Skip to content

Category: Civil rights

KGB Defector Explains in 1985 the Four Stages of Marxist Revolution, Going on Now in USSA

Robert Wenzel writes:

I have often stated that it is Marxists-Leninists, skilled in power strategy and tactics, that are behind the curtains of the current unrest in America.

Here is remarkable detail of what that strategy looks like.

This video clip is G. Edward Griffin’s 1985 interview with KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, who explains the four stages of the Marxist-Leninist strategy for taking over a country from within.

Got that, this interview took place 35 years ago? You will be amazed and what he says and how it parallels what is currently going on in the United States.

And he comments:

You can also see why I warn that those who side with BLM, etc. will not see things turn out for them in a positive fashion in the end. We are in the midst of a major league power game and those without deep knowledge of what is going on are dupes that will be dispensed with when they are no longer needed.

I hasten to add I doubt Russia is behind it. It is the Marxist-Lenninst brew perhaps with some techniques picked up from the old USSR. But it is homemade Marxist-Leninists who were able to take over key sectors of the US structure, in particular government-funded education, with help from the Frankfurt school and postmodernists. But they are on the advance now. The world is a complex place and it can not be known for sure how things will play out. It is not an easy game they are playing especially in a major complex country like the US where resistance and counterrevolution can sprout up from many different directions. That said, it is remarkable what the Marxist-Leninists have accomplished so far in America.

Toward the end of the interview in the video, Bezmenov notes that the Marxist academics, the college professors who promote Marxism to help advance the “Revolution,” the media propagandists and useful idiot intellectuals, are no longer needed after the heist of the society is successful and they will be “lined up against the wall and shot.” (Those are Bezmenov’s words, not mine.)

Here is a comprehensive article from Wikipedia on mass killings under communist regimes.

And when you don’t conform, obey and comply with the Regime, and if you criticize the Regime and express any signs of independent thinking whatsoever, if they don’t kill you they will declare you insane and throw you into psychiatric prison.

What the Government Schools Brainwashing Has Wrought

Zero Hedge: Kenosha Or Kosovo? Shocking Images Reveal Destruction After Race Riots Leave Buildings In Ruins.

Josh Glancy of the Sunday Times in London is quoted as spending 36 hours walking though Kenosha, “indistinguishable from a war zone” because of the rioting, burning down of businesses, torching of cars in parking lots, and looting, by the “peaceful protesters.” The worst hit is the main part of the so-called “black community,” showing how much “Black Lives Matter” to these criminal thugs and barbarians who have taken away the livelihoods of many black and other minority businesspeople.

Democrats including Joe Biden still will not condemn this violence and destruction.

On Voting Libertarian in 2020

I had written previously about the Libertarian Party’s virtual convention, in which the conventioneers decided on Jo Jorgensen to be their LP nominee for President for 2020. And I was thinking of writing more about Jo Jorgensen, even though Jacob Hornberger received many more votes than she did in the state LP primaries, and Hornberger should have gotten the nomination. But the latest with Jorgensen is a reminder that I will not be doing that.

The upcoming U.S. Presidential election will not be legitimate anyway, no matter the outcome, no matter who “wins.” We will now have “mail-in voting” (a.k.a. mail-in cheating) throughout the USSA as well as “early voting” (a.k.a. early cheating) in many states. I think that any chance of these elections having any bit of legitimacy is finished. Add to that the tech companies censoring, de-platforming, and silencing anyone who opposes “social justice” warriorism and race-based and gender-based identity politics.

That is what daily life in Amerika is all about now. The President (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) continues to authorize drone strikes that kill and murder mainly innocent civilians overseas, that means nothing to millions and millions of schmucks in Amerika. The President continues with the unwinnable “war on drugs” slaughtering and falsely imprisoning and/or otherwise causing the deaths of many young black males. The morons all across the country don’t care about those things. And the idiots on the other side are obsessed with the National Anthem (a horrible song!) and the American Flag, that Bozo in the White House wants a law to protect, like it’s a human being.

So the Libertarian Party giving the nomination to Jo Jorgensen when it was Jacob Hornberger who, rightly, received the most votes in the state primaries, what a joke, that Libertarian Party. They are just as much elitist hacks as the Democrat and Republican party racket.

