Its true
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
I absolutely agree. The only way they can be trustworthy is if they explicitly talk about the taboo topics jews don't want to be discussed in public at all (namely the jewish problem being the most important). Which won't happen anyway.
> It looks as though Fuentes is apologizing for jews, and Carlson is opposing ‘zionists.’
I do not think either of them are agents. They btw accused each other of working for the CIA. Fuentes is as he is since he was ~20 - he was edgy, and his oratory skills and his knowledge of history is excellent. Tucker is just a boomer who went from standard zionist to slightly dissident conservative to becoming critical of israel and dual citizenship as a concept. He grew to agree with a lot of points of Fuentes. I don't think Fuentes is apologizing for jews... that would be like 100 steps forward 1 step backward, so even if true, it doesn't matter.
But I do not care about them as individuals. My view is simply that they are useful for the cause. Criticizing israel means criticizing jews, and Tucker changing his mind means he drags along a LOT of right-wingers to also change their mind into a positive direction. So it's a positive change, and there is a LOT of popularity for Fuentes, which means a LOT of people come to notice the jew. It would be cynical of me to dismiss that because it doesn't immediately lead to TKD.
The question is, when will the 20th century and WWII be talked about? Because when you talk about jews so much, that topic is looming on the horizon. People who already accepted the viciousness of the jews in israel, their control of the media, finance and politics in your own country, they will be open to talk about the holocaust. Was it really undeserved? Did it even happen? Or was a jewish hoax to milk money and be granted immunity through playing victim all along? When the holocaust falls, it's basically over for jews. When it's over for jews, they can no longer suppress the rest of the public conversation, which means people will be even more radicalized. Then TKD will be on the table. When it will be considered "too extreme" aka "too excessive", we have already won, because then it's just a matter of magnitude. "Deportation is not enough" is basically what I tell here on ConPro.
> Because it feels a whole hell of a lot like that.
We are already long in that quagmire. All sorts of leftist ideologies, Climate Change, Covid, cuckservative "based tranny" type, even corporate culture revolving around basically having adult daycares, MGTOW (arguably), Christian zionism, Q faggotry, or just standard ignorance/indoctrination/carelessness, or goofy Flat Earth or aliens-visited-Earth crap - there is no shortage of bullshit ideologies and beliefs. And people inherently *need* their belief slot to be filled with something, even self-declared atheists. I don't think we can ever avoid interference from ideologies, we have to navigate through them as best as we can. Even National Socialism used such beliefs as a vehicle, and it itself became one too.
What *they* can do is push people towards these nonsensical beliefs, as to make them harmless. When there is one ideology or belief that is good, it's good for us. Fuentes doesn't need to be perfect - but it should move the people and the Overton window towards the right direction, and I think it does so. The reason I oppose these trash ideologies and beliefs so vehemently is exactly *because* they are corrosive to many people. The fuck should we care about the Climate Change agendas of 1°C less increase over 100 years when in 100 years we are drowning in niggers? Flat Earth is a total waste of time and makes us look stupid by association. Nigger worship deserves to be ridiculed. They are all distractions that affect world views on a fundamental level towards a bad direction.
> but about the state of ‘leadership’ in general?
You're right about leadership being impossible yet. Unforeseeable events can happen though, which can change the minds of a lot of people. For example as the global opposition towards israel grows, israel gets less support (infinite money from the US), and they might be on the verge of losing. Then in a desperate, arrogant, malevolent attempt they threaten countries with nuclear war, even Europe. That would immediately make jews internationally hated. jews aren't smart, they are just dedicated, amoral and they lie endlessly. To them everything is about the craft of illusion.
Remember, previously (up until recently), when the jew in israel cries, all of us rushed to their aid and even waged wars against their enemies. That has already changed. israel is globally hated by now, only supported by the US. Without the US, israel would fall apart. That's a rather new development.
At some point you may not even need exceptional leaders. Even a mediocre one will kowtow the line the populace wants. Zionism might even become unthinkable among politicians and people in general, to be considered treasonous or irrational like leftist ideologies. The jews will have to try to maintain their control *despite* the will of the people. And the more they do that, the more extreme they become, the more people will notice and hate them. That will inevitably spiral into their downfall.
