Biden Crime Family

[Alexis Jacobi]

The way the polarities have been established -- those understandings about *reality* and the attitudes that people take and get *holed-up* in -- there is no way for you and I to even begin to talk Gary.

You are locked into a view-system that has been installed in you through education-processes. To see differently, to think differently, you'd have to undergo an internal revolution.

I say this because I myself went through that. So I know something about *internal re-structuring*.

[Gary Childress]

The way the polarities have been established -- those understandings about *reality* and the attitudes that people take and get *holed-up* in -- there is no way for you and I to even begin to talk Gary.

You are locked into a view-system that has been installed in you through education-processes. To see differently, to think differently, you'd have to undergo an internal revolution.

I say this because I myself went through that. So I know something about *internal re-structuring*.

What can I say? Try going through the psychiatric system. Then you'll learn something about "internal re-structuring". I was agnostic and apolitical when I went in. I'm still agnostic and apolitical, but not the same as when I went in.

[Immanuel Can]

Some names:
Gregory Hood...etc.

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

Those are good questions. Could it be because the alt-right is more dangerous than the alt-left and therefore gets suppressed more often?

No, I wouldn't say so. Here's why.

I'm quite certain that if the "Alt-Right" were highly dangerous and easy to find, the Leftist media would be posting their dastardly deeds nightly...and their leaders would become household names for evil. What a PR triumph, if they could pull that one off! But what's happening is the opposite: the media is continually talking about them, and politicians are assuring us they're lurking in every dark corner -- but when asked to show one, they can't seem to do it. The best thing the Left could do for its case is expose the alleged dangers these people present.

Yet they don't.

Moreover, if it's true that Left is so in control of the media that they can effectively suppress all "Alt-Right" information to the point where nobody can even find it, then that's a worrying fact in itself. It doesn't seem that this putative "dangerous Alt-Right" is able to carve out even a small space in the public media. But the Leftists can completely shut an allegedly "dangerous" group right out? That doesn't make sense at all.

What's easier to think is that they don't exist in nearly the numbers, or with nearly the "danger" potential that the Left wants us to believe, and that they would like to assure us they exist in, for Leftist propaganda purposes. The Left always needs an enemy to fight, because the Left is no good at anything but opposition. They don't really create or build anything at all, it seems. So the "Alt-Right" is just their bogeyman that they call on to stir up the rabble, but which, unfortunately for them, they find themselves unable to produce when called upon to do so.

That's a much simpler and more plausible explanation.

Given that most economic and political leaders in the US are white,...

That, in itself, is a racist observation, I hesitate to point out. What's "race" got to do with ability or qualifications? But there is no thing as "white," unless you think Slavs, some Jews, Scots, Americans, Circasians, Argentinians and Swedes are all one thing, simply because of a lack of melanin. And that's too stupid to countenance.

At the same time, it seems rather one-sided, due to the overwhelming influence the US gave to an allegedly black president so recently, and the profile it still allows him...to say nothing of the countless millions the US lavishes on athletes of colour and celebrities of colour. Meanwhile, the Democrats are now led by the pastiest, palest guy on the planet, and most of its present representatives are nearly as white as the KKK they started. So how are we to make sense of any of that?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I think you already know the answer to your mystified perspective: the ideas of the "Alt-Right" (and the Dissident Right which is my preferred term) are extremely suppressed. They confront directly and with a certain intellectual force the tenets of Hyper-Liberalism. They are not afraid to speak about issues of race and demographics, or to confront sexual deviancy, and to challenge feminist tenets...

Other than the mention of "race," which is really racist in itself, by definition, there's nothing about the rest of the list that is even remotely extreme or reprehensible. Shouldn't we have the right to discuss "demographics?" What would one do with "sexual deviancy" other than "confront" it? And are Feminist ideologues above critique? Even their own people critique them.

So an ordinary, thinking person could do any of the above. I see nothing in that list (except, "race") that even remotely smacks of extremism or anything dangerous at all.

Things that you are not allowed to think or to say.

By the Left, you mean. People are perfectly allowed to say what they want to in any sane polity, short of directly instructing violence or crime.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

As you know they followed the Gramscian plan and "marched through the institutions" over a 50-60 year period (even a bit longer actually). The process by which this *cultural engineering* happened is my personal area of interest.

The so-called "Long March through the Institutions" was actually turned into a formal strategy by a guy named Rudy Dutschke, but he was speaking of the general Leftist strategy derived from people like Gramsci and Marcuse, though earlier from Marx, by which so-called "Critical Theorists" targeted several major areas of American life simultaneously for propagandization and destruction: education, church, entertainment and media, politics, law and family.

