Sep 14, 2015

Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst among Jewish Republicans

via The Occidental Observer


An article in The Forward again shows the true colors of the Republican Jewish Coalition: Liberal politics, abhorrence of White identity, and a powerful loyalty to Israel (Josh Nathan-Kazis, Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans).
At a recent board meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the big donors and high-powered operatives in the room went around the table to make sure they had someone supporting each potential Republican nominee.
Jeb Bush backers were easy to find. Supporters of Marco Rubio, too, were plentiful. Ted Cruz had friends there, as did Scott Walker, and even George Pataki and Lindsey Graham. The Republican Jewish elite have spread themselves wide across the GOP firmament.
Obviously it’s a good strategy to cultivate all the possibilities, just as the Israel Lobby has traditionally cultivated both sides of the aisle.
Yet Donald Trump, who has topped 20% to lead all other Republicans in recent presidential primary polls, and who also leads the pack in both Iowa and New Hampshire, is a different story. An RJC member who was present at the board meeting said he could not recall if Trump had backers there. What is clear is that, despite his surge in the polls, the anti-immigration hard-liner has strikingly little support among prominent Republican Jewish donors, activists and consultants.
Many Republican Jewish leaders remain unwilling to speak about Trump. …
Jewish Republicans’ critiques of Trump, when they can be convinced to air them, fall into two categories. Most echo the concerns of the Republican establishment, deriding the real estate developer and former reality show star who is advocating selective tax increases on the wealthy as unserious. They worry that he will drive away nontraditional Republican voters. Others, however, have deeper concerns.
Right. A tax on hedge fund profits, as Trump proposes, would be a serious blow to the RJC.
“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump,” said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. “It’s very off-putting and disturbing.”
The fact is that, although the media has trumpeted support for Trump among people whose politics is explicitly colored by their White identity, I very much doubt that a survey of White Trump supporters would reveal that they are a very significant percentage. At best, but importantly, many of his White supporters may well be implicitly White. Certainly Trump’s immigration policies should resonate with Whites, but, again, how many Trump supporters are going to explicitly state that they want to keep a White America? What’s going on here is that these Jewish activists are horrified by a candidate whose policies would slow down the dispossession of White America.
Trump’s pundit-defying rise has highlighted the distance between the Republican Party’s growing Jewish caucus and some parts of its base. That’s an unlikely role for Trump, who has perhaps the most personal ties to the Jewish community of any Republican candidate: His daughter Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism in 2009, and Trump has lived his life in the heavily Jewish milieu of upper-class Manhattan. “Not only does he have a daughter who is… Shabbat observant, but he’s also a brash, outspoken real estate magnate,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Jewish Republican activist. “In some sense he seems more like an insider than an outsider to our culture.”
One  wonders if being an insider to that upper-class Jewish culture would make Trump more aware of how their attitudes are not motivated by what is good for the great majority of Americans, particularly White Americans, thus making Trump more attuned to populist policies on immigration and trade.
Republican Jewish operatives have worked hard in recent decades to pave inroads into the party for Jewish voters, and to jack up Jewish support for Republican candidates. To that end, the RJC has cultivated candidates like Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in 2012, and former Hawaii governor Linda Lingle, who now serves on the group’s board. Recent polls show that those efforts could be working: A January Gallup report found that only 61% of American Jews called themselves Democrats in 2014, down from 71% in 2008. The percentage of Americans at large who call themselves Democrats has fallen only seven points over the same period.
Jewish Republicans, however, don’t look quite like other Republicans. Many RJC board members are pro-choice and support same-sex marriage, which puts them at a distance from much of the party. And while some Jewish Republicans share wholeheartedly in the party’s conservative ideals, the RJC and its allies have also been working to attract Jewish moderates and liberals, who simply believe the Democrats have been unfriendly to Israel. Some worry that it’s these Jewish supporters who could be put off by Trump.
“I think Trump could make the Republican party look unattractive to people who are more moderate in nature, to the extent the party is made to look more unwelcoming,” Wurtzel said.
What these Jewish voters want is a Republican Party that is just as far left as the Democrats on social policy but is more fanatical in its support for Israel. Obama’s battles with the Israel Lobby are clearly having an effect on Jewish voting patterns. But there are no noticeable changes in Jewish attitudes on domestic policy, particularly the critical issue of immigration.
The problem with Trump for these Republican Jewish activists isn’t necessarily Trump’s positions, to the extent that they exist [!], on top-line issues for Jewish voters. Republican Jewish elites see Trump as a hawkish supporter of Israel, like nearly all other members of the Republican primary field. In a September 3 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump said he would support unilateral action by Israel against Iran, and called Benjamin Netanyahu “a friend.”
Instead, Trump is seen as a threat to the vision of a bigger, more inclusive GOP, which many leading Republican Jews have advocated.
“In order for us to become a party [of anyone] other than white men, we need to be reaching out,” Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, told the Forward. Coleman, an RJC board member who is supporting Graham’s primary bid, said, “I think Trump’s language and perspective is a long-term negative in terms of building the party.”
A Gallup poll released in late August showed that Hispanics have exceptionally negativeopinions about Trump, while their opinions about the rest of the Republican candidates range from mildly positive to slightly negative.
Following Mitt Romney’s decisive defeat in 2012, RJC board member Fleischer and a handful of other major party figures collaborated on a report to the Republican National Committee. The report argued, in part, that the GOP needed to reach out to growing ethnic minority groups, particularly Hispanics, to remain competitive amid changing national demographics. While Bush has built those appeals into the bedrock of his campaign, Trump appears to be crumpling such hopes and throwing them back in the face of the party establishment. Trump has gotten into a shouting match with a popular Univision anchor, doubled-down on his right to be offensive toward women, and continually hyped a purported violent threat posed by undocumented immigrants.
It should come as no surprise that Jewish donors have pushed the Jeb Bush approach, and I strongly suspect that Jeb is their preferred candidate overall. The RJC is just one aspect of the influence of Jews on the  Republican Party. For the last 35 years or so, the neocons have been pushing the Party in the same direction — and yes, neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. The push to the left therefore has not  just been the donors, but the intellectuals at elite academic institutions, the op-ed writers with access to the elite media, the defense policy wonks, much of the  pro-Israel activist infrastructure,  the think tanks, etc. — a full court press. Again, I  can’t help quoting Sam Francis on the effects of the neocons elbowing out traditional Republican conservatives beginning in the 1980s:
There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions. … Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes.…
What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.[1]
The concerns of the contemporary RJC are exactly the same concerns motivating the neocons since their rise to power in the Reagan Administration: support for Israel combined with displacement of White Christian civilization, but to do the latter sotto voce and with a conservative veneer.
In the process, Trump has also drawn the backing of an enthusiastic contingent of white nationalists. “You’ll see it a lot on the Internet,” said Wurtzel, who is active on Twitter. In a New Yorker article published in late August, writer Evan Osnos quoted Richard Spencer, head of a white nationalist think tank, saying that Trump embodies “an unconscious vision that white people have — that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country.”
Clearly Richard Spencer is asserting that Trump voters are motivated by implicit Whiteness, a view with which I wholeheartedly agree.
… Republican Jewish activists say they get the roots of Trump’s appeal. “I’m sympathetic to people out there who are angry, upset,” Wurtzel said. “I understand the frustration, I understand the anger.” What’s left is for them and their allies to harness those feelings for their own candidates.
I really doubt that the RJC people “get” why so many Whites are angry. Or else they do understand but are going to do their best to channel White anxiety about the future into things like concern for tax cuts, small government, or the danger of an imminent nuclear attack on the U.S. by Iran— the usual Republican talking points. Anything but stoke the fires of White anger over their displacement.

