Could the recent Israeli right-wing shift permit a more dramatic Western right-wing shift which can no longer be tamed?

angel_n

angel_n

Other Christian
The 'event' of September 11th sparked a Western right-wing shift which lasted for several years in order to justify US military operations in the Middle East

October 7th once again has permitted a more vocal albeit less palpable Western right-wing shift in harmony with the recent Israeli right-wing politcal shift.

Under the assumption that as long as Israel will conduct expansionist military operations in the Middle East, the Western right-wing will keep on growing, could there arise a point in Western politics where the right-wing will reach a critical mass where it can no longer be contained?
 
angel_n said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Israeli right wing philosophy is hardcore zionism, or Jewish supremacism, largely built on leveraging US blood and treasure allowing Israel to dominate the Middle East and destroy Israeli enemies like Iraq, Syria or Iran using American military power and money. True American nationalism is America First isolationism, where American resources go to Americans as opposed to fighting Forever Wars on behalf of Israel. So the two sides are fundamental opposites.
 
angel_n said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Why would it?

What is the evidence?

To a very large degree, the entire left/right paradigm and certainly the idea of universal suffrage democracy with political parties is a system designed for Jewish control.

Historically, the major issues societies faced were not "left" vs "right" issues.

The decision to colonize the new world was not "conservative" nor "liberal."

The decision to conduct the Crusades was not "liberal" or "conservative."

The Chinese discovery of gunpowder was not "liberal" or "conservative."

Don't believe me? Think of a historical example of one group in a nation pushing a "leftist" idea and another pushing a "right" idea that wasn't Jewish subversion.

Look at the opposing sides in the formation of the US. They were federalists and anti-federalists. You could argue for or against either side, but you can't really call one "right' or "left" -- they are simply different solutions to a problem. I don't really see examples in America of what we would term "liberalism" until the 1900s, and the women's suffrage movement, World War 1, the repudiation of the gold standard, etc. were all Jewish movements.

Left and right are labels applied to a system of Jewish supremacy.

Hint: This is why you can even make the silly DR3 (Dems R the Real Racists) arguments at all--because neither party believed in these ridiculous ideologies like equality or diversity or social constructs or racism. They simply had different methods of solving problems, but were not "left" or "right."

The fake "right/left" options we have are simply two Jewish proposals to our problems.
Option A is require paperwork and fees to obtain a legal immigrant status; Option B is allow illegal immigration.
Option A is require trannies to wait until 2nd grade to transition; Option B is allow transition of preschoolers
Option A is make girls wanting abortions order a pill through the USPS; Option B is giving them that plus the ability to visit a surgeon.
Option A is borrow and spend. Option B is tax and spend.
Option A is pay a corporation exhorbitant fees to obtain an extremely weak health insurance plan, essentially forgoing all but the most basic of health treatment options. Option B is do without healthcare completely until you reach age 65. (Unless you are a minority, then both options will treat you for free)

Every option gives you the same outcome.

omfydxcjt3u31.png


There is no such thing as a "good" outcome from such a system.

Anyway, a "right wing Jewish system" sounds like a horrible nightmare to me.
It would be a world of open racism, genocide, greed, corruption, monetization of everything, and total censorship.
Even the things people are posting above about a "conservative" system like "walls"--no one wants to live in a place where you need walls (and no one really uses them but Weimerica and Israel).

In old America you didn't even need to lock your door. Walls, locks, and guns are things we need because of Jews.
 
Last edited:
Rax Moscow said:
In old America you didn't even need to lock your door. Walls, locks, and guns are things we need because of Jews.
Click to expand...

I was with you up until this: the Wild West and frontier America up until the 20th century was very wild. Gunslingers, gangs, will rob you. Jews don’t have a monopoly on theft and crime. The lawmen of the time weren’t much better than the con men.
 
Rax Moscow said:
Why would it?

What is the evidence?

To a very large degree, the entire left/right paradigm and certainly the idea of universal suffrage democracy with political parties is a system designed for Jewish control.

Historically, the major issues societies faced were not "left" vs "right" issues.

The decision to colonize the new world was not "conservative" nor "liberal."

The decision to conduct the Crusades was not "liberal" or "conservative."

The Chinese discovery of gunpowder was not "liberal" or "conservative."

Don't believe me? Think of a historical example of one group in a nation pushing a "leftist" idea and another pushing a "right" idea that wasn't Jewish subversion.

Look at the opposing sides in the formation of the US. They were federalists and anti-federalists. You could argue for or against either side, but you can't really call one "right' or "left" -- they are simply different solutions to a problem. I don't really see examples in America of what we would term "liberalism" until the 1900s, and the women's suffrage movement, World War 1, the repudiation of the gold standard, etc. were all Jewish movements.

Left and right are labels applied to a system of Jewish supremacy.

Hint: This is why you can even make the silly DR3 (Dems R the Real Racists) arguments at all--because neither party believed in these ridiculous ideologies like equality or diversity or social constructs or racism. They simply had different methods of solving problems, but were not "left" or "right."

The fake "right/left" options we have are simply two Jewish proposals to our problems.
Option A is require paperwork and fees to obtain a legal immigrant status; Option B is allow illegal immigration.
Option A is require trannies to wait until 2nd grade to transition; Option B is allow transition of preschoolers
Option A is make girls wanting abortions order a pill through the USPS; Option B is giving them that plus the ability to visit a surgeon.
Option A is borrow and spend. Option B is tax and spend.
Option A is pay a corporation exhorbitant fees to obtain an extremely weak health insurance plan, essentially forgoing all but the most basic of health treatment options. Option B is do without healthcare completely until you reach age 65. (Unless you are a minority, then both options will treat you for free)

Every option gives you the same outcome.

omfydxcjt3u31.png


There is no such thing as a "good" outcome from such a system.

Anyway, a "right wing Jewish system" sounds like a horrible nightmare to me.
It would be a world of open racism, genocide, greed, corruption, monetization of everything, and total censorship.
Even the things people are posting above about a "conservative" system like "walls"--no one wants to live in a place where you need walls (and no one really uses them but Weimerica and Israel).

In old America you didn't even need to lock your door. Walls, locks, and guns are things we need because of Jews.
Click to expand...
This is outstanding. I never saw it this way. The very idea of one faction in society being on the left is only a very recent thing. All of the A/B examples you came up with are very accurate as well. There is no side currently rejecting both, as would be the correct choice.
 
Of course wilderness dangers are different from big city crime dangers. Handguns vs rifles.

Not many people today need to worry about scalpings or Mastodon attacks.

And yes of course there is corruption from white people in the past, present and future.
 
We all need guns. Especially now and it's one thing we're not allowed to use (sure you can own one but will be thrown in jail for the rest of your life if you use it in your own home to defend your family from an invading jogger or rogue cop).
 
Thomas More said:
This is outstanding. I never saw it this way. The very idea of one faction in society being on the left is only a very recent thing. All of the A/B examples you came up with are very accurate as well. There is no side currently rejecting both, as would be the correct choice.
Click to expand...
It's the Hegelian Dialectic applied to electoral democracy.

Remember, as AH said, democracy is rule by media.

One quick and dirty test you can use is "is media allowing discussion on this?"
If so, it is fake.

This is how I knew Donald Trump was not going to be a change for America. The media would have never covered him to the insane degree that they did, if he was real. He would be silenced the way any other voice speaking truth is.

It's why we are only talking about immigration now that it's a done deal that whites are a minority, even if you stopped ALL immigration.

It's why the US government silenced Father Coughlin (by illegally refusing to deliver his newsletters through the US mail, freedom of speech and freedom of religion be damned). It's why both left and right censor the same topics, or do the "limited hangout" thing, where, for example, if you care about the environment, the only thing you're allowed to talk about is cow farts and CO2, not chemicals and plastics and industrial pollutants.

Was Uncle Ted left or right wing?
What about the NSDAP?
Henry Wallace?
RFK Jr?
Tulsi Gabbard?
Ross Perot?
Huey Long?
George Wallace?
The Democratic Party, prior to 1965?

The reality is those things were neither left, nor right, but simply hitting at *truths* which is why they must be censored at all costs.
Or to put it another way, they were POPULISTS.

Here's a profile of a British populist who is serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Manchester area:

socially conservative
vocally criticizes Israel and Zionism
campaigned against the western war against Iraq, worked with the Baathists in Iraq
supported the UK leaving the EU (Brexit)
Opposes Scottish independence (and is Scottish)
Opposes western intervention in Ukraine
Appeared regularly on Russia Today and PressTV
Opposes alcohol consumption
Strongly regrets his promiscuous past, which he blames in large part on society
Has worked with self described British Communists
Headed a charity organization combating world poverty
Politically welcomes both far right and far left supporters
Was booted from the Labour Party, and won one of the largest landside election victories in modern history
Defends Julian Assange
Has refused to apologize to woke critics on multiple occasions
Openly names the Jew
Has endorsed both Labour and Conservative candidates
Supports Hezbollah and Hamas
Supports Bashar al-Assad
Supports Iran
Hong Kong belongs to China
Has called out the fake news of supposed Uigher concentration camps in China
North Korea is Best Korea
Supported Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez
Criticizes Saudi Arabia and India
Strongly opposes abortion
Sued a Jewish radio station that slandered him and won, shutting it down permanently
Considers Tony Blair a war criminal, advocates for his prosecution
Has 6 children
Is Roman Catholic

What do you call such a person, other than populist? Are they left or right?

It's a moniker only applied to shills.

Here he is after his recent victory. One of the most enjoyable political interviews I've seen.
 
Rax, absolutely. The key is always Christ in my experience. Those who consistently follow Christ will naturally be outside of chew paradigms.

Remember, the entire "left/right" divide is a Talmudic concept created in the aftermath of the French Revolution, which executed 10's of thousands of Catholic Priests. Only once the Church was gone was it possible to establish chew style politics of Hegelian left/right nonsense.

On the left, you had the poor chews who wanted revolution and a seat at the table with the big boys, while on the right you had old money from Rothschilds who wanted to protect what they had. "Left/Right" is based upon a rejection and murder of Christ and His Church, so people can obsess over issue most dear to Chews: Money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top