May 29, 2015

Immigration We Should Support

via Radix

A few White South Africans are making a bold move and demanding the right of return to Europe. We all know of the awful lot they face remaining in the country that once was theirs, so it is only natural for some Afrikaners to think—in the words of Charlize Theron—that there’s no future for a White South African.

And so now, there’s a petition that calls upon the European Commission to grant Afrikaners and other White South African the right to return to Mother Europe.
Rodrigo de Campos, who started the campaign, is gaining support for his belief that the "white South African population currently faces ethnic cleansing and persecutions" at the hands of the ruling ANC government, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party and "various individual anti-white aggressors".
He also says: "Over 4000 white farmers have been brutally murdered, often including torture and rape and mutilation."
An increasing number of supporters believe the solution to this is for white South African's - and white Zimbabweans and Namibians - to be allowed to "return" to whatever nation the majority of their ancestors are from - which in most cases is the Netherlands or the UK.
Quite rightly, de Campos uses Israel’s right of return to argue his case:
The petition compares white South Africans to Jews being allowed citizenship in Israel.
It says: "Based on the Israeli government's policy of allowing all Jews the right to return to Israel, we believe it is not only advisable but morally obligatory that Europe should allow all white South Africans the right to return."
The Express printed the reasons why White South Africans are signing the petition, and they’ll break your heart:
Susan Mulder, who signed the petition from Cape Town, said: "My life and the lives of my children are at risk daily.
"We love SA but are no longer welcome here in the country our ancestors built.
"We have no option but to ask for your help."
Another supporter of the petition is Marischka Davies, living in Liverpool.
She said: "I am a naturalised British citizen yet my mom is stuck on her own in South Africa.
"She should be growing old with her daughter and granddaughter.
"She has been attacked with an AK47 held to her head and is alone and traumatised. She deserves to be free from living in fear."
While Matty de Bruyn, in Cape Town, simply said: "There is no hope for the white man in South Africa."
The petition has gained nearly 17,000 signees as of this moment and I urge all RADIX readers to support this measure. These are our people in need, and this is immigration that will actually benefit our lands—unlike the typical immigrants of today.

As support for this measure continues to grow, it will be interesting to see how the EC responds to this humanitarian plea for assistance.

Racial Purity: Necessary for Jews, Forbidden for Whites

via National Vanguard

The very essence of the Jewish state is racial-nationalism: the state exists to serve the interests of that biological entity known as the Jewish people — and no other. However, organized Jewish power, dominating all the nations of the West through Jewish ownership of media and financial institutions, forbids White nations to practice our own racial-nationalism.

Since racial-nationalism, either implicit or explicit, is a necessary condition for our survival, the Jewish power structure is therefore committing genocide.

Here is a list of six significant actions taken by Jews in Israel to preserve the racial character of their population:

1. No-Sex Contracts: In 2003, an Israeli company importing Chinese workers required them to sign a contract agreeing not to marry or have sex with any Israelis. No legal action was taken against the company, as Israel has no laws protecting workers from such demands.

2. Birth Control Without Consent: For years, the Israeli government was injecting Ethiopian Jewish immigrants with birth control, “often without their knowledge or consent.” When the practice was exposed in 2013, it was ordered to be halted.

3. Deporting Non-Jews: Anyone in the world with Jewish lineage can move to Israel and claim citizenship. But if you’re not Jewish, things can be dicey. Many refugees from African conflicts have fled to Israel to claim asylum. Israel has locked many of them into massive camps in the desert. It has granted asylum to 0.07% of those seeking it, deporting many others. NPR recently did a story on some refugees who were deported, only to be slain by ISIS.

4. Stripping Palestinians of Land Rights: The Israeli Supreme Court recently laid out two decisions essentially allowing Israel the right to demolish Palestinian communities within Israel itself — not the Occupied Territories — to clear land for Jewish Israelis.

5. Discriminatory Marriage Laws: In the United States, marriage is one of the ways a spouse can gain legal entry through a green card and citizenship. Israel prohibits its citizens from marrying Palestinians in the territories, by refusing to recognize their spouses as citizens. Israel also has no civil marriage law, leaving the institution in the hands of religious clerics who work to prevent interracial marriage.

6. Right Of Return, For Jews Only: The most systematic policy designed to maintain a Jewish majority is the Law of Return. Under this law, Jews can come to Israel from anywhere in the world and claim citizenship, but Palestinians expelled after various wars from homes that were in Israel cannot. The double standard was expressed by Ghada Karmi and Ellen Siegel, a Palestinian woman and a Jewish woman who met in London in the early 1970s. They have posed multiple times with these signs over the years:

These laws, norms, and practices form a matrix with one goal: to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.

The Culture of Critique in France: A Review of Anne Kling’s Books on Jewish Influence in France, Part 4

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

“At the Heart of Debates” on Censorship

The CRIF and the LICRA have taken on a leading role in undermining free speech in France. As then-CRIF President Richard Prasquier said in February 2010:
The Jews are at the heart of debates where the limits of free expression are asked … . Internet is a multiplier of racism and anti-Semitism. … We want penal policy to be extended to ordinary racism on Internet by making convictions known, improving surveillance, by helping the sentinels which are antiracist associations.[1]
During a meeting with the Justice Minister, Prasquier called for state surveillance to extend to “discussion boards, chat messages, emails, web sites and blogs.”[2] And he has argued that “free speech must be subordinated to the respect of the truth.”[3] (Whose truth? Certainly not the truth about how ethnically motivated organizations like his own have become very powerful in France and how they have used their power against the interests of the great mass of native French.)

The CRIF has also demanded more censorship at the European level, calling on the European Union to create “a European CSA” (in France, the CSA is the High Council for the Audiovisual, the highly censorious radio and television regulator) and for similar organizations to be created in all EU countries.[4] The French regulator has banned various Arab TV stations for allegedly supporting “terrorism” (e.g. Hezbollah, whereas support for the Israeli armed forces’ killing of civilians is fine).

All this is of course deeply shocking, indeed completely alien, to anyone attached to the Greek, Anglo-Saxon or French civic and philosophical traditions. Prasquier’s ancestors have lived for a millennium in the West, but he and his organization still simply do not understand the Western concepts of free speech, rational debate, scientific inquiry and privacy, and indeed they are agitating to impose decidedly Levantine notions of ethnically-motivated obscurantism and censorship. So much for our “Judeo-Christian values.”

Despite the guarantees in Articles 10 and 11 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which forms part of the Fifth Republic’s Constitution, free speech is poorly protected in France. The 1972 Pleven Act criminalizes speech which “provokes discrimination, hatred or violence” on a racial, ethnic or religious basis. The LICRA had pushed for this law, called for its extension as a global norm, and invited “victims of racial discrimination” to report to the police (not unlike informants in totalitarian regimes).