Francis, S. (2004). The neoconservative subversion. In B. Nelson (ed.), “Neoconservatism.” Occasional Papers of the Conservative Citizens’ Foundation, Issue Number Six, 6–12. St. Louis: Conservative Citizens’ Foundation.

Against Victor Davis Hanson’s “Western Exceptionalism”

via TradYouth

Victor Davis Hanson
On a personal level, reminding minorities that they’re generally cognitively deficient on average relative to Whites feels mean-spirited and cruel. In practice, it often is. And, yet, contemporary American politics leave us with absolutely no choice but to stand by this inconvenient truth and defend it at all costs. Our enemies know that well-mannered White folks would rather choke their own children than defend that position, which is why it’s the first and hardest position they go after when they’re politically assaulting our extended family of White American co-ethnics.

Imagine playing basketball with a dwarf who’s in denial about being a dwarf. As you racked up the score, he would grow more and more resentful and suspicious, convinced that you’re somehow cheating. He would resort to increasingly elaborate conspiracy theories about why you’re winning in order to avoid reconciling himself to the fact that he’s congenitally less capable of playing basketball. And so it goes with White and Western relations with the rest of humanity, continuously dreaming up ever more subtle and convoluted reasons why we keep winning.

Micro-aggressions, institutional racism, real estate shenanigans, the soft bigotry of low expectations, police brutality. Anything and everything but a realistic appraisal of natural differences.

And it’ll keep happening until we cry out, “You’re a dwarf!” and refuse to play the game. It’s certainly insensitive to do so. The guy can’t help being a dwarf, after all. But if he carries on angrily accusing and even abusing you because of his delusions, there comes a point when it’s necessary. Victor Davis Hanson’s latest, “Is the West Dead Yet?” offers an escape from this moral crisis in the West by claiming we’re winning at the game not because we’re White but because of global capitalism and its affects, which naturally leads to the conclusion that we owe it to the world as our Rich Man’s Burden to impose global capitalism on the rest.

While Goldberg is throwing a childish tantrum and giving up on polemics, Hanson’s skillfully updated the neocon shtick to account for the new populist Zeitgeist. His article heaps on the White Resentment, reminding us about Islamic radicalism, the Mexican invasion, Black crime, #BlackLivesMatter faggotry, Obama’s anti-White agenda, and so much more, …only to redirect that boiling frustration into the same old National Review project of guaranteeing global military and economic power projection and low corporate taxes. White Americans will continue to be cuckolded until they fully awaken and refuse to play the game, and Victor Davis Hanson is modeling the latest angle.

Hanson’s metapolitics don’t hold up. Whites succeed when they’re socialist. Whites succeed when they’re capitalist. Whites succeed when they’re directly democratic. Whites succeed when they’re autocratic. Whites in Russia even made a pretty damn good go of an absurd and inhuman centralized command economy. Whites succeed relative to others because they’re White, as vulgar and hurtful as that truth may ring. Portland and Detroit are both socialist, and yet one is idyllic and the other is apocalyptic. Hanson boldly presents his obviously false theory with all the pomp of a naked emperor strutting down the thoroughfare because he knows that his theory cannot be disproven, as doing so would violate the social taboo against racial realism.

The debate is structured so that the only way to defeat them is through racial realism and naming the Jew, even if you’re not comfortable with it. It’s possible and necessary to be honest about racial differences without ill-will toward the rest of God’s children. Tall folks are generally better at basketball than dwarves, Africans are generally better at basketball than Whites, and Whites are generally better at creating and sustaining advanced civilization than Africans. These truths don’t make us superior in a moral sense, and I see no implied right (or duty) to rule over non-Whites due to these unearned and innate advantages. But when it’s insisted that they’re are stolen or (worse) the product of capitalist greed, then it’s imperative to be forthright: We Whites aren’t privileged, we’re gifted. Deal with it.

Hanson illustrates why this uncomfortable task of insisting that European excellence is congenital rather than situational is mandatory. In it, he rolls out what we’re going to start seeing more of, which is an Islamophobic, anti-immigration, neo-colonial conservative vision which frames the Atlanticist multinational corporate agenda of invading and subjugating the Global South while containing China, Persia, and Russia in romantic ideological terms.

Hanson’s position is the neocon position, tweaked in light of the popular mood to backseat its immigration invasion agenda in order to preserve its cardinal imperative: capitalist neo-colonialism. According to Hanson, the West is “great” because of its mercantilism. And in light of the wonders of mercantilism, it has an implied global Manifest Destiny to share this bounty of democracy, equality, contract law, and Burger King franchises with the entire world.
Westerners are afraid to explain why the non-West suffers and what it might do to end its own miseries.
To do that would be imperialistic and neo-colonial.
False. To do that would be racist.
But it is worse than that: Western elites deny their own exceptionalism, and deny any reason for their own privilege other than the easy private guilt of citing the Holy Trinity of “race/class/gender.”
Throughout the piece, he offers to challenge the Cultural Marxism of the Left, but only within the equally villainous economic reductionist logic of mercantile capitalism. To liberate ourselves, we must break out of both economic reductionist frames; the neo-Marxist economic reductionist frame and the libertarian one proffered by Hanson.
The first casualty in a bored and would-be-revolutionary society is legality. And certainly in the West the law — whose sanctity built Western civilization — has become a joke.
Law and order is vital for the capitalist, as uncertainty about the rules imperils capital investment. Capitalists despise “risk.” While I agree with the capitalists that a reliable and consistent legal order is generally preferable to the chaos, cronyism, and bribery of the Global South, laws exist for communities and their traditions, not vice-versa. I don’t care about “law and order” in relation to the jailing of Kim Davis for refusing to sign the gay “marriage” certificates, because the integrity of a community and its culture is more important than fidelity to law and order.
Without the former, the latter will surely be lost, anyway.
It would be easy to say they are neo–French Revolutionaries who believe social justice, not old white men’s privilege, is the better law code.
Social justice, the true social justice of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, is indeed superior to these tyrannical legal codes.
America is Europeanizing itself, an odd thing, given that Europeans always feared that their Hellenism would be buried under crass American Romanism.
The problem isn’t that we Americans are becoming too European. The problem is that both America and Europe aren’t European enough. Not in some arid academic sense, but in the literal biological sense. Americans and Europeans are being silenced, displaced, and replaced, and the sorts of societies they create are being replaced along with them.
At least for now, we are in a cycle of Western decline, waiting either for another Churchill, Thatcher, or Reagan […or Hitler?] to scold us out of it — or for an existential enemy, foreign or domestic, of such power and danger that all our progressive pieties will dissipate in the face of danger.
The existential enemy has arrived and our progressive pieties are indeed dissipating in the face of danger. The enemy is triune; subversive Jewish elites who resent Western Christendom and actively seek its destruction, cannibal capitalists like Hanson who wish to profit from the Western colonial exploitation and subjugation of the Global South even as it destroys the very Western societies it depends upon, and the opportunistic invaders who are exploiting the betrayals of the first two categories of enemy to conquer Europe demographically by spilling into our heartlands by the tens of millions as refugees, anchor babies, and whatnot.

