific physical abnormalities (XXY/Klinefelter syndrome, for instance), who possess traits of both to varying degrees. Another small subset of individuals have a desire to be the opposite gender, but they were nonetheless born male, or female.
Ideological subversion has set into the culture to such a great degree, that stating the simple truth that there are only two genders is enough to incur the wrath of most of Academia, and one of America’s two major political parties.
You’ll notice that in this short video, Yuri places a timetable on ideological subversion, and this timetable is fixed around generations of students. Infiltration of Academia is how the KGB initially demoralized and subverted the American system. Now of course the KGB is gone now, and whatever Putin’s KGB past and Russian nationalistic ambitions, he does not appear to be behind the ideological subversion taking place today. Indeed, the previously-subverted are the ones most likely doing the subversion today, like a mad scientist project gone haywire.
The students subverted back in the 1960s still occupy many positions of power today, but they are falling by the wayside. Today’s academics are arguably worse than the generation that preceded them. Yuri explains that they are programmed to think and react in certain ways, to certain stimuli. They are trained like Pavlov’s dog. When someone cries “racist” they are trained to initiate a Maoist struggle session. When someone cries “rape” they are trained to believe the accusation in the face of all available evidence to the contrary. Virtue signalling is the method by which they communicate and relay relative status, and their position in the Progressive hierarchy.
To quote Yuri: “the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.” You can’t reason with them anymore, because they don’t listen to reason. They listen to virtue signalling, to NewSpeak. It is instructive to view them as speaking an almost entirely different language. Communication is extraordinarily difficult. Conversion is impossible.
They are useful idiots, however. Yuri also tells us that when these people see the true fruits of equality and social justice, they will revolt. The subverters know this. The people in power will want to dispose of the idiots as soon as they are finished with us. They are a tool of the enemy, no more, no less.
Sadly, Yuri was ultimately proven to be correct. Though the Soviet Union collapsed of its own internal contradictions, the ideological subversion of the United States was already largely complete. That is why, 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism still commands such great respect from the Left and has, in many ways, become much more virulent than it was in Reagan’s day. The infection is even within us, dear readers. I will provide some psychological examples for you.
When I say “nationalist” what is the first thing that comes to mind? For most Americans, nationalism is tainted by Nazism. Any mention of nationalism brings up images of fascists, and genocidal maniacs, and racial supremacists. Why? Nationalists, i.e. people who love their country and its people, have been around since the dawn of civilization. Nationalism is neither inherently good, nor evil. It merely is. Certainly it can be used for evil purposes, as the Nazis did. But it can also be used for good purposes, as used by the patriots of the American Revolution. Yet the word is irrevocably tainted. That is ideological subversion at work. Pride in your country brings feelings of guilt, for things you have never done, nor would ever countenance yourself.
When the accusation of racism is leveled at a person, the first instinct is usually defensive in nature. It is to attempt to prove that you are not guilty of the charge. You might point to a friend of the race in question, or in one of my friend’s cases, his very own wife. And then you say “see, I can’t be a racist, because I genuinely like these people.” No, this is ideological subversion at work. The charge should be dealt with in the exact opposite manner. One ought to say “prove it! Prove your claim that I am racist.” They’ve no proof — they almost never do. The accusation is a political weapon designed to discredit you. Alternatively, you can also respond as I’ve suggested in the past with “fuck you.” That works, too. Francis at Liberty’s Torch, has suggested saying something along the lines of “well, by your definition, fine, I’m a racist. Now what?”
Being defensive plays into their hands, for they can say “see, he feels bad, that’s why he’s being defensive about it, more evidence that he’s a racist!” Saying “prove it” won’t work on them and their ilk, of course. But it will work for those who are not entirely subverted. Those who still adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty will get it right away.
Nonetheless, the guilty feeling, the horror at being called a racist, is a form of ideological subversion. You don’t want to be seen as one, because the culture at large has told you how horrible it is, and so you do everything you can to not appear racist. This is a weapon that was tried on me very recently.
The thing to understand here, is that when you feel a sort of guilt or revulsion when you know you shouldn’t — because you are not guilty of the crimes in question — that’s probably ideological subversion at work. This is everything from your school teachers to mass media attempting to control your thinking, to make you question your own beliefs at an emotional level rather than a rational one, while applying no such critique to theirs.
