28 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in anti-White laws, anti-White themes, Australia, guns & goy controllers, guns and gun issues, War On White Males, War On White People at 2:03 pm | Permanent Link

In the West, the shooting sports are 99.5% White, so this is a de facto action against White people only. What are you gonna do, White man, when you are completely disarmed and there’s a gang of brown people breaking into your home (just like in South Africa now)? Right: you’re gonna do nothing; maybe you can offer them some pretzels and they’ll go away…


27 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in divorce, divorce laws, no-fault divorce, Socrates, War On White Males, War On White People, Western civilization, Western culture, Western decline, women, women and divorce at 12:59 pm | Permanent Link

Trivia: every “bad kid” I ever knew came from a broken home (divorced parents). Every “good kid” I ever knew came from an intact, loving home. Divorce has had a horrible impact on Western culture. It used to be difficult to get a divorce. But now, it’s very easy to get one. Thanks, Jews. More trivia: women file for divorce much more often than men do, i.e., 69% of the time, and that number is probably too low given who usually compiles male/female relationship statistics.


26 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in "gay pride", "gay", homosexual diseases, homosexual themes, homosexuals, jewed culture, queer "pride" flag, Socrates at 1:49 pm | Permanent Link

The Jews and their useful idiots, the leftists and the fags, don’t build things. They only destroy things or pervert/subvert things. A good example of the latter is the Jewish-built queer lobby co-opting the rainbow as its symbol [1].

Rainbows used to be happy symbols of good luck, of hope, of innocence, of beauty, parts of dreams inside of children’s heads. But now the rainbow has been perverted/subverted by the queers. The rainbow is now creepy and ugly. When I see a rainbow now, I want to vomit.

The rainbow symbol should now be called “the rainblow.” (Just saying that aloud will probably “turn on” the fags).

The queers chose the rainbow as their symbol purely out of spite and hatred of normal people – sort of like the fat, drooling neighborhood bully who stomps on a puppy simply because he knows that normal, decent people like puppies.

Goodbye, rainbows. You’re dead to me. You’ve been permanently “queered.”

[1] the rainbow flag and symbol is now known as the “pride flag/symbol”; despite their claims, fags aren’t proud of being freaks and they of course have nothing in common with rainbows. They aren’t hopeful, happy or innocent people. They are, in fact, the exact opposite of rainbows. They are strange, unhappy, unhealthy people. The queers should have chosen the black flag, or the skull and crossbones, as their symbol

25 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' crimes, 'hate' laws, federal government, federal laws, federal power, government mandates, government power, government tyranny, Orwell, Socrates, thought crime at 12:58 pm | Permanent Link

This joint resolution reads: Congress “calls on Federal law enforcement officials, working with State and local officials…to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States”[1].

It seems that no actual hate “crime” has to occur now: just saying bad things about Jews, Muslims and other minorities can be a “crime.” What exactly is the difference between a hate “crime” and a hate “incident”? Is an “incident” a crime, or not? This needs explaining. Also, America already has various federal “hate crime” laws [2]. Why are more of those laws needed? Furthermore, Whites are now a minority in California; will this law be used to protect the Whites who live there? (Nope!). Lastly, “hate crime” laws are unconstitutional, because they produce different punishments for the exact same crime.


More [Here].

[1] “Generally, there is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill” — Wikipedia

[2] some current federal “hate crime” laws are: the Civil Rights Act of 1968; the Violence Against Women Act; the Church Arson Prevention Act; the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

24 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in 'White privilege', China, Chinese communism, communism, communism in America, Cultural Marxism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, political correctness, Socrates, War On White People at 3:46 pm | Permanent Link

I keep telling people that communism isn’t dead and that it’s right here in the USA, but few of them believe me. This confession/apology stuff is very similar to what was found in communist China: under Chairman Mao’s leadership, Chinese citizens were forced to publicly admit/confess to and apologize for various political “crimes” [1][2].


[1] About the so-called “struggle sessions” in communist China: “In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed…Lately, the term “struggle session” has come to be applied to any scene where victims are publicly badgered to confess imaginary crimes under the pretext of self-criticism and rehabilitation.” — Wikipedia

[2] China’s communism is, or was, Marxist/Leninist, although it was different from Soviet communism since it was peasant/farmer/agriculture based

23 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in Brown Man, Cultural Marxism, egalitarianism, jewed culture, Jewish behavior versus White behavior, Jewish chosenness, Jewish Halakhic law, Jewish World Revolution, Jews-as-godlike, judaism, Karl Marx, Marx, Marxism, New World Order, NWO, Shahak, Socrates at 2:02 pm | Permanent Link

Says the Jewish CEO Zuckerberg: “That’s how we’ll bring the world closer together. We have to build a world where we care about a person in India or China or Nigeria or Mexico as much as a person here.”

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin would love such a world! Question: when the NWO comes, which “special” tribe is going to rule over the billions of Brown fools? Answer: God’s Chosen People, of course [1].