Of course, Hanson disregards the real Western Exceptionalism, our unique inheritance of aptitudes and abilities, as taboo racism. Hanson has a whole suite of words to shun–but not refute–the nascent uprising throughout the West; nativism, protectionism, fascism, hooliganism, racism, socialism, petty nationalism, and anti-semitism.
Bounty to boredom to decadence to panic to reawakening to ascendance has always been the cyclical way of the West.
In Hanson’s perverted historiography, decadence is deviation from mercantile oligarchy. For Hanson, the Golden Age of his cyclical worldview was that pristine era when the colonial capitalists were pillaging the world’s resources but the consequences of their actions and ideologies had not yet come into full bloom. The West is not an organic, historical, and spiritual collection of similar tribes, but rather a big soup of atomized individuals whose merit lies in their economic productivity and their fidelity to ideals which enhance their economic productivity.

If Hanson’s vision is all Europe truly stands for, then count me among its enemies. Fortunately, it’s not. The West is a family of nations with authentic organic faith, family, and folk identities who deserve to survive and thrive, and they’ll have to defeat the Jewish oligarchs, Victor Davis Hanson, the hostile invaders, and all of their toxic ideologies in order to do so.

Egg on Her Face: Merkel Forced to Close German Borders to "Refugee" Invaders


Chancellor Angela Merkel’s latest attempt to get rid of the White majority in Germany has left her with egg on her face, after the German government had to reinstate border controls at the Austrian border.

Trains of illegal immigrants, bound for Germany were stopped in Austria on Sunday.

Germany’s Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, explains that this decision was voted on by all parties within the German government.
At this moment Germany is temporarily introducing border controls again along [the EU’s] internal borders. The focus will be on the border to Austria at first,” he said.

The aim of these measures is to limit the current inflows to Germany and to return to orderly procedures when people enter the country.”
In a press-conference, de Maiziere also said,
they cannot chose the states where they are seeking protection, Germany has shown willingness to help and this helpfulness must not be overstretched and this why this measurement is a signal to all of Europe, Germany takes on its responsibility but there must be a fair distribution across Europe. The border controls will not solve everything.
This is a HUGE FAIL.

They couldn’t even keep the borders open for a month, and now they want Europe to do exactly the same as them? What could possibly go wrong!?! Why the hell would it work next time if it didn’t work the first time?

There are at least 640 million – over half a billion – people in the world who want to come to Western countries. If the borders are opened, they will come.

Merkel and other malicious anti-Whites want as many non-White immigrants to flood in to Europe as possible, as well as America, Canada, and Australia – turning them all into progressive and “diverse” utopias, where evil White KKK-Nazi-racists are no longer the majority.

If this deliberate attempt to get rid of a group was done to any other group on the planet – it would be correctly defined as genocide by international courts, and the criminals would be punished for their part in it.

But because it’s done to White men, White women, and White children; no one except a few brave souls will call out this White Genocide agenda.

European “Refugee” Crisis Worsens

via American Renaissance

A new flood of “refugees” threatens European identity.

Why Wasn't This Depicted in "Fraiser"?: Black People Kill One Another in Seattle with a Ferocity Usually Reserved for Majority Black Cities

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Where I grew up in the 1990s, we played kick-the-can and Capture the Flag through entire neighborhoods late, late into the summer night. Trick-or-treating would be an all-night affair, with walkies-talkies utilized to locate the houses where homeowners had left out a "please take one" sign and a seemingly limitless supply of candy in a cauldron: like army ants we'd seize upon the unsuspecting house and quickly scavenge all unattended candy without a moments hesitation.

Such was the joy of life growing up in a city resembling exactly what the USA could have been.  What it once was... the only crimes were taking one to many pieces of candy from the "please take one" displays left out by homeowners far too lazy to stay in for the night on Halloween.

Back in those halcyon days, my parents inadvertently rented Sleepless in Seattle for me and some friends for a sleepover.

Big mistake for a bunch of 11-year-old kids to be watching such a silly movie, hopped up on Coca Cola and Pizza Hut...

Well, let's just say nothing like the type of animalistic behavior found in current Seattle ever occurred...[Seattle’s black community reels from killings of young men, Seattle Times, 9-13-15]:
The first killing that touched Leoma James happened in March.
Robert Robinson Jr. was the little brother of a close friend. He was 17, a Cleveland High senior, and gunned down in the middle of the afternoon on Beacon Hill. James, 20, drove back from Pullman, where she attends Washington State University, to be at the funeral.

In July, Reese Ali, 21, who had gone to school with James at St. Therese Catholic Academy, was found dead in an idling car in Renton. His death laid her low. “I couldn’t even go to the funeral,” she said.

A month later, a friend, 24-year-old Antonio Lamarr Jones, was fatally shot while walking his grandmother’s dog in the Central Area.
“Honestly, the thing that bothers me the most is that nobody has really had the opportunity to heal,” James said. “It’s been one death right after another.”
The Seattle Police Department confirms 2015 has been marked by an eruption of gunfire. By mid-August, the department had recorded 252 shots fired — a 30 percent increase over the same period last year. As of Friday, 11 people have died in Seattle, with more killed in surrounding areas, such as Renton, Kent and Skyway.
Most have been young black men. And so the trauma has hit especially hard among African Americans, some of whom, like James, are personally connected to several victims. They are caught in a state of perpetual grief and fear, wondering who will be next and, in turn, making adjustments, big and small, to their lives.
James, for instance, stayed in Pullman for the summer at the urging of her father, who felt it was unsafe for her to come back to Seattle. His point was made when James came home for the July Fourth holiday and went to a party on Westlake Avenue North that was punctuated by a shooting. Among a crowd of some 100 people, including a number of WSU students, “everyone hit the ground,” she said, and stayed there until police arrived.
On Aug. 25, police unveiled a strategy to deal with the violence, including daily internal briefings and weekly meetings with federal agencies and police departments in neighboring areas. But some of those most affected believe, as James put it: “We need to take it into our own hands to save our community.”

First, people have to acknowledge the carnage.
That was the point the college student’s father, a longtime activist named Charlie James, was making as he stood outside City Hall one recent Thursday with a “Black Lives Matter” banner. He began to affixpictures he had accumulated of local black men killed in the last two years. When he was done, 10 young men appeared on the banner — some mugging for the camera, some serious, some in T-shirts, one in a coat and tie. Robinson, the Cleveland student, wore a hoodie and smiled widely; behind him was the telltale blue background of a school photo.

On a piece of paper, Charlie James had written the names of 13 other young men whose photos he still hoped to get.

Only a handful of people turned up for what the activist, best known for his role in creating Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park, hoped would be a show of support for stopping the violence and an idea he was trumpeting to form a regional organization devoted to helping black youth. Among those who came, though, were people searching just as fervently for answers.
 If Seattle didn't have any blacks, would the city have any homicides or nonfatal shootings? At only 8 percent black, the city of Seattle has a problem with black homicides precisely because the urban chaos of killings in the city is committed by black people.

