Jun 23, 2015

The False Dichotomy Pervading the Immigration Debate

via Occident Invicta

For the white man, no good deed goes unpunished. The left-wing media, through its critical coverage of European responses to immigration, seems intent on validating this maxim. The country currently facing scrutiny for not sufficiently rolling out the welcome mat for alien migrants is Germany.

Germany, like Sweden, has welcomed a tremendous number of asylum seekers, which places them ahead of all other Western countries. I think it goes without saying that their tolerance of outsiders easily out-does any non-Western country. I’m aware that nations such as Pakistan and Iran host more refugees than Western countries. However, there’s a significant difference between Iran and Pakistan accommodating fellow Middle Easterners or South Asians and Europeans welcoming visible minorities with disparate cultures and mindsets. Therefore, I would say that Germany practices greater tolerance than the aforementioned Eastern countries. Nevertheless, instances of xenophobia and violence have perturbed much of the established media. One asylum seeker from Somalia recalls numerous acts of racism, including having bananas thrown his way.

Of course, civilized peoples should frown upon such barbaric behavior. Unfortunately, this article represents the false binary that frequently constricts immigration debates. One is either an open borders enthusiast or a raging bigot who throws bananas at black people; Europeans must welcome any and all outsiders, or they’re intolerant xenophobes responsible for thousands of Mediterranean deaths.

Such a dichotomy is patently false. Our blog has consistently advanced the notion that one can be civilized and tolerant towards other people; at the same time, strong boundaries must accompany such tolerance. European nations can treat immigrants already living within their lands with a certain dignity, while simultaneously securing their borders and ensuring that whites remain the majority. They can protect minorities from flagrant abuse and at the same time firmly reject multiculturalism.

Liberals do not have a monopoly on tolerance and civilized behavior, and pro-white conservatives are perfectly capable of practicing these virtues. Indeed, preserving white majorities – and saving the Western world from its own follies – depends on changing the terms of the immigration and multiculturalism debate.

It’s time to abolish this foolish dichotomy that’s polluting discussions surrounding immigration and diversity management.

Who Needs Western Civilization When You Can Have Sushi?

via American Renaissance

A Canadian perspective.
Pat Buchanan asks: “As racial, ethnic and religious hatreds pull people apart and create terrorists all over our disintegrating world, why would we make ourselves ever more diverse?”

Stock answer: For the cuisine, of course!

If we bring in 50,000 Syrians without security checks we can have kibbeh, kebab halabi, waraq inab, hummus, tabbouleh, fattuosh, labneh, shawarma, mujaddara, shanklish and bastirma.

If we bring in 100,000 Somalis we can have chicken, beef, lamb and goat fried in ghee, spiced with turmeric, coriander, cumin and curry and eaten with basmati rice.

If we bring in 40,000 Afghans we can have Pulao! You haven’t lived if you haven’t had a jihadist prepare you a home-cooked meal.

If we bring in more Roma we can enjoy down-home Gypsy cooking, wherever “home’” happens to be. What kind of things do Roma cook? Anything they can get their hands on.

If we bring in more Vietnamese, Koreans, and Chinese, we can have fresh dog. By the way, where is my dog? Have you seen him? In Vancouver there are people with dogs in every wok of life.

And if only the federal government would fast-track tens of thousands of people from Guangdong province we could eat a variety of endangered species–pangolin, giant salamander, owls, monitor lizards–maybe even tiger penis and rhino horn. And there is nothing like piping-hot wild snake soup on a cold winter’s day. The more endangered it is, the tastier!

Variety is the spice of life.

If we could have these culinary options in our neighborhoods and towns, you could forget all about your European cultural heritage and the baggage that comes with it. Baggage like the traditions of free speech, property rights, individual liberties, the rule of law, women’s equality–you know–abstract stuff like that.

So what if wealthy Chinese have priced you out of the real estate market? You can eat the best that Asian cuisine has to offer. So what if you have to compete with cheap imported labor for miserable minimum-wage jobs? You will have had a rich culinary experience. So what if you can’t read half the signs in your city? Your life has been enriched.

Before mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism, cities like Toronto and Vancouver were boring Anglo-Canadian places where people never had to lock their doors or escort their kids to school. But now they are vibrant with diversity! There is a diversity of criminal gangs, a diversity of ethnic frictions, a diversity of diversity awareness and cultural sensitivity workshops, a diversity of college speech codes, a diversity of police hate-crimes units, a diversity of kangaroo courts. All we know is that thanks to all of this diversity, Canada is a much more interesting place than it was in those dull white-bread days.

Speaking of bread, oh what I wouldn’t give for an exotic snack right now. I would trade the Magna Carta for a serving of sushi. In fact, I would sell out my country for a Third-World dining experience. Who in my generation of millennials wouldn’t? After all, we’re fed a steady diet of multicultural propaganda throughout our lives as students, from grade one on up. Yet somehow I still feel empty. Maybe it was the MSG.

A reply by Lord Rodney Peters:
I say, enough of this sarcasm! As an English boy who lived on the Channel Islands under Nazi occupation, I can tell you that the Germans did a lot to perk up our appetites. Before they came, we ate kippers, fish and chips, marmite sandwiches–you know–the typical English fare. But along came the SS and the Wehrmacht to bring us schinkenbrot, schnitzel, sauerkraut and Lowenbrau beer. Sure, they shipped some of us off to concentration camps and work details never to return , but we had ethnic food to die for.
There is nothing like a foreign invasion to spice up your life! I grant you that mass immigration has given Britain the highest population density in Europe, but with that comes a higher density of Asian and Middle Eastern restaurants. Along with the sunshine you have to a little rain sometimes. So move over, squeeze tighter and make room for more and more.

'Jewish Earmark' Set to Double in 2016

via The Realist Report

As if we needed any more proof that the entire "Homeland Security" paradigm of American domestic security policy operates as a Jewish racket, we have even more courtesy of The Jewish Daily Forward this morning.

According to the Forward, the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has "voted to more than double funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $25 million for the coming year." Virtually all of the funds allocated to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program go to Jewish organizations for "security" purposes. The Forward is even bold enough to admit in its headline that the Grant Program amounts to a "Jewish Earmark".
[...] The increase approved Tuesday by the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for Fiscal Year 2016, up from the current $13 million, was actively supported by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Agudath Israel of America and the Jewish Federations of North America. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on the funding on Thursday.

Funds from the security grant program are used to assist synagogues, day schools and other Jewish nonprofits in making their buildings more secure.

“We have seen a disturbing rise in threats and attacks on community institutions and, when finalized, the funds provided under the NSGP will not only keep our community safer it will also be a statement of solidarity and support in the face of such threats,” said Nathan Diament, OU executive director for public policy.

The increase in the appropriation for security grants is “a profoundly important development,” said Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington director of Agudah. “It represents the subcommittee’s understanding that the terrorist risk to American lives is real and continuing and that the safety of these lives rises above political differences — that, in today’s world, more resources need to be devoted to increase the level of protection for our vulnerable institutions and populations, not less,” he said.

William Daroff, senior vice president for public policy and director of JFNA’s Washington Office, noted the importance of the grants. “These funds have been critical in protecting our communities. The increase comes at a time when anti-Semitism in the U.S. has risen by more than 21% between 2013 and 2014, and when terrorist groups like ISIL, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Hezbollah continue to incite violence against Jews in the West.”
It is truly remarkable how effective the organized Jewish community is at communicating its message, lobbying the government for services and funding, and achieving success, with the government and political establishment eagerly acceding to their demands with very few exceptions.

