Utopia Talk / Politics / The jewish Question (Thread #3 of 110)

Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 18 12:40:30 We continue to examine the people "Chosen" by Satan, known as the "jew", whose slave morality has afflicted the West and enslaved many of its people, particularly the subverted left, who possess the jew's slave morality, and the "Christian Zionists", who are a sect of heretical "Christians" in an anti-Christ death cult on behalf of the jew. Both of these sects of the slave/death cult are on a mission on behalf of the jew to destroy White people and the West. Previous thread: http://uto...hread=95691&time=1778863884763
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 18 12:40:43 We can summarize a few key issues: • a symptom of the jew's totalitarian thought reform is the use of thought-terminating clichés designed to keep slavish conformists within predictable thought patterns (e.g., "racist", "bigot", "anti-semite"). Anyone who uses these terms as "bad thing" is a conformist to the jew's scheme of global totalitarianism. For example, anyone who thinks that it is "bad thing" to be "anti-semitic" is a slavish conformist, is anti-West, and is anti-White. These words, when empowered, can only mean White dispossession, White genocide, and the destruction of the West; and that is indeed their purpose and why the terms were falsified in the first place. Thought-terminating clichés are largely anti-White slurs and weapons against White conscientiousness. White people who adopt them believe (wrongly) that they are being conscientious when they are in reality being suicidal destroyers. • people afflicted by jewish totalitarian thought reform are often incapable of facing primary causality; they are only able to — at best — oppose jewish golems, which itself merely serves jewish interests. Thus, slaves to the jew will complain about Iran because that is the jew's enemy, or slaves to the jew will complain about "trans" people while avoiding the fact that it is jew facilitating the very existence of these "Trans" people. Slaves of the jew are denied primary causality. They are often incapable of criticizing the jew at all because they know who their master is; they know that they are the slaves of the jew. They thus are unable to read works which oppose jewish power, they become illiterate and abandon all of their morality when the jew demands special-pleading, and they maintain a willful ignorance so as to facilitate their own enslavement to the jew. • jewish morality, when afflicted on larger non-jew populations, manifests as left-wing totalitarianism; this is jewish messianic totalitarianism; the full expression of jewish power is global enslavement to jews, who see themselves as "the master race"; the jew's own admitted doctrine is that they will be "masters" over an enslaved humanity that serves them; anyone who serves the jew serves the enslavement of humanity. • jews are now admitting publicly that they are indeed behind slave revolts in morality provoked across the world (e.g., they have admitted to China, Russia, the French Revolution, and Western leftism) • jews are behind ESG, agitprop in Hollywood cinema, COVID totalitarianism, the intentional release of killers of White people into the general public, mass-migration from the "Global South", the lie of "[mass migration for muh GDP]", opposition to the Glorious and Benevolent Right-wing, and the destruction of Western nations • we see jewish evils repeating throughout history, such as subversion of host populations, creation of jew-only markets, parasitism, usury, infiltration of finance, cynical dysgenics inflicted upon hosts, blackmail schemes, corruption of leadership, elevation of resentful and slavish destroyers into positions of power as jewish proxies, atomization of the host and special-pleading for jewish collectives, opening of the gates to foreigners who disguise/obfuscate the jew's presence, hatred of White people and people who oppose enslavement, blame schemes which blame opponents of the jew for the jew's own actions, and falsified "revolutions" against the Right-wing of one's own people that are thus designed to purge the jew's opponents. • jews have been warned about by our ancestors in stories as vampires, demons, the people of Satan, wandering killers, anti-Christs (they are indeed the killers of Christ), child sacrificers, evil foreigners, aliens, parasites, deceivers, liars, subverters, shadow cabals, blackmailers, mobsters, dwarves, and traitors posing as countrymen. We see in specific examples that the jew is the basis of Dracula, Eyes Wide Shut, the "Alien" franchise, many "Superman" stories, Spider-Man's "venom" alien, "Casino", Villeneuve's "Dune", "Dwarves" and Mordor in LOTR, Shylock in Shakespeare, the genie in "Wishmaster", the aliens in X-Files, the aliens in "Disclosure Day", the aliens in "Indian Jones", Faust's Mephistopheles, • we see proper and just opposition to jews throughout history via tallages (taxes placed specifically upon jews in recognition of their overt collectivism), bans of jews from positions of power (e.g., banking/finance/money-lending, media/entertainment, law, politics, pornography, prostitution, drugs, poison/chemistry), denial of private property, denial of jewish markets, denial of special courts, requirements for jewish identification (e.g., special hats), and expulsion. All of these solutions are in direct response to jewish collectivism's inherent evils. Western nations have consistently found for thousands of years that giving jews power is an immense mistake. It is an imperative of Western Virtue to deny jews all power. • we see that obsequiousness to the jew is a folly; placating jews leads to ruin. The jew is entirely thankless. They do not care that any Western nation liberated them from the "Holocaust", and we see this in how they still place guilt upon those who saved them and in their wish to annihilate entire Western bloodlines who had nothing at all to do with the "Holocaust". They are simply driven by a need to kill all peoples who resist enslavement to the jew, and they make no exceptions for traitors within a bloodline who open the gates for the jew; traitors are killed by the jew as well. The "reward" for White subverted leftists and "Christian Zionists" is total genocide. jews see these self-hating and self-ruining useful idiots as successfully conquered foes who are now wearing suicide vests for the jew. In the jew's own self-stated description of the world that they intend to manifest, they have annihilated all Christians, all White people, and all peoples who hold any Western traditions. Thus, any who placate the jew do so within the structure of a death cult.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 18 12:40:49 Thomas Massie via Politico reports that jews are spending millions to oppose him in the upcoming election: -------------- "After months of beating around the bush, one reporter finally writes the true story of my race and when asked, the lobbyists brag about it. A coalition of Israel’s lobbyists and donors is spending tens of millions of dollars in a blatant attempt to buy a KY congressional seat." [May 17th, 2026] https://x.com/MassieforKY/status/2056022611948097558 "Notably, after conceding it would be hard for them to beat me, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s director says he expects “we” (the RJC) to win. He does not say he expects Ed to win. That’s because Ed is their puppet and they are running his race." https://x.com/MassieforKY/status/2056024368937943390 -------------- We must reiterate several points here: • jews are foreigners; they are not Americans; by their own admission they will *always* be jews first and humble guests in their host nation second, third, or not at all. • jews oppose the West • Thus, jews are intentionally opposing pro-West candidates in the host nations that they intend to destroy
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 18 14:28:55 "WHY have [jews] been EXPELLED 109 Times?" [Arthur Kwon Lee; May 15th, 2026] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLfasIf4KpQ backup: http://rum...s-been-expelled-109-times.html Arthur Kwon Lee often has some horrible takes on Twitter so he's not worth following, but since this is a historical video he gets the details correct and makes a good argument. This is a good summary video that includes many points made above, such as the jew's history of being correctly expelled due to their bad behaviors. We should note "correctly expelled" in particular here because jews will often lie about why they were expelled, this being such a common theme that it's a cliché phrase to say, "the jew will always tell you what happened to him, but never why". Slaves to the jew will thoughtlessly figure that these expulsions must have been mistakes, but they will never look into the arguments around the expulsions (particularly those that took place at those times) or the evidence collected against the jew. People will try to segue arguments to these slaves by pointing out that if someone has been kicked out of "109" bars, then perhaps it is not the fault of the bars — perhaps it was the fault of the person who was kicked out. These slaves will simply not examine this truth-claim. Worse, some will believe obvious fictions, like that jews were "scapegoats", that it was just "antisemitism" (which they mean here as a hatred without basis), or that jews are simply prosperous in bad times and so people blame jews when times are bad (similar to the false narrative of jealousy). These are, of course, laughably weak arguments. jews are not "scapegoats" for pre-existing problems but the cause of specific and citable problems, those bad times are more often than not caused by jews, and no one is jealous of how much blood a mosquito has stolen. We can look at modern examples such as Larry Fink of Blackrock pushing ESG into cinema, allowing Hollywood to make transparent jewish agitprop which pushed anti-West and anti-White themes (*transparent* being key since jewish agitprop pre-figures ESG but was not as thoroughly funded; it had to sell its messaging to the public via palatable stories; ESG removes that requirement). Was that "scapegoating" of jews? No, of course not; those were the actual actions of jews who pushed their morality into Western cinema and destroyed Western stories in the process. And Epstein, is it "scapegoating" to say that he was jewish? No; he was indeed an overt jewish supremacist, and he was using a Mossad blackmail scheme to leverage Western politicians. Similarly, the 1290 Edict of Expulsion (covered in thread 2) shows these same jewish behaviors — not scapegoating, not "antisemitism", not "[times are bad and they're doing well for no particular reason]". The jews were expelled at that time because they were intentionally and overtly eroding Christianity and the English peoples, they had engaged in rampant predatory lending, they had engaged in coin-clipping (overt theft of wealth), they were afflicting the youth with predatory behaviors (LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA child sacrifice again), and they refused to seek honest work. These were specific and actual behaviors which required appropriate punishment, and expulsion was considered appropriate. This was in 1290, and little has changed regarding this behavior. They are indeed committing the same atrocious behaviors, so we are not discussing "scapegoating", "antisemitism", or "jealousy". These sorts of red herrings only work on the small-minded, whereas any person capable of reason can dismantle these red herrings to look at the core causality: jewish behavior. That is, because jews were behaving poorly and were behaving in absolute opposition to their host nations, they were correctly expelled. When we speak of why the jew is currently being allowed to continue this behavior (in the public realm), we see that in the public it is largely people who have been convinced of the lies of jewish agitprop who are against such expulsions. This brings us again to the subverted left and the "Christian Zionists". To the subverted left, the enemies of the jew are (dutifully) their own enemies, so any opposition to the destruction of the West is coded as "nazi" and "fascist" behavior. To the "Christian Zionists" (a heretical anti-Christ suicide cult), jewish behavior is accepted because these people love the jew unconditionally and wish to be killed by the jew. The jewish Question is once again being brought before the larger public, however, and both the slavish left and the "Christian Zionist" arguments are being seen for the ghastly horrors that they are. Both of these jewish factions are calling for the mass genocide of White people, Westerners, and Christians; so the broader public in the West, in listening to the Disputation of the jew, is faced with that choice: "Do you want to be enslaved and killed by the jew so that they can be 'the master race' who rules over a debased and ugly humanity?" When the public is asked this question, less and less can jewish deceivers get away with their former lies (e.g., "it's not happening", "that's antisemitic"). The jew himself is now saying that that is indeed his plan, so in the Disputation the public is simply being asked if they agree with that plan. If they agree that the jew should enslave and debase humanity, then they join one of the suicide cults closest to them (e.g., the "Christian Zionists", "the woke" / the subverted left), whose ideology will ensure that they will die and their children will die or not be born at all. If they disagree, then they will not die in the suicide cults but will contend with the slave hordes that the jew intends to send upon their nations in the global slave revolt in morality, since, as the jew himself has said, those who do not wish to be slaves must be genocided. Hence the choice the jew offers is as covered above: "Let us kill you, or we'll kill you."
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 18 14:35:16 Youre wearing your snorkel right now, arent you? I can always tell when youre in snorkel mood
Cherub Cow rank	Wed May 20 15:06:08 Looks like williamthecoward took a few weeks off from these threads to figure out a new and still impotent insult. He's going with "snorkel" this time. Sorry everyone; it's not funny, clever, or even biting, but it looks like we'll be reading it a lot for about a year. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --------- [Official AIPAC Twitter, May 19th, 2026]: http://x.com/AIPAC/status/2056914097971589465 "Ed Gallrein’s victory in KY and Clay Fuller’s win in GA ensures two outspoken pro-Israel voices are positioned to fill seats previously held by outspoken detractors, Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Our community was proud to help pro-Israel candidates win these races." --------- Again, these threads exist because jews are just admitting it right now. We need to remember that jews are foreigners, and they are currently taking credit for using their financial leverage to buy candidates and sink the elections of people who are not pro-jew. Foreigners should not be deciding our elections. If you need help understanding this, just consider how you might feel if the official Kremlin Twitter page celebrated (**openly**) that they had put $33 million into Trump's presidency after a Russian billionaire Trump-donor living in these United States had been gloating for weeks that Trump is the best president for Russians, had personally thanked Trump for a Russian expansion war, and a Russian political pundit had hugged Trump and said that he's Russia's first Russian president of the U.S.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 25 22:59:01 ----------- "WATCH: Fr. Calvin Robinson does a live early life check on Reform UK candidate and broadcaster Dr. Roger Gewolb, asking him point blank: "Are you Jewish?" Gewolb notably opposes @RestoreBritain, and the idea that anyone can become British if they obtain citizenship papers." [May 20th, 2026] http://x.com/CommandMediaTV/status/2057169254189871383 ----------- We see more jewish subversion at work here. The jew Roger Gewolb pretends to be approaching the issue of English identity through some universal or liberal framework that he represents "as an Englishman", but despite his attempts at duplicity (hiding his ethnicity from the public record), when asked directly to admit to his identity, it is as expected: he is jewish. As a subversive jew, he is attempting to pose as "English" while in reality being a foreigner who is re-writing English identity so that jews and their foreign slave armies can invade and subsequently genocide White Westerners (i.e., "[as a foreigner, let me tell you about your nation's identity and how it includes me]"). We saw the same issue with Andrew Goldstein in thread 1, who in arguments with Carl Benjamin and Steve Laws attempted to use pilpul to get them to produce carve-outs for jews; Benjamin fell for the deceptions in part, while Laws saw through it (Thread 1: http://uto...hread=95502&time=1771693782147 ). This, again, is why jews in England and various Western nations traditionally had to wear markings that they were jewish (e.g., merchant hats («Judenhut») in medieval Europe). That is, because jews feign appeals to a universalism which they do not themselves observe, it becomes acutely necessary for people of a nation to know that they are dealing with jews so that they know that they are dealing with deceivers. This metaphor is exemplified in media such as "They Live" (1988), which, in a genre covered above, is an example of horror stories where jews are presented as aliens. In the movie, those who "[wear the sunglasses]" can see who the "aliens" (jews) are. This metaphor is very easy to see on most major media, where jews are obscenely over-represented in roles which push anti-White and anti-West agitprop. {{ Aside, the movie "Dragonheart" (1996) even slyly references the «Judenhut» in the beginning. The character of "Felton", played by Jason Isaacs, initially appears in the merchant hat and talks about how they can manipulate taxes to steal more wealth from the commoners. This "merchant" is employed by the tyrant king, showing how tyrants align with jews. There is an easy parallel to the Robin Hood myth here, since Robin Hood is largely about Englishmen forming vigilante gangs to oppose jewish moneylenders. Dragonheart correctly champions Chivalry while placing those of the Code of Chivalry in opposition to jewish tyrannies (i.e., jews are ideologically opposed to Chivalry). Hilariously, while Dragonheart was directed by the jewish Rob Cohen, the writers were not jewish, which could be how these narratives survived production. Likely, the director saw the Kapparot utility of a peasant revolt opposing a corrupt king and hoped that audiences would not notice the nuance of why that king was corrupt, thus turning on their own leadership while sparing the jew. }} -=-=-=-= -=-=-=-= Regarding some jewish over-representation Many small-scale leftist psychosis "influencers" are jews, e.g., • Brian Tyler Cohen, • Sam Seder, • David Pakman, • AOC Many CNN pundits and Regime repeaters are jews, e.g., • Wolf Blitzer, • Dana Bash, • Jake Tapper — these last two both managed to be moderators at the Biden/Trump debate And many of the social media platforms are controlled by jews, e.g., • Sam Altman at OpenAI/ChatGPT • Zuckerberg at Facebook • Sergey Brin at Google • Jan Koum of WhatsApp That is of course just a small sample. People have pointed out that CNN once assembled an "All-Star Panel" which was composed entirely of jews, and accompanying memes point out that many useful idiots watch issues debated between jews, with one jew pretending to hold the "conservative" position and another the "liberal" position, with any conclusions they reach or arguments they make merely serving jewish interests. (This happens comically often with Dave Smith.) We can see this even among somewhat "Right-wing" media that is unable to strongly assert its identity early on, such as Timcast, which Tim Pool allowed to develop into a large program before he had addressed his internal hiring practices, the result being that many jews had infiltrated his press room and insisted that Pool push for jewish interests. Regulars on the program were "Christian Zionists" (i.e., heretical "Christians" who serve the Anti-Christ) such as Philip Labonte and "Right-wing" jews such as Michael "Malice" (Michael Krechmer). Even smaller programs have this issue, such as the "Sitch & Adam Show", which "somehow" is pushed into YouTube algorithms on Right-wing YouTube. Its "Sitch" host is, of course, a jew, and he constantly manages his co-host "Adam" into Kosher beliefs. Naturally, this degrades all argumentation into informal fallacies and outright deceptions (e.g., they have often argued that people should not learn from "old books", which is a Maoist absurdity that denies wisdom). This infiltration is common for the jew, who makes sure to be present whenever a program is gaining public notoriety or who makes sure to be present at a start-up so that its direction can be controlled. Whatever occurs on the jewish-occupied program, it always ensures that jewish power is only addressed via their slavish intermediaries and never directly. Hence, Tim Pool may push back against some easy-to-book leftist who believes wholeheartedly in jewish dogmas (e.g., Brian Shapiro), but he will play dumb and obfuscate when the actual issue of jewish supremacy is raised (e.g., Leonarda Jonie appearing on Timcast and showing how duplicitous Pool is on the issue, March 10th, 2026; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDQOcRNzxgA ). This issue of addressing second-order effects while being denied primary effects is, of course, another thought-terminating cliché. I covered this more deeply above, but the short version is that if primary causality is denied a potential thinker, that person can only address secondary concerns. Worse, however, is that if those secondary concerns violate the primary cause, this person will become a hypocrite, violating the secondary concerns to defend the primary cause. Thus, even where Westerners are taught to have particular values (e.g., being against usury, being against genocide, being against anti-Whiteism), these values will be entirely disregarded if the jew begins his special-pleading. Hence, "conservatives" of the past made the argument of "culture" to avoid the primary causality of ethnicity or race. This allowed "conservatives" to save face with the jewish morality that had infiltrated the left; these "conservatives" could claim that so long as we filter for *culture* that society can still function. Of course, this was a concession which backfired predictably; jews merely changed what "culture" meant by allowing ethnic voting blocs to assert their ethnic "culture", which degraded any "universal" culture. Conservatives were left unable to make coherent arguments against the Marxist-left's "equity" subversions, since conservatives were denied the causality of their own ethnicity while politely and impotently asking their enemies to stop affirming their own ethnicities. In an anti-White system, this is a simple folly; non-White ethnic blocs will gladly genocide Whites who attempt to maintain "universalism" in the face of those who have no intention of agreeing with that virtue. -=-=-=-= -=-=-=-= Returning to the main subject, We can trace the lineage of this infiltration deception very easily here: 1) jews have slave morality 2) slave morality is subversive/destructive of all non-jewish nations 3) jews use this subversion to tell lies which destroy nations while leaving their own people intact and as "Masters" In the case of immigration, we see this plainly argued by jews and their subverted useful idiots. I argued this at length with seb here in December 2024, and seb dutifully used all of the common jewish tropes: "keep up the good work seb #2" http://uto...hread=93608&time=1733665051446 I simplified some of the jewish arguments here as a meme: ----------- "Would it be better if England was governed by English people or non English people?" http://x.com/CherubCow/status/2022266207945310606/ Truth (not offered by subversives): "Of course a nation should be governed by its own people." Obfuscate: "There is no difference between English and non-English." Civic Nationalism lies: "Englishness is a Protean idea. As long as that idea is followed or not followed then yes maybe." Special Pleading: "That depends on whether or not you'll let my people rule over the English." Pilpul: "How do you define 'English', and can I subvert that definition?" ----------- We see how these arguments all fulfill jewish supremacy and are based in lies. To follow each in kind: • Pilpup is obvious: they simply play word-games endlessly; trying to divorce referent from meaning. • Obfuscate: Liars and subversives would say that England has always been some hodgepodge of various diverse peoples and therefore nothing has changed in the last 40 years of governance. Is this true? No, absolutely not. That is a