Mar 22, 2016

The Color of Crime (2016 Revised Edition)

via American Renaissance

Jared Taylor introduces the latest update of a classic report.

Click here for more information on the report–including its major findings–and to access digital and print versions of the report.

The Supersonic Nazi Rocket Bomber that Could Destroy any City on Earth

via Britannia

It is May 1945, Nazi Germany has been defeated and the former Allies are now trying to get their hand on as much of the Nazi developed technology as they can. It is well known that Wernher von Braun and his V2 missile was the foundation of the American Space program but that was not the only rocket that the Nazis were developing.

Starting in 1942, after the United States have joined the war against the Nazi’s and Japan, the Germans believed it was time to develop weapons that could strike back and hit the Americans back home. The “America bomber” project was started which focused on a long range, piston engine bomber that could cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the East coast cities. This project ultimately delivered two working prototypes, the Messerschmitt Me 264 and Junkers Ju 390, which actually took to the air but never tried to cross the Atlantic.

A far more ambitious plan was launched by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt, they envisaged a piloted rocket bomber that could take off from a V-1 like ramp and then almost go into orbit before being able to bomb any city on earth. A very long glide would take it back to it’s landing site after which it could be used again.

According to Popular Science the key to his design’s success was its shape. Small wings, a pointed front, thin leading edges, and a flat bottom made for a vehicle that could skip off the lower layers of the atmosphere like a stone skipping across a still pond. The flight would only be partially powered; rocket propulsion would launch it on an arcing trajectory, and thanks to its flat bottom, it would skip and glide unpowered to its destination with a pilot at the helm.

The Silver Bird in flight. Source:

The Nazi’s gave this rocket bomber the code name “Slibervogel” or Silver Bird. Had this vision become reality, together with a progress that was made towards developing an atomic bomb, the consequences would have been frightening indeed!
Luckily for the rest of the world, even the Germans thought this plan too ambitious and only a scale model was ever built before this plan went into the drawer for good.
In this excellent video you can see the whole concept at work:

Sänger kept working for the Nazi’s and his prime achievement was the development of the Škoda-Kauba Sk P.14 Ram Jet as part of the Third Reich defense effort against the devastating allied bombing raids. Only parts of the aircraft had been built when the project was terminated because the war ended.

Škoda-Kauba Sk P.14.01 ramjet-powered emergency fighter via Wikipedi

After the war ended Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt worked for the French and helped set up the French Space agency. He was smart enough to see that working for Stalin wasn’t his thing when they tried to kidnap and or convince him to come work for the USSR. He died in 1964 in Berlin, Germany.

The Legacy of Tony Blair: Deception and Jewish Ethnic Strategizing in the Creation of Multicultural Britain

via The Occidental Observer

Broken Vows
Tom Bower
London: Faber & Faber, 2016

Few political indiscretions in Britain have had the effect of the Andrew Neather leak of six years ago. The former speech writer for Tony Blair recalled a speech on immigration he had worked on and wrote:
Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.
The effects of this slip still reverberate today. Only now as we look back only eighteen years can we really discern the outline of something that had long been suspected—that there was a hostile secret agenda to impose multiculturalism on Britain and to transform the country beyond recognition.

More evidence for this has been gathered in a new book by journalist Tom Bower titled Broken Vows. Bower has interviewed 200 members of Blair’s administrations including the civil servants closest to immigration decision making. The sheer scale of the deception takes the breath away. Blair is said to have told ministers and officials: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.”

But the real significance of this book is not that there are any explosive documents or indiscretions but that it has been written at all.  For in the nineteen years since Blair came to power the entire issue has been submerged under a blanket of silence. The media has done its best to look the other way and has shied away from analyzing the roots of a mass immigration policy imposed on a totally unwilling population. Like family incest, Blair’s secret mass immigration policy is the establishment’s guilty secret.

The story begins in 1996 with the previous Conservative administration that was forced to act over growing public anger that only five per cent of asylum seeker immigrants were legitimate. So the Conservatives passed an Immigration Act which tightened the rules and created penalties for employers who employed unrecognized asylum seekers. This had an almost immediate effect and the number of applicants fell from 43,000 to 29,000 in 1996 and was to eventually to drop to below 20,000.

When Tony Blair’s Labour Party came to power in May, 1997, it seemed that a priority was to dismantle as much of the previous year’s immigration act as fast as possible, and as discreetly as possible. The new Home Secretary Jack Straw, insisted all asylum applicants were fleeing oppression and to say otherwise was “racist.” His most energetic parliamentary supporter was a Labour MP colleague called Gerald Kaufman.

One of the first things Straw did was to abolish a rule in which he had a special interest. Many of his Pakistani constituents from his Bolton constituency claimed they wanted to fly in prospective brides from their homeland.

Until 1997, the “primary purpose rule” imposed a requirement that the applicant should show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom.” This was a major ground for refusing applications and dismissing appeals. Almost immediately, the new Home Secretary abolished the rule and cases of immigration for marriage purposes almost immediately shot up.

In vain, civil servants pointed out that these arranged families were largely immigration scams. Muslim families had a vested interest in getting their daughters married to someone in Britain—so that the entire extended family could follow on.  Straw was just not interested in the arguments against this, and so began a flood of non-English speaking illiterates. In 1997 Jack Straw told officials that only 10,000 foreigners would take advantage of the removal of the primary purpose rule. In fact over 150,000 arrived in 1998. (By the end of Labour’s reign more than 550,000 arrivals were arriving annually from Asia, Africa and the Americas and even more from the rest of the EU.)

The centerpiece of Labour’s legislation during this period was the passing of the Human Rights Act of 1998 which was to make it immeasurably more difficult to remove asylum seekers.

Labour’s new laws created a vast “gravy train” for lawyers. Asylum seekers were rehearsed to conceal the circumstances of their origins. The chaos might have been a headache for immigration officers but it was a bonanza for the legal profession because all their bills were paid by the taxpayer. This booming human rights industry was epitomized by the law firm of Matrix Chambers launched by Tony Blair’s QC wife Cherie Booth.

Eventually Blair and Straw were to ensure that, unlike in other countries, asylum applicants would qualify for the full range of benefits including welfare, free health care, and subsidized housing, thus ensuring that Britain become a honeypot for immigrants. Bower notes that in one year 350,000 asylum seekers were repackaged as economic migrants to avoid public outrage. The government secretly gave the go-ahead for 150,000 work permits, the author added, and most of the recipients, including the unskilled, went on to become UK citizens.

