The secondary bibliography on Hillary is insane – talk about clout. The controversy disrupting their equalism revolution caused. We’re still dealing with the consequences of that today – dialectics, man, I like it, I don’t like it, I like it and don’t like it. Looking at that bibliography my first thought is “Monica Lewinsky”. How did that affect American women at the time? That’s awful that happened to her. “Men are pigs” resonance through the nation? Then we had that bumbling idiot Bush. Lots of reasons to hate white men with those two. I wonder if any of those secondary books hyperlinked above address the matter outside of the PC prison. I wish we could have a real discussion about it. “Feminism shouldn’t be controversial!” Well did you see that list of secondary books and the anti-trump movement the last four years. It’s all about feminism, it’s all directly about the feminism question, so yeah I’d say it’s controversial even if you don’t want it to be, so people should be able to ask non-PC questions about it without freaking out. I know I’m asking for the impossible, it just shows we’re right about woman’s hysteria. They see red when I say that which just intensifies the hysteria. I try to have the discussion at least! I’ll settle with you halfway how bout? A right-wing female president might not be too bad, and could possibly “send a good message”, which is what the intention of the globalists behind Hillary seemed to be. Reading her memoir, she’s knowledgeable about the world, moreso than most men, and clearly has more experience in government than Trump did. The “polished plastic” way about her is still prominent- regardless though she has those merits mentioned. It’s the dogmatic, unreflected-upon postwar ideology that is the problem with her, the general cancerous leveling repercussions that arise from subscription to the “democratic” nexus of beliefs. If a woman didn’t believe in all that then I could see little girls being inspired in a good by a female president. Like I’ve said, Hillary probably wouldn’t be boring to talk to, and you can’t say that about many women. She’s knowledgeable about the world and intellectually mature in her own way, just unfortunately a bot-liberal! Ok I’m done shilling for Hillary, just trying to have a fair, balanced discussion no one else wants to have.
“I’m done with politics.” -one hour later- Finding some genealogy on the present
Ever Hillary has pulled coups, and you haven’t- how’s that make you feel? 2016-today they’ve been trying to pull a soft coup in their own country! Similar mental toolkit they used in foreign countries probably. They spent all their time bringing democracy to other countries, only to lose in a democracy, and then try to reverse the election – the irony of that. Hillary’s 2014 memoir offers a rare first-person account of the globalist mindset which admittedly makes me sympathize with her somewhat
The first I click is Latin America since that’s the place that most immediately affects our current political moment and find this
I’m beginning to get the impression that a lot of our problems related to the border wall might be explained by the ego of Mexicans.
They can’t take criticism, if the reaction to seeing those files is any symptom.
Is any of this even that offensive?
Seems like a baby to be honest. (No I don’t have the urge to post that picture of an orangutan in a Mickey shirt.) Remember this guy, Calderon?
We’re connected to Mexico in ways we aren’t with other countries. Disconnected you might call it (when you relate that to our relation to Canada). And you might be beginning to see why sensitive documents are a threat to national security. Calderon said Pascual’s criticism caused “severe damage” to our diplomatic relations. I wonder.. Wikileaks->Trump.. to some degree? -smoking man from x files voice- There’s been a security breach!
If those criticisms need to be locked away as “sensitive documents” I think Calderon was just being oversensitive.
Maybe his reaction can help us understand our diplomatic relations with them today? If they’re going to be next door we should probably try to get a good understanding of them, yeah?
This is where PC originates, their oversensitivity. “People have feelings!” Do they want their country to improve or not? Do you want the last four years over again, leftists? You might be getting just that because you refuse to stop being so sensitive.
Didn’t watch the debates, figured it would cause me to cringe too many times. Reading text of establishmentarians is almost too much to endure- hearing them talk is just too much. People do this voluntarily?
I’m done with contemporary politics. Just need a girl to sit on my lap so I can tickle her ribs until she says Stop! – the simple things.
I don’t live on the earth I don’t walk on the earth
My disgust and disdain for those who can’t escape the terrestrial circuits has caused me to fly as far away from them as possible, I want to walk on the earth again.
The circuit model of consciousness is just Leary’s scientistic reframing of the Hindu chakra-system—yet another thing the hippies and new-agers ruined. They are what happens when the circuits themselves are interpreted from a terrestrial-circuit standpoint.
When I think about the idea of “democracy makes me laugh” this is the picture
Miserable women with easily detectable mental illnesses trying to rationalize why being like Rosie is worth their depression.
Enjoy the next seven decades of being alone like the hag you are.
