Darwinian Socialism & Eugenics

Blog Post


This is the Sunday Special


The Brave New World

Obamacare was designed to deny medicine to those who are of retirement age because they are non-productive members of society. Though thoroughly documented in its intent, it was not executed in the way that the crafters of the policy designed. Then there were the disturbing YouTube videos that surfaced. The media’s policy of nothing to see here swept it all under the rug.  Just like loyal old Major (the horse) in Animal Farm. He was kept until he wasn’t able to pull the plow anymore and then the pigs sent him to the glue factory for cash. In your case, maybe soylent green?

Eugenics Defined: The study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

The piece below was produced anonymously and has been excerpted and blended with my own comments and data. I can’t give due credit to the co-author.


Asset Management

Population control is merely part of resource management where people are just another inconsequential and unremarkable group competing for existence on the big blue marble. Thus, eliminating people saves other resources and makes more available to the remaining elitists who push for population control in the first place. Understanding this history is critical.

The Malthusian and Darwinian ideals gradually gave birth to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which were widely adopted by the ruling elite.  Social Darwinism argued that class divisions were the will of nature and that this form of natural selection, rather than being evil, was necessary.  The most extreme version of this ideology, eugenics, appears to have arisen from two key factors:

-The tribal nature of human beings and the tendency to view all other tribes as inferior (the ruling class felt this way towards the poor).

-The advances of society were making it possible for many of the weaker members of society, who previously would have died off, to survive long enough to reproduce and, over time, significantly weaken the gene pool.

Eugenics in turn advocated preventing those who were less “fit” from breeding.  This has been responsible for horror upon horror since its inception, and it provided the theoretical foundation for why, among other things, the Nazis forcibly sterilized the mentally ill.  In many cases, programs with more immediate results were also implemented.

While it is difficult to estimate precisely, the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has steadily increased and is expected to continue to do so: the CDC estimates its use has “more than doubled” in the last decade.  I have also heard numerous reports that since the vaccines have launched, COVID has significantly increased the need for and difficulty of IVF (that being said, at this time I could not locate data directly supporting this contention).  For those interested in medicine’s monopolization of the pregnancy process and the tragic harm it creates, The Business of Being Born (which can be viewed online) and Robert S. Mendelsohn’s writings on the subject are two of the best resources I’ve found on the subject.

As best as I can tell, population control measures typically follow one of three approaches:

-Create social changes that discourage having children.

-Introduce an environmental factor that decreases male testosterone and sperm viability.

-Directly sterilize (or give birth control to) women of childbearing age.

Social Approaches:

-Second Wave Feminism transitioned a significant portion of the population from raising families at home to a sterile existence working outside the home.  Second Wave Feminism was essential for our country and corrected many serious injustices towards women, but there is also some evidence to suggest the movement was hijacked to help the upper class by removing women from a motherly role and doubling the workforce. For example a pioneer of this movement, Gloria Steinem who strongly discouraged being a housewife, was also a CIA case officer at one time.

-The societal messages around dating have been shifted from romantic bonding (which produces children) to a hookup culture without intimacy.

-Women are strongly encouraged to pursue a career before having children or a family, which frequently results in them missing the opportunity to do so.

-Previously rare sexual pairings that either cannot or are unlikely to produce children are actively encouraged by the media and corporatocracy.

-Alternatives to relationships, such as computer or video addictions, are strongly encouraged in society.

-Economically, it has become more and more difficult for individuals to afford to have children.

-Having children is labeled as environmentally destructive and hence strongly discouraged.

-Having children is now characterized as a major obstacle to spiritual growth and self-development.

-The widespread support and social validation for having children has gradually diminished.

I have personally observed as the years have gone by, fewer and fewer people are interested in having children, and some combination of the above reasons are typically cited.  I also find people who have children have a much deeper sense of happiness than those who do not, despite media messages suggesting the opposite.

The idea of population control or mass extinction for the greater good has also been increasingly observed within the media.  Avengers Endgame was the top-grossing film of 2019, and it was so heavily promoted throughout the media that it accomplished the unique feat of almost doubling the revenue of the runner-up.  I have often wondered whether this was deliberate on account of the message the movie spread in the months immediately preceding COVID-19 of the need to be evil and eliminate half the population for the “greater good”.

