Considering how deep-blue San Francisco is, I am not even a little bit surprised to find that the people who run that city are massive hypocrites. As it turns out, even as local and state politicians have argued and mandated that public gyms (as in regular people, as opposed to the politicians, use them) as well as other “non-essential” businesses must be closed, that seemingly did not apply to the amenities that affect the ruling class, only the peasant class.
According to The Washington Examiner, “Gyms within government buildings in San Francisco have been open for months, despite privately owned establishments being ordered to close due to the coronavirus.”
So, in San Francisco alone, we have a salon who had been ordered to be closed for months and was hemorrhaging money only to be told to reopen for one person in particular, that being her highness Nancy Pelosi (who hilariously tried to blame the salon owner, showing just how insufferable she is), and now, we come to find that gyms for government workers have been open this entire time, even despite the warnings those very people were giving public gyms about how “unsafe” it was for people to work out in indoor gyms.
What a sick joke it is to live in Commiefornia. Understandably, one gym owner told a local NBC News station: “It’s shocking, it’s infuriating. Even though they’re getting exposed, there are no repercussions, no ramifications? It’s shocking.”
Well, of course there are no repercussions and ramifications even while they are being exposed. YOU ARE DEALING WITH DEMOCRATS! Hypocrisy doesn’t stick to them. They do not get punished for blatant corruption.
For crying out loud, the current Democrat nominee has deep business ties with CHINA AND UKRAINE! He is essentially a puppet for Xi Jinping, but the media will never bring it up and they would even pretend that it doesn’t matter at all and play it off as a non-issue.
Sen. Diane Feinstein was caught employing a Chinese national for DECADES and literally NOTHING came of it, other than the Chinese national getting fired. No repercussions for Feinstein or anything. She was exposing national-security secrets and NOTHING came of it. Not to mention she was part of that whole pre-COVID stock market fraud, but the media focused largely on Sen. Loeffler.
The last Democrat nominee literally had a foundation that would take money from the Saudis and the Chinese (and whomever else, really) in exchange for “favors”. What do you think “pay-for-play” was all about?
Hypocrisy is a charge that does not stick to the Democrats because the media sides with the Democrats. The only standards the Left has are double standards, where we, the peasants, are supposed to listen and obey them even as they do something entirely contrary to what they tell us.
People are not allowed to go to salons, but Nancy Pelosi can (funny enough, in order to save some amount of face, the city began to ease on restrictions for salon owners following Pelosi being exposed). People are not allowed to go to the gym, but government workers can.
According to the Washington Examiner, the “gyms that have been open for government employees include those for police officers, judges, lawyers, bailiffs, and paralegals, according to the report. One such gym, the Hall of Justice gym, has been open since July 1.”
Now, I can understand gyms for police officers being open. Police precincts usually have gyms within them and it makes sense that out of everyone, they should still be allowed to work out in gyms (especially given the current social climate). They have to uphold the law and do many of the same tasks they usually do outside of a pandemic, so it makes sense for their gyms to still be open.
But what is a judge going to do with an open gym? Why does his or her gym get to be open for them? What need do government lawyers have to continue working out?
It makes sense for cops’ gyms to be open, given their line of work, but judges don’t go out hitting criminals with their gavel. Lawyers don’t go out hitting criminals with a case. Bailiffs, I suppose, could make sense given that they are supposed to maintain safety in the courtroom and they need to be physically fit to do so. But the others, apart from cops, don’t need their gyms to remain open, particularly as the rest of us plebs (I don’t live in San Francisco, but I doubt this double standard is exclusive to this city) are told we cannot go certain places or do certain activities.
Another gym owner put it how I just described it: “It just demonstrates that there seems to be some kind of a double standard between what city employees are allowed to do and what the residents of San Francisco are allowed to do.”
Yep, you, the peasant, have to obey and eat bread, if you can get some, while the ruling class gets to do basically whatever they want (see: Nancy Pelosi, again) and get to eat cake (and then burn all those calories in government gyms).
“But Freddie, COVID can spread quickly if all gyms are open,” the ignoramus will argue. Okay, what sense does it make to claim that public gyms are dangerous but government gyms are not? If the argument is that the virus can spread quickly in an indoor area with plenty of people, who are naturally not going to be wearing masks as to avoid getting a lack of oxygen, then why is a public gym at all different from a gym in a government building?
Not that I expect the liberal ignoramus to be able to answer, let alone honestly. The Left will actually argue that, even as people are not allowed to go to the beach, people are allowed to protest and riot for a Leftist political cause. No masks or social distancing or other health and safety guidelines are required at such protests, but other people not participating must still abide by those rules.
You can’t go to church to pray but you can to set it on fire. You can’t go to a park with your family but you can with your communist revolutionary friends to tear down statues and deface public property.
These double standards are BLATANT and the Left does not get punished for it, apart perhaps from the polls. And even then, the polls didn’t show that they were suffering until the media began to cover and justify obvious criminal acts of destruction as being “mostly peaceful”, all with even a garbage study that says that 93% of the protests were peaceful, while ignoring that that means that there were nearly 600 RIOTS IN 220 LOCATIONS because there were THOUSANDS of protests all across the country in the last three months.
The Left is filled with hypocrites but that hardly seems to matter to some people or event to many. I hope that, given this, things will begin to change a little.
I cannot imagine that the local business owners in places like San Francisco, which have suffered some of the strictest lockdown measures in the country (alongside other deep-blue cities and states), will be too keen on continuing to vote for the Democrats that ruin their businesses and live like royalty, borderline literally.
Do I expect California to turn red this year? Not really. But I do expect some people to recognize just how the Left has been running things and see the results of such governance. San Francisco was literally a “s**thole” before this pandemic began, let alone during it. If there is any hope of cities getting out of the craphole that they are in and return to prosperity, they have to stop voting for those who blatantly hate them and enact policies that are meant to hurt them in every way possible.
The Left must be defeated at all costs and everywhere possible.
“He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have said on multiple occasions in recent articles that one of the Left’s biggest insistences is that we lock everything down once again due to a “fear” of rising Chinese coronavirus cases. Obviously, that is just a ploy to try and destroy the economy once again and blame it all on Trump to try and make sure their sock-puppet of a candidate wins the election. However, it is still an insistence and they are pretty adamant about keeping businesses and everything else closed “for safety reasons.”
A load of crap, considering that Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, have frequently either gone out of their states to do things like stay in a hotel or dine out, or have ordered a small business which has been closed since March to open just to service them. This is what Nancy Pelosi recently did with a hair salon in San Francisco.
According to Fox News: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited a San Francisco hair salon on Monday afternoon for a wash and blow-out, despite local ordinances keeping salons closed amid the coronavirus pandemic, Fox News has learned.”
In security footage (below) from the salon, Nancy Pelosi can be seen walking into the San Francisco salon with wet hair and without a face mask to cover her mouth or nose.
All of this, suffice to say, makes her a complete hypocrite (not that this is any surprise to us). She herself had ordered, back in late July, that face masks were required in the House chamber, and the state of California, as well as the coastal, far-Left cities, have imposed some of the strictest lockdown measures in the country.
And like I said earlier, this salon had been ordered closed since March. The salon owner is a single mother of two and her business is her only source of income (or, rather, it WAS her only source of income).
Fox News reports that “[s]alons in San Francisco had been closed since March and were only notified they could reopen on Sept. 1 for outdoor hairstyling services only.”
“You see, she did nothing wrong! The salon was allowed to open somewhat on September 1st, so what’s the issue, Nazi?” the ignoramus will argue. Plenty is wrong here.
First of all, she went in on Monday, August 31st, the day BEFORE the salons were allowed to partially reopen, or at least perform services outside.
Second of all, the service was not done outside, but inside. And like Fox News mentioned, she didn’t have a face mask with her.
Now, I’m of the belief that face masks are largely unnecessary, especially with few people in any given place (and the hairstylist that blew Pelosi’s hair was wearing a mask himself). However, Leftists are of the belief that face masks must be required if you are outside, inside, walking, driving, meeting your friends and family, chatting over Zoom, going to the bathroom, taking a shower, getting surgery, going into labor, getting a tan, mowing the lawn, going scuba diving, assaulting police officers, setting churches on fire, shooting people and sleeping.
