Jan 7, 2016

Trump vs. Clinton: Why Americans Cannot Be Allowed to Take Their Own Side

via VDARE

As almost nobody watched the last Democratic debate, you may have missed Hillary Clinton’s charge that Donald Trump had become the Islamic State’s “best recruiter” by supposedly antagonizing Muslims [Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump ‘Becoming ISIS’s Best Recruiter,’ by Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, December 19, 2015]. Now Al Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda offshoot active in Somalia, put out a propaganda video containing a clip of Trump unveiling his plan to halt Muslim immigration in between clips of a terrorist leader saying Muslims would eventually be forced to fight against all Western nations [Donald Trump appears in Al Shabaab’s new terrorism recruiting videoby Kellan Howell, Washington Times, January 2, 2016]. The Left is claiming vindication, with the lesser Charles Johnson (not the editor of GotNews) snarking: “Terrorist group Al-Shabaab is now using Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry as a recruiting tool, exactly as Hillary Clinton stated” [Al-Shabab Terror Group Uses Donald Trump Soundbite in Recruitment Video, Little Green Footballs, January 2, 2016]. Typically, Trump has brushed aside this claim and struck back hard (“the video that ISIS made was about her husband being a degenerate”) [Trump dismisses terror video, hits Clinton again, by Eric Bradner, CNN, January 3, 2016]. But the real question: why are Americans supposed to care what a bunch of foreigners think?

Clinton’s actual charge was that Trump was featured in propaganda for the Islamic State, which is currently in an intra-jihadist shooting war with Al-Qaeda [Think Islamic State has dealt a knock-out blow to al-Qaeda? Think againby Hugh Naylor, Washington Post, December 26, 2015]. There’s still no proof of that, so Trump’s charge that Clinton made the whole thing up is still valid. As we all know, You Can’t Stump the Trump.

But never mind. There is a deeper issue here: the Left’s contention that the only way to defeat Islamic radicalism is through moderate Mohammedans convincing their co-religionists to leave us alone. Donald Trump, we are told, is no less than a threat to national security because he threatens this plan. [USA Today: Trump a ‘threat to national security,’ by Eddie Scarry, Washington Times, December 8, 2015]

But there are problems with this argument. The most obvious: it’s ridiculous to say Islamic radicals didn’t have a problem with us until Trump came along. America has been facing Islamic terrorism since well before September 11, all the way back to the Barbary Pirates. [ U.S. at war with Islam since Thomas Jefferson’s timeby Bill Federer, WND, February 15, 2015]

A bigger problem: this theory holds that only foreigners are allowed to pronounce on the United States. Americans are not even regarded as a consideration in this mindset. And, as absurd as it sounds, this is precisely the strategy both the Republicans and the Democrats have been following when it comes to waging the farcical “war on terror.”

An entire generation of Americans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan can tell us how dangerous it is to rely on the loyalty of people who have no stake in our society. In a story that may remind many veterans of Vietnam, Americans have poured billions of dollars and spilled precious blood to build up military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan incapable of fighting on their own and whom American soldiers and Marines can’t trust.

The death of six American troops just before Christmas was enabled by Afghan security forces who failed to detect explosives [Report: Afghan Security Cleared Taliban Suicide Bomber Who Killed Six U.S. Troopsby Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December 24, 2015]. After 14 years of our trying to win “hearts and minds,” the Taliban is still able to launch attacks throughout Afghanistan [Taliban outlast 14 years of U.S. combat in Afghanistanby Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, December 23, 2015]. We can expect Kabul to fall within hours when America withdraws—Green Berets recently reported that the Afghan army isn’t willing to fight [Green Berets reveal Afghan National Army incompetenceby Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, October 26, 2014].

And that may be the best case scenario—some “allied” Afghan soldiers are quite willing to fight, but only against Americans [Two U.S. troops killed in apparent ‘insider’ attack by Afghan soliderby Sayed Salahuddin, Washington Post, August 26, 2015].

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the soldiers that America spent years training threw down their arms when the Islamic State emerged. Trump is quite right that the Islamic State was essentially created by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and “there is no country” in the sense of an Iraq with functioning institutions [Trump: ‘Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,’ by Colin Campbell, Business Insider, January 2, 2016].

Yet even that isn’t the fundamental issue. Where there are Muslims, there is the problem of “radicalization.” After all, it’s the unlikely location of Minnesota which has emerged as a hotbed of recruitment for Al-Shabaab.

Minnesota’s response: spend money to convince them to be basketball coaches instead.

But don’t laugh at Minnesota. Nobody else seems to have a better idea. France’s assimilationist approach has failed. More “Britons,” i.e. Muslims, fight for the Islamic State than Her Majesty.  Even Sweden, which has practically become a parody of a country ruled by Leftism, has had no luck transforming its Islamic underclass into patriotic citizens. Even native Swedes are now converting to Islam and rushing off to join ISIS.

It appears introducing huge populations of angry Muslims is a textbook definition of what Enoch Powell would have called a “preventable evil.” But rather than avoiding this crisis, most Western leaders seem determined to import the problem and then punish their own populations for not celebrating it [Angela Merkel: White Renegade of the Year 2015by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 31, 2015]. To a modern post-Western leader, it is the responsibility of every civilized nation to import masses of people who will kill you if you offend them.

(Ironically, those countries who accept the short-term condemnation of not accepting Muslim populations are the same ones who avoid long-term accusations of “Islamophobia” and “not doing enough” to appease Muslims. Japan won’t have to deal with homegrown Islamic terrorism anytime soon. And we can expect Hungary will experience fewer terrorist attacks in the future than nations such as Germany, France, or even Sweden, which have been “friendlier” to Islam).

We see the same kind of self-abasing arguments in the immigration debate: thus Shikha Dalmia of Reason has argued we must oppose immigration restrictions, otherwise most Latinos will eventually vote for “government reparations and programs”—as if they aren’t voting for them now. The historic American nation is to be given no voice over what happens to its own country.