There are also many factors that directly affect fertility.  Each of these appears to have followed a gradual progression like the myth of a “boiling frog” where the onset has been too slow for most of the victims to recognize.


At this time, male health is significantly less studied than female health (for example, many recent graduates feel that “transexual medicine” may have had a greater focus in their curriculum than “male health” in their medical school curriculum). It leads to the question of the importance (or lack thereof) of testosterone in males.

There has been a massive, sustained decline in male testosterone levels over the decades (a male’s testosterone levels goes hand in hand with his health and fertility).  This decline directly affects male (and to a lesser extent female) health, and numerous integrative physicians have found rectifying it creates profound benefits in a large percentage of their patients.  The decline of sperm quality and viability has also been observed, but as it is more difficult to objectively quantify, not as much as data exists to clearly support this trend.

A common means of controlling animal populations is to universally introduce an agent which decreases male fertility (as these tend to be easier to distribute on a large-scale basis than agents which target female reproduction).  In addition, a common method of controlling animal behavior is to neuter males, as this reduces their aggression and “disobedience to authority.” (For example, a recent lawsuit was filed by a 16-year-old boy who developed breasts after he was forced to take estrogen in jail to “control his behavior.”)  It is hence understandable why those in the ruling class would be open to using similar approaches on the “useless eaters” of the population (many terms for this concept exist, including those originating from the Nazis’ eugenics program).

Many of the factors causing this decline appear to have been deliberately placed in the environment.  The most influential are xenoestrogens, artificial chemicals that mimic the characteristics of estrogen and feminize organisms.  Alex Jones’s infamous commentary on chemicals that “turn the friggin’ frogs gay,” for example, was a reference to atrazine, a still widely used herbicide, that for over 20 years has been known to create hermaphroditic frogs.  For those interested, the eight-hour audiobook, Estrogeneration: How Estrogenics Are Making You Fat, Sick, and Infertile provides an excellent summary of the topic.

Some of the most common xenoestrogens in addition to atrazine (and some other herbicides) include:

-Birth control pills, which are designed to not break down and thus cycle back into the water supply (this is a common problem in areas that reuse waste water, particularly China, where oral contraceptives are widely used).

-Soy (excluding the rare exception where it is fermented like in Miso or Natto), is a food that comprises a significant portion of the food supply.  While much less common (but sometimes still) an issue, a similar effect results from lavender products.

-Bisphenol A and S found in many plastics, which constantly contact our bodies and food.

-Phalates (also found in many plastics).

-Parabens (these are uses for fragrances in many cosmetic products).

-DDT and PCBs are highly dangerous mutagenic chemicals.  Despite their known toxicity (Monsanto, the initial PCB producer, saw within three years 23 of their 24 researchers develop disfigured faces) it took decades, and in some cases almost a century of activism, to remove them from the market.  Massive amounts of these chemicals were produced, and they persist in the environment, accumulate up the food chain (especially via fish), and still affect people today.  In addition to being destructive to both humans and wildlife, a good case can be made these chemicals created many of the changes we are still seeing today (such as the decline of male sperm counts).

-Many other factors also influence testosterone levels and fertility.  Two of the more interesting examples are metformin, a very commonly used medication for diabetes that has the curious side effect of reducing testosterone (which can be debilitating for older men who are already deficient in testosterone), and the widely used sugar replacement stevia, which has been repeatedly studied for its testosterone reducing and contraceptive properties. This all goes in a full circle as these many of these substances also interfere with metabolism thereby creating obesity, and fat cells via aromatase further perpetuate the cycle by turning testosterone to estrogen.


While male sterilization methods tend to be uniformly administered throughout the environment, due to mammalian biology, female sterilization typically requires more targeted approaches.  The only exception I know of to this rule occurred in India in the 1970s, where their prime minister in return for international loans declared martial law and with military force mandated vasectomies, gruesomely sterilizing six million men before being forced to abandon this initiative due to violent male counterprotest (hence why only women are directly targeted for sterilization).

Sterilization through vaccination has long been viewed as the holy grail of population control, as global faith in vaccination allows the covert mass administration of sterilizing substances, and unlike many other methods, in theory it only needs to be done once.  As such, a lot of research has been done in this area, but at least until recently, the technology for it was lacking.  To fully understand the context of that approach, we will first review what has been done with the forced administration of traditional contraceptive and sterilizing technologies.