The law is of course incredibly vague in practice, implementation made arbitrary by whether organizations file suit (naturally well-funded, skillfully-lawyered and obnoxiously “pushy” ethnic lobbies do so a great deal) and the subjective opinion of the judge. Thus the FN was found guilty for saying on one occasion that there were “too many North Africans” in a particular city, and the LICRA managed to have a judge condemn the terms “Jewish international” and “cosmopolitan party.” Thus Jewish organizations push for global legislation criminalizing free speech and have a large network of international organizations, but any mention of such international efforts is itself criminal.

The LICRA is well aware that their role and that of the media is to be police though, analogous to the role of the religious police in Saudi Arabia or the often Jewish political officers that performed the same function in the early Soviet Union. As the LICRA said in 1992 on the twentieth anniversary of the Pleven Act:
There is no antagonism between the media and associations fighting against racism. … Together, they track down, denounce before public opinion and the authorities, not without risks, not without mistakes, not without courage.[5]
These laws were strongly reinforced in 1990 with the Fabius-Gayssot Act banning “Holocaust denial,” which was designed to harass Le Pen and the revisionist historian Robert Faurrisson. The law is named after the ethnically-Jewish Laurent Fabius, then-president of the National Assembly, who strongly supported the law. The official draftsman of the bill, the Communist Jean-Claude Gayssot, who is still active in politics, recently told a public gathering:
I hate the Front National. It carries all that leads to rejection, to hatred, and ultimately violence. … I would have been a regicide in 1789, a Bolshevik, a Leninist, a Stalinist at Stalingrad. But today I am Jauressian [a reformist as opposed to a revolutionary socialist], because I am for revolutionary evolution.[6]
Gayssot’s liberticidal, censorious legislation, now in force over all France, is then well in line with his totalitarian left-wing political tradition.

The Fabius-Gayssot Act has been frequently criticized even by mainstream pundits and Jews for its manifestly arbitrary character (although, pointedly, FN politician Bruno Gollnisch was sued and widely defamed by the media as a “Holocaust denier” for similarly opposing this law). The law makes questioning the conclusions of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal a criminal offense — even though this was an extremely politicized body which included Soviet judges and which had an enormous conflict of interest insofar as demonizing the National Socialists as much as possible justified the terrible war the Allies had waged, including millions of Western dead, the burning alive of tens of thousands of Germans, and the pure and simple ethnic cleansing of 9 million ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland, Silesia and East Prussia. (Indeed, we know the Soviets lied at the trial regarding the horrifying Katyn Massacre of 22,000 Polish military and police officers, blaming the slaughter on the Germans.)

In the 1990s, the LICRA expelled Abbé Pierre, the popular priest and philanthropist, from its honorary committee when he announced his continued friendship and support for the revisionist historian Roger Garaudy. Pierre declared: “The Church of France then intervened to silence me under the pressure of the press, inspired by an international Zionist lobby.”[7]

The LICRA’s support for this censorship was marked by intolerance and sophism. In suing Faurrisson under this censorship legislation, the LICRA claimed incoherently: “In making Mr. Faurisson appear before the courts, the LICRA is not violating freedom of speech. It is making it [such speech] responsible, which is altogether something else.”[8] Similarly the CRIF claimed in January 2010 during a visit it organized of 100 national and European parliamentarians to Auschwitz:
[The trip] was also an opportunity for them to learn about the new forms of racial and anti-Semitic hatred. More than ever, they committed to fight these plagues by opposing them with the promotion of dialogue, of tolerance, the debate of ideas and the knowledge of history.[9]
Again, a bold lie given the CRIF’s preferred tactics of censorship and ostracism. 

The Halimi affair: A case study of legal and cultural influence

In January 2006, the young French Jew Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and tortured to death over the course of three weeks by a gang of Blacks and Muslims. Jewish leaders claimed the murder was anti-Semitic, although it appears more the consequence of petty thuggery (the best of evidence they found were statements by perpetrators that they wanted to ransom Halimi because “a Jew is rich”).

The reaction was enormous. The killers’ ringleader, Youssouf Fofana, was prosecuted as a minor and received a life sentence in July 2009. His accomplices got light sentences of between six months and 18 years. This was not enough for the CRIF or Halimi’s lawyer, who demanded a public trial for reasons of “pedagogy.” Halimi’s mother cried: “The Shoah is recommencing in 2009.”[10] Justice Minister Michèle Aliot-Marie followed suit and demanded the public prosecutor appeal the accomplices’ case. In February 2010, parliamentarians voted a quasi-retroactive law allowing public trials for adults (even if they were minors at the time of the crime). Aliot-Marie agreed with the CRIF, telling the organization that she wanted “trials to play a pedagogical role.”[11]

The trial was marked by rather inelegant behavior. Halimi’s lawyer Francis Szpiner would call the advocate-general (representing the Justice Ministry) a “genetic traitor” and would call some of his fellow lawyers “bobo-leftist assholes.”[12] This misbehavior was reported to the head of the Paris bar, a certain  Christian Charrière-Bournazel, who was none other than the vice-president of the LICRA and member of both the Berber and Jewish lawyers’ associations — a small networked world!

Some Jews feared the community’s leaders had been too aggressive. Maurice Szafran, owner of the Marianne newspaper, lamented: “In flexing its biceps, in using its strength, its influence, that fear it provokes, the political arm of Jews in France has put in place an unrelenting machine producing … anti-Semitism.”[13]

A film on the Halimi case, 24 jours, was released in 2014, directed by Alexandre Arcady (a Jew born in Algeria). The film was a box office bomb despite significant mainstream media promotion, having only 54,800 viewers in the first three days of its release. One journalist noted the film “has therefore not seemed to have found its audience, despite strong media coverage.”[14] In contrast, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 attracted 1 million people and the comedy Barbecue over 540,000 over the same period. A garden was named after Halimi in Paris’ twelfth arrondissement (with a plaque specifying he was killed by anti-Semitism).

Needless to say, while there are over 600 victims of murder every year in France, they typically do not lead to ministerial intervention, retroactive legislation or a feature film.

