Reply to Al Jazeera’s Megan Janetsky on ‘Xenophobia’
by Serban V.C. Enache
In this article, Megan Janetsky claims that “Venezuelans have faced increased xenophobic attacks and attitudes,” but doesn’t invoke a single example of such an attack. The fact that countries in Latin America have begun to take measures to stem immigration is not a sign of xenophobia, it’s the inevitable consequence of the reality on the ground. It’s simply impractical for these countries to accommodate higher and higher inflows of people from Venezuela. There’s only so much space, facilities, job offers, and money [foreign funds on which these countries are largely dependent] to go around. Instead of playing the xenophobia card, lecturing countries and governments about how bad they are for not being xenophiles, the author should lay the blame on Washington’s foreign policy, not just on Maduro’s Government. By the way, Megan Janetsky doesn’t mention the trade sanctions, doesn’t mention the West’s hostile policy toward the country at all. This fact alone betrays the article as being nothing more than propaganda, a liberal’s virtue signalling, false humanitarianism, and promotion of the ‘no-borders’ and ‘limitless immigration’ mentality.
Crippling Western sanctions and theft of Venezuelan assets held abroad, on top of efforts to foment civil unrest and treason within the country’s law enforcement and military, are the major factors – but Maduro’s Government certainly has its share of the blame, and it goes back to Chavez’s administration as well.
And, yes, it’s also a failure of Venezuelan type of socialism. Take Cuba, for instance. Cuba has lived under US trade sanctions for more than half a century [plus US-sponsored terrorism]; and despite the odds, living on the hegemon’s doorstep, it managed to retain socio-economic and political stability. Cuba doesn’t have a fraction of Venezuela’s natural wealth; but it does have 1/3 of Venezuela’s population. Since the 1960s, Venezuela’s birth rate, measured per 1000 people, has fallen dramatically as you can see in the graph below.
In order to move away from the ‘resource exporter’ model, a country requires an increase in population size in order to diversify production, without depriving its traditional sectors of manpower. Simply put, if you want to diversify without causing shortages elsewhere, you need a bigger labor force. Chavez and Maduro didn’t even try to diversify, nor would they have succeeded without promoting population growth. The fact that a country the size of Venezuela has only three times the population of Cuba is a statistic worthy of national shame. The same goes for my country of Romania, which has only two times Cuba’s population. The fact that there are stores, filled with produce while people face severe malnutrition, that gasoline basically has no price in Venezuela, but electricity is rationed and public transportation is curtailed or paralyzed, points to the fact that Bolivarianism, or more accurately Chavism, was carried out with a total disregard for true economic and geopolitical planning. While hostile state actors and domestic renegade forces do offer the ruling political class in Venezuela a degree of extenuating circumstances, such adversity doesn’t wash away the complacency and criminal incompetence of the country’s Left wing governing parties and leaders. All decision factors across the hierarchical chain, who place ideology or their own status above the Nation must be ejected and their designs carefully examined and purged of any ideological adventurism and self-seeking schemes. Maduro and his crew aren’t fit for office, and Guaido should be arrested and condemned for high treason.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the Dayton, Ohio shooting in which nine people and the suspect were killed, and the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting where 22 people were killed before the gunman was taken alive.
My comment: Peter Lavelle mentioned the ID propaganda spewed on Netflix, saying that all the men depicted in those movies are either weaklings, cowards, morons, or psychopaths. I personally don’t watch Netflix and have stopped watching mainstream movies a long while ago; but am well aware of the cultural and political propaganda these productions contain. Lavelle touched on the economic situation and on the issue of young men who find themselves in a position of involuntary celibacy; and that most women simply won’t marry men who make less money than they do. Single parent families were invoked as well, the absence of the father in children’s lives. The argument is made that things like porn, social media, and video games cannot fill the void created by the absence of family and faith. I wholly concur, and no sane human could object to that in my opinion. As far as mass shootings are concerned… there was only one mass shooting in the 1960s, ditto for the 1970s. And back then, racist political forces were part of the mainstream. The guns were always there. What changed?
In a recent article, Addiction, Polygamy, and Neofeudalism, I tried to tackle the larger phenomenon of socio-economic and spiritual decay, but failed short in doing so. Sadly, my longer articles don’t do nearly as well as my shorter ones. In another recent piece, I expose blatant anti-heterosexual propaganda in an NBC article from 2018.