complete historical fabrication. We see how the lie functions, however. One form of the lie depends on agnosia and a category error, so the liar will claim that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were "diverse peoples" who formed a nation (a falsification of "diverse" between history and the present). They will then say that Indians can similarly enter the society of the current population and be "[just as English]" — this *without* even inter-breeding, mind you. This subversive use of a category error depends on the observer not comprehending (due to agnosia) the relative similarity between Angles, Saxons, and Jutes and not comprehending the vast distinction between any of these groups and Indians. In the "good work seb" thread, we saw that seb-jew even offered an additional lie, which is that the "Empire" of England at some points included India, and he therefore lied that Indians were "always" just as "English" as anyone. Is this true? No, of course not. I explained that England had specific laws in place which I cited concretely which put vast separations between ethnic English and foreign colonies. There was no dispute about this in the historical record; it was clearly delineated in law. Liars, of course, reject these histories. They then move to a temporal distortion, which is that those laws can change, but they then admit that their goal is to change laws only towards anti-Whiteism, since while they admit that laws can change (in some dispassionate sense) they simultaneously claim that laws *cannot* change in such a way which prevents White genocide (i.e., they passionately say that laws can be changed to admit more foreigners but not to send masses of foreigners back — that would of course be "racist" or whatever lie). We see how all of these deceptions fit jewish supremacy. Since jews mean to genocide White people and destroy Western societies, the obfuscation of these terms and a pretense that an Englishman cannot be defined allows jews to mass-import those who will openly kill White people in their own societies — after all, if these foreigners are just as "English" as an Englishman despite zero effort in inter-breeding, then who is murdering whom? In the falsified statistics it is just Englishmen killing Englishmen. As the murders and rapes take place, jews and their familiars can deny that any event ever took place, using, as we saw in the rape inquiries, evil beliefs in "social cohesion" as smokescreens, this "social cohesion" predictably protecting foreigners as a people apart while leaving White people to be abused and slaughtered without justice. The duplicity of all of this goes without saying. Underlying the obfuscation is that whatever rhetoric allows the slaughter of White Westerners will be "real" for that moment in the argument, but if it is undermined then it will turn to slime and reform as another argument equally as laughable and transparently evil. Thus a jew can say that hereditary titles never existed in English history (another seb-jew lie), since that lie allows White genocide. When that lie is exposed as the lie that it is, then it is on to some other argument which similarly facilitates White genocide. The obfuscation is most easily revealed by asking if the liar is capable of producing a law which protects White people in the lands of their ancestors, and the answer is, of course, "no". Nothing frustrates the liar more than for his transparent goals to be revealed as the driving force behind all of the lies that fell apart in front of him; the jew, identified, is outed as an intentional people of genocide. The jew's slave armies, however, hold weapons and need not use such obfuscations in front of their goals: they simply say that they are waiting for the order to begin the killings. • Civic Nationalism: This is already covered above regarding primary and secondary causality. I will simply add here that the coward will often adopt civic nationalism because he is bargaining with his murderers. This is again the "big tent" of conservatism, where "conservatives" act as a rear-guard for the jew's former gains, hence the "conservative" will argue that foreigners can follow our principles and be just as "[Western]" as anyone. Of course, this entirely falls apart when these foreigners form ethnic blocs that change Western laws such that those principles need not be followed at all. These civic nationalists are then forced to argue that those foreigners "[followed the process]" when they undermined and destroyed our nations. They effectively argue that "[White genocide is okay so long as it's legal!]" as like a slavish bureaucrat with no memory might deny one's documented permission to murder him in one instant but allow it in the next instant should the document be notarized. The CivNat has no Sacred principle and thus dies upon the laws of his conquerors. • Special Pleading: Special pleading is of course a refuge of the jew. The jew, like his slave castes, will evade all assimilation entirely. If he inter-breeds, it is carefully and in such a way that his jewish ancestry is maintained above all (as thoroughly explained in "Dune"). Thus he will breed into a powerful host family only to crush that family and absorb its powers for jewry, his parasitic core then peering out of the eyes of the progeny; within this mask he hopes he will still be accepted by the host's peoples, to lead them to hell. He will sacrifice less pure bloodlines among his peoples for these inter-breeding projects, leaving the rabbinical bloodlines secure and undiluted within the Kosher centers. Where the jew fails at his projects of cross-breeding jews with hosts to gain that host's powers, the host's traits undermine the jew's, often forcing the jew to kill one of their own, as like some say occurred in the jew's killing of Christ, who by the jew's reckoning was more Roman than jew and thus betrayed the jews and so by the jew's laws is boiling in seamen and excrement for their greatest crime of betraying jewry. Where the jew does *not* need to inter-breed with the host, he feigns "assimilation" while hiding behind his special pleading. We see here how the jew's lie of assimilation turns so quickly into treason. He forms Kosher cities from the hollowed-out, destroyed, and parasitized cities of the host, allowing the jew to breed within his people while pretending to be of the host. Rabbis play match-maker with jews who lack the drive to even procreate, placing one self-loathing jew with another and encouraging them to overcome their detest for themselves so that jewry can persist, as like pandas breeding in captivity with other broken spirits. Thus "democracy" among the jews has them couple dutifully, and thus the jew detests the idea of "Love", which is foreign to him and so often denied to him. This jewish morality is carried forth in their slave castes, who form enclaves within hosts and refuse to assimilate or inter-breed. Thus, where Calvin Robinson above attempts to make a claim to England by saying that his parents did inter-marry and he has a duty to English lineage *over* Afro-Caribbean, the slave castes of the jew will only inter-breed to create resentful half-breeds or to undermine power. These enclaves get called by subversives and liars "[just as English as anyone]" while they practice foreign religions, keep their genetics in tact, and wait until they have accumulated enough power for the final push to White genocide. In short, we see yet again how the jew hides among his host while working exclusively on behalf of jewish aims. These liars will say whatever they need to say about "English" identity to ensure that White genocide occurs and that their Tower of Babel is run by jews.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 25 22:59:24 Collection of stories wherein jews support mass-migration into the West: http://x.com/AlisterHarrow/status/2049840171437162909
Cherub Cow rank	Mon May 25 23:36:26 Many have likely heard of a purposeful White community forming in Arkansas, very much like Orania in South Africa. "Return to the Land" (RTTL) is an attempt by organizers to form a private club which builds community for White people, this, incidentally, countering the jewish attempt at ethnically cleansing White people in these United States. RTTL has encountered attempts at lawsuits in the past, largely pushed by jews, and a recent lawsuit is similarly engaged by a jew: one "Michelle Walker". [May 21st, 2026] http://x.com/Aarvoll_/status/2057608169803620648 RTTL founder Eric Orwoll explains that the jew Walker's lawsuit is predictably frivolous, and he believes they can defeat it. She is making the claim that she was denied purchase because of "discrimination", when she fails to comprehend that RTTL is *not* selling land. However, we see the jewish scheme afoot here: Walker admits in her own statements that she had no intention of taking part in the community; she simply believed this to be a money-making opportunity. In one example of her jewish greed, she argues that she wanted the land at its low cost because it's a good investment, and that she would become a jewish landlord over land she would never live in simply because that's profitable (not beating the stereotypes). In another example of her jewish greed, she believed that a discrimination lawsuit itself could be profitable for her, since she can use a false lawsuit to extract wealth while weakening her ethnic rivals. This would be an important case in the future of White communities, and we see why the jew thus opposes it. The jew is, after all, behind the destruction of "freedom of association" in these United States. Thus, while freedom of association is a Sacred law of this nation, the jew sought to erode it with Civil Rights Law, which is law based upon the jew's slave revolt in morality. Hence, access to White people became a "right" of the foreign invader. Wherever White people form communities, jews and their slave castes seek to infiltrate and erode. Conceptually we see how this promotes the jew's goal of White genocide. If White people are systematically denied their existing communities, then White people disperse to find unbuilt places that can be their own. If, at any point, such a place begins to reflect White prosperity, then the jew floods that prosperity with parasites who will destroy it. As White people become more and more dispersed, White people are more and more unable to find White people with which to form families. Thus, the options for good breeding contract. YouTuber NewsFist recently referred to this as like the Maoist tactic (therefore another jewish tactic) that occurred with the Four Pests campaign. In order to kill one of the Four Pests, sparrows, Maoists had children find any nesting grounds for sparrows and shake or strike the trees, preventing the sparrows from nesting. When pushed at scale, this meant the sparrows would despair and die, unable to nest or breed. The jew employs the same tactic with White people. Any society which can form around White prosperity is challenged by the jew and their slave castes. If White people prosper in a city, the jew floods that city with foreigners. If White people flee to the suburbs, jews flood the suburb with blacks and turn them into ghettos. If White people purchase expensive property to filter-out ghetto blacks, jews will demand "affordable housing" among these properties. If White people form private communities within neighborhoods, jews will march BLM activists through those neighborhoods and encourage black criminality. If White people settle barren desert in Utah, jews will manufacture lawsuits to oppose them. Even more simply, we see that wherever the jew sees a prosperous White family, the jew sees an enemy that is to be destroyed. This is written across all of the jew's cinema, his commercials, and his vision for the future. The jew's cinema shows White families destroyed by "progress", which the jew sees as "Good". The jew's commercials show White people atomized or miscegenating with foreigners. The jew's "race of the future" is one in which White people have faced genocide. The jew's idea of "multi-culturalism" is an idea in which White people cannot prosper. All of their ideology is bent towards the mass murder of White people. And should not White people be allowed to prosper in their own nations, their own cities, their own communities? Of course! As the saying goes, access to White people is not a human right. More than that, the jew is not entitled to the mass murder of all of the world's defiant peoples. The jew is not entitled to the mass-murder of Palestinians. The jew is not entitled to the ethnic cleansing of all Middle Eastern nations for the jew's goal of "Greater Israel". The jew is not entitled to a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia that is designed to genocide Ukrainians and leave space for jewish settlements. The jew is not entitled to the world.
Cherub Cow rank	Tue May 26 00:08:16 We briefly re-visit that jews did indeed fund and direct the defeat of Thomas Massie, who opposed jewish supremacy by simply advocating for American interests, thus proving even more thoroughly that Western interests are at direct odds with the jew's interests: -------- "John Podhoretz celebrates the role that "Jewish money" played in defeating Rep. Thomas Massie: "We have to use what means there are at our disposal, and…that is Jewish money!" "This is an existential issue for Jews!" "Anti-Semitic" candidates need to know "they are going to have to go through a buzzsaw" to get elected, he says. "What other choice does American Jewry have?!"" [May 20th, 2026] http://x.com/infolibnews/status/2057145576395841837 -------- We see several issues at work here. Firstly, We see yet another jew admitting to the existence of a collective jewish interest. This is part of the jew's Schrödinger deception or Celebration Parallax duplicity: they must simultaneously be treated as "individuals" while they are acting as a collective. Thus, while the jew himself admits that there is such a thing as "American jewry" and "world jewry" and the jew himself has a "World Jewish Congress" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress ), you as an observer are not allowed to speak of such things in the negative lest you gain the jew's ire. As Ben Shapiro might argue, you still have freedom of speech, it's just that getting sued for millions of dollars is the jewish version of this same right. We can see, however, that by the jew's own admission — an admission which grows bolder and bolder — the jew is indeed a collective that acts internationally in jewish interests. Historically, we see how the jew dropped this pretense of being a "collective but not a collective", such as after the 1903 Kishinev pogroms wherein jews openly organized internationally to facilitate jewish well-being following jewish meddling (i.e., they did not change their behaviors; they set up systems designed to protect them from the consequences of those behaviors — just like Dodd–Frank in 2008). The "Jewish Encyclopedia" (1906), which chronicles jewish history from the jewish perspective, details this formation of an international jewry, and it was written by jews themselves. And, of course, in the 1930s the "World Jewish Congress" was formed when they had pushed too many buttons with the Germans. We see how this connects to the jewish infiltration of intelligence agencies globally, which largely serve jewish information gathering. This is the basis of "Five Eyes", which bypasses national sovereignty for an international protection racket, allowing each sovereign Western nation to willfully violate its own laws by leveraging the gaps in laws present in other Western nations. We can be reminded also of how jews leverage their intelligence networks to manage their schemes, such as how jews who betrayed the Germans would flee to other nations and broker the intelligence they had gathered on the Germans in order to facilitate German genocide. The jew repeated this scheme with the Soviets, brokering intelligence during the Cold War to advance jewish interests, and, of course, jews used stolen intelligence to smuggle nuclear weaponry out of the West, such as in the Apollo Affair of 1965. Secondly, If "American jewry" were to stop donating to these causes, "antisemitism" would decrease. Reasonable Westerners might conclude this to be an oversight, but it's not. That is, *if* jews were interested in decreasing "antisemitism", they would change their behaviors. This would include *not* spending so much on transparent agitprop which directly opposes Western values and the values of their host nations. But this is not an option to the jew. The point of people such as Podhoretz is that they should be able to put as much jewish agitprop into the world as they see fit, and all non-jew observers of this agitprop should just uncritically accept it, as like tumbleweed in his psychosis threads. The underlying motive here is one already covered many times: the jew is looking for unconditional support — the kind of support offered only by slaves. Podhoretz wants for jews to be able to do whatever they want, and non-jews should simply accept it, as like the "Christian Zionists" accept their own genocide out of "love" for the jew. The psychotic ramblings of the jew that they call their holy books outright demand that jews become the Master-enslavers of a debased humanity. That is not some unintended accident of their ideology but a directed and purposeful goal. Thus, wherever the jew encounters opposition, he encounters another pretext for genocide.
Cherub Cow rank	Tue May 26 18:08:49 Leftist jew Norman Finkelstein admits that "a jewish supremacist billionaire class" were trying to leverage their power to suppress free speech in the West so that they could crush anti-jew dissent and conduct a genocide without opposition: (set to relevant time point) "The sinister plot behind the far-right's shift on Israel | Norman Finkelstein interview" [May 17th, 2026] http://youtu.be/BtTDUeL7vy4?si=t5YlZ99MRtdiaVOZ&t=2998 We know the truth of this, of course. We should also realize that Finkelstein, despite admitting this, is not some kind of benevolent jew. He outright talks about being a leftist who still wants internationalism and the destruction of nations via mass-immigration — in the name of "oppression" narratives, of course. He talks of living in an all-jewish community and never having a normal job, of course. He talks of being a Maoist in his youth, of course. So he is not any kind of friend to the West. But because he is playing his part in the jew's left/Right binary (where leftist jews push for mass-immigration to destroy their host nations while more overtly supremacist jews (falsely called "Right-wing" jews) push for foreign wars for "Israel"), he is able to admit that jewish supremacists have indeed been behind these power plays. Finkelstein has also written on the jewish Question (1:02:00), so we should again reiterate that "the jewish Question" is not "[muh nazis]" but is rather a question of how jews have behaved as a people throughout history. On the subject, Finkelstein in this interview recalls that he debunked a fraudulent claim by jewish supremacists which was that Palestinians had never existed and that jews had moved into vacant land which, due to jewish prosperity, attracted Arab immigrants into the area who arrived and then lied to claim ownership by calling themselves Palestinians. Finkelstein does not say exactly how the discrepancy he noticed in the reports allowed him to expose the fraud, but he does expose here that it is of course a lie when jews say that Palestine never existed or that Palestinians are not a real people. This is the same lie that jews tell of White people, with the goal in both cases being that the lie is an occult self-fulfilling prophecy; they intend to genocide these groups and need the lie to propel the outcome. By pretending that White people and Palestinians "[never existed as a cohesive people]", the jew believes that he can effect the jew's genocidal goals for those people. The trick they thus play on "Christian Zionists" (heretical anti-Christs) and the subverted left is thus to get these subverted peoples to accept either one of the arguments. So, if the subverted left believes that White people have never existed, then the subverted left will take part in White genocide. If the "Christian Zionists" believe Palestinians have never existed, then "Christian Zionists" will take part in Palestinian genocide. When these two subverted groups interact with each other, they are both unable to produce a coherent argument which prevents the genocide of either group since they have already accepted the argument in favor of the genocide of one of these groups. Both groups are left with special pleading which favors jewish supremacy. Regarding jewish supremacy, we would note that the phrase is correct in Finkelstein's usage, but also we should note that Finkelstein is himself a jewish supremacist. The internationalist jews who are perpetrating global genocides against White people, Palestinians, Ukrainians, and Arabic enemies are intentionally culling defiant blood lines so that the jew Kalergi's "race of the future" can emerge as a slave race managed entirely by the jew. But, this internationalism is not merely held by the war-monger jews who have subverted Western governance for these projects. Finkelstein himself is an internationalist, with his goal being to mass-import "oppressed" 3rd-worlders because those third-worlders will genocide his White Western enemies... which likewise is designed to bring about the jew Kalergi's "race of the future". Even in Finkelstein's pretense that "only" the Zionist jews are jewish supremacists, his own non-Zionist objectives still lead to jewish supremacy via the liquidation of defiant bloodlines. At the core this is because any jew operating through slave morality will still produce a goal of enslavement. The leftist atheist jews subverting their host nations still believe that the slave revolt in morality that they are coaxing with third-world slave armies will ultimately serve jews as their "liberators" (enslavers). As a practical side of this, this is because a "race of the future" would be more easily controlled by jewish agitprop, and jewish totalitarianism would be unopposed by defiant peoples. (I.e., a slave race managed by jews would be too stupid to see through jewish agitprop.) In the early portion of the video, Finkelstein also admits that "antisemitism" is indeed a thought-terminating cliché. This mirrors what was said by Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni in 2002, when she said that "antisemitism" is "a trick" ("we always us it" http://x.com/rulajebreal/status/2030816122522443948 ). In both cases, they admit that these clichés are used to justify jewish-led genocides while shielding jews from criticism. Finkelstein further concludes that the "Holocaust" myth was abused into irrelevance after October... I want to say... 15th? jewish agitprop tried to sell October 4th or whatever as the worst thing since the "Holocaust", which revealed to the public that the "Holocaust" myth had been similarly weaponized to excuse jewish collective actions. Hence, jews are less likely now to bother holding "Holocaust" agitprop over the heads of Westerners, and, in fact, we would note that Nick Fuentes may have even put a final nail in that coffin on Piers Morgan's show by making fun of an old jew who tried to do just that ( https://x.com/RT_com/status/1998371510378221938 ). The pathos plea simply was abused to death by jews themselves. Even this *other* Finkelstein who appeared on Piers Morgan (Daniel Finkelstein) tries to use the "Holocaust" myth **to sell books** (i.e., jews will never pass up a chance for profit). Much of this jewish deceit regarding the "Holocaust" is covered in "The Holocaust Industry" (2000), which, topically, was written by Norman Finkelstein. In short, we again see the Celebration Parallax at work with jewish subversions. We know for a fact that jews have been doing these things, but jews are far more concerned with *who* is able to use the truth to make their arguments. Thus, if jewish supremacists are trying to destroy Western society — as indeed they are — then it is okay to say that *if* you agree with it.. or.. in the case of Norman Finkelstein.. he can say it because he's jewish and still thinks it's okay if from the leftward direction. We can say something else too: anyone who opposes the Right is definitionally anti-West and evil. The Right-wing acts as a nation's defense of its own identity, but jews with their agitprop have managed to convince useful idiots in the West that to be "Right-wing" is to be "bad". From jewish slave morality this makes sense, since enemies of the jew are, to jews, "bad". The Right-wing of Western nations, then, because they slow the destruction of their nations and slow the spread of jewish supremacy, is to jews "bad". This makes it clear that anyone who "bad"-codes the Right-wing of Western nations is trying to destroy those nations on behalf of world jewry.
