CIA’s George Tenet, Drunk in Bandar’s Pool, Screaming about Jews
An enraged George Tenet, drunk on scotch, flailing about Prince Bandar’s Riyadh pool, screaming about the Bush Administration officials who were just then trying to pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him:
“They’re setting me up. The bastards are setting me up,” Tenet said, but “I am not going to take the hit.”
“According to one witness, he mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and their alignment with the rlght wing of Israel’s political establishment, referring to them with exaxperation as, “the Jews.”
Since I’m not a Nazi, nor “right wing” nor “left wing” I don’t actually care – I’m just pro-White*. But this is an interesting discussion on whether or not “Nazis” aka “National Socialists” are “right wing” or “left wing.
* Politically, I’m a liberal moderate and essentially always have been. I recognize that some socially conservative stances are all but mandatory for a civilized society (monogamy, patriarchy, sexual restraint.) I recognize that capitalism and/or free markets are a superior way to distribute labor and wealth compared to a large centralized bureaucracy, but also recognize that capitalism/markets have a scope – in the middle. Capitalism/markets do not work in the very small (the family/clan, the village) nor in the very large (national infrastructure, the military – including defense manufacturing.)
I am a biological nationalist; as Richard Spencer would say: a) race exists, b) race matters, c) race is the foundation of identity. In America, our ethnicity is “White” as opposed to Black, Red, and Brown (our race is Caucasian) – obviously, European ethnicities are not the same, they are English, French, Polish, etc. Hence, I am a White Nationalist. Nationalism is primarily a blood and soil ideology, the state, in theory and practice, should be a pragmatic and cooperative system that works in the interests of the nation, the people.
As a liberal in the tradition of the American Founding Fathers, the Whigs, and ultimately the Enlightenment, I subscribe to Anglo-Saxon ideals of liberty: free speech, free press, free religion, free markets. Fascism is not in my character nor the character of my people, not to mention fascism is essentially a temporary phase of formerly Catholic countries going through industrialization and mass electronic media at a later time than their neighbors.
Some “national socialism,” in the broadest sense of the term, is not particularly problematic for me – in a White Republic of moderate size (say, US state sized) I would have no problem with a single payer health care system or even a mandatory civil service/draft type program. Orthodox libertarians would be horrified, but orthodox libertarianism is a Jewish ideology of Eastern European countries and not the same thing as Anglo-Saxon liberty. I side with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, not Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum (revolutionary Zionist nom-de-plume, “Ayn Rand.”)
The closest thing to libertarianism/anarchism I respect is Lysander Spooner.
While they debunk the particulars of “Pizzagate” and suggest it was a partisan psy-op against the Clinton campaign (very likely) they do not discount the notion of high level “sex cults” which may include pedophilia, torture, and perhaps even actual murder.
It seems quite likely that such “elite” cults do, in fact, exist. But the “conspiracy theories” of such cults are likely an example of regular people displacing their own demons, as it were, on the elites.
People are greedy; greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Average normal people are greedy, but their greed is small, because their lives are small. Therefore it’s normal and understandable. The rich, the Wall Street elites, they are greedy too, but of course their greed is much larger in scope, much more flashy, much more ostentatious.
As no less than Adolph Hitler pointed out about Communist propaganda: people might be skeptical of a little lie, because in their lives they tell little lies all the time. But they wouldn’t imagine telling big lies – lies as big as the Communists told – because those aren’t the kind of little lies they tell in their own lives.
There’s an amusing song by country singer Hank Williams called “Naked Women and Beer.” Some of the lyrics:
Now we have got some strange laws
The most hypocritical thing around these days
Cause where I live in Tennessee
Why an auto parts calander
Hey thats pornography
But go right down the road, read what the sign says
Naked women and beer
We got it all in here
For your eyes and your ears
They show it all in the clear
Way up north and down south
Whoo, somebody shut my mouth
If you want to find a “cult” that engages in public sexual acts, where women’s youth is fetishized, women wearing schoolgirl outfits, something that may even include a little “kink” and a little S&M?
You don’t have to look to the wealthy elites in Manhattan and London. Just go to any suburb anywhere in America and go to your local, working and middle class strip club. It’s all there.