Again, it’s not surprising to see Pelosi being a massive hypocrite, but considering all of the restrictions that the Left is IMPOSING on us and on small businesses, in the words of the very salon owner she told to service her, it’s a “slap in the face.”
You and I aren’t allowed to go to a hair salon (well, I don’t frequent one anyway for a number of reasons apart from the fact that I am a straight man), but her Majesty the Queen, Nancy Pelosi Antoinette, is well within her rights and liberties to go there. Even as that hair salon is struggling (and no, that particular salon can’t do services outside because they specialize in hair coloring and they can’t legally use chemicals outside), even as the single mother of two has been worried sick for the past roughly half a year wondering how she is going to feed herself and her family, Nancy Antoinette is indifferent to her struggle and demands she be catered to, local guidelines and restrictions be damned.
I believe the salon owner said it best: “We’re supposed to look up to this woman, right? It is just disturbing.”
Now, I don’t look up to any politician. I have particular hopes for certain politicians, such as Trump, Pence, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and other conservatives, but I don’t particularly look up to any of them, wishing I could be them or waiting for them to be my personal savior. This is because politicians are not God, and often times, are extremely stupid and hypocritical (case in point the very she-devil prominently featured in this article).
But it is true that they are meant to be held to a sort of relatively higher standard. If it is okay for them to do something, it is only right that it be okay for us to do something. If it is okay for Pelosi to go to a hair salon (without a mask the Left is always screaming at people to wear), it is only right that others be allowed to go to a hair salon for whatever they need to get done.
It is unjust that politicians be allowed to do these things while we the peasants are told we cannot “for safety reasons.” If it’s for “safety reasons”, then doesn’t Pelosi care about her health? She is the third-most powerful politician in the country, as she is third-in-line to the presidency were anything to happen to the POTUS and VP. She is the House Speaker. Most importantly, she’s EIGHTY-YEARS-OLD, or in other words, she is in the most-vulnerable age group for the Chinese coronavirus.
Now, she certainly has the money to be treated and has a higher chance of surviving it than most others around her age due to that fact alone, but it’s no guarantee that whatever treatment she were to undergo would be successful.
Either she cares more about her hair than her health, or she knows just how bogus these lockdown measures are and how overblown the virus has been (though, again, she is in the age group that is most vulnerable, so even as I believe the virus has been blown way out of proportion, someone her age should take care of herself better than this).
Anyway, my point is that it is unjust that Nancy Pelosi, a woman in a high-risk group, would be allowed to get service in a salon, but others, including people far younger and healthier than her, are not allowed. It is unjust that, just because she’s a prominent politician (particularly one with a “D” next to her name), she gets more rights than the regular person when it comes to these lockdowns.
That salon has been hemorrhaging money since March and the business owner has put into place measures that go along with health guidelines (making sure chairs are six feet apart, putting plexiglass partitions between the sinks and chairs, proper air flow with open windows, etc.) and yet, she has not been allowed to reopen except to service one person in particular; someone who feels she is above everyone else and her needs and desires are more important than that of the regular peasant.
It doesn’t help either that San Francisco is almost literally a “s**thole”, what with homeless people defecating everywhere and with all of the violence going on. The salon owner explained to Fox News that she has “lost 60 percent of my clientele because everyone is fleeing the city.”
She also said that the area where her salon is located has basically become “a third world country,” saying that “every other storefront is completely vacant and shut down and boarded up.”
“And because of the shutdown, and the store closures, we’ve lost people, my clients, and my employees, and that is due to the politics in San Francisco.”
Bingo! THAT is the number one issue with much of this. The ONLY reason any stores are still shut down is purely because of politics. The Democrats are only trying to hurt Trump’s chances at reelection and one of his biggest strengths has always been the economy. Democrat states and cities being shut down means the national economy is negatively affected, which the Left and the fake news media will blame on Trump (and don’t think they haven’t tried their best at this. For crying out loud, they’re trying to blame THE RIOTS THAT THEY HAVE ENCOURAGED, SUPPORTED AND COVERED FOR on Trump and his supporters!).
I can guarantee that if, God forbid, Joe Biden wins, all lockdowns would end THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION. Not because it would magically and suddenly be safe, but because it has been safe to reopen for a long time now (never was it a good idea to close down anyway) and everyone knows it.
The ONLY reason this business owner, and all other business owners, are suffering is because of the local and state politics of insanity and vengeance.
While I doubt the entire state of California would ever go red again, I wouldn’t be surprised if enough people recognized how awful the Left is at governing and some counties kick them the hell out of there.
While I haven’t been paying attention to American politics for as long as plenty of other people, I can safely say that I don’t think I have ever seen a party less qualified to run things and more deserving of losing absolutely everything.
I hope the 2020 election will be such a massive Trump and right-wing landslide that it makes 1984 look like 2000, if possible.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Racism courses through the blood of Leftists, so it is not at all surprising to see them do something like what I’m about to show you.
The National Museum of African-American History & Culture recently released an article, and more specifically, a graphic, that attributes positive things to “whiteness” and “white culture”, while insinuating that said positive things are actually bad because they are attributed to “whiteness” and “white culture.”
Let me show you what I mean.
In the graphic, they have several items which are generally positive things, but in the context that the museum is using them (and despite what the name might suggest, the graphic itself was created by a white woman), they are bad things because they apparently belong to white people and white culture alone (all-the-while they insist white people don’t have culture).
Let’s go over these items.
First, there’s the section of “Rugged Individualism”:
The Left, unsurprisingly, insists that individualism and personal independence are bad things, and because they are intolerant racists, they have to attribute these things to white people, even though ALL RACES strive for independence and individualism. You would think, having fought to keep their slaves, the Left would realize that even black people value independence and individualism, wanting to be self-reliant and financially independent.
Next, there’s the “Family Structure” section, which unsurprisingly, attacks the nuclear family (because the nuclear family is the basis for Western civilization and destroying it means destroying the West):
I already mentioned the point of attacking the nuclear family, so let’s move to the other points here. The reason for the husband being the breadwinner and head of household and the wife being the homemaker and subordinate to the husband is because that is the way God intended the family structure to be.
Ephesians 5:22-33 says: “Wives, submit to you own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
And 1 Timothy 5:8 says: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Due to this, and the fact that America is a Judeo-Christian country, the godly family structure should be that the husband is the head of the household, provides for his family, and the wife is the homemaker, submitting to her husband, and taking care of the children, that they might grow into faithful followers of Christ themselves.
These are not strictly “white” things, especially considering this is from a people who were IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The Left loves making the assertion that Jesus wasn’t white, so if He wasn’t white, wouldn’t it also follow that His followers, like Paul, weren’t exactly white either?
It simply makes no sense to attribute this as a “white” thing, considering people of all races do something similar.
And as far as the kids having their own bedrooms, I don’t know how that’s a white thing either. Some families are wealthy enough and small enough to be able to do that. Some are not as wealthy and have bigger families, so the kids have to share rooms. It’s not a white thing.
Next is, hilariously, attributing the “Scientific Method”, or the process by which we discover facts, as a white thing:
Is that to insinuate black people don’t think right? That black people, or Hispanics, or Asians, or Native Americans, or anyone who isn’t white doesn’t think objectively or rationally, going from a logical point A to point B?
And this is supposed to make me believe Leftists AREN’T the racist ones? How is an argument that ONLY white people think rationally an argument AGAINST white people and not against everyone else? I get that white liberals don’t think rationally, but that has more to do with political ideology than race.
“Cause and effect relationships” are strictly a white thing? You mean to tell me that white people see, let’s say, a ball falling on the ground, attribute that action to gravity as the cause, and other races think “AHH, BLACK MAGIC! THAT BALL WAS IN THE AIR AND THEN IT WAS ON THE GROUND! HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THAT?!”? How do you come away making such a blatantly racist argument that only white people think rationally and think to yourself that you’ve stuck it to white people or are defending non-whites?
