The Day a Jewish Kid Played the Role of Kaiser Wilhelm – A High School Memory

The highlight of our high school’s academic year was always the elite World History class(es) ‘Who Started WWI’ debate.  The debate was a closed-door event, but we all waited breathlessly for daily updates and the final result.  It was a major event.  One could even say it was legendary.  Year after year, the World History class battled it out.

Finally, we were seniors, and it was our turn at the event.  Not everyone; just those of us who had the academic chops to be accepted into the World History class.  Some years that group was small, and there was only one class.  Other years, there could be two classes – but that was very, very rare.

When the day came to choose who would represent which country, the teacher read out the names of those students in his class whom he believed had the academic strength to lead teams into the debate.  My name was one of the ones read out.  The next step in the process was deciding who would represent which country.  I was determined to be the one who would take Germany, going into the debate.

“Germany is going to be a hard position to represent,” the teacher advised us.  He then continued, “I recommend a person like XYZ take it.”

XYZ was not me.  Still, it was not the end.  We were free to pick our countries, and I was going to defend Germany, come hell or high water.

Now we came the actual selections.  Despite the teacher’s recommendation, XYZ went the easy route, and choose Britain.  One by one, the countries were taken, and still no one picked Germany.  At last, my chance to choose came along.

“I want Germany,” I said.  The whole class broke into a sort of good-natured laughter.  I was, after all, the only student in the class who was of actual German parentage.  However, the issue still remained, was I strong enough to take a team in under the German flag?  A mini-debate broke out about it.  The teacher had recommended… but… who?… .  I parried them all.  One after another, I fielded the questions, and provided rebuttals.  At last it was over.  The matter was settled.

“If you can debate like,” said one of my classmates as they ceded the issue, “you really are the best one to represent Germany.”

I had won.  I would take Germany into the famous World History class ‘Who Started WWI’ debate.

But, there was one last country to be selected.  Russia had not yet found a champion.  There was one last captain available, and he gladly took it on.  He liked taking things nice and easy, and, well, had left his selection to fate.

The Next Hurdle

The next hurdle we faced was building our teams.  As you can imagine, some teams were easier to build than others.  When it came to building a team to represent Germany, it became almost impossible.  No one wanted to be on what was presumed would be the losing team.

‘So, who cares?’ I told myself.  ‘I will do all the work.  I just need some bodies to fill the seats beside me, and I know how to get them.’

Yes, I knew.  I would find out who had not yet been selected for one of the other teams, and offer them an enticing deal to come and join mine.  The deal?  ‘I’ll do all the work, you just have to sit there and play your role.’  So I started with the guy sitting next to me, a diminutive sort-of-once-upon-a-time-Jew.  Yes, in those days he was hard to categorize.  His mother had divorced and remarried a non-Jewish husband, and he had decided that this made him no longer Jewish.  Just like that.  From Jew to non-Jew overnight.  At that moment in time, he was identifying as a non-Jew.  His self-identification was still fluid in those days.  But… .

He wanted more.  What more could I offer?  In desperation, I told him, ‘You can take the role of Kaiser Wilhelm’.

I now had the first member of my team, courtesy of bribery.

I still needed two more people, though.  I approached another abandoned soul, another person of Jewish roots who had found herself without a ride for the debate, and added another member to the team.

There was still one spot, and I was determined to fill it.  I consulted with Kaiser Wilhelm about the individual I had in mind.  ‘Nah.  She’s just tits and ass, and no f*cking brain,’ he opined.  ‘Who cares?’ I advised, in my role as Chancellor Bismarck, ‘We just won’t let her do anything.’

The Kaiser acceded, and I recruited what I believe to be the third Jewish member of my team.

Now some of you may yelp about the fact that Chancellor Bismarck was part of the team representation.  It was a special arrangement, given the official okay by our teacher.  The lead debaters needed to assume the personas of actual historical figures, and even though Bismarck was no longer Chancellor at the end of World War 1, it was decided that he could rise once again in order to defend his nation’s honor.

The Debate

We went into battle, and it was a hard-fought one.  The other teams came at us with every accusation in the book, and we parried them all.  The use of poison gas?  Well, we weren’t the only ones.  You guys used it on us, too.  Invading Belgium?  Hey, we DID send a message asking for permission to cross before we did it.  We had the proof in the form of a copy of the wire-message that we sent.  I reached for it from the stack of documents on the desk in front of me, pulled it out, and found out I had the wrong document.  A search was quickly made for the missing message, but we could not find it!  The teacher, thankfully, interceded and acknowledged the existence of the missive.