williamthebastard rank	Wed Jun 03 18:13:06 Could you repeat that last bit again? Thanks
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jun 08 02:49:00 Even the Guardian doesn't like this: "Congress wants to tie the United States to Israel with this new legislation. It’s a trap" [June 5th, 2026] http://www...congress-us-israel-legislation • "Israel’s advocates are frantically seeking to preserve and even escalate US support for the Jewish state in ways that do not rely on defense of its policies or permit scrutiny of the manipulations involved." • "News of section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act – a section that would deeply intertwine the US and Israeli militaries by committing to bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements and an unprecedented integration of the US and Israeli weapons industries – triggered an immediate backlash led by Representatives Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, to strip the section from the defense budget." Anyone who supports the furtherance of this bill is, of course, a traitor to these United States who needs to be hanged by the neck until dead. Let's check-in on who that might be: http://arm...daa_chairmans_mark_-_final.pdf Apparently the primary authors of this section 224 are Ronny Jackson (R, traitor) and Don Davis (D, traitor), with Senate support from Ted Budd (R, traitor) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D, traitor). This treason began earlier this year: "Congressman Don Davis Co-Leads Bipartisan Bill to Modernize America’s Defense Technologies and Strengthen U.S.-Israel Alliance" http://don...ill-modernize-americas-defense "WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressmen Don Davis (NC-01) and Ronny Jackson (TX-13) introduced H.R. 7540, the United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security (FUTURES) Act of 2026. This bill would establish a United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative to accelerate the development and deployment of next-generation defense technologies, ensuring that investments in collaborative technologies deliver an operational edge to America's servicemembers. Senators Ted Budd (NC) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) introduced companion legislation in the Senate." AIPAC, which owns the sex organs of these traitors, of course has published a myth-deboonker memo: United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative [June 4th, 2026] http://www.aipac.org/memos/america-israel-defense-ndaa-224 The memo is not very convincing. The bottom line is that "israel" knows that it is losing popular support, so it is attempting to gain continued sponsorship which is not impacted by the horrible and evil things that it is transparently doing. If you were jewish and were conducting a genocide of White people in the West and Palestinians in Gaza, would you want your funding to be pulled by that pesky anti-genocide crowd? Of course not! So the motive of this merger is transparently about bypassing public perceptions. This is, of course, how jewish Bolsheviks operated in the past as well. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is always actually controlled by jewish oligarchs, with the "popular vote" of the masses merely being steered by the jew's control of agitprop. However, jewish agitprop has historically begun to fail when they become over-confident and/or when they have secured enough power that they don't need it as much anymore. In that case, "democracy" is suspended for the, erm, "protection" of the people (imagine that! democracy is saved by denying the demos the vote!) So, in the case of jewish Bolsheviks securing control in Russia, agitprop gave way to sheer state power. Once the state is merged with the bureaucracies, agitprop is just a bonus. This relates also to the jew's use of *directed* agitprop. That is, jews need not propagandize the entire population at all times; they propagandize those that they must. Hence, if these (above) treasonous representatives can be given jewish agitprop which directs their decisions, then that is enough. If jews need executive action, then executives are siloed into jewish agitprop (some say that Trump has been siloed into a jewish echo chamber). If the military needs to obey jewish dictates, then agitprop can be disseminated to the military. In the latter case, it may not be as easy as it seems to propagandize the American military, since most troops just laugh at those shit PowerPoint presentations. But, jews can successfully propagandize the conformists of the officer corps — or so they hope that that will be enough. COVID was of course a test of how successfully jews have infiltrated the military, and results were mixed. At any rate, jews would not want to rely totally on agitprop, so political moves such as this are being made. This is the same exact strategy used with ESG, which itself allowed jews to produce non-stop agitprop without worrying about the profitability of that agitprop.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jun 08 21:20:43 --------- "59 years ago today, Israel attacked the USS Liberty in international waters. 34 crew members were killed and 174 were wounded by the IDF. Today, I spoke on the House floor to honor the fallen and to recognize the survivors who were present in the gallery." [June 8th, 2026] http://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/2064060776910905777 --------- jews killed 34 US Servicemen aboard the USS Liberty on June 8th, 1967. They are not our ally.
Cherub Cow rank	Wed Jun 10 16:10:05 "CBS News boss Bari Weiss poised to oversee CNN editorial operations: report " [New York Post; June 9th, 2026] http://nyp...n-editorial-operations-report/ "Under the current org chart, Tom Cibrowski is president of CBS News. He reports to Paramount television chief George Cheeks, while Weiss reports directly to Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison." This is purely because of.. erm... "historical exclusion".. like from the guilds ;D
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jun 15 06:17:24 This issue has been trending on Twitter recently, but the jewish degenerate Glenn Greenwald summarized it well this morning: ---------------- http://x.com/ggreenwald/status/2066195825407971692 A 19-year-old college student quietly turns down a job interview, stupidly telling the company it's because he doesn't want to work for a Jew. Within two days: -- The billionaire founder of one of the world's most powerful corporations (Palantir) demands that the company release his the student's to the world. The company instantly complies. -- National media trumpet the incident and spread the student's name and face all over the place. -- A senior Trump DOJ official repeatedly urges the public to notify him if that student is ever hired anywhere in the future, promising to use his office to keep the student permanently unemployable. Adults with large, influential platforms -- pundits, media types, even elected officials -- right here on X routinely say things as bad as, and often much worse than, pretty much every other group you can think of without facing a single consequence let alone a completely unhinged coordinated campaign of very powerful people to run their lives forever: ---------------- Greenwald omits some details: 1) this college student said "Not interested in working for a jew" in a private message which was only seen by the employer on Handshake in direct messaging. 2) The jewish Gabe Einhorn (employer in this Handshake interaction) intentionally did a partial dox of the student while pretending to be protecting his privacy; he showed the student's school affiliation, the first name of "Austin", and the end of a short last name ("-o"), leaving it very easy for people to find the student (who has subsequently gone public as Austin Franco): https://x.com/EinhornGabe/status/2064088779535569281 3) Despite even this partial dox, other jews, such as Joe Lonsdale of Palantir, staged a fake conversation with Einhorn wherein they demanded that Einhorn fully dox the student on behalf of all jewish people ("Be a strong Jew. Don’t be one of the weaklings that reacts in a way to get us attacked more; be a man that makes them afraid to attack your people.") Other jews of course jumped on it, such as Larry Loomer, who is a known Twitter psychopath. The general consensus of these jewish psychopaths is that Austin Franco, a 19-year-old student, should have jews follow him around for the rest of his life to make sure that his employers are contacted and fire him whenever he is employed. If employers do not do this, jews intend to blacklist those employers and subject them to the same kind of psychopathic harassment (i.e., "[This company failed to fire this guy, so they should be crushed too]"). Incidentally, jews are where "cancel culture" comes from. This is how they operate. This same exact behavior was cited before the 1290 Edict of Expulsion. They did this same thing when they gained control in their Bolshevik Russia. Whenever jews gain power, they exercise mass censorship and totalitarian thought reform.
Cherub Cow rank	Tue Jun 16 02:18:07 We can see here how jews falsify a "slippery slope" between "[any critique whatsoever]" to "[this could cause a Holobunga]": ---------- "I want his life to be ruined!" Fox News' Emily Compagno, 46, demands 19-year-old college student Austin Franco have his life ruined for saying in a private email that he's "not interested in working for a Jew." Cancel culture is back—Fox News & Palantir are leading the charge. http://x.com/infolibnews/status/2066615213051318505 ---------- [FoxNews pundit]: "It didn't go from 'everything's fine' to 'the death camps' overnight." This is, of course, part of the same format of totalitarian thought-reform's thought-terminating clichés covered many times here. The type of fool who would actually believe this logic of "[We can't even push-back against jews because Holobunga]" is symbolic of a person conditioned not to pursue simple knowledge or rhetorical examination — their thoughts have been totally stopped from even considering the subject in the abstract, and any remaining thoughts are conformist and cannot apply a proper scale of justice to any designated transgressions. We can see the utility of this to a totalitarian regime. Contextually, a person of the West could have completely reasoned positions on all manner of pro-West subjects, but this kind of totalitarian thought reform would ensure that absolutely no such positions could permeate designated layers of Orwellian "crimestop". Hence, this type of ideologically subverted person would be unable to apply any of those Western values to the subject deemed "thoughtcrime"; e.g., they could love Roman history.. *except* where Roman history interferes with jewish supremacy, thus allowing Rome to fall again for fear of opposing Rome's enemies. On top of that we should note again that "woke" is slave morality, and slave morality is the morality of jews. As such, we would note that "cancel culture" is a feature of this slave morality, and we see this plainly laid in this coalition of jews trying to destroy the life of a 19-year-old student who expressed a preference to not work with jews. This harkens back to many such examples of jewish "cancel culture" wherein common people — who were not even particularly known public figures before their "transgression" — violated jewish morality and were targeted by million- and billion-dollar machines of agitprop. The infamous story of Justine Sacco in 2013 is representative of this, since she had only 170 followers, made a silly joke, lost her job, and ended up having jewish-authored New York Times articles written about her (the jewish Jon Ronson wrote this: http://www...uined-justine-saccos-life.html ). jews use this "cancel culture" as a chilling effect, since if *even* a 19-year-old with no public presence can be destroyed by the direct attention of jewish billionaires who have direct access to FoxNews' forums, then surely no one should stand-up to these people, yes? But this kind of horrific censorship is, of course, always the end of the jew's pretense of being integrated actors within Western society. Their special pleading is always at direct odds with their Western hosts, and so their moves for power directly undermine that host. We see the same formula in any subverted left-wing movement which similarly adopts the jewish morality. In the recent stories of protests in the UK over foreign conquerors brutalizing White Westerners for sport, jewish-subverted governance makes this same jewish argument: *speaking* about the issue of being brutalized by foreigners is *worse* than the brutalizations themselves. Hence this totalitarian Regime will respond not to the issue of foreigners brutalizing citizens but will use the events to crack-down on the speech of those White Westerners who complain about it. This censorship serves jews and their bio-weapons, who can continue to brutalize the public but now with the cover of obscurity. As such, we can see these jews using the same tactic with their censoring of any who speak against them. At no point have the jews who are attempting to destroy this 19-year-old's life self-reflected about the concerns that this White Westerner might have about them, and instead they are trying to make sure that he is not allowed to speak about those concerns without extra-ordinary and absurdly asymmetric penalty ("free speech isn't freedom from [absolute social destruction by jews]" becomes the West's new jewish doctrine, displacing actual free speech). Thus, just as the rapes and murders are not only allowed to continue but are accelerated by governments subverted by jewish morality, so too will jews argue that their evil behavior is actually blameless and that you are the problem for complaining about it.
Cherub Cow rank	Sat Jun 20 16:30:38 ---------- “If everything is Jew-hatred, then nothing is Jew-hatred.” — the Vice President of the U.S. [June 19th, 2026] http://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/2068005916939530541 ---------- This is an interview between Allie Beth Stuckey of BlazeTV and Vance, so I'll just aside say that Stuckey is a retarded feminist who poses as conservative (many such cases; Rachel Wilson speaks of this), and here she makes some very low-IQ defenses of jewish psychopathy (e.g., the Mossad line of "Israeli Derangement Syndrome"). She is just a jewish rearguard action. Even so.. Vance and Trump have been more honest than usual lately with regards to the psychopathy inherent in the jewish mind. Trump has admitted that dealing with the psychopathic killer Netanyahu has been difficult, especially given that Netanyahu breaks deals and will lie for very short-term gains. (It was jewish derangements which both started and prolonged conflict with Iran.) Vance is also recognizing that whenever jews do not get their way, they tell the lie of "antisemitism" (or, "jew hatred" as jewish agitprop disseminators updated it some years ago when the previous lies had lost value). The two major working theories for this are these: 1) A turn away from "Israel" was planned, with this segment of Trump's presidency being given to "Israel" only for a designated period before shifting back to America First policies that could help in the midterms. 2) Any amount of time dealing with jews leads to people realizing how underhanded and maliciously deceptive they are, and both Trump and Vance have passed that threshold. Some comments even speculate that *if* jews have blackmail on Trump that jews exceeded the value of that blackmail with their horrific actions, hence, no further jewish actions would be a fair trade. This seems less supported, however, and in fact this was pushed most largely by leftists who were attempting to use the Right's actual opposition to pedos (an opposition to pedos that the left does not have) to get the Right to destroy their own leadership. A combination of "1)" and "2)" seems likely. Trump had clearly made deals with jews to empower his presidency in exchange for jewish foreign wars, but jews are never satisfied unless they have absolute global dominance (as is their nature as a totalitarian people who believe that they were "chosen" to enslave the world). Hence, when these vampires get just a taste of blood, they want to consume the entire village. So Trump may have approached these jews as though he were making business deals ("[we attack Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc. for you; and you fund my presidency and call off your control of media]"), but the jewish idea of "business" is scamming and deception, so there was never an intent for them to allow a fair trade ("fair" even here comprehending that engaging in foreign wars for jews is inherently evil). That means that whenever Trump tried to close his end of the bargain, jews simply asked for more, as is their nature. The question then becomes whether or not Trump and Vance can achieve a true closure to this period of heightened jewish psychopathy or whether or not jews will take even more psychopathic actions to get what they want from the West. We know, for instance, that they have been pushing for Trump's a55a55ination for a decade. There seems to have been a slight lull in that agitprop, but it is always at a baseline which they can ratchet-up (would we see tumblefaggot more rapidly approach his 100th thread on Trump?). It is likely that JFK and McKinley were murdered by jews for opposing their power, and we know that jews are hyper-sensitive to even the slightest pushback, so while these public condemnations of the jew are necessary and proper, the jew cannot be counted on to simply recognize that this is a moment for them to be humble.
Turtle Crawler rank	Wed Jun 24 14:41:50 Israeli forces have killed over 20,000 children & injured 44,000 more since 7 Oct. 2023, Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the @UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory & Israel, told reporters today. #HRC62 Need to stop giving Jews guns.
williamthebastard rank	Wed Jun 24 15:08:31 Hey CC, is it ok if I take a piss in this thread? Great, thanks! Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh Dum diddley dum Tra la la *whistles Scotland the Brave ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬* *Shake shake shake* Cheers!
Cherub Cow rank	Wed Jun 24 18:29:27 williamthecoward once again showing his strange fixation with the scatalogical. Subverted leftists are so slavish that even the regulation of their bodily impulses is seen as "oppression", hence they fixate on relieving themselves of that "oppression" in grotesque public kink-play, as likewise they wish to relieve themselves of civilization and their own consciousness. Indeed the subverted leftist is traumatized by his consciousness. As like Dostoevsky's underground man, he has been taught to so thoroughly hate himself that he does what a coward would do to kill an enemy: surrounds himself with his enemies, poisons himself with degrading vices and with his own mistreatment of himself, drinks, destroys consciousness in that haze, and vomits not to restore consciousness but to feel a physical relief that his waking mind can never grant him. It's no wonder that their minds can never rise to actual argumentation. Where is the bodily indulgence in that? Where is the ease? For Dostoevsky's underground man, he knows that a «point d'honneur» would prove his courage and quality, but he has no principles or virtues to support such honorable defense and therefore no will to hold himself steadfast. He wants to be brave, but for what do the brave fight? The brave fight *for* something: for their families, for their gods, for their nations. But the subverted leftist hates his family, his gods, his nation and seeks their destruction. Thus he can find no cause for bravery. His "bravery" becomes inversion: he cannot fight *for* but he can "fight" *against* existence. He looks for the "courage" to die, and he poisons himself by degrees so that it will be his body's choice rather than his own. He lets his body purge his maladies through vomit and other discharged waste and then struggle to recover in time for the next malady that he inflicts upon it. His body's unfortunate persistence under the weight of his self-hatred becomes a persistence he levies against the existence of his betters and of life itself. "Why have I not died yet?" he asks himself, impatient at how quickly he is killing himself. And he blinks. .. The ADL has been attempting to make "goyslop" into "an antisemtic slang term": [ADL official Twitter; June 18th, 2026] http://x.com/ADL/status/2067759660812370010 (Their definition is incomplete, of course, since they focus on literal food rather than the wider metaphor of "goyslop" as the media of jewish slave morality (agitprop) fed to the masses to propagandize the masses to accept jewish morality (e.g., yet another movie with miscegenation).) And the issue they're running into is one of special pleading within the Celebration Parallax. That is, they do indeed believe that non-jews are "cattle", but they think that that is a "Good thing"! Whereas, if you disagree with your enslavement, then that's "bad" thing! Hence, by jewish reckoning, "slop" is just what non-jews are supposed to accept. We might understand something similar of the Noahide Laws, which are a kind of "judaism lite" for non-jews which make non-jews more compliant to jewish will (Shapiro notably pushed them recently to his followers to get them to be more compliant with jewish authority). jews would say that these laws are not "slop", but they would admit that these laws are missing the 613 ingredients of the "mitzvot" (the extended laws designated for jews in particular). We might realize that the perspective at work is basically, " Kibble is just what dogs eat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " In other words, jews see goyslop as just what "cattle" eat. In their same deterministic and materialistic framework explained above, they simply see it as "natural" that the "goy" should be their slaves. It is circular, self-affirming, and psychopathic delusion: "We feed you garbage because you are garbage" / "We treat you like our slaves because you are our slaves." They cannot help but stand on a framework which is transparently about their contempt for all peoples who are not them. They openly admit that they believe that it is "good" that the world be enslaved under their psychopathic tyranny, but they will claim that it was no fault of their own that they have been expelled.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jun 29 02:47:31 jewish woman promotes the Reddit-retard meme of "my lineage ends with me"... while pretending to be White: ------- Verena Brunschweiger promotes the slogan “My lineage ends with me.” She calls for people, especially White people, to stop having children. [June 27th, 2026] http://x.com/RMXnews/status/2071010084537176514 ------- This is a common jewish tactic. jews are anti-White genocidal maniacs. We can also see how this relates to the jewish ESG scheme, which posits that White people and the West need to suicide on behalf of the "Global South". ESG is a jewish supremacist scheme of global messianic totalitarianism.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jun 29 04:09:44 jews continue to deny the Great Replacement: ---------- Who's applauding "the decline of the white population"? White people aren't dying out or being "replaced" -- there are simply more nonwhite people coexisting with them. And what does "losing their countries" mean? Are they being deported? [June 26th, 2026] http://x.com/CathyYoung63/status/2070632686645842251 ----------
williamthebastard rank	Mon Jun 29 20:13:17 Phew, this thread reeks of old piss. Anyway, Nazi Whore, ok if I take a dump in your thread?
