The second episode of Barcelona Life is now available for subscribers on Unauthorized.TV.
Category: Uncategorized
Replacement history
First, (((Ben Shapiro))) is lying about Western civilization. This is no surprise, since completely redefining “Western civilization” as a Jewish-Greek collaboration is the objective of his latest book.
Ironically, reduction of Western civilization to racial supremacy isn’t just a strategy of the intersectional left; it’s a strategy of the despicable alt-right, which champions Western civilization as white civilization and then seeks to rip away the universalism of its principles from nonwhite people. Thus, the very term “Western civilization” is under assault by a variety of political forces seeking to tear out eternal truths and natural rights in the name of tribalism.
But that’s not what Western civilization is about at all. Western civilization was built on Judeo-Christian values and Greek reason, culminating in a perspective on natural rights that is preserved by institutions like English jurisprudence. It is thanks to those philosophical principles that free markets, free speech and free association have grown and flourished. Only if we re-enshrine those principles, rather than undermine them, will our prosperity and freedoms be preserved.
Ben Shapiro’s case doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia. Western civilization is synonymous with both “European civilization” and “Occidental civilization”. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian values”. Judaism’s values are intrinsically opposed to Christian values; one might as reasonably declare that “Satano-Christian values” and Confucian philosophy provided the foundation of the West.
Second, (((Michael Ledeen))) inadvertently makes a strong case on behalf of anti-semitism thanks to his near-complete ignorance of Spanish history.
March 31 marks the anniversary of the date on which, in 1492, Spanish Jews were faced with the choice of converting to Catholicism or leaving. The edict was driven by the queen, “Isabella the Catholic,” and was issued despite widespread opposition throughout the kingdom, including Sicily, where most of the Italian Jews lived and which was ruled by a Spanish viceroy. Some converted, some pretended to convert and maintained Jewish practices in secrecy for centuries, but the bulk shipped out, many to the Ottoman Empire, some to Amsterdam (which became known as the “second Jerusalem”), a much smaller number to Palestine. Henceforth the Spanish Kingdom was firmly under the brutal hand of the Inquisition, whose chief was the infamous Torquemada.
It was a colossal blunder. Spain never recovered from the loss of one of the most productive and creative elements of its population. As for the Jews of the realm, 1492 started the saga of the wandering diaspora very shortly thereafter. The Spanish and Portuguese Jews spread all over the continent, and the new world as well. It initiated a melodrama that is one of history’s most fascinating tales.
Jews were important to the Spanish economy, and to Spanish culture. Spain steadily weakened without its Jews, who made major contributions to Ottoman lands and to Muslim countries across North Africa, especially Tunisia. Their commercial skills included trade in spices, at the time very important for the continent…. Queen Isabella’s brutal oppression of the Jews totally backfired. She purged her country of the descendants of the great Maimonides, only to have Spain sink into irrelevancy on the world stage.
100 years after the Spaniards kicked out the Jews, they ruled over the wealthiest, most powerful empire on Earth. Irrelevancy on the world stage? The Spanish empire didn’t even reach its apogee for another 300 years! To the contrary, barely 100 years after the USA first permitted mass Jewish immigration, it has lost its global power, it is deeply in debt, it is demoralized in literally every sense of the term, it has been invaded by tens of millions of foreigners, and is now on the verge of complete political collapse.
Ledeen is not merely lying. Being a servant of the Father of Lies in good standing he presents an entirely backwards picture, one that is completely antithetical to the easily verified historical facts. Were the Jews good for the Egyptians or the Canaanites? Did the Romans and Greeks consider them to be beneficial to their empires? Have they been a boon to the inhabitants of Palestine? And has the post-Holocaust German economy suffered for its lack of Jews?
Modern Jew-haters come from two failed traditions, radical Islam and radical leftism. Like the Iberians of the 14th century, their tyrannical regimes have all failed, and they have driven out their Jews. Meanwhile, the countries that built their futures on religious toleration, countries with substantial Jewish populations, countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Israel, are, we can hope, the future of mankind.
