#I say this even knowing Malcolm X believed Jews control the world

[notaplaceofhonour]

I don’t know who needs to hear this but famed civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were not talking about pogroms or shooting up music festivals and daycares when they said “a riot is the language of the unheard” and resistance “by any means necessary” respectively.

#I say this even knowing Malcolm X believed Jews control the world #but he got that quote from Fanon who was talking about resisting a colonial *regime* not kids #stop weaponizing dead civil rights leaders to justify atrocities challenge 2023 #mlk #civil rights #i/p #antisemitism #‘don’t commit massacres’ is not respectability politics

[unitedstates-of-fonz89]

Gandi...

No, it is not, and history would not so kindly explain that. Hitler and the Nazi’s used propaganda and brutality to paint a picture to the public that all of Germanys misfortunes were because of the “Jews” he could have been more wrong. He did not care for peace; he did not care for submission. I think Gandhi did not consider that the Jews did not see pride in being persecuted; they were saddened and afraid; I do not blame them. I think of the same when I envision the transatlantic slave trade, where Africans were sold by whites, their own people, and many others. Neither group was violent, and it took a lot more than a few hundred for the world to figure out the truth of the brutality of these two groups. Martin Luther King Jr exercise non-violence for the bulk of his career. The March on Washington, Selma, Montgomery Bus Boycott, all were nonviolent and he preached the phrase of “loving his enemy” but year after year of savage brutality even he managed to flip the script on non-violence as he aged he became more of a militant and I see this as a result of not seeing a lot of progress using on violent tactics. He never preached violent acts, but I am 100% sure that he grew tired of being spat on and ruffed up as he was marched to jail because of basically exercising his right to protest. One of his piers was a man known for his more radical approach towards injustice; Malcolm X did not believe in nonviolence. In fact, he had a famous saying “It’s time to stop singing and start swinging” I guess Satyagraha was not something he would be in favor for. Minister Malcom believed that one can only fight fire with fire although he too never preached violence, he did preach self defense amongst his supporters. The mere siting of blacks with rifles scared a lot of Americans but that did not faze him at all. He wanted blacks to feel comfortable in their skin and know that they had the right just as anyone else to defend themselves. Nonviolence and passive actions never accounted for success. I completely agree with Bhikkhu Parekh “‘a Jewish Gandhi in Germany, should one arise, could function for about five minutes and would be promptly taken to the guillotine” what I interpreted that as saying is that it would equate to a passing comet or tolerated for an extremely short period of time (he stated five minutes). The Germans were a many notch higher than the Brits when it came to control. Millions of Jews suffered torment brought onto them based on lies and stereotypes. As I stated earlier Hitler did not care for peace; and he did not let anything stop him from attaining absolute power in doing so.

Malcolm X and King both saw that although peace is the more admirable way to go; it was a people’s responsibility to show a defiant stance towards their oppressors. Satyagraha preaches “passive resistance” well African slaves weren’t read their Miranda rights when they were transported, and European Jews never were afforded any decency because of one tyrant’ paranoia. Gandhi’s heart was in the right place, but the Brutality of the world does not account for peace but only anguish and the pursuit for one’s selfish goals at the expense of those who could be exploited…

I hope you enjoyed my post….

[eliminativism]

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your opinion on this: takimag(.)com/article/top_10_trump_myths_gavin_mcinnes#axzz4WT8GdY44

McInnes is a partisan provocateur, like Milo Yannopoulos. I wouldn’t take what he writes too seriously.

We are already beyond McCarthyism - the alt-rightists and neo-nationalists on tumblr are so far gone that they cannot read a single thing in the press they don’t like without mocking it as fake news. They are worse than feminists - and I say that as someone who has an anti-feminist with very radical anti-feminist stances for three years. You basically cannot get more anti-feminist than I am.

And I consider feminists more redeemable than people like McInnes lately.

The truth is that while the press has problems, you cannot throw everything out of the window without checking. But the “parallel media”, aka right-wing news blogs, have established themselves among their audience to provide any kind of lazy copy-pasting to show “the left media” is wrong, regardless of whether it’s accurate, as long as it reeinforces the biases of their audience. You can find whole networks right-wing blogs for anything, with vast databases of sources they built up - for the world being flat, for chemtrails being used to poison the population, that the world is cooling down and global warming is a hoax, that Noah’s flood was real, that Trump is a reasonable individual.