The thing that still confuses me, however, is the end goal. Yuri was worried it would be a prelude to Soviet attack through more direct means. Obviously that is no longer a possibility. Yet we are seeing the destabilization right now, the unprecedented resistance to Trump’s administration. We see even semi-serious calls for secession in places like California.
So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?
“And then you say “see, I can’t be a racist, because I genuinely like these people.” No, this is ideological subversion at work. The charge should be dealt with in the exact opposite manner. One ought to say “prove it! Prove your claim that I am racist.”
Good point, but like you mentioned, it is not a first instinct in how we react. It really would turn the tables on such a fallacious tactic though, wouldn’t it.
I know a person who grew up with a racist parent, and they are now in an interracial relationship. This would be all fine and good, but for the fact that they bring it up and point to it constantly, i.e. “My dad was racist but now I’m married to a beautiful black….etc.” It has taken the form of white-knighting occasionally (fights with family members who might have inadvertently “offended” the spouse). What do you think on this? Would it be an example of virtue signaling?
In my opinion Morgan Freeman had the right idea. If we want to stop being racist, quit making an issue about it. Quit talking about it, maligning it, celebrating it, all of it, just let us all exist as people *without* labels. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s)
It could be virtue signalling, or at least a hypersensitivity to the issue. But it’s hard to tell, because the waters have been so muddied. Frank discussions about race are discouraged. So it’s almost like folks just don’t know how to deal with it at all, leading to bizarre behavior whenever race is brought up.
Morgan Freeman’s approach is one possible fix. But that only works so long as the folks here regard themselves as Americans first, and whatever ethnic background they possess second. If your American-ness, if you will, trumps skin color, then it is possible to do as Mr. Freeman suggests.
Of late, I’ve come to think that scenario unlikely. I don’t think people will stop harping on race no matter what we might say to them. Some wise and intelligent folks can do it. But they are few, and not particularly encouraged by academia, media, etc… For every Thomas Sowell, we’ve a dozen race hustlers.
I don’t know what we can do — if, indeed, we can do anything at all. I’d prefer to live in peace with my fellow man, whatever his ethnicity. But if peace is impossible, what then?
I don’t know. I’m just armchair quarterbacking here. I just don’t know.
You know what happens if peace is impossible. Even if you were completely naïve you’ve been to Tom Kratman’s site to know. Blood and lots of it..Every town, every neighborhood, every block. Assuming (excessively broadly) that Hillary’s supporters are as lost as the campus rioter types (I did say excessive) figure a minimum of 62 million casualties not counting the children that always get caught up in adult stupidity. It’s why I’m always cautioning when I think the civil war talk gets excessive. Sadly my worst fears are probably conservative.
Yeah… mayhaps I do, and I just don’t like thinking about it.
thoughtful post.
On both sides there are racists and both are repugnant.
ps Thomas Sowell against Barack Obama on anything, any day, ever.
Real pity. Think what the world could have been with Sowell as president.
Tom Kratman said it best. It was a pity the first black President wasn’t Thomas Sowell instead of Barack Obama.
“Morgan Freeman’s approach is one possible fix. But that only works so long as the folks here regard themselves as Americans first, and whatever ethnic background they possess second. If your American-ness, if you will, trumps skin color, then it is possible to do as Mr. Freeman suggests.”
This was actually working in the 60’s-70’s, racists learned to keep it to themselves or else but they’ve turned all that around. Not among that generation. There is ONE black guy at our gun club. He does not feel out of place, imo.
Tom Kratman speculated that desegregation could have been handled a lot better. And, of course, if LBJ and his Great Society hadn’t wrecked the black family, as Thomas Sowell indicated in his books… maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation we are.
It really sucks. There’s no other way to put it.
Try this:
“No, YOU are the Racist here! You just feel guilty because I exposed you!”
The statement requires no proof. The accusation is what matters. TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.
Cui Bono? Who benefits from the ongoing ideological subversion?
Russia prefers a crippled America over a powerful one, precisely because their national pride is wounded because the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.