This wasn't something shown in Sleepless in Seattle, nor was the threat of black people something my parents warned my friends or myself about as we went out trick-or-treating or playing capture the flag late at night when I grew up.n the matter of People v. Demarryous Johnson on the charges of murder, the jury could not reach a verdict. I declare a mistrial.”
>Prosecutor squints but knows another trial will loom<
>Victim’s family is in tears, “But they had video showing him shooting my brother!”<
>Outside courtroom #BlackLivesMatter protesters cheer and hug just one black juror<
>Media, and nation, goes nuts<
How long is it until #BlackLivesMatter finds its way into jury boxes? This is not a question of if, but of when. It’s all fun and games for Boomer whites, progressives, and politically-oriented secular Jews to look at #BlackLivesMatter and think of MLK, the Civil Rights crusade, Freedom Riders, and Selma. This is why the chants for dead cops, chants for dead non-blacks, and explicitly anti-white imagery and statements are glossed over by progressive whites. Do not show the monster Soros and social justice academics created. It will all end okay.
Take #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) to its logical conclusion. They do not want police in their neighborhoods. The supposed system oppresses blacks, not the actual, progressive-controlled system that needs blacks for justification of their rule and therefore gives them benefits and perks in the legal code. These invisible grievances from a long gone system build up, forcing blacks to commit crime. Why, oh why, should the justice system send more black men (and women) to jail for killing, due to evil, white thoughts and microaggressions? It might not be outright nullifications, which would mean acquittals, but it may mean more hung juries. With municipal budgets tight, this might mean more deals between prosecutors and criminals. “Take the 25, you’ll be out in 18, it won’t be a life sentence.”
This would be a travesty and another mile marker on America’s path to dissolution. Will these instances be reported? If the media can suppress crime patterns now, a few of these stories would be easy. The fear is a higher profile case, not Zimmerman-Martin level, but at least high enough profile that a metro paper would cover it, and it could blow up. Another problem is as the media dies out and alternative media rises, keeping a lid on this will not be possible. A George Zimmerman is probably murdered in his jail cell if not for the alternative media from outlets like PJMedia and Takis to bodybuilding forums.
The real problem is political. The Left has no figure to stop this madness. Presidential candidates are apologizing for saying “White lives matter” and even “All lives matter”. Senator Bernie Sanders cowers and shrinks from BLM protesters at his own presidential campaign stops, even though he was an old Civil Rights veteran. Any type of leadership on the Left could snuff this out, and stop the lunacy while still keeping blacks engaged at the ballot box for the Left’s benefit. The problem is the broad Left is like a blob, in that is has no shape, no head, and no directive, except to consume and spread for more control. Stopping BLM would also crimp the social justice warrior racket that is a decent export, not just in actual warriors, but of fellow travelers that want to signal they are hip. The Left would then reveal the hollowness of people power, as the Left does not want pure people power, no matter how much they say they do.
If jury oddities start and cannot be avoided, then what comes next? A proper discussion would simply call for an end to the BLM movement and call for the rule of law. That would destroy the Left’s grievance industry and the ever increasing offenses that justify retribution and social justice. It will not happen unless the dead bodies are well-to-do white leftists, but even then, we cannot be sure. Physically removing populations and creating segregated autonomous political districts are nonstarters but a fix.
The false choice will be an option of the Russian roulette of keeping trial by jury, which will only become more of a farce as other ethnicities catch on to the BLM nullification game, or ending trial by jury. Ending trial by jury will be palatable because it would then be a judge or series of judges reviewing cases. They can invoke the traditions of the West, while saying they will weigh social justice concerns. This fits the progressive preference for credentialed, politically indoctrinated experts who will be unaccountable in determining important matters. These judges will all go through our legal education system, which the progressives control. If immigrants can get away with slaps on the wrist in Europe from judges for rape, robbery, and assault, imagine the oddities a judge could dole out with the social justice stamp of approval.
The media will spotlight horror stories of juries gone wild. The great informed middle will accept this removal of an institution as a protection for them. “Singapore does it and Singapore has low crime,” will be the Fox News pitch. The system will also have many more years in the rearview mirror of pushing the microaggression and group grievance tricks on ever more diverse Americans. America must progress! Institutions as historic in the Anglo-Saxon mold as the trial by jury that lasted for centuries and before that were celebrated in Greek plays like The Eumenides will be scrapped–all for the goal of forcing universal beliefs, equality, and social justice on a multicultural, polyglot society. Long gone will be a jury of your peers.
In their place will be the commissars, whom the media will say are experts and can be trusted. They will be trained in the finest law schools, all controlled by the Left. Trust them but beware. They might just sentence a criminal to time served and probation for killing your mom because she was a huge fan of Seinfeld… after he was deemed “problematic”.
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/13/where-does-blacklivesmatter-go/#sthash.wPY9UVEZ.dpu
“In the matter of People v. Demarryous Johnson on the charges of murder, the jury could not reach a verdict. I declare a mistrial.”
>Prosecutor squints but knows another trial will loom<
>Victim’s family is in tears, “But they had video showing him shooting my brother!”<
>Outside courtroom #BlackLivesMatter protesters cheer and hug just one black juror<
>Media, and nation, goes nuts<
How long is it until #BlackLivesMatter finds its way into jury boxes? This is not a question of if, but of when. It’s all fun and games for Boomer whites, progressives, and politically-oriented secular Jews to look at #BlackLivesMatter and think of MLK, the Civil Rights crusade, Freedom Riders, and Selma. This is why the chants for dead cops, chants for dead non-blacks, and explicitly anti-white imagery and statements are glossed over by progressive whites. Do not show the monster Soros and social justice academics created. It will all end okay.
Take #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) to its logical conclusion. They do not want police in their neighborhoods. The supposed system oppresses blacks, not the actual, progressive-controlled system that needs blacks for justification of their rule and therefore gives them benefits and perks in the legal code. These invisible grievances from a long gone system build up, forcing blacks to commit crime. Why, oh why, should the justice system send more black men (and women) to jail for killing, due to evil, white thoughts and microaggressions? It might not be outright nullifications, which would mean acquittals, but it may mean more hung juries. With municipal budgets tight, this might mean more deals between prosecutors and criminals. “Take the 25, you’ll be out in 18, it won’t be a life sentence.”
This would be a travesty and another mile marker on America’s path to dissolution. Will these instances be reported? If the media can suppress crime patterns now, a few of these stories would be easy. The fear is a higher profile case, not Zimmerman-Martin level, but at least high enough profile that a metro paper would cover it, and it could blow up. Another problem is as the media dies out and alternative media rises, keeping a lid on this will not be possible. A George Zimmerman is probably murdered in his jail cell if not for the alternative media from outlets like PJMedia and Takis to bodybuilding forums.
The real problem is political. The Left has no figure to stop this madness. Presidential candidates are apologizing for saying “White lives matter” and even “All lives matter”. Senator Bernie Sanders cowers and shrinks from BLM protesters at his own presidential campaign stops, even though he was an old Civil Rights veteran. Any type of leadership on the Left could snuff this out, and stop the lunacy while still keeping blacks engaged at the ballot box for the Left’s benefit. The problem is the broad Left is like a blob, in that is has no shape, no head, and no directive, except to consume and spread for more control. Stopping BLM would also crimp the social justice warrior racket that is a decent export, not just in actual warriors, but of fellow travelers that want to signal they are hip. The Left would then reveal the hollowness of people power, as the Left does not want pure people power, no matter how much they say they do.
If jury oddities start and cannot be avoided, then what comes next? A proper discussion would simply call for an end to the BLM movement and call for the rule of law. That would destroy the Left’s grievance industry and the ever increasing offenses that justify retribution and social justice. It will not happen unless the dead bodies are well-to-do white leftists, but even then, we cannot be sure. Physically removing populations and creating segregated autonomous political districts are nonstarters but a fix.
The false choice will be an option of the Russian roulette of keeping trial by jury, which will only become more of a farce as other ethnicities catch on to the BLM nullification game, or ending trial by jury. Ending trial by jury will be palatable because it would then be a judge or series of judges reviewing cases. They can invoke the traditions of the West, while saying they will weigh social justice concerns. This fits the progressive preference for credentialed, politically indoctrinated experts who will be unaccountable in determining important matters. These judges will all go through our legal education system, which the progressives control. If immigrants can get away with slaps on the wrist in Europe from judges for rape, robbery, and assault, imagine the oddities a judge could dole out with the social justice stamp of approval.
The media will spotlight horror stories of juries gone wild. The great informed middle will accept this removal of an institution as a protection for them. “Singapore does it and Singapore has low crime,” will be the Fox News pitch. The system will also have many more years in the rearview mirror of pushing the microaggression and group grievance tricks on ever more diverse Americans. America must progress! Institutions as historic in the Anglo-Saxon mold as the trial by jury that lasted for centuries and before that were celebrated in Greek plays like The Eumenides will be scrapped–all for the goal of forcing universal beliefs, equality, and social justice on a multicultural, polyglot society. Long gone will be a jury of your peers.
In their place will be the commissars, whom the media will say are experts and can be trusted. They will be trained in the finest law schools, all controlled by the Left. Trust them but beware. They might just sentence a criminal to time served and probation for killing your mom because she was a huge fan of Seinfeld… after he was deemed “problematic”.
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/13/where-does-blacklivesmatter-go/#sthash.wPY9UVEZ.dpuf
“In the matter of People v. Demarryous Johnson on the charges of murder, the jury could not reach a verdict. I declare a mistrial.”
>Prosecutor squints but knows another trial will loom<
>Victim’s family is in tears, “But they had video showing him shooting my brother!”<
>Outside courtroom #BlackLivesMatter protesters cheer and hug just one black juror<
>Media, and nation, goes nuts<
How long is it until #BlackLivesMatter finds its way into jury boxes? This is not a question of if, but of when. It’s all fun and games for Boomer whites, progressives, and politically-oriented secular Jews to look at #BlackLivesMatter and think of MLK, the Civil Rights crusade, Freedom Riders, and Selma. This is why the chants for dead cops, chants for dead non-blacks, and explicitly anti-white imagery and statements are glossed over by progressive whites. Do not show the monster Soros and social justice academics created. It will all end okay.
Take #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) to its logical conclusion. They do not want police in their neighborhoods. The supposed system oppresses blacks, not the actual, progressive-controlled system that needs blacks for justification of their rule and therefore gives them benefits and perks in the legal code. These invisible grievances from a long gone system build up, forcing blacks to commit crime. Why, oh why, should the justice system send more black men (and women) to jail for killing, due to evil, white thoughts and microaggressions? It might not be outright nullifications, which would mean acquittals, but it may mean more hung juries. With municipal budgets tight, this might mean more deals between prosecutors and criminals. “Take the 25, you’ll be out in 18, it won’t be a life sentence.”
This would be a travesty and another mile marker on America’s path to dissolution. Will these instances be reported? If the media can suppress crime patterns now, a few of these stories would be easy. The fear is a higher profile case, not Zimmerman-Martin level, but at least high enough profile that a metro paper would cover it, and it could blow up. Another problem is as the media dies out and alternative media rises, keeping a lid on this will not be possible. A George Zimmerman is probably murdered in his jail cell if not for the alternative media from outlets like PJMedia and Takis to bodybuilding forums.
The real problem is political. The Left has no figure to stop this madness. Presidential candidates are apologizing for saying “White lives matter” and even “All lives matter”. Senator Bernie Sanders cowers and shrinks from BLM protesters at his own presidential campaign stops, even though he was an old Civil Rights veteran. Any type of leadership on the Left could snuff this out, and stop the lunacy while still keeping blacks engaged at the ballot box for the Left’s benefit. The problem is the broad Left is like a blob, in that is has no shape, no head, and no directive, except to consume and spread for more control. Stopping BLM would also crimp the social justice warrior racket that is a decent export, not just in actual warriors, but of fellow travelers that want to signal they are hip. The Left would then reveal the hollowness of people power, as the Left does not want pure people power, no matter how much they say they do.
If jury oddities start and cannot be avoided, then what comes next? A proper discussion would simply call for an end to the BLM movement and call for the rule of law. That would destroy the Left’s grievance industry and the ever increasing offenses that justify retribution and social justice. It will not happen unless the dead bodies are well-to-do white leftists, but even then, we cannot be sure. Physically removing populations and creating segregated autonomous political districts are nonstarters but a fix.
The false choice will be an option of the Russian roulette of keeping trial by jury, which will only become more of a farce as other ethnicities catch on to the BLM nullification game, or ending trial by jury. Ending trial by jury will be palatable because it would then be a judge or series of judges reviewing cases. They can invoke the traditions of the West, while saying they will weigh social justice concerns. This fits the progressive preference for credentialed, politically indoctrinated experts who will be unaccountable in determining important matters. These judges will all go through our legal education system, which the progressives control. If immigrants can get away with slaps on the wrist in Europe from judges for rape, robbery, and assault, imagine the oddities a judge could dole out with the social justice stamp of approval.
The media will spotlight horror stories of juries gone wild. The great informed middle will accept this removal of an institution as a protection for them. “Singapore does it and Singapore has low crime,” will be the Fox News pitch. The system will also have many more years in the rearview mirror of pushing the microaggression and group grievance tricks on ever more diverse Americans. America must progress! Institutions as historic in the Anglo-Saxon mold as the trial by jury that lasted for centuries and before that were celebrated in Greek plays like The Eumenides will be scrapped–all for the goal of forcing universal beliefs, equality, and social justice on a multicultural, polyglot society. Long gone will be a jury of your peers.
In their place will be the commissars, whom the media will say are experts and can be trusted. They will be trained in the finest law schools, all controlled by the Left. Trust them but beware. They might just sentence a criminal to time served and probation for killing your mom because she was a huge fan of Seinfeld… after he was deemed “problematic”.
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/13/where-does-blacklivesmatter-go/#sthash.wPY9UVEZ.dpuf