Yeah, it's a real thing. And it's really bad, too. These people are nothing but destructive, but always also in the most high-minded language. They're always "fighting for the oppressed" when they are burning a Korean shopowners business to the ground and beating him in the streets with a two-by-four, or "liberating" when they're teaching children they can't be happy as they were born, but need to be poisoned, neutered and castrated.

[Gary Childress]

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

Those are good questions. Could it be because the alt-right is more dangerous than the alt-left and therefore gets suppressed more often?

No, I wouldn't say so. Here's why.

I'm quite certain that if the "Alt-Right" were highly dangerous and easy to find, the Leftist media would be posting their dastardly deeds nightly...and their leaders would become household names for evil. What a PR triumph, if they could pull that one off! But what's happening is the opposite: the media is continually talking about them, and politicians are assuring us they're lurking in every dark corner -- but when asked to show one, they can't seem to do it. The best thing the Left could do for its case is expose the alleged dangers these people present.

Yet they don't.

Moreover, if it's true that Left is so in control of the media that they can effectively suppress all "Alt-Right" information to the point where nobody can even find it, then that's a worrying fact in itself. It doesn't seem that this putative "dangerous Alt-Right" is able to carve out even a small space in the public media. But the Leftists can completely shut an allegedly "dangerous" group right out? That doesn't make sense at all.

What's easier to think is that they don't exist in nearly the numbers, or with nearly the "danger" potential that the Left wants us to believe, and that they would like to assure us they exist in, for Leftist propaganda purposes. The Left always needs an enemy to fight, because the Left is no good at anything but opposition. They don't really create or build anything at all, it seems. So the "Alt-Right" is just their bogeyman that they call on to stir up the rabble, but which, unfortunately for them, they find themselves unable to produce when called upon to do so.

That's a much simpler and more plausible explanation.

Given that most economic and political leaders in the US are white,...

That, in itself, is a racist observation, I hesitate to point out. What's "race" got to do with ability or qualifications? But there is no thing as "white," unless you think Slavs, some Jews, Scots, Americans, Circasians, Argentinians and Swedes are all one thing, simply because of a lack of melanin. And that's too stupid to countenance.

At the same time, it seems rather one-sided, due to the overwhelming influence the US gave to an allegedly black president so recently, and the profile it still allows him...to say nothing of the countless millions the US lavishes on athletes of colour and celebrities of colour. Meanwhile, the Democrats are now led by the pastiest, palest guy on the planet, and most of its present representatives are nearly as white as the KKK they started. So how are we to make sense of any of that?

I assume he was more than "allegedly" black. But I can see a point to some extent.

So what is "racist" about observing that whites are disproportionately represented in places like Congress or corporate boardrooms because we whites benefit from unfair advantages? That is my take on matters. Are you suggesting that whites do better in this country because we have fair advantages? Or are you suggesting that statistics that show leadership in the US is predominately white are false? Or what is your take on the situation? How do you explain the discrepancy, one which seems pretty uncontroversial? Or do statistics lie?

[Immanuel Can]

So what is "racist" about observing that whites are disproportionately represented...

"White" is not a thing. Only racists think it is.

And "disproportionately" is defined by who is competent, not by who has melanin.

If what you're saying is that most politicians are incompetents, then I agree.

[Gary Childress]

So what is "racist" about observing that whites are disproportionately represented...

"White" is not a thing. Only racists think it is.

And "disproportionately" is defined by who is competent, not by who has melanin.

If what you're saying is that most politicians are incompetents, then I agree.

I'm not saying most politicians are incompetent. I'm sure some are, however, I don't know if its most or fewer. White is certainly a "thing" that is debated quite a bit. What do you mean when you say "white is not a thing"? Obviously, it's a "thing" in the sense that it's being talked about. Is this a game of "pin the tail on the donkey"? If so, then you'll have to blindfold me first if you want to win at my expense.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is "racist" about observing that whites are disproportionately represented...

"White" is not a thing. Only racists think it is.

And "disproportionately" is defined by who is competent, not by who has melanin.

If what you're saying is that most politicians are incompetents, then I agree.

I'm not saying most politicians are incompetent.

That's a shame. They obviously are. Look what you've got for a president and VP right now, if you want star examples. But the rest of the crew isn't a whole lot better, to be honest. For the most part, that's their biggest liability: not honest.

White is certainly a "thing" that is debated quite a bit.