Nearly a quarter of surveyed millennials claim they don’t have any friends. In order to even begin to understand the situation we’re facing today, it’s important to have a look at history. People may be familiar with dystopian novels like Huxley’s Brave New World  or We by Evgheni Zamiatin … But I show the reader the broad scheme for mass social engineering, the effects of which we’re living today, published in the year 1915. The following is not fiction, it’s a precise statement of political action.
“The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and reorganization of global society requires two essential steps, firstly the destruction of the old established order, secondly, the design and imposition of the new order, the first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy, ethical barriers and social definitions. Only then, the destroyed old system elements can be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.
The first task of our world revolution is destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated. Individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct. Traditional social norms must also be viewed only as a disease to be eradicated. The ruling dictum of the new order is, nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished. Everything that was must be gone.
The forces preserving traditional society are “free market capitalism” in the social economic realm, and “democracy” in the mental political realm. The capitalist free market does not fight against the old economic order, nor does democracy lead a fierce hot battle against the forces of reaction which oppose the new order, therefore our transformative work will be imposed through the unifying principle of the militaristic spirit, the negative task of destroying the old established order will be completely solved and finished only when all the human masses are all forcibly collectivized as uniformed soldiers under imposed mass-conformity of new order culturing.
After destruction of the old order, construction of the new order is a larger and more difficult task…..We will have torn out the old limbs from their ancient roots in deep layers, social norms will be lying disorganized and anarchic so they must be blocked against new cultural forms and social categories naturally re-emerging. The general masses will have been first persuaded to join as equals in the first task of destroying their own traditional society and economic culture, but then the new order must be forcibly established through people again being divided and differentiated only in accordance with the new pyramidal hierarchical system of our imposed global monolithic new world order.” From the book/Manifesto, Der Geist des Militarismus, Stuttgart 1915, by Nahum Goldmann [a leading Zionist and founder of the World Jewish Congress]. From the English translation housed in the collection of the Leo Baeck Institute, p.37 – 38.
The neo-Marxist currents we see today, ever entrenching themselves in public and private institutions, increasingly curating our language, shaming and slandering anyone who dares to take a different point of view, has mutated in such a fashion to become perfectly compatible with capitalism, even though they profess to hate it.
I’ll give two examples of individuals [famous in their own professions], just to point out the destructive nature of this ideology. My examples are adult film star Nina Hartley and economist Murray Rothbard. Both are Jews and come from communist families. Nina Hartley’s been an ardent supporter of the porn industry. While she stated that she wants everyone to have a piece of the [economic] pie, Hartley’s career has nothing to do with class struggle, but everything to do with spreading hedonism to all – a sexual revolution – not to empower the proletariat, but to distract it, and inevitably, demoralize it. Many icons of the counter-culture were in fact agents of the Deep State [CIA & other organizations], or useful idiots in their employ. Hartley is no exception. And just to point out her vain materialism and faux sympathy for class struggle, I recall some of her posts on Twitter, back when I had a presence on that dismal echo chamber. A woman, a porn actress, tweeted that her boyfriend had asked her to be exclusive with him, so she dumped him without a second thought and was quite proud of it. To that tweet, Nina Hartley replied something along the lines of, ‘Did he pledge to take care of you financially in exchange of you dropping your career? I don’t think so.’ Interesting emphasis put on “career” by a leftist; the “career” of sleeping with other men for money, as if no other profession is available for women or ex-porn actors. Evidently, the so-called socialist Nina Hartley had asked a rhetorical question. Her mind was made up from the start.
Now let’s go to Murray Rothbard. He too came from a Jewish, communist family. He grew up among communist friends and neighbors too. But unlike them, Murray chose anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard’s particular brand of radical libertarianism is all about rentier markets [neo-serfdom] and the individual’s right to choose freely [more illusion of choice]. An ironic thing is that Rothbard defended price monopoly, so long as the monopolist in question was a private agent and got in that position via fair competition. A short, concise take down of this particular view of his is found here. Rothbard was funded by the [pro-open borders, pro-usury, pro-rent-seeking] Koch brothers, until he had a falling out with them over ideological lines. The Kochs made their fortune in the USSR, fulfilling contracts for Stalin, then used that money to fund the libertarian ideology in the USA, and later the Tea Party movement.