Gaddafi's Revenge

via Radix

Muammar Gaddafi warned us.
Libyan despot Moammer Khadafy warns West: If I go down, illegal African immigrants will swarm Europe -- The Daily News, March 7, 2011
Libyan leader Moammer Khadafy played the race card Monday, warning Europethat if he falls they will be deluged by hordes of illegal African immigrants.
"There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy, and Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean," he told the France 24 television station.
"Libya may become the Somalia of North Africa, of the Mediterranean," Khadafy's son, Seif, added. "You will see the pirates in Sicily, in Crete, in Lampedusa. You will see millions of illegal immigrants. The terror will be next door."
And here is a selection from Gadaffi's final, prophetic speech, made the day of his brutal murder.
Now listen you, people of NATO.

You’re bombing a wall which stood in the way of African migration to Europe, and in the way of Al Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You‘re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa and for supporting Al Qaeda. It will be so. I never lie. And I do not lie now.”
Let there be no doubt. The American Empire, and its various "humanitiarn" efforts, has been an absolute disaster for the European race and civilization.

What’s Bad for Whites Must Be Good for the Jews: Why Jews Support the Illegal Invasion

via DavidDuke.com



See JTA article: European Jews, mindful of risks, urge aid to refugees

As Dr. Duke has stated numerous times on his radio show, people often challenge his assertion that Jews are the driving force behind opening the borders in Europe to Muslim immigration. They cannot imagine why European Jews wouldn’t oppose the further increase in a minority that has been the source of considerable violence against Jews, such as the multiple attacks this past January that included Charlie Hebdo.

