Kikes (and queers too) at Mises.org show their true colors: they want to play "good Jews," while playing according to satanic program....

Ho Ho Ho, satanists At Mises.org Finally Ban Apster, Ho Ho Ho
(Apollonian, 17 May 17)

Well folks, the cowardly scummy puke finally banned apster at Mises.org. Last comments by me are at https://mises.org/blog/states-are-re...#disqus_thread. Obvious thesis I was pursuing for discussion was the basic SATANISM and satanic nature of present Jew S A, what it is, how it works, etc. Here are the msgs I sent them to trying to get them to be reasonable:

[this was sent about 10:00 am, 16 May 17.]
Hello: I just got banned by McMaken, evidently, at the blogs discussion section, and I need to appeal this, and to complain about treatment by McMaken, so I suspect I need an e-mail address by which to appeal this matter to someone in charge of things. McMaken refused to answer a previous msg I sent him at his address, the one given at the blog discussion page. So if McMaken has a supervisor, then I guess I need that address. Thanks for ur help. A.

[below note sent 4:04 afternoon, 6 hrs after above.]
Hello: I sent a msg 5 hrs ago asking for e-mail to supervisor of mcmaken, the person who's e-mail is given for comments policy at the articles/blog. McMaken has banned me fm the comments, evidently, and I wonder why and how--I think such banning is a disgrace for libertarian speech as my comments don't deserve it, and Mises.org needs to be able to stand criticism, etc. Neither has my e-mail to Mcmaken himself been answered, though he's always there at the site, within minutes to delete my notes and posts. U people need to be able and wiling to communicate w. the public more forthrightly, I think

[sent 8:46 pm, 16 May 17]
I must say I'm rather amazed Mises.org refuses to answer my notes here, this one is my THIRD for today, trying to contact someone who supervises the article blogs, my having been un-justly banned, evidently by McMaken, when I merely pursue simple exposition. And McMaken refuses to answer my msgs sent directly to him by his e-mail address given at the comments page--why is this?

[This below-copied, was sent to the LewRockwell site, 9:02pm 16 May.]
Hello: I hope to getting some help for contacting the top supervisors at Mises.org--and I regret having to bother u here at this site. I was un-justly BANNED at the articles/blog comments section at Mises.org, so all throughout today, the 16th, I've been trying to contact someone, both through the site, general msg-ing device, and through the address given at the discussions section--they refuse to answer, 3 notes sent to site, 1 sent to McMaken address given at the comments page. Thanks for ur help in this matter. A.

[sent 4:18pm Wed, 17 May 17.]
Ok suckers, we see now where and how u stand: u're really just a bunch of cowardly punk fascists, following the satanic program, pretending to a "libertarian" façade--and u pathetic fools think u're gonna win?--ho ho oh ho ho. I gave u ur chance, suckers, I told u to cut the goddam censorship (which it obviously is), but u're such moronic cowards u can't even come-up w. a response--u KNOW u're a bunch of fascist scum, following the satanic program as I've noted in the comments before u scummy fascist puke decided u'd just ban the voice of a serious rationality.

Communists MUST be exterminated--but we can still preserve "free speech," why not?....

Below-copied by ap first published, then deleted by kike filth, at comments, https://mises.org/blog/communist-spe...#disqus_thread

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Commies?--Kill 'Em On Sight--But Preserve Free Speech
(Apollonian, 15 May 17)

U make no sense. Communists and/or those who support them are murdering psychopaths, and they shouldn't even have their lives--they should be exterminated on sight.

And what's this?--"we non communists need to present better ideas and hence persuade people not to go down the communist path"? U don't have to present any ideas whatsoever, and people need only know if they "go down the communist path," they'll be ruthlessly annihilated and exterminated without mercy and without benefit of clergy.

Unfortunately, u grossly over-rate Mises and Hayek, who may be able economists but are poor and putrid philosophers. I much prefer Rothbard. One thing I'll say, given the scummy criminals who run the legalized counterfeiting, called "central-banking"--who actually fund and support the "antifas" and commies--it's nearly understandable the morons would adopt bolshevism, imagining that's any serious opposition or solution.

U're soooo pathetically muddled, u need to simply read-up on basic history. Communism was always exclusive product of the Western bankers and satanists fm the beginning--see "Shadows of Power," by James Perloff, "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution," by Antony C. Sutton, and practically any other decent hist., including "Tragedy and Hope," by Quigley, who was advocate and apologist for the bankers, who admits all the machinations.


---------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-----------------

John Arthur • 26 minutes ago

I don't want the communists here in Australia. Unfortunately," Red" Sally (ACTU secretary) is suspected of being one and the Australian Greens political party is suspected of having a subset of their party who are communists.

Although they should have freedom of speech, we non communists need to present better ideas and hence persuade people not to go down the communist path.

Mises and Hayek provide a good basis for libertarian (classical liberal) ideas, the kind of ideas that are necessary to bury communism.

The very failure of Marxist Leninist economics should have buried communism, but some youthful "idealists" seem to foolishly adopt dialectical and historical materialism and the economics that flows out of these dogmas.