The USA, Canada, and Australia are all likely to collapse or be conquered within 20 years. And when those things happen, remember that Michael Ledeen credited their fate to having built their futures “on religious toleration” and “substantial Jewish populations.”
What Shapiro and Ledeen are doing is consciously responding to so-called “replacement theology” with “replacement history”. They’re attempting to redefine Europeans and Christianity out of Western civilization in order to claim it for themselves.
“A fundamental human right”
A British judge appalls modern sensibilities by defending the core foundation of marriage:
A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case. “I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.
If the entire documented process of marriage does not provide consent, what on Earth does? What on Earth can? If marriage does not grant a man sexual rights to his wife’s body, why on Earth should any man ever marry a woman in the first place? What, precisely, does a man acquire in return for the right of permanent claims on his material wealth and income; remember that a contract is not even legally a contract if obligations are not assigned to both parties. How is a woman’s husband even theoretically distinguishable from every other individual on the planet if he has no more rights to her body than anyone else?
There are many, many legal examples of one-time consent. Those who enlist in the armed forces are not able to legally withdraw their consent at a later date or decide that they’re just not in the mood to obey the orders given by their superior officer. And it’s reprehensibly stupid for women to insist on creating this novel post-marital consent standard when they are already complaining about the increasing unwillingness of men to marry them.
This is why the concept of “marital rape” is not only legally incoherent, but insidious and dyscivilizational. No man should ever even consider marrying any woman who subscribes to the concept because she does not believe in the actual institution of marriage at all.
No place for anti-Palestinian bigotry
It won’t surprise me if the Democrats determine that this hateful Neo-Palestinian bigot should be removed from office for denying the existence of Palestine.
Kalman Yeger@KalmanYeger
Palestine does not exist.
There, I said it again.
Also, Congresswoman Omar is an antisemite. Said that too.
Thanks for following me.
Palestine most certainly exists. It has existed in various forms much longer than either the kingdom of Israel or the modern state of Israel combined. There are, in fact, at least eight historical Palestines:
- Syria Palaestina, a Roman province (135–390 CE), a province of the Roman Empire
- Palaestina Prima, a Byzantine province in the Levant from 390 to c. 636
- Palaestina Secunda, a Byzantine province in the Levant from 390 to c. 636
- Palaestina Salutaris alias Palestina Tertia, a Byzantine province established in the 6th century, covering the Negev and Transjordan
- Jund Filastin (638 – 10th century), one of the military districts of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham (Syria)
- Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem or Palestine (1872–1917), an Ottoman district that encompassed Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba
- The Palestinian Mandate (1920–1948), a geopolitical entity under British administration
- The Palestinian Authority (1994–present) an interim self-government body established to govern parts of Gaza and the West Bank
But, but, Judeo-Christian values!
It’s informative how the Neo-Palestinians all babble about “Judeo-Christian values” and “melting pot” whenever they’re trying to win support for themselves from Christians, but they switch to “racism”, “white Christian identity”, and “anti-semitism” the moment that any conservative actually indicates a preference for white Christians to liberals in sheep’s clothing from foreign identity groups. Unsurprisingly, David Bernstein overtly practices identity politics while he decries the perceived possibility of Republicans practicing identity politics.
Unfortunately, in both situations it’s all-too-easy to come up with bad reasons. Rao is the daughter of Indian Parsi immigrants, and Liu is the daughter of Chinese immigrants. It seems as though their minority background may at least subconsciously raise suspicions that they aren’t on “the team.” I suspect that such suspicions might have been quelled if they belonged to “appropriate” churches–the Mormon church, a conservative Protestant congregation, a Catholic parish known for being actively pro-life. As it happens, while I can’t speak to either woman’s personal religious beliefs, I understand that their families are members of Jewish congregations.
