Sexual Psy-Ops through the gaze of Helen Mirren(off): from Caligula to Prime Suspect and Worse

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 04 April 2017 18:06.

Any truly serious philosophical project, especially an “ontology” project, is going to take into account the phenomenon of homeostasis - the striving of biological systems to maintain an optimal balance of function and equilibrium of themselves and in relation to their environment, social and otherwise.

I have hypothesized that there is something of a mechanistic tension which facilitates “sexiness” of sex for people: that being the tension between brute expression of power, viz., dominance/ submission and the large requirement to submit to that animal drive - compelling sexual enactment in both genders on the one hand - a compulsion which is in further tension of maintaining human dignity, orientation and agency by contrast. There are different stories to tell about sex, but this one, I further hypothesize, helps facilitate additionally the option of a sacral attitude toward sex - because sex is fairly sexy of itself, if the match is appropriate, it can be with a relative minimum of competition and experimentation; i.e., an attitude treating monogamy as serious and a possible option for those more attuned and satisfied with “appropriateness”, if not exacting appropriateness and a strong commitment to cooperation on its basis - including turning attention to other matters in life - this in balancing contrast to preoccupation with “betterment” through “better” partners. This option will serve as an aid to systemic homeostasis (incl. “EGI”); as this conscious option would serve to liberate practitioners and the pattern from scientististic facticity; and with it, the liberal cynicism that can otherwise recklessly expend social capital bequeathed of ethnocentrism, the morale and integrity of the system; its diminished incentive to remain loyal and fight for it against opportunistic outsiders seizing upon the vulnerabilities of our sheer, unaccountable liberalism. 

Naturally, the Abrahamic religions have been adept at exploiting this void, presenting a pretense of sacrament and conservatism, when really Abrahamism has aided and abetted feudalistic compradores in the East and our hyperbolic liberal predicament in the West to begin with - cucking by Jewish interests, as they now like to say - a most cynical of Trojan horse, an affectation where adopted by Europeans and Asians, disingenuously imposing the Abrahamic agenda of universal dissolution of ethnonational patterns; expropriation of our genetics and resource; destruction upon non-compliance.

To hold up to Abrahamic imposition, the biopower of foreigners imposed under rubric of objectivism, other antagonisms, including our own people’s betrayal through cynicism and dissolution through moral weakness, it is necessary that the sacred be identified of our pattern; but that sufficient liberalism within our paradigms also be maintained as important to maintain, to complement that option; and thus provide a full, healthy contrast to the Abrahamics, the liberals, the scientistic and the brutes.



Helen Mirren as Caesonia in “Caligula”, 1979

Why all the fuss, you say, won’t nature take care of these things without social props? Well, sparing intricate examples and going right to the example of the feral child unable to acquire language after a point neglected, the answer is obviously not necessarily. And if we come back to acknowledge some criteria, and it is not a hermeneutically anchored quest for human ecology and reserving some reverence in assured commitment for time in memorial patterns, but falls into a scientistic cast of sheer Darwinistic competition, it becomes a headlong quest for what is “better” or “best”, and then criteria for evaluation becomes a whole lot less clear, less accountable, more subjective than the matter of what might be appropriate. Isn’t it natural to want better and more partners, you ask? Yes, and it is also natural for some to want monogamy. People are welcome to be non-monogamous in our societies and to try for better than what they actually bring to the equation - provided they are accountable to acceptable quantity and quality of the pattern - including boundaries and borders thereof; if they choose to go beyond that they must go to their new chosen people, to their lands and their borders; and not burden us with their choice, not impose upon us un-agreed-upon foreign children and adults - as to do so is equivalent to attempted supremaicism and slavery over us; as others have said before, a motion to take away our freedom; and we have the right to reject that. 

As opposed to the scientistic inclination to try to propose the unaccountable “this is the way it is” regarding sex and other matters, this is a hermeneutic approach, making use of the expanse of narrative purview to increase the autonomy and authenticity of our individual and human ecological system’s coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

All that is reiteration of things I that have said before - though worth repeating, as often as need be, as these matters are that important - and, as I have also said before, these are topoi of means to maintain the integrity of our system against Abrahamic imposition.