Straw even extended the list of countries whose citizens could be considered for asylum status to include states like Nigeria which, while not pleasant, was not at war or in an emergency. Any concern about bogus claimants were waved aside as racism. Straw even removed an English language requirement for nationalization.

The immigration laws were relaxed yet again in 1999. Straw’s Home Office instructed that in cases where asylum seekers had “lost” their documents to conceal their origins, they were invariably to be given the benefit of the doubt. When a court case decided that even failed asylum seekers could not be denied housing welfare and free health care, the civil servants fully expected the government would fight the ruling. Instead Straw decided to let it go.

In 2004 Britain lifted restrictions on immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and again there was a huge influx. The government predicted only 13,000 would come and in fact the final intake was well over a million. And this was when other EU countries were exercising their option not to take such immigrants for five years!

But at  a time when billions of pounds were being diverted into the public sector, the civil servants in charge of immigration were being mysteriously starved of resources and seeing their numbers sharply cut. Thousands of immigration officer’s posts were removed over this period.

In Tony Blair’s autobiography he claimed that his government was the victim of unforeseen events,[1] but as Tom Bower makes clear, it was a deliberate policy of maximizing immigration. Blair’s interest was solely limited to public perception and how it might affect the next election—not the asylum seeker influx itself.

With the Home Secretary Jack Straw it was also a blatantly two-faced approach.  In private Straw showed no concern about the rocketing numbers, but for media consumption and before the House of Commons he said he favored strong controls.

As the arrivals were dispersed to housing estates across the country, the local communities protested that blocks of flats and even streets had become foreign territory. In 2001 race riots exploded between Whites and Pakistanis on the streets of Oldham and the police clamped down hard on White resistance while the BBC played down the cause of White complaints.

Then Blair announced that more students would be allowed into Britain. Civil service warnings that that this would lead to a flood of bogus students and sham language schools were again brushed away. More students, he said, would be good for Britain’s economy.

There were cosmetic controls against bogus marriages, and lorry drivers caught a tiny number of illegal immigrants, but it was all part of a campaign of spin. These generated lots of headlines in local newspapers, but were miniscule compared to the huge floods of asylum seekers arriving through conventional routes.

What interested Tony Blair more was presentation. So, to give the new policy a veneer of respectability, he had drafted in a Jewish academic called Jonathan Portes to produce a report justifying the policy. In the report, Portes emphasized the economic benefits of migration unreservedly. Migrants, he wrote, were not a burden on the public purse but increased the government’s income through taxation.

Although his report was published in 2001, Portes left out the huge flood that had begun when Labour began to dismantle controls. Quite brazenly, he wrote that most migrants were White—omitting the 510,000 immigrants who arrived from the Indian subcontinent during the first three years of Blair’s government.

In the same manner, Portes downplayed the adverse consequences of immigration.  Bower writes:
He asserted that ‘in theory’ there was ‘no evidence’ that migrants would ‘increase pressure on housing transport…and health services’. On the contrary he praised migrant children for bringing ‘greater diversity into UK schools’ and assured Blair that  migrants had not caused any overcrowding in London—which was true in 1997. “There is little evidence” he wrote, “that native workers are harmed”. He added, ‘Migrants will have no effect on the job prospects of natives.’ Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that twenty three British workers had been displaced for every hundred born foreign-born workers employed in the country.
Portes brushed aside any damaging consequences to British life by not mentioning the reluctance of the growing Muslim and Hindu communities to integrate.

Nevertheless, the Portes report was excellent material for an important speech to the City of London in which the government’s radical new direction would be signaled. It would be made by the new Junior Immigration Minister Barbara Roche; an early draft of the Portes document was shown to her to help her with her speech.

As the guardian of Britain’s border security, Blair chose as Lunior Immigration Minister a woman who seemed to retain an acute sense of her own Jewishness while having a great enthusiasm for eradicating White British identity.

Roche, a staunch enthusiast for all things LGBT, is the daughter of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and Sephardic Spanish-Portugese mother.  She told The Independent “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups.” In 1994 she had been one of the many Jewish MPs who had backed an extreme anti-White measure to increase sentences for crimes where race was deemed to be an aggravating factor.

In her first days as a Minister Roche openly criticized immigration staff for being White males.  She “wanted to see black faces” at the Immigration Directorate’s headquarters. She thought the department’s attitude to race was “toxic,” and she wanted asylum seekers to receive the same welfare benefits and housing as the native British. A civil servant said she made it clear that she didn’t see her job as controlling entry to Britain but wanted more immigrants to come.

Her attitude was summed up in her first conversation with an immigration civil servant. Roche said “I think that the asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s emotional.”

Roche had one significant ally among the civil servants in the form of an academic and migration industry insider Sarah Spencer. This academic had spent her entire working life in the cause of multiculturalism and egalitarianism. A former deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, she had a fanatical belief that immigration and multiculturalism brought nothing but good for society. “I was saying the kind of things they wanted to hear,” recalled Spencer. Bower writes of this ideological clique’s worldview: “British cities, they agreed, should enjoy large non-European communities.”
She [Spencer] was one of the Labour progressives who ‘disdained white Britain’s glorification of British identity and history. British society could be transformed, they hoped, by relaxing the Home Office’s immigration controls. Roche offered Spencer the chance to realise that ambition.
This would be easy because government policy was half-baked, and the priority was a determination not to draw attention to what was happening. So there were no specialist immigration advisors to the Prime Minister or Cabinet committees on immigration. It was all done under the table.

This feigned disinterestedness was embodied in the attitude of Tony Blair himself. He pretended to be not much interested in the issue one way or another, and, although he would say that failed asylum seekers should be deported, he left it up to his ministers. Immigration was not a personal priority. It was purely an issue of presentation. That gave Roche the green light to do what she wanted.  Mass immigration came about in a fit of apparent absent mindedness.  Instead Blair was more interested in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.

As noted, an early draft of Portes’ own migration paper was given to Roche to help her write her speech. In drafting her speech Roche asked speech writer Andrew Neather for a gloss. It was this that led to such a big story more than a decade later.