Then came the big one.  The one that the Kaiser and I had discussed in our pre-debate meetings.  The one question we could never find a suitable answer for: Why did Germany have a military-based economy?

The Kaiser stood up.  He would field the question personally.

‘Sure Germany had a military-based economy; but that doesn’t mean it was meant for war,’ he stated boldly.

The class keeled over laughing.  They laughed until they practically peed themselves.  When they finished laughing, they’d all forgotten that we’d never answered the question.  Seizing the opportunity, we moved the debate on to the next question.  The Kaiser and I, in fact everyone on our team, patted each other on the back after class that day.  We’d survived the A-bomb of debate questions thank to the Kaiser!

The debate ended, and the judges went into seclusion in order to discuss their findings.  When they emerged, the results were read out: Britain was found to be the least responsible for starting the war.  German was the second least responsible for starting the war, and it was a close second – in fact it had been a tie, which the rules did not permit.  To declare a winner, they’d had to resort to the technicality of the missing telegram. Then, at the end of it came the country named as most responsible for starting the first world war: Russia!

The Russian team immediately stood up and bowed.  They had come in last and were damned proud of it.

It is one of my best memories of high school.  Who could forget the day when one German and three Jews cleared Germany of war-guilt!  At a high school reunion twenty years later, I found out that one person could: the Kaiser!

‘Really?  I don’t remember that,’ he said, ‘Hard to believe a Jewish kid like me would do that.’

Bain_News_Service_-_The_Library_of_Congress_-_Kaiser_Wilhelm_(LOC)_(pd)

 

Photo: public domain /  Bain News Service – The Library of Congress – Kaiser Wilhelm (LOC) (pd).jpg

 

This is something that I uploaded to my Steemit (https://steemit.com/@ajdohmen) account today.  Since no one reads it there, I’m sharing it here.

The Danger of Glorifying the ‘Traditional Family’

I want to address a certain danger that I am seeing, one that seems to be going completely unrecognized, mainly because we are too damned busy hiding under our beds, pointing terrified fingers at Islam and the prospect of Sharia law invading our western countries.  While we mock women in the far-left for attempting to embrace things like the hijab, we let women in the far-right off completely scot-free when they attempt to embrace ‘traditional’ lifestyles.

At this point the reader is no doubt wondering how on earth I can equate the repression that women suffer under strict Islamic law with traditional man-at-the-head of the household western-style family life.  Well, the first point of similarity is that the women advocating these two lifestyles don’t have a clue as to what they represent, and where they lead.  Those on the side that glorify the hijab as an emblem of female liberation are guilty of cultural ignorance, while those on the side of ‘traditional western families’ are guilty of historical ignorance.

I am going to assume that most readers are already familiar with the downside of Islam when it comes to a woman’s rights: women don’t exist as individuals, women are owned by their husbands, husbands can beat their wives, and so on and so forth… .  However, do modern women advocating ‘traditional western families’ realize that, until the the suffragettes and other fighters for the rights of women came along, western women lived under similar conditions?

Yes, western women were once considered the property of their fathers until they married, and then of their husbands.  Since they were legal non-entities, every cent they earned belonged to the men who owned them.  They did not have access to their own money, including inheritances, unless their husbands gave them an allowance from it.

Did men have the right to beat their wives?  Yes, they did.  In a law similar to that found in Islam, men in the UK were permitted to beat their wives with a reed no thicker than his thumb (You can visit this page from http://www.historyofwomen.org to read more about wife-beating in the UK).  Sophists may try to argue that this law is a UK law, and therefore not the norm for women in other areas of Europe and North America, but sadly, that is a lie.  From the Urals to Los Angeles, women were subject to similar laws granting their husbands permission to beat them, and their children, if they misbehaved.

If a woman left her husband, even for valid reasons such as being cruelly beaten, she lost all of her rights and could be denied access to her own children.  Divorcing, or being divorced by her husband, brought massive shame down on her family and could damage any unmarried siblings’ marriage prospects.