And maybe at some point people will have shops that say "not jewish" or "anti-zionist." Just a little sticker somewhere at the door. It circumvents the lawfare discrimination nonsense, and will allow people to financially support anti-jewish causes by preferring those shops (along with supporting the very idea/ideology). Even if jews imitate that, the anti-jewish sentiment would be already out there. Little things like this could happen and could get traction on a larger scale.
I’ve always found the opposite to be most palatable for others. They’ll talk about the 20th century all damned day. They’ll agree with all of what I say about the events of that century and how virtually everything that happened went wrong. The moment you try to talk to them about who’s responsible for the century, they shut down instantly. Doesn’t matter if they agreed just seconds before. Doesn’t matter what the topic is.
>"Deportation is not enough" is basically what I tell here on ConPro.
Or, in [meme form](https://i.postimg.cc/g0N37Tsf/immigrants.jpg)…
>Then in a desperate, arrogant, malevolent attempt they threaten countries with nuclear war, even Europe. That would immediately make jews internationally hated.
Well, they [do it already](https://x.com/AFpost/status/1713813118307221902). Have [for a while](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel%27s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy). If they *do* it, you’re correct. But the problem is their policy is to do it only when Israel is existentially threatened. It’s a “if I can’t live, neither can anyone else” policy. By then it wouldn’t *matter* that the launching of nukes would cause a loss of jewish control, because there wouldn't be a world left to control. It would also cause the loss of 75% of the global white population. If the inflection point is “you have to kill all of us before any errant survivors even think about hating you,” we’re already dead.
>That has already changed. israel is globally hated by now, only supported by the US.
I really don’t know about that. Where are the embargoes? Where is the international effort to remove Israel from global financial and trade organizations? Why aren’t independent organizations boycotting Israel and refusing to do business with them or allow their “scientists” in? Ah, right, because you’ll go to prison if you do that. It’s “individuals within countries” who hate Israel. All *governments* are still controlled, and many of them by proxy through US military occupation. And the (respective) people don’t seem to want to do a damned thing to overthrow those governments.
>Without the US, israel would fall apart. That's a rather new development.
Well, it was always the case. From ’47 onward–when Israel admitted that if it hadn’t stolen two American bombers stationed in Europe that it wouldn’t have won the war–the jews have only ever had a homeland because of US intervention.
>At some point you may not even need exceptional leaders. Even a mediocre one will kowtow the line the populace wants.
Or they’ll just [lie to the public’s faces and get away with it.](https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-vance-says-us-put-leverage-israel-when-challenged-maga-hat-wearing-student)
>It circumvents the lawfare discrimination nonsense
But the law already says you can’t boycott jews. And it [also says](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/12/05/house-passes-resolution-declaring-anti-zionism-a-form-of-antisemitism-some-democrats-are-critical/)…
This sure must be frustrating. My suggestion is to improve your methods of communication with them. They are not like us, they do not have the mental fortitude to just take it bluntly. And they are programmed to shut down on certain triggers. You may have to communicate in a way that appeals to them and their ideologies. Be a little provocative too, but not insulting. I personally improved in avoiding YouTube censorship, and even saving what I write, just in case there is a notification on a comment-thread where I see my comment missing. And when it's missing, I paraphrase parts of it and post it again.
It's not easy, it's a continuous process of improvement. But you clearly have the intellect and skill to do so.
> By then it wouldn’t matter that the launching of nukes would cause a loss of jewish control, because there wouldn't be a world left to control.
Well, that's arguable. Nukes would be aimed at areas of high population density, meaning it would go after leftists primarily, and people in the outskirts and villages would survive. But I'd assume they'd first threaten us with it, or people would draw attention to it. And if they do, the countermeasure could be as simple as just moving in there with a big nuke and detonating it from inside. Just a truck is enough, and if necessary, shoot the border guard kikes. They'll know there is a nuke in there when it's too late. Or some massive EMP device so that they can't launch most nukes, and then take them out quickly... without communication they won't do anything. I am not sure if nukes would have secondary explosions, which could cause massive planetary radiation problems. Nobody said removing such a tumor would be easy.
> Where are the embargoes?
As long as US is their pet that protects and supports them, nobody dares to do anything. Going against israel means conflict and possibly war with the US. And within the EU it would also be shunned and opposed.
