Oct 14, 2015

It’s Not “Rape Rape” Unless It’s a Straight White Male

via TradYouth

A few years back, Whoopi Goldberg explained on national television that Roman Polanski’s drugging and raping a child in his hot tub wasn’t “rape rape” because he’s Jewish. She didn’t actually come out and say that his Jewishness exculpates him, but the nature and context of his support confirms why he enjoys a double-standard. Right now, Germany’s busily covering up a wave of vicious gang rapes being visited upon its young women because the rapists are their beloved “refugees.” Statistically speaking, the real rape problem in America is in its minority and immigrant communities, but the media keeps insisting that the rapists are all White frat jocks.

Finally, after a long miserable string of embarrassing rape hoaxes being exposed, they managed last week to uncover the perfect crime for their narrative. At the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity right here at Indiana University, a White perpetrator had the White victim held down and forcibly raped in a horrifying hazing ritual.

Wait, what? the perpetrator was a female and the victim was a male?

Dammit!

The Leftists don’t actually care about rape, they only care about leveraging the American moral panic about rape for political effect. A sincere and apolitical campaign to minimize rape and convict the guilty is not on the feminist agenda, because it would run through their minority, immigrant, Jewish, and sexual paraphiliac communities like a tornado through a trailer park.

Slate, a site which has been trying desperately to capitalize on rape hysteria since well before Mike Nifong’s ill-fated crusade against imaginary rapists at Duke University, has changed its mind about rape hysteria. This week, Slate has decided to humanize, contextualize, and victim-frame the perpetrators of violent rape. At long last, rapists have advocates in the mainstream media.
Reginald Artis is a transgender woman from Chesapeake, Virginia, who was sent to prison in 1987 for a sex crime she committed at age 23, when she still identified as a man, against a 17-year-old.
The uninitiated will fail to notice several things going on in this first sentence. We’re told he is transgender at the very beginning, repeatedly and egregiously, throughout the article, to signal to the liberal Slate readership that this is a civil rights issue. Of course, the rape had nothing to do with his shrewd decision to identify as transgendered. But what especially aggravates me is how the wording about the “sex crime” and age disparity primes the reader to presume that it’s a statutory rape thing.

It’s not. It was simple textbook gay anal rape. He held the victim down and anally sodomized him. Period. Paragraph. Shortly after the gentle contextualization, the author invites the rapist to explain what he did. True to form, the unrepentant rapist offers the typical narrative that feminists are always howling about, implying that the victim was basically at fault for getting him all excited and backing out.
Me and this co-worker, we were out having drinks and stuff, and he exposed himself, and I acted on it. We were playing around, but then he had a change of heart … and I forced myself on him.
Strip away all the leftist signaling and imagine Slate sympathetically interviewing a White male fraternity brother who had raped a female and was trying to rustle up some pity for his harsh sentencing. Then imagine that Slate interviewer failing to at the very least challenge the “She basically made me rape her!” script offered by the perpetrator. The double-standard is boggling.

As is often the case with these things, the state’s case for deciding that Reggie remains a threat to the community is shrouded behind a web of privacy. He gets to make a big public case for why he should be let free while the professionals are bound by rules and regulations. They’re prohibited from defending their decision to protect the community. They can’t explain that he was convicted of a prior offense before this one of sexual battery on a 16 year old. They can’t offer his answers to the quiz or his record or reputation in prison. All the reader has to go on is a bullshit paint-by-the-numbers repeat sexual predator’s narrative about being a transgendered victim of racist injustice.

He’s sitting in his comfortable climate controlled world of free meals, recreation, entertainment, and fellowship with other felons…pretending he’s the victim. The only victim here was the man he viciously raped. The only reason Reggie’s still alive is liberal mercy and moral cowardice. Reggie hasn’t even bothered to keep up on his hormone treatments, has performed no surgical alterations, and hasn’t even changed his name to a feminine-sounding one. He’s cleverly jumped on the transgendered civil rights phenomenon because that’s his ticket to public acclaim, and they’re gullible enough to fall for it.

He’s still a rapist faggot. He’s still trying to excuse and downplay his crime. I agree with Slate’s Anti-White Zionist ivy league Jew Leon Neyfakh that Reginald Artis doesn’t deserve “civil commitment.”

He deserves the death penalty.

Trump: Merkel's "Migrant" Policy Is "Insane"

via Britannia

Angela Merkel in a hijab on a placard at an
anti-Islam demo in Dresden. The placard says,
'Mrs Merkel, we are the people'
Republican US presidential frontrunner Donald Trump branded Angela Merkel's welcoming of migrants to Germany "insane" and said the policy will only spark riots in the country.

"What's happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was, like, this great leader," Trump said in comments aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." 

"What she's done in Germany is insane. It's insane."

Trump -- whose popularity has soared in some quarters on his anti-immigration platform -- said that Europe was "going to have to handle" the migration crisis, but warned: "They're going to have riots in Germany."

Germany is expected to receive between 800,000 and one million asylum seekers this year, and Chancellor Merkel has insisted that her country can manage the large numbers, part of a surge of migrants to Europe.

Trump reiterated his position that the United States should not take in the refugees, repeating previous comments that he believes the migrants look to be mostly "strong men" who look like "prime-time soldiers" from the jihadist cause.

"This could be the greatest Trojan horse," he added, echoing what has become a talking point for him over the past week.

"This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts if these people turned out to be (Islamic State group fighters)."

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Promoting the idea of “gender fluidity”

The ideological glue that holds Jill Soloway’s Transparent together is the deconstruction of the whole concept of gender. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? As one character in the show puts it, “We’re just a bunch of bodies, that’s it. No penis, no vagina, what does it matter?” According to Soloway, “The show questions the binary; trans people question the binary. Trans-ness demands that people live in the gray. The word ‘trans’ is about traveling the space between the binary. Judaism/feminism/trans politics — they can all really be woven together. Living at that ground zero place of otherness is inspiring to me.” Soloway is passionate about normalizing the concept of “gender fluidity”: Paste Magazine notes that: “In Transparent sexual identity loses its ‘statehood’ and becomes fluid, treated like an ongoing process with its own ebbs and flows.”

As Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, noted, the reality, as distinct from Soloway’s ideologically-driven fantasies, , is that far from being a normal healthy behavior, “transgenderism” is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. Noting that changing sex is “biologically impossible,” McHugh observes that “people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Those who believe that their maleness or femaleness is different to what nature assigned to them biologically suffer from “a disorder of ‘assumption’” which is similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering from anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight.” McHugh notes that: “This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken — it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

A recent study showed that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is twenty times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. McHugh cites studies, from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70 to 80 percent “spontaneously lost those feelings.” Particularly noteworthy given propaganda like Transparent is the subgroup which
consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.
Given these findings, McHugh claims that those who enable or encourage the “transgendered” to identify as such are validating and reinforcing a mental disorder.

Soloway’s Transparent plays exactly this role. One Jewish source relates an experience of a star of the show, Jeffrey Tambor, who won a Primetime Emmy Award for his role as Jewish-trans-parent Maura Pfefferman, who recently met some parents who told him:
“‘We love your show. … We really, really love your show.’ Their son called and said, ‘I don’t want to go back to softball anymore, please don’t make me go back.’  The parents said, ‘Why? What’s wrong?’ He [the son] said, ‘Daddy, mommy, I’m not a boy-boy. The parents asked, ‘What do you mean?’ And he said, ‘Mommy, daddy, when I grow up, I want to be like Katy Perry.’”
Tambor went on to say the parents listened, and all three of them watch the show together. “My father wanted me to be a teacher, and in a way, Jill Soloway and company, we’re sort of teaching about not fearing the other and not ostracizing people. I’ve always believed acting and laughter was instruction.” So perhaps Jeffrey Tambor became a teacher after all. Teaching us a lesson that may be hard for some to hear, but as Jews we understand what it is like to be “the other.” We know the pain of exclusion, the history of separation, and the fear of living in a world that sees us as outcasts.
While the Obama administration, Hollywood and the mass media are promoting “transgenderism” as normal behavior, McHugh notes that these “policymakers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the “transgendered” by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

The assumption, promoted by Jill Soloway, Jenji Kohan and others, that gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led “transgendered” people to push for social and legal acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth.” As a result, some states — California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — have passed laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. McHugh notes there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous — even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.” He notes that such action comes “close to child abuse given that close to 80% of those kids will abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated.”

In 2012 the American Psychiatric Association announced a revision to its official guide to classifying mental illnesses — the DSM-5. The new highly-politicized DSM eliminated the term “gender identity disorder” in response to the pressure from LGBTQ activists. The previous diagnosis meant that a man who believed he was destined to be a woman was considered to have a mental disorder. The new DSM now only refers to “gender dysphoria,” focusing only on those who feel distressed by their gender identity. Gender dysphoria was only left as a diagnosis to ensure that a “transgender” person could still access “health care” if needed (e.g., hormone treatment and counseling). Many activists felt that the gender dysphoria diagnosis could be a powerful legal tool when challenging discrimination in health insurance plans and services.

These changes to the DSM were spearheaded by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. Jack Drescher, head of the APA group that approved the changes. One source notes that Drescher, the former editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, “grew up as an observant Jew in a kosher household.” On announcing the change, Drescher offered no scientific justification for the move but claimed that the change “reduced the amount of stigma and harm that existed before.” Another Jewish member of the working group, the transgender rights activist, Dr. Dana Beyer, was likewise only concerned with the sociopolitical impact (rather than the actual scientific validity) of the changes. Writing in the Huffington Post, she noted that “Our greatest accomplishment on the Working Group was reconceptualizing the state of ’being trans’ from a mental illness to a normal human variant.”

Dr. Jack Drescher
Dr. Jack Drescher
Like Drescher and Beyer, Soloway is aggressively pushing the transgender agenda, and, according to Vogue Magazine, “Transparent has gone a long way toward normalizing formerly foreign terrain for the American public.” One of the show’s stars, the Jewish actor Jay Duplass considers Transparent to be “at the forefront of a civil-rights movement, but in a way that has Jill’s irreverent, hilarious, deep, dark cloak over it. We’re not, like, touting, ‘Hey we’re changing the world for transgender people!’ We’re just making a great family show that’s weird and dark and funny but also part of this greater movement.”

In an interview Soloway claimed that: “My hope is that the show is going to be so emotionally, spiritually, sexually revolutionary that you won’t just watch it once,” while a journalist for the feminist Ms Magazine, noting the slyly subversive nature of Transparent, observed that: “I have long admired her work, not just for its entertainment value but for the layers of feminist questioning about sexuality behind it, which make her programming plug into the brain’s dopamine receptors all the more strongly.”

This is only the beginning

Soloway believes that, with regard to the revolution in gender identity that she is spearheading,  “we’re at the very, very, very beginning,” and is looking forward to when “we’re gonna look back at this moment 20 years from now and say, “Oh, remember when people had to only be male or female?” Soloway’s objective in producing shows like Transparent is “not to make all of the queer activists happy, because that’s really quite difficult, and it’s not really to change the minds of super-right-wing Republicans. It’s really to address this moveable middle. The largest group of people are in between those two poles, who really just need information.” For “information” read subversive propaganda which continuously chips away at the margins of White society and over time has an erosive effect — systematically breaking down heterosexual normativity to destabilize the homogenous bulk of the population.

Given the Jewish domination of Hollywood with their notorious ideological proclivities, it was inevitable that Transparent would be among the winners at the 2015 Emmy Awards. The show won awards for best television series comedy, and lead actor Jeffrey Tambor won best performance by an actor. In her acceptance speech, Soloway dedicated her award to “my trans-parent, my mapa,” and observed that, “The more I direct, the more I recognize that directing is kind of litigating for the way I see the world.” Unfortunately, very few people get to litigate how they see the world in the mainstream media — certainly not anyone who believes Whites have legitimate interests. Being liberal and Jewish certainly helps.

Since Jill Soloway’s series Transparent debuted on Amazon Prime in 2014, the conversation around the place of transgenderism in Western culture has radically shifted in a cultural Marxist direction. Transparent certainly led the way, but even Soloway is “astonished” by how it has “really shifted the world in a big way.” Transparent anticipated the most high-profile public gender transition in history — that of Bruce Jenner. Soloway’s show was promoting the “fluidity of gender and sexuality,” before Jenner’s public transformation into “Caitlyn,” and before Jenner asked us to call “her” Caitlyn on the cover of the Jewish-controlled magazine Vanity Fair. Soloway was delighted by Jenner’s coming out as transgender and revealed that she “actually had great conversations with Caitlyn and with Kim [Kardashian], awesome little moments where Kim told me that the family watched the show together. Caitlyn told me that she loved it.”