The U.S. was prepared to view Russians as having been liberated from the Soviets; as having been essentially victims of the Soviets. But for many Russians, the strength and fearsomeness of the Soviet Union was a source of national pride. We must remember that Soviet Communism was never very far from being Russian Nazism: The lightly-held “internationalism” of the Russians never extended so far as tolerating any other people-group becoming the leaders of world communism. They were about as willing that Mao be the worldwide symbol of communism as the Saudis are for Iran to be the leaders of Islam!
So, yes, Putin would be perfectly happy to see America collapse into squabbling Balkanized states perpetually at war with one another. It would allow him to think, “See? I didn’t really back the wrong horse after all. Instead, we are now ascendant, and the Americans just took a little longer to fall apart.”
And that’s just Russia.
The Chinese certainly feel similarly. The Iranians even more so.
And for that matter, why shouldn’t still other countries try to seize opportunities for world-leadership. Suppose that Russia ideologically implodes and China’s demographic problems and economic tinkering prevent them rising. Why shouldn’t India take “their rightful place” as the lead economic power of the world? Or Brazil? Or Iran?
NOTE: I am not saying any of these outlandish notions are plausible. Certainly not in the next century; possibly not the next five.
I am only saying that there are two states of the world: Unipolar, and non-unipolar. Either the “top spot” is unassailable, with one country in the lead and impossible to unseat; or, the “top spot” is assailable, and some other country might benefit from the ill-fortune of whoever formerly led the world.
Because of the consequences of ideological subversion, the U.S. is clearly “assailable” in its “top spot” designation. Nobody doubts that.
And in that situation, the list of other countries hoping to ascend as the U.S. descends is long.
And since ideological subversion has caused so much damage to the U.S., any country that wants to ascend will prefer that the ideological subversion continue apace.
Who benefits? Pretty much everyone else.
There are a few exceptions: If another country has largely coupled its interests with those of the U.S., it will be hurt by the fall of the U.S. until it manages to become decoupled…and that might be hard to do. The obvious example of this is the U.K.: If the world becomes China-dominated or Russia-dominated, the interests of the U.K. will probably suffer significantly. They cannot become disentangled from the U.S. very quickly.
But in the long-term, if the Americans become useless or a hindrance to their interests, even the U.K. will seek ties with the new dominant power over-and-against the U.S.
And as for other countries? Countries whose ties to the U.S. are more ephemeral?
They will ditch the U.S. like a bad prom date. The Philippines were first. Who’s next?
And, having ditched the U.S. in favor of China, why wouldn’t the Philippines hope for further ideological erosion in the U.S.? Not only would it not hurt them, it would make their decision look prescient.
I’m not sure Russia really benefits from destabilizing the US, at this point. America acts as a sort of restraint on China’s behavior — at least to some extent.
In the absence of American hegemony, China would probably become Russia’s chief rival.
But Russia is certainly not the best friend of America, either. In some areas, it could be useful to cooperate with them (against Islamic terror, for instance). But in other areas, we are definite rivals (especially where Eastern Europe is concerned).
It’s messy. But my primary point is that they are not the crazy, dedicated, ideological enemies bent on our destruction that they were during the Soviet period.
If any one country was stirring the SJW pot, my money would be on China.
I am not sure you are correct: so far it looks like USA are fomenting conflicts on Russia’s periphery trying to turn its neighbours “into squabbling Balkanized states perpetually at war with one another”.
Seriously? The former Warsaw Pact states have a real fear of Russian expansionism and you blame the US for destabilizing? Even Sweden and Finland are nervous enough at Russian actions to be considering asking for NATO membership. You probably blame the US for the Russians doing flybys at 300 feet over US warships.
I blame Bill Clinton for talking the Ukrainians out of their nukes. If Ukraine still had nukes, Russia wouldn’t be bothering them in the first place, and Russia expansionism would have been stopped cold.
And then you have Obama, who tried to out-bluff Putin. He was a moron. Putin knew Obama was a feckless loser and wouldn’t do anything. Hence Russian flybys.
Fortunately, love him or hate him, Trump is likely to put a stop to that sort of behavior.
“Yet we are seeing the destabilization right now, the unprecedented resistance to Trump’s administration. We see even semi-serious calls for secession in places like California.
So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?”
The same people who took power in 1917-22 in Russia. Professional Revolutionaries, trained in progressive thought patterns that justify the progressive engrossment of the State, as the primary employer of everyone, but most pointedly the academically trained clerks needed for new government bureaucracies. This then guarantees the need for more tenured positions inside academia to produce said clerks.
