PCR Interviewed by KVMR radio, California, on the lies within which we live
PCR Interviewed by KVMR radio, California, on the lies within which we live
More from Interviews ↓
Friday, November 30, 2018
Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges
Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges
Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges
The porn lawyer Michael Avenatti has been arrested for beating his wife. His charge is “felony domestic violence.” https://sputniknews.com/viral/201811151069815820-Porn-Lawyer-Arrested-Domestic-Violence/
Now he has the legal problems that he has inflicted on others.
Avenatti is the lawyer who apparently sent the “gay latino activist” into the Farmington Country Club in Virginia to verbally abuse Tucker Carlson’s daughter as her father’s whore. When Carlson and country club officials instructed the homosexual immigrant to leave, Avenatti filed a lawsuit against Carlson.
In other words, Avenatti had set up an “incident” that would bring him more name recognition, more cases against “white society,” and greater ability to use up important people’s time in lawsuits, thus maximizing his pay-offs for going away.
This is America today. “White Society” is under constant assault from the Democratic Party’s Identity Politics, endorsed by what was once a real leftwing that stood for the working class, but now stands for hatred of white people.
There are no speech codes, no hate crimes, no quotas that protect white people. Only white people are subjected to constant abuse and denunciation.
White guilt is the entire story in America today. And the brainwashed white people sit there and accept their alleged guilt for all the evils in the world.
We are experiencing the total collapse of Western civilization.
Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel
Only Jews Can Tell The Truth About Israel
Only Jews Can Tell The Truth About Israel
Imagine what would happen to Chomsky if he were a white gentile
Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel
November 12, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – Prominent Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky has raised concerns over what he believes is the rise of “Judeo-Nazi tendencies” in Israel. Speaking to i24NEWS last week, the renowned political dissident, linguist and scholar repeated warnings given by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an Israeli public intellectual, biochemist and polymath, concerning the dehumanising effect of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine on the victims and the oppressors.
Chomsky commented on remarks by Leibowitz who was nominated for the Israel Prize saying that “Leibowitz warned that if the occupation continues, Israeli Jews are going to turn into what he called, Judeo-Nazis”. Chomsky recognised the description was a “strong term” and that most people wouldn’t be able to get away with describing Israel in this manner but explained that Leibowitz’s status meant that he was able to speak about Israel without incurring fury.
Leibowitz who passed away in 1994 in Jerusalem, cautioned that the state of Israel and Zionism had become more sacred than Jewish humanist values and controversially went on to describe Israeli conduct in occupied Palestinian territories as “Judeo-Nazi” in nature.
Outraged by Israel’s killing of 60 villagers of Qibya in 1953, most of whom were women and children by the notorious Israeli commando Unit 101, known for its brutality and retribution campaigns, Leibowitz has been quoted as saying:
“We have to ask ourselves where this youth of ours emerged from; young people who had no mental inhibitions about committing this atrocity? What inner motivation for such acts could have been at work here? This youth is not a mob but the product of Zionist, humanist social education.”
Echoing Leibowitz, Chomsky said: “If you have your jackboot on somebody’s neck, you have to find a way to justify it.” Repeating Leibowitz’s warning he added that “blaming the victim was a direct reflection of the continued occupation, the humiliation of people, the degradation, and the terrorist attacks by the Israeli government”.
The former MIT linguist said that being critical of the occupation in Israel today means being labelled a traitor, a phenomenon which has caused the left to virtually disappear from the political spectrum. He pointed to opposition to the situation in the Gaza Strip, which he likened to a concentration camp, as an example of the delegitimisation of the left.
“Take Gaza. If you are going to place two million people in a concentration camp, which is in effect what it is, and put them under a vicious siege, you have to ask yourself; am I justified in doing this? People who try to oppose it are traitors, Arab lovers and so on. You have seen this phenomenon in European history, I don’t have to give you examples,” Chomsky said.
Speaking about a common myth in Israeli society that a military presence in the West Bank is necessary for security reasons, Chomsky dismissed that idea saying that the opposite is true; that “a military occupation” of the West Bank only endangers Israel’s security. “Ask any Israeli strategic analysts. They all understand that occupation of the West Bank is a threat to Israeli security.”