Of course, no one, not even liberals or libertarians, really believes that free speech in America risks such repercussions, abroad or at home. You never hear the Main Stream Media worrying about how calling Vladimir Putin a thug and a murderer will antagonize Russia. No-one is concerned that banning the Confederate flag will anger white Southerners. No one says “Chicano/a” activists, or black protesters risk offending white patriots when they blatantly desecrate the American flag while screaming for more programs and preferences from the American government. And no one in the MSM is saying that the government should respond to the current standoff in Oregon with concessions for white ranchers.

And that’s the point. To the MSM Narrative Enforcers, Islamic jihadists aren’t a real enemy. Nor can any non-white group ever be a threat to the United States. These groups are devoid of agency. They are only driven to unacceptable actions because of the “root cause” of white racism.

For the MSM, now and always, the real enemy are European-Americans. The top priority of the MSM is making sure white Americans remain devoid of any coherent identity or awareness of their own collective interests.

And this is the real reason MSM journalists hate Trump: His campaign, in some small way, suggests the historic American nation is moving to take control over its own destiny.

Saudi Arabia and the Real Islamic Menace

via TradYouth

Saudi Arabia has long been one of the most destabilizing forces in the Middle East, second only to the Zionist State of Israel. We easily forget that of the nineteen hijackers in the official 9/11 story, fifteen of them were citizens of our “ally” in the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia. They weren’t Afghani or Iraqi, and they certainly weren’t Libyan. Of the billions of Muslims worldwide, the financing, manpower, and logistical support for violence is heavily concentrated in one wealthy state with a population similar to North Korea.

Saudi Arabia’s radical agenda and aggressive foreign policy puts North Korea to shame, and it’s America’s greatest ally in the Muslim world.

The Saudi regime sponsors a sect of Sunni Islam known as “Wahhabism.” This branch of Islam has been declared by some to be the “Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism” around the world. After the defeats of Islamic armies at the Gates of Vienna by Christian forces and eventually with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islam turned inward. The drive that led to nearly constant conflict with the Christian world decreased in the Middle East. The House of Saud threw in early with the intellectual founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and when the House of Saud took over Saudi Arabia in 1932, Wahhabism became the official government-approved version of Sunni Islam of the entire country.

Wahhabism is distinct from both Shia and Sunni Islam in many key ways, making it the most violent and fanatical sect of Sunni Islam. Wahhabis has little patience or respect for their fellow Muslims, either Sunni or Shia, who follow a different interpretation of the Islamic Faith. Wahhabis work against both other Sunnis and the Shia population in order to monopolize power and control for their brand of Islam both in the Persian Gulf and around the world. Christians, including Arab Christians who’ve lived in relative harmony with their Islamic neighbors for millennia, are natural targets of Wahhabism.

Salafism, an even more violent form of Wahhabism, is the ideology of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS along with dozens of smaller Islamic terrorist organizations. Both Wahhabism and Salafism share many characteristics and find their roots in the same writings and speeches of Sunni Islamic imams and scholars. Both branches believe that “There is no making peace with the enemies of God” and “The earth is divided into two camps, Dar al Salam (the Realm of Peace) and Dar al Harb (the Realm of Conflict).”

While Christians and Shia Muslims have in many cases found themselves able to live side-by-side with respect, such as in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Wahhabism seeks to use state-sponsored oppression through laws, repression of freedom of religion, repression of human rights and state-exported terrorism.

1001028_492532600828316_798663310_n

Wahhabism traditionally has only been found in Saudi Arabia but it is expanding throughout the Islamic world and now even the West due to the major financial and social backing of the Saudi regime. It is said thatmore than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991.” 

The World Affairs Journal reported in May of 2015 that,
“Saudi Arabia spent $4 billion per year on mosques, madrassas, preachers, students, and textbooks to spread the Wahhabi creed over the next decades. Thousands of Muslim centers sprang up along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan and then in Afghanistan itself—training not scholars but jihadis equipped with Wahhabi ideology and American weapons. The madrassas in Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan produced al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”
The lives of thousands of American soldiers and countless Muslims and Christians throughout the Middle East who have been killed by Islamic terrorists lies not only at the feet of those who committed heinous acts, but also with the Saudi government for using its wealth to indoctrinate and radicalize Muslims with the Wahhabist ideology that promotes violent jihad.

Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security stated,
“Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control…Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams, content of preaching — including faxing of Friday sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — and of literature distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on bulletin boards, and organizational solicitation. Similar influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic elementary and secondary schools (academies), college campus activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle East studies.”
The world’s problem is not so much an “Islam Problem” as a “Wahhabi Problem.” Western nationalists tend to only see Islam in terms of migration and its threat to their own nations. That problem is real, and Islam doesn’t belong in our homelands, but our nationalist struggle exists within a global context. The nationalists in Islamic nations fighting globalism and the twin evils of Zionism and Wahhabism are our allies, not our enemies.

The Saudi government has now committed a new series of atrocities against fellow Muslims in the name of Wahhabism when it “executed 47 men convicted of terror-related offenses and political activism, including a prominent cleric critical of the kingdom’s rulers.” The most destabilizing of these executions for the region was the murder of Nimr al-Nimr, a Shi’ite cleric who had been publicly critical of the Saudi government and their repression of Shi’ite Muslims.

With the act of killing a respected religious leader for simply criticizing the government, Saudi Arabia has further alienated all Shi’ite Muslims in their nation and around the region. The killing of Nimr al-Nimr took the life of one man, but has the possibility of having a cascade effect in the Middle East. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari said about this case, “The Saudi government supports terrorist movements and extremists, but confronts domestic critics with oppression and execution… The Saudi government will pay a high price for following these policies,” indicating that the Shi’ite Iran and her allies who are already fighting Saudi-backed fighters in Syria view this as another attack on the religion and peoples of their nations.

Saudi Arabia had kept Nimr al-Nimr in prison for an extended period, indicating that his execution was planned long in advance for the maximum political impact. This of course is occurring with not only the Syrian civil war in the background, but also a Saudi-backed coalition that is killing Shi’ite Muslims in Yemen. Saudi Arabia appears to be doing everything it can to attack Shi’ite Muslims and to embroil the region in more war and conflict.