But what was not discussed at the time was that the Portes policy paper had contained other another interesting clause which was not removed. For instance, it gave as justification for admitting asylum seekers, Britain’s record towards Jews fleeing Hitler’s Nazi regime.
We may pride ourselves in retrospect towards our hospitality in welcoming Jewish refugees at the turn of the century and during the Nazi era — in fact the actual record was mixed at best — and positively shameful in some respects.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the lead author of these words was Jewish, as was the person delivering the speech, Barbara Roche. Even her boss Straw was half Jewish.  So was a Jewish desire to extract ethnic retribution an explicit driver of Tony Blair’s mass immigration policy? Everyone has been too polite to point out the conflict of interests.

The Portes document “Migration : An Economic and Social Analysis” was a half-baked concoction of spin and speculation that was almost transparently risible.[2] It would become the most important document in modern British history and the cornerstone of the unspoken policy of White dispossession. Portes predicted that the number entering Britain in 2004 would be a maximum of 170,000. In fact at least 500,000 entered.

Roche’s speech was approved by 10 Downing Street, and on December 11, 2000 Roche delivered her speech to an enthusiastic gathering of the British Bankers Association.  The publication of this monumentally important policy was not reported, and there was no backlash. Roche and Portes had carried out a fundamental shift in Britain’s immigration policy that would transform the country out of recognition. And it was all done behind the back of the British people.

While few White Britons heard about the speech, immigration lawyers immediately grasped its importance. Asylum seekers told their relatives around the world that Britain now provided housing and benefits denied to immigrants in other countries.
Since the advocates of mass immigration denied that immigrants would put pressure on services, there was no discussion amongst civil servants about providing additional homes, schools or hospitals.
Shortly thereafter Roche was removed from the Home Office for being “muddled” and “incompetent.”

In working class towns where there were racial tensions, it was a policy of breathtaking recklessness. And the media, led by the BBC, were turning a blind eye.
[Sarah] Spencer admitted later ‘There was no policy for integration. We just believe the communities would integrate.’ Her assumption that the British would unquestioningly accept hundreds of thousands of migrants was underpinned by the BBC’s general categorisation of critics of immigration as racist, which had censored a public debate thus concealing any problems. Accordingly, Portes’s assurance that the number of migrants entering Britain could be ‘totally controlled’ appeared incontrovertible.
But this was the point when thousands camped out in Sangatte near Calais and began trying to smuggle themselves into Britain.  News reports showed them jumping from trucks in Kent and punching the air in victory. The broadcast media blandly sympathized with the victims, reflecting pride in Blair’s diversity agenda.

Civil servants noted that the torrent of asylum seekers never provoked a rebuke from politicians. Tony Blair, while paranoid about the electorate turning on him over immigration, did not order a policy reversal. Instead, a meeting agreed to ensure that asylum seekers were provided with welfare benefits and housing.

News about the new welfare entitlements attracted 200,000 Somalis. Not only did they have no historic links to Britain, but they were unemployable and very anti-social. Again there was a discreet political directive that they be granted “exceptional leave to remain.”

When 100 Afghans had arrived in Britain on a hijacked aircraft, a pack of immigration lawyers embarked on a long legal battle to get them asylum status. Despite initial protestations from politicians, it was clear they were being defended by civil servants and judges like Lord Harry Woolf who were fiercely resisting any attempt to speed up the process.[3] Six years later a judge would grant the nine actual hijackers asylum but only after they—and their lawyers—had received £10 million  of free legal aid, free health care, subsidized housing and welfare.

With an election on the horizon Labour was digging in and not going to give one inch despite the Conservative’s pressing on the immigration issue. At this point, the media, led by the BBC, were deployed to saturation-bomb the Conservatives with accusations that they were racist. Jack Straw praised asylum seekers for their contributions to British life.

Beyond endlessly repeating the mantra that immigration was good for the economy and good for the British people, it seems there was no substantive discussion at all. The numbers keep shooting upwards and all they could do was discuss how to “manage public perception.”  Blair’s government bewailed the “swamping” of schools and hospitals. Tens of thousands of cases were allowed through in secret, unannounced “back door” amnesties.

Barbara Roche has thrived.  She is the co-founder of a lobbying organization called Migration Matters which receives funding from the City of London.

Her pride and joy is the new National Museum of Migration in Liverpool. In the manner of all globalist bureaucrats she has gone from job to job.
At the Cabinet Office and the ODPM, Barbara was the Minister for Women and Equalities and responsible for the Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal Units. She has extensive European experience—chairing the EU Telecoms Council and representing the UK on the EU’s Home Affairs Ministerial Council.
She has also, presumably, earned the eternal gratitude of her own Jewish community for her part in making British society safer, if not for the natives, then for the Jews.

Nearly two decades on and the legacy of Tony Blair’s policy is plain to see.
The headlines are full of child grooming gangs in Muslim dominated towns, Trojan Horse schools and home grown Jihadis. A massive encampment of refugees sits at Calais only a few miles from the Straits of Dover.

Broken Vows is only the first tentative glimpse into those crucial events. A real media insider, Tom Bower, who is of Jewish extraction, seems to have been able to get interviews with key civil service players. Probably because he is the only one who, so far, has even asked.

[1] Tony Blair, A Journey (London: Arrow, 2011).
[2] Jonathan Portes (Team Leader), “Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis,” UK Government Home Office Economics and Resource Analysis Unit and the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (November, 2000).
[3] See Francis Carr Begbie, “Beneath the mask of the Human Rights Industry: Prominent British Jewish Advocate Increases in Refugees,” The Occidental Observer (October 21, 2015).

American Icarus

via The Right Stuff

Fairy tales, folk tales, legends, and ancient mythology all contain lessons for those who have ears willing to listen. Many of these lessons are warnings. Man as an individual is often inexperienced, especially while young, but humanity as a whole has been around long enough to learn a thing or two, and some of these things that our ancestors learned have been passed on to us in the form of story. The inherited wisdom of Western man can be found in these stories if one is willing to look.

One such story is that of Icarus. Icarus was the son of the master craftsman Daedalus, the man who built the Labyrinth. For helping the killer of the Minotaur, Theseus, Daedalus and his son were imprisoned by King Minos. Daedalus, being a master craftsman, fashioned two pairs of wings out of feathers and wax for himself and Icarus. Before taking flight for the island of Crete, Daedalus warned his son to fly neither too low nor too high. Icarus, so close to freedom, failed to heed his father's words, and soared too close to the sun. The heat burned away the wings, and Icarus plummeted into the sea.