Cherub Cow rank	Sun Jul 26 15:34:15 williamthecoward is again repeating his limited tactics (mostly limited to sexual violence, scatalogical fixation, and thought-terminating clichés). In this case it's his scatalogical kinks, which he attempts to use as an insult while only insulting himself and his own degraded thinking patterns. See above for an explanation of that left-wing slave psychology: ---------- "Wed Jun 24 18:29:27" williamthecoward once again showing his strange fixation with the scatalogical. Subverted leftists are so slavish that even the regulation of their bodily impulses is seen as "oppression", hence they fixate on relieving themselves of that "oppression" in grotesque public kink-play, as likewise they wish to relieve themselves of civilization and their own consciousness. ---------- We can recall that Fox News's Emily Compagno flanked by Kayleigh McEnany decried "[muh antisemitism]" when a young White man said that he was not interested in working for jews, then demanding that his public life be ruined for this privately stated social slight (above). We can see further examples of Fox News' participation in jewish morality with their willingness to platform absolute psychopaths such as this jewish Sid Rosenberg, who is given very little pushback after calling for the mass slaughter of Iranians: ---------- "There's no other way to win this war!" Ultra-Zionist Sid Rosenberg demands the US wage total war on Iran. "[Trump's] a nice man… he doesn't want people to die… but there's no other way to end this." "The only finish is … I hate to say it—complete annihilation!" "I'm not a parent of an army person, a marine person … but look, we have the army, we have the marines for a reason." Rosenberg insists our troops knew "exactly" what they were "signing up for" when they joined our military (which, evidently, is a total war with Iran for Israel). [July 25th, 2026] http://x.com/infolibnews/status/2081104533640323471 ---------- In other words, jews can explicitly call for the genocide of their ethnic rivals (see also the entire discourse on their anti-Whiteism and on their Palestinian hatred), and expect to be platformed by Fox News, but a young White man expressing a social preference in private communications is treated as a war criminal. We see this same language of retardation within subverted leftist spheres, since leftists possess this same jewish slave morality. Hence, "silence is violence" and "words are violence" are spoken by subverted leftists when the Right or unaffiliated people are not behaving in accordance with jewish morality, but leftists and jews perpetrating actual physical violence are participating in the "language of protest". We saw this same conflation of language in UP in the old 5x3 thread series, where seb was ultimately outed as believing that math itself is reality rather than a language describing reality. Subverted leftists possessing jewish slave morality actually believe that: that language is reality and that reality is language. This is an inversion built upon the old jewish Canaanite belief in self-fulfilling prophecies*. The jewish belief is that they will enslave the world through law, so this belief makes sense from the psychopathic jewish perspective. They hope that they can control their hosts through their subversion of law, with "law" coming to mean anything that jews want it to mean rather than some strict universal principle that can apply evenhandedly. Hence, a society subverted by jewish morality will have its language drift from concrete meanings to falsified inversions. As such, Fox News, adopting jewish morality, believes that a jew's plans to genocide his enemies is a mere talking matter, whereas a young White man talking about jews with a hint of negativity is a real and embodied genocide. With this logic in play, people facing jewish morality can decode the jew's calls for genocide in their same rhetoric. When the jew is not as upfront about it as this Rosenberg is, the jew will simply say that a target of their genocide "does not exist". This strategy was used on Iran earlier in the conflict, with jewish pundits immediately trying to say that Iran is not even a "legitimate" state, citing "theocratic governance" and political repression of jewish interests as proofs. That vector of attack was largely unsuccessful since jewish slave revolts pushed in Iran have not been as popular as jews have hoped. Fox News nevertheless pushes this vector still, claiming that jews getting to destroy this nation will allow Iran to be enslaved by jewish values such as "democracy" (enslavement to jews) and "LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA rights" (jewish dysgenics schemes which select-out defiant bloodlines by pushing general degeneracy). *(incidentally, even the jewish comedian Andy Kaufman cited this before his death, (dramatized in "Man on the Moon" here, set to relevant time point: http://youtu.be/i7PgxenunQs?si=HGlzuq9tPSVjjasA&t=500 ). He thought that people talking about his illness would worsen it (partially because of "vibes"), whereas he simply had cancer. Also interesting about this scene is that Courtney Love, who played Kaufman's wife in this movie, is jewish. She was part of the "Nirvana" and Kurt Cobain psychological operation, where "Nirvana" was supposed to break the positivity of the '80s and replace it with "grunge" despair, pushing White people to kill themselves. Playing her part, the jewish Courtney Cox has for a long time been suspected of pushing Cobain to suicide, even at the very moment that he is presumed to have shot himself. Cobain joined the "Forever 27" club in his death, with "27" being a jewish numerology term for the pure oil of the menorah. The menorah itself is symbolic of burnt offerings, hence, the "Forever 27" club is largely composed of jewish sacrifices under Kapparot. jews did this similarly with the jewish 27-year-old Amy Winehouse's death in 2011 after largely manufacturing her career. They try to infect their targets with their own despair, causing them to want to die.. jews hoping that jews will be too cowardly to kill themselves while their targets will actually do it. See also the jewish historian Josephus, who attempted to falsify a history of Masada wherein jews "heroically" killed themselves rather than surrender to Romans. In reality, Romans pressed their advantage and slaughtered the jews, but Josephus' lie was meant as spiritual warfare upon their enemies.)
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jul 27 15:11:28 Four posts by williamthebastard have been removed for spamming A.I.: • "Sun Jul 26 16:45:30" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 16:48:56" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 17:01:43" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 17:14:35" {ChatGPT spam} All four posts were particularly egregious because they failed to give the prompt or the full response and had nothing to do with the subject of the thread. The rapid-fire succession (4 posts in a row within 30 minutes, all ChatGPT spam) also substantiates that this was particularly egregious spam. This follows many warnings given in this thread series directly to williamthebastard about this exact type of spam. He knows that it is spam but still chooses to spam. These removed posts can still be found here: http://uto...&thread=96121&showdeleted=true -=-=-=- Anne Hathaway, who married a jew, appears at a "Human Rights" event calling for the destruction of White Westerners: [July 26th, 2026] http://x.com/IanMalcolm84/status/2081477372436447702 This speech took place in September 2018. The full video is available here: "Anne Hathaway Human Rights Campaign full speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLNRMrAEUA We should thus recall that, "Human rights" refers to a Bolshevik term coined after WWII which amounts in modern parlance to "equity for the Global South", which means provoking a slave revolt in morality against White Westerners. Calling for White genocide at a "Human rights" event is thus completely appropriate and the natural conclusion of the "human rights" ideology. (Compare to "natural rights", which is a Western concept.) I wrote further of this in the German terrorism thread: http://uto...hread=96430&time=1785154004576
williamthebastard rank	Mon Jul 27 15:19:08 Kargen still forbidding free speech to protect what AI deems as 9.5/10 evil after scouring google scholar? lol How racist is the user cherub cow on a scale from 1 -10? Since her posts are so long, I will divide her thread up into 3 posts to you: Based on this first third alone, I would rate Cherub Cow’s expressed racism/antisemitism as 10/10 on a 1–10 scale. So my rating: Antisemitism: 10/10 Racial/ethnic supremacism: 10/10 General racism: 10/10 (...) Regarding expressed worldview, this is at the maximum end. I would classify it as explicit extremist antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric. and your moral rating based on that from 1 -10 If by "moral rating" you mean an assessment of the moral character expressed through these posts (not the person's entire personality, which cannot be known from posts alone), I would rate the content at about 1/10. The reason I would not say 0/10 is that a zero would imply something like explicit advocacy of immediate atrocities, personal acts of violence, or a complete absence of any moral reasoning whatsoever. So, based purely on the posts: Moral quality of the expressed worldview: 1/10 Severity of expressed prejudice: 10/10 Level of dehumanizing rhetoric: 10/10 That denotes someone who is extremely immoral. At what rating would it be fair to introduce the term "evil"? Judging only the content and ideology expressed in these posts, I would assess it as follows: Racism/antisemitism: 10/10 Extremism: 10/10 Moral severity of the ideology expressed: 10/10 Calling the ideology "evil" would be a defensible moral judgment under many ethical frameworks. (...) So, focusing strictly on the posts: the ideology expressed is not merely immoral in a minor sense; it is an example of an extremist worldview that many would reasonably describe as evil. how evil? 9.5/10 — extremely evil in ideological terms. (...) Colloquial description: an extremely evil extremist ideology.
Cherub Cow rank	Mon Jul 27 15:44:13 [williamthecoward]: "Kargen still forbidding free speech to protect what AI deems as 9.5/10 evil after scouring google scholar? lol" I have told you probably 10 times now that I am deleting those posts — not kargen. You are a dense fucking idiot for not realizing this after I have directly told you this. And these deletions are not a free speech issue. You were literally spamming A.I. garbage rapid-fire. You have done this many times in the past in order to close threads or shut down discussion. Outright spam is not "free speech", you fucking idiot. Your current comment ("Mon Jul 27 15:19:08") also contains more A.I. spam, but I will leave it for the purposes of explaining this to you. Further A.I. spam will be deleted by me — not by kargen. This explanation and my leaving comment "Mon Jul 27 15:19:08" in place is already too generous given that you have received these warnings and explanations many times over the course of *years* now. It is not complicated: do not spam A.I.
williamthebastard rank	Thu Jul 30 12:11:46 Kargen still hasnt deleted it? Must be on holiday
jergul rank	Thu Jul 30 15:37:00 Interesting that Hoer Mods feel they can just delete posts that vex them. Careful, CC, your posts are also kind of repetative.
jergul rank	Thu Jul 30 15:39:21 WtB Dont spam AI stuff. It is a valid analysis tool, but 1 or 2 on the same topic suffice.
Cherub Cow rank	Sun Aug 09 15:44:35 [jergul]: "Interesting that Hoer Mods feel they can just delete posts that vex them. Careful, CC, your posts are also kind of repetative." That is a flawed and maliciously erroneous diagnosis. The criteria is not "repetative [sic]", and even if it were (it is not), I always write original content with my own words, and you have said nothing of the sort of tumbleweed, who is never original and incredibly repetitive (tumbleweed has now written 76 threads on one man: http://uto...hread=96311&time=1786119984714 ). Whereas, as you yourself say, "Dont spam AI stuff." That was the *actual* criteria at work (i.e., A.I. spam). I have consistently demonstrated that williamthebastard is absolutely free to call me all measure of the most grotesque names, make death threads, rape threats, and repeat the same tired insults and face no such deletions. Deletions have been completely limited to verifiable spam, and those deletions have been openly documented and easily accessible via links that I provided in-line so that people can evaluate my reasoning themselves. Attempting to play your game of retard-level-contrarianism on these facts merely signals your malicious willingness to do yourself what you wrongly claim that I am doing when I am not doing it (i.e., you yourself are far more likely to abuse moderator powers than myself, since I have never abused that power, and you yourself have indeed routinely ignored spam, which is why I had to request moderator powers in the first place). [williamthecoward]: "Kargen still hasnt deleted it? Must be on holiday" You truly are illiterate. Reading comment "Mon Jul 27 15:44:13" would disabuse you of your error, but you are too stupid and too ruled by fear of cognitive dissonance to ever improve yourself with knowledge. Has kargen even posted here recently? Do you think I even talk to him much less have such an instantaneous direct line to him that I could have him remove your spam mere seconds before I post my reasoning for removing the spam? What is simpler, 1) that I indeed deleted it as I have admitted to deleting it and that spam that I identified as instructive would persist as I said that it would persist, or 2) that there is some hidden and incredibly difficult coordination happening behind-the-scenes which is supported by nothing other than your delirium? The fact that you have stuck to option "2)" for *months* now despite many verifiable explanations to the contrary is telling of how empty-headed you are. I am increasingly convinced that most Outer Party leftists have learning disabilities, which is why you have been so easily enslaved. ........... ........... Back to the thread topic, We see again a jewish "journalist" serving international Bolshevism using the same anti-White and anti-West clichés, decrying as these subversives do the very idea of nations to give birth to the anti-nation of slavish internationalism. The jewish "Jake Wallis Simons" is a nationalist for jews, but for the West? The West receives only the same post-WWII boomer-delusion narrative of "guilty" for the "Holocaust", necessitating that "our democracy" and "our liberalism" mean a coalition of "Global South" governors becoming rulers of the West: ---------- [best viewed in Tweet form due to the pictures, but this is the content itself — each paragraph-breaker being a Tweet] http://x.com/CherubCow/status/2086403820847030350 These routine arguments are impaired since they direct readers to presume that to be "British/[national]" is to not defend a nation (i.e., inversion) and that if a foreign people were given «carte blanche» that they would never abuse that power. The coding of "British" there is just the redundant use of "low class" by Régime "journalists"/apparatchiks. This tactic works on those who seek their new God in the voice of their would-be conquerors and nowhere else (e.g., people who exclusively read Régime agitprop). The national argument only devolves further for article-author Simons, since the very idea that a nation could have traitors within it must immediately be compared to WWII German words. This admits his underlying belief: that nations themselves are "racist" (i.e., "bad thing"). A cynic might similarly translate Simons' talk of "grandfathers" as ominously similar to the «Großväter» or that his talk of "war" is a dog whistle for «Krieg».. not unlike the «Blitzkrieg»! And Umberto Eco would admonish him for his "bad"-talk of the «Ausländer» ("foreigner")! And can a nation have traitors? Absolutely, yes. Until very recently, societies could demonstrate their definitions by both identifying and punishing traitors. Readers might ask if it thus serves some foreign element for treason to have been coded as passé in the post-WWII order. Simultaneously, Simons deconstructs what it even means to have a nation. Exercising doublethink, readers are informed that to have a nation is "[WWII German]", but an author with "no whiff of a foreign passport" ("good"-coded) is in good company with those who *have* such a whif. Of "Jewish puppetmasters", would it not be an oversight and weakness for readers to be unable to accuse power of functioning in a certain way, since if then power *were* to function in that way, one could not address it? Would this not entice unaccountable power to that vacuum? In other words, if indeed England and Western nations were run by such "puppetmasters", would "journalists" such as Simons allow readers to place any treasonous conditions upon their governance? Apparently not. The Circumlocution Office can only say how *not* to do it! And conditions *have* been historically levied upon these foreign governors. Authors such as H.G. Wells, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Tolkien, Heinlein, and Frank Herbert have warned that jewish rulers could invite a catastrophic "Global South" slave revolt in morality. Where the West has historically stated that a condition upon jewish governance is that jews must not form such slave-morality coalitions with "Global South" destroyers, has Simons not violated that condition and formed exactly that coalition? Whose anti-nation is that? Ours? ---------- Of the last point, this directs to Simons' conclusion to the article, which is available behind the Telegraph's paywall on Yahoo! ( http://www...century-british-145737883.html) and reads, --------- "What does it mean to belong in Britain? It is not, as Downes would have us believe, merely a story of race or religion, though neither are wholly irrelevant; neither does it rest solely on dry questions of birth or legal status. At bottom, belonging depends upon the individual embodiment of certain values and sensibilities and our love for them. This allows us to share the sense of home, kinship, and culture which we naturally hold and defend." "That's how the King and Winston Churchill can belong, not to mention myself, as well as people like Kemi Badenoch, my friend Ed Husain and many millions like us. Rupert Lowe, hear this: to save Britain, you don't need to embrace racists. On the contrary, cross that line and you hasten its destruction." --------- Of the first paragraph, this is the same tired and easily falsified argument we have seen the post-WWII boomers make and only slightly altar for nearly a century: • Premise 1) The West is a "propositional" nation; the West is an "idea", there are "values" that define the West and these are greater than any other Western identities (e.g.; ethnicity, tradition, and religion are distant relics of identity compared to "values"). • Premise 2) There is no consequence to not holding these "values"; while what defines the West is these "values", not having these "values" does not result in a loss of power, in disenfranchisement, or in deportation for those who are anti-"values"; a foreigner can literally advocate for a foreign nation above their host Western nation (e.g., Ilhan Omar) and these "values" have no power to step-in and disempower her, and, in fact, people who champion these "values" say that it is against these "values" to even consider disenfranchising someone who hates these values (e.g., Glenn Greenwald being aghast at the idea that Ilhan Omar should face consequences beyond perhaps not being elected — where election itself cannot be enforced because of her ownership of an anti-"value" coalition that will continuously re-elect her http://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1886862077353971866 ). • Premise 3) These "values" are entirely Protean; these "values" can change at any moment and cannot be pinned down; nothing can stop these "values" from morphing into anti-"values" held by the latest round of foreign arrivals; if people who absolutely hate these "values" are imported from a conquering nation and out-vote and over-power these "values" and plant their own values, these "values" are not allowed to assert themselves against the anti-"values" but must instead have already (without memory) become those new values. Naturally, these premises are an acid upon civilization, paving the way for foreign conquest and a nation's suicide. We should note in particular that this "value"/anti-"value" design comes from the Marxist application of the Hegelian dialectic, which posits that where "thesis" and "antithesis" are forced into contest, a compromise position ("synthesis") will result which advances the destroyer's morality (i.e., since the original and asserted "thesis" of civilization is invariably eroded by the compromise to synthesis). This new "synthesis" then allows for the next round of "thesis"/"antithesis". Yuri Bezmenov spoke of the same in his infamous '80s interviews ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw ), where he explained this as a process of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. In the context of "values", we can interpret this as the targeted public having its "values" demoralized, which creates a de-stabilized society, then a crisis (the crisis of thesis/antithesis). Once the manufactured crisis is resolved, the new "synthesis" is normalized. Society is forced to accept the conclusions of the "synthesis", and the old order is now considered impossible to redeem. With regards to the function of Democrats and controlled-opposition Republicans, we see the framework for this dialectic. Democrats/leftists act as the acidic agent of civilization for this foreign cause, forcing the thesis of civilization into facing its antithesis (apparent "friends" of civilization selling the civilization its own suicide). If they move this project forward to "normalization", then the very same Republicans who opposed the former antithesis now become rearguard for the antithesis. Hence, today's Republicans champion "anti-racism", "multiculturalism", and "Civil Rights" when just a few years ago these were easily recognized as West-destroying threats. Fox News today decries "anti-Semitism" despite even today Westerners recognizing that jews constitute a foreign and subversive element. "Conservative" boomers champion gay rights today after recognizing their threat upon society in the '90s, and "conservatives" tomorrow are ready to champion "trans" rights despite giving lukewarm opposition today. "Christian Zionists" today champion "Israel" when 50 years ago "dispensationalism" was a hokey heresy. The "progress" of this eternal revolution was warned about by Orwell, who spoke of "an endless present in which the Party is always right" ("1984"). This constant "revolution" happens with an accelerating and ever-more-compressed regularity, testing the need-to-forget of citizens. Hence, while a change over decades might be accepted because decades can be difficult in the memories of the aging (e.g., via familiarity bias), as the new oligarchs of the "revolution" get closer to absolute power, each cycle from demoralization to normalization (thesis to synthesis) becomes more overt, such that even those with goldfish memories find themselves writing about how "the left left me" (i.e., the "revolution" went too fast this week). The process of living without memory thus creates the social-media fiend who consumes smaller and smaller memes and evades history and depth so as to take part in the new and immediate demands of the "revolution". This is discussed by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin as "Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation" ( http://rhe...-hypermediacy-and-remediation/ ). The short version goes that users (particularly of addicting media) chase "Immediacy" in their media: they want to know the "new" thing in the moment that it happens, and they look to facilitate this wherever they can. One would think that this means that they want to remove distraction and see the world as-is, but instead they pursue "Hypermediacy", which is the medium being hyper-apparent (e.g., a web page with distractions, side bars, popups, banners, links). Hence, chaotic webpages such as TikTok offer a jarring, confrontational, and distracting user-interface which pulls users out of the very content that they are consuming (making it less real in that sense), yet simultaneously users will believe that this highly mediated format is the *un*-mediated "raw data" (i.e., they accept this highly directed format as *more* real when it is *less* real). (I have previously explained this to tumbleweed in simplified terms in his threads, but the concept is wholly beyond him. In trying to explain to him how accounts such as Acyn use this technique to distort reality, he refuses to believe that he is seeing anything but "reality" itself despite how readily apparent the mediation should be.) A good example is the Deadpool movies. The Deadpool movies play with Pirandello's meta-theater by breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience, which one would think takes audiences *out* of the movie.. but most audiences will tell you that this method brings them *in*-to the movie, believing that the broken format is actually *more* sincere and more "real". Yet, when these audiences see genuine narrative formats used sincerely in other media (e.g., in media which does not break the fourth wall), they now are primed to the un-reality and take this un-reality as reality, insisting that they address sincere media with Deadpool sarcasm and cynicism, unable to take reality as serious or immediate. A serious and real moment thus becomes an opportunity for a quip, which denies reality; and a genuine notion of truth or beauty must immediately be treated with an ADHD response so as not to feel more than what can be felt quickly before consuming a vastly different piece of content with an entirely different emotional direction (e.g., thoughtful art mixed-in with 2-second memes, comedy mixed with brutal real-life killings, pornography mixed with adorable animals). This chaotic mixing is "Re-mediation", where all available media cascade on top of each other (e.g., cinema combined with surveillance footage combined with voice-over combined with phone-text pop-ups combined with a streaming service's controls combined with an endless scrolling initiation into the media itself combined with a narrative of public ADHD exposure to the media, Shyamalan's "Trap"). As many memes go, to comprehend a new meme users must understand several iterations and distortions of memes (e.g., the "Loss" meme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_(Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel) ). This is the "Backrooms" degradation of iterative media, where each layer distorts into the new form which is unrecognizable when compared to the original, which cannot be recovered and has likely been destroyed already. This Lovecraftian destruction displaces the psyche with the new Babel's Tower of all thought, forcing all thesis and antithesis into pure agnosia and confusion, where to the uninitiated there is no referent and no comprehension of reality left — but an insistence that "The Thing" which has combined all media is the most real and the most needed end state. I have discussed this as agnosia previously. The Virtue of Discrimination persists in thinking humans *as* a virtue because this cascade of iterations can be seen as Pirandello's theater of the *absurd*. That is, those who can recognize these "Birdman" (2014) processes and rationalize them discretely are capable of seeing this process of normalization and synthesis, but those of low-IQ naturally suffer from agnosia and can only see the "new" form and the "newest" iteration. These people cannot understand the message of the media itself but know that they are witnessing something complex and thus smile to themselves as they know that they can lean on their already established mediators. That is, the complexity of these iterations which degrade into Lovecraftian monstrosities and their seemingly distorted and disorganized form necessitates that low-IQ leftists seek mediators (again! mediators must be present to explain a world that needs no mediation! The original Protestant complaint!). We see examples of this from Michael Sugrue, who, in the early '90s, correctly explained that "postmodernism" is a means for academics in Western institutions to become the necessary mediators of new media, explaining to the world how things work through the soft "science" of culture ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9e0g5s_LCk ). As I have explained in particular to Nim with regards to postmodernism's utility, this means that postmodernism becomes a Palantir: at its core it is designed to give power to evil (e.g., Sauron, the leftist academic), yet through this same lens we as people of the West must be able to comprehend its language to explore the subversions that it is attempting. It is the very language of the foreign destroyer, and by learning it we decode their simple attempts to destroy the foundations and unities of the West. Finding the Sacred This is why finding the Sacred is monumentally important. Years ago (2016? 2020?) I warned UP leftists that during slave revolts in morality Westerners would face the rapid deconstruction of all of their values and that a cure for this is to find a strong memory and a Sacred Principle which is undying and essential to one's survival and the survival of one's progeny and to refuse to budge on this Sacred and *Embodied* Principle — to "never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon". It is through the Sacred that we comprehend the destruction of society, the destruction of memory, and the destruction of all wisdom, since if one is prepared to defend a "diamond absolute", then the "revolution" cannot proceed — another round of synthesis is rejected. Foreigners and subversives seek the destruction of memory so that "nothing is Sacred", so that foreigners introduced a decade ago and who never surrendered their foreign passports are to the agnosia-sufferers "no different" than the nationalist.. and that is thus how the "Last Man" Eloi live without memory or ambition — as also like Leonard in "Memento" (2000), struggling to track reality on his arms because he is so abysmally lost without memory. Whereas, the longer the memory and the more glimmering this absolute, the more powerfully the lies of antithesis can be unraveled and be brought back to Thesis, which is always written in one's blood.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Aug 09 15:51:51 Wait - its the nazi whore thats been deleting posts it doesnt like? Lol@UP
williamthebastard rank	Sun Aug 09 15:53:06 How racist is the user cherub cow on a scale from 1 -10? Since her posts are so long, I will divide her thread up into 3 posts to you: Based on this first third alone, I would rate Cherub Cow’s expressed racism/antisemitism as 10/10 on a 1–10 scale. So my rating: Antisemitism: 10/10 Racial/ethnic supremacism: 10/10 General racism: 10/10 (...) Regarding expressed worldview, this is at the maximum end. I would classify it as explicit extremist antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric. and your moral rating based on that from 1 -10 If by "moral rating" you mean an assessment of the moral character expressed through these posts (not the person's entire personality, which cannot be known from posts alone), I would rate the content at about 1/10. The reason I would not say 0/10 is that a zero would imply something like explicit advocacy of immediate atrocities, personal acts of violence, or a complete absence of any moral reasoning whatsoever. So, based purely on the posts: Moral quality of the expressed worldview: 1/10 Severity of expressed prejudice: 10/10 Level of dehumanizing rhetoric: 10/10 That denotes someone who is extremely immoral. At what rating would it be fair to introduce the term "evil"? udging only the content and ideology expressed in these posts, I would assess it as follows: Racism/antisemitism: 10/10 Extremism: 10/10 Moral severity of the ideology expressed: 10/10 Calling the ideology "evil" would be a defensible moral judgment under many ethical frameworks. (...) So, focusing strictly on the posts: the ideology expressed is not merely immoral in a minor sense; it is an example of an extremist worldview that many would reasonably describe as evil. how evil? 9.5/10 — extremely evil in ideological terms. (...) Colloquial description: an extremely evil extremist ideology.