We see the same tactics utilized by the organized Jewish community time and time again as well. The Jews hysterically hype a perceived "threat" (i.e., the rising tide of "anti-Semitism" or "terrorist attacks" against Jewish organizations) to their well-being and interests as a group, and then demand the government take steps to combat said perceived "threat" (criminalizing thoughts, ideas, and expressions Jews do not like to combat "anti-Semitism" or giving Jewish organizations millions of dollars for "security" in order to prevent "terrorist attacks"). And it works every time.

Carl Thompson – A Matter of Neglect?

via Western Spring

Carl Thompson, dubbed ‘Britain’s fattest man’, weighed 65 stones when he died and had been appealing for dietary and psychological help in order to overcome his addiction to eating.
It would appear that Carl had an eating disorder for more than a decade as by his own admission, his relationship with his last girlfriend ended approximately ten years ago as a result of his overweight. Carl reputedly weighed approximately 20 stones at that time, but his overeating worsened significantly following the death of his mother three years ago, leading to him becoming unable to work then housebound, and finally unable to move from his bed as his weight escalated.

According to various newspaper articles, Carl ate a diet with a calorific value of 10,000 calories per day – a daily diet consisting of: four sausages, five fried eggs, fried bread, a pan of mushrooms fried in butter, and a bowl of cereal with full fat milk for his breakfast; followed by a bowl of pasta, chips, bacon, pork pies, crisps, pasties, sandwiches, and chocolate for his lunch; followed by £25 worth of takeaway food for his dinner, interspersed with snacks consisting of £10 worth of chocolate bars per day. He was apparently able to buy all of this food with the money provided for him in state benefits.

This tragic case clearly raises some serious issues, as anyone with any common sense would question how it was that a man who was unable to stand, let alone walk, could obtain all of this food, enough to eat himself to death?

Carl was apparently undergoing medical treatment for his eating disorder, he also had two carers who used to visit him twice a day to wash him and prepare his food, and he had given a key to his home to at least one of the proprietors of a local fast food outlet, so that food could be delivered to his bedside.

It would appear therefore that Carl’s carers and the proprietors of the local takeaway food establishments were responsible for continually placing food in front of him — food that he was unable to stop himself from eating. Not just a little too much food, mind you, but four or five times the amount of food that any normal person would eat! And we are expected to believe that they didn’t realise what they were doing was wrong?

It was not simply a matter that Carl was slightly overweight and could therefore still be regarded as capable to looking after his own affairs, it was not even a matter of him being a grossly obese person with a serious eating disorder but who could still be relied upon to draw the line before actually gorging himself to death. No, Carl was ‘Britain’s fattest man’, a man so grotesquely obese that he had become a hideous mountain of fat and flab, unable to care for himself and reduced to wallowing helplessly in his bed. Clearly he had lost mental capacity and matters should have been taken out of his hands. Carl Thompson had himself appealed for psychiatric help and had asked to be taken into hospital!

It appears however that Carl’s requests were rejected on the grounds there were insufficient hospital facilities available. Apparently a man with an obviously morbid psychiatric illness, who routinely abused his body to such an extent that imminent death was inevitable without urgent medical and psychiatric intervention, was not a high enough priority for today’s National Health Service!

He had clearly lost the capacity to make rational decisions regarding his food intake and others responsible for his care should have taken the appropriate action. It cannot possibly be argued that those responsible didn’t notice how dire his situation had become. No-one can claim they didn’t realise this man, who weighed as much as the combined weight of five normal men, had become so morbidly obese that he was clearly incapable of making rational decisions.

He should have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and admitted to hospital as a matter of urgency, just as anyone found trying to overdose on any other kind of lethal substance would have been. The police have stated that they do not suspect foul-play regarding his death, but one must ask the question why no-one is considering levying charges of criminal negligence against those responsible for his care?

If it is not tantamount to criminal negligence to fail to place in protective custody someone in Carl Thompson’s condition, we must ask ourselves, why it isn’t? And if it is not criminal negligence to keep placing four or five times the normal amount of food in front of someone who is a compulsive eater, we must again ask why?

Pro­fuse Pro­lif­er­a­tion

via The New Tribe

Over­whelm­ing the Planet

The pur­pose of life has undoubtably been stu­diously pon­dered over and debated since man’s cere­bral cor­tex first coerced him into think­ing sen­tiently about him­self and his place and sta­tus in the wider envi­ron­men­tal matrix. Before even this momen­tous par­a­digm shift in human evo­lu­tion, the bio­log­i­cal antecedents of Homo sapi­ens engaged in pro­cre­ation with­out con­sciously com­put­ing the longterm ram­i­fi­ca­tions or sig­nif­i­cance of their actions. We can state, with the utmost con­fi­dence, that the impulse to breed is a hered­i­tary instinct present in all fauna. Ani­mals which do not or can­not repro­duce them­selves are, it can be sur­mised, no longer with us.

The Chris­t­ian holy book acknowl­edges pro­cre­ation as a divine task and intro­duces an early, syn­er­gic con­cept of an infi­nite man – capa­ble of prop­a­gated both the human species and the mes­sage of his immor­tal deity – and man as the stew­ard of the planet:
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruit­ful, and mul­ti­ply, and replen­ish the earth, and sub­due it: and have domin­ion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every liv­ing thing that moveth upon the earth.“[1]

It is prob­a­ble that a reli­gious cult or sect which pro­scribed sex and fecun­dity, or aspired to depress these biotic com­pul­sions, would not have per­sisted for more than a sin­gle gen­er­a­tion. It is there­fore an incon­testable tru­ism that sir­ing off­spring is of piv­otal impor­tance to liv­ing organisms.

In rela­tion to ‘higher’ life­forms, and humans in par­tic­u­lar, the promi­nence of repro­duc­tion is no less sig­nif­i­cant, and yet when choice (pre­sum­ably a reper­cus­sion of an unusu­ally robust and over­ac­tive frontal lobe) is intro­duced into the exis­ten­tial expe­ri­ence, we, espe­cially those cat­e­gorised as Homo sapi­ens sapi­ens, and more specif­i­cally, White/​Aryan sub­di­vi­sions, have been found sorely want­ing of late.

Oswald Spen­gler adeptly elu­ci­dated the self-​imposed sui­cide of the Occi­dent in his impres­sive reflec­tion on the diminu­tion of our race. From The Decline of the West:
“When the ordi­nary thought of a highly cul­ti­vated peo­ple begins to regard ‘hav­ing chil­dren’ as a ques­tion of pro’s and con’s, the great turning-​point has come. For Nature knows noth­ing of pro’s and con’s.”[2]

Spengler’s “great turn­ing point” is, of course, the falsely edi­fy­ing cul­tural apex upon which we tot­tered for a brief period. Since Spengler’s book was penned, we, as a racial group, have stopped oscil­lat­ing; our col­lec­tive per­spec­tive is now held in thrall by a sheer and bar­ren decliv­ity and we are grad­u­ally suc­cumb­ing to the mas­sive grav­ity of absolute obliv­ion. We must draw a stark line under the notion that the per­ceived rights and hap­pi­ness of the indi­vid­ual dis­places the essen­tial and pro­nounced ame­lio­ra­tion of the Whole.