> Or they’ll just lie to the public’s faces and get away with it.
Yeah, but not yet... we haven't reached that point in time yet. Vance is a zionist shill created and groomed by Peter Thiel (a jew). They seek to place him as a successor to Trump. The reason he is VP is probably because Trump got the order to have that person as a VP, regardless of Trump's will. Vance came basically from nowhere.
Even now Trump is in a precarious situation, because he seeks peace (along with basically everybody else), but israel seeks to conquer and genocide all of Palestine. Even logically - israel wants Democracy, and doesn't want to have some 50/50 ratio in voting, competing with Arabs. They want at least 90% of the votes, aka they *must* genocide all non-jews BEFORE they can officially conquer the entire territory.
So Trump (along with basically all Americans) wants peace, he doesn't want israel to go after US allies like Qatar, israel wants war, the Arabs don't want to get genocided, and the public opposition to Hamas is dwindling. Even now the actions of Trump are somewhat limited as to what Americans want and tolerate from him. Even the H1B thing was controversial enough. And he already crossed the line for many, making people ready for more extreme right-wing options.
As we speak, israel continues to do a low amount of murders during this "ceasefire," which is a tactic to provoke the Arabs to retaliate. And when that happens, they cry out in pain as they go full genocide mode AGAIN, and to the world they can sell it as "look, the terrorists are at it again goys! We have no choice but to wage war!" It's essentially what the Allies along with Poland did in WWII - provoking Germany by massacring Germans in occupied Danzig with the assurance of Britain to step in when Germany finally declares war. They wanted to bring war to Germany in ~1933, but they needed to do it this way for optics reason, so that they can say "see?! I told you Germany is evil and warmongering!! They need to be taken down!"
I don't care the slightest about the Arabs, they are completely worthless. But other people care. And it's a great vehicle to make them notice the jewish problem in general, and thus domestically - they just need a little push into the right direction.
I think it’s just that they’re not capable of understanding. I take them on the most roundabout routes imaginable. I say everything but who it is for as long as I can. *When they ask themselves, they don’t accept it.*
>Well, that's arguable. Nukes would be aimed at areas of high population density, meaning it would go after leftists primarily, and people in the outskirts and villages would survive.
Not without electricity. Not anymore.
>I am not sure if nukes would have secondary explosions, which could cause massive planetary radiation problems.
No; the explosion disperses all the radioactive material, of which there can’t be very much in the first place because a block no larger than roughly 10 pounds of U-238 will go critical on its own. You literally can’t bring too much of it together in one place. Plutonium has an even lower bound. The real problem after a nuke is the out of control fires that can’t be put out because you have no infrastructure, no fire trucks, and no electricity to pump it because the EMP affected a larger area than the bomb’s destruction. Ground detonation would throw up a shit ton of radiation; airburst not so much (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and compare them to some parts of Nevada where no one can go). There’s a reason almost all nukes today are designed to be airburst. What good is territory you’ve won in a war if you can’t conquer it afterward?
>Vance is a zionist shill created and groomed by Peter Thiel
Thank you. I suppose I can count on you to be a voice of reason now that he’s “speaking out against the jews” and “totally holding actual traditionalist viewpoints” by saying things like “Christianity good” and “maybe we should have infinity minus one browns entering the country.”
>Even now Trump is in a precarious situation, because he seeks peace
My brother in Christ. How can you think this.