The latest from Jo Jorgensen? She attended a “Black Lives Matter” candlelight vigil. Okay, so she’s misguided and ignorant. So? However, she tweeted: “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.

Robert Wenzel writes:

Why can’t someone be passively not racist? For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?

Why must libertarians be actively anti-racist? Why should it be demanded of us, under the libertarian banner, to be an active participant in a black public relations effort?

Really, lady, I have enough of my own problems.

I have explained before that I think racists are clowns but if these clowns are not violating the non-aggression principle why is it a concern of libertarians qua libertarians?

Further, Jorgensen, may or may not realize it, but she is jumping on the bandwagon that is being run by very shrewd Marxist revolutionaries who want to destroy capitalism.

Even if I thought there was some merit to the BLM movement, which I don’t, I would stay far away from this effort. The top operators know how to take advantage of alliances. As one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization put it, “We are trained Marxists.”

If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them.  Jorgensen is not part of the inner circle. She is falling into a trap fighting to eliminate “systemic racism” that doesn’t exist (Not to be confused with a few random racists who do exist). BLM  is a front group, a tool, of some very strategically-skilled power-hungry communists.

What the hell is Jorgensen thinking?

Answer: She’s not.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Pat Buchanan, but he recently wrote about the “Black Lives Matter” phenomenon, in his article, The New “Systemic Racism” That Is Coming. Basically there are activists in the USSA who want to erase the idea of “not discriminating against someone based on race,” as well as erase that from various state constitutions and probably the Civil Rights Act, so they can institutionalize discrimination against whites and Asians.

But the “Black Lives Matter” organization is led by self-admitted Marxists who don’t believe in freedom, equal justice, due process, and a “color-blind society.” They also don’t believe in private property and freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and free exchange, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. They are Marxists.

People who are “libertarians” should not stand with such an organization that is opposed to all the important libertarian principles. And that’s my view on that.

So Jo Jorgensen is now insisting and demanding that we be “actively anti-racist.” Right, Jo. When these race-obsessed activists include anti-white racism as a part of being “anti-racist,” then maybe I’ll support them. When we have millions of white people who haven’t harmed anyone, who haven’t “discriminated against black people” in all their lives, then I would say that they, too, have a right to not be the target of anti-white racism just as much as innocent black people have a right to not be the target of anti-black racism. Right?

But anyway, the Libertarian Party reinforced its more recent moniker as “a joke” when they selected Jo Jorgensen as their 2020 Presidential nominee, even though Jacob Hornberger got many more votes in the primaries.

Some Remaining Rational Thought in USSA Amerika

Brandon Smith responds to Salon’s anti-freedom-of-speech idiocy.

Robert Wenzel: The Harvard law professor who wants to ban homeschooling, and What Noam Chomsky gets wrong about the COVID-19 crisis and capitalism.

Jacob Hornberger: Depoliticize the statues

Thomas DiLorenzo compares the “Civil War” era with today.

Richard Ebeling: Ad hominems against freedom.

Charles Burris: Statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass vandalized in New York.

Michael Rozeff asks, Is refusal to talk to contact tracers a crime?

Lew Rockwell: Riots — Not fun or profit for the rest of us.

Laurence Vance: Democrats, Republicans, and the Constitution.

Jacob Sullum: Breonna Taylor and the moral bankruptcy of drug prohibition.

Independent Institute: Best books on the folly of socialism.

Karl Dierenbach: ‘Flattening The Curve’ has become a massive bait and switch.

Donald Boudreaux: Another open letter to Peter Navarro.

Zero Hedge: Ghislaine Maxwell “knows everything” and “will be naming names”, former Epstein associate says.

Dr. Joseph Mercola with a comprehensive article on the importance of Vitamin D.

And Karen Selick: The two sides to the vaccine safety debate.

Retired NFL Player Marcellus Wiley Exposes Black Lives Matter’s Hate Toward the Traditional Family

Former NFL player Marcellus Wiley reads the Black Lives Matter mission statement, that includes “We dismantle the patriarchal practice,” and disrupt the traditional nuclear family. And he goes into what happens when little kids don’t have a father raising them with the mother.