One such crit­i­cal method of aggran­dis­ing our eth­nic sept is the pro­duc­tion of White chil­dren. Young are pro­duced by a process of sex­ual inter­course, and repro­duc­tive sex can only occur between a fer­tile male and a fer­tile female. For that rea­son, we must have both. This is clearly stat­ing the blind­ingly obvi­ous, but it is often the case that racial nation­al­ists humbly neglect this fun­da­men­tal verac­ity. Any doc­trine, belief, or con­vic­tion that does not embrace the basic processes of life — the chief among them being sex and pro­cre­ation — is defec­tive from the out­set and is likely only tem­porar­ily loi­ter­ing in our col­lec­tive psy­che before it is unmasked as a fraud­u­lent and aber­rant travesty.

It is excru­ci­at­ingly appar­ent that our ene­mies (any group or indi­vid­ual which actively encour­ages our regional and global reduc­tion or extinc­tion) were cog­nisant of the truth that our unique race can effec­tively be ham­strung by impair­ing and repress­ing our nat­ural, fre­quently hor­monal, urges, long before our synapses finally fired-​up and assisted us in join­ing together the rather large and abun­dant dots. Con­se­quently, it should come as no rev­e­la­tion to us (we who fully under­stand our inter­na­tional plight) that our ene­mies pro­mote entirely anti­thet­i­cal prac­tises to those regarded as nor­mal and salu­bri­ous by our forefathers.

Fem­i­nism – or the pro­mul­ga­tion of the hatred of White men – is a form of psy­cho­log­i­cal con­di­tion­ing devel­oped by our oppo­nents; it effec­tively under­mines the con­ven­tional inter­de­pen­dence that tra­di­tion­ally existed between White men and women. The schiz­o­phrenic ver­dict espoused by imbe­ciles that gen­der is osten­si­bly a com­po­si­tion of social and cul­tural dif­fer­ences, rather than a com­plex array of entrenched bio­log­i­cal vari­a­tions, is patently moronic, though it is widely rat­i­fied nev­er­the­less. It is a cruel dialec­ti­cal sub­terfuge that the entirely jus­ti­fi­able and war­ranted eman­ci­pa­tion of women, and their ele­va­tion to a legal sta­tus equal to that of men, has been amal­ga­mated with the sin­gu­lar seething loathing for our peo­ple — a thought which con­sumes the minds and motives of many Jews and the fren­zied rene­gades within our own race.

Sim­i­larly, the pro­mo­tion of the Negro male[3] by a hos­tile media cre­ates dis­so­nance between the sexes; pres­sur­ing the Mas­cu­line to mimic the behav­iour of, or become piti­fully obse­quious towards, the afore­men­tioned per­son­ages — who rep­re­sent the bisec­tion of a com­pet­ing human sub­species — and the Fem­i­nine to seek his sex­ual atten­tion. The resul­tant inter­ra­cial con­tact does not ben­e­fit our race. In point of fact, the after­math of mis­ce­gena­tion is the genticide[4] of our race, wherein pre­cious genetic mate­r­ial fails to be dis­sem­i­nated and com­bined (due to the pres­ence of com­peti­tors) or is per­pet­u­ally con­t­a­m­i­nated with for­eign DNA.

Other malig­nant ord­nance unleashed against us includes the unnec­es­sary abor­tion of healthy White foe­tuses; the endorse­ment and cham­pi­onship of homo­sex­u­al­ity (and numer­ous — and ever grow­ing — cog­nate vari­eties of sex­ual degen­er­acy and per­ver­sion); and the advo­cacy of ful­fill­ing and stim­u­lat­ing careers, espe­cially when directed at our women, who become pre­oc­cu­pied by their paid, heavily-​taxed, hob­bies in lieu of the cre­ation of fam­ily units. The sti­fling of our pro­lif­er­a­tion is a bio­log­i­cal weapon and it is being deployed with­out mercy.

But pro­lif­er­a­tion is not sim­ply the mechan­i­cal pro­ce­dure of pro­duc­ing off­spring: it insin­u­ates some­thing more exhaus­tive, sweep­ing, and pro­found. Cer­tainly we require more White peo­ple, but we should not pro­pose a red line or an upper limit. Our pro­lif­er­a­tion must be bound­less, uncon­strained by triv­ial notions such as the earth’s finite nat­ural resources. Our tech­no­log­i­cal genius is inex­haustibly pro­fi­cient and able to alle­vi­ate all mat­ters mate­r­ial, while our bur­geon­ing con­vic­tion will finally encour­age us to sever the eth­i­cal umbil­i­cal cord that has so dis­as­trously teth­ered us to our racial competitors.

It is true that in ages past smaller fam­ily sizes made sound eco­log­i­cally sense. Dur­ing the last glacial period (the Ice Age), for instance, proto-​Europeans would habit­u­ally con­ceive only one or two off­spring, but would pro­vide for their prog­eny an unpar­al­leled level of parental care and instruc­tion. Due to the severe envi­ron­men­tal con­di­tions of the North­ern hemi­sphere dur­ing the Pleis­tocene epoch, the pro­duc­tion of fewer, though more adapt­able, chil­dren was a dis­tinct evo­lu­tion­ary advan­tage and per­mit­ted our ances­tors to flour­ish in excep­tion­ally grim and chal­leng­ing ter­rains. This gen­er­a­tive behav­iour is at odds with the char­ac­ter­is­ti­cally fecund human beings endemic to the warmer South­ern continents.

In the cur­rent geo­log­i­cal epoch (the Ceno­zoic) our abil­ity to adapt to envi­ron­men­tal con­di­tions has shifted from the phys­i­cal world to the con­vo­luted grot­tos of the psy­che. Per­spi­ca­cious mem­bers of our idio­syn­cratic eth­nic group have begun to under­stand that in order to with­stand geno­cide [gen­ti­cide] we must adapt our vis­ceral sur­vival mech­a­nism and emerge as a crea­ture ‘most respon­sive to change.’ The pro­duc­tion of many White chil­dren is now essen­tial given the shrink­ing global rep­re­sen­ta­tion of our folk and other dolor­ous fac­tors, such as mis­ce­gena­tion, mass non-​White immi­gra­tion, high non-​White birth rates, uncon­scionable polit­i­cal admin­is­tra­tions, and an enemy-​occupied media.

As we are no longer forced to con­tend with the ardu­ous haz­ards syn­ony­mous with a pro­longed glacial period, a high White natal­ity should be viewed as desir­able, par­tic­u­larly when we reflect upon the mon­u­men­tal accom­plish­ments of our race and its rare and ven­er­a­ble gift: the adven­ti­tious pro­duc­tion of geniuses and men and women of great esteem, mar­vels which are notice­ably less preva­lent in our bio­log­i­cal com­peti­tors. Our latent poten­tial will never be realised unless we beget bil­lions of healthy, hardy, and inge­nious descen­dents. We can­not stop short of this — our thoughts can­not stray to merely replac­ing our dwin­dling population.

We must proliferate!


[1] King James Bible, Gen­e­sis 1:28.

[2] Oswald Spen­gler, The Decline of the West, 1918.

[3] In 1921, the father of the (racial) inte­gra­tionist move­ment in Amer­ica, Franz Boas, who appears to have been a racial Jew, admit­ted the destruc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tic of what has been called a human­i­tar­ian cru­sade: “It would seem– that, man being what he is, the Negro prob­lem will not dis­ap­pear in Amer­ica until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recog­nised.”