However, I would like to highlight here in particular the importance of this way of treating sex as a means to hold up against the sexual psy-ops of our enemies, whether imposed by Abrahamic interests against ours or by liberals who take the modernist, liberal argument in the name of “nature”, that would deny respect or even the possibility for monogamy and fidelity to one’s ethnic group; would try to psych us out and condition us to accept our pattern’s demise, with us supposedly having no recourse - the idea that “nature is impervious to human agency” and by contrast, “reconsruction of a people can only be backwards, superstitious tradition.”

Helen Mirren, the gatekeeper

Coming back to another hypothesis of mine then, that all other factors being equal, the more modern and individualistic a society, the more females are “one-up” in partner selection (ovaries are expensive, sperm is cheap); as group patterns become disrupted by atomizing individualism, so increases her capacity to be “a bully” in the realm of sex. Don’t like it? She’ll call in other men who will pander to her in what is very much “her market.” And her most base tendency to incite genetic competition will be exacerbated as well as she will be solicited and pandered-to not only by men from her in-group trying to prove their strength and liberalness to hold up to universal maturity; she will thus have increased opportunity to act on her inclination to incite genetic competition with outgroups and other races as well.

This is a very powerful position for females - even if primarily as gatekeepers to the most powerful, they can exercise vast prerogative with great confidence and verbosity; even when they are too young to really know what they are talking about and to make a just decision. Motives and incentives to maintain this liberal situation abound and as a result, some percentage of them will flaunt their sexual prerogative to the point of sadistic bullying. It is the unmentioned other side of the old double standard - yes, women are expected to be more chaste, because they can, in an unsporting, bullying way, be very promiscuous. Whereas a man will generally be ostracized as a horrible bully if he uses his physical strength to abuse a woman: a double standard, but having reason.

Along comes liberal and Jewish feminism and none of the downsides to the traditional male situation are recognized, only those who are on top. It is assumed that all of them are there as a result of differentiation of fulfillment on basic Maslowian need levels or that they are there for sheer reserved, albeit often unmerited privilege. None of the traditional advantages to women, i.e., the general occupation of the secure, in between levels on Maslow’s hierarchy are recognized; and there is no recognition of an increasing majority of men who are squeezed to the bottom - who are not operating out of differentiation of fulfillment but sublimation of deprivation; nevertheless, their male desperation does impact other levels - notably female security, as the resentment of these males and their sociopathic influence on the top governance of society is overcompensating, without full capacity to exercise power on top levels - they become sociopaths, sellouts or join the ranks of the incompetent men in power, who are there warming a position reserved for them. So, there are three kinds of men on top traditionally: The overcompensating desperado, the the guy who’s there because traditional society figured a quota of men were owed this spot; and another kind, the truly deserving, who made it through the school of hard knocks.

Liberal and Jewish feminists have been in remiss for not recognizing these three different kinds; and that problems of the desperado and the incompetent position occupier at the top can be alleviated with a non-lineal, optimizing version of Maslow’s hierarchy, by their being afforded sufficient societal honor, accountability and recourse in capacity to function on basic and intermediate levels. Conversely, they might recognize that other men are there for merit, having gone through a generally more rigorous test on lower levels than is expected women; thus, merit, not privilege. Though feminists should respect that, they are correct to think that they should have access to higher positions if they factor-in what may be unfair advantages that they have on basic and intermediate levels - a differentiation of fulfillment that can leave them too liberal when moving into high positions. Given these considerations, the recommendation would be somewhat more rigorous tests for women on basic levels if they want to make it through the glass ceiling and somewhat more lenient basic levels for men so that they are not unjustly liable to fall through the glass floor.