While the Nazis, who forcefully sterilized or executed millions they deemed unfit to breed, are history’s most notorious offenders, many sterilization campaigns have been forcibly conducted by governments around the world against poor women of color.  One of the best-known examples occurred in the United States from the 1960s to the 1970s.  There, the Indian Health Services, through force and deceit, sterilized between 25% to 40% of the female native American population via tubal ligations and hysterectomies, resulting in a halving of their birth rate.

Other examples include:

-40,000 women that were sterilized in Colombia between 1963-65 by Rockefeller-funded programs.

-A million women were sterilized in Brazil between 1965-1971.

-A U.S.-imposed population control program administered by the Peace Corps in Bolivia sterilized Quechua Indian women without their knowledge or consent.

From a population management perspective, a long-lasting injectable birth control option is the only feasible option.  After all, there’s no guarantee people will take expensive pills indefinitely, it’s unlikely you can regularly re-inject a population, and anything besides an injection is too time consuming to apply to large numbers of people.

One of the best candidates for that approach is the injectable Depo-Provera, one of the more harmful birth control options that has seriously affected the health of many women.  Depo-Provera, as you would guess, is regularly used by international organizations in third-world countries. Going as far back as almost 50 years ago, in 1979, USAID through the International Planned Parenthood Federation supplied Depo-Provera to 378, 000 women in Mexico, Sri Lanka. and Bangladesh in experimental research projects.  Widespread administration of Depo-Provera by these organizations continues to this day (with the additional involvement of more modern organizations such as the Gates Foundation who continue the tradition relentlessly distributing it to vulnerable women).

A push was made to distribute Depo-Provera far and wide, as you might expect, this was often done in an unethical manner where the recipients often had little knowledge of what was being done to them.  We will briefly review a few of those examples.

In societies where whites controlled a non-white population, Depo-Provera was often questionably administered to the undesirable demographic.  In South Africa, during apartheid, as the whites became increasingly concerned about the accelerating black birth rate, Depo-Provera was forcibly administered to black women at government-funded family planning agencies.  To quote Dr. Nthato Motlana, who was at the time one of the country’s leading Black physicians: “there is no such thing as ‘informed consent’ here. The agencies are administering Depo-Provera shots to young black girls without even asking their consent.

This practice also existed in Zimbabwe, where under white rule Depo-Provera was the most widely used contraceptive among black women until Robert Mugabe, a black man, became prime minister and cancelled the program.  Canada, another country that sterilized their indigenous population, also made frequent use of Depo-Provera on this demographic.  Lastly, in Western Australia, Depo-Provera was also widely administered by government health services to Aboriginal women.  This is a critical context to the cries for help this community has made against the Australian government’s forced COVID vaccination programs.

When desperate situations arise, these too are frequently taken advantage of by international organizations to implement population control campaigns.  Receiving Depo-Provera or a sterilization procedure is often made a requirement for receiving international aid.  In Bangladesh, an area where individuals frequently starved to death, this was the condition for receiving food.  In Thai refugee camps for Cambodians fleeing the collapse of the Khmer Rouge, refugees were often required to receive Depo-Provera to access necessities for survival, and in some cases simply forced to receive it, while male refugees were paid to recruit as many refugees as possible for injection.

When you look back at the above events, there are a variety of different “narratives” that could be used to describe them.  Because of how many Depo-Provera shots had been stockpiled for and the money behind the project, for many of those involved in the process, the focus was simply on how to distribute as many as possible.  So, whenever an opportunity to increase Depo-Provera uptake arose, it was taken advantage of it, and the ethical questions of using individuals’ desperate circumstances or taking away their right to consent was not even considered.

In other cases, such as that in Bangladesh, it could have easily been reasoned that “if there are too many people here and everyone is starving to death, it is not appropriate to feed someone unless they are also kept from having kids.”  Finally, there are the cases, where selected races were deliberately sterilized to protect the interests of the ruling class and it is hard to argue their intentions were anything besides selfish and evil.

Each of these narratives is important to consider as we look at the immoral way the COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed and mandated.  These ideas are recurring themes throughout history, and they have all repeatedly shown themselves during the current vaccination campaign.