Since the first screening of Transparent, Facebook, another pillar of the Jewish-owned media, has introduced 56 custom gender options (which do not include male and female). Soloway noted that: “We were all sending that email around to each other. For us, I just think it was more proof that this seems to be so incredibly in the zeitgeist right now. Everywhere we look, people are talking about gender. So that was super-exciting.”

Transparent was also normalizing the “transgendered” before another Jewish-owned media giant, The New York Times, started running “Transgender Today,” a series of high-profile feature stories published under the byline of the Times’ editorial board. It was also setting the agenda before Jenji Kohan made Laverne Cox a household name as “a black trans woman playing a black trans character on the hit Netflix series Orange is the New Black.” Cox has since become a “cover girl,” for another Jewish-owned media outlet, Time magazine, putting a face to what it dubbed America’s “transgender tipping point” in an article by Jewish journalist Katy Steinmetz in its May 29 issue.

Steubmetz


Steinmetz has since followed up this article with a flurry of articles promoting the normalization of transgenderism, with titles like How transgender people choose their new names,” “Exclusive: Inside Miley Cyrus’ Photo Shoot With People Across the Gender Spectrum,” “Miley Cyrus: You Can Just Be Whatever You Want to Be,” “Meet TV’s Newest Transgender Star,” “The Case for Allowing Transgender Athletes in Youth Sports,” “Lawmakers to Introduce Historic LGBT Non-Discrimination Bills,” “Everything You Need to Know Over the Debate About Transgender People and Bathrooms,” “Why Transgender People Are Being Murdered at a Historic Rate,” and “San Francisco to House Inmates According to Gender Identity.” As Victoria Voss, writing for Red Ice Creations, notes:
Ever since Bruce Jenner decided he is a woman and appeared on the now infamous cover of Vanity Fair, not a day goes by that the public isn’t besieged with media coverage of transgender issues, specifically transgender children. It is pushed for the same reason that radical feminism, the homosexual agenda, and miscegenation is: to normalize the abnormal and to brainwash people via the media to believe that this is something very common when in fact it is one of the most disturbing agendas the Zionist elite have ever created. They want to convince parents that not only is it normal to change their child’s gender, but that they should put their child on hormone blockers before puberty, a process that some psychiatrists have pointed out could be physically and mentally harmful for the child.
The organized Jewish community is doing its part: In May of 2014 the Anti-Defamation League launched a “Curriculum on Transgender Identity” which provides “an opportunity for high school students to learn more about transgender identity and issues, the barriers faced by people who identify as transgender or are gender non-conforming and how we can make our schools safe and welcoming for transgender and gender non-conforming students.” For the ADL, no child is too young to be subjected to “trans-positive” propaganda. The ADL website features a list of books it strongly recommends for young children which include: George (“When people look at George, they think they see a boy. But she knows she’s not a boy. She knows she’s a girl”), 10,000 Dresses (“Every night, Bailey dreams about magical dresses but unfortunately, when Bailey’s awake, no one wants to hear about these beautiful dreams”), I am Jazz (“From the time she was two years old, Jazz knew that she had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body”), Jacob’s New Dress (“This heartwarming story speaks to the unique challenges faced by boys who don’t identify with traditional gender roles”), My Princess Boy (“Dyson loves pink, sparkly things and sometimes he wears dresses”), and When Kayla Was Kyle (“Can Kyle find the words to share his feelings about his gender — and can his parents help him to transition into the girl he was born to be?”).

I have previously noted how the one time child star Miley Cyrus, under the direction of her Jewish manager Larry Rudolph has transitioned from innocent child star to leading sluttish propagandist for complete sexual liberation and “gender fluidity.” She recently declared: “I am literally [sexually] open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. … I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.” Cyrus recently launched a photography series focused on “transgender and non-binary people” in order to increase “trans visibility.”

Another show that seeks to normalize transgender people is the reality TV show I am Jazz which recently screened on TLC — a division of Discovery Communications which is headed by two Jews, Robert Miron (chairman) and David Zaslav (President and CEO). Another initiative in the Jewish trans-normalization agenda is the recently released film About Ray. In this film, a female teenager Ramona (Elle Fanning) realizes and pursues her “true identity” as a male (called “Ray”). His mother Maggie (Naomi Watts), lesbian grandmother Dolly (Susan Sarandon) and absent father Craig (Tate Donovan) must learn to accept “him” for who “he” is. This film is completely Jewish in origin, production, and distribution — being distributed by The Weinstein Company and written and directed by the Jewish lesbian activist Gaby Dellal (who is the granddaughter of billionaire British Jewish property investor Jack Dellal). Four of the film’s five producers are Jewish.

dellal
Gaby Dellal: Jewish director of the transgender- themed film About Ray

Ultimately, the stunningly disproportionate Jewish involvement in the “transgender rights” movement reveals it as yet another form of Jewish ethnic warfare. Jill Soloway admitted as much when she recently observed that Jews are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.” Jewish writer and intellectual Charles Silberman made essentially the same point back in the 1980s when he noted that: “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief — one firmly rooted in history — that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.” For these activist Jews, pushing the limits of behavior and beliefs on sexuality is motivated by the same attitudes that push the organized Jewish community to promote massive non-White immigration: It’s seen as good for the Jews.

This self-interested Jewish cultural assault would hardly matter were it not for the Jewish stranglehold over the Western media and entertainment industries. This strangleholdprovides the likes of Jill Soloway, Jenji Kohan, Lana Dunham, Gaby Dellal and many others with an immensely powerful public platform to promote an agenda that is absolutely contrary to the interests of the traditional American majority people. The editor of The American Interest, Adam Garfinkle, put the state of affairs succinctly in observing that: “It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots: liberals are responsible for the dangerous debauching of our society, not least through vapid entertainment-culture garbage, and a disproportionate number of liberals who are doing precisely that are Jews.”

It is difficult to see how the salvation of our race will be achieved without our breaking this Jewish media stranglehold.

Masters of the Universe

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: The following speech was delivered at The National Policy Institute's conference, on September 11, 2011, in Washington, DC. 


Two years ago I asked the question, “What will it take?” 

How bad will it need to get, before the inconvenience of changing things becomes preferable to more of the same?

I asked this because for many years we’d been hearing about a collapse that would cause a great uprising and magically solve all our problems.

The theory was that Whites in the West tolerated their displacement because they were too comfortable, because they felt prosperous, and risking their lifestyles by speaking out against multiculturalism, against racial quotas, against the slander coming from Hollywood and Madison Avenue, seemed not worth the trouble.