Despite the fact that the second wave of feminism was spearheaded by (((Betty Friedan))), a student of Maslow, and this mapping of a fair arrangement should have been clear, she was as culpable of ignoring it as feminists before and after her, despite her having the additional glaring clue of males being deprived of basic levels - of being - by the Vietnam draft; but this blind gaze toward only men on the top, male privilege alone, goes back to hers and (((Carol Gilligan’s))) forebear, Simone de Beauvoir.

Absent the hermeneutic of balancing homeostasis of gender relations proposed here; with liberals and Jewish interests pandering toward girls/women to take a view only toward White male privilege, the three traditional positions of male power were especially precarious as their vulnerability was compounded by the even more fundamental homeostasis of group classification being steadily attacked - their capacity to discriminate thereupon, as White men, was being hit particularly hard under the rubric of “anti-racism”, often accompanied by sexual psy-ops against them leveraged through “their own” co-evolutionary women - ominous in their augury of “sacred ministry of betrayal” (de Beauvoir), ramping up to fever pitch in the 70s after the Vietnam war was over; the dams breaking in the 80s “like a prayer”, to where betrayal of White men in miscegenation was like a sainted act, and reaching a crescendo in the 90s that has shown no sign of slowing down ever since.

Helen Mirren’s acting roles mirror the one sidedness and injustice of liberal, Jewish backed feminism. Though she has been conferred the dignity of the title of “Dame”; and has long been a mainstream actress, she had a starring role in the pornographic movie, “Caligula” (1979) - where flaunting of sexual license moves beyond mere dominance and submission by contrast to dignity and starts to shift toward a sadistic flaunting of sexual opportunity. We might conjecture that some beta males begin to fall by the way-side in the wake of this kind of mainstreaming of cynicism; as institutions that are supposed to uphold accountability for them to have incentive to contribute to the upholding of the system in homeostasis are flouted.

It gets worse. You think its going get better through the 80s but it doesn’t. It gets worse, as females are treated as “saints” for betraying loyalty to their race in the media, working and middle class women start miscegenating as real life “saints”, liberating champions from “White male privilege”. Helen doesn’t mirror that additional sexual/racial psy-op yet.

But by 1991 Mirren is acting the part in Prime Suspect of Jane Tennison - smashing the glass ceiling to take a role in an almost all male department as lead investigator of crimes committed by White men who’d gone nuts and committed literal sexual sadism and violence against women. Its fine that a qualified woman gets the job; its not fine that a man is so disgusting as to resort to such violence; it is also not fine that the kind of balance that I was already proposing to work out gender relations in that year, 1991, was smothered by liberalism and Jewish platforms.

In season one she smashes the glass ceiling but her marriage to her White husband cannot endure divided attention, which increasingly shifts to her successful career.


Determination against the glass ceiling.

And yes, Mulattoes (they call them half caste in England) are benign and helpful - see?
     
This one bravely steps forward to identify the White sadistic murderer.  By season two, Mirren had to be sleeping with a black fellow detective, didn’t she? She asks him what he was saying about “White women liking rough sex?” White men are supposed to be comforted by the fact that she does not repeat the romp with this particular black male. Whites are being “enriched by blacks everywhere” - even by the depth of a black suspect falsely suspected; and “enriched” by Helen’s Mulatto tryst, who by episode’s climactic ending, demonstrates his deservingness by chasing after and apprehending yet another White sadistic killer, who had called him “nigger” and “black bastard” all the while as he was being chased and then caught.

Cuba Gooding & Helen Mirren, Shadowboxer, 2005

Helen Mironoff doesn’t stop there in flaunting the unspoken advantages of being a White female against the unspoken disadvantages of being a White male in the disorder of modernity, a disordering situation rife for the opportunism of Jewish pandering, Islamic imposition and the episodic opportunism of black bio-power; nor are means of correction spoken (by me) acknowledged, they have been smothered - topoi which could otherwise provide corrective guidance to gender injustices, to prevent acts of dominance and submission from exceeding human dignity into sadism, by both genders against the other - are at the hazard, at risk as such, and with no apparent recourse to their justice and means of systemic maintenance in White ethnic genetic interests.