Process of dealing w. kike filth, communists, satanists must begin LONG before consideration of mere "free speech" issues, rights....

Below essay by ap, "Satanism Grasped...," was submitted but then deleted by kike filth at comments, https://mises.org/blog/communist-spe...#disqus_thread. Interestingly however, the little note, just immediately below was allowed to stand, so far, anyway.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[below essay was deleted, so I wrote following:] apollonian • 3 minutes ago

Ho hoh o ho--interesting and poignant that in this discussion of "free speech" we see I'm already censored for another of my posts for today, one for this thread here, ho ho ho ho ho--it only adds clarity for exactly what the real problem truly is. Don't doubt Mises.org intensively censors, for there's distinct agenda which they're otherwise soooo reluctant to admit, ho ho ho ho ho


Here's the essay deleted by the kikes:

Satanism Grasped, Viewed In Proper Context
(Apollonian, 14 May 17)

I think "Me," below, is hysterical and grossly out of context. For of course such "speech" by satanists and their communist enforcers of the Satanism should be prevented, squelched, suppressed, even crushed and smashed mercilessly, but it doesn't require any piddly tweaking of "free speech"--for free speech is excellent way to get these scum to un-cloak and reveal themselves.

For note, such speech as Christians naturally and rightly object to fm these satanists and communists can and should be dealt with by far more basic, immediate, and direct methods. Someone is a communist or Satanist, seriously?--they should be run out of town--they shouldn't be allowed to own any property, or allowed to live anywhere, or to have employment--CUT THEM OFF AT THE ROOT (begin by removing the central-bank, etc.).

The pt. is to doing this suppression of one's enemies--that's all satanists and communists are--by most direct methods, in accord w. the proper rights of the people, the employers, and all other fair and legal methods. Store-owners, grocery-shop owners should refuse svc. For when it comes down to actual freedom of speech, censorship, etc., IT'S ALREADY GONE TOO FAR.

USA was meant to be Christian, PERIOD; those who can't abide by this necessity must be REMOVED, soon as possible--and there would have been no problem about understanding these conditions in earlier days. But this is truly CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, and Satanists have already come too far--how did that happen?

Take heed, comrades, satanic scum and fascists are targeting the I-net, don't doubt....

Below-copied by ap first submitted, but then deleted by kike filth, at comments, https://mises.org/blog/three-ways-tr...#disqus_thread

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Main Target Of satanists?--Suppression Of I-Net
(Apollonian, 10 May 17)

It doesn't look like there will be any spending cuts due to Trump's satanic lies and lying about "terrorism," which is total, absolute lie, lying by someone who's mere puppet to satanic powers of "deep-state."

For there's no "terrorism" but what is manufactured by Israel, USA, and NATO, that's it. We really do live in the Orwellian 1984 world, and the over-populated fools who buy this stupid lying are simply people w. a death-wish, though they may not grasp it fully. And satanists are the masters of the situation, knowing perfectly well just how to manipulate and tweak the "snow-flakes," "millenials," SJWs, and outright leftists and "progressives" against everyone else who lack organization and unity in face of these pawns of G. Soros.

Trump is a traitor, and "America first," was just a big, putrid, though extremely clever lie that got him elected. I remember how Susan Rice was on the ropes, desperately holding on, but Trump's controllers then told him to totally illegally sending the "tomahawk" missiles against Syria, and we've hrd very little about that S. Rice scandal since.

Another sign of Trump's treason regards his so-called "replacement" of Obama-care, which we see is same old farce favoring the absolute, corporatist, MONOPOLIST state, following the monopolist central-bank.

So I suspect Trump is in w. his buddy, Soros, w. whom he's collaborated before, and they want serious turmoil in USA so as to justify martial law, and most of all, the heavy suppression of heretofore largely free Internet--that's main goal of satanists.

Rule-of-law?--depends on that OBJECTIVISTIC view of reality at "git-go" for all philosophy....

Below-copied by ap first submitted, but then deleted by kike filth, at comments, https://mises.org/blog/myth-rule-law#disqus_thread

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Rule-Of-Law" Is Vestige Of Objective View Of Reality
(Apollonian, 9 May 17)

Liberate fm stupidity?--ho ho ho ho--good luck, suckers, ho o oh o ho. U should consider Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West," whence he observes the Romans as all-time example, who began w. honest farmers, who may have been "superstitious" and ignorant, but were generally objectively-oriented, assuming without question the objective (Aristotelian) reality.

But as the Roman state became evermore successful and "prosperous," what happened?--the following corrupt generations fm the founders became perverted, not having to fight for what they inherited fm their genuinely brave, honest, admirable forbears. These inheritor generations became SUBJECTIVISTIC and hubristic, pretending to God-like, perfectly "free" will and MORALITY of "good-evil" which is not founded in objective, determinist (absolute cause-effect) reality.