Is this what communist families produce? Are Hartley and Rothbard the norm, or the exception? I would say they’re the exception, because if we look at the actual policies of the communist republics, the State made it its mission to protect and promote the traditional family, condemned and combated hedonistic ideas and activities, ensured housing, jobs, health care, and education for all: men and women. Indeed, when the internationalist fervor died down, the national communists affirmed themselves. Romania’s Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej famously put it to the Soviets that first and foremost, he was Romanian, and a communist second. The idea of the nation wasn’t sacrificed in favor of Globalization – quite the opposite, the nation state was resurrected and civic nationalism [as opposed to cosmopolitanism] was promoted. Romanian political dissident, Octavian Paler, in his old age, though a strong believer in misanthropy, didn’t fail to criticize Romania’s socio-economic and moral scene after ’89; and he didn’t fail to acknowledge the good things in the pre ’89 epoch.
To put it simply, without order, without purpose, life is a chore to live. Spiritual rot ultimately leads to emptiness, alienation, the destruction of the self, of the family, of the community… Some may criticize me for bemoaning the slow, but steady social implosion of the United States of America. After all, in its role of hegemon, is the biggest purveyor of terrorism. Yet, I can’t bring myself to wish a pox on other nations. I have friends in the US, and even if I didn’t, it would still be wrong to wish evil on others.
I’m an adept of the great Erasmus [de Rotterdam]. Back in 1995, Donald Phau wrote a superb article on him, “the educator’s educator.” The Platonic Christian outlook of Erasmus was reflected in northern Europe by the work of the Brotherhood of the Common Life, and later by the Oratorian Order. The Brotherhood, founded in the 14th century by Gerhard Groote, was dedicated to mass education, including the poor, and from an early age. Their teaching method encouraged their students to study the original writings and discoveries of the ancient Greeks. Instead of employing formalisms to be learned by rote, children were encouraged to replicate the actual creative thinking of the original authors. Erasmus carried forth the Brotherhood’s method in his writings throughout his life.
The printing and mass circulation of Erasmus’ books led to an unprecedented leap in literacy throughout Europe. In addition, he collaborated with leading intellectuals in England and Spain to revolutionize teaching methods, by developing a school curriculum which remains to this day a foundation for education. In the area of statecraft, Erasmus was in personal contact with most of the monarchs of Europe and called on them to emulate Plato’s “philosopher king.” At the same time, his works addressed the wider population on the issue of national sovereignty. Erasmus foresaw the necessity for an educated population to freely elect its own government. Lastly, he was in the forefront of a movement to reform the institution of the Catholic Church, to end its corruption and toleration of superstition. And when Venetian interests pitted Luther’s Reformation and the Church against each other with the goal to destroy the legacy of the Renaissance, Erasmus, virtually alone, fought for a reconciliation based on a Platonic Christian dialogue.
Since Alex Christoforou and Peter Lavelle were talking about the alienation of young men, the erosion of faith and family [the main pillars of a well-functioning society], I feel the next paragraphs from Donald Phau are seminal to remedy the problem.
A letter to a young teacher, written in 1516, shows Erasmus’ commitment to lift Europe’s 95 percent out of ignorance. The teacher, Johann Witz, had written to Erasmus that he was considering quitting the profession and moving instead to a higher paying and more influential position, perhaps at court. Erasmus replied the following…
“To be a school master is an office second in importance to a King. Do you think it a mean task to take your fellow-citizens in their earliest years, to instill into them from the beginning sound learning and Christ himself, and return them to your country as so many honorable upright men? Fools may think this is a humble office; in reality, it is very splendid. […] No one does more for it [one’s country] than the man who shapes its unformed young people, provided he himself is learned and honorable – and you are both, so equally that I do not know in which of them you surpass yourself. […] An upright man who is above all temptation is what that office needed, a man devoted to his duties even if he is paid nothing.”
Author William Wertz describes the teaching at one of the Brotherhood schools, as designed by Groote: “Imitating Christ themselves, the teachers […] preferred loving warnings to harsh punishments, sought to inculcate a love for individual research by letting pupils delve among the classics rather than confine themselves to text books, and taught the boys the use of their vernacular language. Poor pupils were given money for books, ink, and paper they needed in school. […] The basic idea is that the way to self-improvement is to think about an appropriate saying which helps one to overcome whatever obstacle to creative thinking arises in one’s mind at the moment it occurs.”