It is, after all, no oddity that progressive thought sprang from and retains its greatest strongholds inside academia. Academia, and particularly the academic hierarchies that control academia, are the most strongly supported beneficiaries of the Progressive State. The tactical distortions of definitions inside academia started no later than 1922, with Willi Munzenberg’s appointment as head of the COMINTERN’s “Cultural Office”. Willi was a genius at this job, among several others.
In 1922 they did not start with “gender” definitions. They started with the definition of the “industrial revolution”. They wanted to claim that the progressive State under totalitarian communist rule was an exemplar of the industrial revolution, whose powerful and positive transformation of society was universally recognized. Their problem was that the standard definition of the industrial revolution was Arnold Toynbee’s, from 1884:
“When a society moves from allocating resources by “custom and tradition” (read here, politics) to allocating resources by by markets, it may be said to have undergone an ‘industrial revolution’.”
Of course, what the Marxists proposed was to reverse that change completely. They would be properly be shown up as reactionaries against the greatest revolution since the agricultural revolution. This meant another definition of industrial revolution was needed. They had this at the ready in Fredrich Engels’ 1866 definition of the industrial revolution. Engels described it as simply the acquisition of mass production, steam engines, and railroads, to which he ascribed the Union’s victory in the recent American Civil War. Everyone wants to be like a winner. This magical definition (it ascribes magical properties to hunks of stuff that have no will of their own) about how humans act was properly disregard for decades, ….till 1922.
In the 15 years that Munzenberg headed the COMINTERN “Cultural Office”, the dominant definition of “industrial revolution”, through his support of progressive professors inside academia, became the dominant definition inside academia. In the 15 years after that, it infiltrated society as a whole and became respectable. By 1972 it was almost impossible to find an academic who knew there had ever been any other definition for the industrial revolution other than the magical hunks of stuff of Fredrick Engels.
So, when unresisted, these grammscian changes in definition take about 30-50 years to dominate society’s thinking. We *must* resist!
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit. There are two types of reply to an accusation of racism (or indeed, sexism, homophobia etc).
1. If you think you can engage in discussion with your accuser: “you are wrong”. This is a better response than “No, I’m not!” because the response shifts focus away from you and back to your accuser. This brings into question their credibility. This opens up the possibility of asking them to prove their accusation; it may also lead to unpacking what they mean by “racism” or “race” (there’s much more to the line of argument that unpacks the concept of “race”, but I’ll leave it there for now).
2. In terms of one-word retorts, responding to someone calling you “racist” by calling them “tyrant” or “liar”. Again, this shifts the focus back to the accuser and calls into question their credibility (as well as being, in most cases, true). While I would like to say that, of the two responses, “tyrant” is more effective (because that is what most accusers are, at heart), it is “liar” that is probably better rhetorically (who believes a liar when they accuse you of racism?).
Pretty much. Either you force them to produce evidence, or you dismiss on the basis that the person is being an asshole. Those really do appear to be the only positions that can work. And even then, it won’t convince the Leftist. But it might convince fence-sitters that the Leftist is being an idiot, or an ass. That’s about as much as one can hope for, these days.
There’s no need anymore to convince the leftist of anything. Like Bezmenov said – they won’t listen. They cannot learn new things, as they have been programmed/indoctrinated, and their very identity is completely dependent on the indoctrination.
I’ve tried, believe me. There’s just no reasoning with them.
it’s all just identity politics now.
I assume I have as much chance of changing someone else’s worldview as they do of changing mine.
Still, I can’t help opening my mouth and arguing.
Kinda frightens me when I realize I have actually had some impact upon people. Most people go with the flow and a good counter argument can make an impression.
My parents were born during the early years of the depression. My mother was from a working class Polish family. My stepfather was a southern Kentucky farm boy. Not places you go to be Un-American. So my nationalism was never in doubt. Being a vet and a Heinlein fan cemented my devotion to country and Constitution. The Progressives don’t like it tough. When I took my son to college I would sit and watch Fox News. Every time Obama would say or do something stupid I couldn’t avoid commenting. there was a lot of blacks at the school and the only time I was called racist was by a white liberal. Not to my face of course. Apparently my don’t give a crap attitude scared her. When one of the black s I talked to told me I laughed. After that I never heard another comment about me being a racist.