Jeffrey Epstein is alive right now reading my posts thinking you fool you don’t know anything. “Who would be surprised” – everyone feels like they’re being lied to, that’s just the normal experience here. He starts replying to my posts with an unhackable IP address saying he was set up, he was the one trying to take them down – “who would be surprised”. He says every article, every single one, every book about me, it’s all sabotage, it’s part of a broader plot to preserve their image. He says the covert agencies are not one monolith, there is a war between them. What would you think if you saw that under my posts? Jeffrey replies saying they told him if he didn’t trick little girls into jacking goats off, they would kill ten little girls instead. What do you do in that situation, he asks. No one is here to tell his story, and it’s all so corrupt, “I wouldn’t be surprised”.
We look down on Putin here for the poisonings and then this kind of thing happens and we all forget about it. Yeah tell yourself that, we’re the moral arbiters of the world.
This has nothing to do with that, right?
Is Iran “the wrong one” or is it that we just have the nukes and the military bases and the intelligence offices and they don’t?
Just think of the Tibetans as the most prominent example. They have better things to do, meditating on the divine. Might is right, majority rules, your religion is the opiate of the masses. The Tibetans can’t even have a dialogue with them, just like the Iraqis can’t have a dialogue with us, because they don’t have the numbers or the bombs. If you think back to the Iraq War (which is unheard of because it’s another one of those “forgotten wars”) ask yourself what you would have done if you were Saddam and actually had “weapons of mass destruction”. I don’t know about you, if I was Saddam and I actually had those, I probably would’ve used them. The fact that he didn’t use any just proves that he never had them. Now consider this idea, kinda funny- the Dalai Lama developing nuclear bombs. I would have supported him. “Stupid chinks with their western texts” messing with him is my first thought. Now apply that to Saddam’s case. People talk about coups and destabilizations of Latin America and the Middle East, and they often overlook how Marxism destabilized China. It led to the most deaths of any political regime known to history and they still call themselves Marxists. Do you think there is some kind of western information-manipulation involved with that? America, Russia, Europe all conspiring to poison the Chinese with enlightenment values, just like Hillary in my previous post with Latin America. Just some things to think about. Main idea I want to express is that there are parallels between liberal imperialism of past times and its manifestation today – there is a sense in which you are being forced to believe certain things.
This picture of her is kind of funny, it almost makes me like her more
I’ve said it before, there is something enviable about her, she knows things we don’t
This is a type of “beyond good and evil” that theorists no nothing about. I strongly suspect a certain cognitive freedom is unlocked that she doesn’t let on to, putting on the guise of a “fellow citizen”. That and the sensitive documents she’s probably had access to. This is in line with the “fusion” I’ve speculated about creating between two trajectories of thinking. The military “Yes sir!” mentality, the unwavering patriotism, and allegiance to the ideals of the state and the protection of national security is necessary to be in the CIA or Mossad, because they’ll detect if youre “shifty”, “think for yourself”, early on and you’ll be weeded out, same with politicians. This is one trajectory of thought that has access to a particular geopolitical awareness that I’m postulating Hilary has that she hides. The other kind characterized by independence from the mind-prison of the state and its demands of perpetual submission that permits not 1% of skepticism without branding you as a traitor, potential “sleeper spy” that can’t be trusted with the most sensitive information or in the most covert operations. A new frontier of political philosophy is possible here if this fusion were somehow created. Might as well be a sci-fi idea since these trajectories of beyond good and evil thinking never intersect, or rarely do and are similarly filed away as a threat to national security. People see Wikileaks as having this aura of possibility- I’ve never seen a doc from them that could create the fusion I’m thinking of, a higher plateau of thinking about the world and politics.
Reading up on the Mossad on a Palestinian website about the murder of Iranian scientists I realize that the most censored/redacted/scrubbed thing on the internet is the knowledge of how to build nuclear bombs. Isn’t that the situation Iran is in? All they need is a textbook, right? Sanctions forever, possibly war, if Russia were to give them a few nukes. Or if they snuck a textbook into their country – if it was traced back to them. Then further if the Iranians used it on the US or one of its allies, they would be seen as responsible. Where did North Korea get this knowledge? China probably? (I bet Xi secretly likes having a “rogue nation” attached to his country). So why doesn’t Iran kidnap a professor or a scientist who has the knowledge? Doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult. How many are there? It’s not like nerds are under constant surveillance to prevent that, right? One of those Jasons, if they staged his death and he disappears, who would know he was being tortured in Iran until he wrote a guide or built some nukes himself? You know I really hate liberal democracy if I’m even having these thoughts “haha”. What’s interesting to me is that it isn’t ideas in the form of theories that are the most dangerous thing to find on the internet- rather it’s nuclear technology instructions. No I’m not going to google how to build a nuclear bomb to see if I’m write that it’s not on the internet, I’m already up to my neck in shit enough I don’t need to add that to my list. Just seems to follow that it’s not on the internet otherwise lots of countries would be able to build them and would have already. This is how the situation in Iran seems to me- they’re trying to cultivate an Einstein of their own and they keep (ironically) bombing potential ones to death. Who is it that would be the one who teaches these potential Einsteins I wonder? If the teacher had the knowledge why wouldn’t he just use it to build a nuke? Anyway, just some thoughts, hopefully I’m not giving any Iranians any ideas.