I have spoken against such falsehoods repeatedly, and always I have found people to be more stubborn and hostile than even a rabbid SJW could be - often from people who would love to point out how ridiculous SJWs are.

Simple fallacy: Just because one other position is wrong does not allow you to conclude your position is right.

Feminism and the new right follows the same human tendencies: The tendencies to see patterns, to see themselves as victims and deserving of more than they have etc.

The “left-wing media” is basically the right-wing’s patriarchy. Lot’s of plausible sounding platitudes with some enacdotal evidence here and there, but nothing overarching.

But maybe back to your link.

What McInnes does here is that he specifically picks a few things he can challenge to some degree and then makes the blatant statement that he is always right and the “left” is always wrong. Let’s break it down.

1) This statement by Trump has been blown out of proportion by the media, but it is also not what is really important about Trump’s assumed sexual crimes.

He has been accused of rape by three different women - a business partner, his ex-wife and a thriteen year old.

The case of the thirteen year old occurred in the 90s in connection with a party of Jeffrey Epstein, who is a good friend of Trump - a convicted sex criminal who has an investment company which is offering financial product specifically for billionaires.

Trump was never convicted - he did donate a large sum of money to the persecutor who was supposed to handle the case of the 13 year old and the case was abbandoned - so one cannot say that he is guilty.

But considering that the neo-nationalists have been going crazy over Pizza-Gate, I wonder why the story about Epstein’s parties, in which the candidates for an underage model agency of his attended, and who, according to the organiser, had to give blowjobs to Epstein’s friends, including Trump, to get “a better chance” at a modeling career, would not spark the same interest. Hmmmmmmmmmm....

https://de.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

The case had a hearing on 16th of decembre. Maybe it is just a story of someone who hopes to get money, maybe there’s more to it. We’ll have to see what comes of it.

2) Maybe, maybe not. It would fit to Trump’s personality to mock someone for that, but I wouldn’t say that it shows a disdain for the disabled. He might have just considered it some strange antics of the reporter, without even thinking about a disability. But Trump’s dedicated enemies interpreted it in the most unflattering way possible.

3) “ I’ve been an entrepreneur my whole life. You’re pretty much looking at 12 failures for every successful venture“

This is ridiculous and shows that McInness is out of touch or lying.

Maybe such ventures with many bancruptcies is typical for a very small group of millionaire investors who are working in an American business climate where money is fast and loose.

But that has nothing to do with the normal economy. I have relatives who are entrepreneurs and business-owners, but all middle class, not upper class. Not one of them has ever grown bankrupt once. And those who do grow bankrupt in this field never recuperate - they have their debts to pay off for their whole life and hope their children don’t inherit the debts. And even if they recover, people are skeptical of making business with them further on.

Trump belongs to a financial class which is called “locusts”. They don't lose money from going bankrupt, they profit from going bankrupt. They never pay their debts - you know who stays with the debts? The small businesses Trump had contracts with, which he never payed and which he will get away with for never paying, because he can delay the court cases longer than small-businesses who barely have enough to continue to exist.

4) Everyone outsorces production to other countries when it makes sense.

That Trump does it is not the deal, the ridiculousness comes from Trump’s claim that he will bring the jobs back to America.

Yeah, he can... if the Americans are paid e.g. Chinese wages. Which will be an interesting enterprise with the costs of living in the US.

There is no system of encouragement behind outsourcing - with the additional cost of transport and the difficulty of running a business at a country you don’t speak the language of, and the often unstable legal situation in these low-wage countries, everything already speaks against producing there - but companies still do it because it makes economic sense. And it has been going on for so long that it shows it works.

Trump is not a hypocrit, he’s just a retard, like everyone else who believes that one can reverse that trend.

I mean, either that, or a Stalinist.

You would have to bring so much government control into businesses that you would basically disable capitalism if you wanted to dictate where a company can produce how much of what - and sell it for what price, if you want to keep it affordable.

I didn’t know Trump’s supporters would love to live on a kolchos, but surprises with them never end.