[4] Gen­ti­cide is lin­guis­ti­cally the cor­rect form of this con­trived word, which was cob­bled together from mis­matched com­po­nent parts: the Greek genos, mean­ing “race, kin, tribe” and the suf­fix –cide, from the Latin “killing.” The mis­shapen locu­tion was first coined by a Russ­ian Jew, Raphael Lemkin, in 1943 and employed in his Axis Rule in Occu­pied Europe: Laws of Occu­pa­tion — Analy­sis of Gov­ern­ment — Pro­pos­als for Redress, in 1944. Lemkin, a lawyer by trade, become a Supreme Court advi­sor dur­ing the piti­less post-​war witch hunt fiasco known as the Nurem­berg Tri­als before he relo­cated to the United States of America.

On Dylann Roof’s 'Manifesto'

via The Occidental Observer

Before Dylann Roof set out to commit the shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church, he set up a very simple web-site called LastRhodesian.com and posted there a manifesto that referred to his intended actions. I think that it is worthwhile to examine Roof’s manifesto for some clues about how he ended up doing what he did.

Roof says that he grew up in the South, having “a small amount of racial awareness, simply because of the numbers of Negroes in this part of the country.” Southerners in general probably do have a better sense, compared to White people from other places, about how Blacks behave. This was not a clear White racial consciousness however; rather it was the kind of dissimulating defensiveness promoted by the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, with its rhetoric of deflective counter-accusation characterized by Roof as “Blacks are the real racists.”

Roof was shocked out of this weak orientation based on fear of being called “racist” by the drumbeat of anti-White propaganda that began with the absurdly biased reporting on the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in 2012 and 2013:
The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?
Although Roof’s main theme was biased media-coverage of Black-on-White crime, this was not mentioned in an article on Roof’s manifesto by one of the leading culprits, the New York Times.

There is no question that the biased publicity over the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin caused an increase of violence by Blacks against Whites. Two months after the original incident in the case, Darryl Owens called attention to some of the ramifications of the media-coverage in the Orlando Sentinel:
Let’s call it Trayvon Piñata.
How’s it played?
Simple. Gather at least two or up to 30 players (usually black, but not always). Target some unsuspecting, blameless white person. Confront. Spout some racial pap. Stomp the stuffing out of him in Trayvon’s name.
Rip-roaring fun!
It’s all the rage — these outrageous acts of vengeance born out of misplaced rage.
Gainesville was the scene earlier this month of two rounds of Trayvon Piñata.
In the first attack, five to eight black people allegedly pounded a 27-year-old white guy as he walked home, according to the Gainesville Sun. The goons shouted “Trayvon!” before laying into him.
In the second assault, a crowd reportedly pounced on a white guy who’d chased down a black purse-snatcher and pinned him. Unaware of the circumstances, some began shouting “Trayvon,” egging on several group members who stomped the good Samaritan’s hands to free his quarry. [Darryl Owens, Orlando Sentinel, 27 April 2012 ]
The game was not limited to Florida. In Chicago 18-year-old Alton L. Hayes III and a minor accomplice robbed a 19-year-old White man, then gratuitously beat him, telling police later that they did it because of Trayvon Martin and because the man was White (Huffington Post, 26 April 2012).

In Mobile, Alabama, Matthew Owens was beaten nearly to death by a mob of 20 or more Blacks in front of his home. After the attack, one of the Black attackers declared, “Now that’s justice for Trayvon!” (New York Daily News, 25 April 2012).

The mood of vengefulness generated by mass-media during the period following the death of Trayvon Martin was pervasive and palpable, and some influence thereof could be reasonably presumed as a contributing factor in any Black-on-White violence during that period, whether explicitly stated or not.

In March 2012 in Kansas City, Missouri, one month after the publicity about Trayvon Martin began, a 13-year-old boy returning home from school was doused in gasoline and set on fire by two older Black boys who said: “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, White boy.” (Daily Mail, 4 March 2012).

John McWhorter, writing in Time about the shooting-death of an Australian college student by a Black male in Oklahoma, says that racially motivated Black-on-White violence like the Kansas City incident is “hardly uncommon”:
So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them. [John McWhorter, “Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder,” Time, 22 August 2013]
Time of course is about as mainstream and respectable as any monthly news-periodical could be, yet it plainly states that there is an anti-White and pro-Black racial bias in the reporting of violent crime. The real question is not how Dylann Roof came to the same conclusion in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case; rather the question is how anyone could have failed to understand it by now.

In 2014 and 2015 the mass-media seem to have been obsessed with publicizing any possible case of misconduct toward Blacks by police, beginning with the accusations against policeman Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. It was predictable that there would be retaliatory violence generated by that propaganda as well. The first such incident was the murder of two New York City policemen, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu (neither of them White, but then neither was George Zimmerman), as they sat in their police-vehicle. The fact that the young Black male suspect, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was motivated by media-hoopla against the police was apparent in his posts on Instagram before the crime:
Brinsley allegedly posted a photo of a gun with the caption, “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs,” officials said. He used the hashtags ‘Shootthepolice’ ‘RIPErivGardner (sic)‘ and ‘RIPMikeBrown. [CBS New York, 20 December 2014]
That was only the first of a number of such scattered incidents of anti-police violence induced by mass-media. The alleged murder of Trayvon Martin, in the accusation’s original form, was also supposed to have been a conspiracy of the police.

For many who become racially conscious, it began with noticing absurd anti-White bias in the news. Dr. William Pierce, in an essay about the evolution of his thinking (“The Radicalizing of an American,” 1978) mentions that an important moment for him was when he saw bias in news-coverage about the Civil Rights Movement; he saw that television news always showed the least credible and least attractive representatives of the pro-White side, for example screeching overweight housewives in hair-curlers, rather than someone like the one-time C.E.O. of Delta Airlines, Carleton Putnam, who wrote two books defending segregation.

What Dr. Pierce did next, and what Dylann Roof did after observing anti-White media-bias, was to look for sources of truth. Dr. Pierce read books and eventually learned about Jewish control of mass-media as the explanation for anti-White media-bias. Roof on the other hand found a trove of documentation about Black-on-White violent crime on the Internet, and this made a great impression on him.

In his radio broadcasts in the 1990s, Dr. Pierce would sometimes begin a discussion by referring to an instance of Black-on-White crime, as a way to catch the interest of White listeners, but the ultimate focus was never on Blacks. It was on the real powers — especially Jewish control of mass-media — that made Blacks into the problem that they had become.

A defining factor in Dylann Roof’s course of action is that he retained this commonplace but mistaken idea about where the real problem was. Because unruly Blacks were obvious, and because mainstream conservative media and even much of White-advocacy media never mentions Jewish activism as contributing to the Black problem, Dylann Roof mistakenly regarded the Black problem as primary, writing 1484 of the 2444 words in his manifesto under the heading “Blacks.” Roof describes Blacks as “the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.”

What Roof writes about Blacks suggests that he has read accounts of research often cited as supporting a race-realist perspective. His comments are a sort of poor man’s summary of Philippe Rushton’s research on racial differences: relative to Whites, on average Blacks have a lower IQ, less self-control, and higher testosterone levels; and they commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime. Roof also correctly states that Blacks act with much more racial solidarity than Whites.