The Greeks used this story to warn of excessive pride and defiance towards the Gods, a vice they called hubris, a fault they considered to be very serious. The Church Fathers likewise considered pride to be one of the seven deadly sins of mankind.

Excessive pride is a sin because it is so dangerous; believing that oneself is greater than is true will lead to downfall. Overestimating your own ability and worth leads to an inability to properly face your enemies or find your place in the world. Like Icarus, if you fly higher than you are meant to, you will fall.

The opposite of hubris is the Roman concept of pietas. Pietas is the virtue of knowing how to act properly towards the father, the children, the state, the Gods, and the fatherland. Pietas is essentially knowing one's place in the cosmic order.
This a lesson that has been completely disregarded by mainstream political discourse in the United States, on both sides of the aisle.

I know that Western civilization is great, and that it has and continues to produce much that is great. I also personally believe that Western civilization is the greatest civilization that has ever existed. It has made mistakes, and some truly astounding errors, but our accomplishments are in many aspects unrivaled.

For all this, I do no go to the same lengths as mainstream rightists and leftists do in their worship of the West.

Both sides believe that the entirety of the world not only wants to become a part of the West, but that they can do so (I'm talking here about the sincere ideologues on both sides, not cynics gaming the system). Although they might recoil at the crudeness of the statement, every conservative and liberal believes what the Colonel in Full Metal Jacket tells Private Joker: "Inside every gook is an American trying to get out"!

Despite the hatred and anger the two sides of the American polity through at each other, they are more similar than dissimilar in their ideological foundation. Both receive their basics from thinkers from the intellectual movement that called itself the Enlightenment - thinkers such as Locke. They both profess that all men are created equal, that freedom is a good in and of itself, that we ought to hold the individual as the only measure of man, and that man is a blank slate.

They have taken slightly different interpretation of this centuries-old worldview. Conservatives will tell you that the classical liberals had it right, and we ought to just cut the chains put on man and let him run wild. End the restrictions and all else will follow. Equality of opportunity is equality. The progressives will tell you that we can only free man if we overcome past injustice, and equality will only be achieved by raising up the "disadvantaged".

The issue of Black underachievement in America illustrates this well. Both agree that the White-Black gaps in educational achievement, yearly income, arrest rates etc. are not caused by any inherent differences between Whites and Blacks, despite the fact that these differences have been present for as long as we have measured them and they hold true across countries and continents. Both agree that it is simply an unjust environment that has lead to this.

To progressives, the fault is White American racism coming from conservatives, who have betrayed American (Enlightenment) values, especially equality.

To conservatives, the fault is on the progressives who have tricked their poor melanin-rich fellow citizens into welfare dependency, who have betrayed American (Enlightenment) values.

"Really, though, they're just like us, and they're in the end on our side, not theirs."

When California's Proposition 8 was put to the vote in 2008, liberals around the country were shocked when the referendum passed, in part because 70% of Blacks voted "yes". Confusion followed this result. How could it have happened? 90% of Blacks vote for the Democrats, but the vast majority of them voted against gay marriage?

Among some conservatives the cry of "LOOK! they're on our side!" went up. Blacks had "family values" (despite 75% of them growing up in single-parent households) and were on the verge of coming over to the conservative cause, according to some.

Both Democrats and Republicans revealed a rather shocking misunderstanding of Blacks and their voting patterns. Both the conservatives and progressives are half-right. The Democrats are right about the fact that Blacks aren't about to jump ship, and the Republicans are right about Blacks not really being liberals.

Blacks vote for the Democratic party out of ethnic solidarity. On the issues close to leftist hearts, Blacks are either indifferent or opposed to the agenda. Homosexual rights, tranny bathrooms, fighting Islamophobia ... ain't nobody got time for dat! The Democratic party is the party of welfare handouts, and affirmative action, so it's the closest thing to an African party they're going to get in a two-party system. The Hillary/Bernie divide that we are witnessing in the Democratic party is a revelation of the divide between the White SWPLs and non-White members of the party.
Bernie Bros have been exasperated with American Blacks for voting for Hillary instead of Bernie. "Don't they know that Hillary is corrupt and Bernie is the real progressive?", they ask. The truth is that Blacks don't care. They aren't in the party because they are ideologically liberal; most are actually fundamentally tribal rather than universal in their politics.

The conservatives likewise fail to realize that the center of Black politics is identity, and no amount of LGBT nonsense will bring Blacks into the GOP. The same can be said of Asians and Mestizos. These groups may not be ideologically liberal, but they aren't going to become fighters for the conservation of a nation that isn't theirs. The Democratic party is the party that they will use to advance their interests against ours.

Conservatives and progressives were so hubristic that they thought that liberal democracy and free markets (plus or minus limited government) was the greatest thing ever invented. Not only was this culmination of Enlightenment values that they championed the pinnacle of our civilization, it was the pinnacle of all civilizations. Their pride was so great that they declared that Western civilization's path was the only path, and that history had ended; it was only a matter of time before the rest of the world progressed to the point that we had reached. Democracy, liberty, the market—these were all universal ideas that we had discovered. They hadn't discovered one of many optional ways forward, oh no! They had discovered the only way forward. Their ideas were so great that they could and would recreate the entirety of mankind in their image. These are the types who laugh when more sober minds warn them of White displacement, because they don't believe that Whites can even be displaced.

We disregarded nature and heredity and reduced the other peoples of the planet to mere clay that we could mould into whatever we wished.

The truth is that most of the planet has taken our technical knowledge and some forms of our government, but left the ideology behind. Spengler identified civilizations as organisms, and rightly rejected the Eurocentrism that dominated the study of world history. Just as humans are shaped as much by their blood as by their circumstances, civilizations as collections of genetically similar human beings have their own internal life-force that can only be bent so far. The non-White country that has come closest to being "Westernized" in a mental rather than purely technological sense is Japan. We nuked them and occupied them for several years, forced our form of government on them, and the result 70 years on is that they are still a decidedly Eastern civilization. Our attempts to bring the West to Iraq in recent years looks laughable in hindsight, even to mainstream pundits.