Anyway, moving on to the other non-sensical and racist bullcrap from these neo-Nazis.
The section of “Protestant Work Ethic.” There technically is a section before that about “History”, but all it said is that it’s “based on Northern European immigrants’ experience” in the U.S., has a “heavy” focus on the U.K. and has a primacy of Western and Judeo-Christian tradition, which are fairly obvious, so I can’t really make arguments against that. It’s just the history of the country, and while I get that the Left hates it, it has nothing really to do with whiteness.
The Left is coming at this one with a mentality of “structural racism”, but this still is nothing but loser talk. Of course hard work is the key to success. Ever head of a successful couch potato? Even if you foolishly believe that being a CEO takes zero effort to do, one has to work hard to just get to that point in the first place. No matter how long I wait, Microsoft isn’t going to name me their CEO if I’m just sitting on my couch (then again, I’m Latino and we don’t think rationally, apparently, so maybe it will happen!).
“Work before play.” I personally had to learn this one the hard way because yes, even in Latin American countries with THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION BEING LATINO, I have to do my work before I get to play, else I will have less time to finish my work, it gets rushed, and it gets sloppy. This isn’t a white thing. It’s a “not a total lazy piece of crap” thing.
The final point is also fairly obvious. You have to work hard to meet your goals, and while SOMETIMES, there are things that obstruct you despite your hard work (systemic racism isn’t a thing, so no, that’s not one of those obstructions), most of the time, it’s up to an individual to determine how successful they will be in doing anything. Matter of fact, in understanding this, plenty of people are conservatives because we KNOW that the government more often than not gets in people’s way. But no matter what, it’s not exactly a white thing.
Next, there is the “Status, Power & Authority” section. Like the last one, there technically was another one before this one, but I’m pressed for space and time in this article and want to prioritize this one. The previous one was similar to “History”, it was “Religion”, and basically the same points are made, though one of them was “no tolerance” for straying from a “single god concept”, and I will just say that there is just a single God, so it’s not a white thing. Muslims believe in a single god and are intolerant of deviation from that belief.
This more accurately describes white liberals than white people as a whole. To them, “your job is who you are” because when they have a doctorate or are, for example, epidemiologists, they define themselves as such and operate with smugness about it.
“Respect authority” is not just a white thing either. The Chinese Communist Party demands people respect their authority. Black parents demand their children respect their authority. Latino parents do the same (really, all parents do, but seemingly, white liberal parents seem to be the ones who will allow their children to walk all over them).
The final point is an obvious jab at capitalism, though let’s not pretend communists don’t do the same. The Obamas bought a house in Martha’s Vineyard as they, for more than a decade, have insisted that anthropogenic climate change would make such places completely uninhabitable for humans. They also love to flaunt their wealth, buying expensive suits and dresses. So this also isn’t a white thing specifically.
Next, I will combine two sections, “Future Orientation” and “Time” since they both say basically the same:
Right, because only white people have ever planned for the future. If that were the case, there would only have ever been one Christian Crusade because Muslims (and people in the Middle East in general) wouldn’t be ale to plan for the future (or think rationally, according to these people).
“Delayed gratification” isn’t a white thing either, it’s a smart thing. White liberals expect instant gratification for everything. All liberals do, really. It’s also a bit more of a millennial thing than anything else.
“Progress is always best.” Not in the commie context, but in the actual context of improvement. Apparently, non-whites think it’s best to sit in one spot forever and ever, never improving. Again, the Left fought to keep their slaves because the slaves wanted to be free. If black people didn’t believe that progress is always best and wanted to stay in one place forever without improvement, they wouldn’t have wanted freedom from the Left’s bondage.
“’Tomorrow will be better’”. Apparently, optimism is a white thing.
Now, as this article is pretty long and I still have a few points to go over, I will just mention one “point” in each subsequent section.
“Aesthetics”: “Man’s attractiveness based on economic status, power, intellect.”
I’ve said this plenty of times, but women find financially independent, strong and smart men attractive. It’s not a white thing.
“Holidays”: “Based on white history & male leaders.”
Yeah, white history holidays like Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
“Justice”: “Intent counts.”
Apparently not when it’s Hillary Clinton, you know, a white woman of immense privilege?
“Competition”: “Must always ‘do something’ about a situation.”
You mean to tell me that non-whites don’t “do something” about a situation? So the riots and the protests about George Floyd just didn’t happen because black people don’t “do something” about a situation?
“Communication”: “’The King’s English’ rules.”
Yeah, it’s so white to speak proper English. Actually, that section has another “point” I want to discuss: “Be polite.” Apparently, politeness and not being rude is strictly a white thing.
Black people and general non-white people are rude to others. How is this a statement in FAVOR of non-whites?
In any case, there are more hilarious “points” in the graphic, but this article is plenty long and you get the point.
Jim Crow is alive and well in the Democrat Party.
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The New York Times is up there with CNN as some of the most vile and disgusting fake news that there is in this country. Truly, the only difference between the two is that CNN is also a cable “news” organization. Seeing how utterly fascistic and communistic the general narrative that is found in the NYT is, it’s not at all surprising to see someone who does not fully support such ideals be bullied and pushed out of the company.
Bari Weiss had been writing for the NYT for the past few years, following the election of Donald Trump, supposedly, according to her, because the Times was so wrong about who would be elected that it clearly needed a better understanding of the country that it covers.
Of course, she herself HATES Trump and has outright alleged he was sympathetic to neo-Nazis (which we shall see is rather hilarious in a moment) and would likely cancel anyone who is pro-Trump were she to have the power (she advocated for censoring Alex Jones), however, due to her not adhering in full with the communistic rhetoric of the company, at least in everything she wanted to write, Weiss has decided to resign from the NYT. In her resignation letter, Weiss utterly crushed the company by exposing precisely who they are: elitist, communist bullies who are wholly intolerant while preaching “tolerance”.
And yes, she is a massive hypocrite, but she is ripping the NYT, so let’s hear her out for a second, while still keeping in mind the fact that she is just as despicable.
In her resignation letter, Weiss lambasts the Times for being a paper more concerned with getting clicks from people on Twitter than actually being remotely objective or journalistically proper. “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.”
In essence, Weiss is accusing the NYT of writing stories that will get them on Twitter’s “trending” list rather than writing stories of importance and significance to the vast majority of the country.
Later, Weiss takes note of some of the personal experiences she has had while working for the communist paper: “My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
One, I told you that it was rather hilarious that she essentially called Trump a Nazi when she herself had been called that. Two, this is not at all unexpected behavior from communists. They HATE anyone who does not think like them and in this day and age when literal crime is hardly punished, such people feel comfortable showing their truly monstrous side. Communists are hateful bullies who somehow have deluded themselves into thinking they are angels doing God’s work. They are awful people, the embodiment of intolerance and hatred itself.
To me, it is EXTREMELY ironic that ANYONE at the New York Times would accuse someone just slightly right of Marx (and Weiss isn’t exactly Ronald Reagan) to be a Nazi when the publication itself has published the following article: “THE ART OF PROPAGANDA – By Adolf Hitler,” written June 22nd, 1941.
The New York Times published a piece by Adolf Hitler on the same day as Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi operation to invade the Soviet Union, and all-the-while the guy was killing Jews and other political opponents in concentration camps.
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that the NYT chose to publish a piece by Adolf Hitler, or the following piece, written on November 21st, 1922:
Headline: “NEW POPULAR IDOL RISES IN BAVARIA; Hitler Credited With Extraordinary Powers of Swaying Crowds to His Will. FORMS GRAY-SHIRTED ARMY Armed With Blackjacks and Revolvers and Well Disciplined, They Obey Orders Implicitly. LEADER A REACTIONARY is Anti Red and Anti-Semitic, and Demands Strong Government for a United Germany.”
Yes, long headline, but this was a different time. At any rate, the piece later on said the following:
“But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and inline for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.”