Roof offers two theories as to why Black misbehavior is tolerated. One is that Blacks are held to a lower standard because, whether we admit it or not, we regard them as inferior and expect less of them: therefore they get indulgence. The other theory is White guilt, particularly on account of Black sufferings under slavery and segregation. Roof thinks that Black suffering under slavery and segregation have been exaggerated:
We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.
The indulgence given to Blacks because of this spurious guilt, he says, causes suffering to the principal victims to date of the anti-White revolution poor and working class Whites who do not have the means to get away from Blacks:
But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among Negroes? No one, but someone has to.
Dylann Roof looks around himself and finds again and again that in racial matters, what is done in the name of justice is usually gross injustice. Once upon a time a minority of Whites owned Negro slaves. Now poor Whites whose ancestors probably never owned slaves must bear guilt and other sufferings for it. There is no justice in that.

Roof also sees no justice in what has been happening in Europe, where the same racially destructive processes are being imposed without the justifications that are offered in the United States, which suggests that those justifications are really only excuses:
I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race.
Roof mentions “the Jewish problem” and “Jewish agitation of the Black race” but treats it as less important than what he seems to regard as an inherent tendency in Blacks to take offense when no offense is intended. Roof seems to have no inkling that Blacks were not always as unruly and dangerous as they have become, especially since the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s which, for example, saw the beginning of the dramatic decline in all of the markers of family-functioning among Blacks. He is unaware of the origin of the current troubles between Blacks and Whites in the “Black-Jewish alliance” that E. Michael Jones discusses here:

Obviously, the Council of Conservative Citizens, by publicizing factual information about Black-on-White crime, is not responsible for Dylann Roof’s action. If CCC could be held responsible for that, then it would certainly be reasonable to hold television-networks liable for the killings of police that resulted from their biased reporting of the Darren Wilson case, etc. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the conflict between Black and White is really where the focus of pro-White media ought to be. Blacks most definitely do not form an elite, and they have little real power in shaping public discourse on race or in enacting legislation. Pro-White media should be making White people aware of the less obvious but much more important problem.

Roof says that he “found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race,” but he does not treat the Jewish problem as primary. He knows that Jews agitate Blacks but he does not seem to consider it a key cause of the trouble between Whites and Blacks. Under the heading of “Jews” in his manifesto Roof wrote only 138 words. He says that “unlike many White Nationalists” he regards Jews as White, and concludes with: “I don’t pretend to understand why Jews do what they do. They are [an] enigma.”

It is evident that Dylann Roof never spent much time reading The Occidental Observer. If he had, he’d have had some idea about why Jews do what they do.

Another reason for Roof’s course of action seems to be that he underestimated the importance of ideas (as Americans often do). I have occasionally encountered people who take the attitude that educating people is a useless activity, apparently because its effects are not immediately visible. In some cases they tried to tell somebody something once, and because that person was not immediately convinced, the effort was abandoned. They didn’t have the patience to keep trying. Affecting people’s attitudes and thinking is a slow process that requires perseverance. Then after thinking has been changed, the new thinking still requires opportunities to be implemented.  Anybody who thinks that educating people is pointless or futile probably is expecting tangible results much too quickly. From this impatient perspective, educating people is just talking, and talking equates to doing nothing. That seems to be Roof’s attitude:
To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I don’t see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.” To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.” … We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.
Note the wording. Roof dismisses talking; he wants to “see” somebody “doing” something, and he makes it clear that this means violence. Shooting people of course produces an immediate visible result, but the net result to any such premature illegal action is almost always counterproductive.

One point that I believe Dylann Roof has right is his point about the ability of quality to prevail over quantity. He rejects the view that a non-White majority means that Whites will be unable to master the situation:
To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. … It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely.
The most famous example from history of the supremacy of quality over quantity consists of the various conflicts between the ancient Greeks and the diverse, multicultural army of the Persian Empire. Grossly outnumbered by the motley Persian assemblage, the Greeks beat them again and again.

That observation, that all is not lost even when we are a minority, would seem to be a note of optimism, and an indication that patient and well-grounded approaches to the problem are to be preferred over hasty and desperate actions. I agree with that. Yet in his next sentence Roof says: “But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.”

That is a non sequitur. It seems to reflect Roof’s own impulsiveness rather than the foregoing argument. At best, one might suppose that he feels an obligation toward the White children in Charleston who must attend schools with Blacks, and hoped that a general race war would ensue from his initiative. It is hard to imagine how he thought his actions could have a significant effect on the Black population of Charleston. It is also not credible that there would be enough White copycat shooters to have any significant effect, except perhaps in terms of gratifying the craving of anti-White media for White-on-Black killings to report.  The illegal action that Dylann Roof undertook is utterly ineffectual for whatever pro-White goal he may have had in mind — certainly, even counterproductive.

Roof, I believe, was onto something when he said that Whites could prevail even against much more numerous non-White enemies. It is unfortunate that he did not follow through with the implications of that thought.

If White people are to prevail, the main prerequisite is to change their thinking. Just as Jewish activists in the media and academic world initiated a decades-long educational project to change White attitudes on race that were dominant in the 1920s, we must do the same. Whites must learn to think and feel differently about race, and about issues affecting racial solidarity. They must learn to be less impressed with quantity and more concerned with quality. This is a long-term educational project that must contend with the fact that at present all of the media high ground is occupied by the enemies of Whites, their interests, and their culture.

Dylann Roof’s impatience, his emphasis on immediate physical action rather than the battle for the mind, and his belief that Blacks rather than Jews are the main problem, all contributed to his action, and in fact they all seem to be interrelated. If Roof had recognized the paramount importance of ideas, he could not have imagined that it was Blacks telling us what to think; the possibility for a tiny minority of Jews to wield enormous power, however, would have been obvious. The answer to false information and bad ideas does not have to be violence: it can be true information and good ideas. But if the whole problem is seen as irrational violence and nothing more, then the choice becomes simply whether to fight or to retreat, which is how Roof framed his choice.

This implies something about what the focus of pro-White media ought to be. The focus should be not on the bright and noisy spectacle, but on the man behind the curtain who makes it all happen. This is something that must be emphasized.

Ideally, Blacks and Whites should be able to recognize some common interests and cooperate on those interests. There are very clear common interests in curtailing Black crime — since, according to the FBI, 90% of murders of Blacks are committed by other Blacks — and in stopping immigration.

All of the agitation of Black hostility toward Whites by the mass media, mostly on false premises, which has generated not only anti-White and anti-police violence by Blacks but also Dylann Roof’s response, certainly doesn’t make such cooperation any easier.

Will Sweden Be the First White Country Where Whites Become an Oppressed Minority?

via Swedish Surveyor

On the 23rd of September I became intrigued when reading an article in Swedens 3rd biggest newspapers. In the article a Norwegian working with statistics was shocked that the Swedish statistics institute (SCB), were doing a poor job. I decided to do some digging and bear with me because things are going to get real interesting, real fast. It boils down to the fact that the SCB are not using the same methods as the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada among many others.

What the forementioned countries do is measure their populations using ethnicity and/or race as variables. This sounds both discriminating, politically incorrect, and racist in Sweden but there is a good reason for using those variables which I will get to. I don’t think that Australians or Americans would consider themselves “racists” for measuring that way. An African-American is not “less worthy” than a Caucasian just because they are overrepresented in certain types of crime and vice-versa.

I do however believe that the countries mentioned would never use Swedish methods because the data becomes vague and isn’t useful when combating crime, improving education, decreasing unemployment etc.