This hubris that makes the Bernie Bros and the Glenn Becks believe that we are so great that we can change everything, and, more importantly, everyone, to fit into our civilization will be the end of modern liberalism, in both its "left-wing" and "right-wing" incarnations. Conservatives want America circa 1950, and progressives want to turn the entirety of America into Portland, but the reality of the ongoing replacement of the children of the West means we are going to get neither. America's future isn't Portland. America's future is Detroit and California, with all the accompanying corruption, ethnic pandering, crime rates and low trust. Enlightenment values aren't practiced by Blacks in the Congo, or by Mestizos in Mexico, and they won't be replicated by them here.

Even the Bernie supporters who cheer at the Democrat-voting Third World coming into the country are experiencing a Pyrrhic victory. The ongoing Great Replacement is going to destroy both versions of America, because neither side will admit that its values and forms of organisation aren't the revealed secrets of the universe that transcend all national, ethnic, and racial boundaries. The American Icarus flies too high, and the sun is melting the wax holding his wings together.

I chose Bruegel's Landscape with the Fall of Icarus as the painting for this article because of the unique portrayal of the mythological event. Most painters show the tragedy in a dramatic and personal fashion, either depicting Icarus after his death or mid-fall with his father reaching out to him. Bruegel's painting does not have Icarus as the focal point. Despite the tragedy of his death, the farmer ploughs his field, the ship goes on its course, and Icarus is hardly noticed. Life must go on.

Many may not be able to imagine life without McWorld, but that doesn't mean that life won't be possible without it. When the paradigm that guides events today is eroded by the pride of those who think themselves and their system invincible, history won't stop. Something new will have to emerge, and we will move past the tragicomedy of modern America's demise. Let's be there when Icarus falls.

Gay Panic on the Alt Right: Greg Johnson Thinks We Should Accept Homosexuality

via Counter-Currents

The Alternative Right is subject to occasional gay panics. Throughout most of human history, politics and war have been exclusively male occupations, and in those realms of culture where women took part — such as religion and education — the sexes were still separate rather than mixed. Since this is a political movement, it is naturally attractive to men. Since it is a dissident political movement, it also tends to scare off women.

However, in the present age, all predominantly or exclusively male institutions are routinely slurred as “gay.” The purpose of this charge is to lower trust and raise conflict within male groups and to encourage them to integrate women, whose presence will supposedly provide insurance against future charges of being “gay.”

Generally, this slur originates from the Left, where homosexuality is supposed to be a good thing. But gay panics presuppose “homophobia,” one of the Left’s sins. The Left is quite happy, however, to exploit such sentiments to weaken any male institutions that make individual men or society as a whole stronger, from male gyms and sports leagues to men’s clubs and the military — and now the guardians of the white race.

Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.

For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality. Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda. Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.

The most recent gay panic agitation comes from Sinead “Renegade” McCarthy, whose black marks include linking White Advocacy to flat earth and anti-vaccine cranks, slurring people who think there is more to activism than crazy-eyed women passing out flyers (e.g., Richard Spencer, Angelo Gage, Nathan Damigo, etc.), and basically demanding that the movement capitulate to feminism. Her motives in pushing the gay panic button seem to be equal parts narcissistic rage and feminist entryism.

Which brings us to the question of the proper role of women in “the movement.” First of all, “the” movement is not unified and monolithic. There are multiple groups and platforms, and if you don’t like what is in the offing, you can create something more to your taste. Andrew Anglin thinks women have nothing to offer The Daily Stormer, and that is his right. At Counter-Currents I publish women like Savitri Devi, Juleigh Howard-Hobson, Margot Metroland, and Ann Sterzinger not “because they are women,” but because they do good work. I have done interviews with Lana Lokteff because she does good work. I am also grateful for female donors and organizers, again because they add value to the movement. Finally, I am increasingly intolerant of gamers, MGTOWs, and woman haters, because their ethos is no more compatible with the healthy sexual order we want to create than the feminism they oppose.

But I completely reject the feminist notion that gender parity should be a norm and that we should welcome women — any women, even women who add no value or who objectively detract from the cause — just because they are women. This is war, not ballroom dancing. In my corner of the movement, women who add something to the cause are welcome. I have no time for men or women who add nothing. And men who do nothing but harass or repulse women who do add something need culling.

Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.

The first option cannot work, for the simple reason that gay panics do not require the actual presence of homosexuals but the mere possibility they are present. A male group may be 100% heterosexual, but that cannot prevent a malicious and dishonest person from spreading rumors, making charges, and starting a gay panic anyway.

This means that the endless “purge” threads on internet forums are pointless.
  • First, there is no point worrying about homosexual entryism, because they are already inside. When I first arrived on the White Nationalist scene in the year 2000, it was apparent that a number of discreet and open homosexuals like Martin Webster were already well-ensconced.
  • Second, the most enthusiastic purgers are themselves “outsiders” and would-be entryists who are in no position to purge anyone.
  • Third, the movement is not a monolithic, centralized, Bolshevik party, so talk of purges makes no sense anyway. Again, there is nothing to prevent people from creating their own groups and platforms according to their own ideological tastes.
  • Finally, as I said before, even if the purgers get what they want, it still does not protect them against gay panics, because the problem is not the presence of homosexuals, but the specter of homosexuality, the mere possibility of homosexuality, which will never disappear. 
This means that the only way to protect a group against gay panics is simply to stop caring about it. When someone tries to make an issue of Jack Donovan speaking at NPI or James O’Meara writing for Counter-Currents, nothing stops them deader than simply saying, “I don’t care.” Meaning: I’m not tainted by it. It doesn’t make me dirty. There is no guilt by association. You can’t catch cooties off the internet. So I just don’t care.

Of course, what makes most people care about homosexuals is the Bible, which treats homosexuality not just as abnormal but as an offense against God. This is the source of the intense and irrational anxiety and the sense of moral contagion involved in gay panics. Thus it follows that the more Christian an organization is, the more fragile it is in the face of gay panics. Which implies that the less Christian an organization is, the less susceptible it is to this form of subversion.

This also implies that the recent gay panics in the Alt Right might eventually strengthen it, or at least certain segments. If Parrott and Heimbach hoped their “gay mafia” slur would split those susceptible to gay panics away from NPI and attract them to Trad Youth, the net effect will only be to make Trad Youth more brittle and NPI more resilient. Because Trad Youth is overwhelmingly if not exclusively male too. Which means that they can be hoist by their own petard. (Someday some jerk is going to suggest that the dust up with NPI was merely a gay spat between bear and twink factions.)