By the way, regarding children growing up in one-parent households, i.e. mostly with the mother as the one parent, Wendy McElroy recently wrote an article on abusive relationships and domestic violence. It was not particularly in reference to single-parent homes, but she did mention that “a 2006 report from the Department of Health and Human Services found that 70.6% of abused children were brutalized by mothers, and 29.4% by fathers.” So in my view that at least implies that given those high numbers, a child in a mother-only home may be more likely the victim of abuse. That’s just my own interpretation from that, and I could be wrong. (In those 70.6% of abused children abused by mothers, perhaps the abusive mothers were themselves abused by their mothers? Or by their father or their mother’s boyfriend?) And could the problem of abuse in a single-parent home be a contributing factor to the high violent crime rates in the cities, and why we see so much violence being committed by “Black Lives Matter” at the “protests” in the cities, i.e. riots, occupations, destroying businesses and looting?

My Earlier 2012 Article Covering “Civil Unrest” Events Similar to Now

Because of the recent events, the race stuff and rioting and the economic collapse, I was reminded of an article I wrote that was on LewRockwell.com in 2012, asking, Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen? So I wanted to repost that here now because of some similarities from that period to what is going on now. There are maybe a few little things in there that I might not write now, but most of it is relevant, I believe. Any links that weren’t working I either replaced with Wayback Machine version, a different but similar page, or removed completely.

Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen?

September 18, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

There have been several different predictions and scenarios involving how inflation and austerity measures in the U.S. could bring about food shortages and other shortages, food riots, looting, violent protests, flash mobs, and martial law.

All these things can be prevented, of course, if more people could wake up to the fact that government central planning in money and economic matters is inherently flawed and doomed to failure, societal self-destruction and collapse.

Some people see the recent German court decision to approve German bailouts of irresponsible European governments as a new dictatorship for Germany and a boon for investors. And there are others who see this new scheme as the beginning of runaway hyperinflation in Europe that will spread to the U.S.

Following this decision by the high German court, the U.S. Federal Reserve has announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE3). Some people believe that QE3 will cause more economic instability, and further destruction of the dollar.

Eventually the austerity measures we have been seeing in Europe will reach the U.S.

Austerity measures will hit public employee benefits and pensions, and welfare and Medicare recipients (but not the bloated salaries, benefits and pensions of Congressmen and their beloved bureaucrats).

But it seems that the U.S. government has been pushing hard to get as many people dependent on government as possible. Food stamps spending has more than doubled since Barack Obama became President, although the number of Americans on food stamps almost doubled from 2001 to 2009 during the presidency of George W. Bush as well.

And the Obama Administration has gone so far as to push U.S. food stamps onto Mexicans! (And Mexicans can’t even vote for Obama this November – theoretically, that is.)

Also distressing is how private corporations profit from the government’s exploiting the population’s vulnerabilities that the government’s own interventions cause. One example is JP Morgan Chase’s shamefully profiting from the food stamps program.

Incidentally, employees of JP Morgan Chase donated over $800,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and, so far over $155,000 to Obama’s 2012 effort. (There certainly has been no quid pro quo here, as former President George Bush the Elder might say.)

Now, regarding eventual shortages, austerity and civil unrest in America that would involve the unavailability of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payments, in large part affecting food stamp recipients, one scenario I’ve seen details how rioting and turmoil could unfold, mainly beginning in the cities, but eventually flowing out into the suburbs. It is not a pretty picture.

One would think that the government bureaucrats who control these social programs could see ahead what would happen when withholding such benefits, especially with millions of people dependent on them for their daily sustenance. So, in the case of possible future EBT cards not functioning followed by rioting and violence, one has to wonder whether such an action by the government could be purposeful.

In the aforementioned scenario, the writer emphasizes urban minorities as the ones mainly perpetrating the flash mob rioting and violence. But, in 2010 34% of food stamp recipients were white, 22% black and 29% Hispanic, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

However, the flash mobs committing acts of violence in the cities in recent years do not seem to be associated with government austerity measures, food stamps, hunger, etc. In some instances, such violence has been racially motivated, black against white, as witnessed in this account, for example. Unfortunately, the mention of such a modern social phenomenon in the U.S. is politically incorrect, as many newscasters and newspapers reporting on those events censor the race of the perpetrators and that of victims, as author Thomas Sowell has noted. Race demagogues such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel have gained much fame and popularity from such “race-hustling.”