The Marginalization of the Front National

“Anti-racism” has formed an integral part of the ruling ideology of the West since the National Socialist defeat of 1945 and the founding of the United Nations. This has been imposed from the top-down against European peoples, who naturally have ethnocentric reflexes even if these are less developed than other peoples, in a necessarily undemocratic manner, despite our elites’ lip service to democracy. Postwar Afro-Muslim immigration to France and Britain, like desegregation and forced busing in order to integrate schools in America, was and is deeply unpopular with large segments of public opinion, leading as it did to higher crime, White flight and irreversible cultural-demographic change. According to a 1985 poll, 78% of French people said immigrants were racist against the French, 68% said that if nothing were done, France would lose its national identity, 66% said immigrants were not “a chance for France” (the immigrationist slogan), 65% said immigrants contributed to crime, and 56% said there would be difficulties in integrating Arabs.[15]

This ethnocentric energy and sentiment was just waiting to be tapped politically. Thus, like Enoch Powell in Great Britain or George Wallace in America, Jean-Marie Le Pen emerged and became enormously popular with a significant portion of the public. And, again as in Britain and America, elites had to massively organize to marginalize this popular politician in order to neutralize this ethnocentrism. Thus, a party consistently representing 10–25% of voters has for over three decades been systematically excluded from normal political alliances or any governmental positions, all in the name of “democracy.” Of course, as Kling notes, “a non-negligible part of the population finds itself deprived of national representation and of any participation in public life, which is the exact opposite of democracy.”[16] Kling perceptively notes on the limitations of Western democracy:
Because to be elected, one must belong to a system which does not hesitate to manipulate electoral laws to ensure its total hegemony and to fire its artillery cannons [orgues de Staline] if necessary: media, judiciary, public education, etc. And when one belongs to this system, it is impossible to get off the rails, except by risking excommunication, and therefore the end of one’s political career.[17]
Jewish groups have played an explicit leading role in the marginalization of the Front National since that party reached national prominence in the 1980s. At the time, center-right opposition leader Jacques Chirac promised to the B’nai B’rith, the organization of Jewish freemasonry, that he would never work with the FN, even though electoral alliances or a coalition government with the party would have made great political sense in beating the ruling Socialist Party. Le Monde reported in March 1986, just after the parliamentary elections which saw the FN win 35 seats, that the B’nai B’rith “reminds the representatives of these [center-right] parties of the pledges they undertook, during B’nai B’rith fora, before the community, declarations restated after the announcement of the vote results, to in no case ally themselves with the Front National.”[18]

In 1988, the LICRA’s leadership concluded that the organization should work to “restore the taboos around the themes of the Front National,” meaning an explicit objective of shutting down public discussion on immigration, national identity, Islam, etc.[19] In 1995, the LICRA called for the pure and simple outlawing of the FN despite, or because of, its millions of supporters. The League argued in 1997: “‘No freedom for the enemies of freedom,’ as Saint-Just said,” referring to one of the leaders of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[20]

Le Pen’s demonization has been instense. Marie Mendès-France, widow of the former Jewish prime minister Pierre Mendès-France, said in the 1980s: “We are currently reliving the period of 1938. Let us be careful, otherwise we will see the fascism again.”[21] Sometimes this demonization has been quasi-mystical. In November 1995, the LICRA’s published an analysis by Ashkenazi psychoanalyst and professor Gérard Miller in November 1995 arguing:
Psychoanalysis shows this: There is an un-nameable part in all of us. Le Pen embodies this.
Hence the fascination which he attracts, and well beyond his own supporters. He personifies “The Thing” (“Das Ding,” as Freud said) which is in them. Even if it horrifies them.
Because — that is the un-nameable, unsatiated monster in each belly — that they did not think was there, precisely where Le Pen found it.[22]
So it has rolled on for decades. By April, 21 2002 — the famous day on which Le Pen received enough votes to go the second round of the presidential elections, eliminating the Socialist candidate to face off against Chirac — there was a widespread media-political consensus that the FN and its leader were Satanic. Indeed, this was a traumatic experience for the Left — “how could this happen?” — and the media led an incredibly one-sided campaign against the Front National. Chirac was elected with the almost-Stalinist tally of 82.2% of the vote.

Bernard-Henri Lévy rose to the occasion with his trademark hyper-ethnocentric flourish:
We went … to the towns run by the FN [i.e. with FN mayors], we went to Vitrolles, Marignane, Orange, it’s the reign of private police, of parallel militias, the reign of suspicious deaths, of protestors who commit suicide with a bullet in the back as on May 1, 1995 in Paris, the FN, we have to repeat it, is more violence, more insecurity, more civil war and not less.[23]
Le Pen, whatever his very real qualities and flaws, is quite obviously not a devil. If one surveys his career, one can say he is a French nationalist, an adventurer willing to risk his life repeatedly for his country and political ideals (as military volunteer, victim of terrorist attacks, street brawler …), and a politician who wanted to occupy the “right-of-the-center-right” electoral market share. He was not particularly racist (his second-in-command, Bruno Gollnisch, has a Japanese wife and Eurasian children) and not particularly anti-Semitic. But he refused to submit to the leftist dogmas which have become mandatory since the 1960s, and, as a free man, he enjoyed the occasional politically incorrect joke. These facts alone made him a demon as far as the LICRA/CRIF and French media-political class were concerned. As the 2002 Socialist candidate himself, Lionel Jospin, later admitted:
During all the years under Mitterrand we had never faced a fascist threat and so any ‘anti-fascism’ was merely theater. We faced a party, the Front National, which was a far-right party, a populist party as well in its way. But we were never in a situation of facing a fascist threat and not even of a fascist party.[24]
As in the rest of Kling’s narrative, it is difficult to identify the exact impact of Jewish groups on this or that specific policy or measure, there being numerous factors at work. But there is little doubt this impact was considerable. In September 1995, the head of the center-left Nouvel Observateur magazine Jean Daniel ( Bensaid, himself Jewish) argued these groups were decisive in preventing the FN from entering a coalition government:
Must we not put among the accomplishments of the antiracist movements and even of their demonization of the Front National, the fact that a guilt-ridden [center-]right, having become moral and republican in this respect, has broken with the far-right? Without the rupture thus obtained, would we not today have Lepenist ministers in a government which would have coe to power thanks to their votes?[25]
Given that similar right-wing nationalist parties succeeded in participating in governments in Italy and Austria, and in tacitly supporting center-right governments in the Netherlands and Denmark (where Jewish groups are much weaker), this seems highly plausible.

This role in persecuting the FN has also worried some Jews, who fear stoking anti-Semitism. Bernard Cahen, head of a Jewish lawyers’ group (Rassemblement des avocats juifs de France) complained to a Jewish publication in 1989: “The LICRA is wrong in wanting to have Le Pen sentenced every day. In the long run, people will end up thinking that the courts are run by the Jews, even though this is far from the case.”[26]


[1]Kling, Le CRIF, 21.
[4]Ibid., 247.
[5]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 143.
[6]“Jauressian” refers to Jean-Jaurès, a pre-Bolshevik French socialist leader. L’Indépendant, “Jean-Claude Gayssot à Carcassonne : ‘Je hais le Front national !’,” March 15, 2015.
[7]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 121.
[8]Ibid., 116.
[9]Kling, Le CRIF, 174.
[10]Ibid., 235.
[11]Ibid., 238.
[12]Ibid., 236.
[13]Ibid., 238.
[14]“‘24 jours’: le film sur l’affaire Halimi fait un flop,” Metronews, May 5, 2014.!C8ZhvgbnSCCeE/
[15]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 206.
[16]Ibid., 14.
[17]Ibid., 248
[18]Ibid., 216.
[19]Ibid., 212.
[20]Ibid., 218.
[21]Ibid., 203.
[22]Ibid., 217.
[23]Lévy is referring, confusedly, to individual cases where left-wing or minority activists were killed by far-rightists, even though these cases had no link to the FN. Ibid., 222.
[24] Statements made on radio France-Culture on September 29, 2007.
[25]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 213.
[26] Ibid., 215.

