Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Blog Radio Free Dindustan
Four Reasons Why God Should Nuke Us
PC Soul Food, Chinese Nazis & Child Hookers on the Left Coast Horizon


Vibrant Diversity Update- California Legalizes Child Prostitution

“To the wicked, everything serves as pretext.”

- Voltaire

“Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.”

“SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution. Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

“SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.”

I must imagine the Leftist rationale for decriminalizing the practice and solicitation of prostitution by juveniles under 18 is because they believe the child prostitutes are nothing but victims of a sex trade promoted and supported by evil white men and therefore ought not to be punished for any of their actions. Sounds wonderful and caring, doesn’t it? But like every other Leftist feel good policy this will produce all manner of horrendous "unintended” consequences. We won’t have to wait long to see it either.

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/california-legalizes-child-prostitution/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540

Lena Dunham Thanks 'Glamour' for Featuring Her Cellulite on Its Cover

“The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

- Sailer's Law of Female Journalism

You will all be forced to look at Lena Dunham naked until you think she’s hot.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/lena-dunham-thanks-glamour-for-featuring-her-cellulite-on-its-cover/ar-BBxRi2w?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

Lawsuit: Dude ranch owner asked chef for 'black people food'

Must not ask for black people food. Is the term “soul food” still ok?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawsuit-dude-ranch-owner-asked-chef-for-black-people-food/ar-BBxNVYX?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=spartandhp

A Taiwanese teacher asked his students to vote on a parade theme. They chose Adolf Hitler

"Genghis Kahn has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of states. As to what weak Western European civilization asserts about me, that is of no account….Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans.”

- Adolph Hitler, 1939

"The Arab Freedom Movement in the Middle East is our natural ally against England."

- Adolph Hitler, Führer Directive No. 30, 23 May 1941

"We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books that were the source of the Nazi spirit. We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism. Michel Aflaq a founder of the Ba'athist philosophy admired Hitler and the Nazis for standing up to Britain and America. This admiration would combine aspects of Nazism into Ba'athism."

– Sami al-Jundi, an associate of the principle founders of the Ba’athist (Resurrection) Party, Zaki al-Arsuzi and Michel Aflaq

Hilarious. Interesting too. Quite a production. The National Socialists themselves would no doubt have been pleased. Well hey, the Nazi’s had the coolest looking uniforms, didn’t they? They could also organize pageantry that was as impressive and moving as anything else in the world. The Olympic torch lighting ceremony was created by the Nazis, after all. People in the West are often unware that in East Asia and the Middle-East Hitler and the Nazi movement are not the pariahs they are in Europe and America. In fact many in Asia admire Hitler as the archetype of the successful nationalist leader. Hitler was also the sworn enemy of the European imperialist colonial powers: the British, French, Belgians and Dutch, and their business partner the American capitalists as well. The same peoples that many in the Middle-East and Asia still regard as their mortal enemies.

In China John Rabe, an ardent Nazi Party member, is a humanitarian hero for saving over 200,000 Chinese civilians from being murdered by the Japanese Army during the Nanking massacre in 1937. He went about performing his good works while wearing the Nazi Party “hakenkreuz” (swastika) armband, a symbol of good luck and divinity in Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe. Read the “Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

- Adolph Hitler, Speech of May 1. 1927,Quoted by Toland, 1976 p. 306

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-taiwanese-teacher-asked-his-students-to-vote-on-a-parade-theme-they-chose-adolf-hitler/ar-BBxCJwS?ocid=spartandhp

Add Comment
Sam J.January 9, 2017 7:21 AM UTC

Don't know if anyone will see this as post drop off fairly quick but here's an excellent article on the failing of Hitler's strategy, or lack of in WWII. He proposes that if the Germans had attacked Gibraltar after he had France it would have locked the Mediterranean and stopped the various failures later related to Greece and the Balkans. I admit I didn't think of this and it would have also guaranteed Iraq. They would have won I believe. With such failures Britain would have had to capitulate. Instead Hitler attacked England which had no consequences of note.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/01/drieu-on-the-failure-of-the-third-reich/
Jeremy BenthamJanuary 7, 2017 3:26 AM UTC

“Only the destruction of the hostile fighting force will be decisive as a rule. It is therefore the most important object of all operations.” - Field Marshal Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder

"One does not make war sentimentally. The more pitilessly war is waged, the more it is fundamentally humane; for it will come to an end so much the quicker. The methods of war which bring peace most quickly are and remain the most humane methods.” - Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, 1915.

“Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” - Adolf Hitler

Again, actions speak louder than words. The fact is Hitler DID bomb the shit out Britain cities, first with manned bombers and later with V-weapons. He intended to cause pain and force compliance. That’s what one does in war. Why deny it? Both Germany and Britain attacked each other’s cities with air raids or naval bombardments in the previous war, so why was it a surprise when the British bombed German cities? As you say the Brits had planned to do so before the war. Was Hitler serious when he “asked” the British not to bomb German cities? “Hey no hitting in the face, it hurts”? Or was it just a pro forma propaganda maneuver? So what if the Brits did bomb German cities? What did it accomplish in the short term? If Hitler had wanted to stop the British from bombing German cities he should have doubled-down on destroying the RAF, in the air and on the ground. Nevertheless he persisted in his folly of concentrating attacks on British cities. Are we trying to rehabilitate Hitler here? If so, why? Hitler did not care what weak Western Civilization thought of him and neither should we. He was a ruthless conqueror, that’s what makes him interesting. As for what the Germans could have done in Iraq, well they could have done a lot more than they did if they had tried. Hitler himself acknowledged in his Fuhrer Directive No. 30 that the Iraqi rebellion was an ally against England, then he did little to take advantage of it. He was handed the opportunity to cut off the Royal Navy’s fuel supply and did not recognize it for what it was. Other German generals including Heinz Guderian recognized that attacking the British possessions in the Mid-East would be the most effective way to cut the British strategic supply line. Yes the Iraqi rebels were militarily incompetent, yet had General Wavell had his way the British in Iraq would have surrendered. Like many generals Wavell feared failure and the blame that comes with it; so he wasn’t going to commit unless victory was assured. Even against the incompetent Iraqis. He made excuses. PM Churchill recognized the gravity of the situation and over-ruled him. But for Churchill’s resolve and will to win the incompetent Iraqis would have won. The Brits would not have fought back without Churchill's resolute leadership. If the Germans, and/or the Vichy French, had intervened any kind of strength the Iraqis still might have won and forced the British out. It’s all speculation as to how it would have played out globally, but had the Brits lost Iraq it would have been a complete game changer. No doubt about it.
Sam J.January 6, 2017 6:56 PM UTC

BaruchK talks about Wall Street but doesn't mention that the funding for the Bolsheviks was largely from Jewish firms. Leob mostly I think. I'm not so sure the Rockefellers are not Jewish or agents of the Jews. They seem to collaborate with them quite a lot.

BaruchK is right about the Brits bombing Germans first and I agree that there was little the Germans could do about Iraq. Goring was really a huge disappointment to Hitler. He promised him all this air transport and couldn't deliver. He KNEW he couldn't deliver and told Hitler otherwise. I believe this had bad repercussions in Stalingrad. The Germans ran out of supplies. Hitler based staying there on Goering's guarantee of so many tons of supplies a day. If Hitler had known how extremely off this number was from the actual number that could be delivered I think he would have pulled back. All the criticisms of Hitler in Russia I believe stem from this error on Goering's part. I found about this reading David Irving's books on Hitler and Goering. It even could have effected Iraq. With a good deal of air transport they could have sent maybe just enough to take Iraq leading to Jeremy Bentham's case of deep shit for England.
BaruchKJanuary 6, 2017 1:30 AM UTC

Hitler did not bomb the shit out of British cities for the Brits refusing to capitulate.

He bombed the shit out of their cities after the Brits spent months and months bombing German cities, despite Hitler repeatedly asking them to stop it. The Brits had spent decades training to bomb civilians, and were not about to throw that out the window.

It's unclear to me what the Nazis could have done in Iraq, beyond what they did do. The Iraqi rebellion was characteristically, pathetically bad. Unlike the Farhud, where they were facing unarmed Jews, the Iraqi rebels folded very rapidly when fighting a real army. The Nazis dropped some agents in there, and did some bombing. David Raziel, the head of the Irgun Zvai Lehi, the Jewish insurgency in Israel, had temporarily made a truce and alliance with the Brits, and was sent to Iraq with a team of his guys, and was killed by a Luftwaffe bomb. Beyond that, it's unclear what the Nazis could have done. Everything would have had to go through the Eastern Med, which was largely a Brit pond, and then through Vichy Syria, which fell in about a month once the Brits got serious about it. That's a very long, tenuous supply line, subject to interdiction, to supply an ally that would not and could not fight. On the other hand, the Brits had a supply line running straight from India via the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to Basra, which the Germans could not touch even in theory.
Jeremy BenthamJanuary 5, 2017 11:23 PM UTC

Indeed James. Not only would an Iraqi victory in 1941 have changed the dynamic for Vichy French Syria, but it would have changed the entire outcome of the war. The loss of Iraqi oil to fuel the Royal Navy would very likely have forced Britain to sue for peace with Germany. With Britain out of the war there would have been no island base for the USA to launch operations against German occupied territory. Even If Hitler went on to declare war on the USA on 10 Dec. 1941, it probably would not have become quite the ruinous blunder for him it was in actual fact. Germany would also have had complete access to Iraqi oil to fuel its war machine. The pipeline from the Iraqi oil fields went through Syria to the Mediterranean Coast, which Germany would have controlled then. With the endless supply of fuel for the German military AND with Britain out of the war Hitler's conquest of the Soviet Union would have been much more likely if not assured. It would have been questionable if the USA would even have entered the war in Europe given the impossibility of conducting effective operations against fortress Europe across the Atlantic. The status of a defeated Britain would have complicated things for the USA immensely. Would Britain have been required to be neutral by the peace agreement or would it have been forced to ally itself with Germany, like Vichy France?
Jeremy BenthamJanuary 5, 2017 7:01 PM UTC