[1] under Jewish religious law (Halakhic law), gentiles (i.e., non-Jews) are considered to be like animals, and animals, of course, must be ruled by humans: Says a Jewish professor: “Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth.” — the late Jewish author Israel Shahak

22 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in Affirmative Action, Affirmative Action vs. merit, Celler, Celler Rights Laws, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Cultural Marxism, feminism, Feminists, feminization of the West, jewed culture, Jewed workplaces, nation-building/nation-wrecking, Socrates, tv, TV culture, tv shows, War On White Males, women and 'equality', women in the workforce at 3:18 pm | Permanent Link

It’s yet another feminist TV show. It’s called “The Bold Type.” It’s about young career-chicks in the big city – like you’ve never seen that setup before. The first episode is titled, “We Smash the Patriarchy.” Really? You smash the evil, oppressive, White male patriarchy, girlies? I doubt that you smash it, because it’s 90% smashed already, thanks to Affirmative Action [1] and the Jewish-led feminist movement. It’s sort of funny: your average woman doesn’t even know how to use a screwdriver, yet she struts around like she helped build the world. No, you didn’t help build it, Susie Q. Now stay at home, and bake something.

More [Here] and [Here].

[1] Affirmative Action, an anti-White-male law, came from Title VII of Jewish congressman Emanuel Celler’s ‘Civil Rights Act of 1964.’ That Act came from Celler’s House bill H.R. 7152, introduced June 20, 1963

21 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in Socrates, William Pierce, William Pierce Wednesday at 2:15 pm | Permanent Link

by Dr. William Pierce.


“Another caller, a woman, inadvertently brought this out. She expressed the opinion that the best way to avoid conflict and violence in our society is for everyone to be less judgmental. This is a code phrase for the moral relativists. The essence of moral relativism is that everybody’s ideas, everybody’s life-style, everybody’s sexual orientation, is just as good as everyone else’s. There are no absolute standards, no fixed values. Therefore, we should not judge other people whose standards or values at the moment are different from ours. We should not judge Bill Clinton. We should not judge homosexuals. And so on. And this relativistic way of looking at the world applies not only to behavior: it also applies to art, to music, to literature, and to everything else.

This do-your-own-thing ethic has been pushed hard by the controlled media since the 1960s, and it has had a profoundly destructive effect on our society. It’s a soft, fuzzy, feminine sort of ethic which is easy to push to absurdity, but logic isn’t a strong point for the moral relativists, and they don’t let that discourage them.”


21 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in anti-White themes, genocide, genocide of White culture, liberal mindset, liberalism, liberals, quotations, race, Socrates, War On White People, Western civilization, Western culture, Western decline at 1:12 pm | Permanent Link

Seen on Twitter:

“For years liberals have been telling us how awful it is to be a minority, now they’re telling us how fabulous it is that we’re becoming one.”

20 June, 2017

Posted by Socrates in 'human rights', communism, Cultural Marxism, democracy, democracy-vs-fascism, democrazy, egalitarianism, global citizens, global government, global vs. local/regional, globalization, Hobbes, homosexual themes, homosexuals, human blights, human equality, international socialism, internationalism, Marxism, NATO, New World Order, NWO, rules and mandates, Russia, Socrates, sovereignty, treaties, UN, UN Charter, UN founders at 2:11 pm | Permanent Link

“The ECHR’s (the human blights court) rulings are in theory binding. However, Russia’s contentious relationship with the court has seen it pass a law allowing its constitution to supersede the European Court.” Good, but why did the Russians need to pass a law to claim their natural sovereignty, which has always existed? [1]. Nevertheless, what’s the difference between a communist and a globalist? The globalist wears a tie and rides in a limousine. Same “One World, One Government, One People” mentality, though. Anyway, the bottom line here is that international, Marxist “human rights” courts in France have no jurisdiction in local or state matters whether they be in Russia or Australia [2], so pound sand, you “human rights” commies.


[1] the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said that the sovereign (the state authority or ruler) has absolute power within his own territory (in this case, all of Russia), meaning that the UN, NATO, the EU and other global outfits are illegitimate by default; indeed, global government is an anti-White scam of epic proportions that will create endless misery and endless wars; Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is undemocratic, it should be noted

[2] granted, I’m not a lawyer, but, the only thing that could, in theory, legally violate natural sovereignty is a signed and ratified treaty, but even that idea is very questionable because treaties, by their nature, are political (for example, consider Obama’s attempted climate-change treaty and Trump’s cancelling America’s participation in it) while sovereignty is not political per se, i.e., a state has sovereignty regardless of who is president. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” But, for example, what if the U.S. Senate was full of far-leftists and the President was also a far-leftist, and they created a really horrible treaty that blatantly violated U.S. sovereignty? Then you’d have an overly political/partisan treaty violating our natural sovereignty. So, maybe have the White citizens vote on all treaties from now on