I Love Being the Good Brown Guy

via High Right

I love being brown. I love being born and living in a country where I am considered exotic. Yes, I love being racialized. Those racist structures that privileged, Westernized and neurotic bitches and hoes bitch and moan about, they have failed to make me suffer.

Sara Ahmed

Hell, it’s not even an academic lie, it’s just the paranoia of brown and black folks of our parents’ generation, afterwards given academic swagger. “Study well, do not listen to these white teachers, they are lying to you”, father would say. “Lying about what?”, I would ask and to this day I can’t remember if he ever gave a comprehensible answer. I think he meant that I should not study just enough, but excel in class (because I must prove dem white folks I am just as good as they are). Yeah, fuck that shit, I wanted to play Super Mario as soon as I had finished homework in a half-hearted manner!

… Sorry, I got carried away. Anyway, I love being the good brown guy.

I love being the good brown guy the police has never been mean to. If you are brown and the police was mean to you, you were probably being a dick. Not to mention you probably were dressed like straight outta Compton, and it was likely that you could be armed and dangerous. Or your body language just screamed “I’m a big time nigga yeah”.


I love being the good brown guy, who politely declines the offer of pamphlets or whatever when I’m passing by a friendly activist of a moderately far-right party. I make sure to decline as politely as possible, just so he knows that there are some good brown guys out there who don’t hate his guts.

I love being the good brown guy, who hangs around in bars with friends and meet friendly strangers, and then one drunk person from one of these groups tells me “I actually voted / will vote for this party, because there is too much immigration here and we should instead take proper care of those we already have. But I’m still happy that you live here with us and not in Iran, because you’re such a cool guy and very intelligent”. Fuck yeah, I’m such a good brown guy even nationalists want me to stay! Not to mention that a good white guy telling a good brown guy this must mean I come off as a very reliable good brown guy.


I love being the well-integrated good brown guy, the type both white men and white women prefer. I’m exotic enough to be interesting, but largely in tune with the Western ways of life and code of conduct.

This is not to say there is no racism in this country I was born and raised in. Of course there is. Hell, I can even buy the concept of white privilege and mystical structures favouring the dominant ethnic group in a nation-state.

But so what?

It is only natural that a society privileges the people which defined it at its genesis, and set the parameters for its national culture. A European people built this country, the history of this country is first and foremost the history of this people, the culture, both high and low, is the culture of this people. And by writing this text, am I contributing to Iranian culture? No, because I write in English using a Western frame of reference, thus I am contributing to Western Civilization (which is not to say I’m equating this article with a play by Shakespeare; the latter is a timeless treasure, the former will be forgotten in a matter of weeks or months).

But don’t mistake my embrace of this Western frame of reference as a self-denial of my ultimately non-Western background. On the contrary, after almost two decades of Western universalism and consistent antinationalism and even transnationalism, not to mention positive atheism and Counter-Jihadism, I ended up embracing my own ethnohistorical background, including my connexion to Islam in general and Shi‘ism is particular. Not that I pray or abstain from alcohol and pork, nor that I give a damn about the minutiae of dogma, theology and orthopraxy of my faith of birth, but nonetheless it is the legacy of my family and my ancestors, and thus I will study and heed it with an open mind and without allowing it to enslave it. The mind, I mean.


Paradoxically it was European Identitarians and their forerunners: Traditionalists, the Conservative Revolution and to a lesser extent the Eurasianists etc., ergo good white guys, who finally convinced me—against my own will, I should add—that it’s okay to be an ethnically aware good brown guy.

(Truth be told, most brown guys are ethnically aware in an unenlightened, ignorant way, usually in addition to being bad brown guys.)

But because of, in the terms of your typical antiracist pseudointellectual, my strong internalization of racist structures maintaining a Western postcolonial imperialist civilizational mode of thought, I used to be ‘more Western than Westerners’ and I dare say more genuinely antiracist than these potentially opportunistic charlatans making a career and cultivating a reputation out of a feigned radicalism in the service of established progressivism. Thus I required the wisdom of enlightened radical European nationalism to become—if I may be boastful and triumphalist for a moment—superior to ethnically aware bad brown guys and antiracists alike.


I love being the good brown guy, and it is because of the New Right that I became an ethnically aware one, rejecting Liberalism, Egalitarianism and Progressivism and all that jazz (but not Modernism and Modernity in toto; after all, Ezra Pound was a Modernist poet). I am Armin and I am a good, brown, Identitarian, ethnopluralist, pro-European, non-European, Indo-European hipster/anarch; I am the Paradox and Iconoclast of Multiculturalism and I love it.

1918, USA --- The modernist writer, poet and literary critic Ezra Pound. --- Image by © E.O. Hoppé/CORBIS
Modernist writer, poet, and
literary critic Ezra Pound
And by the way, I do love me some brown sugar but I still don’t want any more Somalis in dearest Europa, and I’m the sexiest sexist you will ever get to know. Peace out, my gangstas and hoes of the Right!

#RichLivesDontMatter: WaPo Tells Readers to Stop Caring about Horrific DC Slaughter


What’s important about a horrific slaughter aren’t the violent deaths themselves, but what readers might conclude after reading about who inflicted the victims’ excruciating ends. The Washington Post assured readers that their instinct to block crimethink was the right thing to do.
We can’t look away when bad things happen to rich people. Crime that afflicts the affluent always commands front pages, gobbles up airtime and goes viral on social media.
All week long, Washington’s news has been dominated by two awful crimes in upscale neighborhoods: the unsolved killings of wealthy Washington couple Savvas and Amy Savopoulos, their 10-year-old son and one of their housekeepers… [Why We’re Riveted When Bad Things Happen to Rich People, by Petula Dvorak, The Washington Post, May 18, 2015]
A housekeeper who sent her wages back to El Salvador in remittances. A drop in the multibillion-dollar bucket.
[T]he Savopouloses, who were active donors to social and political causes and who left behind two teenage daughters. Savvas, 46, was president and chief executive of American Iron Works, which helped build Verizon Center and CityCenterDC. Who killed them, set their house ablaze and stole their blue Porsche? We want to know just as badly as the police…
Meanwhile, thousands of regular, everyday people are killed in burglaries, in house fires and by family members. And the rest of the country rarely gives two hoots.
“People,” such as the thousands of white women stalked, raped, and disfigured while being tortured by black men. Or Baltimore residents suffering from a dramatic increase of violent crime after fellow blacks rioted when a convicted heroin dealer died a week after being taken into police custody.
The race and class of victims undoubtedly play a role in this. And there’s something sad about that.
We shouldn’t place more value on a life if the victim was pretty or wealthy or white. A mansion fire shouldn’t be treated as more tragic than a rowhouse blaze. And a dead socialite should not be treated as more important than a dead prostitute. This isn’t #RichLivesMatter.
Likewise, the suspect shouldn’t be treated as part of a pattern merely because he’s a black immigrant with a long history of violent, incorrigible behavior, which another Washington Post article delicately describes as “brushes with the law.”

