Of late, some say there’s an internecine battle brewing within the American Right between Charlie Kirk camp and Nick Fuentes camp. In fact, the Kirk camp doesn’t stand for any kind of real right or real conservatism. Kirk is essentially a bought-and-paid-for shill, a shabbos goy of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. He is the ‘acceptable’ face of ‘conservatism’, toothless, gutless, and ball-less. His idea of ‘conservatism’ and ‘American values’ is forever malleable and mutable. It is whatever JSP says it is. This kind of Americanism has only one ‘bill of rights’, and it goes like this: Jews say ‘We win, you lose.’ Whatever the Jews want, they eventually get by any means necessary. Jews wanted open borders and got it. Jews wanted ‘free trade’ and got it. Jews wanted to rape the Russian economy in the 90s, and they got to do so. Jews wanted gambling to spread like a virus, and now it’s everywhere. Jews wanted pornography for children, and now there is easy access to porn by kids. Jews wanted ‘gay marriage’ and got it. Jews wanted Wars for Israel, and Middle East now lies in ruins.
Kirk stands for nothing but "I obey my Jewish masters." He is not a conservative but a con-servant of JSP. He is a CILO, or conservative-in-label-only. This is why the Kirk camp gets so triggered and antsy about the so-called ‘Groypers’(generally allied with Nicholas J. Fuentes) asking inconvenient questions. When confronted with tough questions by independent minds, the con-servants and cucks squirm like worm under a hot sun and demand what amounts to SJW-like ‘safe spaces’ from those courageous individuals who refuse to read from the preordained script. Anyway, what follows are some suggestions for ‘Groypers’ to consider in their formulation of questions in future TPUSA and other such cuckservative events.
1. When Big Banks faced financial doom in the 2008 crisis, they were bailed out by all taxpayers regardless of ideology. Right or Left, up or down, we all had to contribute taxes that bailed out Wall Street. Then, do Big Banks have the right to deny service to people based on creed or ideology? If they are bailed out by everyone, shouldn't they serve everyone?
2. Conservatives and Libertarians say private companies have the right to deny service to anyone. Does this apply even when companies are virtual monopolies and serve as de facto public space for all? Does Google, a virtual monopoly as Search Engine, have the right to rig results to favor Democrats and the Deep State over Populists and Republicans? If your answer is ‘yes’, should phone companies have the right to deny service based on creed or ideology?
Also, didn't companies like Google and Facebook become monopolies precisely because they started out by promising neutrality and fairness to all sides? After all, if Google or Facebook had declared their ideological biases from the outset and stated policies that would favor one political party over another, most conservatives would have rejected them and opted for another platform. But everyone, regardless of ideology, signed up to use Google and Facebook on the promise of fairness. So, when these companies now use their monopoly muscle to favor one side over another, it is a total breach of their terms of promise to us. They come up with ever-shifting 'terms of services', but it is they who violated the biggest term of all, that of fairness that attracted so many people to their sites on assurance of neutrality. If I gained market dominance in the ice cream industry by promising quality ice cream to everyone and then used my monopoly position to deny ice cream to certain groups, I would have violated the very principle that made me become the king of ice cream. After all, had I started my company by stating my intention of denying ice cream to certain groups, many people would never have bought ice cream from me, and my company would never have gained monopoly position. It seems Google and Facebook hustled us. They became monopolies by promising fairness to all sides, but once they had the muscle, they decided to favor one side over others. Big Tech companies treat us like Zionists treat Palestinians in Occupied West Bank where Jews get the best land and most water while Palestinians get far less or none at all.
When true conservatives and dissident rightists are deplatformed or denied service by monopolies, the reply of cuckservatives is, "They’re private companies, and they can do whatever they want." But if monopolies were to deny service to Zionists on grounds that Zionism is about the destruction of Palestinian nation and culture, would people like you and Charlie Kirk just shrug your shoulders and say private companies can do as they wish? I’d wager people like you will insist that the state must step in to make sure every private firm is open to business with Israel. If the private sector can do as it wishes, why do cuckservatives support state-sanctioned suppression of BDS that calls for justice for Palestinians who are living under apartheid conditions in West Bank and being mowed down by IDF death squads in Gaza? Why shouldn't private individuals and companies choose not to do business with Israel for the same reason that many chose not to do business with Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s? It's funny that cuckservatives defend the right of mega-corporations to sanction little people but never defend the right of private individuals and small businesses to reject business with Israel on account of its international crimes. There is a definite pattern here. Cuckservatism is about corporate domination over little individuals. Its position is monopoly companies can deny service to little individuals, but little individuals cannot say NO to business with the gangster state of Israel.