The article below from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency makes it crystal clear that the Jewish community is united in favor of accepting the ongoing invasion of migrants. In fact, they are dropping the “H-bomb” — Holocaust guilt. Count how many references to the Holocaust, Hitler, and the Nazis there are in the article below. The not-so-subtle message is that Europe must atone for the Holocaust by opening its borders and providing welfare for millions of permanent immigrants.

The article acknowledges that the immigrants likely harbor “anti-semitic” attitudes. They know that some European Jews may become victims of these same immigrants. But think about it. Some American Jews are victims of black street criminals, but that doesn’t stop Jewish media moguls from pushing gangsta rap that glorifies drugs and violence among black youth. Some American Jews are victimized by the immigrant criminals Trump famously complains about, but Jews are all for bringing in more immigrants.

The fact is that Jews, as a group, have always been willing to sacrifice some of their own in order to achieve their goals. David Ben Gurion, the legendary first Prime Minister of Israel, famously stated that he would rather save only half the Jewish children in Nazi Germany by having them come to Palestine (where he need them to create a Jewish state) than save them all by sending them to Britain.

So in the final calculus, it doesn’t matter that this tsunami of Muslim immigrants may make Europe unlivable for Jews, at least for the ones who dress in black and are easily identified. They might as well move to Israel anyway, leaving just the elite at the commanding heights of European society. (Remember, when 90% of Soviet Jews emigrated during the 80s and 90s, Jewish power in Russia actually INCREASED.)

What really matters to Europe’s Jewish leaders is that millions of Muslim immigrants will make Europe unlivable for Europeans. Because what’s bad for the Europeans must be good for the Jews. Right?

Immigration, Altruism, and National Suicide

via Alternative Right

The liberal establishment in the West seems intent on national suicide. Just as they deem George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to be a blueprint on how to run a country rather than a brutal warning about life under the socialist jackboot, so they deem Jean Raspail's novel The Camp of the Saints to be a blueprint on importing third world people in their millions and bringing Western civilisation to a close.

The majority of people in the West suffer from the illusion of permanency – by which I mean they think tomorrow will be no different to today and that next year will be no different to this year. They are correct that little will change in such a short time span, but the West has put into motion a series of events that will totally transform our society well before 2050, let alone by the end of this century. A child born today, in a peaceful and cohesive part of the West, will be a mere thirty-five years of age by 2050 but he or she will live through the biggest racial / cultural upheaval ever witnessed in the history of mankind. By the time they reach middle age the West will have seen racial / religious civil war and terrible bloodshed. Who will emerge the winner is an unknown, but the odds are firmly stacked against the Europeans – unless there is a fundamental sea change in our altruistic attitudes.

Imagine a naïve but well intentioned liberal couple opening the doors of their house to a Muslim refugee family in a moment of sanctimonious virtue. Imagine the female householder as a progressive feminist type who has put her advertising account executive career ("Tarquin darling, super news! We've just landed the Heinz baked bean contract!") before the apparently onerous task of providing the next generation.

Imagine the Muslim family have four children who in turn go on to have four children each.
Who will eventually own the house? And as goes the ownership of the house, so goes ownership of the village, the town, the city and eventually the nation. So as I say, this illusion of permanence is fine for a day or a year, but it just doesn't hold for the long term.

The politically correct West is de-natured, de-Christianised and de-populated. The incoming non-West is nature red in tooth and claw; fanatically religious and fanatically fecund. Tomorrow belongs to them, not us, and to welcome them in, in the numbers we are currently allowing, is to sign the death sentence for Western civilisation.

Some European leaders understand this. Interestingly, they tend to be from the countries once controlled by communism and therefore not swayed by the sixty years of politically correct, subversive indoctrination meted out to the non-communist countries with regard to feminism, racism, multiculturalism and moral and cultural relativism.

One such leader is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who stated:
"Today mass migration is taking place around the globe that could change the face of Europe's civilisation. If that happens, that is irreversible. There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to the world of national cultures."
Perhaps Mr Orban is aware of the words of ex-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi who said:
"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims."
Gaddafi was both right and wrong about declaring war on Muslims in order for the West to remain non-Islamic. Yes, we will succumb to Islam if nothing is done, but we don't have to go to war, we simply have to halt all Muslim migration to the West and think seriously about clamping down on Islam within the West.

Gaddafi, prophet of our doom.
But we are not doing this. In fact we are doing the opposite, which is madness. No sane person could read the media headlines over the last few years which describe with monotonous regularity the violence, murder, rape and mayhem carried out by Muslims in Europe, along with the wars and carnage carried out by Muslims around the world.

Why would any country with a non-suicidal ideology wish to import just one Muslim, let alone millions? The Islamic State boasts of thousands of jihadis coming into the West masquerading as refugees, yet here we are bending over backwards to import them! The BBC et al. go to great lengths to interview only those who appear non-threatening but the stark truth is that the overwhelming majority are young males of fighting age – which the traitor class would really rather you didn't think about too deeply.

Reports from Bulgaria suggest that young 'refugee' Muslim males when forced to surrender their mobile phones are not innocents fleeing terror but Islamic terrorists who have decapitation videos and other such jihadi wonders stored on their memory cards. Will we check the phones of those coming to Britain? I rather doubt it. We must respect their human rights of course, so consequently we will allow in any number of beheaders, jihadis, murderers and rapists who will then add to the glorious multiculti paradise of suicidal Britain.
The images of little boys washed up on beaches is tragic, but equally as tragic is handing over your homeland to those with an ancient and fanatical hatred of all we hold dear. Joseph Stalin said one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic. We cannot afford to be swayed (although we are) by a tragic picture of one death if it means we will one day become part of the million deaths statistic.

BBC: cheerleader of invasion.
Going back to the illusion of permanence, my grandparents were born toward the end of the 19th century and I knew them. During my lifetime I will know people who will still be alive in the 22nd century. My grandparents' generation would have expected a degree of permanence regarding the people and culture of Europe, but this is no longer the case for native Europeans born between now and 2050.

The demographic changes are slow, but they are remorseless. The global population growth is driven only by the Third World and we have decided to import them in order to (purportedly) prop up our declining European populations. This means the end of Western civilisation, of Europe, of us as a people and a culture. The future belongs to those who have children, ergo the future belongs to Islam.

It won't happen next week or next year, but happen it will. The world my grandparents were born into was a vastly different world to that which my grandchildren will inherit. People think we could never witness the atrocities of Syria, Iraq or Libya in the rolling hills of rural Europe, but why not? Our way of life is not due to our geographical location but because Europe is made up of Europeans. When the Islamic demographic amongst young males of fighting age outnumbers our own, then we will have Syria in London, Paris, Stockholm, Berlin, Copenhagen etc. etc. etc.

Students at a school in England
welcome Michelle Obama.
If we could just see though the illusion of permanence and imagine the future photographs depicting what this will be like for non-Muslim Europeans then perhaps we could avert our eyes from photographs of Muslim toddlers washed ashore on Turkish beaches in 2015. The world is changing and if we wish to survive as a people and a culture we must defend our homelands against the migrant invasion. Yes, this sounds harsh, but if we do not we must then accept that our virtue today can only lead to unimaginable carnage tomorrow.