In Summary

In our current era, the labor value of individual human beings has been significantly decreased by modern technology (particularly in the recent times with AI and Robotics).  From many publications I’ve read, it appears that the Oligarchy now holds the perspective that the productive value our current population level offers has become outweighed by the costs of having that many people.  I suggest you consider how the oligarchy might approach its current population dilemma.



Or maybe it’s just a silly conspiracy theory?

28 thoughts on “Darwinian Socialism & Eugenics

  1. Sterilization occurred In NYC among large numbers of Puerto Rican women. My wife was one of the “Lucky” ones so treated in 1973. She didn’t know it for some years…

    1. I’m very sorry to hear that. That sort of thing has to be identified and stopped for good. Medical treatment requires consent — my body my choice.

  2. austin just gave 40,000 national guardsmen til thursday to vax or face discharge, 13% of the total. depending on how many of those are full-timers, that could seriously impede their effectiveness…. would love to see unbiased study of current birth rates. and now the fda approved vax for babies with no data from pfizer et al. gotta love it. tptb are getting desperate. they are getting ever so close to their objective but its all unraveling before them, so they try to knit even faster and the fabric becomes more bizarre and weak. que diabolical laughter.

  3. “Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.” Margaret Sanger. Define “will become defective” hmmmm?

    1. Eugenics work. Think of the tomato, the potato, and corn – all found on the new world and nowhere else, but they look nothing today the way they did when the Spaniards arrived. People who don’t want GMO, shouldn’t eat them. So heavily modified that they have little resemblance to their present-day distant cousins.

      Wheat is the same thing. Egyptian wheat that fed the Mediterranean world for thousands of years was significantly different from where it started. Turkish wheat, the same.

      It works for mammals just as well as for humans. There was a selection program going on with slaves in the US where a larger, stronger, and dumber male field hand was mated with a large, strong, dumb female field hand. It worked as intended. The Spanish undertook a process of killing every smart Guatemalan for many hundreds of years because they wanted a compliant race of workers. They were smart enough to put up signs when Camela visited Guatemala City saying “Whore go Home!” – they’re bouncing back.

      1. “They were smart enough to put up signs when Camela visited Guatemala City….”

        Thanks for brightening my Sunday.

  4. The trouble with conspiracy theories is that lately they are becoming reality.

    1. None of this is theoretical. That is what’s so disturbing.

      Forced vaccination with an experimental drug to counteract the effects of a bioweapon that escaped containment but the effects of which are substantially those of a bad flu is a bad precedent.

  5. This is the sort of stuff that happens when the arrogant decide they have the authority to mess with God’s prescription….because they “know better”. Very informative, and…facts matter.

    1. Btw, away from the homestead for a Veterinary conference, two hours out I’m getting phone calls from the weekenders, “the [brand new] gates are not working”. Been working flawlessly for two weeks. Had a neighbor check it out, appears someone “tweaked” the center lock, got annoyed because they could not make entry. Yup. Cameras get installed next week when I get back.

      Now, imagine this mentality on a national level.

      1. Do you mean like women dressing up in public as vaginas? They serve on juries. I’m not all that certain that it’s a good thing that they reproduce – which may be why killing their babies is so attractive to them. It’s like whales beaching when something is wrong inside.

        LGTBQI+ people don’t reproduce out of choice — beaching whales. Bad wiring.

        1. I did say “the arrogant” , those are the leaders of these movements, the rest are simply mental. Apparently Lander is getting a huge influx of Rainbow people. You have to wonder why, it’s not exactly a hotspot.

  6. While I agree with much here, I do not agree with this article in it’s entirety.
    Thanos the Marvel population control guy, the malthusian, is the clear villain. That surprised me.
    And the elimination of DDT has led to the death of millions. I smell A Silent Spring here.

  7. As one of those old farts who would be denied care under Obummercare, I was thankful that I had the VA (and isn’t THAT a helluva note). Like you, I’ve seen the third world impacts of the forced sterilization on segments of the population, along with ‘other’ methods of population control. It’s not pretty, and never seems to make the news in the states for some reason…

  8. This will be long and will be in several sections, just for readability, because you’ve laid down a lot to respond to. (For everyone else, I’m spending LL’s electrons with permission. The writing part, not necessarily the content part; the latter is all on me.)