People found it easier to keep quiet and isolate themselves economically.

And in 2009 it seemed the collapse was about to happen. And yet, despite the biggest economic crisis in eighty years, life carried on just like before.

More immigration, more laws, more regulations, more surveillance, more bureaucracy, more political correctness, more money printing, and more and higher taxes to pay for it all.

Not only that, but elections were held afterwards, and the same politicians, with the same policies, were returned to power.

So the question remains, “What will it take?”

The Challenge

Those who have made it their mission to educate our fellow citizens.

Not only does the ideology of radical egalitarianism permeate all institutions of power, but this ideology is so entrenched as a quasi-religious orthodoxy as to be impermeable to reason.

No matter what facts or data or arguments are presented against this ideology, no matter what degree of perversion and corruption are revealed in association with the ideologues, no matter what obnoxious effects it has on the individual, it seems impossible to dislodge this ideology from the seats of power.

One can tell millions of citizens about the negative effects of diversity and multiculturalism, one can show them mountains of data, one can underline why and how this matters in a society, why and how it impacts on them personally, and many will openly or otherwise agree with what one says; but very few to speak in public against diversity and multiculturalism, and any statement is very quickly neutralized with accusations of racism.

Any debate about diversity and multiculturalism, let alone any debate about the reasons why it’s important to have the debate, quickly degenerates into Byzantine discussions about whether or not something or someone is racist.

In education, those who go against the prevailing orthodoxy are systematically purged or marginalized.

And during elections we are presented with two or three nearly identical options, all founded on the same ideological principles. All with the same record of failure, all staffed by mediocre politicians, all infested with known liars, sell-outs, and opportunists.

And yet, even with everyone fed up with them, even with genuine alternatives available, the same two or three parties get voted into power election after election.

For over 100 years, people like us have been saying the same things, making the same arguments, presenting ever growing mountains of data, ever more facts to support our position; and yet for over 100 years, our camp has been in retreat, dwindling in numbers, losing influence, and growing ever more marginal.

Europe saw various revival movements during the first half of the 20th century.

But they were defeated politically and militarily. Much of the knowledge they produced was ignored, banned, maligned, or destroyed.

So the question arises, given what is happening to us, and given that the end product of the progressive egalitarian project is the end of us, what can we do to turn the tide? What must we do to alter the course of our society?

Left Mysticism

There are many reasons why we have not been more successful.

One of them is that certain ideas lost legitimacy after the last world war, even though those ideas were much bigger than any political movement.

Another reason is that loss of legitimacy resulted in a loss of access to institutional resources; it became more difficult for those ideas to look important.

And yet another reason was that as the equality zealots gained the ascendancy, they were able to use all of the institutional resources of the state to reconfigure how we see the world, how we learn about the world, and even how we think about the world.

And they also redeveloped the status system in our society, so that their ideas were elevated and enthroned, and those of their enemies scorned and reviled; so that their chums were promoted and praised to the skies, and their enemies demoted and ostracized as enemies of civilized society.

And through their control of institutions and the status system, they were able to encode their values and ideals.

Their values and ideas became a system of symbols.

And because symbols have emotional resonance, because they operate at the pre-rational level, at the emotional and instinctive level, the values and ideals of the Left became something a person felt, rather than something a person thought or thought about.

If we ask someone to explain how humans are equal, and if they’re able to explain it at all, we get mantras, stock phrases, hearsay, and circular reasoning, but no real explanation.

“We are all human. We all bleed red. There’s more genetic variation between individuals than there are between races.”

It’s not something a person actually thinks, or does any research on, it’s something he overhears, something he feels is right, or ought to be right, because it feels good, and it feels good to be accepted in society, and it feels good to be seen as a good person.

And when we tell him that he’s wrong, that humans are not equal, and he protests, it’s not because he’s done any research—in fact he doesn’t want to look at the research—not unless it’s convenient; it’s because he feels it’s morally wrong, or because he fears social sanction, disapproval, shame.

Thus the Left has mystified its values.

And through this mystification, the Left has made its system impervious to reason.

In doing so, its proponents effectively became the masters of our universe.

They set its boundaries, determined its laws, defined its appearance, and fixed its cosmological constants.

The Messenger is the Message

Thus those on our camp who have based their strategy for change on educating our fellow citizens, on presenting them with the facts and the arguments, have for the most part been confirming the views of people who are already agree with us.

Where there has been a conversion, most likely it’s been because of some external factor.

The facts and the arguments don’t go to the individual. The individual comes to the facts and the arguments.

The reason is that humans are rarely persuaded by facts and arguments. Rather they are impressed by their source.

In other words, the message is the messenger; and the messenger is the message.

This is why it’s said that in a society the bulk of individuals follow whomever is in charge. Even when those in charge are hostile.

They are awed by their masters not because they are reasonable, but because they are powerful and masterful, because they control their universe, because they control access to status and resources, because they are dangerous, or else because they represent an idea that is seductive, that somehow inspires them.

And they are not likely to oppose their masters because deep down they want to be like them, they want to be among them, they want to have what they have, or they want to be part of that idea, they want to be with the winning team.

The only time they oppose their masters, or discard the idea is when they cease to seem masterful, when there’s no longer a mystique around them, when they start looking weak and pathetic and all too human, when they look like they can be replaced—when something more seductive is on offer.

But the question remains: how did this hostile movement of proletarian anti-Traditionalism achieve mastery over our civilization?

How did this hostile movement gain followers in the first place, not only among the rabble who stood to gain the most from their hatred of aristocracy, but also among the most able and the most intelligent, the ones who stood to lose the most?

Love for Abstract Principles

We speak of our society having been hijacked by organized minorities.

But the fact is this: their ideas of radical egalitarianism, of modernity, of progress, of globalism, as perverse as they may seem to some of us today, go with the grain of Western culture.

Western culture is individualistic, therefore Western man is not very ethnocentric.

He is less tribal, less racial, than other peoples of the world.

Likewise, Western culture is unique for its moral universalism, and Western man tends to become enamored of abstract universal principles—liberty, equality, brotherhood, democracy, and so on.

Love for abstract principles is linked to a highly developed moral sense, which comes with a highly developed guilt complex.

Like all humans, Western man is tribal and has racial instincts, but they tend to put them aside in favor of principles, or individual utility—whatever they are at a given point in time and space.

For Western man, a much higher level of existential threat is needed to bring racial instincts to the surface.