We often times rip “experts” and supposed, anonymous “sources” from people who act in bad faith, but I don’t think anyone could top “our sources say that Hitler is not as anti-Semitic or violent as people think he is.”
This is on record for The New York Times, and it’s not like featuring egregious personalities is anything new for them. They have, just in the last decade, allowed for op-eds from Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin to be published on their paper. Hitler, Erdogan and Putin all enjoy or have enjoyed a great deal of liberty and even veneration from The New York Times.
So again, for anyone in the NYT to accuse anyone else of being a Nazi is EXTREMELY RICH (though for Weiss to play victim to such attacks is equally rich, considering she does the same to Trump).
Returning to Weiss’ resignation letter, she noted that “if a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
These people claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” but have an outright allergic reaction to a Republican Senator writing that we should use the military to defeat the riots. They claim to be tolerant people while not tolerating anyone’s opinion should said opinion dissent from the pre-approved one. If you even remotely do not share much hatred for Trump, you are compared to Hitler himself (again, an extremely rich thing for anyone at the paper to do).
Anyone right of Karl Marx is considered a danger, a Nazi, and less than human. These people go around calling other people bigots when there are no bigger bigots than them.
At any rate, Weiss continued by excoriating the paper, taking note that Tom Cotton’s op-ed cost two people their jobs, all-the-while the paper celebrates an interview with a disgusting anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who, to Weiss’s words, “believes in lizard Illuminati.”
Of course, considering the paper is willing to have an op-ed from Adolf Hitler, it’s not really so surprising that they have such a high regard for known anti-Semites.
Furthermore, Weiss writes: “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its ‘diversity’; the doxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.”
Considering the history revisionism that the Times is involved in with its “1619 project”, it’s not at all surprising that these people live in the land of Looney Tunes, and even then, I would assume Buggs Bunny has more of a sense of reason than the people most often featured on that communist publication. Time and time again, Buggs Bunny showed considerably more wit than any of the people I have seen write for the Times, if I’m honest. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could trick them by flipping a sign that says “commie season.”
They are people who adamantly hate this country and spend their lives and careers excoriating it. That they compare America and Nazi Germany for their “caste system” is no surprise to someone who expects such nonsensical and offensive crap from human garbage like the NYT.
Anyway, Weiss concludes with a few things, such as a “set of rules” for writing for the NYT, including “Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”
One does not have free speech when writing for the New York Times. They either speak the way the Times wants them to speak, whether willingly or not, or they can find themselves in an unemployment office.
This, my friends, is communism. Not that I needed to remind you of that.
In the end, Weiss quotes Adolph Ochs, former owner of the NYT, in a famous statement he made in 1896: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs wouldn’t even be allowed to write for the Times’ opinion piece nowadays with such a mentality, let alone be allowed to own the paper. Such an opinion runs contrary to the Left’s. The idea that people be allowed to have differing opinions and, worse yet, be allowed a platform through which to express such opinions is considered a threat to democracy itself in the minds of the politically insane.
Of course, Weiss herself has hypocritically gone against Ochs’ words in her trying to cancel Alex Jones, and I doubt she would be willing to have an honest debate with a pro-Trumper, but at least she gives us some ammo to use against the Times.
The NYT is garbage. Sane people are better off not reading it or contributing to it. While I do not exactly have much sympathy for Weiss, considering she herself has acted in that exact same manner, with the exact same attacks thrown at Trump and his supporters, I am at the very least glad that she attacked the NYT like she did on the way out.
Love it when the Left goes after its own.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I just love days like today when the Left gives me all the ammo that I could possibly want to utterly and completely humiliate and destroy them with everything that I have. Such an opportunity was given to me when, following the Reade accusations that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her (with her being the eighth woman to come forward to accuse Biden of sexual assault/harassment), the Left switched from their “believe all women” platform to “believe the women who accuse conservatives” platform pretty darn obviously.
And nowhere has this switch been more obvious than in a recent New York Times op-ed written by feminist Susan Faludi, who writes: “’Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap.”
Yes, apparently, we all were just hallucinating the idea that the Left insisted we should believe each and every woman that would come forward with “her truth” with regards to sexual assault. Apparently, it was just conservatives using that phrase just to attack Joe Biden and whatever other Leftist who got caught in this same sort of trap that the Left tried to set on right-wingers like Kavanaugh and Trump.
Apparently, the actual phrase is “believe women”, which is somehow different from “believe all women”. Apparently, the phrase “believe women” is supposed to mean that we take sexual assault claims seriously without throwing away due process and without “reflexively doubting them”, as Jill Filipovic tweeted upon reading the article.
It’s worth mentioning the load of crap that this whole thing is.
Filipovic, in her tweet, claims that “feminists never said ‘believe all women’ – the right inserted the ‘all’. Feminists said ‘believe women’: that is, start with the assumption that women are telling the truth instead of reflexively doubting them.”
Again, that’s a load of crap, not to mention a hilarious attempt at gaslighting. LITERALLY ALL FEMINISTS, WHEN THE METOO MOVEMENT BECAME A THING, STARTED SAYING “BELIEVE ALL WOMEN.” Filipovic either doesn’t remember (how convenient) or is straight-up lying and gaslighting, which is the most likely possibility simply because of the fact that the accusation is being thrown at the Democrats’ last hope of beating Trump in November: Creepy Joe Biden.
Let me share with you just a few examples of the many, MANY times feminists and Leftists in general have used the phrase “believe all women.”
Let’s begin with a tweet from The View on December 8th, 2017:
“’Rapes and sexual harassment are the least-reported crimes in our country because women are afraid they will not be believed and that they will be shamed – and we need to change that!’ Sunny on why she believes it’s essential to believe all women coming forward with allegations.”
From Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) on September 26th, 2018, with regards to the Kavanaugh accusations: “We stand with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, & Julie Swetnik. #BelieveAllWomen.”
That one in particular is hilarious to me because not only does she use the hashtag that the gaslighting leftists insisted feminists never used, but she is also adding Julie Swetnik, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of being at ten parties where she herself had been “raped”, though she never accused Kavanaugh of doing the “raping”. The reason I find it hilarious is because listening to her story for five minutes is all it takes to recognize how utterly bogus and ridiculous it is, not to mention fairly irrelevant, since she never accused Kavanaugh of partaking in the acts she claims happened in such parties.
But regardless of that tangential point, we can clearly see that she is earnestly using the full phrase and unless she’s secretly a right-wing operative or something like that, I guess that’s a case of a LEFTIST, FEMINIST USING THE PHRASE THAT FILIPOVIC INSISTED THEY DIDN’T USE.
From NPR: “’Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #MeToo movement – a mantra embraced by some but dismissed by others as naïve. The tension over the credibility of women is nothing new, especially in rape investigations.”
And here’s an image from one of the protests regarding the Kavanaugh hearings:
All it takes to classify a woman as a “survivor” is simply her telling her story, and Tara Reade has told her story extensively to a number of news outlets. All of a sudden, however, we are not to believe ALL “survivors” and women.
From the University of Oregon’s Organization Against Sexual Assault: “We must educate young boys on the meaning of consent and instill the value of women’s safety in them from a young age. #BelieveAllWomen #consent #MeToo.”
From a Democrat candidate for the North Carolina Senate: “After taking cyberstalking plea deal, WNC’s Rep. Henson to resign. #AboutTime #BelieveAllWomen #endofcorruption #DrainTheSwamp.”
From a mental health counselor who could probably use one himself: “This a**hole assumes the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Trump are fake, but I would bet good money he believes Juanita Broaddrick. #BelieveAllWomen.” (Worth mentioning that, upon finding this tweet, I found a reply that read: "That hashtag is a winner. Thank you. I wish other men believed." which cracked me up when I saw it because this woman wrote it at the time the original tweet was made and she 100% meant what she said).
Time after time, ever since the phrase was brought up, it has been used by the Left sincerely to attack any political opponents they can use the tactic of accusations against. Whenever a woman came forward with a story of sexual assault, we were to believe she was telling the truth and disparage the man that she was accusing, without hearing his side of the story and without granting presumption of innocence.