This brings up the question of the proper role of homosexuals in “the” movement. Again, I can only control my little corner of the movement, but my view is that White Nationalism should be “straight but not narrow,” meaning that we should uphold and defend heterosexuality as the norm but also recognize that not everyone fits that norm. But as long as homosexuals uphold healthy norms and have something positive to contribute, they can and do make our movement stronger, if we stop worrying about it.

Mapped: The Growth of the Pro-White Revolution in Europe

via Transudationism

Germany held regional elections in three states this week and for political analysts the major talking point was the success of the pro-White, patriotic, anti-invasion party the Alternative for Germany, known as the AfD.

The results have been interpreted as a rebuke of Chancellor Angela Merkel's pro-refugee stance, which has seen over one million migrants enter Germany in the past 12 months. Merkel's Christian Democrat party lost in two of the three states where the elections were held.

The AfD — led by Frauke Petry — made significant gains in all three states, particularly in Saxony-Anhalt where it finished second with 24% of the vote.

In fact, an INSA poll cited by German news site The Local say the AfD is currently Germany's third-most popular political party. This is a significant development given the strength of the party's anti-invader campaign. Petry has previously suggested firearms should be used in certain circumstances against refugees entering Germany. 

One would assume such comments are not likely to help with the party's mission to be seen as a genuine alternative to Germany's "establishment" options. Yet, the regional election results suggest otherwise.

Supporters of AfD celebrate after hearing
of the initial results in the following initial
results in Baden-Wuerttemberg
state election
But Germany is not alone. The map above shows where pro-White parties have made significant gains in state and regional elections in Europe since January 2015.

From liberal Scandinavia to the southern reaches of the continent in Greece and Italy, pro-White parties by their own standards are showing sizable growth in multiple nations.

In Denmark, long-standing establishment parties are being squeezed by the emergence of a populist movement fronted by the Danish People's Party (DPP). 

In the 2015 general election, the party recorded 21% of the vote to become Denmark's second-largest party. It was the DDP's best performance in its history.
The party may only control 37 of the 179 seats in parliament but its growing public support is reshaping the Danish political landscape with harsher policies such as the seizing of invaders' valuables starting to be passed.

In Switzerland they have a name for the pro-White movement's growing influence in their politics — the Swiss call it 'rechtsrutsch.'

The phrase is being used more and more in Bern, where pressure is being exerted by the Swiss People's Party (SVP) which last year recorded its finest parliamentary election result in over a century with nearly 30% of the vote to become the country's most powerful political force.

Then in Italy there is Lega Nord whose colourful leader Matteo Salvini has made a series of virulent remarks towards Muslims, Romani people, and immigrants.

Supporters of Greek pro-White party
Golden Dawn wave banners and flags
during a rally in Athens
The party made notable gains in last year's regional elections including in Tuscany where it won 20% of the vote. This is unheard of in one of Italy's traditional left-wing strongholds. 

Any talk of Europe being in the midst of a populist spring is premature. In many nations, such as Spain and Britain, the influence of pro-White parties is negligible.

But the success of pro-White parties cannot be treated as isolated events. Without question, something is happening across Europe. It may not have reached boiling point — but the bubbles are starting to appear.

Take a look at Poland, where the pro-White Law and Justice party became the first party to govern alone since the restoration of democracy when it swept to a resounding victory in October's parliamentary elections.

The party has since implemented a law allowing it to seize control of the state media broadcasters as well as senior civil service directors.

Then there's Slovakia, where in March's election 23% of first-time voters backed the neo-Nazi People’s Party Our Slovakia party (L’SNS).

For a long time, the prefix "far" denoted distance between parties aggressively-opposed to immigration and the corridors of power. Now, those gaps are being bridged and in a growing number of states right-wing parties are no longer nuisances but realistic parties of office. 

Why is this happening? Public mood across Europe is disgruntled right now and there are conditions for populist groups to attract levels of support that years ago they could only dream of.

The mass movement of people from the war-torn Middle East into Europe and the greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War has become the single-most dominant political issue across the continent.

Traditional parties from the left and right are facing great challenges. Increasing numbers of people are sick of them and trust in politicians in many states is low. It is within this climate of anger and disenchantment that pro-White parties have been able grow.

Viktor Orban Attacks the EU's "Fanatical Internationalism"

via Alternative Right

What exactly is Alt-Rightism? The simplest answer is "common sense and reality recognition ahead of other people." In times of slow change the time gap may be rather wide, but, in more chaotic and fast-changing times, that gap rapidly narrows, as demonstrated by the sharp learning curve that people like Viktor Orban are on.

A couple of years ago, he was arresting Richard Spencer in Budapest and last year he was allowing hordes of migrants to pass through his country on their way North, an act for which he should be eternally blamed. But, with Hungary in the front-line of the migrant crisis and with the EU constantly trying to stab him in the back, he has developed an almost Alt-Right consciousness about the situation in Europe, as revealed by this speech given on the 15th of March to mark the 168th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848.

American Jewish Committee: American "Democracy” at Stake in 2016

via The Realist Report

In an obvious allusion to Donald Trump’s increasingly popular (and I would argue inevitable) presidential bid, the American Jewish Committee has come out and flatly stated that “American democracy” will be at stake during the 2016 presidential election, once again demonstrating the hysterical and truly childish reaction the organized Jewish community is having towards Trump.

The Times of Israel reports:
Threats of political violence endanger the viability of American democracy, the American Jewish Committee warned Thursday, a day after Republican frontrunner Donald Trump predicted that there would be “riots” if his party tried to edge him out through a brokered convention.
“I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots,” Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN. “I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”
Although the AJC’s statement did not mention any candidates by name, its dire warnings seemed to reflect directly on Trump’s comments.
“Violence and threats of violence have no place in American politics.
There should be no threats to disrupt political rallies and no threats to disrupt a convention if a candidate is denied the nomination by his party’s convention,” the organization admonished. “Too many democracies have failed, to be replaced by autocratic governments, when violence became a sanctioned political tool, especially by those who feel disenfranchised and choose not to await ordinary change at the ballot box.”
Warning that “nothing less than the survival of American democracy is at stake,” the AJC emphasized that “we hope that the violence seen so far is an aberration which stops now,” and called on “those who have resorted to, or sanctioned, violence” to “repudiate it now.”
Trump’s comments regarding a scenario in which the Republican establishment would seek to nominate someone else as the GOP candidate for president were far from the first time on the campaign trail that the brash businessman was seen as giving a nod to violence. […]
“We do not draw analogies to the rise of communism and fascism lightly, but both of those tyrannical movements rose to power replacing democratically elected governments, by virtue of threats of, or actual, violence against their opponents,” the organization said. […]
Here again we see a blatant attempt by the organized Jewish community and mainstream mass media to portray Donald Trump as an instigator and facilitator of violence in an effort to demonize and discredit the American populist and GOP frontrunner. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and the American people know it.