Seems like this should have been one of the first things that showed up in a search, and I’m just seeing it now, after reading about it in a book that cites that former spy Ari Ben-Menashe I mentioned last night
This photo was taken last August—apparently staged by her lawyer who has property in Israel cough—that it is so “rare” might indicate it’s a threat to national security. She wasn’t arrested until July so they must have been contemplating what to do after this move.
Let’s see what this book is about
To give you an idea of what we’re dealing with here, try not to puke when you read the following anecdote from his Zorro Ranch, the only property of his the FBI hasn’t raided for some reason
Pedophilia and bestiality—and the CIA? As disturbing the implications of this are, this should make anyone who distrusts the covert agencies happy.
Which one? Likely various ones. While Maxwell probably sold out the CIA above because she has her (((priorities))) she probably knows just as many Mossad secrets.
Double-agents, and probably willing to be a triple-agent and sell both the CIA and Mossad out if it means she gets a get out of jail free card for it. Who would dare interfere with those two organizations though?
Who has old man Maxwell’s files now? Was he engaging in the same Epsteinian behavior and methods? Are the covert agencies continuing to do it with a new Epstein?
People that know some of the things Maxwell knows are scared into silence
Think any of this will be brought up at the debates tonight? “Our” and foreign intel agencies operating in the US involved in the height of lawlessness and depravity, no I don’t see why it should be mentioned.
Pondering the nature of presidency. I saw a picture of the president of Argentina and thought “Huh, so that’s Argentina.” We stereotype countries like that. I heard that Bolsonaro was a torturer in the old days and people knew that about him when they voted for him. See the way I refer to “they”. That’s “them”. It’s “their” people, “they’re” the Brazilians. (If enough people get murdered in your city you might start liking the idea of a torturer.) Anyway, people stereotype us like that too, the left doesn’t like that they see us as “a people like that” at least at first glance. Other peoples thinking that’s who we are. Impolite is probably the most accurate way to describe how they see Trump. Many will say it’s that he’s dishonest- really, that’s just their polite way of calling him impolite. The MSM is polite, and he attacks them. That’s probably what this term will be remembered for if I had to guess. Presidential terms are battles over what the truth is. Bush’s truth was that it’s moral to invade places across the world that are a danger (we now know the less exoteric dimension of that), and Obama’s truth was that black people are not necessarily irresponsible criminals (some of us know the less exoteric dimension of that).
So there are two different levels to Trump vs. the MSM. He calls them liars and they try to smear him, that’s one level. The next level is what he calls them liars about. He doesn’t often make this explicit, mostly just dismissing him, while they in response don’t really get into the philosophy of it either, choosing instead to caricature the man with ad hominem rather than the ideas he represents. What does the MSM represent? It’s actually close to what Bush and particularly Obama represented, and Trump is an outsider in this sense. The way I think of Bush is as being concerned with people outside of the US. The MSM is similar in their pro-immigrant stance. Biden obviously is indistinguishable from the MSM in this and in the “black people are not more frequently irresponsible criminals” idea. The present-day republicans won’t disagree with this idea explicitly although the empiricism and statistics confirm it, hence I accuse them of an inherent liberalism, or as being their own kind of Democrats. The republicans do though seem to be against the Bush-like idea that we should concern ourselves with other countries, i.e. “America-Firstism”. Republicans are anti-Semitic in this sense in a way, leaving poor splinter Israel among those Muslim nazis that hate it. The basic question in contemporary politics seems to be whether the US is a charity center. Think of when I saw the Argentinian president and thought Huh that’s Argentina- Trump represents the idea that No the US isn’t a charity center. You can think of it this way- Are you going to volunteer at a soup kitchen 7 days a week? At what point will you need to have to visit a soup kitchen yourself? Don’t you want to live your life? For many leftists that is their life, and with the corporacracy the way it is, many get paid for it rather than volunteering strictly speaking. The UAE deal is a way Trump has volunteered at the soup kitchen, he volunteers a lot more than leftists give him credit for, and a lot more than I’d personally like. A lot of that is probably optics, given our soup kitchen state religion’s power. Which brings me to my main point- the stereotyping of presidents can be misleading if your research and thought about them is minimal. There’s are different layers to Trump that even people in the US aren’t aware of, similar to Argentina’s and Brazil’s I’m sure. What confuses a lot of people is that the president here is condensed into a person, a face, so it’s easier to say Huh so that’s what America is, when the reality is that we live in a “tyranny of the soup kitchen”, mandatory, enforced charity. The MSM, academy, etc etc are all in lockstep in support of this, they’re just not one face like the president is, they’re scattered, fragmented, and so this can distract people from seeing that the soup kitchen mentality is king.
You deserve to be silenced if you’re a monkeyperson, those are just the facts.