An interesting bit of trivia: The Mary Richards character in the old Mary Tyler Moore Show was actually supposed to be a divorcee, but producers felt that idea was too radical for a 1970s viewing audience.

In addition to being beaten, western women were also considered too feeble-minded and morally corruptible to be permitted the vote.

This leads me to ask what the hell is in the minds of women glorifying ‘traditional’ lifestyles?  How much hypocrisy can modern women be expected to swallow?  A return to the ‘traditional’ family unit is no sunshine-and-daffodils scenario.  It means giving up everything other women, and some men, have fought decades-long battles to win for us.  Those rights include the right not to be beaten, the right to keep our own earnings and inheritances, the right to divorce a man who beats his wife and children, and the right to have a say in how our cities, provinces, and countries are governed.  If a woman wants to relinquish those rights, then let her do it, but she does not have the right to strip other women of them.

Please watch these videos that I have found.  They might help to open the eyes of people who believe women in the west were never treated as badly as their modern day counterparts in the Middle East.

 

 

We, The Other Sheep!

From my Steemit blog (https://steemit.com/@ajdohmen) :

lying-sheep-112971048625bXphoto: Photo: Lying Sheep by Petr Kratochvil
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net

The world has a very big problem, and it is based on the rather stupid notion that the Jewish people are God’s ‘chosen’ people. That is, ‘chosen’ as taken in a positive, or elitist, sense. It seems that at least two thirds of the planet are vying for the right to consider themselves as ‘God’s Favorite People’, and doing so in the strangest ways. The remaining one-third of the planet, quite frankly, doesn’t give a shit about all the nonsense and jealousy surrounding the ridiculous notion that God loves one race of people more than all the others He created. This post isn’t about them. This post is about the two-thirds who are literally killing each other in order to claim the title of God’s favorite.

It all started with the proliferation of Judeo-Christianity, which equates the Jewish God as the Creator God. Since Judeo-Christianity spread itself via the Jewish diaspora before breaking into the ‘gentile’ nations, it is no surprise that its Jewish progenitors claimed a special, ‘first born’ privilege for themselves in the new religion. Then, along came a third religion. This religion, however, sprang up among other Semitic tribes. Naturally, if God had a chosen people taken from Semitic tribes, they were eligible to lay claim to the title of God’s favorite people.

In short, it became something of a family feud. Who does daddy love more? Which of us is the favorite? The end result is the disaster we now have.

In the Christian world, meanwhile, we now have sects that actively attempt to co-opt Jewish tradition and rituals in order to graft themselves into ‘God’s Chosen People’. We have the entire ‘Israel can do nothing wrong’ movement. As Christians of non-Jewish bloodlines, there is now a tendency to think of ourselves as the child less favored by God, so we try to make up for it by slobbering all over everything Jewish and Israeli.

How sad and how far from the truth we have fallen!

Personally, I prefer to look at the Old Testament as a sordid history of how bad a people can get, and how far from the ways of the Creator God they can fall. Instead of taking it as a glorification of the Jewish people, it should be taken as a lesson of what not to do if you want to stay on the right side of God. It is the long story of how a people became a mega pain-in-the-ass to a God who wanted mercy for the weak, and kindness between humans. If God ‘chose’ Abraham and his descendants, it was probably not because He thought them superior to all the other peoples of the world. It was, more likely, because He needed to use them to produce a specific end. He looked down, assessed the candidates, and selected Abraham for the job. This does not mean that He loved them more, or that He considered them the ‘first born’, with all the rights of the first born (double share of everything), but only that He had a plan and needed someone to do the job.

Let me put this to you: if God loved the Jewish people more than all other people in the world, why did He keep kicking them out of the land He gave them, while everyone else around them got to stay? And, why did He not let them take land from certain peoples, citing that those people had not yet pissed Him off enough to merit it yet? God obviously loved those people too, and kept a watchful eye on them.