jergul rank	Sun Aug 09 15:56:42 Yah. I remember fondly her outrage when a mod merely threatened to delete spam. Magatards just cannot help defaulting to hypocracy.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Aug 09 16:07:05 udent said "Not interested in working for a jew" in a private message which was only seen by the employer on Handshake in direct messaging. 2) The jewish Gabe Einhorn (employer in this Handshake interaction) intentionally did a partial dox of the student while pretending to be protecting his privacy; he showed the student's school affiliation, the first name of "Austin", and the end of a short last name ("-o"), leaving it very easy for people to find the student (who has subsequently gone public as Austin Franco): https://x.com/EinhornGabe/status/2064088779535569281 3) Despite even this partial dox, other jews, such as Joe Lonsdale of Palantir, staged a fake conversation with Einhorn wherein they demanded that Einhorn fully dox the student on behalf of all jewish people ("Be a strong Jew. Don’t be one of the weaklings that reacts in a way to get us attacked more; be a man that makes them afraid to attack your people.") Other jews of course jumped on it, such as Larry Loomer, who is a known Twitter psychopath. The general consensus of these jewish psychopaths is that Austin Franco, a 19-year-old student, should have jews follow him around for the rest of his life to make sure that his employers are contacted and fire him whenever he is employed. If employers do not do this, jews intend to blacklist those employers and subject them to the same kind of psychopathic harassment (i.e., "[This company failed to fire this guy, so they should be crushed too]"). Incidentally, jews are where "cancel culture" comes from. This is how they operate. This same exact behavior was cited before the 1290 Edict of Expulsion. They did this same thing when they gained control in their Bolshevik Russia. Whenever jews gain power, they exercise mass censorship and totalitarian thought reform. Cherub Cow rank Tue Jun 16 02:18:07 We can see here how jews falsify a "slippery slope" between "[any critique whatsoever]" to "[this could cause a Holobunga]": ---------- "I want his life to be ruined!" Fox News' Emily Compagno, 46, demands 19-year-old college student Austin Franco have his life ruined for saying in a private email that he's "not interested in working for a Jew." Cancel culture is back—Fox News & Palantir are leading the charge. http://x.com/infolibnews/status/2066615213051318505 ---------- [FoxNews pundit]: "It didn't go from 'everything's fine' to 'the death camps' overnight." This is, of course, part of the same format of totalitarian thought-reform's thought-terminating clichés covered many times here. The type of fool who would actually believe this logic of "[We can't even push-back against jews because Holobunga]" is symbolic of a person conditioned not to pursue simple knowledge or rhetorical examination — their thoughts have been totally stopped from even considering the subject in the abstract, and any remaining thoughts are conformist and cannot apply a proper scale of justice to any designated transgressions. We can see the utility of this to a totalitarian regime. Contextually, a person of the West could have completely reasoned positions on all manner of pro-West subjects, but this kind of totalitarian thought reform would ensure that absolutely no such positions could permeate designated layers of Orwellian "crimestop". Hence, this type of ideologically subverted person would be unable to apply any of those Western values to the subject deemed "thoughtcrime"; e.g., they could love Roman history.. *except* where Roman history interferes with jewish supremacy, thus allowing Rome to fall again for fear of opposing Rome's enemies. On top of that we should note again that "woke" is slave morality, and slave morality is the morality of jews. As such, we would note that "cancel culture" is a feature of this slave morality, and we see this plainly laid in this coalition of jews trying to destroy the life of a 19-year-old student who expressed a preference to not work with jews. This harkens back to many such examples of jewish "cancel culture" wherein common people — who were not even particularly known public figures before their "transgression" — violated jewish morality and were targeted by million- and billion-dollar machines of agitprop. The infamous story of Justine Sacco in 2013 is representative of this, since she had only 170 followers, made a silly joke, lost her job, and ended up having jewish-authored New York Times articles written about her (the jewish Jon Ronson wrote this: http://www...uined-justine-saccos-life.html ). jews use this "cancel culture" as a chilling effect, since if *even* a 19-year-old with no public presence can be destroyed by the direct attention of jewish billionaires who have direct access to FoxNews' forums, then surely no one should stand-up to these people, yes? But this kind of horrific censorship is, of course, always the end of the jew's pretense of being integrated actors within Western society. Their special pleading is always at direct odds with their Western hosts, and so their moves for power directly undermine that host. We see the same formula in any subverted left-wing movement which similarly adopts the jewish morality. In the recent stories of protests in the UK over foreign conquerors brutalizing White Westerners for sport, jewish-subverted governance makes this same jewish argument: *speaking* about the issue of being brutalized by foreigners is *worse* than the brutalizations themselves. Hence this totalitarian Regime will respond not to the issue of foreigners brutalizing citizens but will use the events to crack-down on the speech of those White Westerners who complain about it. This censorship serves jews and their bio-weapons, who can continue to brutalize the public but now with the cover of obscurity. As such, we can see these jews using the same tactic with their censoring of any who speak against them. At no point have the jews who are attempting to destroy this 19-year-old's life self-reflected about the concerns that this White Westerner might have about them, and instead they are trying to make sure that he is not allowed to speak about those concerns without extra-ordinary and absurdly asymmetric penalty ("free speech isn't freedom from [absolute social destruction by jews]" becomes the West's new jewish doctrine, displacing actual free speech). Thus, just as the rapes and murders are not only allowed to continue but are accelerated by governments subverted by jewish morality, so too will jews argue that their evil behavior is actually blameless and that you are the problem for complaining about it. Cherub Cow rank Sat Jun 20 16:30:38 ---------- “If everything is Jew-hatred, then nothing is Jew-hatred.” — the Vice President of the U.S. [June 19th, 2026] http://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/2068005916939530541 ---------- This is an interview between Allie Beth Stuckey of BlazeTV and Vance, so I'll just aside say that Stuckey is a retarded feminist who poses as conservative (many such cases; Rachel Wilson speaks of this), and here she makes some very low-IQ defenses of jewish psychopathy (e.g., the Mossad line of "Israeli Derangement Syndrome"). She is just a jewish rearguard action. Even so.. Vance and Trump have been more honest than usual lately with regards to the psychopathy inherent in the jewish mind. Trump has admitted that dealing with the psychopathic killer Netanyahu has been difficult, especially given that Netanyahu breaks deals and will lie for very short-term gains. (It was jewish derangements which both started and prolonged conflict with Iran.) Vance is also recognizing that whenever jews do not get their way, they tell the lie of "antisemitism" (or, "jew hatred" as jewish agitprop disseminators updated it some years ago when the previous lies had lost value). The two major working theories for this are these: 1) A turn away from "Israel" was planned, with this segment of Trump's presidency being given to "Israel" only for a designated period before shifting back to America First policies that could help in the midterms. 2) Any amount of time dealing with jews leads to people realizing how underhanded and maliciously deceptive they are, and both Trump and Vance have passed that threshold. Some comments even speculate that *if* jews have blackmail on Trump that jews exceeded the value of that blackmail with their horrific actions, hence, no further jewish actions would be a fair trade. This seems less supported, however, and in fact this was pushed most largely by leftists who were attempting to use the Right's actual opposition to pedos (an opposition to pedos that the left does not have) to get the Right to destroy their own leadership. A combination of "1)" and "2)" seems likely. Trump had clearly made deals with jews to empower his presidency in exchange for jewish foreign wars, but jews are never satisfied unless they have absolute global dominance (as is their nature as a totalitarian people who believe that they were "chosen" to enslave the world). Hence, when these vampires get just a taste of blood, they want to consume the entire village. So Trump may have approached these jews as though he were making business deals ("[we attack Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc. for you; and you fund my presidency and call off your control of media]"), but the jewish idea of "business" is scamming and deception, so there was never an intent for them to allow a fair trade ("fair" even here comprehending that engaging in foreign wars for jews is inherently evil). That means that whenever Trump tried to close his end of the bargain, jews simply asked for more, as is their nature. The question then becomes whether or not Trump and Vance can achieve a true closure to this period of heightened jewish psychopathy or whether or not jews will take even more psychopathic actions to get what they want from the West. We know, for instance, that they have been pushing for Trump's a55a55ination for a decade. There seems to have been a slight lull in that agitprop, but it is always at a baseline which they can ratchet-up (would we see tumblefaggot more rapidly approach his 100th thread on Trump?). It is likely that JFK and McKinley were murdered by jews for opposing their power, and we know that jews are hyper-sensitive to even the slightest pushback, so while these public condemnations of the jew are necessary and proper, the jew cannot be counted on to simply recognize that this is a moment for them to be humble. Turtle Crawler rank Wed Jun 24 14:41:50 Israeli forces have killed over 20,000 children & injured 44,000 more since 7 Oct. 2023, Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the @UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory & Israel, told reporters today. #HRC62 Need to stop giving Jews guns. williamthebastard rank Wed Jun 24 15:08:31 Hey CC, is it ok if I take a piss in this thread? Great, thanks! Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh Dum diddley dum Tra la la *whistles Scotland the Brave ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬* *Shake shake shake* Cheers! Cherub Cow rank Wed Jun 24 18:29:27 williamthecoward once again showing his strange fixation with the scatalogical. Subverted leftists are so slavish that even the regulation of their bodily impulses is seen as "oppression", hence they fixate on relieving themselves of that "oppression" in grotesque public kink-play, as likewise they wish to relieve themselves of civilization and their own consciousness. Indeed the subverted leftist is traumatized by his consciousness. As like Dostoevsky's underground man, he has been taught to so thoroughly hate himself that he does what a coward would do to kill an enemy: surrounds himself with his enemies, poisons himself with degrading vices and with his own mistreatment of himself, drinks, destroys consciousness in that haze, and vomits not to restore consciousness but to feel a physical relief that his waking mind can never grant him. It's no wonder that their minds can never rise to actual argumentation. Where is the bodily indulgence in that? Where is the ease? For Dostoevsky's underground man, he knows that a «point d'honneur» would prove his courage and quality, but he has no principles or virtues to support such honorable defense and therefore no will to hold himself steadfast. He wants to be brave, but for what do the brave fight? The brave fight *for* something: for their families, for their gods, for their nations. But the subverted leftist hates his family, his gods, his nation and seeks their destruction. Thus he can find no cause for bravery. His "bravery" becomes inversion: he cannot fight *for* but he can "fight" *against* existence. He looks for the "courage" to die, and he poisons himself by degrees so that it will be his body's choice rather than his own. He lets his body purge his maladies through vomit and other discharged waste and then struggle to recover in time for the next malady that he inflicts upon it. His body's unfortunate persistence under the weight of his self-hatred becomes a persistence he levies against the existence of his betters and of life itself. "Why have I not died yet?" he asks himself, impatient at how quickly he is killing himself. And he blinks. .. The ADL has been attempting to make "goyslop" into "an antisemtic slang term": [ADL official Twitter; June 18th, 2026] http://x.com/ADL/status/2067759660812370010 (Their definition is incomplete, of course, since they focus on literal food rather than the wider metaphor of "goyslop" as the media of jewish slave morality (agitprop) fed to the masses to propagandize the masses to accept jewish morality (e.g., yet another movie with miscegenation).) And the issue they're running into is one of special pleading within the Celebration Parallax. That is, they do indeed believe that non-jews are "cattle", but they think that that is a "Good thing"! Whereas, if you disagree with your enslavement, then that's "bad" thing! Hence, by jewish reckoning, "slop" is just what non-jews are supposed to accept. We might understand something similar of the Noahide Laws, which are a kind of "judaism lite" for non-jews which make non-jews more compliant to jewish will (Shapiro notably pushed them recently to his followers to get them to be more compliant with jewish authority). jews would say that these laws are not "slop", but they would admit that these laws are missing the 613 ingredients of the "mitzvot" (the extended laws designated for jews in particular). We might realize that the perspective at work is basically, " Kibble is just what dogs eat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " In other words, jews see goyslop as just what "cattle" eat. In their same deterministic and materialistic framework explained above, they simply see it as "natural" that the "goy" should be their slaves. It is circular, self-affirming, and psychopathic delusion: "We feed you garbage because you are garbage" / "We treat you like our slaves because you are our slaves." They cannot help but stand on a framework which is transparently about their contempt for all peoples who are not them. They openly admit that they believe that it is "good" that the world be enslaved under their psychopathic tyranny, but they will claim that it was no fault of their own that they have been expelled. Cherub Cow rank Mon Jun 29 02:47:31 jewish woman promotes the Reddit-retard meme of "my lineage ends with me"... while pretending to be White: ------- Verena Brunschweiger promotes the slogan “My lineage ends with me.” She calls for people, especially White people, to stop having children. [June 27th, 2026] http://x.com/RMXnews/status/2071010084537176514 ------- This is a common jewish tactic. jews are anti-White genocidal maniacs. We can also see how this relates to the jewish ESG scheme, which posits that White people and the West need to suicide on behalf of the "Global South". ESG is a jewish supremacist scheme of global messianic totalitarianism. Cherub Cow rank Mon Jun 29 04:09:44 jews continue to deny the Great Replacement: ---------- Who's applauding "the decline of the white population"? White people aren't dying out or being "replaced" -- there are simply more nonwhite people coexisting with them. And what does "losing their countries" mean? Are they being deported? [June 26th, 2026] http://x.com/CathyYoung63/status/2070632686645842251 ---------- williamthebastard rank Mon Jun 29 20:13:17 Phew, this thread reeks of old piss. Anyway, Nazi Whore, ok if I take a dump in your thread? Cherub Cow rank Sun Jul 26 15:34:15 williamthecoward is again repeating his limited tactics (mostly limited to sexual violence, scatalogical fixation, and thought-terminating clichés). In this case it's his scatalogical kinks, which he attempts to use as an insult while only insulting himself and his own degraded thinking patterns. See above for an explanation of that left-wing slave psychology: ---------- "Wed Jun 24 18:29:27" williamthecoward once again showing his strange fixation with the scatalogical. Subverted leftists are so slavish that even the regulation of their bodily impulses is seen as "oppression", hence they fixate on relieving themselves of that "oppression" in grotesque public kink-play, as likewise they wish to relieve themselves of civilization and their own consciousness. ---------- We can recall that Fox News's Emily Compagno flanked by Kayleigh McEnany decried "[muh antisemitism]" when a young White man said that he was not interested in working for jews, then demanding that his public life be ruined for this privately stated social slight (above). We can see further examples of Fox News' participation in jewish morality with their willingness to platform absolute psychopaths such as this jewish Sid Rosenberg, who is given very little pushback after calling for the mass slaughter of Iranians: ---------- "There's no other way to win this war!" Ultra-Zionist Sid Rosenberg demands the US wage total war on Iran. "[Trump's] a nice man… he doesn't want people to die… but there's no other way to end this." "The only finish is … I hate to say it—complete annihilation!" "I'm not a parent of an army person, a marine person … but look, we have the army, we have the marines for a reason." Rosenberg insists our troops knew "exactly" what they were "signing up for" when they joined our military (which, evidently, is a total war with Iran for Israel). [July 25th, 2026] http://x.com/infolibnews/status/2081104533640323471 ---------- In other words, jews can explicitly call for the genocide of their ethnic rivals (see also the entire discourse on their anti-Whiteism and on their Palestinian hatred), and expect to be platformed by Fox News, but a young White man expressing a social preference in private communications is treated as a war criminal. We see this same language of retardation within subverted leftist spheres, since leftists possess this same jewish slave morality. Hence, "silence is violence" and "words are violence" are spoken by subverted leftists when the Right or unaffiliated people are not behaving in accordance with jewish morality, but leftists and jews perpetrating actual physical violence are participating in the "language of protest". We saw this same conflation of language in UP in the old 5x3 thread series, where seb was ultimately outed as believing that math itself is reality rather than a language describing reality. Subverted leftists possessing jewish slave morality actually believe that: that language is reality and that reality is language. This is an inversion built upon the old jewish Canaanite belief in self-fulfilling prophecies*. The jewish belief is that they will enslave the world through law, so this belief makes sense from the psychopathic jewish perspective. They hope that they can control their hosts through their subversion of law, with "law" coming to mean anything that jews want it to mean rather than some strict universal principle that can apply evenhandedly. Hence, a society subverted by jewish morality will have its language drift from concrete meanings to falsified inversions. As such, Fox News, adopting jewish morality, believes that a jew's plans to genocide his enemies is a mere talking matter, whereas a young White man talking about jews with a hint of negativity is a real and embodied genocide. With this logic in play, people facing jewish morality can decode the jew's calls for genocide in their same rhetoric. When the jew is not as upfront about it as this Rosenberg is, the jew will simply say that a target of their genocide "does not exist". This strategy was used on Iran earlier in the conflict, with jewish pundits immediately trying to say that Iran is not even a "legitimate" state, citing "theocratic governance" and political repression of jewish interests as proofs. That vector of attack was largely unsuccessful since jewish slave revolts pushed in Iran have not been as popular as jews have hoped. Fox News nevertheless pushes this vector still, claiming that jews getting to destroy this nation will allow Iran to be enslaved by jewish values such as "democracy" (enslavement to jews) and "LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA rights" (jewish dysgenics schemes which select-out defiant bloodlines by pushing general degeneracy). *(incidentally, even the jewish comedian Andy Kaufman cited this before his death, (dramatized in "Man on the Moon" here, set to relevant time point: http://youtu.be/i7PgxenunQs?si=HGlzuq9tPSVjjasA&t=500 ). He thought that people talking about his illness would worsen it (partially because of "vibes"), whereas he simply had cancer. Also interesting about this scene is that Courtney Love, who played Kaufman's wife in this movie, is jewish. She was part of the "Nirvana" and Kurt Cobain psychological operation, where "Nirvana" was supposed to break the positivity of the '80s and replace it with "grunge" despair, pushing White people to kill themselves. Playing her part, the jewish Courtney Cox has for a long time been suspected of pushing Cobain to suicide, even at the very moment that he is presumed to have shot himself. Cobain joined the "Forever 27" club in his death, with "27" being a jewish numerology term for the pure oil of the menorah. The menorah itself is symbolic of burnt offerings, hence, the "Forever 27" club is largely composed of jewish sacrifices under Kapparot. jews did this similarly with the jewish 27-year-old Amy Winehouse's death in 2011 after largely manufacturing her career. They try to infect their targets with their own despair, causing them to want to die.. jews hoping that jews will be too cowardly to kill themselves while their targets will actually do it. See also the jewish historian Josephus, who attempted to falsify a history of Masada wherein jews "heroically" killed themselves rather than surrender to Romans. In reality, Romans pressed their advantage and slaughtered the jews, but Josephus' lie was meant as spiritual warfare upon their enemies.) Cherub Cow rank Mon Jul 27 15:11:28 Four posts by williamthebastard have been removed for spamming A.I.: • "Sun Jul 26 16:45:30" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 16:48:56" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 17:01:43" {ChatGPT spam} • "Sun Jul 26 17:14:35" {ChatGPT spam} All four posts were particularly egregious because they failed to give the prompt or the full response and had nothing to do with the subject of the thread. The rapid-fire succession (4 posts in a row within 30 minutes, all ChatGPT spam) also substantiates that this was particularly egregious spam. This follows many warnings given in this thread series directly to williamthebastard about this exact type of spam. He knows that it is spam but still chooses to spam. These removed posts can still be found here: http://uto...