Chomsky went on to present a number of incidents where Arab leaders have offered Israel peace in return for withdrawal from the West Bank, all rejected by Israel. Israel, he told, i24NEWS is deliberately choosing expansion over security.
This article was originally published by “MEMO” – https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181112-chomsky-echoes-prominent-israeli-warns-of-the-rise-of-judeo-nazi-tendencies-in-israel/
A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated Paul Craig Roberts
A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated
A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated
Paul Craig Roberts
In response to my short essay on November 9 ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/09/the-prevalence-of-myth-over-history/ ), a reader sent me a link to secession documents that implicated slavery, not the tariff, as the reason for Southern secession. It is typical for the uneducated to come across a document of which they have no understanding and to send it off with a rude “got you” note to one who does understand the document.
I have explained the Southern states secession from the union in long essays. See:
Once again:
When the Southern states seceded, they were concerned to do so legally or constitutionally under the Constitution so that the North could not legally claim that it was an act of rebellion and invade the Southern states. To make this case, the South needed to make a case that the North had broken the Consltitutional contract and that the South was seceding because the North had not kept to the Constitution.
This presented a legal challenge for the South, because the reason for which the Southern states were seceding was the tariff, but the Constitution gave the federal government the right to levy a tariff. Therefore, the Southern states could not cite the tariff as a breach of the Constitutional fabric.
Slavery was the only issue that the South could use to make a legal case that it was not in rebellion. Article 4 of the US Constitution reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” In defiance of Article 4, some Northern states had passed laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and other laws that upheld this article of the Constitution. The South used these nullification laws to make its case that Northern states had broken the Constitutional contract, thus justifying the Southern states secession.
Lincoln understood that he had no authority under the Constitution to abolish slavery. In his inaugural address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.
Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.” The tariff was important to the North, because it financed Northern industrialization at the economic expense of the South.
During the decades prior to Southern Secession, the conflict between North and South was over the tariff, not over slavery. Slavery played a role only in the South’s effort to keep a balance in the voting power of “free states” and “slave states” in the attempt to prevent the passage of a tariff.
The South’s effort to exit the union legally and constitutionally was to no avail. Secession was declared a rebellion, and the South was invaded.
The misportrayal of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is also impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:
“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).
“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).
“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).
How was Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?
Just as Civil War history is mistaught in order to support the Identity Politics agenda of fomenting hatred of whites, the histories of the two world wars were fabricated in order to blame Germany, more about which later.
Note: On the question of rebellion: When the state of Virginia ratified the US Constitution, the state reserved the right to exit the union should the situation become oppressive:https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
A reader sent these sections of Article 1 of the Texas state constitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities
Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities
Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities
Paul Craig Roberts
If you are a top ability student, but white, especially white male, you have scant chance of being admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Penn, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Berkeley, or UCLA.
The reason whites cannot gain admission is that in the entirety of the Ivy league, Jews are over-represented, relative to the pool of high ability students, by 381%. High ability Asians are under-represented at 62%, and non-Jewish whites are most under-represented of all with a presence in the Ivy League of only 35% of their presence in the pool of high ability students. The Asians are suing Harvard for discrimination, but any such action by whites would be dismissed as an act of “white supremacy.”
At MIT and Stanford, Jews are also over-represented. At CalTech it is Asians, and at Berkeley and UCLA it is a combination of Jews and Asians. The over-representation is with reference to the pool of high ability students. Equally or better qualified whites are passed over in favor of admission of others.
These are the conclusions of Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/
Unz reports that in the past three decades, at Harvard “the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.”
It couldn’t be more clearly stated that in America white gentiles are being excluded from the universities that create the elites.
Unz explores the statistics further and concludes:
“Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability. This was an absolutely astonishing result given that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. Furthermore, I noted the possibility that this discrepancy might be related to the overwhelming Jewish dominance of the top administration of those institutions.
“It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an equally massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question, a situation which once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the 1920s. Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish ancestry, and the same is true for the current presidents of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and possibly Columbia, as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the 1990s and Yale’s new incoming president, while all three of Harvard’s most recent presidents have either had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse.
“At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking official, being responsible for day-to-day academic operations. Although Princeton’s current president is not Jewish, all seven of the most recent Princeton provosts stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry, with several of the other Ivies not being far behind. A similar degree of massive overrepresentation is found throughout the other top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading educational institutions in general, and these are the institutions which select our future national elites.
