Overjoyed because of his election win Donald Trump said that God had a reason when he had saved his life during the almost successful assassination. The spectacular victory in the presidential race is almost as miraculous as miraculous was his survival when milimeters decided about his fate. The assassination was designed as a desperate act to remove Donald Trump as a candidate, since all other measures had failed. Instead, the attempted assassination enhanced his stature. Shots with Trump shouting Fight! Fight! Fight! and his defiant posture will come down in history just as shots showing American soldiers raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. In fact, these two images have already been put side by side. The resemblance is striking.

The left-leaning democrats with artists and intellectuals of all sorts in attendance called Donald Trump names, set legal traps for him, gave him bad press, fear-mongered about a new Hitler being about to take control over the United States, and what not. All this misfired and backlashed in direct proportion to the amount of effort put into smearing him and dragging his name through the mud. As the biblical adage goes: He who digs a pit will fall into it. They dug, and they fell in. Miserably.

It is not that Donald Trump is an ideal president. Far from it. Yet, in comparison with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and all the rest he is like one of the common Americans. True, he is a billionaire, not a man in the street, but the way he talks, the way he behaves, the way he mingles with people make him look like one of the many millions of ordinary Americans who in their heart of hearts are fed up with the leftist newspeak about the many genders, about inclusiveness and diversity, about open borders and the perniciousness of patriarchy, about all that ideological crap.

The attempt on the part of the democrats to split society into warring factions along the lines of sex or gender, race and moral laxity turned out not to be sufficient. Sure, the left have made headway in their direction: after all only a little less than half of the American society cast their votes for Harris, that is for racial and gender wars to be continued, for open borders to be even more open, for the de-funded police to be even more de-funded, for moral laxity that sells the murder of infants under the guise of human – nay, women – rights and health protection.

Think about it for a moment. Think about a political rally one of the main topics of which is to guarantee termination of pregnancy. Picture to yourself all those rabidly mad women who feel entitled not only to be free to terminate the life of the little ones, but also to have it financed by the state, that is also by those for whom such practices are anathema. Think about such rallies taking place fifty, eighty or a hundred years ago. Very few participants would have approved; rather, the overwhelming majority would have been shocked. Nobody is shocked today. That’s where we are.

Vote for the candidate who guarantees termination of pregnancy! Vote for the candidate who guarantees ‘marriage’ to be contracted between same-sex individuals. Vote for the candidate who will guarantee that same-sex couples will have the right to adopt children. Above all, cast your vote for a candidate who is of colour – a newspeak phrase – and a woman. Never mind the candidate’s intellectual qualities, never mind the candidate’s experience, never mind the candidate’s track record of achievements, never mind the character of the candidate: all you are expected to mind is that the candidate is a she and that this she is of colour.

You haven’t voted for Kamala Harris? You must be a misogynist and a racist. You have voted for Donald Trump? You must be a fascist and an advocate of patriarchy. It’s as simple as that.

This is, notice, the democracy that the entirety of the globe should look up to and copy. This is the political system that Americans want to have replicated not only in Europe, but also in Afghanistan or Venezuela, in Syria and North Korea, in Ukraine and in Belarus. A political system that divides society like a sharp knife into parts whose members hate each other intensely; a political system that produces election campaigns with physical (murder, attempted murder) and character assassinations (the political opponent is an incarnation of Hitler). The rest of the world ought to adopt the American system because it is oh so wonderful!

Donald Trump has won and soon he will have to deal with Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen who despise him, who hate him, who scorn him. He will have to deal with the American civil servants most of whom sabotaged his first term in office. He will have to deal with all the mainstream media that are not going to evaporate, but, rather, undermine his presidency at every turn.

Donald Trump will have learnt his lesson from the four years of the first term. Has he learnt enough?

…then there will probably be a coup soon, because if the people do not believe the rulers and their mouthpieces, the end of the rulers will come soon. The situation is comfortable for the functioning of the so-called democracy when there is one party or ruling group that rules and is in total conflict with the other, opposition party or with the group that aspires to power. At that time, the leading domestic media are usually on the side of the “right”, on the side of those in power, while the alternative or challenging media are on the side of the opposition. The situation is comfortable (perhaps at present in Georgia or Venezuela) for the voters/citizens, because they themselves choose who is right, i.e. where the truth is. The current situation in the USA is different: fewer and fewer people trust the media at all, regardless of whether it is the leading or alternative (independent?) media.