A destabilized Middle East is of course a good thing for Israel, an increasingly strong ally of the House of Saud. In 2013, it was found that, “Israel and Saudi Arabia are secretly working together on plans for a possible attack against Iran.

The Jerusalem Post reported this year that,
“The Saudis have increased their behind-the-scenes cooperation with Israel to unprecedented levels. My information is that this extends to major joint security cooperation in the event of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including Israeli technical aid to defend against a second wave of retaliation against Saudi targets.” 
Like two peas in a pod
Like two peas in a pod
A united Arab Middle East could challenge Israel for control of the region, something the Zionists do not want. The Saudi government is also terrified of the unity of majority Shi’ite nations like Syria, Iran and Lebanon uniting to challenge them economically. The Israelis can handle radical Islamic extremism; what they cannot handle is organized Arab nationalists working together for the best interests of the Arab people.

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel haveenemies or rivals in common – Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Hamas in Gaza, and Muslim Brotherhood elsewhere. And they have common allies, too – the US and British military industrial establishments, Fatah strongman and US asset Mohammed Dahlan… today for the first time in their two countries’ history there is open co-ordination between the two military powers.” With America at the head of International Jewry and the British government by their side, Saudi Arabia and Israel are both coalescing as part of the globalist front against nationalism.

For Zionism to last in the Middle East, the Israelis must ensure that Arab nationalist movements, leaders, and nations are destabilized and unable to accomplish their objectives. The House of Saud has similar views on this issue so now the primary power dynamics in the Middle East are between Shi’ite nationalists and a Saudi/Israeli alliance.

The murder of Nimr al-Nimr and the other Shi’ite prisoners was a purposeful attack on Shi’ite Muslims around the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is attempting to provoke more conflict in the region in order to bring in their allies of the United States and Israel to destroy their economic, political and religious enemies. Only when globalism, Wahhabism, and Zionism are removed from the region will there be peace, meaning that the House of Saud will have to be removed as well. Hail victory to our Shi’ite and Arab Nationalist comrades throughout the Islamic world who fight the forces of globalism!

Surge in Illegal Aliens, 500% Increase in Some U.S. Ports of Entry

via TMA_SierraHills

Hordes of Central Americans continue infiltrating the United States through the Mexican border with three ports of entry seeing a mind-boggling 500% increase in illegal immigrants during the first months of fiscal year 2016 compared to the same period in 2015, according to government records.

The Boquillas, El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona entry ports experienced the inconceivable 500% hike in Central Americans during the first two months of fiscal year 2016 compared to 2015, U.S. Border Patrol figures show. El Paso and Yuma are notoriously busy crossings, but Boquillas is in the more remote Big Bend National Park vicinity of Texas and has only been opened two years. After consulting with its Mexican counterparts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it was opening Boquillas to fill a “void” created by a long stretch of border—between Presidio and Del Rio—with no port of entry. The agency created after 9/11 to keep the nation safe assured that it would maintain “robust border security in the area” surrounding the new border crossing.

The agency’s own statistics certainly contradict that, showing that the southern border region is as porous and vulnerable as ever. Other entry ports that saw large hikes in Central American illegal immigrants during the first two months of this fiscal year include Del Rio, Texas (269%), El Centro, California (216%) and Rio Grande Valley, Texas (154%).

White Births Matter

via The Occidental Observer

All births matter — and White births are holding steady. While the end game is anyone’s guess, new data makes mincemeat of the old propaganda narrative that Whites in the United States face inevitable demise in the near future.  This particular propaganda line–churned out by our brutal anti-White elite on a daily basis — is increasingly untenable.

The final data for the year 2014 has just been published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Births: Final Data for 2014.” [1] It shows a continuation of trends that have tracked falling total fertility rates for Black, Hispanic and Native Americans. The demographic data for these groups continue to show a steady erosion. White and Asian total fertility rates are up, with the Asian total fertility rate showing remarkable volatility, but still showing significant decline over a multi-year period.

Keep in mind that total fertility rates estimate the number of children per women over a woman’s lifetime. A total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 is considered replacement rate. Also keep in mind that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) includes the peoples of the Middle East and the Subcontinent as White.  This will not greatly affect the figures for non-Hispanic White because — while data are difficult to attain for these groups — Indians in the United States are known to have a birthrate significantly below Whites and East Asians, and the birth rate of Middle Eastern peoples in Europe and North America is only slightly above replacement.  Given the modest numbers of both these groups in the United States (though growing), and the lower Indian total fertility rate, the data amalgamated under the Non-Hispanic White category is an largely accurate measure of European-American TFR.

Here are the results of the 2014 CDC data without any adjustments:

The White TFR rose from 1.751 in 2013 to 1.762 in 2014 — a rise of 0.628%
The Hispanic TFR fell from 2.149 in 2013 to 2.130 in 2014 — a decline of 0.884 %
The Black TFR fell from 1.881in 2013 to 1.873 in 2014 — a decline of 0.425%
The Asian TFR rose from 1.681 in 2013 to 1.715 in 2014 — a rise of 2.022%
Native Am TFR fell from 1.334 in 2013 to 1.288 in 2014 — a decline of 3.448%

Ranking the 2014 TFR from highest to lowest gives the following list,

Hispanic        2.130
Black           1.873
White           1.762
Asian           1.715
Native Am       1.288

Demographic change moves at glacial speed, so it is helpful to drive a stake in the ground and measure change over the span of years.  If we look at the rate of change from 2007 to the present, we see how the longer term picture clarifies.