Final comment and I’ll shut my yap:
“So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?”
The SJWs and their ilk, that’s who. But they are simply tools of the democratic party, which is now utterly dominated by the far left/progressive/neocommunofascist wing.
Per Strauss and Howe, this current crisis period will likely resolve itself by the middle of the next decade. By then, either the country will have fractured or it will have submitted itself to one of the two sides – the SJW/Radical Left or the rest of us.
My money is on the rest of us. The SJW/Radical Left is too self-destructive and psychotic to be able to take the reins of power. I anticipate that by 2024, they’ll have been so discredited that they’ll disappear from the scene.
I think tsw is on the right track, but not optimistic enough. I think we just saw the election of 1968, and the left thinks the way to prevail is to ridicule and obstruct Trump, just as they thought the way to win after 1968 would be to obstruct Nixon. The election of 2020 will be a replay of the election of 1972.
It does seem to be coming to a head.
No party can realistically lose power now.
Either the Republicans destroy the Democrats now or the Democrats destroy the Republicans if they get in again.
The Democrats are an alliance of far-left special interest groups and the precedents they are setting now have changed the game.
Obstructionism, Sedition, Violent protests, Intimidation, Propaganda, Censorship. A scorched earth policy that targets anyone who is not part of their doctrine.
Either they accept defeat now and support the administration or they will change the nation and the world for the worse.
Actions beget reactions and adaptation. An administration that has to govern under these continuing conditions and a population that is opposed to revolutionary militancy will tend to become more authoritarian not libertarian.
I don’t want to go down the conspiritard road. But… I think there are definite players out there, beyond the SJWs (who are the useful idiots). Soros and those like him are probably part of this. But I suspect the rot goes deeper.
Just a suspicion though. I’ve no hard evidence of that.
“So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?”
The coastal elites of both major parties whose money controlled DC and its works until Trump’s arrival, along with all the minions whose loyalty their money bought.
Re your last sentence- no-one. The Soviet Union died before it’s poison had time to work. But the poison carries on working.
Indeed it does.
Thank you for this. It’s summed up many feelings I’ve had all these years.
I know people are ideologically subverted to react negatively to the perfectly valid word “conspiracy,” so I will humor you by substituting the alternative word “cahootancy.” There is and has been a vast global cahootancy of politicians and banksters and religious leaders to bring the spirit of antichrist to power in the carnal fleshly person called the Beast. The rulers of the earth, and the merchants of the earth, and the religious misleaders of the earth, all want to give their power unto the Beast, because they love the darkness and hate the light and because God has turned them over to the dark side in order to fulfill His sovereign will regarding the end of this present aeon. It was never about the USSR, per se or even communism, as wicked as it is:
Ephesians 6:12
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against PRINCIPALITIES, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
What should those of us who love the light and who want to walk in the light, as God is in the light?
Regarding politics we should learn from the words of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 20:25
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:42
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Luke 22:25
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
The environmental particularly glol warming is another consequence of a communist ideological subversion.
Clearly, the charge of racism as a denigration is purely ideological, since the Left handily embraces racism when the targeted person of color happens to be a conservative, and the true hatred is not of those that look different, but of those who think differently.
Racism is just a tool in the toolbox for them. They use it whenever advantageous for them, and discard it whenever it won’t benefit them.
It’s not principle with them.
“So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?”
A hundred or so oligarchs spread around the globe. Waiting is one thing. Getting is another.
We owe you and Francis many thanks for your pieces today. For the clarity, and for the clarion call. While I am thankful for the good fortune of the election of Trump, and his selection of Pence as VP, and that Donald has brought us a man of the caliber of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia, I remain only cautious optimistic.
This will involve all of us. If we do our usual “Well, I voted for the best of the two” and then let him try to navigate alone until the next election what is out there (and Donald clearly understands the threats), then Trump will fail. That we might not have another election is no longer alarmist or a conspiracy theory. How could it be, with all us of seeing and hearing and reading daily of just how strong and motivated the America communists have become, and how they have used our own Constitutional system against us!
