Conservatives: “Joe Biden Needs to Bring in More Refugees from Afghanistan”

Benny Johnson: Your standard conservative intellectual

Doesn’t Benny Johnson literally suck cocks?

Like, with his mouth?

(I’m talking about penises, commonly known in the gay community as “fizzle sticks.”)

As far as I’m aware, Benny Johnson has been commonly found licking his own feces off of other men’s penises.

He is of course a big shot over there at The Gateway Pundit or The Daily Wire or The National Review or Human Events or some other website run by kikes, faggots, and “colored folk” (commonly known as “niggers” to sophisticated intellectuals and big wigs).

Anyway – these “conservatives” demanding that Joe Biden bring in more refugees from Afghanistan is just – wow.

That is peak “owning the libs.”

It is like these people owned the libs so hard that they’re going to create a singularity which will suck the entire conservative movement into a singular numeral of the black unemployment rate.

I just can’t process how this is even… what do conservative viewers/readers think of this?


At some point, people must pause and say: “I get that we’re really owning the libs hard, but what exactly are we promoting here – exactly?”

Please note that Donald Trump himself claimed that Joe Biden wasn’t bringing in enough Afghani refugees.

We’ve been through this, as the regular reader knows.

Here are some relatively recent and very underrated backstories:

The last one, which is the most recent, seems in my brain like the best place to start if you’re new to this level of understanding.

I’ve consistently had a hard time “soundbiting” this up, possibly because I’m actually still personally baffled by it.

Basically, “owning the libs” means that you take on the moral assertions of the Democrats as your own, then claim that you are better at enforcing that morality than them.

It doesn’t matter that this morality is the opposite of the morality of the average Republican voter. In fact, the average Republican voter seems remarkably supportive of the idea that the Republican Party and the Republican commentariat should be focused on zooming in on the extremist left, figuring out what all of their positions are, then explaining that Republicans can accomplish Democrat goals better than the Democrats.

The difficulty is soundbiting it up into bits is that there is some purpose in pointing out that Democrats are not actually accomplishing their own stated goals. However, you should be able to point that out without asserting that the Democrats are bad for not accomplishing goals that Republicans disagree with in the first place.

But somehow, conservatives have utterly failed to differentiate between:

  • “Joe Biden says he cares so much about refugees, but he just abandoned hundreds of thousands of ‘new Americans’ in Afghanistan. Of course, if he misses these ones, he can just pull any number of others in from any other brown country on earth. Maybe this whole refugee agenda isn’t so much about ‘saving brown people’ as it is about replacing white Americans?”, and

To me, it seems like you should be able to point out the hypocrisy without actually taking on the position of the Democrats. But Republicans have consistently proved so incapable of this – on the level of politician, media person, and voter – that I’ve started to believe that Republicans should simply avoid pointing out hypocrisy, ever.

They do not appear to be capable of pointing to the hypocrisy without endorsing the position as their own, and claiming that they are “the real X.”

Of course, the most heinous and actually unbelievable example of this phenomenon is Dinesh D’Souza, who claims that Democrats are literally members of the KKK and have an ideological commitment to Nazism. At one point during the BLM protests in 2020, D’Souza claimed that the black rioters were German Nazis. He’s also claimed that Greta Thunberg is a German Nazi. I wrote a really funny article about this many years ago entitled “After Hit “Dems are Real Racists” Film, Disney Signs Dinesh D’Souza for Film Series on Things That are the Opposite of Themselves.”

D’Souza will actually then purposefully mix-up accusations of a secret Demon-RAT KKK conspiracy with basic bitch talking points about “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and how incentivizing single motherhood among blacks through the welfare system harmed black families. He draws zero distinction between claims that the Democrats are literally secretly plotting to kill blacks (a theory that he invented) and traditional Republican criticisms of how Democrats have managed the black problem.

This man is an absolute charlatan, selling pablum to boomers, telling them that he, as a brown man, gives them permission to say that they are not really racists. Of course, they actually are really racists by the leftist definition of “racism,” which simply means “anyone who thinks America should stay pretty much like it was before.” But he gives them a new definition of the term, which allows them to use semantics to escape the (apparently very hurtful) accusation that they hate people for the color of their skin.

This whole thing just spirals into nonsense, and D’Souza gets in the way – majorly – of trying to explain to conservatives the real reality of race, and how wanting to keep America mostly white does not mean that they “hate the color of the skin.” Instead of understanding that, conservatives now go around claiming that the Democrats are actually Nazis who are plotting to kill black people (because they hate the color of their skin).

There should be “adults in the room” – conservative intellectuals calling this nonsense out for what it is. A key element of the nature of a peasant is that he cannot determine the difference between an intellectual and a charlatan who is good at his game.

Beyond just intellectuals and charlatans, and frankly beyond peasants, a person who is uneducated in any field cannot tell the difference between a legitimate expert and a con artist. In the 19th century, people were getting addicted to cocaine by buying “miracle cures” from snake oil salesman. You can look at the case of Anthony Fauci to see this “non-expert inability to perceive expertise” phenomenon taken to its logical conclusion.

Normal people should not be required to be intellectuals. Demanding that plumbers, factory workers, electricians and computer programmers should be capable of identifying an intellectual is a totally unreasonable request. They should in fact be able to rely on social institutions to present them with the people and ideas that they need to make their own decisions.