From 2007 to 2014 the Total Fertility Rate,
Fell for Non-Hispanic Whites from 1.868 to 1.762 a decline of 5.674%
Fell for Hispanics from 2.995 to 2.130, a decline of 28.881%
Fell for Non-Hispanic Blacks from 2.133 to 1.873, a decline of 12.189%
Fell for Asian and Pacific Islanders from 2.038 to 1.715, a decline of 15.848%
Fell for American Indians from 1.866 to 1.288, a decline of 30.975%

That means that Hispanics declined 400% faster than Whites, Blacks declined almost 115% faster than Whites, Asians declined almost 180% faster than Whites, Native Americans declined 445% faster than Whites.

The Hispanic birth rate is at replacement rate only and still falling.  Because 2012 is the last year that the CDC gives figures for Hispanics of Mexican origin, a back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the 2012 TFR for Mexicans in the United States at 2.083 is likely to land somewhere between 1.90 and 1.98. This is almost certainly a population group now in demographic decline, though total numbers will still rise due to legal and illegal immigration.

The TFR for Blacks continue to decline, year on year.  While this is a trend of long standing, the Black TFR may have been pushed further down due to the Great Recession. While a rise in unemployment is often accompanied by a lower TFR there is evidence that the last recession has affected Blacks and Hispanics to a greater extent than Whites and that further economic dislocation would again accelerate this process with no perceptible upward adjustment in the event of better economic conditions. This is partly because both Blacks and Hispanics are currently experiencing a bulge in the child bearing cohort, and once this cohort puts off childbearing due to economic difficulties and then moves into the upper age brackets, the damage cannot be reversed. [2]

Further downward pressure on the TFR is in the pipeline for Blacks and Hispanics.  As discussed in an earlier post, there is reason to be believe that the free birth control offered by Obamacare will have a disproportionately downward pressure on those groups with higher out of wedlock births.  Blacks clock in a 70.9% of out of wedlock births, Hispanics at 52.9%, White at 29.2% and Asians at 16.4%.  While not likely affecting Whites and Asian TFR to a significant degree, Obamacare and another recession may result in far lower numbers yet.

Asian demographics need further analysis. It’s important not to take figures from a single year, and spin out a long term scenario.  Steve Sailer did precisely this, when the CDC released “Births: Preliminary Data for 2014.” While Sailer offers excellent insight and is always willing to bravely buck the propaganda line of our elites, he overshot the mark in his prediction regarding Asian population growth in the United States. In a VDare article, “Here Comes the Asian Age—Births to US Asians up 6% in One Year” he states, “Now we seem to be entering a new era, in which the big winners appear likely to be Asians.”

The data do not support this. First, Sailer misses the fact that in 2013 Asians in the United States saw a dramatic drop in the TFR of 5.001%.  Then in 2014 Asians had an increase in the TFR of 2.022%.  Looking over the long term from 2007 to 2014 we can see that the Asian TFR fell by 15.848%, over three times greater than the decline of the White TFR. Asians in the U.S. are well below replacement, and globally, Asians, particularly East Asians, face catastrophic low TFR numbers. It is more likely that the Asian population in the United States will grow only by increased immigration, and the Asian TFR in the United States with time will fall in line with East Asian figures around the globe.

Why then the bump in Asian births for 2014?  There are no reliable data to explain this.  However, an educated guess is that the Obama administration has been fast-tracking visas and this has led to an increase in Asians, particularly Chinese, attending American universities.  Because these students are in a highly fertile age cohort, they have more children than the Asian population at large. Also the children born to these foreign visa holders are given American citizenship at birth, and therefore counted in the “births” statistics, which are then folded into the analysis of the Asian population estimates in the United States. A similar bump has occurred in New Zealand for exactly this reason. [3] This temporary bump would have a modest impact on the TFR, and is unlikely to be maintained even if the Asian visa holders stay in the United States. It only reinforces the obvious — it is not a high TFR of non-Whites that will shape our future, but rather, continued and relentless immigration.

This data shatter the bad news propaganda that has been deployed against our people for at least a generation by our elites. As the progenitors of the Industrial Revolution, and as the torch bearers of creativity on one hand, and the rule of law in the other, Whites have globalized the world and raised the living standards of everyone, everywhere.  Thus Whites were the first to undergo a reduced TFR. Asians around the world are now experiencing the same thing.  Slowly, this revolution is hitting even those areas of the world with lower IQs.  A falling TFR is not a White thing. It is global — with the obvious exception of Black Africa.

Our hostile elites manipulate highest levels of government to pursue the displacement of White people. The goal is clear:  to ethnically cleanse the United States of the White populations that gave it birth and that still maintain its economy and culture.  Immigration is a weapon our elites use to reshape the demographic destiny of our country.  A key part of this program of White displacement is to convince Whites that immigration does not matter: that Whites are going to disappear because of low fertility, and that we all should simply give up and stop fighting the further inundation of peoples from around the world into our traditional homelands. Indeed we should be grateful for the invaders because immigration is the only thing that will save the U.S.

This data trump those propaganda lies.

A final note: The Occidental Observer was the first site—on the internet or published in print—to discuss and analyze the rapid demographic collapse in the United States of the non-White TFR relative to the steady White TFR.  After two consecutive reports on this site, numerous other academic and news sites have now acknowledged the import of the CDC figures and how this will shred current demographic predictions. This belated recognition includes mainstream journalists, academics, bloggers, and fellow dissidents on the right.[4] Even more encouraging, it is clear that the Occidental Observer is read on the sly by many of our own people in elite positions.  Google search results alone guarantee our prominence on vital topics, but the repetition of the ideas on this site clearly illustrate how these ideas first aired here on the Occidental Observer circulate broadly— albeit without acknowledgement or credit. As the candidacy of Donald Trump suggests, our ideas are getting a hearing, and are often repackaged and retailed in new and surprising ways.

Remember, you read it first here, on the Occidental Observer. Stay tuned. 