Gottfried Leibniz, one of history’s great polymaths, in a paper called Society & Economy from 1671, envisioned that artisans will work together happily in the large work rooms, singing and conversing, except for those whose work requires more concentration. On the question of education, Leibniz wished for children to be taken care of by Society. Parents shall be relieved of the task of educating their own children: All children… shall be rigorously brought up by women in public facilities. And scrupulous attention will be paid that they do not become overcrowded, are kept clean, and that no diseases arise.Note Leibniz’s desire for women to be part of, what Erasmus considered, the most important function in society, second only to that of the monarch.
Most of the work will be done in the morning. Pains will be taken to provide for pleasures other than drinking – for example, discussions of their craft and the telling of all sorts of funny stories, whereby they must be provided with something to quench their thirst, such as acida. There is no greater pleasure for a thoughtful man, or indeed for any man once he becomes accustomed, than being in a company where pleasant and useful things are being discussed; and thus every group, including the artisans, should have someone to write down any useful remarks that may be made. But the Society’s highest rule shall be to foster true love and trustfulness among its members, and not to express anything irritating, scornful, or insulting to others. Indeed, even rulers should eschew all insults unless nothing else is effective, since such behavior precludes the establishment of trust. No man shall be derided for a mistake, even if it be a serious one; rather, he should be gently admonished in a brotherly way, and at the same time, immediately and appropriately punished. Punishment shall consist in increased and heavier work, such as making a master work like a journeyman, or a journeyman like an apprentice.
My own philosophy is a mixture of what I discovered in my quest for knowledge throughout the years. I’m a Westphalian National Socialist and Georgist. By national socialism, I don’t mean Nazism / Hitlerism, but a philosophy completely divorced, purged of racist, supremacist ideology and imperialistic ambitions. One might also call it Christian Socialism, or Cooperative Individualism. The State has a fundamental role to look after the security and welfare of its citizens. Georgism is the philosophy that Land forms the Natural Commons, is not a commodity, and it should be taxed instead of labor, buildings, sales, and enterprise. And the Westphalian philosophy refers to a sisterhood of sovereign nation states, in which past transgressions and enmities are forgotten and forgiven in perpetuity, and each works for the benefit and dignity of the other: no nation prospers at the expense of another’s injury.
As economist and historian Michael Hudson points out, “To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views [crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents]. He was a threat to the creditors [rent-seekers and usurers].” Evangelical Christians are pro-war Zionists, pro-usury, pro-rent-seeking, and their loathsome, heretical ways don’t and cannot offer the meaning and structure craved by today’s demoralized masses. If religion cares not for the poor, it is useless and unable to steer Mankind toward a future worthy of pursuit. Without a holistic approach to one’s life, family, faith, community, and parent nation, the Great Adversary [an expression I use to anthropomorphize the forces of socio-economic and spiritual decay] will have permanent dominion upon this earth.
This NBC article from last year talks about data collected from a popular pornography website, in which over 1/3 of the views for gay male videos come from women. The “sexuality researcher” [whatever that means] Lucy Neville surveyed more than 500 women over five years for a book she wrote. Many of the women with whom she spoke said “a lot of the problem they have with heterosexual porn is that they focus on the female body,” not paying enough attention to the male physique. According to her survey 55 percent of the women said they had imagined themselves as men while engaging in gay male pornography. The women surveyed also expressed a “strong desire to consume porn that is ethical in some way,” and they found some heterosexual porn “exploitative.”
But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. The article insists that women find a lot of straight porn dehumanizing and exploitative to women and that they feel the women in these pictures aren’t enjoying themselves. But the same concern is not extended to the performers in gay male scenes; some of whom don’t even consider themselves gay – it’s just another avenue for them to make money. One respondent from the survey said that even in aggressive gay male scenes “it looks like the pleasure they’re both getting is very, very different than straight aggressive porn.” Utter rubbish.
Neville was curious to know whether gay men would be concerned or offended about women’s fetishization of gay male sex. But after interviewing more than 200 gay men, she reported that most saw no problem. I can’t help but point out that, were the genders reversed, they’d be labeled as sexists and part of the exploitative patriarchy.
The NBC article ends on a hallucinating note, citing a woman surveyed by Neville who claims that “If it’s helping people explore romance and sexuality – and possibly breaking down over-representation of heterosexuality in the media – then it’s probably a good thing.” This statement is complete bs.