Exploitation of youth? Strippers are at the height of their demand the day after their 18th birthday – that’s a teenager. Child molestation? What kind of girls become strippers and porn stars anyway? The stereotype is that they were molested, likely by their father, step-father, or an uncle. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Some women may claim to have been sexually absued by a powerful cult of politicians, “high society” men, and elites – but the more likely case is that it was men of their own class, their own social circles, and their own families.
But it’s comforting for people to project such things on far away “elites.” Their sex clubs are likely cleaner with better lighting, and the participants better dressed, not the run down strip club in a warehouse district on the wrong side of town.
But isn’t the substance the same?
The feminists in the 1960s and 1970s rebelled against beauty pageants, complaining that women were lined up “like cattle” their bodies judged on their “parts” like a side of beef. Weren’t they right? Isn’t that exactly how it operates? Feminists complain that men “objectify” women’s bodies – isn’t that true? The neurology shows that men’s brains light up in the same places when looking at women as they do when contemplating … power tools. They are literally thinking about them objectively and how they will “use” them, as tools, for a specific end.
Traditional societies have always understood this, and Western societies in particular have always understood this, which is why sex was deemed a private affair, why monogamy was encouraged, why boys and girls were raised separately, why segregation of the sexes was the rule, and pornography and sexual imagery was forbidden. Why women and girls were to dress modestly, so as not to tempt men and boys.
When I was young the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, a little six year old girl, was the tabloid story of the year. What made the story so salacious is that her parents – an upper class family active in local GOP party politics – had entered her in “baby beauty pageants” which were considered by most to over-sexualize little girls. Yet the participants – the mothers, usually – seemed to be fine with this and encouraged and/or forced their daughters – children – to participate.
In 2017, the Current Year, more conservative leaning mothers are constantly complaining that they can’t even go to the mall and find modest apparel for the daughters, even daughters many years away from puberty. And anyone who has ever known a teenage girl going through puberty knows that you essentially have to FORCE them to wear modest attire, because they want nothing more than to show off their new bodies and get the attention of boys, and men. Men objectify, and women want to be objectified. It starts the summer boys start growing body hair and girls get their periods.
The sexual revolutionaries were completely correct that there was a “double face” regarding sex, that underneath the pleasant and modest public faces humans are a cauldron of sexuality. But there was no hypocrisy here, the public and private spheres were kept separate precisely because of the power of sex.
“Liberals” love to complain that American TV shows a lot of violence but won’t allow a woman’s bare breast on TV. But those differing standards for sex and violence exist for a reason. Little boys will start play fighting as toddlers – and that play fighting can turn to real fighting at the drop of a hat. Boys are taught to control their violent urges from childhood on – we use sports as a way for boys to channel their violent and competitive urges in a safe and socially constructive way.
We put our daughters in ballet, gymnastics, and dance classes to channel their own sexual – and competitive – urges in a safe and socially constructive way. We try to postpone sexual maturity for our children as long as possible so their brains have a chance to catch up to their bodies. There is nothing hypocritical about this – it’s the basis of civilization. It’s what makes us different than animals. The evolutionary reason that human babies are helpless at birth is so mothers can pass a child through their birth canals while the baby’s head is still small – child bearing is painful enough as it is. This allows humans to develop bigger skulls that house bigger brains.
Of course “the elites” engage in “Eyes Wide Shut” style sexual parties. Of course the elites recruit young girls – very young girls, teenage girls – as sexual objects and sexual playthings. It’s not because they are elites – it’s because they are humans. Average regular middle and working class men do the same thing when they have a chance – and average, regular middle and working class women fantasize about being those sexual objects and sexual playthings.
And of course, quite often, these normal sexual dynamics are sometimes perverted into the fetishization of youth and the sexualization of violence. In BDSM it is called “power exchange” because – just like electrical current – the potential difference is what makes the electricity flow, the potential difference is what causes electrical current – just like the power difference between men and women is that spark and the charge of sexuality. The fact that a man is so much stronger than a woman is what women find sexually appealing in men. The fact that a woman is so much more vulnerable – and delicate – than a man is what men find sexually appealing in a woman. S&M is just that dynamic with the addition of costumes and props.