Is the Central Bureau for Statistics (SCB) intellectually dishonest?
Swedens Demographics Composition in 2008: total population: 9 256 300

  • 14% of the population was born abroad:
  • 4% of the population had two parents born abroad:
  • 7% of the population: had one parent born abroad:

25% = 2 314 075 people

4 years later in 2013 15.7% of Swedes are categorised as having “foreign background”. This is despite the fact that Sweden, for the last couple of years, has had the highest number of asylum seekers per capita in the EU.

Foreign background according to the SCB is:
  • A) Being born abroad
  • B) Two Foreign-born parents
This gives rise to the following situations:

  • Swedish father + Congolese mother + born in Swe = Swedish
  • Swedish father + Swedish mother + born in USA = Foreign background
  • Iraqi father; 2nd gen. + Iraqi mother; 2nd gen. + born in Swe = Swedish

Or to take a more vivid and very extreme example

Abdul and Amina are refugees, get Swedish citizenship in 1972 and have a baby named Ayman in 1973. He has foreign background.

Achmed and Fatima are also refugees, get Swedish citizenship in 1970 and have a baby named Flora in 1972. She has foreign background.

Flora and Ayman grow up in one of Swedens 55 “no-go zones” and have a baby named Abdon in 1992. He is now Swedish. Abdon becomes deeply devoted to radical Islam and decides to join ISIS this year. (up to 300 other Swedes already have)

Lies, damn lies and statistics

By lumping people together it becomes easier to claim that the differences between “immigrants” and Swedes are less extreme when comparing birth rates, income, crime etc. They are essentially jumbling the data and defining the different groups as broadly as possible to present immigrants in a more favourable light.
For example:
  • Abdon, the radical Islamist, is Swedish in the statistics.
  • An “ethnic”* Swede going to Harvard can be non-Swedish in the statistics.
The SCB used ethnicity based methods until 1996. I strongly believe it was discontinued due to the fact that the truth was uncomfortable for politicians who control SCB. Immigrants and their children were clearly overrepresented in violent crime. That makes it hard to argue for immigration and easy to lose elections. My case becomes stronger when you take into account that the nationalist Sweden Democrats are the only party that want to reduce immigration. Simultaneously, Swedish journalists, to an overwhelming degree, vote for an extremist party that wants to open our borders completely. Which calls into question journalistic integrity and how democratic Sweden really is.

Worth noting is that Sweden was, just a couple of decades ago, one of the most homogenous countries on earth. Now 15,9% of the population is of foreign origin according to the SCB. Which makes me wonder how many Swedes are of “foreign origin” if you were to use ethnicity-based statistics or more narrow variables.

Furthermore, Sweden is expecting 95 000 individuals from the Middle East and North Africa in 2015. These asylum-seekers are (obviously) drawn here because we are the most generous welfare-state in the world. I am not in any way blaming them. It’s simply obvious that if you offer an Iraqi mother with 3 kids 3000 dollars a month you will receive more asylum seekers and immigrants than other countries. Meanwhile Sweden has a severe housing shortage which leads to a situation whereas the natives are perceived as living in luxury which increases tension from the start. Not to mention the fact that we have amongst the highest household debts, arguably a housing bubble, in combination with the current deflation.

Why are SCB’s statistics problematic?

1. Swedes were never asked in a referendum to increase immigration to the current levels. They are, arguably, given fudged data and have biased journalists so It may not have mattered even if they were given the option to choose.
2. The Swedish government has no idea how much it costs due to SCB’s statistics. Despite the fact that we take in more desperate asylum-seekers and welfare-seeking immigrants than any other country on earth. Which means that future Swedish taxpayers will pay for this madness.
3. Why should the hypothetical Abdon be happy that his grandparents were given asylum in Sweden? He has felt maltreated and poor compared to ethnic Swedes since he was born. This increases hatred between the ethnic groups.
4. We are now receiving ISIS fighters pretending to be refugees whilst 300 Swedish Muslims are estimated to have joined ISIS.
5. Meanwhile the government agency who handle immigration are notoriously incompetent and corrupt.
6. Many 3rd generation immigrants (=Swedes) will be born and bred in one of Swedens 55 “no-go zones”. These zones are crime-ridden and the police admit they have lost control there, or as they so eloquently put it:

In most areas, however, police consider themselves to be able to walk freely and patrol without fear of being attacked

7. What if “ethnic-Swedes”* are becoming a minority? With the current SCB methods, we will never know, will we?

*Ethnic-Swede is a hard word to define. For the sake of argument lets say great-grandparents, grandparents and parents born in Sweden. Which mind you doesn’t include me so don’t go pulling the race-card. It would be much more crude and extreme, in my opinion, to claim that they don’t exist. Regardless of wether you think they do or not I strongly believe that everyone has a right to know the exact demographics of Sweden with regards to ethnicity.

If SCB considers labelling problematic they could just ask people what ethnicity they consider themselves to be in a census hence avoiding potential public outrage.

So… will Swedes become a minority in their own country?

The question of as to wether or not Swedes will become a minority in their own country has several answers and it simply depends on your definition of a Swede. People of different ethnicities who identify as Swedes will always be around but the culture will change and they won’t look stereotypically Swedish. Due to globalisation and the extreme levels of immigration this will happen faster than what is normal in the rest of Europe.

For ethnic Swedes it is only a matter of time due to birth rates which are below population replacement levels. With the current levels of immigration and the higher birth rates among other ethnicities it will happen faster. There is no way to be sure but seeing as Sweden is a small country with less than 10 million citizens my guess would be in around 25 years i.e. 2040.

Add caption

A Tale of Two Narratives

via TradYouth

The recent spree shooting by Dylann Storm Roof is a travesty that cannot be rationalized.
Barging into a Church and firing on defenseless elderly people taking part in Bible study is not something that fits into the basic moral system of the vast majority of nationalists, whether they are Christians, National Socialists, secessionists, or anything else. In lieu of this, condemnation of the action has been almost unanimous amongst both suit and ties and revolutionaries.

There is a small number of people who point to the brutal and random violence that white people are subjected to by blacks on a daily basis as a sort of “tit-for-tat” justification for this kind of behavior, but real white power is rooted in our internalization of ethical consistency. This was not a situation where these victims were killed by accident or collateral damage, this was a cold-blooded attack that has no political significance for our race. Instead it empowers enemies with an agenda that is just as homicidal, but greater in scope, than the action of the bowl-cut butcher.

The real criminals here aren’t political dissidents, they’re the cynical Bar Mitzvah boys and Bat Mitzvah girls that have been typing away, bouncing new strategies off this tragedy with the intent of maximizing interracial violence and censorship of white people; hardly containing their joy at this crime in the process. While a minority of honest journalists have categorized this act as a manifestation of mental illness that should be categorized with other mass shooters like Elliot Rodgers and James Holmes, after the revelation that he was taking a psychiatric drug, the loudest entities see an opportunity to make this political. 

The Dreidel Rocks The Cradle

Some of the angles undertaken by the media are outright bizarre, but make sense when you see the pattern in the context of the war on Western civilization and its creators. One malicious piece by Emma Gray, “The History of Using White Female Sexuality to Justify Racist Violence” suggests that white women ought to fear and boycott white men and “white masculinity” because we’re all potential Dylann Roofs. The Jew Gray, who was indoctrinated to hate Gentiles at the Habonim Dror Camp Moshava in Maryland (a Jewish summer camp that on its website describes itself as a “Kibbutz-style co-ed Zionist youth camp”), practices real rape denialism by implying that white women who accuse black men of rape are lying!