So what we call White ethnomasochists don’t see their actions as being against their racial or even their group interests; they see them as being moral, as being high minded.

Reason Doesn’t Motivate

Humans, generally, are not motivated by rational self-interest.

Humans are motivated by the need to belong, and the need for status and self-esteem.

We want to fit into a community with whose members we identify and where we feel good about ourselves.

We are also motivated by inborn emotional tendencies.

And we humans also like to dream and fantasize, and are motivated by our own dreams and fantasies.

They may take the form of a religion, the form of a mythology, or art, or literature, or cosmology.

We dream and fantasize about what could be, about what ought to be, about how we would like to be.

It’s how we create meaning in our lives.

In the West, these daydreams often revolve around abstract principles.

Facts Don’t Persuade

At the same time there is too much information.

Too many sides to an issue, too many versions of the same story.

Most people don’t have the time or the energy to research it, to try and discover the truth, to distinguish fact from fiction, knowledge from propaganda.

The result is that most choose the data that flatter their vanity, that make them feel good about themselves, that make them feel part of their chosen community.

And they reject data that seem inconvenient or embarrassing, or that come from a source with which they cannot personally identify.

Thus, if we are to be engaged in the most difficult project that can be attempted in a society, which is fundamentally to change the dominant ideology, to overthrow the ruling order, we have to begin by accepting our fellow citizens as they are, and not as we would like them to be.

In this case, we have to accept that the individual is not generally open to persuasion. Not unless he is already looking to be persuaded.

Most want to be confirmed in their beliefs. They don’t want us to disrupt their world.

And it’s no good saying “Oh, they need to wake up and smell the carcass.”

Humans will sooner keep on dreaming than wake up—after all, their dreams are nice and feel good, while reality is ugly and feels bad.

If we are to cause a change of allegiance, from one paradigm to another, we have to think in terms of seduction and inspiration.

As I noted before, humans are much more open to be inspired and seduced, than they are to be persuaded through facts and reason.

This is why when the Lindt company is trying to sell you chocolate, they don’t tell you how it will meet your nutritional requirements for the day; they tell you it’s going to make you feel good. Never mind how, or why.

Few care about the chemistry.

Few want the experience demystified with hard scientific facts.

This is not to say that reason, reality, or the facts, are not important, because they are.

But they are not a method of changing a person’s mind.

They are a method of confirming a person whose mind is already made up, and probably made up since before he was born.

Positive Motivation

So, how then, do we motivate our fellow citizens to proclaim an unconventional allegiance, with all the risks this entails?

Earlier I said that humans tend to be impressed by the masterful.

They come to an idea because the messenger is somehow seductive.

They want to be like him. Or with people like him.

I also said that they want to belong and to feel good about themselves.

If we are not being more successful selling our message, it’s because we are offering none of the above.

Instead, many on our side offer an endless litany of complaints about how the world has gone wrong, about how we are in decline, about how we have less and less power in our society.

Anyone looking into our camp often sees wall-to-wall negativity, pessimism, fear, paranoia, despair, and lamentation.

It all amounts to one big, long wail of self-pity.

The despair is such that the mantra we often hear on the fringes of the Right is “worse is better.”

Not because the people saying this have real solutions, but because they’re hoping the collapse will fix everything.

That is not the attitude of the masterful, of the powerful, of people who shape events.

That is the attitude of people shaped by events. The attitude of a loser.

Defeatism is a prelude to defeat.

To succeed, we have to project an image of success.

That means getting rid of the negativity.

Speaking not in terms of what we’ve lost; but in terms of what we’re going to gain; in terms of what kind of society we want to build, in terms of what happens next, not what happened before.

A winner learns from the past, but he’s always looking to the future.

He’s always facing the sun. And we are solar people. We have brought light into this world. We must not forget who we are.

We must not become slaves of the darkness.

A winner’s image is an indispensable part of a winning formula.

Alternative Society

And a winning formula means acting as if.

Acting as if we are already there.

Which implies operating like an alternative society, offering access to a parallel universe, physical and metaphysical.

Access to a different cosmology, a different system of symbols, a different way of understanding life.

The new nationalism looks like an establishment in waiting.

Not like fearful cynics who are waiting for a collapse, but like people who are building something new and important, that makes the collapse desirable because it opens the way for what comes afterwards, because it opens the way for a golden age.

Rather than looking like conservatives fighting the tide of progress, we have to be the tide—the tide that sweeps away the old and decrepit left, that sweeps them out of power, sweeps them into the landfill of history, never to rise again.

Radical and Traditional

It’s not a contradiction when some of us say that we are radical and traditional.

We are radical because we seek fundamental change—we’re not looking for reforms; we’re looking for something entirely new.

At the same time we are traditional, because our project is rooted in Tradition, even if it is futuristic.

This is why we are not conservatives: conservatism is the negation of the new; Tradition is the ongoing affirmation of the old, of the archaic. And therefore it’s endlessly regenerating. Constantly renewing.

Can Be Done

Now, when some of us speak of transforming the culture, of reconfiguring it in order to make our politics possible, many are intimidated by the scale of the task.

It seems to them a godlike undertaking, more fantasy than reality.

But this is not so.

We don’t have to be too old to remember how our culture was reconfigured by the radical Left.

It has been done before. Within living memory.

How does one transform a culture?

The process begins very simply.

It begins with pen and paper, with brush and canvas, with a man and his musical instrument.

It’s in the hands of a creative minority, who create because it’s in their nature, because it’s a compulsion, and because they are impatient with the world around them and dream of something else, they fantasize about something new.

The artist, the painter, the philosopher do what their nature compels them to do.

Over time there is a body of work.

Over time they meet others like themselves.

And they start having gatherings, and forming clubs and associations.

And in time these aggregate with others of a similar mould.

In time they develop into a current. In time they develop into a movement. And in time they emerge as a counter-culture. As a rival and competitor to the existing establishment.

This is when the struggle becomes political, and enters the political arena.

And it becomes a struggle between two opposing forces, two colliding cosmologies, two conceptions of the universe. One representing the past, another representing the future.

Only one of them becomes master of the universe.

Politics is the Last Stage

You will notice that politics is the last stage.
This is why political parties like the BNP in Britain, the Front National in France, the NPD in Germany, remain marginal, despite the obvious failures of the Left.

Politics is the last stage. Politics reflects the culture. Politics is the art of the possible.

So our politics will not be possible until we control the culture. And because we don’t control the culture we are in the period before politics.

