UPDATE: To avoid further misunderstandings I am relocating this diary’s PS right at the beginning, with the main point(s) in bold black type. You can ignore the headline and the introductory picture if you wish, and there’s not really any need to read beyond this top section, unless you want to see why some people got so offended.
For several weeks I’ve been reading and watching and hearing criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard which are half-true or untrue. (After slogging through all that toxic, foggy, murky innuendo directed at Tulsi’s campaign, it was almost refreshing to happen upon an accusation that’s not only clear as a bell but actually true. I cannot argue, but can only agree.) It gets exhausting to try to respond to the BS, especially since I generally feel I need to make the effort to find out if these allegations might actually be true. Well okay, I did find one video in which she speaks eloquently about her joyful relationship with Lord Krishna, which I admit I found a bit bizarre, but otherwise most of my research has confirmed my hunch that she’s the real thing, and might have what it takes to become a very great President.
The belittling and mudslinging she’s been subjected to since she started to campaign seriously on the issue of bloody endless wars that inflict de facto recolonization on one third world country after another is comparable to what Abraham Lincoln was put through when he began to speak seriously about slavery. She pisses off the establishment in 2019 the same way he did in 1859, and for a cause that’s not at all dissimilar when you add up the damages done to so many dark-hued populations in so many lands over so many years.
As in 1859, there are strict guidelines about how politicians are expected to talk about this core issue, which some prefer to pretend is not even an issue at all.
The arguments in favor of ‘humanitarian’ regime-change wars are almost identical to the arguments that were common in 1859, extolling the beneficial effects of slavery as if the slave trade were a great charitable crusade to rescue the Africans from savagery.
One politician had the guts to strongly challenge the status quo in 1859, and one politician has the guts to strongly challenge the status quo in 2019.
But then, as now, it was an unstable, explosive status quo.
The problem was either going to be forcefully and honestly confronted, and solved, or else it was going to get much much worse in a very short time, with permanent malignant consequences.
Those who deny there is a problem, or minimize it, are now as great a threat as the problem itself.
This (below) is where the diary began, before I put the PS at the top… The part above is what matters.
I came across this by chance today (it’s not the kind of site I frequent), and despite some trepidations about the probable response, I think it might help clear up some misunderstandings about who Tulsi Gabbard really is and what she represents, about which there has been much controversy of late. It is not snark; as far as I can tell it’s a sincere effort by some activists to provide the American people with a warning about what forces and trends Tulsi Gabbard really represents and what her election would mean for the future of the country.
It’s true that the activists who put this together might not be the kind of folks Daily Kos would normally welcome, but in this case you might want to make an exception—just in case you need any more reasons to hate her, here’s a reason that (unlike the others I’ve seen here) at least has the virtue of being consistent with the truth.
The truth is that Tulsi Gabbard is, undeniably, a product of miscegenation.
In plain English, she’s a mutt.
And if you think that’s beside the point, you should realize that it IS the point, in the view of some people who seem to have studied the subject extensively.
As Andrew Hamilton writes in The National Vanguard,
Race crossing such as this [in the Gabbard family], generation after generation, blurs boundaries and means that more Whites in the future will intermarry with increasingly indeterminate hybrids.
Assimilation also eliminates barriers that formerly kept people apart. Tulsi Gabbard displays no language, dialect, clothing, or similar cues that would sharply differentiate her from Europeans.
There is her Hinduism, but that’s in the context of an anti-Christian society where even the vast majority of “Christians” are anti-Christian . . .
The father’s and daughter’s looks demonstrate how quickly the White phenotype, developed over millennia, vanishes.
The full article is linked above. It’s quite an eye-opener, especially if you’re not used to seeing politics analyzed from the this angle. So the next time you’re reminded of how David Duke and Steve Bannon allegedly said they like Tulsi Gabbard, it’s worth remembering not only that their affection is unrequited, but also that those two celebrities may not speak for a majority of the folks they claim to represent.
And just in case you missed my saying this already once or twice, this criticism has the rare virtue of being undeniably true. So you might want to substitute this for the half-truth and untruths that are habitually recited in the anti-Tulsi rituals here on Daily Kos and in the Mainstream Media. Compared to all those people who indulge in weasel-words accusing her of being a stooge for dictators, a proponent of torture, and a practitioner of torture against gays—all plain lies or so grotesquely distorted they’ve lost all almost connection with the truth—the National Vanguard is (in this instance, though obviously not in its other content) a beacon of responsible journalism. We may not care about their accusation (that she’s a mutt) but no one anywhere can honestly deny it.
It’s past bedtime down under—sorry, I won’t be around to respond to comments.
So let’s close, appropriately, with a lullaby.
But if you’re wide awake and would prefer something more substantive, try this… and ask yourself, is it any wonder some people want her silenced?
PS:
Why am I posting this? Because for several weeks I’ve been reading and watching and hearing criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard which are half-true or untrue. (After slogging through all that toxic, foggy, murky innuendo directed at Tulsi’s campaign, it was almost refreshing to happen upon an accusation that’s not only clear as a bell but actually true. I cannot argue, but can only agree.) It gets exhausting to try to respond to the BS, especially since I generally feel I need to make the effort to find out if these allegations might actually be true. Well okay, I did find one video in which she speaks eloquently about her joyful relationship with Lord Krishna, which I admit I found a bit bizarre, but otherwise most of my research has confirmed my hunch that she’s the real thing, and might have what it takes to become a very great President.
The belittling and mudslinging she’s been subjected to since she started to campaign seriously on the issue of bloody endless wars that inflict de facto recolonization on one third world country after another is comparable to what Abraham Lincoln was put through when he began to speak seriously about slavery. She pisses off the establishment in 2019 the same way he did in 1859, and for a cause that’s not at all dissimilar when you add up the damages done to so many dark-hued populations in so many lands over so many years.
As in 1859, there are strict guidelines about how politicians are expected to talk about this core issue, which some prefer to pretend is not even an issue at all.
The arguments in favor of ‘humanitarian’ regime-change wars are almost identical to the arguments that were common in 1859, extolling the beneficial effects of slavery as it were a all a great charitable crusade to save the Africans from savagery.
One politician had the guts to strongly challenge the status quo in 1859, and one politician has the guts to strongly challenge the status quo in 2019.
But then, as now, it was an unstable, explosive status quo. The problem was either going to be forcefully and honestly confronted, and solved, or else it was going to get much much worse in a very short time, with permanent malignant consequences. Those who deny there is a problem, or minimize it, are as great a threat as the problem itself.