Records filed in Prince George’s County District Court illustrate some of Wint’s long-standing brushes with the law. In the mid-2000s, four people — including his father and a housemate — petitioned for restraining orders, the records show. Not all requests were granted, but a judge did order Wint to stay away from his father for a year. [Suspect in Quadruple Killings Captured in D.C., Police Say, May 21, 2015]
Dvorak tells her liberal readers that they ought to be as concerned about the dregs of society that no one wants to be, as they are about the successful rich everyone dreams of, and strives to be.

And yet Dvorak, a clever and perceptive writer, missed the irony (in the Greek tragedy sense) when she condemned universities in 2014 for not expelling the apparent serial killer Jesse Matthew.
What is the magic number of attackers needed for universities to stop letting rapists roam their campuses? […] We shouldn’t need a perfect victim and brutal attackers to talk about rape and demand real change in the way universities handle it.
The man arrested in the killing of U-Va. student Hannah Graham, Jesse Matthew Jr., twice withdrew from other Virginia universities after he was accused of sexual assault. Would Hannah still be alive if those universities — Liberty and Christopher Newport — had pursued criminal charges against him? [Why Did it Take a U-Va. Gang-Rape Allegation to Make Us Care About Campus Sex Assault?, The Washington Post, December 5, 2014]
4801500_G[1]Perhaps Hannah, and many other murder victims, would still be alive if liberal females like Dvorak didn’t scold sensitive readers about the race and class of the perpetrators (pictured right: Jesse Matthew Jr.) and the slaughtered victims. Noticing certain murder trends is execrable, except when it’s not, which is determined by liberal moods.

The LARPing of NASA

via Counter-Currents

NASA has recently come out in support of ditching the American flag in favour of using what has been described as an “International Flag of the Planet Earth.” Accompanying the story is a picture of a Non-White woman in a space suit, sitting in front of two of the new flags, reminding all you cisgendered racists out there that the endless vacuity of the cosmos is essentially a feminine space that must no longer be violated by the phallic rocket thrust of the evil White man.

The flag features seven interlocking circles that, on first sight, suggest a bad case of haemorrhoids –possibly linked to the disruption of bowel movements in zero gravity – although apparently the flag's design has more fragrant and earthbound symbolism, according to its creator Oskar Pernefeldt (a Swede, naturally):
"Centred in the flag, seven rings form a flower – a symbol of the life on Earth. The rings are linked to each other, which represents how everything on our planet, directly or indirectly, are linked. The blue field represents water which is essential for life – also as the oceans cover most of our planet’s surface. The flower’s outer rings form a circle which could be seen as a symbol of Earth as a planet and the blue surface could represent the universe."
Not only is space being feminized, but also the Earth – it is transformed into a big, wet, eco-conscious flower, rather than the launch pad of the Superman who will one day conquer the Universe. This is unwittingly apt as it implies pure passivity, as if the Earth were merely waiting for some giant alien space wasp to come and pollinate it.

This story will no doubt generate a bit of heat on the internet, but, like NASA itself, it is essentially meaningless. Despite the "universalism" of its flag, the modern-day NASA is closer to a convention of Trekkies than a viable organization for the exploration and colonization of space. NASA in its heyday and NASA today are at different ends of the conceptual universe, with the latter having fallen down a very deep Black Hole.

Back in the 1960s and 70s NASA was an organization of nerdy but cool, super-intelligent, can-do White guys in short sleeves and horn-rimmed glasses, who built enormous rockets that put buzz-cut ex-boy scouts and test pilots on the Moon – and then gave them buggies! The famous Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo missions was as long as a football pitch and shook the earth when it took it mighty steps into the cosmos.

Panzers on the Moon!
In the late 70s and then the 80s – just as America was ramping up the Cold War elsewhere – the organization went into a sharp decline, as it became increasingly concerned with filling race and gender quotas, and sucking up to the environmental lobby.

It was essentially a victim of the Reagan years and the high profile utility it offered to throw the liberal left a bone. With America comfortably leading in the Space Race, NASA could safely be sacrificed as a sop to Leftist narratives – gender and racial “empowerment” and environmentalism – while the rest of the country got on with the business of winning the Cold War. It is no coincidence that this was also the time that Martin Luther King Day came into being. While America was sticking it to the Soviets, it had to keep a lid on its own internal divisions. NASA had already served its original purpose and could serve an additional one by placating the ethnic and environmental lobbies.

When one of NASA’s reusable shuttles – with two women and a couple of ethnics on board – exploded in the Florida sky in 1986, the organization’s death knell was sounded. Twenty years earlier, NASA would have shrugged off seven dead astronauts, found out the problem, and moved on with a launch a few weeks later. No doubt they would have concluded that having a reusable rocket was the problem, and switched back to the cruder, more effective, but ecologically insensitive Saturn V. But in those days, NASA was a virile organization that took its role – getting to the Moon before the Commies – seriously, not some pointless waste of public money with a PR department and ethnic outreach agenda.

Challenger: diversity in action.
Just as America immediately pulled its marines out of the Lebanon in 1984 after just one successful suicide attack by Hezbollah, so the Challenger disaster saw America essentially giving up on space.

There were a few more nervous missions – the next one after Challenger was entirely staffed by White guys – in order to get the Hubble telescope in orbit (an essential project if NASA was going to justify any budget at all). But, after that, things tailed off. When a second shuttle Columbia – with an almost identically diverse crew – burned up on re-entry in 2003 the final nail was in the coffin.

Now, instead of actually conquering space, NASA tries to generate interest – and justification for its budget – by pretending to be a space exploration organization, in other words, LARPing (live-action role playing). This recent non-story is a perfect example of its more recent inactivities.

All White now: The first post-Challenger crew
In reality, it has no choice. Unless it wants to be seen as a sexist, racist, White supremacist organization run by ex-Nazis or their like, it can’t afford to actually achieve anything by itself. At best it can send up unmanned satellites or piggyback on the space programs of other nations, as with the International Space Station, which is mainly a Russian show. But building its own manned space ships is obviously too high-risk a venture when you have all those PC boxes to tick as well.

A space organization that places “affirmative action” and ethnic and gender outreach at the head of its priorities can forget about ever reaching the stars; while a civilization that refuses to explore space because of "environmental concerns" will still be anchored to the ground when its own environment, no matter how carefully tended, turns on it as it inevitably will.

