Three items I haven't been able to get published
Three items I haven't been able to get published: "Sorry, But The Emperor Is Naked", "Feminism and Islam" and "It just looks like this is about alcohol".
Sorry, But The Emperor Is Naked
The process that ends(?) with this essay started in August 2013 when I stumbled across the attacks against American Betrayal as a book and the attacks against its author Diana West as a person. (www.gatesofvienna.net/2013/08/on-reading-the-book/, comment on August 17 at 9:11 pm) The extreme atrocity of the attacks awoke my curiosity. When I realized that the issue was not exclusively an American matter, I decided to buy and read the book. See my “review”. (www.gatesofvienna.net/2013/11/american-betrayal-a-swedish-perspective/)
In July 2014, Ms. West told me about a series of essays in American Thinker. I read the essays and judged that a rebuttal was within my field of competence. (www.jrnyquist.com/ronald-and-di.html)
In my “review” of American Betrayal, I wrote: “Methinks that FDR already had been a full-blooded Communist for many years when he entered the White House. And that he was in pact with Stalin from Day One in 1933. Hopkins only did what he was told to do by the two “Uncles”. The rest was theatre. For example, I cannot conclude otherwise than that FDR had full knowledge of the famine in the Ukraine and of the Katyn massacre etc. And that he fully approved of the murdering. To me, this makes sense, and the actions of Hopkins and many others logical. Did FDR ever make one single decision that wasn’t in the interest of Stalin and Communism? My conclusion: Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the biggest traitor in the history of the United States of America. Furthermore, he was responsible of the “unnecessary” death of several hundred thousand American and British soldiers. He was also responsible for the massacre of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain for 45 years. And he knew exactly what he did.”
Today, three years later, I have extended my conclusion – which is the essential message of this essay: “Until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, FDR and Stalin had been equal partners since 1933. Hitler’s attack drastically changed the balance of power. After the attack, FDR – not Stalin – took supreme command over the global expansion of Communism. Even if Stalin might not have minded, he had no choice – FDR had all the muscle. After the death of FDR, Stalin gradually took over supreme command. There was no need to hurry. Thanks to FDR, everything went their way for many years ahead.”
With the above conclusion in mind, many events and decisions change from being “strange”, “mistakes” or “incomprehensible” to being perfectly logical. For example FDR’s provocation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or his efficient obstruction of the obvious military advantages of striking north from Italy in 1943. When the two “Uncles” agreed, FDR let Stalin decide and “victimized” him and the USSR as part of the theatre. One of the few times FDR clearly demonstrated – and at the same time actually revealed – his supreme command was the decision to invade North Africa in 1942. Hopkins (=Stalin?) protested vociferously, but they did not know their own best, or perhaps it was just another piece of theatre/deception. The action would splinter the German forces, and FDR knew that he could prevent any future Ally attack northwards from Italy. Everything with the purpose of maximizing the Communist expansion. The result talks for itself.
To support my claim, I have chosen five books where I have highlighted:
1. FDR (red color)
2. Defense, excuses, explanations etc. (yellow)
3. Ike Eisenhower (blue)
4. Destruction of evidence, documentation etc. (green)
5. No label (lila)
The books I have chosen – in the order I have read them – are American Betrayal by Diana West, The Morgenthau Plan by John Dietrich, Red Cocaine by Joseph D. Douglass, Target Patton by Robert K. Wilcox and Blacklisted By History by M. Stanton Evans. (approximately 350 highlightings in all.)
I am fully aware of the fact that this conclusion is very, very painful for the American people. But the same also applies to all Europeans – and what about the Chinese? – who have suffered – and still suffer from the consequences. We cannot pass on the current immense lie to the future generations, can we?
Feminism and Islam (draft)
The book should be accompanied by illustrations, associating to a book for children.
Introduction The word ”feminism” itself is dezinformatsiya just as for example “communism”. The words imply that these ideologies represent women and the working class respectively. They don’t!
I distinguish between feminists and women, just like I do between Muslims and infidels (Kafirs).
SCUM – Society for Cutting Up Men - The Quran
Valerie Solanas, the author of SCUM - Muhammed
Feminist leader of a country - Ayatollah
The extermination of men - The global Caliphate
Placing themselves as victims. Always the men's fault. - Same. Always the infidels’ fault.
Collectivists. No facts, please. Sense of humour? - Same.
Misogyny (Women-hatred) - Islamophobia
Lying - Taqiyya
Feminist centers, The Schools of Social Work, Social Authorities, MSM, - Mosques
Women’s Refugees, Universities etc.
Feminists own their children. - Muslim men own their wives and children.
In the best interests of children. Women are more compassionate than men. - The Religion of Peace
Men that are feminists. Feminists not criticizing the Muslim atrocities
against women and children, but rather indirectly approve of them (For
example The Swedish Hijab Solidarity Circus in August 2013) - Dhimmis
Not equal under the law. No respect for the law of a country. - Same. Sharia laws are ruling.