She cites nothing but anecdotes in defiance of hard facts, such as the historical case of Emmett Till, the Michael Brown of his day, who had become the darling of the media in 1955, after the prophecy of Jewish political takeover featured in The Great Gatsby had long-since come true. Till allegedly was killed for flirting with a white woman, but only his cousin and an “anonymous source” that emerged decades later ever substantiated this claim. Carolyn Bryant, the woman at the center of the Till controversy, testified that Till had attempted to force himself on her until she escaped and grabbed her pistol, and when her 24 year old husband Roy Bryant learned about what happened, he flew into a rage and beat Till to death.

If these Jewish journalists were honest, they would disclose the fact that Emmett Till’s father, Louis Till, was court martialed and executed for the rape and murder of an Italian woman during World War 2, but they lie and omit for their political agenda. In America, despite the fact that black males are only 6% of the population, 35,000 white women are raped by black men every year, compared to 0-10 cases of the reverse. Any white woman who thinks these Jewish feminists are their friends better hope they are never one of the white women sexually assaulted by a black man every 34 minutes, because on the cultural Marxist food chain, you’re barely scraping the bottom.

Leftist Hypocrisy

The more typical angle has been to heckle Southerners, their heritage, and renewed calls for attacks on free expression and gun control. The Southern Poverty Law Center Kohanim, the millionaire Richard Cohen, has been using the publicity to demand the eradication of all public displays of the Confederate flag. The self-hating hipster Baynard Woods was given the floor at The Washington Post by the Jewish head editor Martin Baron, to collectively blame whites for the actions of one person. Woods’ pathology stems from guilt he feels for being part of the small minority of wealthy whites who owned slaves in America. This warped young man from South Carolina has found enablers for his mental illness with the urban Jews giving his complex oxygen, and putting his self-hatred on display, as seen in an act of archetypical journalistic malpractice in the Baltimore City Paper last April, framing the Freddie Gray narrative with nothing but lies, as the sole Gentile signing his name next to co-authors Evan Serpick, Brandon Soderberg, and Caitlin Goldblatt.

None of these individuals ever show any outrage when innocent white people are murdered. In fact, their job is to hide and justify it. Global Jewish oligarch George Soros’ 33 million dollars allocated specifically to cause racial strife out of thin air in Ferguson bought an intense climate over an unjust cause that directly led to the brutal hate crime death of a white St. Louis man at the hands of a hammer-wielding black lynch mob. The story did not get any attention outside of some brief conservative air time, that never puts things in the right perspective.

The Genocide in South Africa, and the Monsters Who Condone It

While racial nationalists have for the most part condemned Roof’s attack, the ethical contrast between ourselves and the system browbeating us at the moment is blinding. A perfect juxtapose to the Charleston shooting happened on July 25th, 1993, when black terrorists from the Azanian People’s Liberation Army barged into St James Church in Cape Town, murdering 11 people and wounding 58 others–old, young, and in-between–in a military assault aimed specifically at whites attending a service. Bassie Mkhumbuzi, Gcinikhaya Makoma and Tobela Mlambisa, the organizers and participants, were pardoned and released only 5 years later by the black-ruled government after lodging an appeal justifying their actions:
“Whites used churches to oppress blacks. They took our country using churches and bibles. We know and we have read from books they are the ones who have taken the land from us,”
Gchinikaya Makoma went on to kill again. In 2012 he was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to life in prison. This time he killed a black person, and only then was he treated as a criminal.

The most nefarious move by the Judeo-Left, however, is its atrocious support for the mass murder of whites in South Africa. This mindset is typified by Sally Frankental’s “authoritative” book, South Africa’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook (2005), which has a section speaking on the matter titled “Farm Killings and Farm Evictions: Ethnic Cleansing or Class Struggle?”:
“One possible explanation is that the criminals who kill farmers are usually former farm laborers, recently fired and/or evicted from farms where they have lived most of their lives. Given that the old racist and abusive regime still operates on most of the farms, the violence is part of a continuing farm labor “policy”, and the killings are connected to the abuse and murder of farm workers” (pg 219).
Jewish and Marxist “intellectuals” call it “class struggle”
Jewish and Marxist “intellectuals”
call it “class struggle”
It doesn’t matter to these genocidal maniacs and the savages they unleash on whites that most rural Boers in South Africa are poor, institutionally racially discriminated against despite being a tiny minority, and have their applications for asylum to Europe and the America’s rejected as a rule. The Jew Frankental, the former director of the University of Cape Town’s “Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies and Research”, provides an incredible “intellectual” justification for the irrational black violence against thousands of whites at the hands of marauding gangs that no black would ever do the mental gymnastics to come up with on their own.

The babies are killed by being boiled in scolding water. The women are gang raped, often penetrated with broomsticks or shotguns. The old people are forced to watch their family get tortured to death until they have their skulls bludgeoned by South African establishment figures such as Julius Malema. Thousands are being slaughtered, with nothing in their house stolen. And it is all obfuscated by the Jewish-run media, because they want it to continue happening and they want to export it to Europe and the rest of the New World.

This is of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas putting on a show about “white privilege” and the “violence of white racism” in the mass media, as well as the Jews bolstering them, financing them, and writing the scripts they read, all secretly believe that the white babies being mutilated by blacks in unspeakable ways in rural South African homes–with pictures of these crimes often showing their poverty with boarded-up windows and dwellings in desperate need of repair–deserve it.

The animosity isn’t class based, because blacks don’t touch the Anglo-descended businessmen or the Jewish precious mineral gangsters they brought with them after the Boer war, living together in gated communities. They also don’t go after the blacks in charge who have sold them out and lowered their living wages and living standards to far below Apartheid level. The hate is racial, against mostly poor and vulnerable whites, and nothing else.

Don’t let these people make you feel responsible for the lone and isolated action of one white person, just like Muslims aren’t all responsible for ISIS. We don’t need to apologize because we’re on the right side of history. They have no moral high ground, they are eagerly anticipating the day that white people in America are a minority, preferably disarmed. The dream of the anti-white writers on Gawker and the Huffington Post isn’t to join hands and sing Kumbaya; it’s to create conditions so they can watch your family get raped and killed, and laugh as the perpetrators get away with it by arguing that it is “class struggle”.

Anti-Defamation League endorsed/bankrolled black activists and politicians sometimes talk about the scourge of ‘black-on-black crime’ , but don’t think black on white crime is even a crime. None of these sanctimonious self-styled media “civil rights commentators” will condemn what blacks are doing to Boers in South Africa. They secretly, or not so secretly, laud it and hope for more.

This is why I wish Dylann Roof would’ve reflected on his terrible idea, would not have not been plied with SSRIs, and would have done some productive work instead. We need all hands on deck, not in prison, so we can fight the system in constructive ways from a position of strength, rather than petulantly lashing out at random church ladies and making every enemy of our race’s dream come true.

Now Shakespeare Is too White: Teacher Offended by Shakespeare's 'White' Male Perspective

via Campus Reform

A high school English teacher inspired a heated debate over the weekend after writing that she does not want to teach Shakespeare to her students.