&thread=96121&showdeleted=true -=-=-=- Anne Hathaway, who married a jew, appears at a "Human Rights" event calling for the destruction of White Westerners: [July 26th, 2026] http://x.com/IanMalcolm84/status/2081477372436447702 This speech took place in September 2018. The full video is available here: "Anne Hathaway Human Rights Campaign full speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLNRMrAEUA We should thus recall that, "Human rights" refers to a Bolshevik term coined after WWII which amounts in modern parlance to "equity for the Global South", which means provoking a slave revolt in morality against White Westerners. Calling for White genocide at a "Human rights" event is thus completely appropriate and the natural conclusion of the "human rights" ideology. (Compare to "natural rights", which is a Western concept.) I wrote further of this in the German terrorism thread: http://uto...hread=96430&time=1785154004576 williamthebastard rank Mon Jul 27 15:19:08 Kargen still forbidding free speech to protect what AI deems as 9.5/10 evil after scouring google scholar? lol How racist is the user cherub cow on a scale from 1 -10? Since her posts are so long, I will divide her thread up into 3 posts to you: Based on this first third alone, I would rate Cherub Cow’s expressed racism/antisemitism as 10/10 on a 1–10 scale. So my rating: Antisemitism: 10/10 Racial/ethnic supremacism: 10/10 General racism: 10/10 (...) Regarding expressed worldview, this is at the maximum end. I would classify it as explicit extremist antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric. and your moral rating based on that from 1 -10 If by "moral rating" you mean an assessment of the moral character expressed through these posts (not the person's entire personality, which cannot be known from posts alone), I would rate the content at about 1/10. The reason I would not say 0/10 is that a zero would imply something like explicit advocacy of immediate atrocities, personal acts of violence, or a complete absence of any moral reasoning whatsoever. So, based purely on the posts: Moral quality of the expressed worldview: 1/10 Severity of expressed prejudice: 10/10 Level of dehumanizing rhetoric: 10/10 That denotes someone who is extremely immoral. At what rating would it be fair to introduce the term "evil"? Judging only the content and ideology expressed in these posts, I would assess it as follows: Racism/antisemitism: 10/10 Extremism: 10/10 Moral severity of the ideology expressed: 10/10 Calling the ideology "evil" would be a defensible moral judgment under many ethical frameworks. (...) So, focusing strictly on the posts: the ideology expressed is not merely immoral in a minor sense; it is an example of an extremist worldview that many would reasonably describe as evil. how evil? 9.5/10 — extremely evil in ideological terms. (...) Colloquial description: an extremely evil extremist ideology. Cherub Cow rank Mon Jul 27 15:44:13 [williamthecoward]: "Kargen still forbidding free speech to protect what AI deems as 9.5/10 evil after scouring google scholar? lol" I have told you probably 10 times now that I am deleting those posts — not kargen. You are a dense fucking idiot for not realizing this after I have directly told you this. And these deletions are not a free speech issue. You were literally spamming A.I. garbage rapid-fire. You have done this many times in the past in order to close threads or shut down discussion. Outright spam is not "free speech", you fucking idiot. Your current comment ("Mon Jul 27 15:19:08") also contains more A.I. spam, but I will leave it for the purposes of explaining this to you. Further A.I. spam will be deleted by me — not by kargen. This explanation and my leaving comment "Mon Jul 27 15:19:08" in place is already too generous given that you have received these warnings and explanations many times over the course of *years* now. It is not complicated: do not spam A.I. williamthebastard rank Thu Jul 30 12:11:46 Kargen still hasnt deleted it? Must be on holiday jergul rank Thu Jul 30 15:37:00 Interesting that Hoer Mods feel they can just delete posts that vex them. Careful, CC, your posts are also kind of repetative. jergul rank Thu Jul 30 15:39:21 WtB Dont spam AI stuff. It is a valid analysis tool, but 1 or 2 on the same topic suffice. Cherub Cow rank Sun Aug 09 15:44:35 [jergul]: "Interesting that Hoer Mods feel they can just delete posts that vex them. Careful, CC, your posts are also kind of repetative." That is a flawed and maliciously erroneous diagnosis. The criteria is not "repetative [sic]", and even if it were (it is not), I always write original content with my own words, and you have said nothing of the sort of tumbleweed, who is never original and incredibly repetitive (tumbleweed has now written 76 threads on one man: http://uto...hread=96311&time=1786119984714 ). Whereas, as you yourself say, "Dont spam AI stuff." That was the *actual* criteria at work (i.e., A.I. spam). I have consistently demonstrated that williamthebastard is absolutely free to call me all measure of the most grotesque names, make death threads, rape threats, and repeat the same tired insults and face no such deletions. Deletions have been completely limited to verifiable spam, and those deletions have been openly documented and easily accessible via links that I provided in-line so that people can evaluate my reasoning themselves. Attempting to play your game of retard-level-contrarianism on these facts merely signals your malicious willingness to do yourself what you wrongly claim that I am doing when I am not doing it (i.e., you yourself are far more likely to abuse moderator powers than myself, since I have never abused that power, and you yourself have indeed routinely ignored spam, which is why I had to request moderator powers in the first place). [williamthecoward]: "Kargen still hasnt deleted it? Must be on holiday" You truly are illiterate. Reading comment "Mon Jul 27 15:44:13" would disabuse you of your error, but you are too stupid and too ruled by fear of cognitive dissonance to ever improve yourself with knowledge. Has kargen even posted here recently? Do you think I even talk to him much less have such an instantaneous direct line to him that I could have him remove your spam mere seconds before I post my reasoning for removing the spam? What is simpler, 1) that I indeed deleted it as I have admitted to deleting it and that spam that I identified as instructive would persist as I said that it would persist, or 2) that there is some hidden and incredibly difficult coordination happening behind-the-scenes which is supported by nothing other than your delirium? The fact that you have stuck to option "2)" for *months* now despite many verifiable explanations to the contrary is telling of how empty-headed you are. I am increasingly convinced that most Outer Party leftists have learning disabilities, which is why you have been so easily enslaved. ........... ........... Back to the thread topic, We see again a jewish "journalist" serving international Bolshevism using the same anti-White and anti-West clichés, decrying as these subversives do the very idea of nations to give birth to the anti-nation of slavish internationalism. The jewish "Jake Wallis Simons" is a nationalist for jews, but for the West? The West receives only the same post-WWII boomer-delusion narrative of "guilty" for the "Holocaust", necessitating that "our democracy" and "our liberalism" mean a coalition of "Global South" governors becoming rulers of the West: ---------- [best viewed in Tweet form due to the pictures, but this is the content itself — each paragraph-breaker being a Tweet] http://x.com/CherubCow/status/2086403820847030350 These routine arguments are impaired since they direct readers to presume that to be "British/[national]" is to not defend a nation (i.e., inversion) and that if a foreign people were given «carte blanche» that they would never abuse that power. The coding of "British" there is just the redundant use of "low class" by Régime "journalists"/apparatchiks. This tactic works on those who seek their new God in the voice of their would-be conquerors and nowhere else (e.g., people who exclusively read Régime agitprop). The national argument only devolves further for article-author Simons, since the very idea that a nation could have traitors within it must immediately be compared to WWII German words. This admits his underlying belief: that nations themselves are "racist" (i.e., "bad thing"). A cynic might similarly translate Simons' talk of "grandfathers" as ominously similar to the «Großväter» or that his talk of "war" is a dog whistle for «Krieg».. not unlike the «Blitzkrieg»! And Umberto Eco would admonish him for his "bad"-talk of the «Ausländer» ("foreigner")! And can a nation have traitors? Absolutely, yes. Until very recently, societies could demonstrate their definitions by both identifying and punishing traitors. Readers might ask if it thus serves some foreign element for treason to have been coded as passé in the post-WWII order. Simultaneously, Simons deconstructs what it even means to have a nation. Exercising doublethink, readers are informed that to have a nation is "[WWII German]", but an author with "no whiff of a foreign passport" ("good"-coded) is in good company with those who *have* such a whif. Of "Jewish puppetmasters", would it not be an oversight and weakness for readers to be unable to accuse power of functioning in a certain way, since if then power *were* to function in that way, one could not address it? Would this not entice unaccountable power to that vacuum? In other words, if indeed England and Western nations were run by such "puppetmasters", would "journalists" such as Simons allow readers to place any treasonous conditions upon their governance? Apparently not. The Circumlocution Office can only say how *not* to do it! And conditions *have* been historically levied upon these foreign governors. Authors such as H.G. Wells, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Tolkien, Heinlein, and Frank Herbert have warned that jewish rulers could invite a catastrophic "Global South" slave revolt in morality. Where the West has historically stated that a condition upon jewish governance is that jews must not form such slave-morality coalitions with "Global South" destroyers, has Simons not violated that condition and formed exactly that coalition? Whose anti-nation is that? Ours? ---------- Of the last point, this directs to Simons' conclusion to the article, which is available behind the Telegraph's paywall on Yahoo! ( http://www...century-british-145737883.html) and reads, --------- "What does it mean to belong in Britain? It is not, as Downes would have us believe, merely a story of race or religion, though neither are wholly irrelevant; neither does it rest solely on dry questions of birth or legal status. At bottom, belonging depends upon the individual embodiment of certain values and sensibilities and our love for them. This allows us to share the sense of home, kinship, and culture which we naturally hold and defend." "That's how the King and Winston Churchill can belong, not to mention myself, as well as people like Kemi Badenoch, my friend Ed Husain and many millions like us. Rupert Lowe, hear this: to save Britain, you don't need to embrace racists. On the contrary, cross that line and you hasten its destruction." --------- Of the first paragraph, this is the same tired and easily falsified argument we have seen the post-WWII boomers make and only slightly altar for nearly a century: • Premise 1) The West is a "propositional" nation; the West is an "idea", there are "values" that define the West and these are greater than any other Western identities (e.g.; ethnicity, tradition, and religion are distant relics of identity compared to "values"). • Premise 2) There is no consequence to not holding these "values"; while what defines the West is these "values", not having these "values" does not result in a loss of power, in disenfranchisement, or in deportation for those who are anti-"values"; a foreigner can literally advocate for a foreign nation above their host Western nation (e.g., Ilhan Omar) and these "values" have no power to step-in and disempower her, and, in fact, people who champion these "values" say that it is against these "values" to even consider disenfranchising someone who hates these values (e.g., Glenn Greenwald being aghast at the idea that Ilhan Omar should face consequences beyond perhaps not being elected — where election itself cannot be enforced because of her ownership of an anti-"value" coalition that will continuously re-elect her http://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1886862077353971866 ). • Premise 3) These "values" are entirely Protean; these "values" can change at any moment and cannot be pinned down; nothing can stop these "values" from morphing into anti-"values" held by the latest round of foreign arrivals; if people who absolutely hate these "values" are imported from a conquering nation and out-vote and over-power these "values" and plant their own values, these "values" are not allowed to assert themselves against the anti-"values" but must instead have already (without memory) become those new values. Naturally, these premises are an acid upon civilization, paving the way for foreign conquest and a nation's suicide. We should note in particular that this "value"/anti-"value" design comes from the Marxist application of the Hegelian dialectic, which posits that where "thesis" and "antithesis" are forced into contest, a compromise position ("synthesis") will result which advances the destroyer's morality (i.e., since the original and asserted "thesis" of civilization is invariably eroded by the compromise to synthesis). This new "synthesis" then allows for the next round of "thesis"/"antithesis". Yuri Bezmenov spoke of the same in his infamous '80s interviews ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw ), where he explained this as a process of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. In the context of "values", we can interpret this as the targeted public having its "values" demoralized, which creates a de-stabilized society, then a crisis (the crisis of thesis/antithesis). Once the manufactured crisis is resolved, the new "synthesis" is normalized. Society is forced to accept the conclusions of the "synthesis", and the old order is now considered impossible to redeem. With regards to the function of Democrats and controlled-opposition Republicans, we see the framework for this dialectic. Democrats/leftists act as the acidic agent of civilization for this foreign cause, forcing the thesis of civilization into facing its antithesis (apparent "friends" of civilization selling the civilization its own suicide). If they move this project forward to "normalization", then the very same Republicans who opposed the former antithesis now become rearguard for the antithesis. Hence, today's Republicans champion "anti-racism", "multiculturalism", and "Civil Rights" when just a few years ago these were easily recognized as West-destroying threats. Fox News today decries "anti-Semitism" despite even today Westerners recognizing that jews constitute a foreign and subversive element. "Conservative" boomers champion gay rights today after recognizing their threat upon society in the '90s, and "conservatives" tomorrow are ready to champion "trans" rights despite giving lukewarm opposition today. "Christian Zionists" today champion "Israel" when 50 years ago "dispensationalism" was a hokey heresy. The "progress" of this eternal revolution was warned about by Orwell, who spoke of "an endless present in which the Party is always right" ("1984"). This constant "revolution" happens with an accelerating and ever-more-compressed regularity, testing the need-to-forget of citizens. Hence, while a change over decades might be accepted because decades can be difficult in the memories of the aging (e.g., via familiarity bias), as the new oligarchs of the "revolution" get closer to absolute power, each cycle from demoralization to normalization (thesis to synthesis) becomes more overt, such that even those with goldfish memories find themselves writing about how "the left left me" (i.e., the "revolution" went too fast this week). The process of living without memory thus creates the social-media fiend who consumes smaller and smaller memes and evades history and depth so as to take part in the new and immediate demands of the "revolution". This is discussed by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin as "Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation" ( http://rhe...-hypermediacy-and-remediation/ ). The short version goes that users (particularly of addicting media) chase "Immediacy" in their media: they want to know the "new" thing in the moment that it happens, and they look to facilitate this wherever they can. One would think that this means that they want to remove distraction and see the world as-is, but instead they pursue "Hypermediacy", which is the medium being hyper-apparent (e.g., a web page with distractions, side bars, popups, banners, links). Hence, chaotic webpages such as TikTok offer a jarring, confrontational, and distracting user-interface which pulls users out of the very content that they are consuming (making it less real in that sense), yet simultaneously users will believe that this highly mediated format is the *un*-mediated "raw data" (i.e., they accept this highly directed format as *more* real when it is *less* real). (I have previously explained this to tumbleweed in simplified terms in his threads, but the concept is wholly beyond him. In trying to explain to him how accounts such as Acyn use this technique to distort reality, he refuses to believe that he is seeing anything but "reality" itself despite how readily apparent the mediation should be.) A good example is the Deadpool movies. The Deadpool movies play with Pirandello's meta-theater by breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience, which one would think takes audiences *out* of the movie.. but most audiences will tell you that this method brings them *in*-to the movie, believing that the broken format is actually *more* sincere and more "real". Yet, when these audiences see genuine narrative formats used sincerely in other media (e.g., in media which does not break the fourth wall), they now are primed to the un-reality and take this un-reality as reality, insisting that they address sincere media with Deadpool sarcasm and cynicism, unable to take reality as serious or immediate. A serious and real moment thus becomes an opportunity for a quip, which denies reality; and a genuine notion of truth or beauty must immediately be treated with an ADHD response so as not to feel more than what can be felt quickly before consuming a vastly different piece of content with an entirely different emotional direction (e.g., thoughtful art mixed-in with 2-second memes, comedy mixed with brutal real-life killings, pornography mixed with adorable animals). This chaotic mixing is "Re-mediation", where all available media cascade on top of each other (e.g., cinema combined with surveillance footage combined with voice-over combined with phone-text pop-ups combined with a streaming service's controls combined with an endless scrolling initiation into the media itself combined with a narrative of public ADHD exposure to the media, Shyamalan's "Trap"). As many memes go, to comprehend a new meme users must understand several iterations and distortions of memes (e.g., the "Loss" meme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_(Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel) ). This is the "Backrooms" degradation of iterative media, where each layer distorts into the new form which is unrecognizable when compared to the original, which cannot be recovered and has likely been destroyed already. This Lovecraftian destruction displaces the psyche with the new Babel's Tower of all thought, forcing all thesis and antithesis into pure agnosia and confusion, where to the uninitiated there is no referent and no comprehension of reality left — but an insistence that "The Thing" which has combined all media is the most real and the most needed end state. I have discussed this as agnosia previously. The Virtue of Discrimination persists in thinking humans *as* a virtue because this cascade of iterations can be seen as Pirandello's theater of the *absurd*. That is, those who can recognize these "Birdman" (2014) processes and rationalize them discretely are capable of seeing this process of normalization and synthesis, but those of low-IQ naturally suffer from agnosia and can only see the "new" form and the "newest" iteration. These people cannot understand the message of the media itself but know that they are witnessing something complex and thus smile to themselves as they know that they can lean on their already established mediators. That is, the complexity of these iterations which degrade into Lovecraftian monstrosities and their seemingly distorted and disorganized form necessitates that low-IQ leftists seek mediators (again! mediators must be present to explain a world that needs no mediation! The original Protestant complaint!). We see examples of this from Michael Sugrue, who, in the early '90s, correctly explained that "postmodernism" is a means for academics in Western institutions to become the necessary mediators of new media, explaining to the world how things work through the soft "science" of culture ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9e0g5s_LCk ). As I have explained in particular to Nim with regards to postmodernism's utility, this means that postmodernism becomes a Palantir: at its core it is designed to give power to evil (e.g., Sauron, the leftist academic), yet through this same lens we as people of the West must be able to comprehend its language to explore the subversions that it is attempting. It is the very language of the foreign destroyer, and by learning it we decode their simple attempts to destroy the foundations and unities of the West. Finding the Sacred This is why finding the Sacred is monumentally important. Years ago (2016? 2020?) I warned UP leftists that during slave revolts in morality Westerners would face the rapid deconstruction of all of their values and that a cure for this is to find a strong memory and a Sacred Principle which is undying and essential to one's survival and the survival of one's progeny and to refuse to budge on this Sacred and *Embodied* Principle — to "never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon". It is through the Sacred that we comprehend the destruction of society, the destruction of memory, and the destruction of all wisdom, since if one is prepared to defend a "diamond absolute", then the "revolution" cannot proceed — another round of synthesis is rejected. Foreigners and subversives seek the destruction of memory so that "nothing is Sacred", so that foreigners introduced a decade ago and who never surrendered their foreign passports are to the agnosia-sufferers "no different" than the nationalist.. and that is thus how the "Last Man" Eloi live without memory or ambition — as also like Leonard in "Memento" (2000), struggling to track reality on his arms because he is so abysmally lost without memory. Whereas, the longer the memory and the more glimmering this absolute, the more powerfully the lies of antithesis can be unraveled and be brought back to Thesis, which is always written in one's blood. williamthebastard rank Sun Aug 09 15:51:51 Wait - its the nazi whore thats been deleting posts it doesnt like? Lol@UP williamthebastard rank Sun Aug 09 15:53:06 How racist is the user cherub cow on a scale from 1 -10? Since her posts are so long, I will divide her thread up into 3 posts to you: Based on this first third alone, I would rate Cherub Cow’s expressed racism/antisemitism as 10/10 on a 1–10 scale. So my rating: Antisemitism: 10/10 Racial/ethnic supremacism: 10/10 General racism: 10/10 (...) Regarding expressed worldview, this is at the maximum end. I would classify it as explicit extremist antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric. and your moral rating based on that from 1 -10 If by "moral rating" you mean an assessment of the moral character expressed through these posts (not the person's entire personality, which cannot be known from posts alone), I would rate the content at about 1/10. The reason I would not say 0/10 is that a zero would imply something like explicit advocacy of immediate atrocities, personal acts of violence, or a complete absence of any moral reasoning whatsoever. So, based purely on the posts: Moral quality of the expressed worldview: 1/10 Severity of expressed prejudice: 10/10 Level of dehumanizing rhetoric: 10/10 That denotes someone who is extremely immoral. At what rating would it be fair to introduce the term "evil"? udging only the content and ideology expressed in these posts, I would assess it as follows: Racism/antisemitism: 10/10 Extremism: 10/10 Moral severity of the ideology expressed: 10/10 Calling the ideology "evil" would be a defensible moral judgment under many ethical frameworks. (...) So, focusing strictly on the posts: the ideology expressed is not merely immoral in a minor sense; it is an example of an extremist worldview that many would reasonably describe as evil. how evil? 9.5/10 — extremely evil in ideological terms. (...) Colloquial description: an extremely evil extremist ideology. jergul rank Sun Aug 09 15:56:42 Yah. I remember fondly her outrage when a mod merely threatened to delete spam. Magatards just cannot help defaulting to hypocracy.