Note then rule-of-law is necessarily OBJECTIVISTIC, and the anti-thesis is subjectivist (anything goes, but necessary in order to have otherwise non-existent "good-evil"). Note further, subjectivism is idea mind/consciousness creates reality, the more extreme version being SATANISM, making oneself God, the most sophisticated version of satanism being necessarily collectivistic, agreeing upon some end, and cooperating intensively to bringing it about. So note denial of rule-of-law is simply a satanic ideal and principle, pure and simple.


--------------------------------------------------------

generalisimo Don Duncan • 4 hours ago

The "rule of law" references natural law, rationally derived from objective truth. Not the arbitrary "rule of men," which follows from nihilism. The rule of law would respect human rights above any other concern. That power lies and criminals aggress does nothing to discredit natural law, the rule of law, or the human rights of life, liberty, and property. Do you believe human beings have rights?


apollonian generalisimo • in a few seconds

U got it, general. Objective view is hated by the moralists, as objective view is DETERMINISTIC (absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free," God-like human will). Subjectivists want to make room for non-existent "moral virtue," and esp. "good-evil." But problem is subjectivism soon gives way to extreme subjectivism, idea reality is strictly creation of mind/consciousness, making oneself God--SATANISM--and that's what's ruling presently, the culture of death, poison vaccines, prescription drugs, poison GMO foods and -additives, poison fluoridated water supplies, poison "chem-trails," etc., saying all this is good for "reducing population" in accord w. United Nations Agenda-21 and 2030 addendum.

Gosh, but have u noticed?--the cry fm "antifas" is about anti-racism--they're against racism, hence "moral," eh?....

Moralism On The Cheap: Just Denounce "Racism," Ho Ho Ho
(Apollonian, 7 May 17)

Note a degenerate culture, "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, features above all moralism, morality--HUBRIS--that's the essence, the core of the degeneracy, pretending to Godliness, pretending to creating reality, thus becoming and being "good"--as opposed to being "evil." So HOW does one express such "good" and "morality"?--u just denounce "racism," right?--isn't it obvious?

And of course, white folk are racist; after all, HOW did they become white in the first place?--by being racist and loyal to their people, ancestors, and culture (hence loyalty--ck a dictionary).

It's the EASY WAY to being "good" and "moral"--just denounce "racism," hey, hoh o ho hoh ho. Naturally, all the weaklings go along, denouncing this racism; it's "hip" thing to do among the trendies. All the "cool" people are against "racism," don't u notice?

So now as the anti-fascists ("antifas") battle, exhort, and intimidate everyone else, esp. Christians, the philosophic problem is lost for definition of "racism" and the predicates, meaning the more basic issue of determinism vs. (perfectly) "free" will. For note racism follows fm determinism (absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free" will). So racial characteristics have distinct implications and consequences, following fm the determinist principle.

Naturally, the "antifas" are HEAVILY Jew-infested, -led, -supported (like w. legal protection), and -funded, as by George Soros, famous kike, super rich, quite "connected" w. other kikes--like w. Donald Trump, and as we learn, w. Trump's son-in-law, Kushner, another criminal.

And observe how much mileage the antifas, leftists, Jews, liberals, et al., have gotten fm this "racism" nonsense. Surely more than just a few have noticed these things?--about racism and the implications, predicates, etc.

What?--complaining about "democracy"?--complaining about gov.?--problem is satanism, instituted hubris....

Below-copied by ap first submitted but then deleted by kikes at comments, https://mises.org/blog/myth-popular-will#disqus_thread

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It's Much More Than Just "Democracy" That's Problem--It's SATANISM
(Apollonian, 5 May 17)

So we see the authors here want to complain about "democracy"--the "God that failed" according to "Austrian," H. H. Hoppe (HHH), ho ho ho. Well, the American experiment is the classic case in pt., so much observed and commented upon, by the "Federalists," de Toqueville, and so many others, like Jefferson, and dear old John C. Calhoun, who saw the problem so clearly, coming like a freight train, the USA utterly destroyed in 1861-5, though NOT the economic system which yet continued till being throttled in the 30s of the next cent.

And WHO can deny the "compact" among the states, the states the proper agent of the people, as per Calhoun, and Jefferson before?--states rights would have nullified the satanic state we have now, that's for sure, and all the economic advantages would have been retained.

I blame Jeff Davis and others among the Southerners, Davis advised by his Sec. of State at the time, Toombs, not to fire upon Ft. Sumter, Davis the moron who allowed Ft. Henry, guarding most strategic river, to be situated upon ground that regularly went under-water during the spring floods, the dummy. South only needed a little more time to (a) build an absolutely essential navy, and (b) to forging a workable modus-vivendi with the moderate elements of the North. South didn't even have enough rifles to equipping its infantry-men, for goodness sakes.

But truly, the south will and IS now, rising again, suckers--secession and nullification, along w. real (commodity) money are just the very measures needed to dealing w. present satanic leviathan. We only now need a more definite, more forth-right faction to arising to exterminating the present "deep-state" establishment, people similar to the Tea-party, but more cohesive--this can be done, comrades. Unfortunately though, I'm afraid things have to get a little worse, economically and politically before people can rouse themselves fm the present "bread-and-circuses" opiates, torpor, and ennui.