Source: Tippinsights

The reason for this is most likely the glaring discrepancies seen in the Democratic and Republican narratives. According to a study by the Watchdog Media Research Center, coverage of Kamala Harris was 84% positive, while that of Trump was 89% negative (statistics include CBS, NBC and ABC). The Democratic candidate also received 66% more airtime.

What is the reason for these disparities? The big corporations that are part of the current establishment want to maintain the status quo, which means, among other things, continued Democratic rule. It also means the impoverishment of the middle class, the division of society through wars of ideas, the destabilization caused by the migrant crisis, the chaos caused by tolerating riots and shoplifting while cutting funding for the police. Disunited and confused communities are much easier to control – changing such a state of affairs would not benefit the establishment.

Then there is the main tool of the leading media: the polls. The average voter has only limited access to information. What can voters use as a guide when deciding who to vote for? The polls! From a psychological point of view, people want to belong to the group of winners. This is why the power of published election polls is so great. How can we defend ourselves against this, i.e. check the reliability of these media? For example, by confronting them with the bookmakers’ bets. This business is based on pure statistics – if the bookmaker’s odds do not correspond to reality, he automatically has to incur heavy losses. If we look at today’s ABC NEWS poll results (as of 01.11.24), we see that Harris is in the lead.

Source: ABC News

Quite the opposite is the data coming in from various bookmaker sites, according to which Trump is the favorite. The chart below shows that the Republican candidate can count on an average of over 60% support, while his opponent can count on barely 40% (as at 01.11.24).

Source: Realclearpolling.com

Polls have been wrong in predicting the winner of presidential elections in the past. In 2016, during the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the polls pointed to the Democratic Party candidate – while it was the right wing that won. One reason for this “surprising” turn of events could have been the electoral system in the US, which creates the possibility that the candidate who received fewer votes from citizens, but more electoral votes, which are decisive, wins.

After examining the methodology used to create the polls disseminated by the ABC, one can conclude that the results are created in an unclear and complicated manner, despite the claim of transparency. The support beam presented to us is not an answer to the basic question “Who do you want to vote for in the presidential election?”, but to a series of questions inserted in different polls. The results are then analyzed and processed. This creates a lot of room for abuse and freedom of interpretation.

Today’s leading (media) are not free from influences and dictates. But if you believe Google’s results, take a look at the following graphic as the punchline of this article:

Theft of the common sense, theft of the evidence of that your senses provide your brain with, theft of you faculties of reasoning, theft in broad daylight. What do we mean? The fact that the media’s bias is absolutely out of their own control. A simple example. The media tell you about the polls concerning the two candidates running for president, and they inform you credibly that the vote for either candidate is shared roughly fifty-fifty. Yet, in the same breath, the same media will show you a street poll in which they will ask, say, ten people about who their favourite candidate is, and all of them will turn out to be in favour of the candidate that a particular media endorse. Weird, isn’t it?

Why are the media people incapable of controlling themselves? Why are they incapable of being consistent? Is it dictated by the intense hatred of the other candidate? Is it dictated by a very low esteem that they hold their readership or their audiences in? Surely, there are a lot of the readers or viewers or listeners who will not notice this glaring bias. Surely there are a lot of the listeners or viewers who will fail to see this discrepancy. Surely, some of the viewers or readers will, but then they share the same intense hate towards one of the candidates and so they just cannot but indulge in this one-sided narrative. For all that, however, there are some media savvies who will be repelled by that kind of unfairness. There are some among the readers, the listeners, the viewers who have a capacity for reasoning, for remembering, for comparing. If they spot recurrent discrepancies, they will become sceptical about the information that they are fed by the media. There will also be some who will challenge the warped presentation of reality and they may pass their scepticism and criticism of the media onto others, thus slowly spreading the seeds of doubt, disbelief, and eventually total rejection of the official sources of information, a process that currently seems to be in full swing across the Western world.

A media outlet exercises an enormous power over the consumers of the information. It is not easy for an average man to catch them lying. It is the media that have access to sources of information and it is the media that have all those technological gadgets with which to put news pieces together in such a way as to create the narrative that is desired by the owners of the media. Yet, from time to time, they will get lost in their own invented narrative, they will eventually expose themselves for what they really are: tools for the manipulation of public opinion. One thing that can easily throw media credibility into doubt is the internal discrepancy or the internal contradiction contained in the messages, or – in plain English – the lie that they give to themselves.