Non-White Invaders Demand White Classmates in the Netherlands

via EGI Notes

NEC filth demand "White classmates" in the Netherlands.  This is, for the Left, the great paradox of White Racism and White Privilege.  You see, Whites are such terrible people, racist haters, pampered and privileged, so "non-vibrant," and so much into abusing the poor and defenseless people of color. And yet, when Whites flee from diversity, the Coloreds can't run after them fast enough. What is this all about? Why is the Colored Man so masochistic?  You'd think that if Whites were so terrible, that the Colored would be over-joyed to be rid of them. But, in reality, Coloreds will risk their lives to migrate to White lands, Coloreds demand integration with Whites at every opportunity, Coloreds take to the streets to demand that their "vibrant" children interact with plain white bread European children. The paradox is built into the story itself - complaints about "Dutch racism" together with the fervent demands to have as many of these Dutch haters around as possible. Never mind the curious fact that there are so many immigrants there to begin with despite the native population being so very racist. But, alas, the truth is quite the opposite: the natives are weak and spineless pushovers who allow themselves to be bullied by demanding brownsters and guilt-ridden by leftist bullying.  Leucosa, once again...

Negro actor whining about "backlash" over his casting in a role which has been depicted as a blond Nordic for the past 50+ years in the comics.  Blame the leucosa Whites for this. Who's going to be buying tickets to watch the movie?  Dumb Whitey.  Can't they just stay away?  Let the production crash and burn with low sales. But, no. We can predict: a very successful and lucrative production it will be.

More mainstreaming failure.  Orban is caught between a rock and a hard place. No matter his attempts at mainstreaming, the System considers him a "fascist dictator."  On the other hand, he is losing popularity to Jobbik, which is further to his right. Orban's only chance is if Jobbik stupidly mainstreams themselves to become Orban clones, which it seems they are doing.  There's open space on the right, space which could attract popularity, if only leaders would seize that position. And all of this is not inconsistent with Whites as an inferior leucosa race.  After all, in the past, Whites were different, and it is possible that if leadership were to stake out a claim to the far-right in an uncompromising position, Whites may start reclaiming their manhood.  The lemmings just need someone to point them in the right direction, the sheep need to become wolves again.  Giving people HOPE  - and that hope is on the ultra-far-right - will ultimately prove more politically popular than weaselly mainstreaming.

Nixon asked a question. We do know the answer, don't we?

Is there an innocent explanation for this? No, there is not. The actual explanation is here.  Really, Whites, if they are to act like men, need to stand up to all of this. Any healthy race would have long ago stormed the ramparts and made the French Revolution's "terror" look like a stroll in the park. Well, Whites need proper leadership.  And they will not get that leadership from mainstreamers.

Also, looking at all this, one can understand why Black militants are often anti-Jewish. These Negroes know how they are being used as weapons in someone else's war. Jews care about Blacks the same way a soldier cares about his rifle: purely instrumentally. It is a weapon of war, a weapon to be wielded against one's enemies.  Once it's not needed, it's put away and forgotten. Negroes should remember that.

Why the US Is Finally Talking to Russia

via Darkmoon

Victoria Nuland, the Jewess who in
charge of American foreign policy
“So a woman walks into a room…” —  That’s how quite a few jokes usually start. In our case, self-appointed Queen of Nulandistan Victoria “F**k the EU” walks into a room in Moscow to talk to Russian deputy foreign ministers Sergei Ryabkov and Grigory Karasin.

A joke? Oh no; that really happened. Why?

Let’s start with the official reactions. Karasin qualified the talks as “fruitful”, while stressing Moscow does not approve of Washington becoming part of the Normandy-style (Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) negotiations on Ukraine. Not after the relentless demonization not only of the Kremlin but also of Russia as a whole since the Maidan coup.

Ryabkov, for his part, made it known the current state of the US-Russia relationship remains, well, corrosive.

It’s crucial to remember the Queen of Nulandistan went to Moscow only after meeting with certified Washington vassal President Poroshenko and her own, hand-picked Prime Minister, “Yats”; and that was before accompanying Secretary of State John Kerry on the full regalia State Department trip to Sochi on May 12.

The Minsk-2 agreement – the actual product of the Normandy-style negotiations – directly involved Berlin and Paris, who finally saw the realpolitik on the wall and were compelled to divert from Washington’s monomaniac antagonistic approach.

Inside the EU, chaos remains on the key subject of sanctions. The Baltics and Poland toe the “Russians are coming!” Cold War 2.0 hysteria line, while the adults in Brussels are represented by Italy, Greece, Spain and Hungary.

So Germany and France are already in deep trouble keeping the messy EU house in order. At the same time Berlin and Paris know nothing the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration pulls off will mollify Moscow to abandon its precise red lines.

Watch Those Red Lines

It’s crucial to notice that Crimea does not seem to be on the table anymore; it’s a fait accompli. But then there are those U.S. “military trainers” who have been deployed to western Ukraine only for a “six-month mission” (historical reminder; this is how the Vietnam war started). For Moscow, expansion of this “mission” is an absolute red line.
And then there’s the ultimate red line; NATO expansion, which remains unabated in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. That won’t stop; it’s part of NATO’s obsession in solidifying a new Iron Curtain from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

Thus, beyond all the talking, the next step to watch is whether the Obama administration will really refrain from weaponizing Kiev.

Ukraine for all practical purposes is now a massively indebted failed state turned into an IMF colony. The EU does not want it – although NATO does. For Moscow, the – ghastly – show will only be over when Ukraine, with or without the people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, is neutral, and not part of a NATO strategic threat.

I have examined here the possibility that the Obama administration’s strategic shift towards talking instead of cursing/threatening may signify that the real Masters of the Universe have finally understood the emerging New (Silk) World Order is bound to leave them behind.

President Putin knew that he was heading towards a major confrontation with the US after the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the Georgian adventure, and NATO’s ceaseless expansion violating all those empty promises to Gorbachev.
The difference is that now—and the Pentagon knows it—Moscow has amassed up to 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons. In the apocalyptic event of a war between Russia with NATO, the wet dream of many a US neo-con, these tactical nuclear weapons would knock out every commercial and military airfield of every NATO country in twenty minutes. That would leave no airfield for NATO combined air operations.
And then there’s the S-500 missile defense system, which can protect Russia against any form of Pentagon/NATO nuclear missile retaliation. No US offensive weapon, including Stealth bombers, could get through the S-500 maze, and the Pentagon also knows it.

Strategy? What Strategy?

The Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski-style strategy has always been to lure Russia into another Afghanistan in Ukraine, leading to a collapse of the Russian economy with the Big Prize being a Western takeover of Russia’s oil and natural gas wealth, and by extension Central Asia’s. Ukrainians would be used as cannon fodder, as were Afghans since the 1980s Arab-Afghan jihad.