If you are moved by harrowing images of drowned toddlers (and who isn't?) do please try to imagine what sort of life you are guaranteeing for your children and grandchildren if you allow your emotions to cloud the inevitable consequences of your present day altruism.
How we currently think and how we currently behave will seal either our future destruction or our future survival. If you decide for destruction simply because it won't happen next week or next year then you are betraying your country and your children. It really is as simple as that.

On a final point, there will be any number of half-witted and sanctimonious liberals who will be horrified by my apparent cold-hearted callousness. As ever, if you would like to invite me on to the BBC or equivalent to discuss this then I would be more than happy to do so. But as ever, you won't because you know you cannot logically, morally or ethically argue against me.

Ganelon’s Treachery Returns

via Cambria Will not Yield

And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
 
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. And there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked. – Luke 8: 27-33

*****

My mother’s father gave her a set of storybooks when she was little, and she in turn gave them to me. The stories in the various books are stories of the European people. They tell the story of The Bruce, of William Tell, of the Red Cross Knight, and many, many more tales about the great heroes of the white race. Among those many more is the story of Roland, the bravest of Charlemagne’s knights. He was betrayed by his father-in-law Ganelon to the Muslims and died, fighting nobly with a few companions against hordes of Muslims:
Scarcely had Roland breathed his last when Charlemagne arrived to find of all his twenty thousand no one left. Mournfully he called his peers by name. Not one there was to answer – not a single one. And on the height, his face toward Spain, they found the hero Roland. Great was the grief of all. Great was the grief of Charlemagne. His host pursued the Saracens, and by the river E’bro the Moors paid to the full the penalty of their treachery. Then bearing the bodies of Roland and Oliver, Charlemagne returned to France. Laden with chains and tied to a stake like a wild beast Ganelon was led before his judges for trial. By his dark deed lay twenty thousand dead. He was condemned and suffered a shameful death. But in the hearts of Charlemagne and all the people of France remained undying love for Roland, for he took his stand, and held it, never yielding unto death.
In Dante’s Inferno only the Devil himself is placed lower in hell than Ganelon. But now Europe is governed by a whole host of Ganelons. In the name of compassion we are told by church and state that the European people in America and Europe proper must take in thousands upon thousands of Syrian Muslims. Sanctuary? It is not sanctuary, it is an invasion. And the Ganelons of modern Europe should be tied to a stake like their infamous predecessor and tried for their crimes. Instead they luxuriate in fits of self-righteous indignation when any nation, as Hungary tried to do, makes an effort to protect her people from the Muslim hordes. The European Ganelons always pick out some fresh-faced Muslim woman with a cute infant in her arms – “How can you deny them access to your nation?” It should be easy. We should deny all such invaders access to our nation, because we love our own sweet-faced women and children. We don’t hate yours, but you have a nation to go to – go there!

The liberals’ incredible double-dealing is obvious. On the one hand we are told that we must abort all babies born in the European nations, because there are too many babies being born. And then on the other hand we are told we must allow an unlimited amount of Muslims into European nations. Why must we do this? Because we are commanded to go over the cliff with the swinish liberals who are possessed by the devil.

The liberals’ hatred of their own and their love of the stranger can only be understood in the context of demonic possession. Why else would they welcome people into their nation with values diametrically opposed to their own values? Islam is certainly opposed to Christianity, but it is also opposed to liberalism, and yet, only a few liberals, such as Geert Wilders and Jared Taylor, have pointed out the incompatibility of liberalism and Islam. There will be no gay marriages in a Muslim Europe, there will be no feminism, there will be no negro worship, and there will be no toleration of Jews. Why then would the liberals welcome them into their nations? It goes back to the demons in that Gospel story in St. Luke. The liberals have one fear that overrides all other fears: the fear of the God of Mercy, Jesus Christ. And even though the European people have ceased, as a collective body, to be Christian, the liberals fear and hate them, because they were once Christian. It’s the same way with the Muslims. When the Ayatollah Khomeini was performing Muslim hijinks in Iran, he referred to the West as the Christian West, his ancient enemy. The liberals of the West tried to tell him that the West was not Christian, but to no avail. For him the West was Richard, Raymond, and Godfrey. Would that it were true! The enemies of Christ, be they liberal or Muslim, will always hate the white race, because of what the white race once was, the Christ-bearing race. Muslims are not exclusively anti-white, they also hate Christians of other races — witness their execution of the Coptic Christians – but white people will always be the primary enemy of Muslims, because of their past devotion, as an entire race, to the God of mercy.

Some neopagans and right-wing Christians have expressed a preferment for Muslims over the liberals. “Let them come, at least they are not liberals,” is their sentiment. But should a Christian let Muslims determine who should live and who should die? A Muslim state would be just as evil as a liberal state. The important thing is to fight both liberalism and Islam. The Christian European doesn’t oppose Islam because its tenets run contrary to the liberal tenets of the Western democracies, he opposes Islam because its tenets are diametrically opposed to European Christianity, the faith of our ascending race. There is no room for Muslims or liberals in Europe, but since the latter are homegrown we must deal with them on a case by case basis and gradually purge them from our ranks. But the Muslims are foreign invaders; there is no reason why we have to suffer one single Muslim on European soil. Let them practice what they feel is the true faith in the Islamic countries and let Christian Europe alone. But of course the Muslims will not let Europe alone. The liberal Ganelons have let them in. Only European Christians can stop the Muslims at the gates of Vienna. Are there any left? There are certainly none in the organized churches, but the true faith runs through human hearts. Will there be enough European hearts of flesh to stop the blood-red tide? I don’t know; I only know that I love my people and I hate Muslim invaders. Are there no other European people left who love and hate with all their heart?

I once had a student who asked me why I was so hostile to Islam since the Muslims were against the liberals. I answered him with the “pushing an old lady” example. A man could be pushing an old lady into traffic or out of traffic. The two acts of pushing the old lady are the same physical acts, but spiritually they are quite different. The one act saves the old lady, while the other kills her. A Christian opposes feminism, because feminism destroys femininity, which is a source of grace. The Christian does not, as the Muslim does, despise femininity itself. So it goes with all the issues that a more conservative Christian might seem, on the surface, to be of a like mind with the Muslims. But there is absolutely no agreement between a nature religion that is a fusion of Judaism and paganism and a religion of spirit and truth forged from a relationship between the incarnate God of charity and mercy and His people who have circumcised their hearts in order to receive Him still. I find it hard to believe, as Burke found it hard to believe that the French courtiers would not defend their Queen, that any non-liberal European could accept the existence of Islam in Europe. But we know of the grazers; they are wedded to their local atheist clergy and a false idea of universalism, but it is only universalism for the white race; they must love the stranger and hate themselves while the Muslim stranger and the colored stranger need only take care of their own while they destroy the infidel, who is always the white man and those who accept the white man’s religion.

The liberal, the Jew, and the Muslim are at odds on so many issues, but they are one at the core of their hatred: They hate the incarnate God. Can there be a unity based only on hatred? I don’t think so. The Christian European will always be opposed by liberals, Jews, and Muslims, but beyond that they will always be at war with each other. It’s not our mission to side with one over the other, or to try and blend them all into one big ecumenical stew. It’s our mission to hold onto the vision of the incarnate Lord bequeathed to us at our racial hearth fire by our European ancestors.