Notes:
  1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf
  2. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/11/birth_rates_and_the_recession_has_a_black_generation_been_wiped_out.html . This article draws on the following study: September 29, 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408975111 PNAS October 14, 2014 vol. 111 no.41 14734-14739
  3. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11433861
  4. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/women-are-having-fewer-kids-and-demographers-dont-know-why/article/2549445; http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2015/01/fertility.php; http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/19/no-hispanic-surge-on-the-horizon/; http://www.thephora.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-102747.html

Diversity in Action: Cleveland's Black Mayor Ignores Laws, Lets Black People Protest Without Permits

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Black elected officials in America continue to tolerate any and all criminal actions by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) goons. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be upset about a few white people asserting their rights in Oregon. [Tamir Rice protesters ignore permit law, mayor shrugs it off, Cleveland.com, 12-31-15]:

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson said Thursday that he doesn't expect protesters to follow a new city law requiring them to obtain permits, or at least alert the police chief, before blocking traffic.

And he acknowledged during a news conference at City Hall that the law went unenforced this week, while demonstrators filled the streets in protest of a grand jury's decision not to indict two police officers for the fatal shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

"They're protesting," Jackson said. "And in most protests, if you do it according to the rules or in a certain way, you probably wouldn't get much attention. ... We understand that they haven't pulled permits. We understand that they're breaking the law by blocking intersections and that they're doing it at rush hour for maximum effect. But civil disobedience is a part of protesting."

The mayor's comments call into question the purpose and efficacy of the new ordinance, which City Council passed in July amid controversy and at the administration's request.Council President Kevin Kelley was not available for comment Thursday.

The new rules call for anyone planning to hold a demonstration to apply for a permit at least four days in advance. Among the materials required to obtain a permit: the name, address and contact information for the group, the date, time and duration of the parade and a description and aerial street map of the route that would be traveled.

An "impromptu" demonstration – defined as a parade announced spontaneously within two days of the assembly, usually in response to news of the day -- requires the organizers to contact the chief's office with eight hours notice and provide much of the same information.

Protesters are not required to alert the chief ahead of time if they stay on the sidewalk and do not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

Police Chief Calvin Williams said during the news conference Thursday that none of the dozens of demonstrators that took to the streets in the past few days -- disrupting traffic at intersections for hours -- had called his office to provide the information required by the ordinance.

Williams said that he used his discretion in deciding not to enforce that law, which does not define a penalty. Instead, the chief said he ordered his officers to approach protesters with leniency, de-escalate confrontations when they occur and make arrests only if protesters threaten public safety or destroy property.

At numerous points during Wednesday evening's protests downtown, demonstrators filled the street, while an officer on a loudspeaker threatened to arrest anyone who blocked traffic.

The protesters ignored the warnings and were not arrested or issued citations.And when protesters formed a circle, blocking off the entire intersection of Ontario Street and Prospect Avenue, the police again told them they would be arrested if they did not move.

But no one was cited or arrested, even though the crowd stayed for about 45 minutes.

Williams said Thursday that he, himself, was stuck in traffic on account of the protests. He described it as a minor inconvenience, similar to the traffic drivers experience during sporting events downtown."This is what happens in a democracy," Williams said. "People have a right to get out there and express themselves, and the Division of Police is there to protect them while they do that."
No, Mr. Williams: this is what a racial democracy looks like, which is more and more resembling a racial theocracy, where white people must forever tithe to support. Sadly, they have no indulgences to purchase which will secure freedom from this growing religion.

Tell me again why I should be upset about the situation in Oregon, when black elected leaders refuse to use the law to stop their racial comrades from engaging in whatever lawless behavior they wish to participate in?

The New Avant-Garde

via Radix

Oh the times, they are a-changin’.

Sings the bard of yesterday’s “revolution.” But The Current Year has seen an explosion of activity for what has come to be known as the “alt-right.” From Conservatism, Inc. to the hipsters over at Vice, it seems we can’t go a month without some new cross-examination of who we are.

The latest journey into our previously subterreanean world comes from Buzzfeed reporter Rosie Gray. The article is refreshingly neutral and quotes alt-right thinkers from Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, Jack Donovan, and RamZPaul. All of this publicity makes one wonder exactly just how much “alt-right” ideas function as a sort of intellectual pornography for many throughout the Cathedral (or Synagogue if you prefer). At the very least, it’s a good indicator of our “hot click” factor.

We get this kind of publicity because we are on the edge of thought. Another recent Buzzfeed article referred to the alt-right as a counterculture which has been birthed from the Internet. Really, we are the outcome of a deracinated and bland society which finds its greatest expressions through consumer identities whether through the market place or Facebook’s 50+ gender options.

We’ve moved beyond the tired “conservatism” of the Beltway because it has failed to conserve anything meaningful. For many of our younger members, the alt-right is a journey to discover exactly who they are as a people. The Heritage Foundation and National Review could care less about this, as long as the donations flow and marginal tax rates are kept (somewhat) low.

Radix editor (and coiner of the term alternative right), Richard Spencer made the case more succinctly:
“We don’t have a starting point with William F. Buckley, we don’t have the same starting point as Richard Lowry and Jonah Goldberg and National Review…radically different from George W. Bush, the conservative movement, etc. It really was a notion of an alternative.”
Buzzfeed considers this a break with the “intellectual conservatism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.” Rightly so, only we would quibble with just how “intellectual” a movement which regularly set up its more original thinkers for sacrifice before the chimeric idol of respectability really was. Even Buckley, beyond his mid-Atlantic accent, was more of a dilettante and “gate-keeper” than an intellectual.

So much for America’s “vast right wing conspiracy.”

This brings us to today’s real “conservatives.” Those who screech about the “right side of history” and how it is (insert year here) are some of the most reactionary figures on our landscape. They are constantly searching for heretics from the newly-established orthodoxies of race, sex, and gender that many young people have gone mountains in debt to “learn.” Before any movie or work of art is considered for mass consumption, it must first pass the test of our new inquisitors or face the wrath of Diversity, Inc.

For many, that is what makes the “alt-right” so refreshing. We don’t bow to mass culture and we don’t play its inverted morality game. We invite young people to discover who they are and who they can become, not who they can know and how they can become an establishment functionary. Naturally, our newfound burst of creativity intrigues and inspires our brothers and sisters. There is a palpable energy throughout the alt-right that is unnervingly (for them) lacking in our enemies’ camps. We’re the next big thing, and they’re the flailing old guard. What fun!