So are the Chicago-Washington community organizers and agitators trying to promote race riots? Obama and his “social justice” cohorts do not seem to have any comments on the violence committed by inner-city punks. The Holder Justice Department has refused to prosecute black against white voter intimidation cases. And Obama wants public schools to stop disciplining misbehaving black students. Hmmm.

And why have U.S. military recruiters allowed so many white supremacists to join the military?

It appears that the efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and now the election of Barack Obama as President do not seem to have healed the friction among the races in America.

So there seem to be extremists on both sides, and the rest of us are caught in the middle.

But when there will be government austerity and EBT card non-functionality, the flash mob violence we have seen recently will probably be much worse, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But, racial conflicts aside, why have the Bush and Obama Administrations increased spending on food stamps so much? Social programs such as food stamps rob people of their incentive to provide for themselves, and they become serfs to bureaucrats.

It is as though these imbecilic bureaucrats are encouraging the masses to get dependent on these bureaucrats, and for devious purposes.

No, they wouldn’t do that. Not that there hasn’t been enough information about Obama and his immoral, unconstitutional acts as President to indicate any sort of deviousness, no.

With the moral hazard of government bureaucrats’ luring people into this kind of dependence and serfdom, QE3 will cause further economic instability, part of the inherent moral hazard of having a central bank and lack of freedom and competition in money and banking. Such Fed policies continually rob the people through inflation, particularly the lower and middle classes.

Added to those moral hazards of these professional bureaucrats are Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, Washington’s lack of prosecuting criminally irresponsible banksters, the 2008 extortion-like bankster bailout, and foreclosure fraudsters.

And Obama’s pushing through Congress the bill allowing for indefinite detention of Americans without charge or evidence, and his signing it into law, followed by his appealing the judge’s striking it down – there probably isn’t any deviousness behind that, and probably won’t be any targeting of political dissenters during future civil conflicts in America, no. (There certainly hasn’t been any of that, not in America, no.)

All these acts of government criminality could be leading America into a total breakdown of society.

So these people in Washington are either extremely clueless and don’t know what they’re doing, or they are doing these things intentionally, in which case they are just plain evil.

So, could the ruling elites be purposefully trying to cause so much massive dependence on government and such massive weakening of the financial and monetary systems, followed by a false-flag type economic collapse and sudden withholding of government benefits and unavailability of our own money in the bank, to intentionally bring about rioting and violence?

And, if Romney is elected in November, would he be any different from Obama?

And so, if these scenarios play out, and there is indeed massive civil unrest in America, we already know that various federal agencies and local and state police as well are preparing for it. The police state that J. Edgar Hoover, Oliver North, and Dick Cheney put in place is being fully embraced by Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, FBI and CIA, as well as many local police neanderthals all across America – it is as though they are drooling for some action, and for a chance for them to show the rest of the world just how tough they are.

Can you imagine people with the kind of extremely questionable character and level of dishonesty and untrustworthiness as Obama and Romney presiding over a situation of military martial law?

In addition to all this, the Obama Administration has allowed foreign troops onto U.S. soil. NATO troops were in training in Tampa just prior to the Republican Convention. They now have Russian soldiers training in the U.S., and some insiders believe that these foreign troops are joining with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security toward some sort of illicit action against Americans under the pretense of “peacekeeping” during a time of civil unrest in America.

In my opinion, having foreign troops coming into the U.S. for any reason is dangerous, and Sheriff Richard Mack agrees with me.

And now, because of inner-city gun-related crime rates, and recent isolated shootings and mass killings, the emotionalistic calls for gun control have been on the increase. This despite violent criminals who disobey laws against assault, rape and murder probably are not inclined to obey gun laws as well.

And, as John Lott has noted, would-be assaulters, rapists and murderers are less likely to commit their crimes when they know their prospective victims are armed.

But because of the emotionalism surrounding certain tragedies, even Republicans such as SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, radio host Michael Savage and TV host Bill O’Reilly have shown irrationality on the matter. How will Americans, in their cars stuck in busy intersections when flash mobs rampage and attack them, be able to defend themselves if they have been disarmed by the government? When looters and burglars break into their homes and businesses, how will disarmed homeowners and businesspeople protect themselves?