Again: why say that roughly half the country is for, while the other half is against a given candidate and then ‘corroborate’ the stats with a street query in which all or almost all pollees voice their support for one of the candidates only? One wonders what’s the intellectual framework of such journalists or those who have those journalists do their job. Can’t they control themselves? Is it that they lack basic mental faculties or is it that they hold the entirety of the consumers of information in utter contempt? They certainly regard themselves as custodians of the political and moral backbone of the citizens; they certainly assume that the vast majority of the consumers of information do not have the capacity for working out answers, for doing thorough research, for grappling with huge amounts of data. That’s understandable. One is tempted to use it and… abuse it. But why provide the readers, listeners, viewers with evident discrepancies and contradictions? 

Donald Trump held a big rally the other day in Madison Square Garden, the usual venue for such events. The American left scared out of their wits at the ever more real perspective of having Trump back in the White House pulled off – courtesy MSNBC – a journalistic-cum-propaganda stunt that was surreal and absurd at the same time. The shots from the rally that MSNBC presented were intertwined with the 1939 shots of a rally that had taken place in the same venue and was held by American followers of German national socialism. The message on the part of MSNBS was more than clear, primitive though it was. Still, the American left really views Americans as primitive imbeciles so they saw it fit to tell the audience how to interpret the Madison Square Garden rally with the intertwined shots from 1939 in that the telecaster invited a Ruth Ben-Ghiat and writer Anne Applebaum, whose task it was to stain Trump and to drag him through as much mud and dirt and shit and… as one could within a couple of minutes. So, Donald Trump and his followers were conflated with Nazis, racists, Hitler and Mussolini, while the two guests assured the audience again and again that the Madison Square Garden was chosen by Trump consciously and all the rhetoric and symbolism was an intentional copy of the German national-socialist rallies from the previous century.

It was all sickening. It all echoed the worst propaganda stunts from the 1920s and 1930s, of which both historian! Ruth Ben-Ghiat and author Anne Applebaum should have known. It was in the Soviet Union that political opponents were necessarily framed as fascists and foreign agents. It was in the Soviet Union that political opponents were presented to the masses of gullible and rather simple-minded people as monsters and murderers. Such things happened in the Soviet Union during the few first decades of its existence, but in later decades even the communist propagandists saw how primitive and hence ineffective such propaganda measures were, let alone what bad press about the Soviet Union they caused abroad. Sadly, present-day United States of America is copying Soviet Union from the latter’s worst years in this respect.

Let me make a guess: a stunt like this one is a nail in the coffin of the Democrats. Now even people who were not followers or advocates of Trump feel disgusted and repelled by the like s Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, by the likes of Ruth Ben-Ghiat and author Anne Applebaum. The YouTube comments prove my point. Here are some of them:

– It blows my mind that this is the state of the mainstream media now.

– How are they allowed to say complete non sense like this????

– I actually can’t believe MSNBC ran with this. Many people predicted they would, and I thought it was a joke. I am genuinely shocked they weren’t kidding. United States mainstream media is pathetic.

– MSNBC…you people have really gone off the deep end. What an embarrassment you have become to journalism.

– This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard

– Right before Halloween, the real monsters have removed their masks, and let themselves be seen.

– Didn’t Bill Clinton and Al Gore have a presidential rally in MSG in 1992?

– The Democratic Party has had 2 conventions at Madison square garden so what does that mean?

– ’m actually shocked that they posted such a horrible shocking video this is really disgusting and the mainstream media just really goes to a lower level

– Hearing MSNBC speak like this I am starting the think Trump may of won the last Election.

Are you gone completely off rail? What? Not a single american will have this nonsense. You just secured Trumps victory.

– Interesting… I guess you forgot to mention that those that attended the 1939 rally… “WERE ALL DEMOCRATS!!!”

– What a load of garbage. This is why I don’t watch mainstream media.

– Disgusting reporting. These people are despicable.

– I love to see msdnc and the rest of MSM continue to destroy any creditability they may have left. Thank you guys for speeding up your own downfall as more and more people around the world tune in to podcasts like Joe Rogan to get their news. 

 

Christianity is receding from the world of the white man. Christianity has been the religion of the white man. Barely no longer so. Christianity is as good as dead in most of the Western Europe; it is very much fragmented into thousands of sects in the United States; former Christians, having abandoned the creed of their forefathers are looking for spirituality to other faiths. The ever growing influx of immigrants who are invited by Western governments and settled in Europe and North America contributes to the eradication of Christianity. Immigrants, unlike their hosts, generally cling to their beliefs.