The National Policy Institute was able to attract well over 100 people (most below 30) to its annual Washington D.C. conference. Donald Trump continues to push the Overton window with his candidacy, while in Europe the migrant crises has moved alt right and identitarian ideas closer to public consciousness. There is a growing backlash to the summer of campus protests, and it seems as if there are hundreds of new “converts” to the alt-right every week.

Yes, much of this constitutes crude beginnings. But what serious counterculture was neat? We are the “avant-garde,” the first wave of a new future. What we are seeing is not the last gasp of a dying species, but the first breaths of an awakened people!

Porn and Games: There Goes Your Life!

via Alternative Right

Time is precious. As far as we know, we live, then we die. Maybe there’s something afterwards; maybe not. Either way, we don’t get to be us again. We can’t go back to being two years younger, or not knowing something that scares us once we’ve learned it. Life is a rare commodity.

And yet, most people can’t stop wasting it. I don’t mean the kind of loafing where you look back on an afternoon or a weekend and think, "What did I do?" in a haze of laziness, but I mean that they need to be constantly occupied. People no longer have an internal narrative. They need constant distraction or they feel empty and lost.

What it amounts to is babysitting. You go to school all day, where they dole out knowledge in spoonfuls; whoever writes it all down, and then writes all of it down again on the test, wins. You could learn it in a lot less time. But then what would you do all day?

Your parents would have to stop working early or only one of them could work. That means less money; frown on the parents’ faces. Most people can’t invent things to do, so you’d probably commit mischief or crimes or get abducted into a child slavery sex ring. Governments would fall.

It’s the same way with jobs. Some people have real jobs, like doctors, police, firefights. Even if they spend a lot of their time waiting, they have to perform and get it right. Most jobs however are redundant. You are doing the work of 1/5 of a person, and spending a lot of time in meetings.

Why not go home early instead? The babysitting would be over. You would be in your cold apartment, trying to invent something to do. And again most people can’t do that. They can’t do that because they don’t have an internal narrative. They aren’t driven to accomplish something; they serve their own pleasures and beyond that, do nothing.

I heard about a man who invented an ultra-efficient shop. You could breeze in, pick your selection quickly from a logical arrangement, and then checkout with a wave and be done. He went bankrupt. People don’t shop because they need things, but because they need something to do. More babysitting is required.

When they’re at home, people don’t invent either. They can follow instructions in magazines and make things, or imitate something their friends did. They can play video games. Sometimes they go on the internet, and repeat things they’ve seen on TV or that other friends have told them.

Babysitting fills our time. It makes us uneasy, because we’re aware that this time is departing like water down a bathtub drain. And yet, few of us know what to do with ourselves. We don’t want to give our time to society, because that would require a common standard and that would restrict our freedom.

So it’s off to the bar. We like to be free, and we’re doing exactly what we want to. Which is… uh… well, couldn’t figure it out, so it’s the same stuff as usual. Have some beers, let conversation guide your mind, go home when you can’t walk or everyone else is gone.

In the name of freedom, we have emptied our souls. We have emptied them of direction, and so as to not feel bad about that, we have emptied them of honest enjoyment. Instead we babysit ourselves, by drawing out every activity to fill our time so we don’t feel empty. But even that doesn’t work.

The reason that emptying our souls has failed us is that the answer isn’t to fill our time; it’s  to dedicate our time. Every day is a trade with death. When we trade for something good, our souls fill up with enjoyment, and we remember our preferences. Every day we 'dedicate' only to our pleasures is a day in slavery.

This doesn’t seem intuitive. In fact, it would seem to be the reverse: "enjoy life, live for yourself and only yourself." But it turns out that we are not islands and we need to feel a sense of purpose. That can only come from bonding with our world, coming to love it as ourselves, and acting on it to make our mark, however small.

Confused and Disgusted?

via The Thinking Housewife

Isn’t Trump a big, confusing guy? There are days when I like what he says, but then I keep retracting my “yes” vote. I keep thinking if George Washington, or Jack Kennedy, or even Jimmy Carter, would talk like him. And the answer is, of course, no.

America does need a strong leader. But, a crass leader makes the people crass, and civilization depends on civilized people. The rest of the world watches, and as America is led by un-civilized, saber-rattling leaders, it will also set its premises likewise.

Isn’t Obama disgusting? He is a truly horrendous person. He is clever, astute, and knows how to get at people – those kind souls who may be on the fence when it comes to gun ownership, etc.

What does he want? I think, ultimately, and this may sound conspiratorial :-), but he wants to cut off American citizens’ strengths, and specifically white Americans, since he knows that thugs and jihadists will get their guns anyway, but the honest family, which goes through legal loopholes to own its guns, is the one that will be affected. And this means law-abiding, civilized, white Americans.

He is truly despicable. I think he is actually evil. These days, I don’t go into psychological explanations about peoples’ despicable behavior. I categorize them in terms of good and evil. Good people do bad things, but that doesn’t make them evil. Evil-doers know they are doing evil. They have signed a pact with Satan.

“Rhodes Must Fall”

via Western Spring

“Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.” said Cecil Rhodes, self made millionaire, Prime Minister of Cape Colony, founder of Rhodesia, patriot, imperialist, and creator of the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford.

It is that last achievement which now lies at the centre of a continuing controversy in Oxford, and more particularly at Oriel College which was a major beneficiary of Rhodes’ generosity and now houses a statue of the great man.

You have no doubt read of the campaign by a black student (present in this country on, of all things, a Rhodes scholarship!) to remove the statue on the predictable grounds that Rhodes was a “racist” and imperialist, a campaign which has attracted the support of many of his fellow students; worse still, and most shamefully, the campaign enjoys the support of the academic body of the very college which has for so long fattened on the wealth bequeathed to it by Rhodes. It seems likely that the statue’s only defence is the status of the college as a listed building so that any alteration to its fabric, such as the removal of a statue, will need planning permission from Oxford City Council – which  just happens to be Labour controlled!