    It’s fine to group Social Darwinism and Eugenics together as tools of social control, but they don’t naturally run together. Social Darwinism I find rather silly, since it is based more on accident of birth than any individual characteristics. Now one could make the argument that whatever factors led to the ancestors becoming powerful/successful are latent in the offspring, but let’s take two examples: For example, whatever Prescott Bush’s merits may have been, they didn’t transmit well to low-energy ¡Jeb!. Similarly, despite Bill Clinton’s political talent, it clearly didn’t take in Chelsea. (Okay, bad example, maybe she takes after her father. But you get the point.) Social Darwinism seems to me to be a “just-so tale” that the “elites” tell themselves to justify their privileges. And it’s clear that nepotism, family or tribal (and especially Tribal), plays quite the role in everything from finance to academia to Hollywood. (For example, would that idiot calling himself David Benioff have gotten to be Game of Thrones’ show runner if not for his dad being former head of Goldman-Sachs? Unlikely.) It’s not that all the spawn of those clever, able, and vicious enough to climb over the bodies of their competitors are as clever and able as their progenitors.

    As to Eugenics, “[it] was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis.” There you go. The objection to eugenics is political. The attempts on “refuting eugenics with Science!” are mostly idiotic. (I’m not saying you can’t come up with scientific arguments against eugenics, I’m saying what the newsmedia and popular culture have presented are puerile.) Eugenics clearly works. Humans have bred animals selectively for thousands, probably tens of thousands, of years. Chihuahuas to Great Danes, miniature horses to Percherons. It works.

    And almost all of us practice eugenics on a personal level. On a purely sexual basis, women prefer to mate with taller men, and men who display (self-)controlled assertiveness, on average. Men generally prefer women who display physical attributes associated with youth and fecundity. Many people consider family history and genetics when thinking about marriage and children. Iceland has apps to help you not marry your close cousin. Many Jews (at the least the ones I know) get genetic testing for Tay Sachs and other diseases prevalent in their population. My former officemate (the one foiled at the urinals in Eindhoven) ended a relationship with a woman he really liked, because of TS, for example. So the modern fashion of decrying eugenics as “It’s all about muh Nazis want to turn me into a lampshade, so eugenics is eeevil!” is moronic.

    What IS an important matter for consideration is whether The State ought to be involved in eugenic policies. My position is: No! The State should not be involved. But that’s because I am a strong believer in limited government across the board. Consistent with that, government also should not be subsidizing the production of excess people, especially those who are likely to be stupid and have poor impulse control (based definitely on cultural factors, and very likely also on genetic factors). Yet that is exactly what US domestic policy from The Great Society onward has been doing.

    “Second Wave Feminism was essential for our country and corrected many serious injustices…”
    Not so. First-wave feminism was about the franchise and equality before law. Yes, good. Second-wave feminism (2WF) was supposedly about “sexual liberation” but was really about destroying traditional male/female relationships and destroying the nuclear family. When you look at the leaders of 2WF it’s not surprising. Consider Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and Betty Friedan. De Beauvoir (whose name can be translates as “good view” or “good to see” – ironically also the name of Jeff Davis’ estate) was a pretty normal looking Frenchwoman, but Abzug and Friedan were decidedly unattractive (I’m being as kind as possible here). Like Captain Renault being shocked, shocked over finding gambling at Rick’s, I’m shocked that two hideous women wanted to overturn traditional relationships between the sexes. Additionally, both of them plus Steinem came from a culture of “eternal rebellion” and “always fighting the oppressive power structure, always with the resistance”. Speaking of that ilk, you left out a major social tool: pornography.

    Porn is another tool of undermining society. I don’t have a problem with people enjoying watching attractive other people screwing, but that’s not what “mainstream” porn is these days. The below is what straight porn is about, mostly (we won’t even get into homoporn, whoknowswhatporn, urine fetishes, etc.):
    1. “Interracial” which almost always means Black men rogering (and often degrading) white women;
    2. “Incest” featuring supposed “step-siblings” or parent/step-child parings;
    3. Many men violating a single woman at the same time.
    I don’t buy that pornography per se is automatically degrading to women, but IMNSHO the above (especially #1 and #3) are designed to be degrading. Watching such porn, especially from an early age messes up young men, leads to unrealistic (and frankly ludicrous) expectations of not only their female sexual partners, also of themselves. This leads to weirdos and incels (I actually don’t think it creates rapists, just whacko losers). Such porn also normalizes promiscuous and risky behavior in young women. Both these are bad for obvious reasons.