We have to put aside the notion that God has one ‘chosen’ people. You must remember that we get that notion from the Jewish people themselves, and not from God. God did pick Abraham out to do a job, but having your father select you to go to the store to get milk does not make you his favorite. If you believe Christian and Jewish scripture, then you probably believe that the whole point of the undertaking was to eventually enable God to come into the world in human form. So, then why nt look at what Jesus had to say about the matter:

“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.
They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
John 10:16 (NIV)

Yes, according to Jesus, the Jewish people do not have a stranglehold on God’s favor. The Jewish people were just one pen of sheep on a farm with many pens. Each of those pens has its own traditions, and is filled with its own people. There are pens filled with sheep of all colors, and a pink sheep doesn’t have to get its fur dyed white in order to win favor with the shepherd. In fact, it is silly to even try such a thing. The shepherd loves all his sheep, no matter what pen they came from.

Shifting Genes

As I was checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came across a tweet that took a dim view of a recent Lauren Southern video. The video, entitled ‘The Great Replacement’, is the usual right-wing angst about the decline of the white race. I don’t deny that the white race is in decline, and is likely to completely disappear in coming generations if nothing happens to change the current situation. That, however, is where I part company with the right-wing. Unlike many of their talking heads, I actually learned a bit of global history, and accept the fact that no race remains long on this planet without interbreeding with other races. This comes through invasions, through trade routes, and through individual choice.

If we had pictures of people taken a thousand years ago, they would not look the way we do now. They might be shorter, darker, fairer, taller, with green eyes, blue eyes, red hair, or something else. If you do a little digging, you will find accounts of blonde-haired, blue eyed Greeks, and red-haired Egyptians. Of course this news will throw right-wing race purists into a frenzy, citing it as proof that the white race is being slowly drowned out by dark-skinned people.

That may be. Or it may not be. My mother’s people are dark, almost Mediterranean in appearance. This comes from an infusion of Hungarian blood. On the plus side, they are quite tall, except for my maternal grandmother who was petite. On my father’s maternal side, they were short and dark, of undetermined racial background, though the word ‘Gypsy’ was tossed rather carelessly around. On his father’s side, the line originally was Dutch. Both my father and his sister came out blonde and fair skinned. My mother and all her siblings came out dark haired and closer to olive skinned. Considering our genetics, my siblings and myself should have turned out dark. We did not. My sister is petite, with mousy colored hair and pale, sallow skin. My brother is brunette bordering on blonde, is very tall, and has olive-type skin. Both are brown-eyed. I am tall, blonde, blue eyed, with what, at first glance, appears to be light skin. Actually, my skin is extremely pale olive, and used to turn golden yellow when I tanned (if I did not burn immediately).

Fair hair and skin may be a recessive gene, but it takes a lot to make it sink into oblivion. That is fact number one.

Fact number two has to do with trying to keep your gene-pool ‘pure’. The only way to do that is with tight inbreeding. Yep, you know what that causes. If you don’t, just look at the upper classes and royalty. They tend to be sickly, prone to genetic diseases, and are mentally, well, weird. In Norway, psychosis has a tendency to crop up more frequently in certain regions, likely due to isolation and the inbreeding it causes, while in the Saguenay-Lac St. Jean region of Quebec, another region with close inbreeding between families, a rare genetic disease has become fairly common. Follow this link for more info on the Lac St. Jean disease:http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/Newsroom/Past-News/2003/gene-for-rare-disease-found-primarily-in-Quebec.html

All life on this planet has a built-in instinct that strives to prevent these sorts of thing from happening. On a social level, we’ve constructed complex rules that govern what degree of separation must exist between relatives who wish to marry. The closer the relation, the more likely the union is to be banned. From a purely hormonal perspective, we are hard-wired to find healthy, strong appearing mates to be more attractive sexually than weak, wimpy ones. Thus women often marry the wimp for his money, then bed the gardener, thus planting a cuckoo’s egg in the husband’s nest. For men it far easier; they just go out and knock up a mistress or two.

But… there is something else that nature does to drive people away from committing the mistake of too much inbreeding. I call it ‘raging genetics’.

Raging genetics occurs when your body understands it is time to look to greener pastures for a contribution of healthier genes. I saw this happening in Europe a couple of decades ago. Women in Scandinavia and Germany were actively seeking out men of racially diverse backgrounds for fun and marriage. Men in Germany and Scandinavia were likewise taking on loads of foreign wives. The French in France are well known for cross-breeding with foreigners coming from their former colonies. Why was it happening, and why is it still happening?