5) I never heard this, and I cannot say anything. Basically, if you are rich, it is easy for you to find ways to get richer. There are various ways to do that - legal and moral, or the Trump way. Both happens among that elite class.

6) This is Trump toeing the line to dehumanisation of immigrants just like the European neo-nationalists do with Muslims - they are all rapists, all criminals, it would be a better world if we would get rid of them etc. Oh, not “literally” all of them, but you know, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette...

This is just typical right-wing populism which is as old as modern politics itself. It’s not even something specific to Trump, it’s something every right-wing party does to some degree and it has been a beloved point of the Tea-Party movement, which considted of the most embarrasing American country hicks the world was ever displeased to witness on the news. McInness’ apologetics for it are laughable.

7) Well, Roe vs Wade is being attacked by many Trump fans.

I don’t really think Trump himself cares much. Trump just wants to make money - that’s what his presidency is about. He doesnt want you to bring the truth, he wants you to buy the newspapers his best friends own instead of those his friends don’t own.

If he could open a restaurant with dead fetus burgers, he would. The thing is that Trump is in bed with people who have ties to conservatism who would be interested in anti-abortion legislation. That ties in to the Republican senate keeping the surpeme court seat open for months without considering any candidate Obama suggested. Trump will suggest someone the rich American conservative establishment likes, so he lick their assholes and they can lick his.

8) Ties in to 7). If we look at Trump’s staff, he personally doesn't care about black vs brown vs white. He will just bring in anyone who will help him make money. He would appoint Göbbels for his talent of speaking to the press and he would butter up Malcolm X’s asshole if it would give him more support from the black vote.

Trump does not care about politics, he cares about $$$. He is completely amoral in that regard. And that’s how people who do care about polirics will be able to rise to political positions which would never be considered in any way fit for politics in a Western democracy. And Trump does not care what they will suggest in terms of social policies. That’s not his thing. If someone wants to build concentration camps with gas chambers on American soil, Trump would just ask “How does that sell? Do the approval numbers look good for that?” If the answer is positive, he would not care about the action itself.

That’s one of the big points about the campaign and the press coverage - people try to pin things like being against Jews of LGBT people on Trump, but it’s not true. Trump does not care. The thing is, Trump would also not care about the reverse. That is what Trump can be attacked about. He himself may not support bigotry, but if bigots would make him successful, they will be his best friends in the White House. That is the danger of Trump - not his personal views, but that he simply does not care. His lack of personal views is the danger.

9) Basically see 8). Trump will bend and break existing laws if he thinks it’s a thing that saying makes him popular. Immigration, right of assylum for the prosecuted - doesn’t matter, if it makes his voter base uncomfortable.

That’s exactly the same with Europe, Europe’s new right and England’s Brexit.

People have a “feeling” that something is wrong, they find some structure they pin their nebulous feelings to and then get agitated. Is there causality behind it? Doesn’t matter. Someone, somewhere is conspiring against me, and in my feeling of powerlessness I have to ruin it for everyone else. As I said, it’s why feminism is attractive to people with low self-esteem and a short-sighted view of society. The EU is the European right’s patriarchy or the post-marxist’s burgeouisie - people I have never met with some planned agenda against me that keeps me down, and though I cannot point to evidence or causality, enough people are talking about it that there must be something to it.

10) I have no idea what point McInness is trying to make here. If Trump wants to build a wall, he can. He cannot make the governent of Mexico pay for it. If America makes budget cuts to pay for the wall, then America makes budget cuts to pay for the wall. Has nothing to do with the government of Mexico. McInness is just rambling about a red herring.

#Anonymous #Ask

[democratsunited-blog]

D’Souza’s ‘Death of a Nation’ Shows Democrat ‘Plantation’ Still in Business

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=7035

D’Souza’s ‘Death of a Nation’ Shows Democrat ‘Plantation’ Still in Business

Dinesh D’Souza, a filmmaker and author of several New York Times bestselling books, has debunked powerful political myths that are alive in our culture. In previous works, he has shown that the claim that the Republican Party is the party of racism is a lie. He has also shown that the notion that fascism and Nazism are ideologies of the “right,” rather than the “left,” is based on a false framing of history.

In his upcoming film and book, “Death of a Nation,” D’Souza delves into another piece of history, showing that the “plantation” system of the early Democratic Party lives on in systems of heavy taxation, government dependence, and identity politics.