>israel wants Democracy
Of course; *they created it.*
> “Unjust government can be exercised by a great number, and it is then called a democracy: such is mob rule when the common folk take advantage of their numbers to oppress the rich. In such a case the entire community becomes a sort of tyrant.” **~ St. Thomas Aquinas**; *On Princely Government; Aquinas: Selected Political Writings*; 1254
> “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either… Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and no where appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, nations and large bodies of men, never.” **~ John Adams**; letter to John Taylor; December 17, 1814
> “That what is called democracy is always in fact plutocracy. The only alternative to the rule of the rich is to have a ruler who is deliberately made more powerful even than the rich. It is to have a ruler who is secure of his place, instead of rulers who are fighting for their place.” **~ G.K. Chesterton**; *The Revival of French Royalism*; December 15, 1923
> “The defect of democracy is its tendency to put mediocrity into power; and there is no way of avoiding this except by limiting office to men of ‘trained skill.’ Numbers by themselves cannot produce wisdom, and may give the best favors of office to the grossest flatterers. The fickle disposition of the multitude almost reduces those who have experience of it to despair; for it is governed solely by emotions, and not be reason. Thus democratic government becomes a procession of brief-lived demagogues, and men of worth are loath to enter lists where they must be judged and rated by their inferiors. Sooner or later the more capable men rebel against such a system, though they be in a minority. Hence I think it is that democracies change into aristocracies, and these at length into monarchies; people at last prefer tyranny to chaos.” **~ Will Durant**; *The Story of Philosophy*, p. 214; 1926
> “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by jews.’” **~ Ezra Pound**, poet and political critic; The Japan Times; 1934
> “There are many national issues that concern individuals and groups so directly and unmistakably as to evoke volitions that are genuine and definite enough. The most important instance is afforded by issues involving immediate and personal pecuniary profit to individual voters and groups of voters, such as direct payments, protective duties, silver policies and so on. Experience that goes back to antiquity shows that by and large voters react promptly and rationally to any such chance. But the classical doctrine of democracy evidently stands to gain little from displays of rationality of this kind. Voters thereby prove themselves bad and indeed corrupt judges of such issues, and often they even prove themselves bad judges of their own long-run interests, for it is only the short-run promise that tells politically and only short-run rationality that asserts itself effectively.” **~ Joseph A. Schumpeter**; *Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy*, pp. 260-1; 1942
> “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” **~ Elmer T. Peterson**; *The Daily Oklahoman*, p. 12A; December 9, 1951
> “An unfortunate side effect of democracy is that it incentivizes citizens to be ignorant, irrational, tribalistic, and to not use their votes in very serious ways. We have to ask ourselves what we think government is actually for... There’s another way of looking at government, which is that it’s a tool, like a hammer, and the purpose of politics is to generate just and good outcomes, to generate efficiency and stability, and to avoid mistreating people... The idea is that anyone or any deliberative body that exercises power over anyone else has an obligation to use that power in good faith, and has the obligation to use that power competently. If they’re not going to use it in good faith, and they’re not going to use it competently, that’s a claim against them having any kind of authority or any kind of legitimacy.” **~ Dr. Jason Brennan**; political philosopher & applied ethicist; Epistocracy; *Vox*; November 9, 2018
>“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.” **~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe**; *The Paradox of Imperialism*; June 5, 2013
Anyway.
Well, you know how I mean it. Trump is a zionist through and through, but he doesn't want to start a new war if it can be avoided. He (and his administration) tries to solve things "diplomatically." I *do* believe that there is genuine intent of him/them to seek peace, and that he does want to do things his way, even if he is beholden to his jewish masters. It's not as simple as to say that he is a puppet without any own will. He didn't start a war in 5 years of his administration yet! So that's something.
Btw, [here](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/1/trump-says-not-planning-us-strikes-on-venezuela):
> United States President Donald Trump has said he is not considering strikes within Venezuela, appearing to contradict his own comments earlier this month, amid a major US military build-up in the region.
It does appear like a saber-rattling.
> Anyway.
These are all good quotes. From a libertarian standpoint: It allows takers to vote on having makers give them resources. Democracy only makes sense if you consider that it is meant to be a way to peacefully resolve political interests among people who are otherwise forced to be in conflict with each other. Which means only men who are capable to fight. Not children, not women, not elderly. In the US it was about men who owned property, which is also a good criterion.
But just the thought that niggers can vote to take your stuff is infuriating. And worse even: Politicians on both sides are forced to appeal to them for votes, even if it means continuing the system in which they are already leeching resources.
And naturally women by the nature of their being tend to prefer free gibs and things like welfare and security. You cannot explain to them (or niggers) the value of liberty and individual sovereignty - they do not care or they do not value it higher than free gibs. The reason only wives lean towards right-wing is because more liberty and less taxes benefit them indirectly as it benefits their husbands.
Women shouldn't vote. Nobody should, but IF anyone should, it should only be White men, who are net tax payers. It is THEIR prerogative what should happen with the money THEY are forced to pay via taxes. Because THEY have the capability to fight if necessary.