Simple. It is called exoticism. We are attracted to something fresh and different, and I am convinced it is our genetic structure that is driving us to it. Our genes need an influx of something new, and so our tastes suddenly start to turn to things foreign and exotic. Some people sniff at exoticism and condemn it, however it satisfies a variety of needs in addition to refreshing the gene pool. If there are not enough women in an area because they have all left to pursue careers elsewhere, as actually happened in central Norway, directing foreign women who want to enter the country into those areas is a win-win situation. Isolated villages need fresh genes to prevent inbred diseases, the men there are traditional and want traditional wives, and the women going there tend to be from cultures where women are more traditional. The women probably want to escape cultures that they find repressive, and thus find a freer culture to live in. That is why so many Asian, Russian and other women have chosen the route of becoming ‘mail order brides’.

For white women, the situation is a bit more complex, with higher risks. However, you have to remember that, until recently, racial stereotypes were completely different in Europe than in North America. ‘Ghetto culture’ was not the norm for non-whites, and refugees and immigrants from the Africa and the Middle East were not seen as backwards. Indeed, their behavior was quite upstanding back when I had the chance to observe it. So, these were just exotic men, from exotic places, who appealed to woman’s urge to refresh her genetics.

Human beings created eugenics in an attempt to beat nature at its own game, and failed miserably. Nature wants the gene pool to be as wide as possible. Humans want to narrow it. But, to be quite honest, if your purebred Persian queen cat escapes the house when she is in heat, she is not going to give a damn about whether the tomcat next door is a Bengal, a Siamese, or an average domestic. And, when your purebred Bengal gets out and meets a saucy female cat from the alleyway, he is going to be quite taken by her. The kittens produced will definitely not be purebreds in the first generation, but they will be a lot healthier. However, do what do you get when you cross a Siamese cat with a Persian cat? A first generation Himalayan cat.

Please note this is a republication of a post on my Steemit blog.

Jesus Was a Peacenik and a Communist

Where to begin with this one?  How did it start?  Where did it start?  Why did it start? And, most importantly, why am I going there?

Well, it started with an image being tweeted out that was so awful, the mere sight of it nearly caused me to go blind, and I was not alone.  At least one other viewer had a WTF?! moment, while numerous others seemed to be experiencing their own form of visual confusion.  Words cannot do justice to the awfulness the thing we saw, so I have provided the image in question directly below (with the offender’s name blocked out).

goldy

Now that you have experienced the joy of nearly going blind yourself, you can better understand just how misguided the theme actually is.  That is, unless you are a member of the religious right.  If that is the case, you probably can’t see what is so eye-hurtingly wrong here.  I will therefore explain it to you.

Jesus was a pacifist.  He did not advocate violence, even going so far as to heal the ear of the soldier Peter had injured during the scuffle that occurred during His arrest.  Jesus instructed His followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them.  At no time did He ever tell them to go out and slaughter people who believed in other gods, or belonged to a different religious system.  Violence was abhorrent to Him.  That alone should show up the notion of ‘Deus Vult’, and ‘it’s crusade o’clock’ for what it is: garbage that has no relation to Jesus’ teachings, and something that no true believer in His message would ever adorn their Twitter account with.

There is something else that is disturbing here, though.  That is the misplaced reference to Isaiah.  Isaiah 6:8 reads: ‘Then I heard a voice of the Lord saying,”Whom shall I send?  Who will go for us?” “Here I am” I said; “send me!”  But… God never said ‘Go launch a crusade, Isaiah!’  Isaiah used words.  Fiery words, but not words of hate and division.  Isaiah was a prophet, not a warrior.  His job was to turn the people back to their God, and in so doing, keep them from being booted out of the land that He had given to them by covenant.

What Little Missy with her anime-crusade cover-photo is missing out on, is exactly what an entire segment of the religious right is also missing out on: that covenant, the Old Covenant, was rendered null and void by the Jews’ own failure to adhere to its rules and regulations.  It was replaced by a New Covenant between Jesus and His followers, which has nothing to do with the land of Israel, or the physical descendants of Abraham.  There is no ‘Holy Land’ to retake, and no crusade to wage, because the inheritance of Jesus’ followers is not an earthly one.

There are so many things wrong with the religious right that it boggles the mind.  Jesus was not a traditionalist; he did not advocate traditional roles for women.  He broke all the rules when it came to a woman’s ‘place’.  He spoke to women who were strangers to him, which was a big taboo in those days.  He fraternized with women who were considered the dregs of society, and he had women among his followers.  In the early Christian church, women acted as deacons, as organizers, and helped spread the Gospel both alone, and side by side with their husbands.  St. Paul advised women who became widowed not to remarry, and those who were not yet married to remain single, so that they could more effectively devote themselves to the work of God.

The religious right would now have all women back in the kitchen, under the authority of a husband.

That is just a taste of how far from the Gospel, and the spirit of Jesus, the right has wandered.  They’ve also thrown away the concept of salvation through faith, and returned to one of attempting to attain salvation through works (I’ve recently heard this described as ‘the Hebrew Roots Movement’, which, as a movement, is not new at all).  They’ve thrown their support behind the nation of Israel, refusing to condemn that nation when it commits heinous acts that Jesus would never have approved of.  For the love of God, Jesus talked to Samaritans, and the Samaritans ended up believing in Him!  Worst of all, the religious right pride themselves on an ideology that only people with hearts of stone could ever espouse.

What ideology is that, you ask?  One that has no sympathy for the poor, the outcast, and the unfortunate.   An ideology that spits on the poor and calls them ‘lazy’.  An ideology that believes giving to the poor only ‘enables’ them.  One that doesn’t even believe in taking care of the sick and suffering.

What would Jesus have said about that ideology?  Let’s see.  Jesus told his followers to sell everything they had, and give it to the poor.  He fed the hungry, healed the sick, and refused to condemn a woman who had been brought to him for judgement.  In the ideology of the religious right, these are the actions of a horrible, anti-American communist!  He provided FREE HEALTH CARE!  He didn’t just give out food-stamps, he GAVE AWAY FREE FOOD!  Worse yet, he GAVE OUT FREE MONEY!

By today’s standards, at least those of the crusade-fostering religious right, Jesus was a communist, a feminist, and a filthy, traitorous peacenik!  Oh, yes, he was also an antisemitic Jew-hater who believed Jews worship Satan and advocated the destruction of Israel and Jerusalem.  In the words of John 8:44 “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (NIV)

Somebody hand these religious right-wingers an easy to read copy of the New Testament, please!

Before You Ridicule Social Justice Fanatics…

The most popular sport these days is liberal-bashing, and it is the actions of the liberals themselves that is making them an easy target.  However, it is not all right to simply dismiss their concerns simply because they have been wrapped up in asinine packaging.  Yes, it is like having to dig through vomit bare-handed in order to get to the legitimate concern, but it must be done before dismissing it all as paranoid nonsense.  Anyone calling themselves a scholar, or any sort of researcher, must look at the whole argument before ridiculing it.  Sadly, I have seen a number of such individuals doing just that: jumping on the ‘ridicule-the-SJWs’ bandwagon.  Some of them even hold chairs at universities.

They should know better, and it says a lot about academic thinking that they don’t.

I will admit, even I don’t believe that many of the SJWs having meltdowns over things people normally take in stride is in any way normal, or that these people can even be  considered ‘normal’ human beings.  There is something extremely wrong with how they handle disappointment, and how they relate to others, yet that does not mean there is no validity to their concerns.  When they are shrieking about the then candidate Donald Trump disrespecting womanhood, the concern at the core is the fact that he is backed by conservative and far-right interests that do not respect a woman’s right to live her life as she sees fit.  When they scream ‘nazi’, they are expressing concern over the willingness that they see on the right to give over personal freedoms to an authoritarian ‘volkish’ state, and so on… .

Initially, it may have seemed that the concerns were stupid.  Yet now, it seems that they may have been dead-on.  The right is, indeed, taking on the ugly overtones that characterized Nazism.  Anyone who comes from a family that actually experienced daily life in Europe at that time has probably been trained by their parents to recognize the warning signs – and I am not talking about people from Jewish backgrounds when I say that.  I am talking about Germans from German backgrounds, Italians from Italian backgrounds, French from French backgrounds, etc… . We know the signs, and we have concerns.  The insanity of the ‘lunatic left’ is doing damage to the credibility of people who see what is coming, but that does not change the fact that there is something to be concerned about.

I will say this to the far-/alt-right: you romanticize the rise of the right, and the nationalist state.  It was not like you picture in your rosy day-dreams.  People were not free to live their lives in volkish-communities, and women were not happily baking cherry pies for their eight children.  That is bull-piss and poppy-cock.

To the ‘classical liberals’ who have joined with the far-/alt-right, Pastor Martin Niemoller had this to say to you:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Is the temporary applause from your new bed-partners worth what you’re ushering in?  You who are Jews, homosexuals, and women?  I say this because something big is coming, and you will be the first ones in line to feel its hatred.  The applause will stop and you will be quickly discarded.

Liberal hysteria explained to the ignorant

Liberals, sadly, allow their emotions to overtake their capacity for reason.  Nobody should be completely without empathy, however the SJWs and feminists out there have taken things to levels beyond the galactic.  I will now explain why this happens, and how, despite the claims of the conservative right to the contrary, the right suffers from the same blind-spots.

I am going to illustrate this with a real case: A woman stabs her husband to death.  During the course of the stabbing-spree, she pauses to tie him up and put her children to bed.  That done, she returns and continues to stab him.  By the time she is finished, she has stabbed him a total of 193 times, including slicing at his penis.  She claims she is a battered woman, and her actions were in terrorized self-defense.

Believe it or not, once the woman in question played the battered-woman card, people, mainly other women, jumped to her defense.  They claimed, and still claim, her actions were clearly those of someone who was terrified.  They think the jury in the case was wrong to convict her.

This is a prime example of the skillful use of the victim card.  Whether it can be attributed to a desire to abdicate personal responsibility, or simply suffering from bleeding hearts, the left loves nothing more than standing up for a perceived a victim.  Frame the crime in the proper terms, and they will see even the most sadistic of murderers in a sympathetic light.  All that is needed is to is to come up with a half justifiable reason and a sympathetic-seeming victim, and you will have many a liberal rushing to that person’s defense.  They mean well, and honestly try to see the good in everyone.

Liberals actively search for a victim in every scenario, or something else that mitigates the issue.  Because of this, they will take a more sympathetic stance on even the most horrific things – such as terrorism.  They feel terrorism is the result of the west bombing the shit out of helpless civilians abroad, and so it is something we have brought on ourselves and must be approached that way.  It is not that they believe terrorists are good people, it just that they can see a reason why jihadists would be pissed off at us.  They can therefore be manipulated fairly easily.  Parade a photo-gallery of sad-eyed, injured women and children in front of them, and they will turn into oozing balls of putty.

By the same token, they can be easily provoked to outrage.  Just show them pictures of the US army bombing innocent civilians, and they will become so outraged that their heads practically explode.

That said, the hard-hearted conservative right is not immune to this phenomenon, either.   The primary difference between it and the left is who it perceives as the victim, and what it takes to cover someone’s sins.  The right automatically looks for nobility and moral rectitude when balancing out someone’s shortcomings and justifying their acts.  A person with the veneer of an upstanding citizen will always be forgiven, provided their accuser comes from a less palatable background.

We can take as an example someone who is considered a pillar of the community, perhaps a preacher or a president.  This man happens to be a womanizer who carries on behind his long-suffering wife’s back, year after year.  Everyone knows he is a serial adulterer, but that’s all right, he does good works, donates to charities, and he’s freakin’ all-around great guy – except for that one minor detail.  He’s projecting the right image, framing his infidelities in the right way, as a family matter, and all is forgiven.  He’s not held up to the moral compass, even when one of his lady-loves dies in circumstances that may be a drug overdose, or may be something else.  Of course, this example is a composite picture, but I have to ask, why is the right so miffed at Clinton being a womanizing pig, while lauding JFK?  Probably because JFK is their hero.  But JFK treated women as obscenely as did Clinton.  JFK even passed on Marilyn Monroe to his brother once he was done with her.

Now take that attitude into the current climate of world-wide terrorism.  While the left gets hot under the collar seeing images of foreign women and children maimed and injured, the right has the same reaction when shown images of their own, ethnically and culturally, being maimed and injured.  You can work them into the same state of hysteria by using the correct images.  One, the left, has empathy with outsiders, while the other, the right, has empathy with members of their own clan.

Neither, as far as I can see, can put aside their biased emotional reactions long enough to address the actual issues of right and wrong.  Neither has the capacity for the type of true empathy that justice requires.  A man steals a loaf of bread because he is hungry, and the left demands forgiveness, while the right wants him strung up.  The truth is, the man had limited options, no one would hire him, and he had no way to earn money to eat.  But, the shopkeeper is also suffering from a loss.  Maybe the he, himself, does not make enough profit to feed his family.  Justice means helping the thief find a way to earn a living so that he can pay back the shopkeeper.  That also means someone has to be found who is willing to hire him, and chopping his hand off is only going to make that an even more difficult task.

The sympathetic nature of the left has definitely gone too far at times, to the point of seeming insanity, but there is a genuine concern for others at its core in most cases.  That people who claim to be scientifically minded dismiss that, without even questioning why the hornet’s nest has been so badly stirred up, only proves the very sad state our ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ communities have fallen into – and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of most of these people.  It goes without saying that we need to take care of whose camp we choose to follow, because, put plainly, the vast majority of those claiming to be ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ these days are tiny emperors running around in non-existent clothing.

A Shame of the Worst Sort

I interrupt my work on an important blog post to bring you the images below.  Can you tell the difference between the two?  The first, of course, is the now infamous image of female Swedish government representatives wearing head-scarves during a meeting with Iranian government leaders in Iran.  The second is an image of Ivanka and Melania Trump wearing hideous head-things during a meeting with the Pope in Rome.

You will note something else also: In Iran, the women are wearing clothing that fully covers the body, jackets, cardigans, and … PANTS!!!  These clothes are also functional street wear in cooler climates.  If it was autumn in Stockholm, or in Moscow, there would be very little to note about the outfits.  This is important because there is nothing bizarre in what they have been forced to put on.  A woman could still function normally in these clothes, and, in cooler weather, be completely comfortable.

Now look at the second image, the one of the Trump women.  Look at Melania, a normally beautiful woman.  What she is wearing on her head is, from my perspective, a typical mandilli – a headscarf worn by Greek widows.  Her dress is black, and hideous, and also in the style of a Greek widow.  From what I know, Italians have very similar customs the Greek one, and so I also assume that this lovely, not-yet widowed woman has been forced to dress like a widowed Italian matron.  Ivanka looks like the anti-bride, that is, a woman who has mistaken a funeral for a wedding.

Which set of women has face the greater humiliation in their respective meetings?

All right, now let us look at something else.  In Iran, women go to university, work in high technology, in the media, in medicine and science.  Iranian women coming out of Iran tend to be extremely well educated in comparison to their western counterparts.  The husbands they are married to also tend to be love matches.  I met one couple who were so into matching everythings that it was almost nauseating – and the husband was the one waiting on his wife hand and foot.

Now let us look at the conservative/alt-/far-right view of women.  I think that Ivanka/Melania photo tells it all.  Are these women dynamic?  No.  What they are is submissive, and the wet-dream of man-boys who can’t handle strong women.  The submissive conservative woman is not encouraged to pursue education and work in the sciences, medicine and media.  She must perfect her homemaker skills, have supper ready when her husband gets home, and keep the kids clean and quiet.  Most of all, she must dress herself up like the piano-tuner’s monkey image we see of Ivanka below – a fairy princess clad in black so the other men don’t get too turned on, while a more mature woman needs to dress like a the shriveled prune illustrated by Melania.

Do you understand why the far-left is more open to Islam than it is to western conservatism when it comes to women’s rights?  They see women in progressive Islamic cultures becoming doctors and researchers, being fully utilized a thinking human beings, and then they look at man-boys in the west who advocate keeping women at home cooking and cleaning.  The truth is, western women know exactly what conservative/alt-/far-right male-dominance culture is all about, while they only see a smattering of images depicting Islamic male-dominated culture.

The fact is, both are odious and dangerous to women, and it is utter stupidity to run from one into the arms of the other.  The two images below should serve as a warning that western conservatism is no different under the skin than hard-line Islam is.  Take another look at what western conservatism has done to the beautiful Melania, and realize that this is what it has in store for all women who are stupid enough to run to it for cover.

Also, watch the video in the following link, if you can stomach it.  It will show you how women who have already been brainwashed into believing in right-wing values think.

Laura Doyle – The Surrendered Wife: Stop Nagging & Controlling, Be Feminine

Swedish Women in Iran:

sweden-feminist-govt

The Beautiful Melania, Humiliated

DAk7G_AXUAAyUzV