And you can say what you want about anti-UN “conspiracy theories” and so forth. But, mirroring a zany 1961 U.S. State Department call for complete civilian disarmament, the 2012 UN Arms Trade Treaty would require signing member nations to enact much stricter national gun ownership restrictions. That was up for a vote in July but has been postponed until probably later this year. Some analysts have interpreted Article 15 of the Treaty to allow for foreign troops in the U.S. to confiscate guns from Americans in their homes. Even having U.S. troops going around door to door to search for and confiscate firearms is itself illegal and unconstitutional, but foreign troops?

It should not be difficult to believe that not just local police but our own U.S. troops would go door to door to seize Americans’ means of self-defense, when we know that they have much experience in doing just that in Iraq, a country in which U.S. troops had no business or reason to be, violating private Iraqi civilians’ own right to bear arms and defend themselves.

As the people’s right to defend themselves against looters, rioters, rapists and killers, as well as against government tyranny, is being criminally whittled away by the degenerates in charge, those same degenerates are arming themselves up and preparing for something that could be interpreted as outright treason.

I have already expressed concern about martial law and explained that U.S. military and other federal armed goons and local police, who have all sworn to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, are obligated to disobey unlawful orders by commanding officers including the U.S. President.

Unlawful orders include those in which a soldier or an officer is ordered to violate a presumably innocent civilian’s rights to free speech, protest, dissent and criticize the government, right to bear arms and defend oneself against criminal assailants including government criminals, right to due process, and “right to be secure” in one’s person, home and effects. If the officer or soldier does not suspect a civilian of some actual crime, then that agent of government is obligated by law to leave the civilian alone, no matter who ordered otherwise. (The Oath Keepers have made a list of orders they will not obey.)

Further treasonous is the rulers’ inviting foreign troops in to aid in the rulers’ abuses.

And, given the criminality of monetary easing to enrich bankers while creating inflation that robs the poor, one might very well describe those actions as treasonous as well.

If only Americans had listened to the American Revolutionaries’ warnings about paper money and tyranny, wealth redistributionism, and their warnings against foreign entanglements.

“Hate Speech” Is Not a Crime

Robert Wenzel has this post on Rand Paul being the only U.S. Senator who is holding up an “anti-lynching” bill, and Wenzel includes several tweets by ignorant people who aren’t considering Paul’s objections. However, I don’t think that Rand Paul himself is understanding why such a bill is objectionable.

Wenzel posts the relevant section of the bill:

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.–Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person– (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both;

Rand Paul’s objection, as quoted in Wenzel’s post, is that the bill will “conflate someone who has an altercation where they had minor bruises, with lynching…” and “would allow altercations resulting in a cut, abrasion, bruise, or any other injury no matter how temporary to be subject to a 10-year penalty…”

Now, Merriam-Webster online defines “lynch” as “to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission,” so, just as I had thought, lynching someone involves killing someone, and usually by hanging.

I agree with Rand Paul’s conclusions. However, that’s not the real problem with this new bill that apparently 99 ignorant Senators are supporting.

The real problem is that it is a “hate crime” bill. With the other “hate crime” laws and even the Civil Rights Act, these acts of legislation are criminalizing thought, feelings, and perceptions.

But thoughts, feelings and perceptions are not crimes.

In that proposed Senate bill that Rand Paul is holding up, “Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin…”And, “attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person…”

So “hate crime” laws criminalize how someone thinks of someone else or something. Sorry. Only make it a crime to actually DO something to someone else that involves an act of physical aggression (or actual threat thereof). But for decades now the U.S. and the world has gotten out of control in going beyond condemning someone for racist, anti-Semitic or otherwise “offensive” speech or expression, but criminalizing such thoughts. (Jonathan Turley wrote a recent post on the criminalization of thought and speech.)

So, the police officer who murdered some guy committed that act of killing someone. It may be relevant to the case that the officer did so because of racist sentiment (if that were the case), but the racist sentiment itself is not a crime.

It is not a crime to be an ignorant hater of others based on race, whether the haters are black and hate whites or whether the haters are whites who hate blacks. Hate is not a crime. it is an emotion, an attitude, a mentality. I don’t condone that, by the way. The only people I hate, if I do hate anybody, are politicians and bureaucrats. They are scum.