But now that Joe Biden has been accused for THE EIGHT TIME of some sort of sexual misconduct, even though there is AMPLE evidence of such things from just the pictures I shared in the very FIRST article I wrote discussing the Reade allegations, the response from the Left has been nothing short of a betrayal of the standards they had been trying to set for the last couple of years.
When it’s one of THEIR OWN who is being credibly accused of sexual assault, they either bury the story (like they had been trying to do with the SEVEN other women who came forward to accuse him) or they attack and disparage the accuser, accusing her of lying for Trump’s political benefit or simply being an affront to “progress”.
And the most hilarious part of all of it is that the argument they are trying to use, that the phrase should be “believe women”, not “believe all women”, doesn’t work because both signify the same thing.
There is no significant difference between “believe women” and “believe all women.” The “all” is IMPLIED in the former! Tara Reade is still a woman. The phrase they apparently believe should be used is “believe women” WHICH STILL APPLIES TO HER!
These idiots can’t even gaslight us right! They are arguing for a distinction without a difference! Even if they were right about feminists never having used the latter term, which is 100% wrong, as I just demonstrated, their argument STILL wouldn’t suffice to discredit Reade. She is still a woman and they are still insisting that women be believed.
And the argument that we don’t “reflexively doubt” the woman making the allegations is still ridiculous because NO ONE reflexively doubts women making allegations. What we do is not rob the person being accused of their presumption of innocence while still taking the woman’s allegations with the seriousness it deserves, if it deserves it at all. Accusations like the one from Blasey Ford or any of the other Kavanaugh accusers barely deserved any seriousness because of the fact that NONE of them brought forth any evidence of such misconduct from Kavanaugh.
Ford accused him DECADES after the incident happened. And unlike Reade, who waited almost as long to come forward with her story, Ford never told anyone about what supposedly happened when it supposedly happened. Reade told her mother, brother and those close to her soon after she was allegedly assaulted by Biden. CNN tried to delete a video of a phone call Reade’s mother made to Larry King’s show to talk about it, showing that Reade indeed told her mother around the time that the incident occurred.
Ford came forward with her accusation only when Kavanaugh was about to be the newest Supreme Court Justice and she never told anyone about what happened until the time she made the accusation. And the witnesses she brought forth either did not corroborate her story or outright REFUTED her story.
And keep in mind, Ford was THE MOST CREDIBLE out of all of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Each of the accusers that came forth after Ford were less and less credible, up to Swetnik, who sounded like a loon because she repeatedly attended parties held by the same people she accused of raping girls in those parties.
We didn’t not believe Ford because we “reflexively” doubt women coming forward with sexual assault allegations. We didn’t believe Ford because HER STORY WAS FULL OF HOLES, SHE KEPT CHANGING IT, SHE NEVER TOLD ANYONE BEFORE COMING FORWARD, SHE HAD NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND WAS VISIBLY TRAINED BY ALYSSA MILANO ON HOW TO ACT LIKE AN INNOCENT GIRL IN FRONT OF A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HALF OF WHOM WERE DEMOCRATS WITH AN AGENDA LIKE SHE WAS.
And that last part was the most important one, because it’s easily provable. A video from September of last year showed Blasey Ford’s attorney “telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade,” according to Newsweek. So it is painfully obvious that the ONLY reason Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault wasn’t because he did it but because he posed a threat to their paganistic and satanic desire to KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN SHOULD THEY PLEASE.
Meanwhile, Reade has far more going for her story being true than Ford ever did and Reade is, herself, a Democrat who in all likelihood hates Trump’s guts, so she has far less of a reason to come forward with accusations because of politics.
In all of this, keep in mind the one and ONLY reason the Left is saying the things they are saying: the target of these accusations is Joe Biden. If Tara Reade had accused Trump of sexual assault, even if she didn’t bring with her any sort of evidence or witnesses, she would be celebrated and treated like a QUEEN, much like Ford was. But because she is accusing Joe Biden, the rules of engagement have to be changed.
All of a sudden, the phrase the Left adopted when attacking political opponents, “believe all women” became so problematic that some of their members believed they should gaslight everyone and claim no feminist ever actually used it, when they very clearly did.
All of a sudden, that phrase is a “right-wing trap”, not because the Left has never used it but because it can be used against them by the Right.
So, they ignore the standards they set for other people as soon as they are used against them. Not the first time it’s happened; won’t be the last. But it is always glorious to see karma biting them in the rear and people trying to get them to operate under the rules THEY set.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I could probably write about many instances in which a Leftist has been a hypocrite (and I, indeed, have written many) because hypocrisy is simply part of the Left’s genetic code. However, this one, I believe, is particularly egregious given the times that we currently have to live in.
Despite the media’s adoration of both Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio (though I won’t really talk about him here, only pointing him out because he was as much of a disaster as Cuomo and was getting great publicity because of the “D” next to his name), it is an objective fact that both of these idiots have done things that have hurt their states, both in terms of the timing of their response (they shut down considerably after California did, despite being an early hotspot) and their actual response and decisions surrounding the Chinese coronavirus.
But focusing strictly on Cuomo, allow me to get to point of what is Cuomo’s worst policy in all of this and the egregious reasoning behind it, and that is Gov. Cuomo’s order of sending SICK AND VULNERABLE virus patients to NURSING HOMES WHERE THERE ARE OTHER HIGHLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
On March 25th, Cuomo issued a state mandate which required nursing homes to admit suspected or diagnosed cases of the coronavirus. This idiotic mandate also “prohibited nursing homes from requiring a coronavirus test for incoming hospital transfers,” according to TownHall.
In essence, despite the fact that President Trump gave Cuomo every advantage in fighting the virus in approving a temporary hospital at New York City’s Javitz Center and sent a hospital ship with medical supplies and for treating people to the state, Cuomo opted to send sick people to the places where the most vulnerable populations live: nursing and retirement homes.
Either Cuomo is the biggest moron in the world or he did this very much on purpose, knowing what it would lead to.
In defense of his idiotic-at-best decision, Cuomo said: “We worked it out so we always had available beds. Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way. And still, people died. Still, people died. Older people, vulnerable people are going to die from this virus. That is going to happen despite whatever you do. Because with all our progress as a society, we can’t keep everyone alive.”
A couple things to note here. First, and most importantly, this is outright sick. It’s not untrue, but the way he put it is sickening and insensitive.
It’s the same mentality that Italy had when the virus was first ravaging that country, where they would just allow the elderly to die in order to save supplies for the younger people. It’s a death-panel mentality, not unlike that which the Nazis have employed in the past.
Second, this is extremely hypocritical because of comments he made on April 22nd, when he was asked about reopening the state because people needed to work.
To give some context, in that press conference, a reporter asked Cuomo: “Protesters outside right now honking their horns, they’re raising signs. These are regular people. They’re not getting a paycheck. Some of them are not getting their unemployment money. And they’re saying they don’t have time to wait for all this testing. They need to get back to work. They have to feed their families. Their savings are running out. They don’t have another week, Governor. They’re not getting answers. So their point is, this cure cannot be worse than the illness itself. What’s your response to that?”
Cuomo responded: “The illness is death. What is worse than death?”
Now, the illness itself isn’t death, as 98% of people recover. It’s far from a death sentence for most people. Want to know who are the few for whom it basically is? THE ELDERLY WHOM CUOMO HAS NO PROBLEM SEEING DIE, APPARENTLY!
See, this is the hypocrisy of Cuomo. The guy was adamant about not reopening the state, regardless of the crippling financial problems that fall on people when an economy gets shut down, because he believed the illness is death itself. But now, he justifies his decision to send people with the illness, which is death itself, according to him, to those who are most at risk and he has no problem with that at all.
So you have to ask: why would he order such a thing? If he believed that “the illness is death”, then why send people with this death illness to people who are most at risk to die from this death illness?
Back in April, Cuomo made a big deal about the illness being death and how we needed to be careful, and now, it’s passé. It’s perfectly fine that people died of the death illness and it’s perfectly justified because people die anyway, it seems.