Yet the Obama administration overplayed its hand, and realpolitik now spells out the deepening of the Russia-China strategic partnership across the entire Eurasian land mass; Eurasia as a prospective, massive commercial emporium stretching from Beijing to Berlin, or from Shanghai to St. Petersburg and beyond towards Rotterdam and Duisburg.

Without the exceptionalist obsession of some key Beltway factions, none of the elements of Cold War 2.0 would be in play, as Russia is a natural ally of the US in many fronts. That in itself reveals the state of “strategic thinking” by the current US administration.

Moscow, anyway, won’t be caught off-guard by the current, barely disguised, charm offensive, because Russian intelligence knows that may well veil a “Grand Chessboard”-style tactic of two steps back to regroup for a massive advance later.

Moreover, nothing has basically changed other than the original, dissuasive Cold War era MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – doctrine being over.

The US still retains PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capability. Ukraine is just a detail. The real game-changer will happen when Russia is able to seal its whole territory, via the S-500s, against PGS. That will happen sooner than anyone thinks. And that’s why the real Masters of the Universe – via their emissaries – feel compelled to talk.

Heinlein for Right-Wingers

via Counter-Currents

Robert A. Heinlein in 1929
Does Right-wing science fiction even exist? Indeed it does. Authors like Frank Herbert (Dune), Gordon Dickson (Dorsai), Jerry Pournelle (The Mercenary), and Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) have one or two things to say to a man of the Right – the real Right, the Right unaffected by political correctness. And the prime American sci-fi author in this respect is Robert A. Heinlein (1907–1987). Seen from the Right, there’s no comparable American popular author, widely read from after WWII to this day.

Heinlein was a complex writer, and you can find contradictory ideas in his books. Therefore the random Heinlein book might not be expressly Right-wing. But in his early and middle period books, we find a lot of conservative views vindicated. Novels like Starman Jones, Farmer in the Sky, Citizen of the Galaxy, and Double Star are all entertaining yarns told by a man who valued responsibility, nobility of character, and self-reliance.

In some respects Heinlein became more liberal later on, but in essence he remained a Right-winger. He was, for example, a staunch anti-communist all his life when mainstream intellectuals were non-committal or even favorably disposed toward collectivism and Bolshevism. This is important to remember today, when Heinlein has become mainstream and is liked even by Left-leaning persons.

But is Heinlein relevant to ”the real right” of the 2010s? The answer is: in some respects, he is. His core values of responsibility, of service, of ”shaping up and becoming a man” have enduring relevance. In Time for the Stars (1956), we find a laconic kind of John Wayne conservatism: “A man pays his bills, keeps himself clean, respects other people, and keeps his word. He gets no credit for this; he has to do this much just to stay even with himself.” Have a shave and speak the truth. Eternal truths, traditional values. Such simple truths need to be repeated again and again, especially now when acting irresponsibly is a matter of course, when everybody blames someone else and being offended is everyone’s god-given right.

Heinlein was, of course, also a “modern” man, stressing the reality of technological progress, but traditional traits are there too. For instance, he served in the Navy as an officer, and the military can be seen as a symbol of the archaic in the modern. As modern and high-tech as any service branch may be, they still regard honor as a high value, up there with duty and country.

Heinlein in his later years
Heinlein in his later years
In Space Cadet (1948) Heinlein went to some length in giving us the Traditional Creed, military version. This novel is about serving in the Space Navy of the future, upholding justice in the solar system of 2075. Space Cadet comes across as a hymn to the life of service, exemplifying the traditional values an officer has to embody: self-restraint, responsibility, nobility of character. Responsibility, for its part, is what keeps any fighting unit together.

In stressing the value of responsibility, Heinlein even hints at the dictatorial traits the commander of a vessel must have; he’s an absolute ruler, symbolizing the law to his crew, all for the common good. Further, an officer must have a modicum of ambition, but he mustn’t be a careerist. The Heinlein mouthpiece, the commander of the Space Academy, brings the argument home by saying that an officer has to be a true and noble knight. That’s tradition in our age; that’s the archaic in the modern in a nutshell.

One of Heinlein’s most outstanding works is the novel Starship Troopers (1959). Programatically and politically, this novel is about how to combine responsibility with authority. For this Heinlein advocated restricting the right to vote to people who have done public service – not merely soldiers but everyone who has served the common good in a professional function. (The emphasis is necessarily militaristic, because mankind is fighting a savage alien enemy.) Thus the sacred cow of democracy was slaughtered. Some find Space Cadet a more effective military sci-fi story; the gung-ho tone of Starship Troopers sometimes gets a bit annoying. But as a storyteller Heinlein was seldom boring, and Starship Troopers remains a classic in almost every respect.

From the 1960s on, Heinlein’s books are more problematic. They are not essential reading for the Right-winger. But one novel from the 1960s where traditional values are discussed is worth looking at briefly: Glory Road (1963). Here we meet an American on a tour of service in Southeast Asia in 1960, as a military adviser. He never advances further than corporal, but he does see some action. To the reader he says that he’s a patriot and always has been; this was no popular stance in the 1960s, and he had to tone it down in order to pass his Social Sciences class. This is a fine example of Heinlein the patriot.

The initial chapters of the novel are a superb survey of the affluent society and the post-war safe generation, seen from the Right. The story then moves on into a parallel world. In this fairy world the narrator, Oscar Gordon, gets embroiled in an adventurous quest. He becomes a hero, and in one scene he’s approached by a youngster wishing to see his sword. Gordon grants him his wish and then lectures him on how to become a hero himself. Gordon plays it down a bit. Sayings like these were indeed not in sync with the current Zeitgeist, and Heinlein is implicitly and explicitly aware of that. Still, in the scene in question, Gordon says to the lad that there’s always room at the top; study hard, work hard, and wait for the right moment; then you might make it.

And, in an echo chivalrous stories from the Middle Ages, the youngster is advised to always introduce himself to women coming in his way. Approach ladies and get to know them. This was also stressed by the Grail stories, according to Julius Evola in The Mystery of the Grail (1934). These knights were not overburdened with chastity. They merely wanted to avoid being completely ruled by carnal cravings. Otherwise . . . befriend ladies! This was the gist of the chivalric stories. Heinlein’s advice exquisitely mirrors this.

The young lad is then shown a quarter with the image of George Washington, which Gordon has in his pocket. Washington is lauded as a man who always spoke the truth, who fought against impossible odds and persevered. Now, Washington and the regime he inaugurated may not be entirely ideal for ”the real Right” of today, but what’s important here is what Washington represents. He is an ideal to show to a young man finding his way. Washington stood tall and proud; do the same! In saying this and the rest to the lad, Gordon has risen to the occasion; he himself has represented wisdom and heroism; he himself is someone to look up to. The lad expected to hear something like this, and Gordon delivered.