Unfortunately, the conservative intellectuals were all deplatformed, unpersoned, and their names stricken from history in the 1980s. Because they were anti-Semites. There was no social institution to prevent this from happening, because Jews – a group of people who do not respect the social institutions of non-Jews – destroyed those social institutions on purpose so that they could go on to promote charlatans like Dinesh D’Souza as conservative intellectuals.

Again, I just want to state clearly: I do not think that normal people are to blame for this situation. We can all mock the boomers for believing the sickening gibberish they believe, but they could not have gotten out of this situation. The problem of boomer chronic moronism is truly simply a sub-category of the problem of Jews.

You can watch this 1986 interview with buried conservative intellectual Joe Sobran if you want to understand more of how this all went down.

(Pat Buchanan is the single one who survived this purge of “anti-Semites,” in that he maintained a public identity. But he was not given any serious airtime, and most Fox News viewers don’t know any of his views on anything that matters. Still, they seem to revere him as a kind of mystic, perhaps understanding that there is a difference that they can’t verbalize between him and Dinesh D’Souza. They have some sort of sixth sense, perhaps, that does allow them to sniff out an adult, but they can’t ever really put their finger on it. Actually, I’ve had some success with the boomers in just saying “look up what Pat Buchanan says about Israel.”)

The “D’Souza Effect” is just blatant, inexcusable ridiculousness.

But it is really just proof of concept.

I would expect that the core concept originates from The National Review, and the various associated Jews who took over the conservative movement in the 1980s.

However, there is one single figure that I view as more responsible for this phenomenon than anyone else, and that is Sean Hannity.

When Ted Cruz goes out there and claims that Republicans are working to turn the earth into a solid sheet of ice by shutting down cars, and that it is Republicans who are trying to unleash infinite numbers of Central American children into Iowa and Wisconsin, he is effectively channeling Sean Hannity.

The massive effect that Hannity has had on the conservative movement is not fully understood, and likely won’t be for several more decades. But whenever I see something like a conservative claiming that Republicans are the real standard bearers of leftist ideology, I think of Hannity.

Somehow, my mind was blown when he actually did a serious interview with Bruce Jenner when that boomer tranny was running for governor of California.

But of course he did that.

It doesn’t matter how deranged the leftist idea is: Sean Hannity will take that idea, and claim that “true conservatives” stand for that idea, and that Democrats are failing to do enough to promote that deranged idea.

You see: I failed to soundbite this up, yet again.

The fact that I can’t soundbite it speaks to why it is so effective: the whole thing slips under people’s radar. If you find some conservative talking about how Biden isn’t bringing in enough refugees from Afghanistan, and ask that conservative “why do you want more refugees from Afghanistan?”, this will happen:

  • His eyes will completely gaze over and he will sit there blank for several seconds.
  • Eventually, he will say: “I don’t.”
  • He will then look around, blinking, as if he’s lost his train of thought.
  • He will mumble something along the lines of: “it’s just that Biden is, he’s just, he’s… it’s… we have to… we can’t…”
  • It will trail off, and then he will either completely change the topic or just end the conversation.

It’s literally like some kind of magic spell.

I don’t know how else to describe it, and I don’t really have any better explanation as to why it works so well on these people. I know for a fact that none of them actually support these positions, and yet, every day they end up arguing these positions and cannot explain why.

If I could somehow explain the psychological process involved here, I would. And then I would have my soundbite. But I can’t explain the psychological process, because I simply do not understand it. I do not understand why Ted Cruz can go on Fox News and say that Democrats are causing global warming, and no conservative says “wait, isn’t global warming a globalist hoax?”

I guess if I were to have to try to explain it, I would say that leftists – and by that I mean “the Jews” – are able to so strongly declare their morality that people just somehow accept it as universal morality. But that does not make sense to me, given that these people – the conservatives – already have their own morality and worldview, which they are otherwise capable of asserting.

It is something with the obsession with pointing at hypocrisy, which is the basis of this whole “owning the libs” thing. They just do not seem to grasp that there is a line between “he’s not doing what he says he believes in” and “I WILL DO THE THING THAT HE SAYS HE BELIEVES IN!”

You have already caught them in the hypocrisy. You don’t need to take it any further.

This is literally like if a soccer player were to take the ball from his opponent who was running it to his goal, and then say “oh hey – I got the ball now! You wanna kick the ball in my goal? Well, let me show you how that’s done!” He would then kick the ball into his own goal, and start shouting “BOOM – OWNED!”

Everything that I am trying to communicate in this thousands-of-words-long essay is summarized by this one tweet from Charlie Kirk.

Frankly, I think that these people are being blinded by Satan. As soon as they went along with “no, I don’t agree with homosexuality, but I support them doing it anyway because our values are freedom,” they had abandoned the concept of objective, Christian morality, and entered into a bizarre dance with non-objectivity, which is actually just man playing God.

Thomas Jefferson supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Defending the right of homosexuals to engage in their anal actions “as long as it’s in their own bedroom” is not only not Christian, but has no basis in the (Christian) philosophical history of this country.

You have to have a point of reference, or nothing means anything. The point of reference should always be Jesus Christ, and the traditions that he laid down the foundations for. Anything other than that, and you’re in zero gravity, and you can’t tell if you’re falling down or just floating.

Editor’s Note: This article is much too long, but that really illustrates the nature of the subject matter. Frankly, this is the single most important issue that I have no ability to talk about in a quick and punchy way.