“What the book does is it tells kind of a new story of how the plantation has defined the Democratic Party from the very beginning,” D’Souza said.

In his earlier movie, “Hillary’s America,” D’Souza showed the Democratic Party is the party of slavery, the southern Confederacy, the Klu Klux Klan, and segregation. He noted this is “undisputed, historically,” but the left re-brands this history by claiming the Democrats shifted over time to become the party of civil rights and support for minorities. D’Souza said his new book and film “debunk” this narrative.

The Democrat Plantation

The movie poster for “Death of a Nation.” (Courtesy of Dinesh D’Souza)

According to D’Souza, the plantation system of the Democratic Party has gone through five phases, starting with the plantations that used black slaves, leading to today’s plantation system where minorities are rendered dependent on Democrat policies, using wealth the party takes from American taxpayers.

The key shift from the slave system of the south into today’s plantation system started with Martin Van Buren, eighth president of the United States from 1837 to 1841 and a leader of the New York Democratic Party. “Van Buren figured out that in the south there are slaves, but in the north there are poor penniless immigrants pouring into America: the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and so on.”

According to D’Souza, Van Buren had a realization that while he couldn’t directly use the slave system elsewhere, he could “create a system in which these immigrants can be completely dependent on the Democratic Party.” The Democratic Party would give them food, job references, and occasional help finding apartments; and in exchange the immigrants would vote the Democrats into power to enable them to take money from the U.S. treasury so they could finance the programs.

Through this system, D’Souza said, “the northern political machines which dominated the Democratic Party really for more than a century were themselves modeled on the slave plantation, except they didn’t use black slaves—they used newly-arriving immigrants.”

Under this new plantation system, D’Souza said, the Democratic Party conspired to “rip off the taxpayer, or the working man,” in order to finance the programs the party used to buy its votes. Meanwhile, he said, “the immigrant got the small end of the stick, because the immigrants were helpless. They didn’t know what was going on. They just ran into this Tammany machine in New York, for example, and it controlled their lives.”

As the Democrat plantation system developed over time, it eventually formed today’s plantation system. D’Souza described this as a “multi-racial plantation, in which the Democrats are essentially trying to reduce every ethnic group into a dependent constituency.”

The Democrat social welfare programs financed by heavy taxation have largely targeted minority groups, he said, and have led to the often hopeless situations in today’s ghettos, barrios, and Native American reservations. He said, “all these places are very similar—they’re places where people are poor, where education is terrible, where nobody gets ahead, where families are in dissaray, where there’s a lot of violence, and where there’s a lot of despair and nihilism, and where the vast, vast majority of people keep voting Democratic.”

The Lie of the ‘Fascist’ Right

D’Souza said the new film tells this story as well, but also includes elements from his recent book, “The Big Lie.” He said, “the core theme of the movie is to refute the race card and the fascism card. The race card is the Democrat idea that racism is now on the right, that’s it’s a phenomenon of the Republican Party and of Trump; and the fascism card is that fascism is on the right, and it’s now a phenomenon of Trump and the conservatives.”

“The movie takes on these two incendiary accusations,” he said, “and pins the racist and fascist tale not on the Republican elephant, but on the Democratic donkey.”

The notions that racism and fascism are elements of Republican Party, rather than the Democratic Party, he said, have been shaped heavily by the left’s control of academia and the media for close to two generations.

“They have done a lot to muddy these waters. They will say for example that because the Nazis were on one side of the war, and the Soviet Union was on the other side, it follows that since the communists were left wing, the Nazis have to be right wing. But this is bogus,” he said. “Communism and Nazism grew out of the same soil.

“They both were rooted in socialist economics, they both appealed not directly to the working class, but to a cadre of militants and revolutionaries, students, lawyers, journalists, ex-military guys: these were the core of Lenin’s revolutionary cadre, and they were also the core of both Mussolini’s and Hitler’s cadres.”

He noted that the main difference between communism and fascism is very minor: communism pushed for international socialism, and fascism pushed for national socialism. “That’s not a big difference. That’s smaller than the difference between say the Shia and the Sunnis in the Muslim world, and yet the Shia and the Sunnis have had bloody battles that go back for centuries. Sometimes groups that are quite similar ideologically have terrible wars based either on fine points of doctrine, or for competition for followers.”