But when one class is much higher on the power scale than another class, the inevitable happens – instead of companionate marriage, the powerful men use the women of the oppressed class as concubines. The moronic “right wingers” who are constantly opposing “egalitarianism” will simply or ignore or excuse this. When a King of England did NOT have mistresses, his subjects assumed he was a sodomite. Where does socially conservative monogamy go when the elite class uses the women of the lower classes as, essentially, sex slaves? That is how you get a degenerate elite. That is how you get – in 2002 Italy, in fact, when Burlesconi was President – poor men pimping their underage daughters off to lecherous old wealthy men. That is how a girl’s youth becomes a product to sell, a way to feed the family.
Is that was the “anti-egalitarians” want? Which NRx “neo-reactionary” “social conservative” father is the first to auction his teenage daughter’s virginity off to the “God Emperor King” because “monarchy is better than democracy?” Which “conservative right wing” man is going to hold his shoes while walking around the castle as the King gets first night privileges with his new bride?
All of a sudden “all men are created equal” has something to recommend it, yes? All of a sudden the idea that the law binds both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, has a certain logic behind it, does it not? If that is not what right wing religious people mean by “objective morality” than what good are they? If the gods are not just, why worship them?
The origin of sex cults, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and the fetishization of youth is when there is TOO MUCH INEQUALITY. When societies are divided among the powerful and the powerless. In fact, one of the reason we need to have mono-racial societies – even mono-ethnic societies – is precisely because races, ethnicities, and individuals are NOT, by nature, equal. So separating these unequal humans into their own tribes where there is some semblance of a rough equality is the only way to protect your daughters from sex cults, pedophiles, and pimps.
Equality is what makes your daughter a wife, not a whore. Racially homogeneous – and roughly egalitarian – societies are what gives your daughter the chance at being a respected mother as opposed to a disposable concubine. It’s what allows your son to have an exclusive wife and not another man’s sloppy seconds.
And it’s what allows your grandchildren to be citizens, not slaves; heirs, not bastards, patriarchs, not cannon fodder.
My top level critique of the collectivist-individualist left-right spectrum is that it is purely ideological and is a single-axis theory. Single-axis causality is rare in nature, usually causes are more complex
The reason I think 3-Estates theory is more explanatory is because it is a biological theory, incorporating evolutionary psychology.
My contention is that essentially, the Left is female and the Right is elder males and Libertarians are younger males.
Individualism (libertarian/merchant/bourgeoise): This is the position of younger males in society who advocate to be free to produce and to keep their production. (See the evo-psych biological drive behind the ideological position?) Time scope is mid-term (next few harvests).
Conservative (aristocratic/warrior/judge): This is the position of older men of the tribe who see the entire society as a breeding population which must be maintained. These men are concerned with taking production and investing it in defense, building and manning the walls against invaders. Time scope is long term (permanent survival of the group). Notice that this group orientation would be deemed COLLECTIVIST under your proposed conception.
Progressive (priest/church/female/old/poor): This is the position of females, who care for their children and others. They rely on a network of women (historically) for survival, and so value consensus over empirical fact. Time scope is short term (baby needs food and clothes today). Notice that this groups orientation is what we really mean when we use the world COLLECTIVIST.
In short, I argue that individualism is not the ‘true right’, nor are those who are interested in collective self-defense somehow ‘the left’. Those who are entirely dependent upon the production provided by young males and the defense provided by the elder males, are the ‘true left’.
Last month I pointed out how the SJWs are attempting to undermine the American Freemasonry fraternity and suggested White Nationalism should instead take over the old Mason lodges.
A few weeks later and there’s a new push by SJWs to allow “female to male transgenders” into the Lodge. It should go without saying that SJWs don’t give a damn about “trangendered” people, it’s just a way to destroy the Mannerbund, a male society that has some tradition behind it. They don’t want men to have fraternities because fraternities – the Mannerbund – form the core of civilization.
Jesus-believing U.S. Libertarian Constitutionalist EXPOSING Satanic globalist SCAMS & TRAITORS in Kansas, America, and the World at-large. Jesus and BIBLE Truth SHALL PREVAIL!