Only by racists.

Like I said: Slavs are not Swedes, Poles are not Argentinians, Scots are not Israelis, Brits are not Americans, Canadians are not New Zealanders. They don't share a language, a history, an attitude, a geography, a nation, a set of values...they're all very different. The only similarity is a lack of melanin in their skins.

Anybody who tries to get people to forget that very obvious fact and whines about "whites" or "whiteness" is a racist, pure and simple, and not a very bright one.

[Gary Childress]

"White" is not a thing. Only racists think it is.

And "disproportionately" is defined by who is competent, not by who has melanin.

If what you're saying is that most politicians are incompetents, then I agree.

I'm not saying most politicians are incompetent.

That's a shame. They obviously are. Look what you've got for a president and VP right now, if you want star examples. But the rest of the crew isn't a whole lot better, to be honest. For the most part, that's their biggest liability: not honest.

White is certainly a "thing" that is debated quite a bit.

Only by racists.

Like I said: Slavs are not Swedes, Poles are not Argentinians, Scots are not Israelis, Brits are not Americans, Canadians are not New Zealanders. They don't share a language, a history, an attitude, a geography, a nation, a set of values...they're all very different. The only similarity is a lack of melanin in their skins.

Anybody who tries to get people to forget that very obvious fact and whines about "whites" or "whiteness" is a racist, pure and simple, and not a very bright one.

OK. So why do you think most politicians are "incompetent"? What has happened recently that gives you that opinion? I agree that Biden is not perfect, however, given what he's taken over, he seems to be doing a delicate balancing act to me. I don't feel like I can give the guy too much grief. Look at the world right now! Putin has invaded Ukraine and is rattling sabers about "nuclear policy". China is posturing like it wants Taiwan. What else is the guy supposed to do? Clamp down on the border and crank up military production in preparation for WWIII? It would be great if he didn't supply Ukraine with weapons, however, I don't know that letting Putin have it would be a wise move at this point for the betterment of the world. Putin seems to be a little more shady than Biden is. At least from where I sit (unless that's just US propaganda working in the background).

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So why do you think most politicians are "incompetent"? What has happened recently that gives you that opinion?

Look around you, Gary. Look at everything they've been doing. You've got a housing crisis, an immigration crisis, the price of food going through the roof, and a senseless overseas war. You've got race tensions inflamed, one of the poorest and most expensive educational systems in the world, and tent cities and needles and feces in the streets of your major cities. You've got crime waves, falling income, a health care crisis, a national debt out of control...what part of all that looks "competent" to you?

I agree that Biden is not perfect,

Wow. Understatement of the year! The guy's obviously senile. You can't possibly convince me you can't see what the rest of the world can see so plainly. He's a walking vegetable, an international joke, who can't even put a sentence together. How come you don't know that?

Look at the world right now! Putin has invaded Ukraine

Well, the US seems to have had its own hands dirty in making that happen. What were the Bidens doing in Ukraine? And why didn't they listen to Farage, when he warned them they were going to provoke Putin? And now Biden's backers are prepared to throw any number of Ukrainians into the meat grinder in a pointless and world-threatening "regime change" war. There's no excuses for the Democrats in Ukraine, that's for sure.

China is posturing like it wants Taiwan.

They should maybe just buy it from Biden. He's selling everything else, apparently.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So why do you think most politicians are "incompetent"? What has happened recently that gives you that opinion?

Look around you, Gary. Look at everything they've been doing. You've got a housing crisis, an immigration crisis, the price of food going through the roof, and a senseless overseas war. You've got race tensions inflamed, one of the poorest and most expensive educational systems in the world, and tent cities and needles and feces in the streets of your major cities. You've got crime waves, falling income, a health care crisis, a national debt out of control...what part of all that looks "competent" to you?

I agree that Biden is not perfect,

Wow. Understatement of the year! The guy's obviously senile. You can't possibly convince me you can't see what the rest of the world can see so plainly. He's a walking vegetable, an international joke, who can't even put a sentence together. How come you don't know that?

I'm not worried if Biden is senile. He has advisors and they seem to be directing policy in a relatively practical way. You sound like you have some kind of personal dislike for him. What has he done that George Bush Jr. didn't. Bush had a lot more support of evangelicals in the US. Trump has a lot more support of evangelicals and look what Trump did to our relations with China. We were on good terms with China, however, Trump seemed more interested in having good relations with Putin and Un than with Jinping. Where is the wisdom in that? Are you sure you have a coherent view of reality? I'm not seeing one, other than personal convictions that "atheists" cannot have objective morals and socialists are all dictators who support the murder of the masses. But them, I'm "insane". Just write me off if that's your preference. You don't seem to follow anything else in your discernments from my perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not worried if Biden is senile.