The shit has already hit the fan – it is just splattering on our faces and inciting our sense of smell – right now!. None of us can ignore it. We can try to make peace with it, as we tried after WWII, or play deadly neocon a la the old Buckley-ite “conservative )(add Irv and Bil Kristol and their sycophants) – now exposed as a miserable failure. You can’t drop those large firecrackers in silos on the “landmass America.” That is sure and certain suicide.suicide.
Those who can see clearly and see (you, Fran, Vox Day, and the other critical thinkers – the list is long) and those like myself and your readers here – who “get it” – need to begin to respond. Donald goes to where they hide out and plan. Milo (all criticisms aside) takes the fight directly to the agitators and commies. We need to encourage those who voted with Trump to get active in cleaning out the reproductive hives of that crap we call colleges and universities. We need to tell those confronting us that we are taking names and coming back after you. It calls for the understanding of war that we had after Pearl. Men stood in line to sign up and go after the enemy. We ARE on a war’s footing.
It will be a yeoman’s task, but each of us can play OUR part. The simple fact of the matter is that if we do not, and if the American citizenry refuses to see the worms gnawing at their very own flesh, then we as “American” are doomed already. And that Europe is worse! Oy vey!
Again – great and timely piece. Thank you. Jeff Baxter (jb)
Who, indeed? This is the Question! Oligarchs? Then equally important question is: why? what would they gain? They are far from stupid and they do know history lessons: after upheaval no property remains in original hands
Gramscian damage: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
Also the Frankfurt School: “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace”, by Michael Walsh
-HR
A lot of folks have been sending links to this material lately… I’m digging into it now. Very interesting read.
Fair return for getting me started in the direction of all the byzantine/islamic history that isn’t taught.
I don’t recall if it was you that mentioned
Emmet Scott, but his re-evaluation of Henri Pirenne’s work is fascinating. And highly convincing.
-HR
It may well have been me. Emmet Scott’s Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited was an engaging read, and a pretty convincing argument that Pirenne was right.
… ” you liar. I want to treat every human being equally. You’re the racist. You want to treat people differently based on their race. You’re a racist. Do you support affirmative action? That’s racism against white people. Maybe it’s justified, but it’s racist.”
As long as racism against whites is considered OK, there will be racism. The Democrats want racism to be around, and blame bad human behavior by bad humans on racism, rather than bad individual decisions.
Only response to “you’re a racist”: “why, because of my light skin?”
That’s a good one. Though, these days, Progressives are likely to say “yes, all white people are racist.”
Thus, your article on the “Toxic Whiteness”. I can’t believe that’s a real thing.
I think it’s funny that you all think it’s all about the Russians doing this to us…..wake up hey, it’s our own government trying to make us docile….like cattle and trump is just more of the Same always was meant to be…..this type of the illusion of free choice in the elections is just another demoralization tactic..it’s all fake wake up wake up wake up…..who has more to gain by the subversion of the American public? Those who are already in power the Elitists we will call them since I can’t think of another name …..you write about it as if you are somehow unaffected…..they put these hateful towards Russians beliefs into us …..you are all subverted by the United States of America and no one else
Not the Russians, sir. It was the Soviets. KGB. Yuri Bezmenov explains it quite well. Now our own government is continuing the mission, even though the KGB is long gone. The poisoner is dead by his own hand, but the poison continues to work.
Whether or not Trump is a part of that remains to be seen.
I’m not sure who will take power.
But as these things have panned-out historically, many of the folks on the winning side will end up like Robespierre, Trotsky and millions of anonymous victims of the guillotine and killing fields.
Revolutions eat their own, but today’s leftists won’t realize it–until it’s too late.
Words mean things. Take back the language. Re-redefine the terms.
When they call you a racist – tell-em, Yea I like to go fast!
“Virtue signalling”
That’s interesting.
Need to understand this better to recognize it and then when recognized use it as an attack vector for some “active measure” Jujitsu.
Have a nice day…
Very good article! I think the question you leave on air can be answerd by pointing out some people holding high positions in international hierarchy : Guterres ( ONU), a socialist, Pope Francis, another socialist, Obama replaced by Clinton, also socialist. The revolt against Trump has to do with the fact that their plans got, well, trumped. This is how they expect to control the world via globalism, not globalisation, centering power more and more, in order to change the World Order into socialism.