Again, it’s hypocritical. Yeah, people are going to die anyway, but then why wouldn’t he have thought of that when it came to reopening the state? His argument for not letting the state reopen was that people were going to die if he allowed that. Now, he finds it perfectly acceptable that people died because of his mandate?
A noticeable portion of New York’s deaths are from nursing home infections. What’s worse is the fact that around March 3rd, the New York State Department of Health changed its disclosure procedures to only report coronavirus deaths from nursing home patients if they physically died in the nursing home, according to TowhHall. Meaning that if any patient who contracted the virus inside the nursing home died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, in a hospital itself, or simply outside a nursing home’s premises, then that didn’t count as a nursing home death, artificially lowering the number of such deaths in the official books.
Cuomo got so much backlash for his March 25th mandate that he made subtle changes to make things look better than they actually were and officially rescinded the order on May 11.
His state order is more disastrous than the actual numbers show, is what I’m getting at.
And in all of this, the guy is actually trying to defend his actions as “everyone dies eventually and there’s no helping it”, which is not necessarily the case here. Yes, everyone dies eventually, but Cuomo’s actions are directly responsible for the deaths of so many elderly New Yorkers, which did not have to happen and possibly would not have happened without such a mandate. Maybe they would have died without the mandate still, but with it, they were basically guaranteed to it. The illness itself wasn’t a death sentence for them. Cuomo’s orders basically were.
Cuomo put elderly people directly in harm’s way and defended it as saying “everyone dies someday.” By that logic, the Holocaust, 9/11 and LITERALLY ALL HUMAN ATROCITIES can be defended because “everyone dies someday”.
It’s an insanely stupid and disgusting argument for a guy who I think knows he messed up badly but is trying to save face. “I didn’t mess up! Everyone dies eventually! Who cares if what I did was directly responsible for this when death is an eventuality!?”
The guy literally has no actual defense and the one he is trying to use is the worst one he could bring up: nihilistic apathy. Again, by this logic, you could defend reopening the state because people were going to die anyway, and yet, he felt it would’ve been a massive risk to do so precisely because of the deaths.
The response to this virus from Governor Andrew Cuomo (and de Blasio) is the perfect example of what not to do during a time of crisis. Simply put, you don’t put one of the most vulnerable populations directly in harm’s way. When you do, you get a sizeable portion of people in that demographic dying off and the numbers show it (and again, the numbers should actually be a bit worse because of the May 3rd change).
Cuomo has been an abject disaster for the State of New York, not that I expect anything to change in the future.
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”
“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Two Fridays ago, Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” with Mika Brzezinski (who, as I said in the article talking about it, did a pretty decent job) to speak about the allegation made by Tara Reade that he sexually assaulted her. Just appearing and addressing the allegations, denying them outright, made the Women’s March, which had previously been calling for Joe to address it with seriousness, perfectly satisfied and content with his answer.
We already knew how much of a joke the Women’s March was, but this is pathetic, even for them, though not unexpected. The Women’s March is nothing short of a Leftist political hack group aimed at targeting and destroying conservatives through accusations of sexual assault. Whenever one of their own is accused, however, a simple denial of the allegations is enough, when the same denial is seen as insufficient or even as an outright lie when done by the Right.
To remind you, this is the same organization that gave birth to the phrase “believe all women,” so that’s why this is particularly pathetic. They should change it to “believe all women (who accuse conservatives, but not the ones who accuse our guys)”.
In any case, following Joe’s interview and denial of the accusations, the Women’s March tweeted: “We are glad to see Joe Biden take a step in addressing this issue head-on. This is what is necessary to create a culture where survivors can come forward without fear of reprisal. We’ve come a long way on this, but still have a long way to go. Only Joe Biden can speak to his past, and we are glad he has begun to do so with his statement. It’s not on survivors or women to answer for him.”
What a load of crap. First of all, it took him FIVE WEEKS to address the issue. He had hoped his buddies in the corrupt fake news media would do the dirty work for him and not cover the allegation, hoping it would go away on its own. Ultimately, he couldn’t do that and when he realized it (or was told it), he decided to talk about it five weeks after the fact when there was mounting pressure to talk about it.
Second, is that really helpful for a culture of survivors coming forward without fear of reprisal? Funny, because Joe Biden, in 1993, ultimately FIRED Reade after she had made a formal complaint about him (and I will talk about this in a moment). She faced reprisal. Joe’s actions do not speak of a man who is sorry for what he did. He has tried EVERYTHING to hide what he did, which is why the following from the Women’s March is so ironic:
In a separate statement, the group says that they take women’s “allegations seriously” and that Biden “modeled” what a proper response to this sort of accusation should be because he allowed “for a fair inquiry of the facts to be conducted by journalists or other investigative bodies without interference.”
Again I say: what a load of crap. He has denied access to his Senate papers which are in the hands of the University of Delaware. If you were to find the complaint by Tara Reade about his sexual assault, it would be there, and Biden knows it and is denying people access to it. The Women’s March is flat-out LYING to protect their guy because they know that he is indefensible but they need someone to go against Trump. Speaking of which, the idiots actually think this puts them in A BETTER POSITION to win in 2020:
“To those concerned about what this means for the election: By addressing these allegations, we are improving our chances of winning in 2020. As we saw in 2018, when women are respected and empowered, we turn out in force.”
Yeah, right. Biden looks EVEN MORE GUILTY in the way that he addressed the allegations, as I said in my article’s very title.
It’s extremely ironic, but not surprising, that the Women’s March would sidle up to Biden simply by him denying the allegations. They did not offer Kavanaugh the same grace by any stretch of the imagination, even though Blasey Ford had NOTHING to corroborate her story. Even the witnesses she brought up CHALLENGED her story, either not remembering the house party or outright refuting the allegations made by Ford, and still, these dishonest hacks decided to believe her.
Meanwhile, here I am offering SEVEN pieces that corroborate Tara Reade’s story of her being sexually assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993 (though this won’t do anything to convince anyone on the Left, that’s for certain).
First, we have Lynda LaCasse, who was a former neighbor of Reade’s in the mid-90s. In an interview with Business Insider’s Rich McHugh, who helped Ronan Farrow break the Harvey Weinstein story, LaCasse said: “This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it.” LaCasse explained that in 1995 or 96, Reade had told her of what had happened, saying: “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him. And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”
That aligns with Reade’s own story, which she told numerous sources, including Business Insider, that Joe Biden pushed her up against a wall and sexually assaulted her with his fingers.
LaCasse continued: “[Reade] was crying. She was upset. And the more she talked about it, the more she started crying. I remember saying that she needed to file a police report. I don’t remember all the details. I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”
And if you think she’s just some “conservative operator” or something, she admits to McHugh that she’s not only a “very strong Democrat” but also that she’s “for Biden,” indicating an intention to vote for him regardless of this story (which honestly repulses me, but whatever).
This is a Biden supporter and even she is acknowledging that Reade’s story is true and that it needs to be more than fully addressed.
Second, there’s Lorraine Sanchez, who told Business Insider (in the same article where LaCasse's interview happened) that she “worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-‘90s… that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, D.C., had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.”
She said that “[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in D.C. and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.”
Third, Collin Moulton, who is Reade’s younger brother. McHugh also spoke to Moulton and in those conversations with him and another person (Sanchez), he says that “they struck me as extremely credible.”
McHugh states: “I drilled down with the details of the story, and they matched up with her story, with Tara’s story.”
Fourth, there is one anonymous corroborating witness, who confirmed Reade had told her about the sexual assault at the time and McHugh also found her to be “extremely credible.”
Fifth, another anonymous corroborating witness, who says she was a former intern under Reade in Biden’s Senate office at the time. She says she was not told of the incident, “but [the witness] said… in mid-April of 1993, Tara was abruptly no longer her supervisor. So the timing matches exactly with what Tara was saying.”