“Since the publication of my 2012 article, Harvard and Princeton have both selected new presidents, each of them Jewish, while Yale’s Jewish president has remained in office.
“The exact mechanism by which this seemingly enormous bias in favor of Jewish applicants to our most elite colleges manifests itself is not entirely clear, and I very doubt that it takes the crude form of top administrators directing admissions officers to enroll under-qualified Jewish applicants. Instead, I strongly suggested that a leading factor was the “negative pressure” of America’s overwhelmingly Jewish media and Jewish activist groups, which might respond harshly to any significant decline in Jewish numbers.
“Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to just 500 percent of parity, down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s, and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New York Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of America’s elite education system.
“As the decades went by, I gradually noticed that the huge and continuing increase in the enrollment of non-white and foreign students at our most elite universities had caused a complete collapse in the enrollment of white American Gentiles, but oddly enough, no similar reduction in Jewish numbers. It was well-known that Jewish activists had been the primary force behind the establishment of Affirmative Action and related policies in college admissions, and I began to wonder about their true motivation, whether conscious or unconscious.
“Had the goal been the stated one, of providing educational opportunities to previously excluded groups? Or had that merely been the excuse used to advance a policy that eliminated the majority of white Gentiles, their primary ethnic competitors? With the Jewish population numbering merely 2%, there was an obvious limit as to how many elite college slots they themselves could possibly fill, but if enough other groups were also brought in, then Gentile numbers could easily be reduced to low levels, despite the fact that they constituted the bulk of the national population.”
Ron Unz explains how this discrimination against whites came about. Read his long essay, with its qualifications, and you will understand how white gentiles are being excluded from elite ranks. The result is the destruction of non-Jewish white civilization.
Non-Jewish white Americans, now dispossessed from their own country, are under attack by Identity Politics as the cruel and inhuman victimizers of women, blacks, hispanics, and homosexuals. Antifa, the Democratic Party’s storm troopers, calls for death for unreconstructed whites.
And the Russians think that there is a civilization here to join!
The Prevalence of Myth over History Paul Craig Roberts
The Prevalence of Myth over History
The Prevalence of Myth over History
Paul Craig Roberts
Today (Nov. 9) I heard a black historian on NPR say that the “civil war” was fought in order to establish a framework for human rights.
He also said that black civil rights achieved by the war were overturned by the rollback of Reconstruction, put back in place by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and was now being overturned again by Trump’s response to the caravan from Honduras.
As best as I could tell, this was an Identity Politics explanation of history with all of its contradictions and factual errors.
Identity Politics is based on the accusation that the white male is a racist and a misogynist. This is inconsistent with the belief that Washington, totally in the hands of white males, chose to fight a bloody civil war in order to bring human rights to black slaves. If white males are this idealistic and willing to make such a sacrifice for blacks, how is it that the white males are racists?
The black historian can’t have it both ways.
Moreover, how would the black historian explain how it possibly can be that the same Union army that fought to bring human rights to black slaves immediately on war’s end was sent under the same generals, Sherman and Sheridan, to slaughter the Plains Indians. Why did the Union army fight for human rights for blacks and against human rights for native American Indians?
As every competent historian knows, there was no “civil war.” A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The southern states had seceded and formed their own country. The Confederacy had no interest in controlling Washington. The war happened because Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. The Confederacy fought because they were invaded. The North fought to maintain the Union, as Lincoln said repeatedly. The South seceded because the Northern majority in Congress passed a tariff that benefitted the North at the expense of the South. Lincoln guaranteed the South permanent protection of slavery if they would stay in the Union, but did not offer to repeal the tariff. Historians have studied the diaries and letters of soldiers on both sides, and can’t find anyone who was fighting over slavery. Lincoln said that blacks were not sufficiently developed to live in society with whites. His plan was to send them back to Africa, which might have happened, as the North didn’t want them, if Lincoln had not been assassinated.
Under the Reconstruction that the North imposed on the South, the South was divided into five military districts in which civil rights for whites were scant and their property was stolen by carpetbaggers and scalawags as whites lacked the protection of law and self-government. The vindictive Union simply reversed the roles of black and white to the extent that they were able.