You may be a believing Christian, a nominal Christian or an atheist. If, however, you are of Caucasian descent, you have been imbued with Christian culture and your ancestors were Christians. This being so, you will admit that Christianity was the soul of the white race, its culture, its heritage, its spirit. For centuries Europeans conquering and settling other continents tried to Christianize the peoples inhabiting them and certainly did not convert to the faiths of India or Africa are the Americas. Quite the contrary was true: they regarded the deities other than the Christian God as demons that could barely be tolerated. Also Germanic and Slavic gods were mere demons: Christian missionaries used to mercilessly burn them without regard for their artistic value. Also, when Christianity became the dominant religion in the ancient world, all the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome had to go. Irrevocably. There was no room for religious diversity. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, was the order of the day. Notice that European expansion went hand in hand with the expansion of Christianity. Both Americas have been Christianized and much of Africa. It was Asia that resisted conversion to Christianity, which was caused by a higher development of the continent’s civilization. Even so, Christians settling in India or China or Indochina did not as a rule become followers of Buddhism, Confucianism or the Hindu religion.

Half-man, half-ape or Hanuman

As said above, it is no longer so. Europeans have lost their spirit, their backbone and have become – at most – indifferent to their spiritual heritage or – for the time being in few isolated cases – quite hostile to it. Even the Pope has made statements on a few occasions to the tune of all religions being equal and all of them leading their believers to God and salvation.

No wonder then that post-Christians begin to respect the principles of other faiths in everyday life. Where there are Muslim communities pork is not served and nobody raises any objections the the Ramadan practices. More and more churches are turned into mosques and there are converts to Islam among Europeans. Few, as yet.

No wonder then that the children of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are not raised as Christians because their mother is Jewish. Just think of it: when in the 19th century the United Kingdom had Jewish Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister, he first needed to be Christian. Such requirements are not binding any more. Today, if you want to be a country’s prime minister, president or minister, you need to believe in the man-made climate change, in the eternal guilt of the white man in his relations with other races, in the biological equality of all races, in the benefits of mass immigration, in green economy, and in the fact that Putin is one of the avatars of Satan.

No wonder then that although Donald Trump is a nominal Christian, his daughter Ivanka has converted to Judaism upon marrying Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, and raises their children in the Jewish faith. No wonder that Usha Vance, wife of JD Vance, Donald Trump’s co-runner for presidency, is a practising Hindu, extending the Hindu blessings to political rallies of support for her husband. No wonder then that recently the ever growing community of immigrants from India have had a huge monument to Hanuman, an Indian deity, put up in Texas. The statue is approximately 30 metres tall, which makes it the third tallest in the United States. An unthinkable event twenty years back.

If you say that all of the above is a manifestation of tolerance and that tolerance is a kind of higher level of the development of humanity, then think again. There is no tolerance. Try questioning such deities as man-made climate change, the equality of human races, diversity, benefits of mass immigration, or the right of homosexuals to show off their homosexuality and you will be ostracised, condemned and socially outlawed in no time. So, the acceptance of Judaism and the Hindu religion is no manifestations of tolerance; rather, it is a manifestation of the shift of the values. What was cherished by European ancestors has been dethroned, abandoned, ridiculed. Other values have been accepted and other values are worshipped. It is not that we have rid our European languages of the notion of heretics, heresies, burnings at the stake, anathema or the inquisition. Yes, we have stopped using those terms in reference to present-day phenomena and procedures. Today we use such terms as bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, far-right, white supremacist, and so on. Today’s heretic is known as a bigot or a far-right activist, today’s inquisition are the media, and today’s burning at the state is ostracism, blacklisting, marginalization, removal from social networks and the like.

Think of it. Yesterday a statue of Hanuman, half-man, half-ape would have been hacked to pieces by the Spanish conquistadors or the missionaries of Charlemagne. Today, the pope himself sets a pattern to be followed by Christians and post-Christians by enthroning the Pachamama – a south American deity – in the Vatican. If the top Christian does not see a demon in an alien deity, if the top Christian disregards the thou-shalt-no-have-other-gods-before-me commandment, the very first! one of the Ten, then why should Texan authorities object to giving permission the their growing Hindu community to put up Hanuman, half-man, half-ape?