Please note that I’m not accusing the Senators in question of antisemitism. Nor am I accusing them of conscious racism. But I do suspect that in certain conservative circles, people have an image in their head of what a “trustworthy” conservative looks like, and that person is white, likely male, and a religious Christian. Those who don’t fit that mold are more likely to have their conservative credentials questioned.
This is both unfair and a disaster for the Republican Party. Imagine you are a conservative-leaning Indian-American Hindu, or Thai-American Buddhist, or Iranian-American Muslim, or African American agnostic. You are attending Yale (Liu’s alma mater) or Chicago (Rao’s) law school and you have nascent but indeterminate political ambitions. You are trying to decide whether to “come out” as a Federalist-type, or keep your head down and avoid politics. You know if you do the former, you will be the subject of special derision and social sanction from your liberal classmates, who will openly question how a person of color can hang out in Fed Soc circles.
Given that dynamic, Republicans should be especially welcoming to such individuals. Instead, the Rao and Liu situations suggest the opposite. It comes awfully close to looking like implicit white Christian identity politics, and it’s a bad look for the GOP.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST WATCH: Liu’s husband and Rao are friends and former colleagues of mine.
Notice that the Neo-Palestinian is advocating for two individuals to whom he is personally connected by identity politics while simultaneously decrying “implicit white Christian identity politics” as “a bad look” for Republicans.
Just as the great battle of the Democratic Party is the struggle between rival identity groups for the helm of the Not-American Party, the great battle of the Republican Party is going to be between Neo-Palestinians desperately trying to convince the American Party to ignore the political realities imposed by the post-1965 demographic changes and Americans who would like to have their party actually advocate for their national interests.
Republicans have nearly destroyed both their party and their country due to their support for immigration and neocon foreign policy. It’s astonishing that any Republican or conservative still pays any attention whatsoever to these utterly shameless deceivers.
The neocon’s man
The always-treacherous John Bolton is working to undermine President Trump:
White House National Security Adviser John Bolton is expanding his influence in increasingly visible ways, pursuing his own longstanding foreign policy priorities at the risk of tensions with top administration officials — and even Donald Trump himself.
An example spilled into the public eye a week ago, when an irked Trump cryptically announced on Twitter he’d undo some North Korea-related sanctions blessed by Bolton. The president’s decision was quietly walked back and the sanctions remain in place.
Since joining Trump’s White House, Bolton has pursued an agenda that includes trying to break Iran financially, oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, shield Americans from the reach of the International Criminal Court and toughen the U.S. posture toward Russia. He coordinated with key lawmakers, U.S. diplomatic and defense officials and the Israelis to compel Trump to slow an abrupt withdrawal of American forces from Syria.
Bolton, 70, has meanwhile adopted an increasingly public profile on Twitter, Trump’s social media platform of choice. Through a spokesman, he declined to be interviewed for this article.
This story is based on interviews with lawmakers and several current and former White House and diplomatic officials, most of whom asked not to be identified in order to candidly discuss Trump’s third national security adviser.
Bolton’s blunt, unapologetic divide-and-conquer methods don’t surprise anyone who’s watched him in government roles since the Reagan administration or as a pundit on Fox News. He’s always been a deeply ideological thinker who believes the U.S. plays by a unique set of rules and doesn’t mind — or even sometimes relishes — clashing with others to accomplish his goals.
He’s beloved by a loyal cadre of aides while chafing many others inside the administration. Trump is aware that Bolton’s relationships with powerful Republican figures who influence the president, particularly billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, give him an added degree of political cover, according to two people familiar with the matter.
My prediction: Trump will tolerate Bolton as long as he can, then fire him once Bolton goes too far and tries to start a war with Iran.
The movement of peoples
Remember, historically speaking, the more people move, the more people war:
The United States is home to nearly 20 percent of the globe’s migrant population, a new study finds. The Pew Research Center reveals in a new study that the U.S. has admitted more foreign nationals than any other country in the world. Roughly 18 percent of the world’s migrant population lives in the U.S., the study found.