Related to that stuff, Wenzel also has a post on the entertaining “civil war” going on within the New York Times. Some of the staff of the Times were apparently triggered by the microaggressions of neanderthal Sen. Tom Cotton who wrote an op-ed promoting Trump sending military in to deal with protests.

Some at the Times are saying there is an “Old Guard” there concerned with civil liberties, vs. the younger crowd concerned with being “woke,” and “social justice,” i.e. being irrational kooks far removed from reality.

Wenzel quoted some of Times staffer Bari Weiss’s tweets, including, especially: “The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff . They call it ‘safetyism,’ in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.”

Sorry, Ms. Weiss, no one has a “right” to “feel emotionally and psychologically safe.” (Keyword “feel.”) And thus, it has been implied, the millions of brainwashed “woke” millennial sheeple have a “right” to silence other people through censorship or violence, those others who have the guilt of “offending” or of causing the snowflakes some sort of anguish merely by speaking one’s mind or by expressing an opposing or dissenting point of view.

“Anti-racism” has gotten to the point that millions of brainwashed sheeple just couldn’t stand to hear Trump brag about how his policies (signing tax cuts into law and deregulation) resulted in the lowest unemployment rates for black Americans in history, so some of the more powerful “anti-racist” Trump-haters got into the “lockdown” business-closure mentality causing some of those same black Americans to LOSE their jobs, and now the “anti-racist” activists burning down or looting from entire businesses which effected in even MORE job losses of black Americans!

Talk about Stupid! You ignorant “anti-racist” activists have caused black Americans to lose their jobs!

It’s real craziness now. Our society apparently hasn’t learned anything when it comes to “Civil Rights,” and yes, TOLERANCE! That is, tolerance of dissenting or disagreeing points of view.

And how awful that the younger generation are being brainwashed to tolerate actual physical violence against innocent people and their property, homes and businesses (such as in the ongoing riots), but NOT tolerate speech or thinking that is “unapproved.” Not good.

Anti-Jewish Attacks and Mass Shootings; Psychiatric Drugs, Gun Control, Knife Control

A wacko intruded on Hanukkah candle lighting services at a rabbi’s synagogue in Monsey, New York and attacked 5 people, stabbing them with a knife. The attacker attempted to get away in his Nissan Sentra but he was stopped and arrested by police.

New York has had several incidents of anti-Jewish attacks in recent years. What is with these people? As the late Rodney King would say, “Can’t we all just get along?”

There are many issues here to address, and I have very little time with which to address them. But one issue is, was it really antisemitism that was the main contributor to the attacker’s attack? Apparently, the 37-year-old synagogue attacker “has a long history of mental illness and hospitalizations. He has no history of like violent acts and no convictions for any crime,” according to his family.

You see, one problem in our society now is that if someone has some emotional issues, or any kind of psychological or behavioral issues, the “doctors,” hospitals and schools immediately put the person on terrible psychiatric drugs, anti-anxiety drugs like Xanax, SSRI antidepressants including Prozac, Zoloft and Luvox, and anti-ADHD and other drugs to “help” the person such as someone who is labeled by practitioners as “autistic,” etc. I am not saying that this attacker has been taking any of those drugs, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

As I wrote previously regarding the suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain, and discussed in this post, those psychiatric drugs have a history of causing someone’s depression to get worse, causing suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and contributing to a person’s judgment that affects one’s ability to empathize with others as well as one’s ability to control aggressive impulses. Dr. Peter Breggin has written and spoken about these issues extensively and testified before Congressional committees on these issues.

And besides this week’s New York synagogue stabbing attack, following that there was another church shooting in Texas. Two people had been killed, but almost immediately the shooter was killed by armed citizens who shot back.

These attacks have been happening more in recent years, and many of the attackers had been taking strong psychiatric drugs. So, as I had mentioned previously, those past attackers include Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris, the South Carolina church shooter Dylan Roof, the Santa Barbara college shooter Elliot Rodger, the Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza, the Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, and the Germanwings Airlines co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had all been taking those damn psychiatric drugs prior to their rampages.

I stopped trying to find out if any of the more recent mass killers had been taking those psychiatric drugs. This older article and this one list several more earlier examples of mass killers who had been taking psychiatric drugs prior to their rampages.