Mass Immigration of peoples from Europe into the New World led to what some call the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians. Also, mass-immigration of whites, blacks, and Asians led to the native people of Hawaii being reduced to a minority in their own ancestral homeland. Mass-immigration of Jews into Palestine led to the Nakba Pogroms that reduced Palestinians to a minority in Israel and an occupied people in West Bank, which continues to be colonized by caravans of Zionist invaders. And Serbs lost their historical homeland of Kosovo permanently to Albanians because of massive Muslim migration under Ottoman Rule. While it’s true that immigration led to rise of new civilizations, there is no doubt it also led to tragedies of natives and indigenous folks losing their land and culture to others. Thus, isn’t it about time to admit the connection between mass immigration, a form of demographic imperialism, with what is tantamount to ‘genocide’ in the long run? Just ask the Palestinians. By the way, since white people took the New World from the indigenous folks, they have a moral obligation to those native people but to peoples all over the world whose lands were NOT taken by whites. And if whites really care about the American Indians, the most tragic people of the New World, then they will stop mass-immigration and do their utmost to revive and restore American Indian communities.
We’ve been told by the Mass Media and Mass Education/Indoctrination that ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’? First, isn’t Diversity in the New World the product of imperialism, conquest, genocide, and slave trade? Native reds and browns were conquered by whites. That led to Diversity #1. Then, Latin whites, Anglos, and Jews brought over black African slaves. That led to Diversity #2. Then, white elites called on more mass-immigration to pan out and take all the lands from the native peoples. That was Diversity #3.
Second, if Diversity is a panacea for all problems and if it is no problem for the US to become a white-minority nation, then how come white-minority nations of Latin America with so much racial diversity are relative failures, and why are people in those nations running away from their own diversity to come to the US or Canada that are still majority white? Also, we are told that India is a very diverse place. If so, it must be a wonderful, magical place. And yet, it seems countless Indians want to flee from the Diversity in India and come to UK, US, Australia, and Canada that are white majority nations. What gives? It seems people in very diverse nations want to flee from the chaos of diversity and come to white majority nations that are, as yet, less corrupt and better-managed.
6. It’s been said that white people who want to maintain the racial and cultural integrity of their own nations are ‘white supremacists’. But why are they so characterized when they only want to preserve what is theirs and have no interest in ruling over other peoples? Aren’t the real ‘white supremacists’ all those non-whites who want to run away from their own people, culture, and nation to go live in white-majority nations? It seems those non-white immigrants prefer white people as rulers, neighbors, friends, associates, lovers, and mates OVER their own kind. If non-whites want to permanently flee their own peoples and cultures to come to live in white majority nations, don’t they prefer whites over their own kind? Thus, aren’t they the ‘white supremacists’ because they see whites as preferable and superior to their own kind and other non-white folks? After all, non-whites don’t want to move to non-white nations, especially black ones.
7. Jews in the academia and media bitch and whine about whites all the time. They even created something called ‘whiteness studies’. Most Jews are globalists and push for globo-homo, replacist immigration in goy nations, and vice industries such as gambling, pornography, and drugs. Jewish Hollywood routinely features whites as villains and evildoers, the ones to blame for all the problems of the world. If Jews feel this way about whites and if they insist that Diversity is so great, why have Jews historically followed after whites and chosen to live in white-majority nations? Who’s stopping Jews from moving to more diverse nations of Latin America or India? Why don’t Jews in white nations all move to black Africa or Muslim nations if they have so many issues with whites while claiming to just love non-whites? If Jews prefer non-whites and love immigration, how about they become immigrants to non-white nations. They can have the cake and eat it too. They get to be immigrants again and can forever live with non-whites than with baddy bad whites.
Jews often invoke the history of Europeans and Christianity to guilt-bait whites into a position of moral inferiority vis-a-vis Jews. Now, it’s true that Europeans and Christianity have had a blood history, but then, so have all other peoples. If whites must be reminded of their bloody history, isn’t it about time to remind Jews of their genocidal role in Bolshevik communism, their prominent role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(especially to Latin America), their financial funding of Western Imperialism, their selling of opium to the Chinese, their looting of the Russian economy in the 90s(that led to the rise of Putin who put an end to it), and their mass pogroms against the Palestinians that led to Nakba?