First of all, heterosexuality is not “over-represented.” The vast majority of humans on this globe are heterosexual. To claim it’s over-represented, as if it’s an artificial phenomenon or a conspiracy, is like visiting Japan and complaining that mongoloids are over-represented compared to caucazoids; or complaining that insects are over-represented relative to mammals. Second of all, how exactly is pornography conducive to encouraging romance? I’d argue it has the opposite effect. You can’t claim heterosexual porn dehumanizes women, but say nothing, or make the opposite claim about gay male pornography. You either measure with the same yardstick, or you’re just a hypocrite engaging in sophistry, pursuing an ideological agenda: social engineering to collapse any semblance of normality – treating heterosexuality like a disease or a conspiracy.
Disclaimer. I’ve never been a fan of paleoconservatism, and I’ve never held Alex Jones’ brand of journalism in high regard. That being said, he did do good things in his career, he did fight the so-called ‘good fight’ for a time; and I didn’t hold back to give him credit when he had good ideas. Like in the case of public utility social media; and I was opposed to him being deplatformed. Unfortunately, Jones’ channel has become a cesspool of hawkish intoxication. I’ve been watching his show up on Infowars for a good many weeks now, and I’ve made a personal, final assessment on the narrative he’s pushing.
I’ll make a list of points and, if readers disagree, they can watch or listen to Infowars to see that I’m not arguing a strawman or making stuff up. By the way, I love Gerald Celente’s segment on Infowars. He’s great.
Alex Jones says that Iran could have been permitted to have a nuclear bomb by now, if Iran didn’t threaten nuking people all the time. And Jones questions whether or not the first oil tanker incidents were false-flags. He is inclined to believe that Iran may have been behind them, because the Iranians “are crazy.”
Sometimes Jones makes funny voices to ridicule various people he dislikes. One of those voices he does sounds awfully close to Netanyahu’s. There’s nothing wrong with that, albeit it’s ironic, given the fact that Jones and Infowars have shilled so much for Israel and Netanyahu. Jones claims that the Rothschilds [and by implication the Globalists] want Netanyahu dead. As always, Jones finds the ‘enemy’ only on the Israeli left; because the Israeli ‘right’ are incapable of pulling off dishonorable deeds, no? Israel, under the Netanyahu administration, is selling technology, including military technology to China – to the “Chicoms” [Communist Chinese] as Jones calls them. Yet you won’t hear Jones mentioning this fact, let alone criticizing it. In fact, Jones will go out of his way to cut off callers or people he’s interviewing, if the dialog hints at putting the spotlight on Israeli meddling and crimes.
Alex Jones thinks the Palestinians are “invaders,” who are all about invading other people’s lands. He said that even those Palestinians who had their land taken away are invaders – and Jones said “quote” in the sense that they really weren’t push off the land [by American and European Jewish immigrants to Palestine]. What a travesty. So much bile, so much ignorance and manufacturing of history.
Alex Jones believes the Globalists have cornered the US, trapped it into an inevitable war with China. Last time I checked, there were no Chinese military units in proximity to US borders, land or sea. Rather, it’s the other way around. And he always demonizes China for what US secret services and US big tech are doing, not just in the US, but in foreign countries, including allied states. Jones is more concerned with a spy agent from another continent, than he is about the spy in his own country. As if Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China were responsible for US companies deplatforming him. China is militarily encircled by the US, and Jones would have Americans believed the Chinese are an existential threat to the United States. Whether he realizes it or not, Jones is making the case for US hegemonic [imperialist] policy and wants it strengthened.
Alex Jones keeps pushing the “socialism kills” narrative, and often cites Venezuela as the perfect example of this; but just as you might expect, makes no mention of how US sanctions [levied by the Trump Administration two years ago, combined with Western European sanctions and confiscation of Venezuelan assets abroad] impact the daily lives of ordinary Venezuelans. If all the blame lies with Maduro’s party, why would you support sanctions against that country? It’s like seeing a handicapped person on the street, and then tripping him up to fall flat on his face and break his nose and teeth. Instead of condemning US-sponsored regime changes in South America and US-led economic warfare against these countries, Jones is silent as a snake. But then likes to complain about foreigners storming the border and lays all the blame on Soros propaganda outlets, enticing foreigners to come to the US, where they’ll be given free stuff. Isn’t Alex Jones and his ilk part of the problem on this issue? You know, the two sides of the same coin? The two wings of the same bird?