The Left is approaching the period after politics, because their ideas have been dominant for a long time, and by now they have failed on every level. They are running on autopilot.

And now they are increasingly worried and desperate, because they can sense their own weakness, they can sense the boredom and the discontent seething underneath, the potential for a revolution.

They have failed aesthetically, criminologically, culturally, demographically, economically, politically, socially. They have failed on every front.

And by now they are vulnerable on all fronts.

War on All Fronts

This is why our project is a war on all fronts, and why it needs multiple angles of attack.

There is room for individuals of every inclination, man and woman, young and old, with different talents and abilities. Which means that anybody can wage the war in some way or another.

Some will do it as writers, others as artists, others as business people, others as protesters, others as patrons.

But to attract real talent we have to provide opportunities for talent. Which means business and professional opportunities.

Because in our economic era, being economically independent from the system, and having alternative sources of status recognition, means being intellectually and spiritually independent.

And to be attractive we have to be image conscious—because a picture speaks a thousand words.

If we want our fellow citizens to see, we have to help them visualize.

We have to show them what we mean, and we have to do it in less than a second.

Most people make up their minds about something or someone in less than a second.

They won’t read a 400-page book. They won’t even read an article. Not unless they’ve already decided to do so.

What captures their attention is what resonates with them at the level of instinct, of emotion, at the animal level, at the spiritual level.

The way music resonates. The way a landscape resonates. The way a film resonates.

Man is the symbolizing animal, he operates in symbols, structured sounds and images.

That’s why a person’s authority is instantly obvious. It’s in the way he looks. The way he sounds. The way he carries himself.

Often he becomes a symbol of authority.

So to become masters of our universe once again, to rise as new masters as the old ones fall, a new nationalism needs to look like it deserves the scepter of power.

It needs to symbolize a new beginning. And it needs to symbolize it now and always, and not wait for the collapse to clean the slate.

We don’t know when that collapse will come, or what it will look like, or even if we’ll notice it.

But if and when it does, it will clean the slate for everyone, for every competing group, and there are many others who are looking to have a bite at the cherry after the liberals are gone.

Islam is looking to dominate in Europe, and in the West. And Islamists are also hoping for a collapse.

We cannot expect a collapse to solve our problems. In fact, we shouldn’t be focusing on the collapse at all.

We should be focusing on the world we want to see after the collapse, the world we want to see tomorrow. And we have to be building it today.

Because if and when that collapse comes, if we are not ready, if we are not there, looking like the world is ours for the taking, someone else will be, and they will become the masters of our universe.

Focusing on the world of tomorrow gives us an added advantage, which is the same advantage that the utopian Left enjoyed in years past: the advantage of having a sense of mission, a greater purpose.

It’s not a 9–5 job, where a person lives for the next weekend, for the next paycheck, dragged along by involution in the Kali-Yuga. It’s about mastery over our lives, mastery over our destiny, mastery over our past, present, and future.

Being traditional also gives us an advantage that the Left doesn’t have because they are anti-Tradition: the advantage of belonging, of being part of a community of people with whom we feel at home; of having a home and a family to which one can always return; of having a past and a future; of life with meaning, because we are part of something greater than ourselves, that is timeless and transcendental.

With the Left a person is always homeless, always a stranger, always a meaningless atom in a sea of Formica, PVC, neon, polyester, and reinforced concrete.

One final advantage is that the citizenry is fed up.

The individuals now in charge, in education, in the media, in politics, have amassed such a stupendous record of failure, have committed so many abuses, have lied and stolen so blatantly, that tax payers will be receptive to something new if they see something viable.

At the moment they keep voting the same politicians back into power because they are not impressed by the alternatives. They are choosing the least worse option.

So it’s not as if we are not given plenty of material to work with.

Concluding Remarks

I would like to wrap this up by underlining the key ideas I would like you to take back at the end of this conference.

If you want to help bring about fundamental change, and are actively involved in the process, I ask that you incorporate in your approach a few basic principles:
One—think irrationally. Humans have the capacity for reason, but they use reason in irrational ways.

They often have irrational motivations, which they rationalize after the fact. But they are irrational.

So to reach our fellow citizens we have to understand their motivations, and not be irritated by them when they differ from ours.

We have anticipate their needs so that we can meet them, anticipate their fears so that we can dispel them, anticipate their desires so that we can fulfill them. Especially if they are irrational.

Two—impress to inform, don’t inform to impress.

Often a person who sits through a speech doesn’t pay attention to half of what is said, he remembers only one or two phrases, one or two concepts. And not for very long.

But when there is an able speaker the listener is nearly always impressed by the delivery, he likes the energy, he likes the emotions roused in him. Therefore he listens.

We often comment on the speaker, less on what he said.

So aim to be impression oriented, to be effect oriented.

Marketing and information campaigns are not about information.

They are about eliciting a reaction, inducing and maintaining a state of mind, opening the mind to an idea—among people who are overloaded with information, who don’t want to be disturbed, who are wrapped up in their own lives.

That’s why marketing and information campaigns aim to be iconic.

That’s why they reduce everything to a soundbite, a slogan, an image, or a jingle that is infectious.

Facts are important, but at this stage they are subsidiary, because a mind remains closed so long as the spirit remains unmoved.

Three—think in pictures. Help people visualize what you are offering. A picture speaks a thousand words, and it’s a lot easier to remember. And much more difficult to argue against because images resonate at an emotional and spiritual level.

Four—be positive. No one wants to be around a person who complains all of the time, who is always negative, who is always doom and gloom. Humans respond to optimism, because they want to feel good.

And our people in the West are crying out for a renaissance. So be positive, and focus on the future.

It’s about where we came from and where we are going, not about where we are.
Five—enjoy the struggle. You will be more creative, and you’ll have more energy, and you’ll get more people interested in you, if you enjoy what you’re doing.

Because if you enjoy what you’re doing and you’re good at it, you feel confident. And everyone likes that.

So think irrationally, impress to inform, think in pictures, be positive, and enjoy the struggle.

Thank you very much.

The Wrong Guys

via West Hunter

The social sciences have developed in ways that are not necessarily to our advantage. How to fix?

Jonathan Haidt thinks that social psychology has problems (I might put it a bit more strongly) that might be ameliorated by adding ideological diversity – Republicans or Jacobites or whatever.

Personally, I doubt it.  I don’t think that the guys who produce all those unreplicable results were driven by the search for that Eureka moment when you finally figure it out, finally see it clearly.  I don’t think it’s really a product of people with the right motives whose statistics are sloppy, which we do see in some other fields and can sometimes fix.