Sixth, there is the 1993 videotape of Reade’s mother calling CNN’s Larry King on his show to ask for advice. According to The Intercept, the same source that first covered Reade’s story, “In interviews with The Intercept, Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to ‘Larry King Live’ on CNN, during which she made reference to her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill. Reade told The Intercept that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade, then in her 20s, left Biden’s office.”
Obviously, CNN would never try to let people know about the tape and actively tried to hide it, erasing the episode of Larry King’s show where the call took place from their archives, but you know what they say: “what’s on the Internet is forever,” and an everyday Joe (not that Joe) found it after listening to the Katie Halper podcast. Here is the transcript of that call:
King: “San Luis Obispo, California, hello.”
Caller: “Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”
King: “In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?”
Caller: “That’s true.”
Personally, I don’t think it was “out of respect” for Biden, but out of fear, that she didn’t go to the press over it. I don’t know Reade or what she was thinking at the time, but I do know that, if I were a woman and were sexually assaulted by a prominent Senator (or anyone, really), regardless of who that person is and regardless of whether or not I previously respected that person dearly and whether or not I agreed with his political views, I would not have a shred of respect for that person after the fact. But I would have fear, and that, I think, was the driving force behind Reade not telling her story at the time.
She was younger and she didn’t want to challenge a powerful figure, whom she admired and respected and agreed with. But Reade’s mother’s story, the little that she told with the few details she provided, aligns with the events that took place in Reade’s life, down to the timing of it all.
And finally, we have the seventh piece, which is the most convincing piece of corroborating evidence we have so far. Yeah, if you thought the others were decent enough, then take a look at court documents from 1996, filed by one Mr. Theodore Dronen, Reade’s ex-husband, in fighting a restraining order she filed during his and Reade’s divorce:
“I met [Reade] in the spring of 1993 while working in Washington D.C. At the early stages of our dating, [Reade] felt comfortable confiding in me as we both worked for members of Congress. On several occasions, [Reade] related a problem that she was having at work, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office. It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on [Reade], and that she is still sensitive and effected [sic] by it today.”
Dronen noted that her “traumatic” experiences while working for Biden had tainted her “perception and judgment.”
There could well be another piece of corroborating evidence in the form of her harassment complaint, but that would be found in Biden’s Senate papers, which as I have said, are in the hands of the University of Delaware and Biden has denied people access to them, except for members of his own team (who will likely “lose” the papers regarding Reade, or at least, the complaint specifically, and claim they never found any such complaint).
All of this only makes the Women’s March statement and tweet look all the worse because Reade had FAR MORE evidence against Biden than Blasey Ford ever could have hoped to have against Kavanaugh and yet they choose to believe Biden when he just DENIES the allegation, as though what he says is Gospel.
Here’s hoping that more evidence comes forward of what Joe Biden did to Reade (and the seven other women who have accused him of sexual harassment/assault) and that Biden eventually finds himself in the very jail he would ironically want other accused men to be in.
Joe Biden deserves to go to the big house, not the White House.
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
CNN, the most laughable name in news, has recently been trending thanks to a viral clip of a segment showing CNN host Don Lemon, far-Left opinion writer Wajahat Ali and Never Trump traitor Rick Wilson mocking and insulting Trump supporters’ intelligence, education and even insinuating that we are illiterate.
Speaking about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his altercation with a Left-wing NPR reporter who lied to Pompeo and broke an off-the-record agreement the two of them had and he asked her to identify Ukraine on a map (she couldn’t), the three stooges made sure to back the Left-wing NPR reporter and lambast not only Pompeo, but Trump and everyone who supports him.
Covering the most relevant parts for this article, Rick Wilson eventually said: “[Pompeo] also knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world, and so that’s partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience, you know, credulous boomer demo that back Donald Trump, that wants to think that Donald Trump’s a smart one, and y’all – y’all elitists are dumb.”
Ali continued with the mockery: “You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling even though –“ and he was interrupted by Wilson continuing his own mockery: “Your math, your reading.”
Throughout all this, of course, Don Lemon is laughing his butt off, finding it extremely hilarious to mock people in a very elitist way (with zero sense of self-awareness of their elitist mockery).
Now, I am not the least bit surprised to see people with darkness filling their hearts mocking Trump and his administration and his supporters. These are people who, at the same time, will “call for unity” while lambasting the side that does not agree with everything they have to say. These are people who honestly believe the b.s. they sell to their audience and could not properly identify how many genders there are, all-the-while flaunting Harvard and Yale degrees like they are worthwhile treasures that only the best of the best are able to obtain and as though they should be revered as gods for having such “education” (even though college is more for indoctrination).
I am not surprised one bit by this, because this is far from the first time CNN has decided to show pure, unadulterated hatred for those whom they honestly despise and wish they could rid the world of. I’ve already written an entire article dedicated to how much of a hypocritical slime ball Don Lemon is for, in the same breath, calling for an end to “demonizing” others and proceeding to demonize others. I’ve also covered another segment in which Lemon and other guests on his show mocked Kanye West shortly after demonstrating he supported Trump by saying that “Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read.”
Don Lemon has a long history of being a hypocritical, hateful idiot who either piles onto the hate or laughs at the face of it. I can guarantee that if a segment on Fox News had done this about Obama supporters in the Midwest, there would be a full nuclear meltdown about it, with everyone involved in that segment being forced to apologize, alongside the entire network, and with petitions to take Fox News off the air.
But because this is about them “dumb” Trump supporters who “can’t read, can’t spell, can’t find countries on maps” (btw, a Morning Consult poll back in the beginning of the year asked people to identify Iran on a map and only 27% of Democrats could find it, as opposed to 28% of Republicans and 31% of Independents, so who is it really that can’t find countries on maps?), “can’t do math, and are so intellectually-deficient as to subject themselves to vote for Trump”, it is perfectly acceptable to throw by the wayside any semblance of tolerance or love or compassion that they claim to have for others and it is perfectly acceptable that such people get this kind of treatment from a major news organization that really can’t afford to play so loosely with their ratings.
The people that profess tolerance display none of it. The people that claim to be professionals showcase their unprofessionalism. The people who swear they are bearers of truth spew lies and slander about others. The people who claim to want to “save America” show their true hatred for it and those who even might slightly dissent from their collective thought. The people that claim to hold valuable knowledge and superior intelligence will deny science and spout science fiction all for the sake of an agenda where the Democrat Party gets more and more power and these idiots somehow think they will have some share in that.
Again, I am not at all surprised that the network that ran the Russian hoax for two and a half years, still pretty much does, and continues to lie about Trump and Ukraine, would, once again, display their utter contempt for those that refuse to vote as they do. When hatred fills your heart, this is what you tend to do: display it for all to see. They just think there are enough people out there who absolutely agree with them and are laughing with them at Trump supporters that it’s perfectly okay to do this and they would suffer zero repercussions.
They hate Donald Trump, they hate you, they hate what you stand for and, in all likelihood, even if they never admit it, would agree with the Bernie supporters in the Project Veritas videos about sending Trump supporters off to “re-education camps”. Their viewpoints are so fragile that they cannot stand that there are those who disagree and display that contempt with mockery and open hatred, with some honestly wishing in their hearts that we would get sent to concentration camps to be “re-educated” or killed if we do not comply.
This, alongside many other reasons (primarily abortion) is why I say the Left is satanic and the Democrat Party is the party of Satan. The hate that they foster in their hearts comes from Lucifer himself and they do his bidding happily. Any notion that Jesus might be able to save them is met with an allergic reaction from these people, coupled with even more mockery.
The good news for them is that if Saul of Tarsus, who went around looking for Christians to persecute and execute, can be saved, then there is a possibility that these people might as well. I often note the doctrine of predestination (which some Christians do not believe in, but I assure you, there is plenty about it in the Bible) and how God chooses to save some. That doctrine, I believe, is very much sound and applicable, but God is the only one who knows whom He will save and whom He will not save. He is the only one who decides on whom His mercy will be shown and on whom it will not.