williamthebastard rank	Sun Aug 09 16:08:09 HOMEASK ME THINGSMOBILERSS Cherub Cow Text “Invincible”, Season 1 (2021) Review image Somehow both very cool and very fucking stupid :D About Created and written primarily by Robert Kirkman (principle writer for The Walking Dead comic and TV show), this Young Adult cartoon basically synthesizes a number of comic book characters (e.g., Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Hellboy, Wonder Woman, Gambit) and tries to balance their heroism with cynical twists and dark realities. It’s an exercise like Brightburn (2019) in that it mirrors existing comic writing all too closely in order to make violent twists. The cool stuff arrives pretty much immediately. You can tell right away that the physics have some level of realism, and it quickly gets serious because of this. The easy comparison would be to The Boys (also by Amazon, also about violent heroes, and also very well-produced). So, if you like The Boys (2019–), you’ll probably like Invincible only a little less. (( Some spoilers but nothing too specific )) Wrong Focus But, the stupid stuff comes from the same error that the Kick-Ass movie (2010) made: it focuses on the wrong person(s). In Kick-Ass, the error was focusing on.. well.. “Kick-Ass”, an irredeemable loser and waste of screen time. Invincible makes the same mistake, focusing on.. well.. “Invincible”, a (so far) irredeemable loser and waste of screen time. So, despite its virtues, this show cannot escape that it made the decision to go for the Young Adult viewing demographic. It reminds me of Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in that way too: some very cool adult concepts ruined by the dramatic devices of unrepentant teenage stupidity and irrelevance. I didn’t even like that stuff when I was a teenager, though Jordan Catalano gets a pass. Main Cast and Characters The supporting characters were also very stupid. The most annoying was definitely Amber Bennett (voiced by the otherwise cool Zazie Beetz from Deadpool 2 (2018) and Joker (2019)), image who is supposed to be attractive somehow to Mark Grayson (“Invincible”, voiced by Steven Yeun, who played Glenn on The Walking Dead) image despite the fact that she constantly judges him, fails to understand him, often fails to give him any kind of benefit of the doubt, and continues to scowl at him and be hurtful towards him even when she has information that should change her outlook towards him. And because she is part of the love triangle shared between herself, Invincible/Mark, and “Atom Eve”/Samantha (voiced by the awesome Gillian Jacobs from Community (2009–2014)), image audiences simply have to bear with it that Amber’s annoying character will be present and wasting time until Mark can realize that Amber is in fact toxic and that Eve actually understands him and can improve him in more positive directions. That love triangle should have been a 20-minute distraction, but I’m guessing that it will eat up a season or two more, especially if the writers become cowardly and fail to change things for fear of messing up a perceived “winning” formula. In my ideal story line, they would skip ahead 10 years, drop the teen drama, the love triangle, and the stupid jokes and have Invincible and Eve paired in defense of Earth, with the main tension being from their worry that the other would be horribly gored in front of them during lethal fights against cosmic enemies ;) Aside, I am aware of Amber’s motivation for being a bad person, I just think her justification is not based in understanding, empathy, and a regard for the gravity of Invincible’s situation. In a strict political sense, Invincible should not commit a lie of omission by keeping her in the dark about his identity — even if for the “noble lie” reason of protecting her — but in a real sense, he is a fucking teenager who just developed his super powers. For her to pretend that he should reveal his entire identity to her — a potentially transformative and even dangerous decision — after a few months of teenage romance paints an absurd portrait of her mind. It does, however, align her with Omni-Man, because where Omni-Man forces Invincible to become an adult in the fighting sense (pushing with full force early on), Amber forces Invincible to become an emotional adult by getting him to understand that toxic people such as herself need to be given boundaries — and he needs to learn to clearly delineate and communicate his real desires. By knowing that he does not want Amber, people who regiment his free time, or people who do not suit him, for instance, he can realize why Eve was an obvious decision: Eve understands, can make time when they have time, and will let him find his decisions. Part of a coming-of-age story tends to be realizing what one actually wants, and Invincible’s hesitation in telling Amber his identity shows that he does not truly want her. This separates Invincible from, say, Spider-Man, who avoided telling Mary Jane his identity not because he did not want her but because he wanted at all costs to protect her. The next most annoying character has to be Debbie Grayson (voiced by TV-cancer Sandra Oh and who luckily was not animated to look like the real Sandra Oh and who should have been voiced instead by Bobby Lee due to Lee’s successful MadTV parody of Sandra Oh). image Debbie basically fills the role of Skyler in Breaking Bad, except that Debbie’s character tends to be slightly more understanding before her inevitable and toxic Skyler-resentment and undermining behavior. Despite having an 8-episode arc of change, Debbie’s character flips too quickly and lacks the empathy and Omni-Man motive-justifying that would make her interesting (the comic’s development may vary). For instance, if she refused to believe that Omni-Man meant his own words, that would make her empathetic and perhaps virtuous even if misled, but instead she dropped their “20 years” of understanding after viewing Omni-Man in action, which makes her appear shallow, easily manipulated, and unsympathetic. That was a definite “Young Adult” genre move because it shows immaturity by the writers to break apart a bond of 20 years so quickly. Mediocre teens might accept such a fissure because their lives have not yet seen or may not comprehend that level of time, but adults know that even long-standing and problematic relationships (which, beyond the lie, Omni-Man’s and Debbie’s was not shown to be) take a lot of time to break — even with lies exposed. Omni-Man The biggest show strength for me was of course Omni-Man, who in a success of casting was voiced by J.K. Simmons in a kind of reprisal of Simmons’ role as Fletcher from Whiplash (2014). image The Fletcher/Omni-Man parallel shows through their being incredibly harsh but extremely disciplined and principled, forcing people to become beyond even their own ideal selves (this via Omni-Man’s tough-love teaching of Invincible — comically, Omni-Man was actually psychologically easier on Invincible than Fletcher was on Whiplash’s Andrew character). Despite the show’s attempts to villainize Omni-Man, he, like Fletcher and also like Breaking Bad’s Walter White, becomes progressively more awesome, eventually representing a Spartan will, an unconquerable drive, and a realistic and martial understanding of a hero’s role. To the show’s credit, while it wrote Omni-Man to be outright genocidal and from a culture of eugenicists (again, Spartan), they could not help but admire him and his “violence” and “naked force” (for a Starship Troopers reference), giving him a path to redemption. That redemption comes in part because — despite the show’s attempt to be often realistic and violent — its decision to be directed at young adults via dumb jokes, petty relationship drama, the characters’ reckless lack of anonymity and security in their neighborhood (loudly taking off and landing right at the doorstep), and light indy music also made the portrayed violence far less literal. With a less literal violence, the real statement becomes not that Omni-Man really did kill so many people (though he certainly did kill those people within the show’s plot) but that he was symbolically capable of terrible violence but could be reformed for good. That’s the shortcoming with putting violence under demographic limitations. If it’s a PG-13 Godzilla knocking down cities, the deaths in the many fallen skyscrapers don’t matter so much (the audience will even forgive Godzilla for mass death if it happens mostly in removed spectacle), whereas if it’s Cormac McCarthy envisioning a very realistic fiction, every death rides the edge of true trauma. By showing light between the real and the symbolic, it is much easier to identify and agree with Omni-Man. For instance, when Robot (voiced by Zachary Quinto of Heroes and the newer Star Trek movies) image shows too much empathy for the revealed weakness of “Monster Girl” (voiced by Grey Griffin), the audience may have thought, “Pathetic,” even before Omni-Man himself said it. And this because Omni-Man knows that true and powerful enemies (including himself) will not hesitate to use ultra-violence against these avenues of weakness. “Invincible” can make his Spider-Man quips while in lethal battles, but he does so while riding the edge of death — something that Omni-Man has to teach Invincible by riding him to the brink of his own. Other Cast/Characters and Amazon’s Hidden Budget It was impressive how many big-name actors were thrown into this — a true hemorrhage of producer funding. Amazon has so far hidden the budget numbers, perhaps because they don’t want people to know that the show (like many of its shows) represents a kind of loss-leader to jump-start its entertainment brand. Aside from those already mentioned, the show borrows a number of actors from The Walking Dead (WD), including.. • Chad L. Coleman (“Martian Man”; “Tyreese” on WD), image • Khary Payton (“Black Samson”; “Ezekiel” on WD), image • Ross Marquand (several characters; “Aaron” on WD) image • Lauren Cohan (“War Woman”; “Maggie” on WD) image • Michael Cudlitz (“Red Rush”; “Abraham” on WD) image • Lennie James (“Darkwing”; “Morgan” on WD) image • Sonequa Martin-Green (“Green Ghost”; “Sasha” on WD) image There were also connections to Rick and Morty and Community, not just with Gillian Jacobs but also with… • Justin Roiland (“Doug Cheston”), who voices both Rick and Morty in Rick and Morty, image • Jason Mantzoukas (“Rex”), image • Walton Goggins (“Cecil”), image • Chris Diamantopoulos (several characters), image • Clancy Brown (“Damien Darkblood”), image • Kevin Michael Richardson (“Mauler Twins”), and image • Ryan Ridley (writing) That’s a lot of overlap. They even had Michael Dorn from Star Trek: TNG (1987–1994) (there he played Worf) and Reginald VelJohnson from Family Matters (1989–1998) and Die Hard (1988), and even Mark Hamill. Pretty much everyone in the voice cast was significant and known. Maybe Amazon got a discount for COVID since the actors could all do voice-work from home? ;) Overall Bad that it was for the Young Adult target demo but good for the infrequent adult themes and ultra-violence. Very high production value and a good watch for those who like dark superhero stories. I have heard that the comic gets progressively darker, which fits for Robert Kirkman, so it will likely be worth keeping up with this show. Tags: invincible tv review robert kirkman invincible tv series invincible tv show May 16, 202124 notes Text “Wild Mountain Thyme” (2020) Movie Review image This was a beautiful one :) The script moves very quickly with a lot of meaningful dialogue that doesn’t really get center stage in the direction (like, for example, a character will say something poetic that you can easily miss if you’re not paying attention; like, “I’m half-dying with living for you”), so it may get better with multiple viewings or better with the subtitles on. I suspect that this understating of dialogue was part of why this movie isn’t doing well right now (current Rotten Tomatoes: 27% critics / 44% audience); people may just not have heard what the actors were saying. Another factor may be that this movie rejects the cynicism that’s become mandatory in America cinema. The central character, Rosemary (Emily Blunt), actually believes in love, which has become something rejected by the American (pseudo?)-intellectual class. This puts her character in contrast to NYC American Adam (Jon Hamm), who considers marriage in terms of beneficial contracts. Adam is, nevertheless, enchanted with the romanticism of Ireland, being drawn to Rosemary and to farming even though he has no rational reason to pursue business in Ireland (a “blood from a stone” situation). So it’s both a matter of city versus country and of its underlying rationalism versus romanticism — a good bounding for a story, particularly in times when overzealous declarations of most “rational” practices can reduce one to imagination-stifling thoughts. (( Spoilers )) This overly self-absorbed thought pattern emerges through Anthony (Jamie Dornan), who, like Dostoevsky’s “Notes from Underground” character, finds himself all too concerned with what is correct or whether or not he is right to even want the things that he wants. This is summed nicely in one particular exchange between Rosemary and Anthony: image [Anthony]: (Speaking of manual labor that Rosemary has been doing alone) “It’s a two-man job.” [Rosemary]: “Or one woman.” [Anthony]: “Yup, that’s the world now. Men are useless.” [Rosemary]: “It’s not so.” [Anthony]: “What?” [Rosemary]: “Men aren’t useless.” [Anthony]: “What’s a man for now? What’s his place?” [Rosemary]: “That’s for you to say.” [Anthony]: “I’m not talking; maybe the quiet around the thing is as important as the thing itself.” This exchange points out the difficult position men (and people in general) have been put in by today’s social conventions. Perhaps some would like to think that adherence to social convention ended in Jane Austen’s time, yet here Anthony finds himself threading a needle. All the roads have been closed behind him, and he feels like he has no voice. People cannot even talk about the things that ail them, because pitfalls emerge at every step. Like the crows above them, no amount of answering to the mob will produce clarity of action. But Rosemary tries to guide him: image [Rosemary]: “Do you still hear the voice in the fields?” [Anthony]: “I dunno.” [Rosemary]: “It’s not a modern idea.” [Anthony]: “I’m not a modern man.” [Rosemary]: “You have the farm.” [Anthony]: “I do?” [Rosemary]: “Are you happy?” [Anthony]: “No.” [Rosemary]: “Why not go ahead, be happy?” [Anthony]: “I— I don’t know how.” [Rosemary]: “There is no one left to catch you laughing, Anthony.” [Anthony]: “True.” [Rosemary]: “How many days do we have while the sun shines?” [Anthony]: (Looking at the weather) “It’s not shining.” [Rosemary]: (Looking at Anthony) “I believe that it is.” The “voice in the fields” speaks of Anthony’s romantic desire for freedom, and it is revealed near the end that the voice tells him not just, “Go,” but, “Go to her.” Meaning, Anthony knows that he loves Rosemary and wants to be with her despite the obstacles that others and he himself construct, but, like the fence was revealed to be in this particular scene, his “Notes from Underground” social conscience is the great barrier between himself and Rosemary. And he wants to be able to love her *not* because a marriage would be useful or to otherwise manage the practical considerations of a farm — he is instead *waiting* to clear his conscience of these worldly affairs so that he can look directly at her. Essentially, like many people trapped in Hamlet inaction, he is waiting to be forgotten and to die. It later takes a concerted effort by Rosemary to break Anthony from this mental trap. Comedies have all the time in the world, but the timeline has to be compressed into tragic logic because Adam will be arriving to propose marriage. Rosemary hints that she cannot wait for Anthony forever. They’ve arrived at a Thanatos / Eros crossroads where Rosemary can either kill herself with a hidden shotgun (albeit not immediately), due to the burdens of isolation, or end up like Fiona — pulled away from Anthony by the world and another marriage opportunity. Rosemary has Anthony’s ring, so she knows that he wants to marry her, so she wants to help him work through his conscience to find her. The metaphoric “fences” will remain, but it’s not hopeless: [Rosemary]: “We say what’s meant. Life is here. We name it.” image Like I mentioned with the cynicism above, American culture has attempted to crush this level of devotion. The very idea that someone could love someone this much for so long has been treated with general critical derision. But the story alleviates this perspective through Anthony’s own incredulity, Emily Blunt’s performance, and a charming Irish backdrop. Even so, the movie has its issues. A lot of the scenes were directed like one might direct a theater play rather than a movie. Errors like the actors having to move in overly blocked (positioned) ways or the lines being too melodramatic for the moment occur. Of the blocking issue, one scene in particular was the near-end scene of Anthony and Rosemary in a home together. image There was a little too much attention on standing and sitting here, with the object awareness being a little too simplistic — the sort of imagery which works on stage but not on film. Like, “[Oh, you sit now while I stand. Then I tell you to sit, and you sit. When you stand, I notice how tall you are.]” These make sense on stages where the script fell together with basic props like a table and chairs, but in a real home they end up feeling artificial. These sorts of scenes should have been re-worked when this story was brought to screenplay. The background music was also often problematic. In many scenes it was just *too* responsive to the on-screen events, which speaks of low production value. This seems to fall on the musical direction of Amelia Warner, because much of the Irish folk music (which was good) was already incorporated into the script. Those organic moments made sense and worked, like Emily Blunt singing the movie’s title song in probably the most emotional scene of the movie. And casting issues cannot be ignored. This was not exactly a “Waking Ned Devine” (1998) Irish story that recruited mainly unknown or lesser known quirky actors from Ireland and Scotland. Christopher Walken, for instance, should not have been in this movie, though his performance did come together for the pub singing scene. Weirdly, Emily Blunt gave the best performance in this movie, and she’s from Britain. Jamie Dornan is Irish, so that made sense, but while viewers could believe Emily Blunt’s loving glances in his direction, whenever Blunt and Dornan actually touched each other there seemed to be no chemistry. Those scenes looked more like two actors not sure how real vs. respectful they should be and defaulting on the side of “[make just enough contact to get us to the cut].” This falls to both casting and (again) to direction. A better cast may have had chemistry, and a better director could get the actors to show that chemistry. Personally, I think they should have gone full local and hired only unknown actors and actresses from Ireland. Extra points if even the American character had been played by an Irishman pretending to be American ;D Still! All said, despite these issues, it has a very strong script. *Reading* the words really shows how much was here. Long though this review may be, it doesn’t show just how much material was in this script. And Emily Blunt’s performance can’t be ignored; it was really her movie. So I’d ignore the current rankings and recommend this for a good romantic movie with clever dialogue and a few moving moments :) Tags: movie review wild mountain thyme December 15, 20204 notes Text “The Dead Don’t Die” (2019) Movie Review image Too derivative? This was a pretty funny movie (not lol-funny but little chuckle moments every 15 minutes maybe), with a big cast and good production value, but it only goes partially into Pirandello metatheater (not enough to make it really interesting) and just borrows everything else from “Dawn of the Dead” and other classic zombie genre works. The major zombie borrow for the writing seemed to be from “Dawn of the Dead”, particularly the idea that zombies would return to the activities most hard-wired into them while they were alive. That was the mall for “Dawn of the Dead”, but here, even more satirically it’s cell phones, sports, music, and coffee. Since “Dawn of the Dead” already treated that idea like a joke, it’s basically the same joke but with more examples. One highlight of this joke is that they cast Charlotte Kemp Muhl in this movie (If unfamiliar: she’s been in/on an absurd amount of high fashion magazines). When they listed her in the opening credits I wondered, “What? Why?” and amusingly she only appears as a zombie near the very ending so that she could strike a pose and deliver one line before being killed: “Fashion!” This repeated joke was all part of a pretty obvious critique on consumer culture (that “derivative” element of the movie; “zombies” are most traditionally metaphors for the drones of society who go about without self-reflection or worldly awareness — killable in mass because their identities are not particularly distinguishable from any other mass-produced identity). (( Minor SPOILERS ahead )) This was at last sermonized upon by the hermit character in the ending scene, with the general idea being that people distract themselves with petty lifestyle attachments while ignoring the general purposelessness of their lives, digging their own graves in the process. The hermit and the alien were the only ones seemingly outside of this, which likely indicates the preferences of the writer-director (Jim Jarmusch, director