The whites’ surrender to the Muslims, the liberals, the blacks, and the Jews stems from their lack of faith in Christ as the Lord of History. Christian atheists have tried to justify their betrayal of the European people by claiming that they are just being more Christian; they are perfecting their Christian faith by jettisoning the antique Europeans and their culture. But that is precisely the point. If you deny what even the antique Europeans’ Muslim enemies conceded – that the Europeans’ culture was Christian in all its essentials — then you deny the incarnation of our Lord. If He was not incarnate in Christian Europe then how is He to be known? Is He to be known in the future, as the Jews believe; is He only a minor prophet, as the Muslims believe; is He a social worker, as the liberals believe; or is He a weak and ineffectual pagan deity, as the blacks believe?

Ganelon was tried and killed, because the Europeans of that era believed Christ was incarnate in the European people. To betray them was to betray Him. The modern liberals also believe that Christ was incarnate in the antique European people. That is why they want the West to replace their heirs with Muslims. They want to show there is no going back. Once white people are no more, the Son of Man will have no place to lay His head. It is one of the great ironies of history, but an irony that makes sense from a Christian perspective, that when white people thought they were weaklings who needed Christ the Lord, they conquered the world with their creativity and their unconquerable spirit. Now that they think they are strong and independent, without any need for the incarnate Lord, they are jabbering idiots too weak to resist an invasion of ants, let alone an invasion of warlike heathens. When a mine caved in in Wales and a minder was trapped below, the miner’s friends would say “Who is for Edmund Gwynn?” — or whoever was trapped below. And the man’s friends would say, “I am for Edmund Gwynn,” and they would go down into the mine to see if they could rescue their friend. “Who is for the antique Europeans and the Incarnate Lord?” If we bring them out of the mine that the liberals have exploded on top of them, they will rescue us.

Connectors vs. Polarizers

via Counter-Currents

In his book The Tipping Point (reviewed here), Malcolm Gladwell talks about the importance of people he calls Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen in the viral propagation of ideas. Connectors are people who have a gift for making friends and acquaintances. Gladwell attributes this knack to “some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy” (p. 49).

Although he does not talk about introversion and extroversion, Gladwell’s examples indicate that good Connectors are extroverts, who are energized rather than drained by social interactions.

Good Connectors are people who have a foot in many different social worlds and thus can bring them together. Interestingly, in terms of finding new information and opportunities, most advantageous connections are often weak ties of acquaintance. This makes sense, because your close friends are all in the same social world, so it stands to reason that acquaintances would expand your connections to other realms.

Connectors are extremely valuable for the spread of ideas through word of mouth, simply because they know more people in more social realms.

In my experience, the best Connectors are not just people who reach out, but who are approachable and responsive when others reach out to them. That is half of how connections are made. Once made, such connections have to be maintained as well. This is why Facebook is such a boon to us. Although it is fashionable to deride social media, what differentiates it from the other media is that it facilitates person-to-person connections, particularly the loose, tenuous, and far-flung ones that are actually the most world-expanding.

Many movement people deride the internet in favor of the real world. Of course the real world is where politics happens. But before politics comes metapolitics: sharing ideas and building networks. And the internet is great for that. I would wager that 95% of White Nationalists under 50 would not be with us were it not for the internet.

The most important principle of movement connectivity I know is what I call the Fight Club principle: everybody gets to choose his own level of explicitness and involvement, and everybody else has to respect that decision. Since every society, regardless of its ideology, is ruled by better than average people, we need to recruit better than average people to our cause. But the people who have the most skills, resources, and connections also have the most to lose. Such people will not involve themselves in a dissident movement unless they have a reasonable assurance that we will respect their privacy. People who rant at and browbeat people who do not wish to become open advocates set off alarm bells. They are not to be trusted. They may “out” people someday. Thus prudent people will not and should not have anything to do with them. If you want people to connect to you, they need to know that you understand and respect their decisions about their level of involvement.

The best Connector I know in the White Nationalist world is Jez Turner of the London Forum, which is one reason why the London Forum is such a success, putting on veritable movement summit conferences multiple times a year. Given the bitter factionalism and difficult personalities in the movement, this level of success requires excellent diplomacy and a lot of good humor. The reason that there are not London Forum type events in every major European city is that good Connectors are in short supply.

One of the weaknesses of depending on Connectors is that once they are gone, the network is destroyed. That is what happened when my friend Beryl Cheetham, who was an important Connector, died this year. Once she was gone, I had no way of contacting the people I knew through her. But there was enough redundancy in our broader network that I could reestablish those ties, and the most helpful person for doing turned out to be Jez Turner.

Because of my role as Editor of Counter-Currents, I am a de facto Connector. But I’m just not good at it. Psychologically, I am introverted (INTJ, to be exact), so it is a stretch for me. At a certain point, I just can’t deal with one more social interaction and shut down, which is why I am often a tardy correspondent. Nor am I good at multitasking or remembering names. Ideally, I would have an assistant who is extroverted and good at multitasking (women are typically better at that than men).

Gladwell does not talk about the opposite of a Connector, which is a polarizer: a person who sows distrust and discord. Connectors build up the social capital of the movement. Polarizers tear it apart. I have encountered two kinds of polarizers.

The first group are polarizers on principle: they openly announce that their strategy is to subject anyone who is closer to the mainstream to relentless attack, both ideological and ad hominem, on the theory that this will split off people and win them over to their vanguardist groupuscule. I don’t deny that such an approach might appeal to some types of people, primarily masochists with inferiority complexes or under-fathered “lost boys”—the kinds of people who wanted to join the Marine Corps after watching Full Metal Jacket, for instance. But, as I argue in my essay “The Smartest Guy in the Room,” it only appeals to people who are inferior to whoever is issuing the harangue, which is no way to put the movement on an upward path toward attracting better and better people. Superior people simply ignore such polarizers, or want to crush them like bugs. I suspect that polarizers on principle are simply trying to make a virtue out of indulging their own prickly narcissism and tendencies toward paranoia and embitterment.

The most insidious polarizers actually pose as Connectors. Like genuine Connectors, they like to be at the center of things. But their dominant drive is ego gratification, and whenever that conflicts with the needs of the movement, the movement always loses. I have had dealings with two such people over the years. Both of them pose as Connectors and uniters of different camps and factions. But I began to notice problems.

First, despite their pose as uniters, the trend of their thinking always pulls toward the negative. They are gossips, gatekeepers, well-poisoners, purgers, and shunners.

Second, they prefer the Star Chamber and the whispering campaign to open discussions, so the accused cannot defend themselves.

Third, they always insisted on remaining middlemen. They would not just put people in touch and let them take it from there, because at that point they were no longer needed.

Fourth, they would tell me stories designed to alienate me from people I did know.

In both cases, however, it turned out that these people were pathological liars. And their lies served only one purpose: to stir up drama and intrigue around themselves, which apparently satisfied a neurotic need for attention and a desire to feel powerful. There is really no calculating how much damage such drama queens have done to the movement, since the people they drive apart seldom ever compare notes and realize how they have been deceived.

Gladwell’s discussion of Connectors brings a very important phenomenon into focus. Connectors are extremely valuable and extremely rare. If we want our message to go viral, we need to find and cultivate Connectors whose tendrils reach out into as many different worlds as possible.

Polarizers, by contrast, are a plague. Open polarizers are easy to spot and are generally ignored, because the better sort of people don’t want to work with jerks. Drama queen stealth polarizers are a much bigger problem, but now you know how to spot them.

In my next essay, I will look at Gladwell’s discussion of Mavens and Salesmen.