Heinlein’s current reputation as a liberal libertine is undeserved. He was indeed complex and held different views over time, sometimes from book to book. But the lasting impression of Heinlein is of a conservative wary of his times, a man who continued to defend traditional values even as the mainstream turned against them. For Heinlein, implicit in values like self-restraint, self-reliance, and personal responsibility is the affirmation that we are living, breathing organisms, not machines. Heinlein glorifies man the agent.

It is true that his late novels are verbose and lack the vitality of the earlier books. But most of his short stories and novels from his debut in 1939 up to around 1960 have undeniable value. Their straightforward, unadorned narratives are always entertaining and sparkle with gems of traditional wisdom.

While Western Civilization Collapses in Black Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby Named Guest Ringmaster at UniverSoul Circus

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Marilyn Mosby
The number and popularity of young adult novels dealing with a dystopian is staggering, when these fictionalized worlds have nothing on the horrors of life in present-day 65 percent black Baltimore. 

Divergent? Hunger Games? The Maze Runner?

Sorry, but the grim future foretold in these books (all popular movie franchises now) look like a walk in paradise compared to hell on earth found in the rapidly nightmarish conditions of Baltimore. 

On May 5, members of the almost all-black Baltimore City Council wrote a letter to the Department of Justice, basically accusing the Baltimore Police Department of harboring racists

"...the systemic mistreatment of members of the African-American community by some officers within the Baltimore Police Department helped contribute to a strained relationship between police and the citizens who depend on them for protection and service."
So what did the Baltimore Police Department do? They gave up, turning over the keys of upholding law and order to the very people who took the streets to honor Freddie Gray and protest the perceived injustices committed by the police against blacks. [Baltimore Residents Fearful Amid Rash Of Homicides, CBS Baltimore, 5-28-15]:
Antoinette Perrine has barricaded her front door since her brother was killed three weeks ago on a basketball court near her home in the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore. 
She already has iron bars outside her windows and added metal slabs on the inside to deflect the gunfire. 
“I’m afraid to go outside,” said Perrine, 47. “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside. People wake up with shots through their windows. Police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.” 
Perrine’s brother is one of 36 people killed in Baltimore so far this month, already the highest homicide count for May since 1999. But while homicides are spiking, arrests have plunged more than 50 percent compared to last year. 
The drop in arrests followed the death of Freddie Gray from injuries he suffered in police custody. Gray’s death sparked protests against the police and some rioting, and led to the indictment of six officers. 
Now West Baltimore residents worry they’ve been abandoned by the officers they once accused of harassing them. In recent weeks, some neighborhoods have become like the Wild West without a lawman around, residents said. 
“Before it was over-policing. Now there’s no police,” said Donnail “Dreads” Lee, 34, who lives in the Gilmor Homes, the public housing complex where Gray, 25, was arrested. 
“I haven’t seen the police since the riots,” Lee said. “People feel as though they can do things and get away with it. I see people walking with guns almost every single day, because they know the police aren’t pulling them up like they used to.” 
Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said last week his officers “are not holding back” from policing tough neighborhoods, but they are encountering dangerous hostility in the Western District. 
“Our officers tell me that when officers pull up, they have 30 to 50 people surrounding them at any time,” Batts said. 
At a City Council meeting Wednesday, Batts said officers have expressed concern they could be arrested for making mistakes. 
“What is happening, there is a lot of levels of confusion in the police organization. 
There are people who have pain, there are people who are hurt, there are people who are frustrated, there are people who are angry,” Batts said. “There are people, and they’ve said this to me, `If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested?’ They pull up to a scene and another officer has done something that they don’t know, it may be illegal, will they be arrested for it? Those are things they are asking.”
Black elected officials, from Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to City Councilman Nick Mosby and his utterly incompetent wife, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, have made it quite clear they stand with the black mob chanting "no justice, no peace" instead of behind the Baltimore Police Department.

The President of the City Council, Jack Young (also black), stood by violent black gang members following the riots in Baltimore, a clear sign the line dividing the state and those vying for power in the streets was no longer clear.

Black Police Commissioner Anthony Batts (perhaps the most incompetent public employee in Baltimore, and that's saying something!) whined that the people of Baltimore "are giving up on us," when the mayor of the city already gave up on upholding law and order when she famously said "we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."

Marilyn Mosby, of course, "heard your [blacks] calls of no justice, no peace" and fed six members of the Baltimore Police to the wolves, sacrificial lambs so the riots could momentarily end.

But with this act, Mosby made it clear to all Baltimore police that they would also be sacrificed if they dared harm a black person during an arrest. She "empowered" the madness of unleashing the black genome on Baltimore, without police oversight.
[Baltimore police union: Cops more afraid of going to jail than getting shot, Baltimore Sun, 5-28-15]:
The president of the Baltimore police union on Thursday said that criminals have become "empowered" following the recent unrest and that, with six officers charged in Freddie Gray's death, city police are more "afraid" of being arrested than shot on duty.  
 Gray, 25, died a week after suffering a severed spinal cord and other injuries in police custody. His death led to more than a week of protests and later rioting, that prompted a citywide curfew and the deployment of the National Guard. 
"The criminals are taking advantage of the situation in Baltimore since the unrest," said Gene Ryan, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3. "Criminals feel empowered now. There is no respect. Police are under siege in every quarter. They are more afraid of going to jail for doing their jobs properly than they are of getting shot on duty."
Mosby - who said "so we will pursue justice, by any and all means necessary"when it comes to exacting revenge on the heroin dealers murderers - and other black elected/appointed leaders (sic) have unleashed Africa on what is left of western civilization in Baltimore.

And in a tribute fitting to hard racial truths captured in Birth of a Nation, Marilyn and Nick Mosby will be the guest ringmasters of the UniverSoul Circus in Baltimore. [Marilyn Mosby, Nick Mosby to serve as circus ringmasters, Baltimore Sun, 5-28-15]:
What a busy few weeks Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby has had. She appeared onstage with Prince. Sat down for an interview with Vogue. 
And, of course, she made national news by pressing charges against six officers in the death of Freddie Gray, who suffered a severe spinal injury while in police custody. 
Now Mosby and her husband, City Councilman Nick Mosby, are about to be guest ringmasters for the UniverSoul Circus. 
The couple is also slated to accept the "UniverSoul Circus Community Service Award for their commitment to the well-being of the Baltimore community" at Friday afternoon's performance, according to a press release from the circus. 
The theme for this year's performance is "Your life matters." The circus opens today and runs through June 7 at Security Square Mall. 
"She's doing positive things in the community," said Hank Ernest, a spokesman for UniverSoul Circus. He said the circus chose the couple, in part, because they are the parents of two young daughters.
Positive things in the community?  Name one.


Name one.

Somewhere, H.L. Mencken is sharing a drink with D.W. Griffith, laughing about the scene in Birth of a Nation depicting blacks in power (the "black congress" scene) and realizing life in 2015 Baltimore under black-rule is far worse: because as the state of the black-dominated shows, truth is far stranger than fiction.