This is why I do not necessarily say that any one of these Leftists, on an individual basis, is destined for Hell. They are, currently in their unsaved states, Hell-bound, but God chooses whom He will save and He might save one or two or all three of them at one point or another. Is it likely? Not from what I can tell, but it definitely is possible with God. Again, Saul of Tarsus, who was essentially an elitist like these people in his own time (possibly the most highly educated person of his time) went around in search of Christians to arrest and prosecute, which would often lead to death and the Lord Jesus came to him and saved his soul, later becoming an extremely important apostle (having written almost half of the books in the New Testament) and changing his name to Paul.
If one were to make comparisons, that would be like Jesus converting a Nazi brownshirt in search of Jews (sort of). If Saul could be saved, just about anyone could be as well. That doesn’t mean that they will be saved, as again, God is the one to make that decision and is not going to leave people’s salvation up to chance (which, as I have said many times in the past, is nothing more than mathematical probability and does not have any inherent power), but it does mean that they might be.
Right now, of course, as far as Don Lemon, Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali go, I cannot tell what is in their hearts (apart from hatred) or what lays for them in the future. However, I do hope and pray that they will be saved by the Lord and they will turn from their hatred. I pray this, not because they deserve the Lord’s forgiveness, grace or mercy, because they do not, but because it would be better for them to turn to God than continue down the path they are on. It can be hard to love your enemies (and this is something I often have trouble with), but we are still commanded to do so. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies, praying for them that they might turn to the Lord for their salvation.
This does not take away from the unprofessionalism and the vile display of hatred that they showed on live television. That should be totally rebuked and excoriated and I believe Trump will make a campaign ad out of it (at least, he should) to remind everyone what the elitist Left thinks of us. But beyond anything else, we should at least pray for their souls to be saved and for their hearts to be turned to the Lord, away from the hatred of Satan and towards the love of God. Will it happen? Only God knows and only God decides.
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The economy is doing fantastic and the President is enjoying great unemployment numbers, so much so that he even created a job opening for Iran’s Major General last week. Unfortunately, one should expect there to be one less job out there because whoever thought of making comedian Ricky Gervais the host of the 2020 Golden Globe awards has probably been fired at this point.
What am I talking about? Well, while I did not care to watch the actual award show (largely because I don’t much care for what 99% of these celebrities were going to say on them, which ended up proving Gervais’ point), many on Twitter shared videos and clips of Gervais hosting the award show and absolutely throttling the Hollywood elites that frequent such events.
Gervais slammed the Hollywood elites for politicizing absolutely everything, saying “You know nothing about the real world.” He also went on to say: “Apple roared into the TV game with ‘The Morning Show,’ a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweat shops in China. So, well, you say you’re woke, but the companies you work for – I mean, unbelievable, Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service, you would call your agent, wouldn’t you? So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god, and f**k off. No one cares about your views on politics or culture.”
As I said, Ricky Gervais told the Hollywood elites present at the event what the rest of America wishes we could tell them (though with less swearing, for some of us, but the sentiment is about right). These are the very people who openly wish to harm the President of the United States (look at George Lopez replying to the Iranian’s offer of assassinating Trump for $80 million by saying “we’ll do it for half”, or look at Robert de Niro often expressing how he would like to punch Trump or throw feces at him) and who believe any belief in the God of the Bible is an affront to “human progress” and is inherently racist and bigoted and hateful by nature. They believe that if you love this country, you are an ignorant fool at best and a racist fascist at worst (often the latter) and someone who either ignores or agrees with the injustices of the past (while they themselves both profit off this country’s system and ignore the injustices of other countries, such as the fact that Iran publicly executes, often in a gruesome manner, homosexuals aka the people these dinguses are supposed to be supporting).
No one watches a movie hoping to get lectured about a topic the people making the movie have no clue about. Entertainment is supposed to offer some sort of escape from the troubles of the real world, not bring those troubles to the forefront and accuse the viewer of wittingly or unwittingly contributing to them.
And yet, these people do not heed these words, not even on the actual award show. One actress, who ironically was visibly pregnant, gave a speech about a woman’s "right" to choose to kill her own baby and that she wouldn’t have made it in Hollywood if she hadn’t had an abortion, which is total b.s., but signifies the heartless and selfish nature of these people. Another one tried to lecture people about climate change and about how her home country, Australia, was on fire because of climate change (the fires were caused by arson, not climate change, but what’s the truth to stop anyone from getting the opportunity to feel self-righteous and lambast people for “not doing enough” about climate change, despite the fact that she, herself, most likely doesn’t do diddly squat about it either, even if something actually could be done about it?)
But regardless, Ricky Gervais didn’t stop there. As the host, he got plenty of opportunity to speak and he took full advantage. He said the following:
“Tonight isn’t just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world, people from every background, but they all have one thing in common: they’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow.”
To refresh your memories, Ronan Farrow is a journalist (the son of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow) who helped uncover the sexual abuses of Harvey Weinstein against actresses and other women in Hollywood, which sparked the “#MeToo” movement (before it, too, quickly got heavily politicized and taken over by the Left to attack any and all men, regardless of any wrongdoing or lack thereof having been committed).
He continued: “He’s coming for you. He’s coming for you. Look, talking of all you perverts, it was a big year, it was a big year for pedophile movies, Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Never Land, Two Popes. [audience groans] Shut up, shut up, I don’t care, I don’t care.”
“No one cares about movies anymore, no one goes to the cinema, no one watches network TV. Everyone’s watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going ‘Well done, Netflix, you win everything. Good night’.”
“But no, we drag it out three hours, you could binge watch the entire first season of ‘Afterlife’ instead of watching this show. That’s a show about a man who wants to kill himself because his wife dies of cancer and it’s still more fun than this. Okay, spoiler alert, season two is on the way, so in the end obviously he didn’t kill himself – just like Jeffrey Epstein.”
While some in the crowd laughed at the joke, there were audible groans at that, to which Gervais replied: “Shut up, I know he’s your friend, but I don’t care. You had to make your own way here, your own plane, didn’t you?”
At one point, he also took some jabs at the celebrities present and those who could not make it there: “You all look lovely all dolled up, you came here in your limos. I came here in a limo and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. That must be the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to her. And her dad was in ‘Wild Hogs,’ so…”
Gervais also added: “Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and, by the end, his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew is like, ‘Come on Leo, mate. You’re nearly 50.’”
In essence, Gervais points out not only the utter ignorance of Hollywood and their hypocrisy, but also the disgusting pedophile and sex slave ring that exists in “tinsel town”. Of course, this prompted SJWs who idolize and practically deify these celebrities to think of Gervais’ actions as “controversial” or him being a “jerk” for it.
Think of the guy what you will (he’s a Leftist, so I have my own reasons not to particularly like him, or at least, agree with everything he ever says, but to his credit, he is a prominent supporter of free speech for all, which is more than I can say for most other Leftists), but he told these people something no one has ever dared to tell them: the truth. They don’t know anything of what they talk about. They oppose the killing of Soleimani and support Iran in this, despite the fact that Iran kills its own citizens on the regular and executes homosexuals, as well as generally treats women as second-class citizens at best and have been since the revolution in 1979 that installed the current dictatorship system.
They lecture people about “doing the right thing” while accepting tons of money from China. They lecture people about climate change from the comfort of one of their many, often massive, homes that make up massive carbon footprints, or from the comfort of their private jets as they fly to one of these events or to a different country or state to film some scenes. They lecture people about “women’s rights” and “women’s liberation” despite the fact that there is nothing more enslaving than living life based on your carnal desires and avoiding as much responsibility as possible by committing acts of murder that are, for some reason, considered not only legal, but morally right by many in this country.
They lecture people about “women’s empowerment” while being complicit in or, at best, complacent about the sex trade that exists in Hollywood, as well as the pedophile rings that exist. They lecture us about being “tolerant” of others while they openly mock and display hatred towards anyone they disagree with, to the point where they consider such dissenters to be sons of Hitler, traitors to their race or traitors to their gender, or any combination of the three.
These people are as fake as the movies they star in and Ricky Gervais took them to task over such phony self-righteousness and utter hypocrisy.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...