    Why make pornography? Well, for the money, obviously. But there are other reasons. For one perspective from within, I’ll quote Al Goldstein (former publisher of Screw) and we can take his word, not mine.
    • SCREW’s mission has been to offend, attack, and ridicule. Nothing is sacred to SCREW, including the pretenses of its own publisher, me.
    • The only reason that Jews are in pornography[1] is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.
    • I judge religions on the basis of what they do, and I’m afraid to say that the insidious power of religion has been with us for thousands of years. I do not respect irrationality, stupidity, or superstition, and much of religion is rooted in these.
    • SCREW is a representative, or a reflection, of my personality and the reality of sex—that guys don’t say, ‘Uh, God, she reads Spinoza.’ They say, ‘Boy, she [acts redacted], and it was wonderful.
    [1] Goldstein isn’t doing an ethno-self-insert here: Jews ARE wildly over-represented in porn on multiple levels, as producers and financers, but also as performers, both male and female.

    Sure, Goldstein is long dead, but I’m quoting him because he was articulate, not entirely FOS (he actually had some good takes on certain things, but also some very stupid and destructive takes on other things) and at one point was quite famous.

    My own take is that while there may shadowy forces (which definitely do NOT exist, you paranoid bigots!) working to reduce human population, they are MOST interested in reducing white population.

    The quotes of Noel Ignatiev and Susan Sontag calling for “destruction of whiteness” I put up yesterday are not just two lunatics jabbering. Many people in positions of prominence and authority clearly share their views and are not at all shy about stating their position openly.

    Yet we keep listening to such people, obeying them, and even funding them. I don’t blame scorpions for being scorpions, it’s their nature. But I do blame frogs for believing scorpion propaganda disguised as “news”, for tolerating scorpions in positions of influence such as professorships and judgeships, and for paying to watch television and movies that are anti-frog propaganda, and especially for believing that scorpions are somehow better than frogs and that we frogs owe them some sort of debt.

      1. x2. Between LL’s post and Mike_C’s color commentary there’s a lot to digest.

  11. Great post….food for thought (Pun intended) Live long and prosper, grasshopper.

  12. I’m going to let this post from “Tom Clark” go and will allow it to post even though I disagree with what he said and with this particular flavor of Kool-Aid. LL, editor Virtual Mirage


    “The unforgivable sin of Hitler’s Germany was to develop a new economic system by which the international bankers were deprived of their profits.”
    Winston Churchill

    Germany was destroyed in the 1940s because it was the most serious threat to Jewish worldwide financial hegemony the world has ever seen. While the rest of the world was mired in a Jewish-imposed worldwide depression — and people were starving in the streets everywhere, including the United States — Germany under Adolf Hitler was thriving, because it had freed itself from the shackles of the international bankers and their devastating criminal formula of fractional reserve lending, which is the exact thing that is strangling societies all over the world today.

    There were no deadly gas chambers, no 6 million gassed to death and no evidence of an extermination plan…back then that would have taken over 150 years to accomplish 24/7 365
    and using a pesticide? On Elis Island, they would take immigrants and check for lice, which was the cause of typhus. They would be dusted with Zyklon B, head shaved, and clothes thrown away,
    just like they were doing in Auschwitz. There is no physical forensic evidence of the Holocaust, only false eyewitness.

    Time to wake up and realize Germany wasn’t the enemy in World War 2. They weren’t trying to take over the world, they were trying to stop the people that still are. Germany tried to stop Communism… and Communism is just another way of saying Judaism/Zionism. In the words of General Patton, “I’m afraid we fought on the wrong side.”

    The official history taught in academia is fiction.

    We will continue to march toward their Great Reset, because if you
    don’t know who the enemy is, you can’t point the revolution in the
    right direction. If you want to see where we’re heading, learn about
    the Red Terror and Bolshevism, because that’s
    where THEY want to take us again.

    1. Thank you so much VM for not censoring my post.
      I know even though you don’t agree with it, allowing
      others to be exposed to the truth is commendable.

      It took me a while to finally open my eyes to factual history
      and shed all those Hollywood history lessons. I get it.

      Unfortunately, since you obviously believe your indoctrination,
      articles and opinions will always be based off propaganda
      and historical lies…hence the use censorship on this site.

      Stay safe and good luck in the upcoming new world.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top