Although there has been considerable opposition to the campaign from the mainstream Right, that opposition largely accepts the campaigners criticism of Rhodes, merely excusing him on the grounds that he was a man of his time. The protesters allege that in his conquest of the Zambezi region (which he organized into Northern and Southern Rhodesia) Rhodes was guilty of “murder, rape and theft”. But what he actually did was to introduce western civilization into a region which had previously been a wilderness; the law and order which came with his forces, the schools, modern medicine, modern agriculture, improved varieties of plants and animals, employment on White owned enterprises, all led to an explosion in the number of Black inhabitants. The great majority of the Blacks now living in Zambia and Zimbabwe could never have existed if it were not for Rhodes!

It need not have been like that – the White colonists of Southern Africa could have treated the Black inhabitants as the White colonists of North America treated the Red, herding the sparse and scattered population onto reservations and resettling the rest of Southern Africa as a new White dominion along the lines of Australia; there were powerful voices who urged precisely such a course, and perhaps those voices were right. But, rightly or wrongly Rhodes wished to use the Blacks as labour on White owned farms, in mines and factories and as domestic servants; thus he preserved them and so in time demography ran its inevitable course.

As Racial Nationalists we can look at this furore from two quite different perspectives. It would have been difficult for our grandparents’ generation, brought up on the glories of the British Empire, to have much sympathy for the plight of Blacks and other non-Whites who were so ungrateful as to resist the blessings brought to them by Britain; we, now colonised in our turn, know that those who fought against us or rose against us were doing the the only honourable thing.

But the other perspective, which must surely prevail, is that in his love of Britain, of the White British race,  in his belief that the world would be a better place the more British it became, and in his belief in a great confederation of Britain and the White settlement colonies, Rhodes was absolutely right. Those of all races, including sadly our own, who wish to see his statue and other memorials removed are guilty of gross disrespect for a major figure in the history of the White British people, and as we are the product of our history, of gross disrespect for the White British themselves.

The most disheartening aspect of the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement is the support which it receives from White students at Oxford, at best ignorant of the gigantic achievements of their ancestors, at worst taught to be ashamed of them. It falls to we Racial Nationalists to ensure that our children and all future generations of our people are brought up with a healthy understanding of these things because a nation which is ashamed of itself cannot survive.

It's the Jews, Stupid!

via Koinen's Corner

Below is a link to an important article by our (sometimes) friend Paul Craig Roberts.  All informed White Americans who care about the future of their children and grandchildren should read what he has to say, and by so doing, begin to understand what is really going on in the world they live in.

So yes, I implore you to read his essay.  But before you do, in order to really understand what he is saying, you need to know two things:

1) 'Presstitute media ' = Jew-controlled media.

2) 'Neoconservatives' and 'Neocons' (essentially) (for all intents and purposes) = Jews.

With that clarification of terminology in mind, read and learn: Why WWIII Is On The Horizon

Review of "Drive"

via Counter-Currents

Drive, the 2011 award-winning art-house crime thriller, is a modern retelling of the story of the knight in shining armor who saves a damsel in distress from the clutches of evil. Being modern, however, this is not a fairy tale that ends with “. . . happily ever after,” for the modern world cannot offer happiness for the heroic.

The film opens with a handsome young Nordic man (Ryan Gosling) driving through the dark streets of Los Angeles, alone in his 1973 Chevy Malibu. The Driver is never named. He is a silent loner in the tradition of the Man with No Name. A Hollywood stunt driver by day, he is a calculating getaway driver by night. His rules are simple: he will wait for five minutes. If you show up during that window, he will drive. He won’t wait any longer. He won’t assist you. He drives. That’s it.

Early in the film the Driver meets the young, white, seemingly-single mother Irene (Carey Mulligan), who lives in the same apartment building as the Driver with her mixed race son Benicio (who’s half Hispanic). There is mutual attraction, and a relationship begins to bud. This ends, however, when Irene reveals her husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) is getting out of prison soon, and for the sake of her son, she has chosen to stay with her husband.

Despite being friend-zoned, all goes well for the Driver until a Jewish mobster Izzy (Ron Perlman), who goes by Nino to sound Italian, blackmails Standard to rob a pawn shop for him as payback for prison protection. The Driver, who would otherwise let a prison rat like Standard go through with the heist alone, decides to drive for Standard, for the sake of Irene and Benicio.

As is mandatory in such films, the heist goes awry. Standard is killed by the pawn shop owner, and the Driver is left in possession of $1 million in stolen money. Izzy calls on his fellow Jewish mobster, Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks), to clean up the mess. The Driver must die, because he has the money and because he can tie the robbery to Izzy.

By breaking his rigid rules out of altruism, the Driver is thrust into a world of needless chaos and killing. Such actions are reminiscent of modern day liberals, who, out of altruism towards outsiders, have opened Pandora’s box, destroying their formerly successful societies.

DriveJacket
Throughout the film the Driver dons, like a suit of armor, a retro silver bomber jacket with a large golden scorpion embroidered on the back. This symbol hearkens back to an old fable:

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.[1]

Like the frog, the Driver’s well-intentioned sensibilities are used against him by less virtuous creatures. His decision to ignore established well-reasoned rules for the sake of keeping together a family results in his almost perfect world crumbling apart.

But the Driver is determined not to let Bernie and Izzy win. First, he drowns Izzy, then calls Bernie up, asks him if he has heard the story of the scorpion and the frog, and tells him that Izzy didn’t make it to the other side. The Driver is no longer the frog, he is the scorpion, but he does make it to the other side.

Then the Driver meets with Bernie, who offers him a deal: return the money and Irene and Benecio will be safe. The Driver, however, will have to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. Minutes later, as the Driver pulls out the bag of money from his trunk, Bernie stabs him from behind. The Driver, however, is wise to the mobster’s propensity for betrayal and stabs him in the throat, killing him. Like many European men today and throughout history, it is only after he is wounded that he is ready to fight and win.