I think they’re just no damn good.

21st Century Ethno-Nationalism

via The West's Darkest Hour

I won’t discuss Sebastian Ronin’s recent speech at London where he, while conceding that the genuine National Socialism “was perfect,” criticizes white nationalism. But since the YouTube comments have been disabled in the London Forum channel (Jez Turner’s forum is for real gentlemen by the way; I visited it last year), let’s host an open thread for all those who agree or disagree with Sebas.

Uncle Ben and Jewish Gun Control

via Compulsory Diversity News

A commenter on the Ben Carson Popeyes Scandal story mentioned that Uncle Ben had also recently gotten himself in trouble with the Chosen by saying:

“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” Carson said. “I’m telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.” [...]

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson staunchly defended his assertion that the Holocaust could have been “greatly diminished” if Jews had been armed with guns in an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

That did not go over well with our Semitic Superiors:

“It is mind-bending to suggest that personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000 remaining in Germany in 1938) could have stopped the totalitarian onslaught of Nazi Germany when the armies of Poland, France, Belgium and numerous other countries were overwhelmed by the Third Reich,” Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League National Director, said in an opinion piece for the Huffington Post on Saturday.

Right - so since the Jews could not have defended themselves, gun control was the best thing for them in that situation. Thank you, Jonathan Greenblatt.

But honestly, this is just plain political absurdity on both sides. Why in the world does every contentious political issue have to end with an appeal to remember Adolf Hitler and his Nazi gangsters, reductio ad Hitlerum? Can't Americans stick with their own history and fit the 2nd Amendment  into the context of a War for Independence that would not have been possible if the citizenry had been disarmed?

But there is another issue at work here, which is Jewish hypocrisy in the matter of gun control. Even Jews admit that other Jews are obsessed with gun control in America (LINK). But when the country is Israel, well that is a different kettle of gefilte fish:

'Glocker mom,' other Israeli settlers carry guns amid Palestinian violence

Aviva Yisraeli decided to carry a handgun while commuting from her home in the West Bank settlement of Tekoa to a weekly course in Jerusalem. “I feel that it’s important for us to do everything in our power to protect ourselves,” said the mother of four, adding that she refuses to be a "sitting duck." [...]

Israelis do not have a constitutional right to bear arms like Americans, yet guns are ubiquitous here because there are so many soldiers, reservists, police and security guards who take their guns with them when they're off duty and out in public. They are holstered in clear sight on buses and in coffee shops.

When it is the Chosen defending their homes from Palestinian rock throwers - glock away. If you Chalky goyim want to defend your home from crackhead gangbangers - that would be racist.

Would someone mind starting a new social media campaign? #GunFreeIsrael. I would be much obliged.

Nonwhite Invader Centers Being Burned Down at Rate of One per Day, Police Confirm

via The New Observer

Nonwhite invader “asylum” centers in Germany are being burned down at the rate of one per day, German police reports have confirmed—an indication of the growing resistance in that country to the forced and illegal Third World invasion caused by Angela Merkel’s government.

According to a review of police reports published in the German Bild newspaper, in the past seven days there have been six confirmed attacks and one apparently self-inflicted fire:

Sunday, October 11, 21.46 pm: The planned nonwhite invader center in Boizenburg (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) is destroyed in an attack. The historic half-timbered house was completely engulfed in flames. It had been earmarked as a home for 40 invaders, police said.

Sunday, October 11, 05.57 am: An attack on a building in Trassenheide (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) fails to inflict serious damage after local fire services extinguish the blaze. Some 15 invaders were to have been housed there, but now they may not move in after all, local authorities said.

Thursday, 07:00am: An old “Plattenbau” block of apartments, built during the Communist East German period, which is being used to house invaders in the city of Grimma (Saxony), is evacuated after an apartment one floor is set on fire.

Wednesday October 7, 01.30 am: “Unknown persons” throw four Molotov cocktails at a building earmarked to house 150 nonwhite invaders in the Prohlis district of Dresden.

Tuesday, October 6, 21:00 pm: A building housing ten invaders is set on fire in Weil am Rhein (Baden-W├╝rttemberg). A passerby extinguishes the blaze with a hand-held fire extinguisher.

* On October 11, two Pakistani invaders—falsely claiming “asylum” of course,” while taking part in a drunken bout, set fire to their “home” in Heidelberg (Baden-W├╝rttemberg). This fire is, of course, counted by the media as an “arson attack” although it is clearly not.

The Bild adds that according to their records, there have been “about 360 attacks on refugee shelters” this year, of which “69 were arson attacks.”

The Dark Matter Enigma: Is It the "Operating System" of Our Universe?

via Transudationism

Is dark matter the "operating system" of the Universe? Tom Broadhurst, an Ikerbasque researcher at the UPV/EHU's Department of Theoretical Physics, thinks it is. He has participated alongside scientists of the National Taiwan University in a piece of research that explores cold dark matter in depth and proposes new answers about the formation of galaxies and the structure of the Universe. These predictions are being contrasted with data provided by the Hubble space telescope.

In cosmology, cold dark matter is a form of matter the particles of which move slowly in comparison with light, and interact weakly with electromagnetic radiation. It is estimated that only a minute fraction of the matter in the Universe is baryonic matter, which forms stars, planets and living organisms. The rest, comprising over 80%, is dark matter and energy.
The theory of cold dark matter helps to explain how the universe evolved from its initial state to the current distribution of galaxies and clusters, the structure of the Universe on a large scale. In any case, the theory was unable to satisfactorily explain certain observations, but the new research by Broadhurst and his colleagues sheds new light in this respect.

As the Ikerbasque researcher explained, "guided by the initial simulations of the formation of galaxies in this context, we have reinterpreted cold dark matter as a Bose-Einstein condensate". So, "the ultra-light bosons forming the condensate share the same quantum wave function, so disturbance patterns are formed on astronomic scales in the form of large-scale waves".

This theory can be used to suggest that all the galaxies in this context should have at their center large stationary waves of dark matter called solitons, which would explain the puzzling cores observed in common dwarf galaxies.



The image at the top of the page shows a comparison of the radial density profiles of the galaxies which the researchers have created by displaying the soliton in the centre of each galaxy with a halo surrounding it. The solitons are broader but have less mass in the smaller galaxies.

The image left, below, shows that a comparison of the distribution of matter is very similar on a large scale between wave dark matter, the focus of this research, and the usual dark matter particle.