Look at that sentence again, Gary: you just said, "I don't care if the most powerful man in the world isn't sane."

He has advisors and they seem to be directing policy in a relatively practical way.

He has handlers, and they're manipulating him like a puppet. He's not competent to make any decisions for himself, at all.

So here's how we find out if I'm right. There are very simple cognitive tests for senility...question and answer type stuff. Have Biden appear before the cameras, and answer a few of those, to see if he's competent.

But it won't happen, and you and I both know why: the Dems know he's demented. That's the way they want him. It's made him the perfect puppet. They just don't know what they're going to do yet, when the old coot decides to run in the next election, because they can't use the COVID ruse again as an excuse to stuff ballot boxes, and nobody's now going to vote for Biden.

But they'll get rid of him soon: they're already allowing their media allies to question the wisdom of him running again. They'll get him gone before he has a chance to run again.

Just wait. You'll see I'm right.

We were on good terms with China,...

Well, they were paying your president. So why not?

[Gary Childress]

I'm not worried if Biden is senile.

Look at that sentence again, Gary: you just said, "I don't care if the most powerful man in the world isn't sane."

He has advisors and they seem to be directing policy in a relatively practical way.

He has handlers, and they're manipulating him like a puppet. He's not competent to make any decisions for himself, at all.

So here's how we find out if I'm right. There are very simple cognitive tests for senility...question and answer type stuff. Have Biden appear before the cameras, and answer a few of those, to see if he's competent.

But it won't happen, and you and I both know why: the Dems know he's demented. That's the way they want him. It's made him the perfect puppet. They just don't know what they're going to do yet, when the old coot decides to run in the next election, because they can't use the COVID ruse again as an excuse to stuff ballot boxes, and nobody's now going to vote for Biden.

But they'll get rid of him soon: they're already allowing their media allies to question the wisdom of him running again. They'll get him gone before he has a chance to run again.

Just wait. You'll see I'm right.

We were on good terms with China,...

Well, they were paying your president. So why not?

Fair enough. Apparently, you've read the Bible and have an infallible understanding of the world. I'm sure you would have voted against G. W. Bush and Trump were you an American citizen. Or better yet, if you indeed would have voted for them, then I'm sure they were the right choices all along. God apparently does his work using "orange hand grenades". Good thing the American people have you on our side.

Don't listen to me anymore. I'm insane and anti-Christian because I don't believe Christ is the one true God.

[mickthinks]

I know you're a busy man, walker, but if you could spare a few seconds to address the questions I put to you here, it would be appreciated.

Key Evidence:
• An interactive timeline of the Biden’s pay for play schemes
• Oversight Committee report revealing the Bidens’ dealings with foreign countries.
• Biden Bank Records Memorandum showing the family created over 20 shell companies
• Key Findings from the IRS Whistleblowers
• Whistleblowers’ transcripts press release and links
• Follow-up letters seeking more transcribed interviews in the wake of the IRS whistleblowers’ explosive testimony
• FBI Form 1023 alleging then-Vice President Joe Biden engaged in a bribery and extortion scheme and ultimately received $5 million from a Burisma executive.

lol Talk about politically motivated charges! Talk about a nothing burger!

Walker, you like to present yourself as a reasonable fair minded guy, so let me ask you:

how many of those terrible acts have the Trump family not been accused of or, indeed, blatantly committed?

And how many has Trump been indicted on or impeached for?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Other than the mention of "race," which is really racist in itself, by definition, there's nothing about the rest of the list that is even remotely extreme or reprehensible. Shouldn't we have the right to discuss "demographics?" What would one do with "sexual deviancy" other than "confront" it? And are Feminist ideologues above critique? Even their own people critique them.

So an ordinary, thinking person could do any of the above. I see nothing in that list (except, "race") that even remotely smacks of extremism or anything dangerous at all.

As it happens I am always leery and over-careful when I bring up certain topics, or link to controversial sites, so when I mentioned that the Alt-Right/Dissident Right movement is 'dangerous', and I only mean this in a factual sense and it is not that I judge them as 'dangerous/bad', but that there is factually a great deal more about their ideas, their views, their stances and if you will their intellectual activism that involves *unthinkable thought* understood, popularly, to be *dangerous* (i.e. bad & evil).