of “Only Lovers Left Alive”) or (more likely) just indicates further fatalistic critique. I.e., either it is virtuous to be a hermit who does not negatively affect the world (just living off of salvaged items and a stolen chicken here and there), and/or it is virtuous to live by a kind of Bushidō clarity where possessions are minimized and the world’s drama is optional anyways. Both are satirical, because the hermit lives in filth, and the writer-director isn’t exactly poor if he’s making mass-released movies; and the katana-wielding alien moves in comically-rigid movements and speaks only in all-too-formal patterns (this was the very early giveaway that she was an alien, even before her final scene confirmed it). At best, an alien life-form paints a picture of virtue by showing a species which survived its extinction events through technology (interstellar travel) and study (such as this alien’s study of humans), which means that the writer-director may prize scientists for their work but probably not for their common vices, and, of course, he prizes observation — pretty crucial for a good director to be a good observer. This prizing may be pushed further by the larger narrative of the story wherein scientists have failed to convince consumers (or just lobbyists and consumer representatives) that “polar fracking” can bring about the apocalypse. It’s a point driven in by the rampant nihilism of the movie: this is not an action movie where people have a will to survive and push against all odds to defeat their impending deaths; it’s a slow-paced suicide where most of the characters are too befuddled or unimaginative to have contingencies for their next moments much less solve a world-wide environmental issue. Just as Adam Driver’s character has “read the script” literally, the consumer-nihilists that these characters reflect have “read the script” figuratively and thus know that mega-corporations are distant powers that can destroy the world through misaction and misinformation while the consumers that empower them will only make futile gestures in the aftermath. They see their deaths and can barely muster the enthusiasm to be affected, “and they blink.” So the police go on patrol not even with a plan to kill zombies and lessen the immediate problem but simply because it’s the usual routine. Two friends locked in a hardware store can’t think to board up both entrances and don’t even have the spirit to evade a rush of zombies. Three hipster outsiders know that zombies are moving to the town, but they sit in their hotel room and wait to die. This isn’t (just?) bad writing, it’s the use of character clichés to make a point. The movie is heavily-politicized and in not very nuanced terms. It’s a left/right binary type of narrative, endorsed by the presence of the always political Chloë Sevigny, and given a semi-villain via a MAGA-parody hat-wearer. Not too surprisingly, this lack of nuance is forced to re-write the MAGA slogan to conform to its bias (reading instead “Keep America White Again”, a grammatically dubious rewrite (“Keep” as present and “again” as not present but intent on a future) meant to show the misinformed logic of the wearer, who, also not surprisingly, is a gun nut farmer whose few lines paint him as a racist). If one took away some good faith in writer-director Jarmusch, the repeated phrase “Kill the head” could also be a kind of subliminal assassination message (“Kill the head” has a specific wording which gives multiple meanings via “the head” as a person’s bodily head and also as “the leader”). Jarmusch’s motives could be salvaged by saying that he mocks the Prius and smart car -driving people also, but this MAGA farmer is given a particular disdain and deliberate effort is made to not help him (Murray passes by his home and says that they’ll call him — even though the phones were known to not work) and glee is meant for his death. An NYC/L.A. audience was certainly in mind for this movie. But, interestingly, this directed hate does not redeem the NYC/L.A. nihilists (represented by Driver, Sevigny, and Murray). Murray and Driver break the fourth wall with Murray asking if Driver is “improvising”, with the references to the movie’s theme song, and with their talk of the movie’s script; but they fail to take action until their deaths are already assured. If Jarmusch is a kind of insurrectionary or post-left anarchist (like his hermit, not “paying in” to corrupt systems — ensuring that his consumer spending does not reach the wrong people and critiquing the failed revolutions of leftism), then his “Kill the head” line was meant as a means of acting against threats to survival. But, if he sees any attempts at action to be like the futile gestures of Driver and Murray, then Jarmusch may be a nihilist himself, lacking the imagination to escape the clichés that he places on his characters. I’d give Jarmusch credit here and say that he’s appealing to his nihilistic viewers while making fun of them, but he is harsh on his characters because he himself lacks the ability or will to act. So anyways, worth a watch. Not worth theater admission, but fine for home viewing. Tags: TheDeadDontDie TheDeadDontDieMovieReview MovieReview June 20, 2019 Text “Dark Phoenix” (2019) Movie Review image Fairly entertaining :p I don’t like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies (Avengers and related characters), but the X-Men Marvel movies have continued to be decent. “Days of Future Past” (2014) was probably the last *good* one (I rewatched “Logan” last month and am still annoyed with about 60% of it), but “Apocalypse” (2016) showed glimmers of good content, and that continued with Dark Phoenix. This one departs from the “X-Men: The Last Stand” Dark Phoenix character by using the D'Bari/alien story instead; Jean inherits her powers from a solar flare which turns out to be the “Phoenix Force”, and the D'Bari pursue her. This made it a bit closer to the X-Men:TAS story, but without Wolverine present (doubtful to be recast at all in this franchise?) or the Inner Circle / Hellfire Club being introduced, it’s not really worth more comparison — this was still a fairly unique version of the story. (( Minor Spoiler )) The ending does leave the Inner Circle as a logical next step, but I thought resurrecting Apocalypse for his captured psychics thing was a logical next step. This franchise doesn’t seem to have the legs for that level of continuity. Magneto still doesn’t even know that Quicksilver is his son, and I don’t even think they wrote a “knowing glance” for Quicksilver into their joined scenes. (( End Spoiler )) I still don’t like their choice of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and I think that that becomes an issue when Sophie Turner is supposed to have chemistry with Sheridan as an anchor to Phoenix struggling to regain her Jean Grey side. No chemistry meant you really had to imagine him as a different actor for their scenes to work ;p … Tye Sheridan kind of reminds me of how in Terminator 2 they showed a cool-looking future John Connor via Michael Edwards, but then in Terminator 3 we end up with a weak-looking Nick Stahl; Sheridan would be the Stahl-type, when this X-Men franchise could use an Edwards-type. (( SPOILER ahead )) Another issue was that an important death didn’t really seem important. Jennifer Lawrence is a substandard working actress and not a particularly good Mystique (and this before even bringing up that the writers made Mystique way too “good” in this young franchise). So, when she’s killed it’s not, “Oh no! Not Raven!” It’s more like, “Oh, Lawrence probably wanted out of her contract.” That writing decision was at least an excuse to get Magneto and Beast on a vengeance track, but this movie was guilty of doing what the MCU did: it refused to follow through on character mortality. When Jean threatens Magneto’s life, she should have killed him or just not said what she said. Instead, he seems to be punctured by pieces of his helmet only to be 100% in effect for the following train sequence (the way it was shown on screen, he should have died just as Tony Stark should have died in the first Avengers movie). Since Magneto is one of the best characters (or the very best?) in this franchise (not just because of his powers but because of Michael Fassbender), I think the remedy here would be to show him using a burst of willful energy to protect himself from Phoenix’ death strike… (( End Spoiler )) Quicksilver was underutilized in this one. He had a good sequence in the beginning, but that was about it. Phoenix sort of pulls a “Justice League” (2017) Superman moment on him later in the movie (here, Phoenix interrupting his speed by being even faster, pushing objects out from under his feet), and he’s not really relevant beyond that. Storm has continued to be irrelevant. She and Cyclops both lack the leadership that made them interesting in X-Men:TAS, so all we get is power demonstrations from them. I’ll admit, though, that the power demonstrations in Dark Phoenix were a big part of the movie’s positive side. I usually don’t care about effects, but the power in this movie reminded me of how interesting it was to watch Nightcrawler’s sequence in X-Men 2 — characters given more range to show how creatively they could employ their powers. But those powers were still capped in this one. Phoenix only gets her full effect in the very end, which means that it’s being saved for the next movie, or her character will be handicapped in the beginning of the next movie so that the effects budget can be brought back down. Still, the ending Phoenix scenes were definitely cool. So! Another movie where I’d say, “Not amazing, but still good” :p Tags: DarkPhoenix DarkPhoenixMovieReview MovieReview June 19, 2019 Text “The Darkness” (2016) Movie Review image Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDhoqY1grJY Ended up being pretty meh. It started with some fair buildup which made me think they had some interesting horrors planned, but it deteriorated quickly into lame and stupid. About As for the plot, I almost think that the “real life” story was that some bourgeois family got some polished stones from an Indian Reservation gift shop, brought them home, then blamed their problems on those stones ;) … in the movie’s story, though, an autistic boy brings 5 stones home after falling into a hidden, Native American ritual chamber during a family vacation. This apparently results in 5 spirits growing in power and intending to take over the world or some nonsense. But actually it just results in a Spanish-language exorcism. (( spoilers ahead, not that it matters )) Intended Theme? The second half of the movie put major emphasis on the need for the white male cis bourgeois patriarch (Kevin Bacon) to open his mind to alternate religious possibilities. Late in the movie he finally “believes,” which is supposed to enable viewer satisfaction and help the characters win. Then they check into a hotel and the white female cis bourgeois matriarch (Radha Mitchell, who is way too cool for this kind of thing) discovers that hotels don’t carry Bibles anymore because it was considered discriminatory to other religions. Back home, they meet with exorcists, and the exorcists discard the Jesus crucifix from their weapons roll (like an exorcist’s version of this: image ) and snarkily make a point to say that the evil that they’ll be dealing with is much older and special-er than that Christian stuff (“[*our* made-up garbage is totes more ancient and valuable than *your* made-up garbage]”). So they defeat the spirits by yelling “this is a house of the living, not the dead” with increasing dramatics, and that does the trick. Still, Kevin Bacon has to run through a portal to retrieve his son, and he manages to tell the spirits that they should take him instead (why would that be a better deal for them? Trading places just ends up seeming like generic heroics. The spirits should just close the portal and take them both..). Then the movie ends with a few frames of him playing soccer with his autistic son, which is a call-back to a scene where Bacon listens to Paul Reiser telling him that after believing in spirits and stuff that his life went back to normal, including generic suburban activities like soccer with his son. So really “it’s about family! It’s always been about family!” or that kind of obligatory feel good ending type vomit. Anyways, I think that all of that was supposed to show via a white bourgeois family that in the absence of the enforced power of the Christian religion life will spiral out of control into immorality and despair (they suffer from their daughter’s bulimia, their son’s autism, and their own infidelities and lack of communication). More importantly, this allows for other religions to be reawakened — the disenfranchised religion of these ancient Native Americans (Mesa Verdeans, I think), for instance. The “horror” would be that they have been de-centered (the family’s religion is no longer in control; it is no longer all-important because its myths have begun to evaporate in the multicultural world). Still, this de-centering backfires in the writing because it privileges another ridiculous myth (that of the Mesa Verdeans) when the Gloria character (Ilza Rosario) indicates that the Mesa Verdeans were even more significant and that the bourgeois family is silly for thinking that their Christian god can do anything. The idea is that by being open to this alternate religion and learning its rules they can be at peace in the multicultural world, but the stupid part comes from Gloria’s prizing of this religion. That line should have been cut or altered, maybe to show that they’d just be using one tool among many for one of many possible absurdities. Overall Very stupid movie. It seemed like the second half must have been heavily revised into something more pop-culture friendly. I suspect that it originally had a dark ending where the family suffers an ending not unlike that of the family in the Sinister movie, but probably they brought on another writer who gave it the “mass release” revisions that it needed in order to become irrelevant trash. Tags: movie review the darkness May 14, 2016 Text “The Last Witch Hunter” (2015) Movie Review image Was aktly a pretty kewl movie! Not quite -super- kewl (so not crucial), but it had a lot of creative witch sets (underground lairs, tree fortresses, imagined apocalyptic futures where the Earth reclaims the world, etc.), and it minimized religious aspects, even separating Vin Diesel’s character from them (they seem to be moving towards a “beyond good and evil” thing). It ended up being like a combination of Constantine (2005)(immortalized hunter of evil), Black Death(2010)/Season of the Witch(2011)(Black Plague and witches), and Night Watch(2004)/Day Watch(2006)(with its mention of ancient peace pacts), but it still managed to do its own thing. Rose Leslie’s character was very kewl, but my main complaint (and why this movie wasn’t -super- kewl) was that her romance with Vin Diesel seemed a little awkward.. like they didn’t quite have chemistry for it to work. I was trying to decide if this was just because I personally still think that it’s “Ygritte and Jon Snow 4evar,” but I don’t think I’m quite that petty ;p .. so I think it’s more just that the director didn’t really put the right effort into their relationship. Vin Diesel’s character was too much the “eternal player” type, and this wasn’t really seen to change much with his attraction to Leslie’s character (had he changed enough to see her?). On her side, I think it actually worked a little, just because she was directly exposed to his subconscious via some well-directed flashbacks (so there was room to guess that she might see something desirable).. but.. I don’t think the director spent enough time working with Vin Diesel — to show what might be desirable. Yes he had lost his family, but his flaws were taken mostly for granted (how had Leslie really perceived them? How had Diesel processed them in relation to his immortality?), so Leslie’s presence didn’t seem to alter him in any significant way. The silver lining on this was that they never kissed or anything, and the writers/producers intend to do a sequel (or at least hoped to if this movie had performed well, which it didn’t), which means that major relationship developments were saved for future story work (which probably won’t happen). Their relationship being the major issue for me, the lesser issues came from random corny moments.. especially the ending, which seemed too upbeat and almost a comical — even if unintentional — repeat of MiB’s car pan-away (ignoring the “dice with the universe” thing): http://youtu.be/AJOVUF-HaDw?t=8s ..though it was also similar to something else that I can’t quite place.. Anyhow, personally I think they should have gone with a more foreboding ending (the evil awaiting), but with a PG-13 rating, it’s not unexpected for them to go light with some actioney buddy cop routine. Blerg. So, I understand why this movie flopped (paid critics typically hate Sci-Fi/fantasy/adventure combos, and they definitely hate Vin Diesel), but I kind of liked it. I just wish they’d done a few things differently: an R-rating, either replace Leslie/Diesel’s romance with a Platonic admiration or else do more background work on why Leslie’s character might be attracted to a Diesel-type, a more dramatic/foreboding ending, and someone should have been fired for putting Harry Potter in a white turtle-neck sweater. Seriously? Bad, wardrobe! Bad! ;p Because of these flaws, it just makes me want to watch Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) instead, which I really liked and I don’t care if it “flopped” almost as terribly as Last Witch Hunter — critics don’t know how to love clever horror/sci-fi unless it comes with pretentious attachments, whereas I think that characters interacting well can save almost any absurdity of script, because it’s always possible to laugh while living in apocalyptic ruins :p Overall It flopped, sure, but it probably didn’t deserve to flop this much (cost 70 million, has made only 25 so far). Even though peeps hate Vin Diesel (and it’s def unfortunate that most associate him with Fast and the Furious instead of Chronicles), it had a lot of cool visuals, world-building, and characters (Rose Leslie ftw). I wish they’d done things differently, but no way does this deserve a 14% on rotten tomatoes while the Katy Perry movie gets a 77%. Fickle fucks! ;p Tags: movie review the last witch hunter last witch hunter October 25, 2015 Text “Crimson Peak” (2015) Movie Review image Was okay, but very very skippable.. The short version is that it has the same problems as Pan’s Labyrinth (also directed by Guillermo del Toro): really great sets, color palettes, lighting, and overall imagery — but terrible writing. If this movie had just been a camera wandering around a haunted house but with no characters, it might have actually been -better- than this (or at least had the same overall effect), but instead there’s this really obvious plot with zero deviations from the most classical clichés. The entire story is basically, “incestuous siblings marry rich young women and kill them for money… also, look at these ghosts.” By the second half I kept hoping, “okay… the main plot has become obvious, now where will it deviate from the expected? Will the house turn out to be an entity with its own desires, maybe having forced the siblings to murder in order to stay alive? Anything?” Nope! :p .. I suppose that there’s a device in that. Could del Toro (also the script writer) have produced the most unexceptional script so that his great set work and imagery could take center? Possibly! If so, can’t -totally- blame him, because he really -is- great with set visuals. But, it’s kind of a waste. Why handicap a potentially great film by only partially enacting it? Crimson Peak made -so- much effort in its visuals (and even limited its usage of CGI’s unexceptional gloss) but tied it together with a script with no life in it. I have to think that that was -not- intentional. Instead, the story itself can be seen as del Toro’s self-reflection on his own bad writing, which he failed to escape.. Writer Surrogacy Mia Wasikowska’s character (a beginning novelist named Edith Cushing) was likely del Toro’s surrogate in the movie. She seems unable to captivate publishers with her ghost story (maybe like a young script-writer submitting to Hollywood), so she hopes to neutralize her writing by typing it (this so that her ‘feminine’ hand-writing can’t be recognized and so that she can perhaps be judged by the words themselves). But, her first honest review comes from Tom Hiddleston’s character, Thomas Sharpe, who demolishes her naïve romantic sensibilities and lack of grit. He explains that love is messy — not some “perfection” as she portrays it — and he basically says that she lacks life experience. Now, viewers -could- say that Sharpe was dutifully breaking up with her as commanded by her father (and thus meant none of it), but it would be unrealistic to think that he wasn’t speaking from a place of truth. He might have embellished that truth if he hadn’t had to break it off with her, but this was likely the -cold- truth according to him, as honesty can result when social conventions don’t have to be observed, and a breakup tends to be a great time to be in non-observance of convention. Okay then; she (as a young del Toro) is a bad writer. Time for her to grow into a person whose life experiences permit depth, right?.. del Toro must hope so, anyways. The story seems to be built on the idea that Lucille (Jessica Chastain) and Thomas have the gritty, true love that Thomas was describing, and on a written level viewers might agree: they have murdered their oppressors together, and they’ve su
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: