Hillary's health problems....

Apparently, Hillary Clinton got "overheated" in NYC although the temperature was below 80 degrees. Hillary had to be taken out of 911 memorial and as the police reported, "they threw her in like she was a side of beef". The video confirms their testimony. 

A few hours later, the media reported that her innocent cough was apparently due to pneumonia, and not allergy. And moreover, her schedule is probably changing in order to accommodate her health issues. 

Wait, health issues?! The most amazing thing was that all liberal "reporters" proclaimed for weeks that anyone questioning her health was a crazy evil misogynistic right-wingers  and any suspicion that Hillary's cough was not due to a simple allergy was an evil conspiracy. And now they repeat after Hillary's doctor - "it's just pneumonia, nothing else." Well, it's nothing else until the next week... 

So how come that evil conservatives so easily diagnosed that her cough was NOT caused by allergy - and all the smartest liberal doctors in the world could not? 

Or maybe, "We 've always been at war with Eastasia", and it was always "pneumonia", and everyone knew about it? 



This whole situation with Hillary Clinton reminds of an old Monty Python sketch. I wonder if Hillary wins the elections this November, and a few weeks later the American people feel as an unfortunate character, who found out he bought a dead parrot. 

Well, maybe it's not dead, maybe Hillary is only resting. What a beautiful plumage!

British people vote to leave EU

A few quick points.

1. It's rather obvious that EU is unsustainable. The structure of the union is undemocratic, the governing body is sclerotic, and the people who run it consistently make stupid decisions. And what's worse, they despise the working men and women. It's only a matter of time before this huge carbuncle explodes. And the longer people wait, the worse it will it. This is why I believe the British people made the right to decision to leave the EU.

2. Few people remember, but before Reagan was voted president in 1980, Margaret Thatcher was elected the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1979. In other words, Britain was the first major country to push back against statism in the civilized world post WW2. Today, Britain votes against liberal elites and the government bureaucracy. Tomorrow - Americans take back their country.

It's not yet late today to do what's right - but it may be too late tomorrow.

Should conservatives use violence against DNC protestors?

The real question is actually somewhat different - why shouldn't they?

Back in 2004, Democrats approved of the violence against protestors in their rallies. In fact, they even celebrated it. Here is the relevant story:

Al Franken Knocks Down Dean Heckler

January 27, 2004 -- EXETER, N.H. - Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.

The tussle left Franken's trademark thick-rim glasses broken, but he said he was not injured.

Franken - who seemed in a state of shock and out of breath after the incident - was helped back to his feet by several people who watched the tussle. Police arrived soon after.

"I got down low and took his legs out," said Franken afterwards.

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

The trouble started when several supporters of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche began shouting accusations at Dean.

Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.

"I was a wrestler so I used a wrestling move," Franken said.

Note that Al Franken, a senator from Minnesota was never criticized by the media, nor did was he prosecuted. I don't remember hearing any liberals shaming him for what he did, nor calling him a Nazi. So, the next time a liberal tells you about people attacking liberal protestors at Trump's rallies - turn the table around. Ask them - why shouldn't the republicans behave as Al Franken? 

P.S. Don't mistake my anti-left-wing post for support of Donald Trump. I believe he is not a good candidate, and I don't expect him to be a good president. But that does not mean I support liberal fascism. 

Naziism and Communism

It's quite often that you see a liberal asserting that Naziism (fascism) and Communism (socialism) are exact opposites, socially, economically, politically. In fact it's a matter of deep faith among liberals that Hitler was a hard-right, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-left fanatic. Well, the reality is somewhat more complicated as many people who survived the communism would ascertain. 

Some months ago I was debating a liberal on this exact topic. I believe my reply to him could be educational to some of my audience. 

"The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis."

There are plenty of works from historians and economists which show the similarities between different types of socialism - national socialism, communism, "democratic socialism", "socialism with a human face", "Juche", etc.. The similarities are obvious to anyone who lived in the socialist countries.

"Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively."

This argument is wrong on many levels. Nazis, socialists and communists competed for the same electorate and tried to appeal to them with similar slogans. The fact that they hated each other is understandable (and even inevitable). You hate most the people who you consider to be betraying your cause, the people closest to you. Moreover, different socialist movements were in direct competition.
For example, before WW2, Stalin called German social democrats "social fascists". German communists and Nazis were fighting each other on the streets of Germany - just like the Crips and the Bloods are fighting today on the streets of Los Angeles. In 1939, the communists and the Nazis became best friends - if only for a short duration.
This is similar to Al Capone making deals with some gangsters, and murdering hundreds of other gangsters. Of course, no one would claim that on this basis that al Capone was not a gangster himself.

And let's not forget that all communist regimes killed plenty of communists - Stalin murdered almost all of Lenin's "Old Guard", as well as sent hundreds of German communists to the Gestapo. The original revolutionaries did not escape the terror from Mao either.
 

"The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936."

Hundreds of thousands of people accused of "Trotskyist activities" in the USSR were sent to forced labor camps. Among them was my grandmother, Basya Arkuzskaya, who was punished with a 10 year sentence - even though she had no idea who Trotsky was. Indeed, totalitarian regimes silence, imprison and kill anyone who is suspected of disloyalty. It is no surprise that anyone, no matter how "socialist", was in danger of the communist/Nazi attack. Totalitarian regimes have long memories, and if it was found you were in the wrong crowd (competing socialist group), you had a good chance of being sent to the Gulag.
 

"In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US."

That's a rather strong statement. So, what are the names of those multiple "leading capitalists" who supported Naziism? Amazingly, in your post you provide only one name - Henry Ford. Well, for one, Henry Ford is always given as an example of a "smart capitalist" by American liberals. His bizarre theories about worker wages are cited often in USA by the NYT and other publications with approval. What's is even more ironic is that Henry Ford was a big friend of Stalinist USSR, which means he was not really against socialism. He was a great friend of the communist dictator Stalin too: "In 1944, according to Brinkley, Stalin wrote to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling Henry Ford “one of the world’s greatest industrialists” and expressing the hope that “may God preserve him.”
 

"Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination."

While Stalin put his people in charge of individual companies, Hitler decided to keep the existing experts and owners, but only as long as they satisfied his needs. This was a purely tactical difference, Stalin nationalized industries, while Hitler nationalized people.

Amazingly, all socialists who came to power eventually became racist, killed a lot of socialists, and targeted millions of people for extermination based on their ethnic, religious and sexual background. The Stalinist regime, Maoists, Pol Pot, Ceausescu , the whole family of Kims in North Korea, Honeker, and all others easily fit in this description. Heck, even good old Lenin himself killed plenty of socialists who were not communists. And yes, anyone who lived in the USSR or any leftist regimes knows about  the Soviet hatred of the Jews and other minority groups, and surely you know about Stalin exterminating or exiling millions of minorities - Germans from Volga, Chechens, and many, may others. Same fate was also met by minorities in Mao's China, communist Vietnam, Pol Pot's Cambodia and the like. The list is too long to show here.
 

"Hitler banned labor unions (also a favorite target of American conservatives), which he saw as a potential threat to his regime."

None of the socialist regimes - from Lenin to Mao allowed independent unions. Hitler's position towards unions was indistinguishable from the position of the socialists before and after him - a vehicle to destroy the existing government, and later use as a socialist weapon to control the worker.

BTW, union membership in the USSR was compulsory, and unions were  controlled by the communist apparatus.
 

"Hitler conducted a holocaust against gay men too - killing many thousands of them in concentration camps. He also banned abortion..."

Homosexuality was illegal in the USSR, as well as the rest of the communist block. Until recently, it was punished in Cuba with years of imprisonment in the labor camps. Abortions were illegal in the USSR during Stalin, while in communist China they were (and are) compulsory. In other words, Hitler's position on abortions and homosexuals was very similar to the position of the socialists before and after him.

Let me stop here. The problem with many liberals is that they have no historic point of reference, they don't fully comprehend the socialist ideas, and don't comprehend how much Hitler borrowed from them. 

In fact, one can claim there are two camps - one which wants liberty for all, and the second which believes we all exist for the sake of the collective - the nation, the common good, the race, ethnicity, class. This is why Hitler's top diplomats wrote that "they felt as if they were with their party comrades" when they visited Stalin's Kremlin. There is little conceptual difference between Stalin's socialism and Hitler's socialism - both were based on the idea that was expressed by the Nazis in their program: "common good above private profit", a slogan which underlines the philosophy of communists, Nazis, socialists and American so-called liberals.

And one more thing. Somehow, liberals always forget to mention Winston Churchill, a leading anti-communist and anti-Nazi. While the liberals were busy appeasing the Nazis, he was on the forefront on fighting them. Should I assume that this is due to ignorance or malice?

Next time a liberal tries to argue with you

A few weeks ago, Vox, a media outlet for liberal intellectuals published a rather amusing article, entitled "Next time someone tells you "all lives matter," show them this cartoon". The cartoon they assumed was the strongest argument in defense of clearly racist slogan "Black lives matter" is shown below:

Now, it is rather amusing that the liberal intellectuals choose cartoons as their strongest arguments - although not terribly surprising. 

Well, I personally prefer to use logical arguments, and appeal to logic and reason - instead of using silly pictures to prove my point, but given that the other side of the aisle is not intelligent enough, I decided to lower the complexity of my argument to their level. Shown below is a nice cartoon that encapsulates the stupidity of liberal ideology. The photo depicts the demonstration by the so-called "Occupy Wall Street", a hard-left movement - and its interaction (so to speak) with the police. The capture to the cartoon is quote amusing.