The radical, anti-American protesters disrupting Trump rallies are the ones instigating and facilitating violence, not Donald Trump or his supporters.

Donald Trump has shaken the American political establishment, which of course is largely dominated and controlled by the organized Jewish community and pro-Israel lobby, to its very core. In this writer’s opinion, it is clear the Jews are terrified of losing their grip over the U.S. federal government and, even more importantly, over the political discourse in America. They view Trump as uncontrollable and independent, and they do not like it.

Trump is challenging the organized Jewish community’s destructive, anti-White agenda on virtually every front. He has been critical of “free trade” and economic globalization, policies long championed by international Jewish capitalists that have been absolutely devastating to the American economy and middle class. Even more importantly, Trump has taken an incredibly bold stance against illegal immigration, promising to build a wall on our southern border, deport illegal aliens, and place a moratorium on Muslim immigration to America, all entirely legitimate and rational public policy proposals. Trump openly denounced political correctness in front of millions of Americans during the first presidential debate, arguing that this anti-American, anti-free speech phenomenon (which has its roots in the Jewish-dominated cultural Marxist school of thought) is literally destroying America. Trump is not backing down on any of these issues either.

Time will tell whether or not “American democracy” is at stake during this election. Trump is galvanizing millions of Americans and is becoming more and more popular as each day passes. People are fed up and tired of “politics as usual.” If anything, given Trump’s popular support, he may end up demonstrating the efficacy of American democracy by winning in a landslide, which is exactly what I think will happen! #VoteTrump!

Trump Is a Flashlight

via Radix

Trump is Hitler. Trump is a demagogue. Trump is a racist. Trump is a liberal. Trump is a KKK sympathizer. Trump is Charlemagne.

Trump is none of those things. Trump is a flashlight. Trump shines a light on forgotten truths. Trump also reveals the disgusting frauds within our punditocracy and political elite. He does not wash away the sins or clean up the garbage, but he shows you that it exists. He ends up revealing the truth behind people’s motivations, directly or indirectly. Sometimes he does not even have to do anything, and the other side just gives up the charade and reveals their true form or beliefs.

The big one, as I wrote earlier, is revealing the fraud behind the GOPe. This group went from paeans to Antonin Scalia and promising a fight for his seat to openly stating they’d vote for Hillary, allowing her to name Scalia’s replacement. Within the GOP, he has also shined a light on their obsession with Israel. Trump eloquently explained how he would approach the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a neutral manner to show both sides he is offering to be a fair arbiter of the conflict for a true deal. This created accusations of anti-semitism (at the very debate by Sen. Rubio) and apoplectic sputtering from the Israel first crowd. Through their reactions to one statement, he showed that Israel support is a sort of cover from accusations of anti-semitism, and he also revealed that within the GOP, the Israel issue is clearly one-sided. The donors demand it.

Trump’s centrism is portrayed as far-right simply for being in favor of closed borders. This is the moderate Republican candidate the media has suggested the GOP run for years, but they hate him. He reveals the way the media frames things: destroy white nations through immigration, carve up the middle so no one can wrest control from them, and anyone who objects is Hitler. Trump is Romney with just a machismo attitude and willingness to fight. Romney is much slicker packaging. The GOPe will not accept Trump, since he is not their guy. Trump reveals it is all about media control. The conservative media is the kingmaker institution for crowning the nominee. The media at large must never ever be questioned or held to account for their actions.

Trump shines the light on the cabal of AIPAC and pro-Israel donors that meet and organize who to back for the GOP nomination. They openly admit it now, when in 2012 they would’ve called you an anti-semite for even nudging the idea out into the public. That is not the only cabal of wealthy individuals plotting his demise. Technology CEOs like Tim Cook, Larry Page and even Elon Musk met with GOP leaders to create a plan to take him down. They did this on an island. This is straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, but he might reject the island detail as too cliche. No, the Illuminati does not exist, but we’re copying their network and efforts.

Trump’s common sense attitude about Syria, toppling dictators, and Russia has revealed the GOP is in thrall to the military complex donors. This has been a smear from the left that the GOP often denies. Onstage with just Rand Paul as an ally, Trump stood up there to state that it is possible to be strong on defense without picking fights. He has revealed the DC War Party as completely disconnected from reality or the desires of the more isolationist populace. Americans are done with being the world’s policeman. DC is not. Without Trump, it would just be a contest of who can bomb Russia faster. The GOP upper management is truly a bloodthirsty party.

The best confirmation might be the GOP’s role as the Outer Party. The GOP is the Outer Party, and their actions in blocking Trump reveal it. The GOP has repeatedly asked the Inner Party for assistance in destroying the Trump. Examples would include:
  • The inclusion of progressives in the pre-Iowa debate to ask questions. Trump skipped the debate.
  • The NY Times letting it slip that Trump may have off the record statements that were soft on immigration. (NY Times said all clear later)
  • The entire media structure took one neutral response to a question about a follower who had been in the KKK decades ago as a meme blasted for 48 hours that Trump was pro-KKK.
  • GOP is doing their best to kill the guy who may have any crossover appeal with the Big 10 states that are full of disaffected white working class voters that aren’t Bible thumpers.
  • The GOP is also laying groundwork to set up the Inner Party with ammunition to take out its own frontrunner for power. They set up the smears to later be re-deployed by the left if he gets the nomination.
  • Violent protest-riot goons. The Left’s worst foot soldiers of 2015/2016, Black Lives Matter, shut down the Chicago Trump Rally. Classic Marxist whites, BLM, Muslims and Mexicans created a hodgepodge of violence that the Chicago PD had to put down, which was used as a weapon against Trump. Immediately, the other GOP candidates, GOPe, and Twitter-tier pundits sided with the Leftists.
There is a desire for the GOPe to maintain control of the nodes of power on their side. There is no desire for the GOP to win the general at all costs. There is a desire to win using their guys who meet the check list that they provide which is reviewed and approved by the left.