So, as I have mentioned in my previous posts, if someone wanted to stop taking the psychiatric drugs, to prevent dangerous withdrawal symptoms see Dr. Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.

The reason why many people don’t know about those aspects of recent mass killings is that mainstream news outlets get a lot of their advertising revenues from the pharmaceutical companies. With these issues and other issues such as the nationwide blackout on the truth about the FBI and CIA’s illegally going after the Trump campaign and administration, we have seen just how dishonest and corrupt the mainstream news media really are. They are a disgrace.

So anyway, rather than frothing at the mouth over “hate” in society, perhaps the New York governor Andrew Cuomo ought to discuss why so many recent mass killers had been shown to be taking psychiatric drugs which no doubt have been contributing to their judgments and affecting their sense of empathy and conscience (or lack thereof).

Now, that’s the first issue involved here. Another issue is what is going on with the “black community” that is causing so much hate directed toward Jews? Again, obviously not all black people hate Jews. And not all the anti-Jewish attacks in New York had been committed by black people, but that has been common now. Robert Wenzel addressed this issue, and points out the possible influence that the “Nation of Islam” might have on certain communities, and particularly on the college campuses. The “Nation of Islam” is the organization led by Louis Farrakhan, a popular but anti-Jewish “minister.”

And finally, these incidents, including the anti-Jewish attacks in New York and elsewhere, show that the short-sighted, emotion-driven calls for more gun control are counter-productive. Will we see calls for “knife control” now? They have had that in the land of idiocy, England, for a while now.

Regarding these issues, there is an important organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). On their About page, they write:

Three primary goals drive the Washington-based human-rights group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO):

Destroy so-called “gun control” (code words for disarming innocent people).

Expose the misguided notions that lead people to seek out so-called “gun control”.

Encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. The Second Amendment is the “Guardian” of the Bill of Rights.

And,

JPFO has always welcomed people of all religious beliefs (or none) who share a common goal of opposing and reversing potentially deadly victim disarmament policies. You don’t have to be Jewish to join JPFO; you just have to love freedom.

Aaron Zelman, a proud Jew, initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed. He was appalled that so many Jewish politicians and influential Jewish public officials and spokespeople actually advocated citizen disarmament. He said it many a time: “Jews should be the last people on Earth to support ‘gun control’. See: An Interview With Aaron Zelman

As JPFO expanded its research into gun laws and the results of their enactments, it became blatantly obvious that so-called “gun control” had played a fundamental role in all the major genocides of the 20 th Century … not just the Holocaust. See: The Genocide Chart

So-called “gun control” is a deadly lie. Firearms registration lists lead governments-gone-bad straight to gun owners. Licensing and registration of guns has resulted in outright banning and confiscation over the last one hundred years of world history. The bloody results of these mass citizen disarmaments have been horrific.

Based on this insight, JPFO broke new ground with the award-winning documentary Innocents Betrayed. In this powerful film, viewers learn the dirty secret of “gun control”: how governments have historically deprived people of firearms … and then murdered them ruthlessly. Fifty eight minutes of hard-hitting facts that leave viewers dazed.

So that is what they have to say about that. And I agree with them 1,000%.

And like most of the people on the Left, New York Gov. Cuomo is also big on gun control. He, along with Dianne Feinstein, Cory Schnooker and the rest of them want to disarm innocent people and make them defenseless to the criminal aggression of others.

And I wonder if Cuomo is now going to suggest “knife control.” Is he also going to suggest “hate control” such as with more censorship of the Internet and other places of speech and expression?

Gay Pride? “Straight” Pride? How About “MORON Pride”?

I had been going back and forth on whether or not to write this, because I’m sick of the issue by now. But I’ll write it anyway. The issue is what is now being vaguely referred to as “Pride Month,” and the “Pride Parades” in various cities, that used to be referred to as “Gay Pride” and “Gay Pride Parades.” Now, it’s just “Pride.”

So, I’m wondering, why take off the “Gay”? Is it because they aren’t as “proud” as they are of “being gay”? And some people explain that, well, it’s more than just gays and lesbians, there are also the transgenders, the bisexuals, the “queers” and “questioning” and the “non-binary” and “intersex” (huh?), and on and on. And so I’m thinking, well why don’t they just say “LGBT+ Pride,” and put the plus there to refer to ALL the other letters that refer to all the wacky things out there these people can possibly make up?