Historically, even direct communist regimes such as the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party have switched between the ideas of “international socialism” and “national socialism,” depending on their varying objectives.

D’Souza said another part of the film focuses on debunking misinformation about former President Richard Nixon’s southern strategy, and on the violent clashes between Antifa and neo-nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, in Aug. 2017.

“The Democrats will say, ‘yes, Dinesh you’re right, the Democrats have this sort of history, but you’ve got to remember they changed. The party switched platforms, Nixon converted the southern racists into Republicans, and then look at Charlottesville—here you’ve got these neo-Nazis in Trump hats—so racism today is clearly on the right,” D’Souza said. “And it is this claim that we destroy in the movie.”

To debunk this claim, D’Souza said he focuses on the “myth of Nixon’s southern strategy,” and he also interviews neo-Nazi organizer Richard Spencer and shows that his ideologies are on the “left,” not the “right.” He adds that “both in the new book and the movie, we show the leftist roots of white supremacy, which is a very eye opening thing to watch.”

D’Souza also noted that another neo-Nazi organizer of the Charlottesville riots was Jason Kessler, who “has a history of leftist politics—he was an Obama supporter, and he was an Occupy Wall Street guy.” He noted that Kessler’s leftist history was well known, and was even stated on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. A Charlottesville newspaper did an exposé on Kessler that also detailed this background, noting that he even broke up with his girlfriend because she was too conservative, D’Souza said.

“All of this was out there, but the press didn’t touch it,” D’Souza said, “because they knew that to expose Kessler as a leftist was to undermine the whole beautiful story in which Charlottesville was proof that white supremacy is a Trump phenomenon.”

“Think about it this way: there’s no evidence that neo-nazis or KKK members voted for Trump. No-one has ever done an empirical survey that shows that,” D’Souza said. “So the only proof of something that is taken to be conventional wisdom is a few images drawn from Charlottesville of white nationalists wearing MAGA hats and cheering Trump. This anecdote, this handful of guys, is supposed to clinch the whole case. And that’s why counter examples are devastating, because the whole case hinges on so few examples.”

When it comes to the actual white supremacists and neo-nazis, D’Souza noted that many of them are atheist, and many are also admirers of black nationalism, and even praise people like Malcolm X. “They support this notion of ethnic identity politics,” D’Souza said. “And interestingly ethnic identity politics is not a phenomenon of the Republican Party, it’s a phenomenon of the Democratic Party. In fact, the Democratic Party is based on it.”

Making an Impact

A portrait photo of Dinesh D’Souza. (Courtesy of Dinesh D’Souza)

D’Souza has faced plenty of pushback over the years for his work, yet is known for maintaining a calm demeanor when debunking arguments from critics and clarifying his findings on history.

He was given a full pardon on May 31, 2018, by President Donald Trump for exceeding limits on campaign finance donations in the New York Senate campaign of Wendy Long in 2014 and making false statements to the Federal Elections Commission.

D’Souza and others believe he was selectively prosecuted, and that his sentence was politically motivated. The charges followed his 2013 film that was critical of former President Barack Obama, “2016: Obama’s America.”

When he received a full pardon from Trump, D’Souza said the feeling “was absolutely exhilarating. I felt like I got my American dream back. I certainly got my rights back.”

He noted that when he appeared on CNN for an interview following the pardon, he was told that it took powerful people including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Trump to get him pardoned, and was questioned whether that was a form of favoritism.

“And I said no,” D’Souza said. “Because it was very powerful people like Obama, Eric Holder, and Preet Bharara to get me in the first place.

“So yes, it did take some powerful people to get me off because they had to undo what earlier group of powerful people had done. That’s my take on the whole pardon business.”

D’Souza noted that for most of his career he has been an author and speaker, but that part of his passion for making movies is that he believes they can reach a much larger audience.

“Books appeal to the head, but movies appeal to the head and the heart. So this is a way to reach people. Movies are, not just in terms of the intellect but also in terms of feelings and experiences,” he said. “That’s why I’m excited to have both.”

The book version of “Death of a Nation” releases on July 31, and the film releases nationwide on Aug. 3.

Read full story here

#Democrats