About 44.5 million foreign-born residents now live in the U.S., far surpassing Germany’s 12.2 million foreign-born population and Russia’s nearly 12 million foreign-born population.
In total, the U.S. is home to more foreign-born residents than Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France combined. The 44.5 million foreign-born population living in the country marks a nearly 108-year record high of immigration to the U.S.
That 44.5 million includes roughly 22 million naturalized citizens, 11 million other residents — including more than 1.5 million foreign temporary visa-workers — plus about 11 million illegal aliens.
Add in the second- and third-generation migrants, and you’re looking at around 85 million foreigners in a population of 310 million. That’s why I said, on a recent Darkstream, that the level of violence that can be reasonably anticipated in a US-breakdown scenario is Cultural Revolution-magnitude, which would indicate fatalities in the 50M to 100M range.
One giant hoax for mankind
Most people around the world do not believe the US government ever landed anyone on the Moon. A Moon Landing skeptic summarizes his reasons for skepticism concerning one giant hoax for mankind:
I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.
First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.
But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.
But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?
As for those who resort to the logical argument that the Russians would have disputed the Moon landings if they were faked, they should probably keep in mind that most Russians don’t believe that the US ever landed anyone on the Moon.
Decades since 1969, many Russians are still unable to believe in that “small step” that Armstrong took on the Moon. True, the so-called ‘lunar conspiracy’ was invented in the U.S., but no other country in the world has so fully embraced this indestructible conspiracy theory as Russia. Many Russians believe that the U.S. government staged a complex hoax, and that the alleged Moon landing was in fact filmed in Hollywood. At the moment, this myth is NOT believed by – brace yourself – only 24 percent of Russians!
I haven’t believed in the veracity of the Moon landings ever since seeing the interview with the Apollo astronauts. And, of course, I always reject every Official Story endorsed by the U.S. government on principle, because it has always – ALWAYS – proven to be less than entirely true for one reason or another.
Vanished history
Facebook again proves – as if any more proof were necessary – that it cannot be trusted in any way, shape, or form:
Old Facebook posts by Mark Zuckerberg have disappeared — obscuring details about core moments in Facebook’s history.
On multiple occassions, years-old public posts made by the 34-year-old billionaire chief executive that were previously public and reported on by news outlets at the time have since vanished, Business Insider has found. That includes all of the posts he made during 2007 and 2008.
Reached for comment, a Facebook spokesperson said the posts were “mistakenly deleted” due to “technical errors.”
“A few years ago some of Mark’s posts were mistakenly deleted due to technical errors. The work required to restore them would have been extensive and not guaranteed to be successful so we didn’t do it,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
“We agree people should be able to find information about past announcements and major company news, which is why for years we’ve shared and archived this information publicly — first on our blog and in recent years on our Newsroom.”
These disappearances, along with other changes Facebook has made to how it saves its archive of announcements and blog posts, make it much harder to parse the social network’s historical record. This makes it far more difficult to hold the company, and Zuckerberg himself, accountable to past statements — particularly during a period of intense scrutiny of the company in the wake of a string of scandals.
The very nature of the issue means it is extremely challenging to make a full accounting of what exactly what has gone missing over the years.
It’s always Year Zero for these liars. Nothing they say is ever true, which is why they’re always focused on hiding what they said yesterday.
The Deep State’s candidate
Neon Revolt points out that South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg is the Deep State’s candidate for president in 2020:
But who is this guy, exactly? Buttigieg was a complete unknown until just a few weeks ago, when he announced his Presidential campaign. And as of today, he’s either tied or tracking just above BIDEN(!!!) for 2020: So where did this guy come from? What has he done? And what accounts for this sudden rise to prominence from utter obscurity?
I think they get carried away from time to time. Just because they can fake popularize a media creation like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, they think they can create popularity for a politician out of thin air. But Obama was a one-off and was only possible due to the way white people think supporting black politicians will magically absolve them of racism.
The Democrats running a gay nonentity with a silly name like Buttigieg would make Reagan-Mondale look close.