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:30 | #

The female sexual psychology is malleable, and will always respond positively and opportunistically to the circumstances to hand.  While European men are lost to themselves, and cannot act with decision and energy, European women may well tend to act like men, and will certainly find alternative mates among other races.  For European men the solution is identity, and proceeds via action in the cause of that identity.  It isn’t really a complex matter at all.


2

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:44 | #

I agree that bounded group systemic classification - i.e., identity with that - is most fundamental, but part and parcel is an institutionalization and normalization of the means of its homeostasis - which in a humanly lived pace, is going to require the slow, digestible reverence of a place for consideration of protection and reconstruction of that which is necessary to the pattern as sacred to it.


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Apr 2017 00:38 | #

You cannot change the life of peoples with jargonised analysis and a bunch of dictates.  Awake and aware white men ... nationalists ... did not arrive at their hopeful condition by such means, but by the fortunate and accidental arousing in them of a sense of who they are, to whom they belong, how they love and value that “whom”, and what natural interests they share with them.  The whole point of our politics is to generate such an awakening on a mass scale intentionally, not accidentally.  This thing homeostasis is at the end of that process.  It is got by that process, not by top-down dictate.

If there is a place for dictate, it would be post-revolutionary and would function as oversight of the assortation, re-trenchment and re-building that is necessary to preserve our existence.  But the nationalist revolution itself is and has to be identitarian.


4

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Apr 2017 03:02 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:38 | #

GW: You cannot change the life of peoples with jargonised analysis and a bunch of dictates.

DanielS: That not just a straw man, it’s a bunch of straw men. First of all suggesting that there is no description going on here: e.g. most people would agree it is generally descriptive that there is a situation in the west, wherein traditionally, men have disproportionately occupied upper echelons of societal power but have also had more tendency to fall through the bottom of societal power; while women/girls have occupied basic and middle level needs - that that is generally descriptive - that is not a “prescription” not “jargon” not a “dictate.” 

“Jargon”? Have you been talking to Tan Staafl and Carolyn Yeager again?

Nor is there any “jargon” in the post - because “jargon” implies needlessly obscure terms, intended to keep understanding circulating only among a specialized few, while obscuring it for the masses - there are no words here that are not here for a necessary reason and that I cannot explain for anyone who feels that they are somehow too technical, unnecessary or not intuitively graspable.

The “bunch of dictates” is your typical straw man, that I am merely trying to “sheerly prescribe”, to mis-apply concepts as affectations, “a bunch of dictates” to reality.

This is, of course, complete and utter horseshit, as I emphasize that these are relative options; furthermore, that they are also descriptive of our human nature, accommodating both those who can/and cannot easily do one or the other; and would opt for one or another given their natural inclinations.

GW: Awake and aware white men ... nationalists ... did not arrive at their hopeful condition by such means, but by the fortunate and accidental arousing in them of a sense of who they are, to whom they belong, how they love and value that “whom”, and what natural interests they share with them.

DanielS: You raise this criticism on the assumption again, that there is nothing “descriptive” in what I say.

But an option for monogamy came about among the Germans and others, of course, through natural inclination, preference, and an obvious, rational assessment of how it would positively impact the morale of the social pattern. A sufficient percentage of monogamy would also ensure genetic quality of the people, as they would retain some of the more humanly ambitious, speculative sorts, who are attuned to broader patterns, and less a myopic determinism of sex, following its arbitrary dictates and other natural dictates of a brute manner.

GW: The whole point of our politics is to generate such an awakening on a mass scale intentionally, not accidentally.  This thing homeostasis is at the end of that process.  It is got by that process, not by top-down dictate.

DanielS: This “thing” homeostasis means an organism is alive - it has systemic functioning in relation to its environment; without it, it dies where it came into existence at all. It is a part of us from the start and a most fundementally requisite concern for any individual and group.

GW: If there is a place for dictate, it would be post-revolutionary and would function as oversight of the assortation, re-trenchment and re-building that is necessary to preserve our existence.  But the nationalist revolution itself is and has to be identitarian.