Image right shows that in galaxies the structure is very different in the interpretation of the wave, which has been carried out in this research; the research predicts the soliton of dark matter in the centre surrounded by an extensive halo of dark matter in the form of large "spots", which are the slowly fluctuating density waves. This leads to many predictions and solves the problem of puzzling cores in smaller galaxies.

The research also makes it possible to predict that galaxies are formed relatively late in this context in comparison with the interpretation of standard particles of cold dark matter. The team is comparing these new predictions with observations by the Hubble space telescope.

The results are very promising as they open up the possibility that dark matter could be regarded as a very cold quantum fluid that governs the formation of the structure across the whole Universe.

This was not Thomas Broadhurst's first publication in the prestigious journal Nature. In 2012, he participated in a piece of research on a galaxy of the epoch of the reionization, a stage in the early universe not explored previously and which could be the oldest galaxy discovered. This research opened up fresh possibilities to conduct research into the first galaxies to emerge after the Big Seed.

Broadhurst has a PhD in Physics from the University of Durham (United Kingdom). In 2010, he was recruited by Ikerbasque and carries out his work in the UPV/EHU's department of Theoretical Physics. His line of research focuses on observational cosmology, dark matter and the formation of galaxies.

Kyle Hunt on the Deceptive Machinations of Jewish Power

via Renegade Tribune

Listen Now

Robert Reyvolt has Kyle Hunt on the show to discuss the use of deception to forward the jewish agenda to take away our first and second amendments, flood our country with non-Whites, and incite a race war against our people. We need to empower ourselves by getting out of the various boxes created for us by controlled opposition.

Note: the ad-free version of this show will be available soon, so check back.

Jew Lambastes Trump for Not Denouncing “Anti-Semitic” Supporters

via The Realist Report

Another day, another article appearing in the Jewish press criticizing GOP front-runner Donald Trump, a man who, by all appearances, genuinely wants to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain.

This time, the Jewish writer, Bethany Mandel, is lambasting Trump for not denouncing his “anti-Semitic” supporters loudly enough. Trump has already publicly distanced himself from Dr. David Duke, who has, like other pro-White thinkers and media figures, made mildly supportive comments regarding some of Trump’s public policy positions, particularly his stance on immigration and desire to deport all illegal aliens living in the United States, not to mention his proposal to build a wall on the southern border (which will be paid for by Mexico!).

Ms. Mandel’s article, recently published by The Jewish Daily Forward, reads in part:

“On social media, it seems that while not all Donald Trump supporters are anti-Semites, many of the vocal and vicious anti-Semites seem to be Donald Trump supporters.”
That’s what Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist and writer often accused of climbing into the pockets of “The Jews,” told me recently.
The widespread anti-Semitism of Trump’s fans hit the news after the September 16 Republican debate, thanks to one of his biggest supporters, Ann Coulter, who tweeted, “How many f—king Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” when several candidates affirmed support for Israel during their closing remarks. Coulter’s comments, coupled with the anti-Semitism on display from her supporters — who immediately started the Twitter hashtag #IStandWithAnn — are becoming typical of Trump’s fan base.
What is most shocking on the heels of the general anti-Semitism of Trump’s fans and now with the mainstream exposure of them due to Coulter’s comments is the candidate’s radio silence on the situation. Trump is known for many things, but keeping his lips sealed is certainly not one of them. Since his campaign has taken off, Trump has spent a good deal of energy playing dumb when it comes to the overwhelming nature of the support for his candidacy from white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Worse than Trump’s willful blindness is the rhetoric he uses to stoke racial unrest with a slogan — “Make America Great Again” — reminiscent of the Nazi Party of the 1930s. […]
Notice Jews consider any form of White racial consciousness, even if implicit, as fundamentally evil, and immediately equate it with “the evil Nazis” and Hitler. This nonsense is getting old.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is openly hostile to Donald Trump (despite his dominating lead in the GOP race), Jewish comedian Bill Maher has equated Trump with Hitler, and Jewish billionaire Barry Diller has declared that he will flee the country if Trump is elected president.

It is clear that the Jewish establishment and organized Jewish community is quite fearful of Donald Trump.

Considering Trump’s politically incorrect stance on a number of important issues relating to the genocidal Jewish scam known as “multiculturalism” and “diversity”, which encourages massive Third World immigration to the West, not to mention his views on the Second Amendment, support for reigning in and taxing hedge-funds and overall tax reform proposal, and his foreign policy agenda (which includes supporting Putin’s moves in Syria), it should not surprise us that the organized Jewish community and the mainstream Jewish-owned and controlled mass media are hysterically denouncing and lambasting the populist American businessman.

Has the Armed Invasion of Britain Begun?

via Western Spring

Today reports have surfaced of a group of Afghan ‘migrants’ who entered Britain illegally in the back of a truck, but who subsequently fired small arms at two farmers who approached them as they were crossing the farmers’ land.


I am reminded of news reports at the beginning of this year when strategies of this sort had been uncovered:

“jihadists hope to flood the north African state with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people trafficking vessels, according to plans seen by Quilliam, the British anti-extremist group.”

In an earlier article, I drew a distinction between people who are legal immigrants, and people who are ‘illegal immigrants’ on the one hand, and people who are ‘invaders’ on the other. I stated: “I have used the terms ‘invader’ and ‘invasion’ in this article deliberately, as they accurately describes what is taking place. When individuals seek to enter our country legally, they are ‘immigrants’; when they seek to enter our country illegally, they are ‘illegal immigrants’; but when they attempt to storm and overwhelm our nations defences as an organised mob, in their hundreds and thousands, there is no other word for it, they are ‘invaders’ carrying out an ‘invasion’, and they should be described as such.”

With the advent within the last couple of days of what can only be described as ‘armed invaders’ using potentially deadly violence to force their way into our country, it is now high time the government stopped trying to stifle criticism of their open door immigration policies and took resolute action to defend the British people from the kind of violence that we see all too often in countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.

First it began with legal immigration; then illegal immigration, with people hiding in lorries, the undercarriage of aircraft and clinging to trains; then they began breaking down security fences and rioting when police and immigration officials tried to stop them, and they started making demands that we must let them in and we must give them ‘refuge’; and now, quite predictably, they have begun literally ‘shooting’ their way into our country.

Are our government going to wait until shootings and bombings by insurgents reaches epidemic proportions and a virtual civil war breaks out before they act? Or are they going to act decisively to stop it now?

A further more extensive article will follow in due course.