This confrontation recalls the stab-in-the-back of post-WWI Germany. Germany did not lose the Great War but rather was betrayed by disillusioned citizens led astray by Jewish anti-German propaganda. More important than historical circumstances, however, is the origin of this myth. The “stab-in-the-back” is a reference to the ancient Germanic myth of Siegfried, the quintessential hero of Germanic society, who is literally stabbed in the back by the half-dwarf Hagen (the dwarves, as depicted in Wagner’s Ring, being symbolic of Jews).[2]

The Driver is an archetypal Siegfriedian hero. He is a man without fear, a man who keeps his cool under pressure. He gallantly defends the weak. He is a “real hero,” as the song at the end of the film suggests. But the Driver lacks Siegfried’s innocence. He is, after all, a criminal. Both are literally stabbed in the back by dwarven foes. But, unlike Siegfried, the Driver saw it coming and survived – whereas the dwarves did not. Like Siegfried, the Driver is capable of great physical violence. But his innocence is wedded with cunning, which saves him in the end.

The Driver’s world in L.A. is incompatible with the honor code of a real hero. It plays by different rules. The Driver could have let Standard go alone, assuming he would either die or face imprisonment again, therefore allowing the Driver to once again pursue a relationship with Irene. But this doesn’t even cross his mind, because he is incapable of harboring deceit. The Driver, like honorable whites today, exists in a world that exploits his values at his expense–ultimately threatening his very existence. The Driver is seen as just another animal to be used and discarded by the kosher powers that be. In the name of honesty and family he allows his woman to leave him, ending his chance to pass on his blood. In the modern world his values are inverted.

Irene, whom the Driver saves at one point by kicking in the head of a hitman sent to kill her, responds with terror. Her knight in shining armor has turned out to be a violent savage according to her warped, modernized mind. She doesn’t respond by giving her dragon slayer a kiss, but stares in absolute fear of him. Does this event not illustrate the current predicament of the heroically-minded white man today, whose women are taught to berate him as a sexist reactionary Neanderthal, despite his efforts to do what his instincts tell him, namely to protect them from evildoers who would defile and destroy them?

It is no wonder the Driver has been living a life of isolation. How many young single men reading this review can relate to him as they’re forced to find camaraderie among a bunch of fellow nameless and faceless bloggers. I, for one, have lost valued relationships for my embrace of traditional gender roles and rejection of today’s standards of “polite society.” Many men choose — wrongly, in my opinion — to “Go Their Own Way.”

The film ends as it started – with the Driver, having survived a near fatal knife attack, driving alone into the night. This time, however, he is driving away from the corrupt world of crime and chaos, leaving behind the stolen money, Bernie Rose’s corpse, and, therefore, any breadcrumbs connecting the whole affair to him.

Unlike the Driver, we can never really walk away from the hostile anti-culture we currently inhabit. We will always be looking over our shoulders unless we face and slay our dragons and dwarves. Going our own way is not enough. A real hero does not merely walk away from a fight and say “fuck it” (or, in the case of MGTOW, “don’t fuck it”). He walks away when his quest is finished.

Notes:
1.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
2. http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/ring/ring3_siegfried.htm

An Open Letter to the People of New Zealand

via Traditional Britain Group

Next year, you – the good people of New Zealand – will vote on whether or not to adopt a new flag for your country.  As democratic citizens of an independent state, that is entirely a matter for you. However, those of us in “the Mother Country” cannot help but feel a certain emotional jolt when we see one of our cousins overseas taking steps toward discarding the old school tie, or jettisoning the colours which tied us together (in a cultural sense) across the span of thousands of miles. (I apologise for my outdated, post-colonial sentiments.)

I have never had the pleasure of visiting New Zealand, but feel that I know it – not least through 1950s’ newsreels of the triumphant Sir Edmund Hillary, and of town scenes – the splendidly-named Wellington and Palmerston – that could almost be interchangeable with those of the English provinces. But it seems that changes have overtaken the country since those halcyon days. Some years ago, I read a New Zealand Government brochure, distributed in Britain, which stated that: “migration [a policy favoured by the government] strengthens a society” – so it is clear that in the years between Hillary’s conquest of Everest and today, New Zealand has undertaken certain officially-approved cultural changes; in other words, the dissolving of its old identity as part of the Anglosphere, and an intensification of multicultural feeling.  For example, the Maori “first nation” culture is often cited as having a pre-eminence over the relatively recent (18th-century) English and British newcomers, yet it might be interesting to know exactly what the Maoris make of even more immigration to their island, from the Far East and Islamic countries!

I suspect, also, that you in New Zealand have suffered from the same general psychological drift and angst that has affected the whole of what we might call the Western World: self-doubt, national self-abasement, political-correctness; the “intellectuals”, sociologists, social engineers, “charismatic” politicians, supposedly progressive churchmen (often implementing their agenda via the state broadcasting services) all telling us that we must feel guilty about who we are. Hence the clamour to change the national flag – to abandon the red, white and blue Christian crosses which proclaimed a British identity, and to replace such emblems with “neutral” ferns or plants.

It seems, at least to this observer, that the rebranding – or, more accurately, the de-nationalisation – of New Zealand is part of the great retreat from national self-confidence: the embracing and celebration of every culture, save for that of the British. What form of reverse prejudice is it, that strikes the Union Jack from a flag – when so many of that country’s people still have names such as Brown, or Smith, and where towns are called – Palmerston and Wellington?

Perhaps what is needed now is for the identity crisis to be resolved, with the fern, or a Maori symbol to be incorporated alongside the Union Jack and the stars of the Southern Cross?

I very much hope that the new flag design (see the top-left flag in the montage which accompanies this article) will be rejected by the people of New Zealand in the forthcoming vote – but rejected because the symbol excludes so many of you: the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon-European people who built so much of what we understand by “New Zealand”.

Let any new flag design embrace your country’s identity in all of its facets – the red, white and blue, and the fern, side by side.