As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book, The New Color Line, despite the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of racial quotas, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established quotas as the EEOC’s method of enforcement. A quota regime is a grant of privilege to those “preferred minorities” favored by the quota system, and privilege is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s requirement of equality under the law.
Everything I have said in this short essay is factual and can be easily ascertained. But we have a black historian on NPR who thinks whites are racists but fought and died in order to bring human rights to imported blacks but not to native Indians, and who has no idea of the oppressiveness of Reconstruction (sometimes called Radical Reconstruction) or the violation of the 14th Amendment and the intent of Congress by the EEOC.
As I have emphasized over the years, Americans live in a matrix of misinformation in which facts, and history itself, are disappearing. Emotion, not reason, rules. We now have a mob, Antifa, that has introduced physical violence into politics. Those who control the explanations denounce Trump and Tucker Carlson, not Antifa’s violence.
It is easy to see where this is going.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Some of my punishment experiences
So as you may know by now, I am big into punishing men through testicle torture.
I and many other women feel it is the best way to fight the patriarchy.
And because of my interest in this I myself have done plenty of punishments, so I thought I would share a few to hopefully inspire even more women to do so.
Each of these stories will ne castrations.
The first story was a boyfriend of mine. At the time I was 17 and he was one of the first men I ever dated.
Everything was okay until one day I learned that he was cheating on me. At this point I had already done a couple of punishments ending in rupture so I decided that I wanted to break up him, but first I was going to make sure that he could never cheat on another woman again.
So, one night we were having sex (I was on top) and I reached behind me and grabbed his balls. I grabbed one testicle and made a fist around it and clenched my hand as hard as I could. He started screaming in pain but I kept going until I popped it. After this i quicky grabbed the other testicle and and ruptured that one as well. Making sure to flatten it out. He was awake the whole time. Once I had castrated him I called an ambulance and left.
The second story is about a man I met at a bar. Me and him were talking and he seemed nice but he began grabbing me and trying to touch in inappropriate places. At this point I tried to leave but he pinned me against a wall. I decided to use the play along method and started to rub and grab his crotch. I felt that he only had one testicle. I got on my knees and undid his pants. Once his ball was exposed I put it in my mouth. I started to suck on it but after a minute I surprised him by biting down on it, hard. He started grabbing my hair and trying to get me off but it was no use. After a few minutes I felt his testicle explode in my mouth. After that he passed out and I called the police.
The third story is very short but one of my best. I was talking to a man who was very belligerent and was calling me names and sexist terms, so I gave him one very hard kick in the balls and left. A week later I learned that the kick gave him a double testicular torsion and he had to have both balls removed.
I hope this article was helpful to some women out there!
I and many other women feel it is the best way to fight the patriarchy.
And because of my interest in this I myself have done plenty of punishments, so I thought I would share a few to hopefully inspire even more women to do so.
Each of these stories will ne castrations.
The first story was a boyfriend of mine. At the time I was 17 and he was one of the first men I ever dated.
Everything was okay until one day I learned that he was cheating on me. At this point I had already done a couple of punishments ending in rupture so I decided that I wanted to break up him, but first I was going to make sure that he could never cheat on another woman again.
So, one night we were having sex (I was on top) and I reached behind me and grabbed his balls. I grabbed one testicle and made a fist around it and clenched my hand as hard as I could. He started screaming in pain but I kept going until I popped it. After this i quicky grabbed the other testicle and and ruptured that one as well. Making sure to flatten it out. He was awake the whole time. Once I had castrated him I called an ambulance and left.
The second story is about a man I met at a bar. Me and him were talking and he seemed nice but he began grabbing me and trying to touch in inappropriate places. At this point I tried to leave but he pinned me against a wall. I decided to use the play along method and started to rub and grab his crotch. I felt that he only had one testicle. I got on my knees and undid his pants. Once his ball was exposed I put it in my mouth. I started to suck on it but after a minute I surprised him by biting down on it, hard. He started grabbing my hair and trying to get me off but it was no use. After a few minutes I felt his testicle explode in my mouth. After that he passed out and I called the police.
The third story is very short but one of my best. I was talking to a man who was very belligerent and was calling me names and sexist terms, so I gave him one very hard kick in the balls and left. A week later I learned that the kick gave him a double testicular torsion and he had to have both balls removed.
I hope this article was helpful to some women out there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)