Alex Jones often puts up scenarios in which the [conservative] people in the US will rise up to overthrow the tyrannical Government. He’s made numerous statements, albeit of a theoretical nature, that someone has to intervene with a gun to stop what he deems an injustice. Infowars features written and audio-video material about a coming civil war in the United States, triggered by the leftists, the liberals, the communists… While Jones is clever enough to put disclaimers, “I’m not saying launch an offensive war,” his narrative ultimately radicalizes conservatives. He’s using the same tactics Antifa uses, and then blames Antifa for fomenting “terrorists” and “terrorism.” It is staunch hypocrisy and he can’t claim the moral high ground.
Alex Jones used to criticize the bubble economy; the economy that’s kept from tanking via “artificial” means. But now, since Trump’s in office, Jones is attacking others for making the same criticisms. Jones labels this as a conspiracy to kill confidence in the economy, to topple Trump. Jones claims that the age of fiat money is nearing its end, that crypto currencies will take its place, and that’s important for the US Government to channel fiat funding into the military sector primarily, for the inevitable battle with the Chicoms, lest the US be invaded and conquered. Alex Jones is cheering for Trump to engage in military keynesianism, despite the fact Trump has already engaged in it. It’s not enough according to Jones.
Alex Jones is pro-life. He thinks that the lives of children and of the unborn are sacred. Yet his fiscal conservative stance runs counter to his professed beliefs. What happens to the children of the poor? What happens to the children of those in the middle class, who weren’t poor when they had the children, but have become poor due to circumstances beyond their control? And food is just one part of the problem. What about housing? What about electricity and running water? What about health care? What about education? What about access to jobs and job security? Alex Jones has nothing on this front. His sympathy for children ends after they’re born. The “free market” will handle it from there. Meanwhile, the so-called free market is only free for rent-seekers, usurers, and cartels.
I don’t mind different ideologies as much as I mind ideological inconsistency. You can’t call yourself pro-life and be against the Welfare State. Call yourself what you are: a social darwinist. And since Jones likes to invoke Adolf Hitler and the Nazis all the time in his dialogues and monologues – I clue him in on Nazi socio-economic policy. The Nazis, even though they practiced eugenics, they had full employment and welfare policies in place. The Nazis would have discarded individuals based on their genetic value, not based on their economic condition like Alex Jones. He’s the typical conservative fraudster. Unlimited Government money for the military. Little or no Government money for the civilian economy. In his view, the former is capitalistic, free-market, and patriotic; the latter is socialistic, communistic, and treasonous.
At the beginning of the month, Jones had someone on his show, who hinted at a secret liberal conspiracy between Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin. Jones didn’t cut him off, didn’t challenge him on that point in any way. The only times I’ve heard Jones commenting about Putin, at least recently, was on the submarine incident, hinting that there’s likely something sinister behind it – insert your preferred secret alien tech theories here…
In a most recent episode, a self-proclaimed right winger [not a republican] called in to suggest that Trump is a ruse. Jones cut him off immediately and talked over him like he had a severe case of verbal diarrhea, then Jones pretended the caller had shut the phone on him. He’s so desperate, he won’t allow a critical POV on Trump whatsoever. Censoring your audience isn’t productive; it looks as though you have something to hide / fear.
I believe these points are enough to prove my case. Alex Jones is a false anti-Globalist. He doesn’t condemn US economic warfare, responsible for creating waves of migrants and refugees. He doesn’t condemn Israeli Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians – on the contrary, he squares all the blame on the Palestinians. His invectives for the neocons pale to insignificance when contrasted with the invectives used against the upstart ‘radical left.’ He’s a pathetic cheerleader of Netanyahu. Never attacks [Jewish] Zionism or Christian Zionism. In fact, Jones went so far as to justify and defend Jewish ethno-centric influence over US national and foreign affairs. But God forbid the Jew in question should be an anti-zionist. No, that would make that particular Jew a servant of the Globalists. Meanwhile, Trump’s using the US military in the interests of a foreign state, Israel, doing Netanyahu’s dirty work. But that doesn’t count as “globalism” in Jones’ book. You see, the Iranians, and the Iraqis, and the Libyans, and the Syrians, and the Afghans own all the liberal media outlets and Democrat politicians in the United States and formulate the country’s foreign policy and its domestic agenda [sarcasm]. That’s why Alex Jones is a despicable shill and propagandist for the other half, the other face of the Establishment. American exceptionalism is nothing without tanks, guns, bombs, and lies.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the ANTIFA terrorist who was killed Saturday by Washington state police as he attacked a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. He was seen in a recent CNN program that critics say glorified a radical, left-wing movement. Willem Van Spronsen, 69, sent a manifesto to friends the day before the assault in which he wrote, “I am Antifa,” and now he has now been ‘martyred’ by ANTIFA members, while CNN aired and promoted a program that glorified the radical ANTIFA member. Van Spronsen appears to have been part of a May 5 episode of CNN’s “United Shades of America” with W. Kamau Bell.
My comment: What we’re seeing with contemporary liberalism and the so-called progressives is a consequence of decades-long efforts by the Western Establishment to erode working class politics, working class conscience, and effectively demoralize the vast majority of the population.
The secret services [via proxies] spent trillions of dollars across the decades, during and after the Cold War, to fragment the Left and any inclusive narrative that puts class and class issues above anything else. Under the mass insanity of ID politics, a woman “of color” that’s rich is ‘more oppressed’ than a white person that’s poor; and the former individual, of course, cannot be privileged. Indeed, this ideology of insanity insists that only whites are capable of racism, while “people of color” aren’t and cannot be. Dialog and debate are seen as heresy. It is not only immoral, according to their beliefs, to “give a platform” to someone who expresses divergent views, but dangerous too. So shaming, censorship, and [inevitably] violence are seen as lawful and justifiable methods to achieve the “proud social justice warrior’s” goals. Again, I encourage readers to pick up The Cultural Cold War, by Frances Stonor Saunders.
Below is a review by M. A. Krul to entice potential readers:
“Most people are probably aware that the CIA sponsored a lot of activities, legal and extralegal, in the war against the Communist bloc known as the Cold War. But it is perhaps less well-known to what extent the CIA was involved in sponsoring, bribing and suborning writers, musicians, actors and intellectuals to agitate against the Soviet Union and its allies, as well as communism and Marxism in general. In particular the CIA-run organization “Congress for Cultural Freedom” and its flagship intellectual journal ‘Encounter’ had a great influence in the West in terms of effective propagandizing for the US point of view.
Frances Stonor Saunders, an independent film producer and writer for the New Statesman, has now produced an authoritative modern history of the CIA and the Congress, as well as related organizations, focusing both on the global political dimension. She focuses on the global politics, but also on the individuals involved on all sides, the many prominent writers and intellectuals in the organizations, and what it looked like from the CIA’s perspective, for which she makes use of newly declassified documents. She shows convincingly that the “non-Communist Left” was by and large bribed or cajoled by the CIA, in so far as they didn’t enthusiastically volunteer, into joining their propaganda front. She also shows that later denials by people such as Stephen Spender and Melvin Lasky of their knowledge of CIA involvement is extremely unrealistic and most likely just another lie.
That is not to say that this work is a polemic; far from it, Saunders writes very matter-of-factly and evenhandedly, and has little interest in discussing the merits of various political positions, though she does not fail to comment on the context of the Cold War at times, when she contrasts high-minded phrasery with the rather brutal and cynical realities of Vietnam, CIA activity in Latin America, the Soviet purges, the repression of Hungary, etc. The book is very extensive, making use of various sorts of sources, including interviews with important participants, in which they reflect remarkably often in a rather cynical way on their past activities. It’s quite astounding how many famous writers, composers, intellectuals [George Orwell, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Gloria Steinem, Jean-Paul Sartre], from Nabokov’s cousin to Stravinsky and from Russell to Stuart Hampshire, were involved in organized campaigns to attack and discredit their socialist colleagues.For that alone, this book is worth reading, that these crimes are not forgotten.“
And to not forget, let’s compare what it meant to be politically progressive back in the 19th and early 20th centuries compared to the ‘sex, drugs, and rock’n roll’ period, up to the present.
The white working class was the cornerstone, the key part of the solution for a better tomorrow, and was indeed heavily responsible for obtaining the right to vote, the welfare state, public services, full employment, and civil rights. Nowadays, the so-called liberals and progressives hate working class whites with such a passion, they wish they didn’t exist.