Specifically I will point out that many, though I cannot say most, take anti-Christian positions and also very strong Jewish-critical positions. Certainly this is the case with Greg Johnson as it is with Red Ice (Lana Lokteff and Henrik Palmgren). These two are non-philo-Christian and decidedly pro-pagan. They are pro-European and pro-White (a category I note that you reject, and not without a certain amount of sound reasoning). I can assure you that their ideas are seen as extremely provocative and indeed they too were de-platformed and de-banked when their work was publicized (through the Harper's article and in other places too).

There is also Adam Green -- another interesting figure -- who did once have a large following on YouTube before being banned (and demonetized) and who now presents his work on BitChute, Gab, Odysee and other platforms. You can get a sense for yourself of what he works to expose here. Obviously, it will curl your toes and the reason is -- as I have said at other times -- your brand of Christianity is really and essentially a masked Judaism. And Judaism, when examined through the lens of what the true-blue Orthodox actually believe about their mission, is extremely sick, ugly and destructive. This is one thing that I can genuinely thank you for, though you did not intend it, and that is that you helped me to understand that it is not sick, distorted Evangelical Christianity that is an *enemy* but rather the core tenets expressed in strict Judaism -- about being a 'select' people and about having an extremely poisonous attitude toward *the nations*. As I have said many times I grew up in California on the fringes of Reform Judaism, which is really an assimilated version and pseudo-Jewish, so an examination of the more hardcore forms has been a revealing and somewhat shocking process.

Now, I bring this Jewish-critical aspect to your attention (and to the readership here) only because there is a very strong idea-movement now circulating all over the Internet that delves into a sharp and sustained criticism of Christianity generally but certainly also Judaism and Jewish machinations (I do not know what other term to employ) in our present. (As one example I cite the conflict between Elon Musk on Twitter and the ADL through the person of Jonathan Greenblatt.) Probably one of the most influential exponents of a Jewish-critical position is Kevin MacDonald who wrote The Culture of Critique.

Christianity is described as one of the primary engines of our modern multi-cultural social philosophy. Alain de Benoist, I think, has most thoroughy and coherently described why and how Christianity is so very destructive to traditional cultures, and as you will have noted I have linked Judaism's intolerance (indeed hatred, murderous activity and destruction) of the gods and religious philosophy of *the nations* to that of Christian intolerance of the same. Christianity in this sense acts like Islamic belief: it corrals people into belief-systems that cannot vary. Christian anthropology can therefore be examined critically and, as I say, it sponsors the *multi-culturalism* and also the *anti-racism* that is so intensely powerful in our present. So what is dangerous about this Alt-Right.Dissident Right is that it dissects liberal intentionality by going right to the core with a reasoned and I think coherent critical Christian exposition.

As I said previously, the Alt-Right and the Dissident Right have far more in common with *Original America* than with the refurbished and redefined pseudo-America of our present. An America that is ruled, let's say, by an ideological régime which says it has everything to do with true Americanism yet when examined has very little to do with such, and indeed is battling against it. You might (i.e. you-plural) truly value the New America and hate the Old America and it is not my point to debate which is right or good, but rather to locate the social and cultural conflicts within real and comprehensive categories.

To illustrate, I will mention that writers that have long been pulled off library shelves -- such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (The Passing of the Great Race [1916] and The Rising Tide of Color [1920] respectively) have been rediscovered and re-read and their ideas broadcast within those circles identified as Alt-Right/Dissident Right. And this is why their is a resurgence of the notion of *White nationalism* and the awkening (reawakening) of a type of race-consciousness that, as I suggest, is part-and-parcel of unthinkable thought. And this is why, of course, there is so much resistance to any type of ethically-defined national consciousness, not only in America, but in Europe and elsewhere. You are not allowed to think in such terms nor to defend *your people* *your culture* *your traditions* if you make any reference to race and ethnicity. To do so is to reveal oneself as *evil* according to new definitions. Enforced through a sense of moral condemnation.

And as all who read here know, and beyond all doubt, even to suggest that seeing, thinking and acting for such values and ideas is immediately labeled as evil and racist. Again -- unthinkable thought.

So I have made an effort you outline what the so-called Alt-Right/Dissident Right actually is, where their expositions can be found, and also to allude to their influence: an influence that is very real and very considerable. When you drive something underground that forces it to spread in non-conventional ways. Like mushroom mycelium. Ideas or sentiments that are repressed tend, always, to show up in other, sometimes strange and disturbing ways. That is a psychological fact.