DanielS: There is no dictate here. These are hypotheses. And you perform a vast disservice to our capacity for freedom, autonomy and self governance by denying its descriptive aspects and ignoring that these are options - largely descriptive of two natural, but fundamentally different predilections which likely function as different expressions of an overall process of systemic homeostasis - precluding the option of which is the dictate: i.e., you are the one trying to dictate that there should be no acknowledgement of the significance of these very clear differences in natural preferences within our European population groups.

Acknowledging and recognizing the fact that some people would like to be a bit more careful about partner selection, and be monogamous, having that option recognized as legitimate - an attitude toward partner selection which is sacral, because done appropriately, it is instrumental of the pattern of aeons - recognizing that it is possible and natural for humans - some percentage, anyway; that we do not have to subject ourselves to a scientism which would treat that option as “unnatural” or “taken care of by mere natural happenstance” - is not a “dictate”. On the contrary, blocking its discussion under the false claim of its being a “dictate”, or covered by extant “religion” or “sheer nature”, blocking any mature and learned public restatement of its importance by contrast - so that the young can have alleviated the false augury of nightmarish determinism, and those preferring its option not be bullied and destroyed, their talents needlessly quashed by scientism, by those who would expediently and opportunistically exploit the naturalistic fallacy to their detriment - is especially ridiculous when it is in fact, looked upon as an option that a minority will exercise; while the “natural”, non-monogamous majority (or serial monogamous, with intent to be serial), can carry on in their merry way. 

GW, it is apparent that you tend to attack and straw man the best and most important ideas because you are jealous. In a sense, I can understand it because many of the things I discuss are far more important, more useful of deeper concern than what you are doing with your nonsensically one sided ontology project.

You are making of yourself an obstruction to that which we need most and you really need to get over your jealousy, egotism, whatever it is that has you look for any possible defect which is then somehow supposed to justify to yourself a summary dismissal of any need to address the array of very important concerns set out in reasonable hypotheses.

Yes, many of the concerns and conceptual tools that I bring to bear to examine maladaptive or healthy functioning have tended to be more relevant and important than your ontology project - but you should be satisfied with the occasional good and important idea that you squeeze of your project; and not see it as being antagonized by what I am doing, even if what I am doing is a hundred times better and more important than your ontology project shit (yes, I am angry with what you keep doing, your summary dismissals, your dishonest labeling of what I am discussing (explicitly options) as “dictates”, while supposedly all that is needed is your words, or “revlealings” whereas mine are an “utter failure” - ? - because what, because I recognize that science and philosophy are not one and the same? etc). The world will not stop, concerns with how to live life and what to do up against social problems will not stop for your “ontology project.” There is no time for petty jealousy and egotism to obstruct reasonably grounded inquiries, especially when they are not in necessary conflict.


5

Posted by ...as though it was sacred on Sat, 05 Aug 2017 04:21 | #

       

NPR, “Remembering Actress Jeanne Moreau, Icon Of French New Wave Cinema”, 31 July 2017:

On how filming the love scenes in Louis Malle’s The Lovers affected her romantic relationship with the director

My main preoccupation was my relationship with Louis Malle at the time. We were lovers, and I was, I mean, I was passionately in love with him. And immediately [when] we started the film, I had a very strange feeling. It was as though the more I would give to Louis Malle as a director, the more I would open up to that character on screen, the less would be left of our personal relationship, you know? ... I had the impression that as the sand was falling on the lower part [of an hourglass] then the last grain of sand would be the end of our relationship, and I was right. ...

I was giving up something that was very personal and secret and intimate between me and him. And it’s as though it was sacred. And I had the impression I was giving it to him as a film director to go exactly where he wanted to go as a filmmaker, and I had to pay the price. Maybe it’s my Christian background, you know, Catholic background, but it worked that way. So I didn’t bother to think about: Is it going to be scandalous or what? No. I wanted to be as close to the truth, the beautiful truth of lovemaking and sensuality.