Trump shines a light on the fact that we truly have reached a point where a candidate who implicitly advocates for Whites is considered dangerous and a cause for protest. The protest turned riot in Chicago was over what, exactly? The Left currently has the presidency. What was there to protest but the implied white advocacy of Trump’s stump speeches? The GOP frontrunner was no-platformed in America’s third largest market for the sin of daring to advocate for the middle. Those on the edge have known this anti-White mania is out there, but the protest-riot made it real for millions more.

In a weird way, Trump is like Edward Snowden. Snowden did not reveal much that was not already discussed in other news articles with little fanfare. Snowden just confirmed with real information everything you thought and things provided by anonymous or off the record natsec employees. These things Trump reveals are all things people generally believed or considered plausible. He just confirms them all and in big bold print every single day of the campaign.

How "Nationalism" Has Lost all Meaning

via Thulean Perspective

A video about my homeland, Norway, our people, and our culture.

Exclusive Offer from The Barnes Review

via TradYouth

Congratulations! We’ve been learning a thing or two from Donald Trump and have negotiated an amazing deal with a Friend of ours at The Barnes Review on your behalf.

We asked if our supporters and TradWorker members could receive some kind of promotional offer from The Barnes Review, an esteemed revisionist publication which has been cutting through the bias and distortions to get to the historical truth for decades. Despite maintaining rigorous scholarly standards and following the truth whichever direction it may lead, it’s been endorsed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around.”

Perhaps, …but only because real history is virulently anti-Semitic!

The Barnes Review’s One-Year Offer is a bargain, including three incredible books and a great pamphlet. You’ll receive, “Russia and the Jews,” a summary of Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s observations on the Jewish Question in Russia, “The Hungarian Terror: Bela Kun Strangles a Nation,” by Dr. Ed Fields, “The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy,” by our very own Orthodox Nationalist Fr. Raphael Johnson, and “A Straight Look at the Second World War,” a must-read pamphlet by the late Willis Carto.

All of that would be more than worth it for a mere $46, but you also get the annual subscription to the magazine, too!

But wait, there’s more!

If you go all in with their Two-Year Offer to our supporters, you’ll receive everything in the first year’s offer and also an annual subscription to American Free Press (the last truly conservative American newspaper left standing), “Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin,” by Fr. Raphael Johnson, “Escape from the Bunker: The Escape of Adolf Hitler and Martin Bormann,” by Harry Cooper, “Rebel Wisdom: The Speeches, Quotes and Sayings of Prominent Confederates,” “The Dartmoor Massacre,” “The Mysterious Megaliths of New England,” “The Maxims of Napoleon,” and “Ways That Are Dark: The Truth about China.”


This is the best price they’ve ever offered, and this is almost certainly the best deal The Barnes Review has ever offered. Not only will you be receiving a veritable library if you take advantage of this deal, you’ll also have the satisfaction of knowing that your investment is helping support the most hard-hitting historical inquiry in the English-speaking world. Take my word for it: You do not want to miss the research and reporting in the pipeline for the next few issues.

Antifa Hahaha: Radio Aryan Roundtable

via Inglinga

Listen Now

Grandpa Lampshade, Juhani Keranen and Sven Longshanks assemble at the roundtable for a new series of podcasts looking at current events in northern Europe, Britain and America.

Both Latvia and Lithuania held marches this week with each country being accused of glorifying Nazis and killing squillions of Jews, by RT and other more openly Jewish organisations. But this is a lie, as the British army themselves stated that the Latvian Legion were not formed until after the soap making activities were alleged to have taken place. Similarly in Lithuania any Jews that were living there were long gone by the time the Germans showed up, out of fear of being held to account for the NKVD’s horrific crimes against the population during the first Soviet occupation.

The Lithuanian march had only one protester who the police threw out of the way while Latvia went one step further and banned all Antifa from even crossing the border, much to RT’s disgust. This Russian news company did not even have the decency to interview anyone from Latvia on the day of their march, choosing instead to interview a rabbi from England and a Jewish agitator in Israel.

 It is the Jews who are ‘re-writing history’ not the Latvians and Lithuanians who were actual eye witnesses to the Jewish Bolshevik’s atrocities.

The Nordic Resistance held a successful protest against refugees being allowed in to Finland at the weekend and once again proved that when the enemy is not forewarned about the protest, there is no counter protest. Just like with National Action recently in Newcastle, everyone met by the Resistance were supportive of what they are doing and there were around a hundred people at the multi-group rally that took place afterwards.

Also in the Scandinavian news this week are the Sons of Odin, who were supposed to have rescued two young White girls from the clutches of the invaders. The police were reported as thanking them for their help in apprehending the Arab interlopers and the Odins looked like they were going to get a lot of positive news coverage. Sadly this turned out to be ‘a duck’ – a Finnish term for a hoax. The fork-tongued member of the group was swiftly expelled and the leadership apologised for the false information that had been given out.

The group have also distanced themselves from the Finnish Defence League due to their support for Zionism and homosexuality. Many of these ‘Defence Leagues’ appear to be like this, serving as honey pots to attract patriots where they can then be fed falsehoods about the problem being purely cultural, rather than biological. They also probably function as intelligence gathering units for the Jews who fund them, so they can get the personal details of any members who do start to realise their fiendish plan.

America is fast becoming polarised along racial lines thanks to the antics of the Black Lives Matter goons and Grandpa Lampshade brings two reports to the table concerning their actions at Trump rallies, pointing out that in one of them it is actually a White protester getting punched by a Black Trump supporter. Perhaps they are hoping the readers wont notice.

His second report is the harrowing tale of a brave BLM protester who courageously put up with White folks being polite to her and making small talk at another Trump rally. Of course this was before they realised that she was really there just to disrupt proceedings and prevent them from seeing what they had all just queued for most of the day to see.

 This caused them to start shouting hateful racist slurs at her like ‘All Lives Matter’ before the evil White Supremacist police came along and almost shot and killed her with her hands up, but didnt. Instead they did not even bother to put cuffs on her but gently escorted her out of the building to the legal protest that was outside. Of course on the way out she is sure she heard the word ‘nigger’ and that was all that was needed for the Washington Post to make a story out of it.