9. If people like you and Charlie Kirk believe in equal justice for all, how come you're so silent about how people like Arnon Milchan, who freely admitted that he spied and stole for Israel, can visit the US and walk freely without consequences? How come so many of the crooks pardoned by presidents have been Jewish ones? Think of Marc Rich and Jonathan Pollard. Think of the Jewish crook(who facilitated illegal immigration and exploited workers) pardoned by Trump. It seems Jews are above the law and have a license to steal and kill. Also, if people like you and Kirk believe in colorblind justice for all of humanity, why do you favor Zionist occupiers over Palestinian occupied in the West Bank? Palestinians lost the bulk of their homeland in the Nakba Pogroms of 1948, and Zionist caravans continue to steal land & water from Palestinians in the West Bank, but US politicians only praise and serve Israel.
10. If diversity is so important that we need Affirmative Action for less qualified blacks in higher education, why doesn’t anyone make the same case for sports? NBA and NFL are black-dominated even though blacks are 13% of US population. There are some whites but virtually no brown Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims. Sports are a national pastime and a hugely symbolic part of Americanism, and yet, there isn’t much diversity in sports. Should there be affirmative action for sports for the sake of 'diversity'? And do you think NBA and NFL teams will be better if they added more Asians, Hindus, Muslims, and Mexicans to the mix? After all, we are told ‘diversity is our strength.’
11. Charlie Kirk and others like him have said America is an idea. They say 'gay marriage' is American Ideal. Then, does that mean America was not America prior to the rise of globo-homo values? They say America is about freedom and democracy. Then, was America not 'America' when it had slavery? They say America is about respect for life. Then, was America not 'America' when American Indians were being wiped off the Great Plains to make way for endless waves of immigrant-invaders? Was America not 'America' when women didn't have the vote?
If the military were to take power in America tomorrow, would America no longer be 'America' because of demise of democracy? If so, what would America be? Isn't a nation what it is regardless of ideology, e.g. Russia was Russian prior to communism, during communism, and after communism. Likewise, America is America regardless of ideology or 'ideas' as long as its historic people make up its core populace.
Also, if America is about democracy and individual liberty, is any nation with democracy and individual liberty also 'America'? If America is an idea, then surely any people and place that practices the same ideas must also be 'America'. Mexican constitution is virtually identical to the US Constitution, and Mexico has democratic elections. So, is it also 'America'?
Finally, if America is an idea, then surely you know that ideas can go from place to place. People don't need to come to America to have American values and ideas since they can adopt and practice those ideas in their own nations. If someone invents a way to make fire, you don't need to stand where he is at to have the fire. You can learn the trick and make fire in your own place. So, if America is an idea, that idea can be adopted by any people anywhere around the world, and there is no need for all of them to come to America to enjoy 'American Ideas'. Ideas can come to you; you don't have to come to the place where the idea originated.
12. Can you repeat these historical truths? American Indians were wiped out by mass immigration. Blacks were once slaves in America. Jewish communists played a key role in Bolshevism that led to deaths of tens of millions of Christian Slavs. US aided Zionists in the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map even though Palestinians did no harm to America.
13. Do you believe that American ideas and values are so outstanding that they should be adopted by all peoples around the world? Should they be the beacon of hope for all mankind? Does this include Israel? Should it also have 'gay marriage', deracination, and inclusive-invasive mass-immigration from all over the world?
14. People like you and Charlie Kirk say that we should support Israel because it tolerates and even celebrates homos and trannies. People like you say neighboring Muslim nations throw homos off roofs. But facts say otherwise. Israel is closely allied with Saudis that execute homosexuals. Also, Israel lent support to ISIS fighters in Syria who really do throw homos off roof-tops. Israel aided ISIS and Alqaeda against the Assad regime that is a tolerant, secular, and modernizing force in the Arab world. How do you square these contradictions?
15. Given that Jewish takeover of Palestine led to some of the biggest 'gay' & 'tranny' parades, orgies, and celebrations in the world, do you think Israel should now be called 'Sodom and Gomorrah'? Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Is that something Christian Zionists should celebrate? Did Jews really need to retake the Holy Land because having mass homosexual orgies there is the spiritual and moral priority of Christian Zionists?
No comments:
Post a Comment