And I say “sensuality”, I do not say “sexuality”, because the thing I regret nowadays — it’s that sex has deprived how people relate to sex of their beauties, of that sacred, spiritual, beautiful glory of each human being, just to be considered like a piece of meat, a slice of steak. What is great in making love, it’s that you mix both, the senses and the love, and that’s it.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria.
Previous entry: She’ll make it come true, like she always does: Article 50 has been triggered.

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

The standard accusations don't work there commented in entry '‘White Europe’: 60,000 nationalists march on Poland, call for a ‘White Europe of brotherly nations"' on Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:40. (View)

Michael Gove commented in entry 'Post Brexit-vote roundtable: Leadership contest and the Turkish factor, Part 2.' on Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:26. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – part 1' on Tue, 12 Dec 2017 05:53. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – part 1' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:20. (View)

Morrakiu, dubious character behind Merchant Minute commented in entry 'These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right's Gushing Effusion For Trump?' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:10. (View)

a clue of Islam’s Jewish origins commented in entry 'Jews Created Islam: Ideological capture as a response to constraints of Jewish ethnic exclusivism' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:59. (View)

Katie Hopkins panders to Israel commented in entry ''Western man, stand up for your wives, daughters', Kate Hopkins tweet investigated as inciting hate' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:28. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Hungary and Slovakia Must Admit Refugees as Part of EU Relocation Program, EU Court Rules' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:52. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry '"Miss Grand Myanmar", Shwe Eain Si, stripped of her title for telling truth about crisis in Rakhine' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:31. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Cernovich daggers and shields for the Alt-Right' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:34. (View)

pennine commented in entry 'Kevin Crehan, 35, jailed for leaving bacon in front of mosque then executed by Muslims in his cell' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:34. (View)

Rutgers prof in trouble for posts on Faceberg commented in entry 'Merkel and Zuckerberg are teaming up to attack you on Facebook' on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00. (View)

On the Rise of Mixed-Race Britain commented in entry 'Harry engages old colored woman, threatens to adulterate Royal line's representation of 41,000 years' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:00. (View)

Shamychel commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 06:11. (View)

Ukwuachu commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:59. (View)

Shawn commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:38. (View)

Chafin commented in entry '“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players."' on Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:05. (View)

The Nation: The Alt-Right Looks Left commented in entry 'White Left Imperative to defense, systemic health of European peoples' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:35. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Jez on great form' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 04:34. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Jez on great form' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 04:23. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Netanyahu Concerned Race-mixing to Destroy Liberal Jews and American support' on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 01:42. (View)

Merkel seeks 390,000 Family Reunification Visas commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 04:23. (View)

Flynn, "we're going to rip-up those sanctions and" commented in entry 'Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion Already Exists, Watergate Prosecutors Say' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:44. (View)

(((Lauren Southern))) commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:28. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:20. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 11:34. (View)

Schulz calls for United States of Europe commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:24. (View)

Russia likely Israeli match-maker commented in entry '"Israeli Defense Minister: 'I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders"' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 03:10. (View)

Russia cheated at Sochi, banned at S Korea commented in entry 'N.Korean threat/capacity, shows both determinism & social construction by contrast to southern twin' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 02:52. (View)

Lyon Christmas market cancelled by cost of terror commented in entry 'Berlin terror attack: 12 dead, 49 injured as truck ploughs into crowd at Christmas market' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 01:22. (View)

Islamic plot to kill PM Theresa May foiled commented in entry 'Weston disbands Liberty GB in favor of backing Anne Marie Waters For Britain' on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 01:08. (View)

Cernovich daggers & shields for the alt-right commented in entry 'Cernovich seeds FireMcMaster hashtag propagated by 600 most active Russian Twitter operative handles' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 20:22. (View)

Iceland's green feminist PM commented in entry 'Occupy Hambach forest, another step toward pervasive ecology' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:17. (View)

Trump plans to move US Embassy to Jerusalem commented in entry '"Israeli Defense Minister: 'I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders"' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:08. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:51. (View)

affection-tone