Reprisals against “obstinate” men. To women, breaking the Code of
Women’s Solidarity is not for free and harder punished than the reprisals
against men. Threats and aggressions to silence opponents. - Killings, stonings, burnings etc. Apostates are to be killed. Threats and aggressions to silence opponents.
Strong and competent women = traitors - “Moderate” Muslims who follow the law of a country and
not the sharia laws = traitors
Aggrieved feminists - Blasphemy. Muslims slaughter thousands of Christians and
Jews around the world. A Mohammed cartoon causes a death
Fatwa. And they mean it!
Make war – not peace. No wish of communication. - Same. The Muslims started their war 1400 years ago.
Self-blinded to the harm they cause. - Same.
Hysterical - Same. Violent riots everywhere.
Working the system, welfare, courts - Same.
Infiltration, affirmative action - Same.
Sexual Schizophrenia - Same.
Celebrating when they’ve got men placed in the gutter. . Celebrating for example 9/11.
It just looks like this is about alcohol
From time immemorial tobacco, alcohol and good food have been important elements in the quality of life of very many people.
Moral values is a term that is often misused, one that I personally avoid as far as possible. Whose moral values? Should we strive to emulate a person who believes they have a higher moral standing than yourself? Personally, I am only capable of relating to whether something is legal or illegal, in accordance with current legislation (Note! Legislation! Not case law.). As long as one is not at the same time committing any illegal act, it is not illegal to smoke, drink alcohol to excess or to indulge in food.
It is nothing new that people with questionable psyches more or less consciously seek employment and positions where they can mistreat vulnerable people while being paid to do so. There are many such examples in medical history and psychiatry. However, one may also inadvertently harm people by using accepted methods. This is no more than a human failing. However……… as soon as corrective information is received and understood, the behaviour immediately changes. Those who refuse to assimilate the information and continue on the same lines as before reveal their true purpose, which is not to benefit the recipient or patient, but the exercise of violence.
All existing Swedish guidelines and recommendations in respect of alcohol intake are directly misleading for the individual. The individual variations are several hundred percent. What is relevant is the impact on the individual's body, i.e. mainly the results of CT and ultrasonic scanning, if necessary liver biopsy and a number of blood samples. The number of centilitres consumed - which most "heavy consumers" are well aware of - is only relevant for the individual as a tool, and the question should in general never be asked by a doctor. Besides being difficult to check, it is destructive and degrading - the latter even for the doctor.
Cirrhosis must be avoided or halted at the absolute earliest possible stage. Factual information about cirrhosis should be regarded as much of a deterrent and motivation as information about COPD should be for smokers. The variables are many and the relationships complex, although the individual has a number of tools available. Among other things, blood sampling indicates the possible need for dietary changes or additions. Exercise and weight reduction are other tools. Alcohol-free periods, so-called "temporary alcohol abstention" is another tool, that I will come back to. Using measurement results and the aforementioned tools, among others, a healthy person can take control of their alcohol consumption and health status without medical intervention. All the necessary information is available on the Internet. Development of knowledge in respect of biomarkers for various cancers will improve the ability to perform checks.
As long as only steatosis is concerned, a normal liver has a very good chance of recovery if only given the chance to experience a long enough period free from alcohol. The professional - advised by doctors - recommendations vary greatly. A number of years ago – I won't say exactly how many – I decided on 6 week ”breaks” at about 18 months intervals (In my case a ”break” = ”totally sober”. Not even a light beer or a glass of cider.). But that was pure imagination. It is only at the time of writing this - and at a sufficient age - that I know with sufficient certainty that I chose not too short periods of absence from alcohol at too long intervals, and that I didn't start too late.
For completely different reasons than alcohol, I underwent TDM (therapeutic drug monitoring) TAP (thoracic-abdominal-pelvic) in November 2014. When I received the results, in the form of fantastic, large and detailed photographs and a CD - but without comments - I asked to speak to the responsible physician. ”Nothing special”, said the friendly doctor at the Clinique St Paul in Fort-de-France on Martinique. ”How about my liver?”, I asked. ”Nothing special”, he replied, with a slightly amused smile
My latest 6-week break was from January to March 2015. This time, 11 June to 22 August 2016, I decided to measure the effects – where the results only matter to me, and no-one else. Before, after 14 days without alcohol, and after 42 days without alcohol. My conclusion is that at the present time there is no health reason to alter my alcohol habit.
|Measurement results (sample)||29/6 2016||25/7 2016||22/8 2016|
|Albumin (34-48 g/l)||39,6||40,3||No value - lab error|
|ASAT (5-34 UI/l)||50||39||36|
|ALAT (less than 55 UI/l)||29||36||37|
|GT (12-64 UI/l)||76||48||31|
|B9 (7.9-46.4 nmol/l)||15,7||21,9||19,9|
|B12 (137-652 pmol/l)||264||249||235|
A final rhetorical question to the medical professionals: ”How can it be that the above-mentioned very simple treatment model has not been applied, despite being widely known some 30 years ago?”