Actually Hitler was all over the place in his sentiments about England. Just as he was about Christianity. He would make public statements in support of both, and then in private he would turn around and tell his confidants about how messed-up, stupid and doomed for destruction he thought both the British Empire and Christianity were. Hitler went back and forth on Britain as to whether they were a sworn enemy or natural friend of Germany. As a lad during the Boer War he was pro-Boer and anti-British Empire, like most of the German-speaking world at the time. Hitler was a politician like any other and no doubt a narcissistic pathological liar to boot. He had the politician's ability to tell people what he figured they wanted to hear at the moment, as well as whatever he thought would make him look good, without ever believing he had flip-flopped or contradicted himself on anything. Hitler had the ability to dismiss facts that contradicted his prejudices. Hitler was as prone to express uninformed opinions as he was to have keen geo-political insights. Other than the fact that he fought against British Imperial forces during WWI, he knew next to nothing about the English people and culture. He had never visited Britain or any other part of the British Empire and he spoke no English. Hitler DID try to conclude an alliance of some sort with Britain once he became Fuhrer. He said in 1936, “If I had a choice between Italy and England, I would naturally go with the English … I know the Englishmen from the last war, they are hard fellows”. Nevertheless his opinion of British troops deteriorated during the War. Albert Speer wrote that Hitler held on “to the end to his preconceived opinion that the troops of the Western countries were poor fighting material” (“Inside the Third Reich” by Albert Speer p. 418). Actions speak louder than words too. When Britain then refused to capitulate to him he bombed the shit out of their cities, put up a submarine blockade and tried to terrorize and starve them into submission. When that didn’t achieve results fast enough to suit him, Hitler got all frustrated and prematurely moved on to the next items on his agenda: invade the Soviet Union and declare war on America. He believed that his Wehrmacht would be able to conquer the USSR long before Britain and America could get organized to take the offensive.

One of Hitler’s major blunders was not taking full advantage of the Iraqi rebellion in April to June 1941. Had the Iraqi rebels succeeded in expelling the British, Britain would have lost its primary source of fuel for the Royal Navy, namely Iraqi oil, and would have been quickly left dead in the water. Even a hard-head like Churchill would likely have been forced to capitulate. The Iraqis timed their rebellion believing the Brits were whipped psychologically and that British forces in theater were preoccupied with Rommel in North Africa. They were not far wrong as General Wavell in Cairo told London he had nothing to send to Iraq and recommended the British Government negotiate with the rebels for terms. Churchill, understanding the gravity of the situation, over-ruled him and ordered him to send all available regardless. Churchill sent a telegram to the RAF base in Habbaniya Iraq telling the base commander “If you have to strike, strike hard. Use all necessary force.” He did. At the time the Germans were preoccupied with operations in the Balkans and preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union, so when the Iraqi rebels asked the Germans for help they could only send one Luftwaffe fighter squadron and one transport squadron. The RAF quickly drove the fighter squadron out of the air. By June 6, British ground and air forces had, crushed the rebellion and regained control of the oil fields. The opportunity was lost.
responds:January 5, 2017 7:10 PM UTC

Fascinating, Jeremy.

AS friend of mine designed an OCS [Operational Combat Series] game on the British assault on Vichy French Syria.

If the Iraqi's had succeeded this Syrian scenario would have altered drastically.
BaruchKJanuary 5, 2017 11:58 AM UTC

Hitler was a LARPer.

He saw all these Marxists not only taking over big chunks of the world, but doing it under the sponsorship of the West (for instance, https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf).

He wanted to do the same, and secured some support from the Wall Street capitalist backers of the Marxists (which support continued from the 20s long into WW2, http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/), but they always kept him at arm's length. You do not see the kind of gushing praise that Columbia U, Rockefeller, FDR, Bullitt etc. had for Stalin and Mao being lavished on Hitler.

Hitler was not the sworn enemy of England-he professed admiration for the British Empire, and did not wish to destroy it.

Even his antisemitism was a copy of Marx's antisemitism: http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD3/A_World_Without_Jews-Karl_Marx-1959-95pgs-REL-PHI-POL.sml.pdf&id=553

He was just jilted.

As for the Asians, who the hell knows. They're weirdoes. You might as well ask why they like cartoon octopus porn.