And, we hear, “it’s not about sex” (or sexual deviancy, or emphasizing nudity, etc.) and so on. Well then why are the parades filled with “drag queens,” sexual paraphernalia, half-undressed people, etc.? Just google the images for 2019 Gay Pride Parade, sorry, just “Pride” Parade. And why do the activists need to get themselves, banners and sexual references and all, into other parades that have nothing to do with LGBT? Why such activism in teaching homosexuality to kids in school? Why the brainwashing? (I doubt that Truman Capote, Leonard Bernstein, and Rock Hudson had to be taught homosexuality in elementary school.)

The activists aside, most people who are homosexual are living their private lives not having to advertise their homosexuality to the rest of the world. It’s nobody else’s business. But the activists have a different agenda than one of privacy and “live and let live.”

And it’s not about “preventing bullying” of gays or transgenders or protecting people from getting beaten up physically “because of who they are.” If it really was about protecting people, then the activists would promote self-defense and that vulnerable people should be armed and educated in self-defense. Unfortunately many of these LGBT activists are just leftists whose agenda includes gun control and the government disarming law-abiding people and making them defenseless. And making vulnerable people defenseless.

No, the activists’ agenda is really about forcing acceptance of homosexuality and gender confusion. Well, someone’s private life is one’s own private business, and I also believe that homosexuals have a right to marry if they want to. But I don’t accept that lifestyle, because I don’t believe that anal intercourse is acceptable, because it’s unsanitary and harmful physically. And the transgender stuff, forcing people to agree with someone who is a male but thinks he is a female, etc. Make it against the law to use the “incorrect gender” pronoun (“misgendering”) when in actuality the scofflaw really is using the correct gender pronoun!

Sadly, in Amerika it seems that everything is sexualized and perverted, like a cult.

And then there are the ones on the other side. the ones who want to have a “Straight Pride” parade. Utter morons, in my view. Who the hell CARES what your sexual orientation or preference is? Those aspects of life are just part of everyday life. As was discussed on the Tom Knapp blog, being “proud” of being “straight” or gay, or tall or short, or white or black is just silly. People should be proud of their achievements or their families, etc.

And why the hell does “straight” refer to heterosexual? What do you mean by “straight” like “not having ED” or something? I think the whole thing is nuts. Those people who are actually going to be in a “Straight Pride” parade might need to have therapy, in my view. But the activists in the LGBT crowd seem more pushy now. I don’t care what you do in your private life, just leave ME alone!

Walter Williams on Reparations

Walter Williams has some things to ponder:

Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential elections are calling for reparations for slavery or for the study of reparations. Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren are leading the charge. Slavery was a gross violation of human rights. Justice would demand that slave owners make compensatory payments to slaves. Since both slaves and slave owners are no longer with us, such punishment and compensation is beyond our reach.

So which white Americans owe which black Americans how much? Reparations advocates don’t want that question asked, but let’s you and I ask it. Are the millions of European, Asian and Latin Americans who immigrated to the U.S. in the 20th century responsible for slavery? What about descendants of Northern whites who fought and died in the War of 1861 in the name of freeing slaves? Should they cough up money for black Americans? What about non-slave-owning Southern whites, who were a majority of Southern whites — should their descendants be made to pay reparations?

On black people’s side of the ledger, thorny questions arise. Some blacks purchased other blacks as a means to free family members. But other blacks owned slaves for the same reason whites owned slaves — to work farms or plantations. Would descendants of these blacks be eligible for reparations?

Is Amazon.com Banning and Censoring Truthful Historical Books?

Paul Craig Roberts says that “whites were slaves in North Africa before blacks were slaves in the New World.” He has a lengthy article in which he cites important facts of history, and exposes how the political correctness fascists are censoring history, such as Amazon.com banning certain books telling actual history that the college campus loony-tunes don’t want their brainwashed inductees to know about. In the name of protecting black people’s and Jewish people’s victimhood identity, the censors don’t want people to know the truth.

Roberts links to another controversial article by Ron Unz, on Amazon’s book censorship and banning black historiography during Black History Month. Unz gets into those issues including the truth about the ADL.

Now, before anyone shouts, “Racist! Anti-Semite!” etc., etc., please actually read the articles.