“I do not believe that I am ‘cheating’ my students because we do not read Shakespeare,” Dana Dusbiber, who teaches at Luther Burbank High School in Sacramento California, wrote in The Washington Post over the weekend.

“I do not believe that a long-dead, British guy is the only writer who can teach my students about the human condition.”

The veteran teacher declared that she has a “dislike” of reading Shakespeare because of her own “personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate,” and because there is “a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.”

The Common Core English Language Arts Standards include Shakespeare as a high school requirement.

Dusbiber wrote that Shakespeare lived in a “pretty small world” and that it “might now be appropriate for us to acknowledge him as chronicler of life as he saw it 450 years ago and leave it at that.”

“What I worry about is that as long as we continue to cling to ONE (white) MAN’S view of life as he lived it so long ago, we (perhaps unwittingly) promote the notion that other cultural perspectives are less important,” wrote Dusbiber.

Dusbiber argued that students could learn from other forms of world literature including from African, Latin American, and Southeast Asian.

Dusbiber asked why “do our students not deserve to study these ‘other’ literatures with equal time and value? And if time is the issue in our classrooms, perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.”

Despite being a mainstay at many high schools across the country, Shakespeare studies have declined in higher education. A recent report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only four of the 52 “elite institutions” studied—Harvard University, University of California at Berkeley, the U.S. Naval Academy and Wellesley College—required English majors to study Shakespeare.

Dusbiber concluded her argument stating that all students, not just minorities, can benefit from a “less Eurocentric” approach to studying literature.

“If we only teach students of color, as I have been fortunate to do my entire career, then it is far past the time for us to dispense with our Eurocentric presentation of the literary world. Conversely, if we only teach white students, it is our imperative duty to open them up to a world of diversity through literature that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives,” wrote Dusbiber.

Matthew Truesdale, an English teacher at Wren High School in Piedmont, S.C., wrote a response the same day in the Washington Post. Truesdale argued that “Shakespeare is more than just a ‘long dead British guy,’ and I believe he has much to teach us about the modern human condition.”

“To dismiss Shakespeare on the grounds that life 450 years ago has no relation to life today is to dismiss every religious text, every piece of ancient mythology (Greek, African, Native American, etc.), and for that matter, everything that wasn’t written in whatever time defined as ‘NOW,’” wrote Truesdale.

Truesdale argued that just because Shakespeare was a “white male” does not mean that “a humane, progressive, and even diverse portrayal of the complexities of race and gender” is not present in his work.

Truesdale criticized Dusbiber’s argument that “students shouldn’t have to read Shakespeare because other literature ‘better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students’” as one that is largely “reductive” and “turns the English classroom into a place where no one should be challenged or asked to step out of their comfort zone, where we should not look beyond ourselves.”

Teaching Shakespeare, he argued, does not necessarily mean excluding non-Western literature.

“In fact, why not work to draw links between the two? And should we only read authors that look like us and have experiences like us? Or for that matter, does a commonality in skin color mean a commonality in experience? I teach at a rural South Carolina school with a mostly white population—should I only teach white authors?” he argued.

“What she really seems to be saying is that no one should read anything that isn’t just like them, and if that’s her position as an English teacher, then she should maybe consider a different line of work,” wrote Truesdale.

The Genocidal Plot to Bring over 50 Million Africans into Europe

via Renegade Tribune

While browsing through my Twitter feed, I came across this tweet from Lana of Red Ice Creations: "From 2008, relevant now: Secret Plot to let 50mill Africans into EU http://bit.ly/1mSvOo4 This is population replacement, genocidal plot"

Here is an excerpt from the 2008 Express (UK) article:
A controversial taxpayer-funded “job centre” opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”.
Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe.
The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.
It states: “Countries with low fertility rates could require a significant number of immigrants over the coming dec­ades if they want to maintain the existing number of people of working age.
“Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.”
Wow! So instead of creating programs to incentivize young Europeans to have more children, the “elite” have decided that the only way to deal with declining birth rates in Europe is to import over 50 million Africans. They can take the jobs that would have gone to European men, and if that was not enough, these Africans can also take the European women. In fact, it may even become state policy at some point!

Nicholas Sarkozy:
What is the goal? It’s going to be controversial.
The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21st Century. It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. It’s imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We risk finding ourselves confronted with major problems. We MUST change; therefore we WILL change. We are going to change ALL at the same time. In business, in administration, in education, in the political parties. And we will obligate ourselves as to results. If this volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move to still more coercive measures.
This plan is nothing new. In fact, the plan to genocide the European people is at the foundation of the European Union. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna in 1922, which eventually led to the EU.
From his book Practical Idealism:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]
Wesley Clark

Not surprisingly the masterminds behind the racial destruction of Europeans are almost exclusively jewish.

My question is: when will enough be enough? When we will take matters into our own hands and deal with the genocidal maniacs behind the “secret plot” to bring over 50 million Africans into Europe?

They deserve to be hanged, drawn, and quartered!

Sticking it to Stalin: Operation Barbarossa and the Saving of the West

via Alternative Right

Today is the anniversary of the German invasion of Russia, known to history by the name Operation Barbarossa. This was the start of what was undoubtedly the most titanic struggle in human history, between two incredible fighting machines, the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army.

Typically it is presented as a simple German act of aggression in pursuit of something called Lebensraum, and no doubt it was, but it was much more than that. It was also part of a great ideological and geopolitical struggle, and an event that had an enormous and unexpected impact on the world.

Those on the alternative right tend to view Hitler's decision to attack Russia as an unfortunate event, both because it was a war in which White man killed White man, and because it laid the foundations of the globalist, anti-White world we live in now. It is difficult not to sympathize with that position and to have wished that Hitler had never made his ill-fated decision to launch three million men and three thousand tanks against the numerically superior Red Army. But if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, how would the world have been different?

When hostilities commenced exactly 74 years ago today, Germany was already involved in the occupation of France and several other countries as well as an unresolved war with the British Empire that it had no simple way of winning. The Soviet Union meanwhile had revealed itself to be an entirely ruthless and expansionary nation itself.

To view Nazi Germany as the only brutal and voracious state in Europe is clearly a mistake. In 1939, the Soviet Union had participated in the same invasion of Poland that had involved Germany in war with Britain and France. That same Winter the Red Army launched a massive, unprovoked attack against Finland, which bravely resisted. After heavy losses, this resulted in gains that the Russians continue to hold to this day. 1940 also saw the Soviet invasion of the peaceful Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

In each of these cases, whenever the Red Army rolled into town, the NKVD was not far behind. Tens of thousands of innocent people were arrested, tortured, and "disappeared," as with the executions of Polish officers and other elites at Katyn Forest.

Blokhin without his leather apron.
The chief Soviet executioner, Vasily Blokhin, personally dealt with a quota of 300 executions a night. Dressed in a leather apron and leather gloves, he would wait in a soundproof room, painted bright red with a sloping floor and drain, and shoot the prisoners as they were brought in one-by-one in the base of the skull. For these and other heroic services he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner, twice (1940, 1944), the Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943), the Order of Lenin (1945), and the Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945). Blokhin and his master, Stalin, typify the kind of regime that the Soviet Union was.

The idea that nothing would have happened if Hitler had sat still seems extremely unlikely. There is every indication that Stalin had plans to expand further West. The rapid German successes of 1940, when France unexpectedly fell and the British retreated to their home island, no doubt upset his calculations. Stalin’s plan was to allow Germany and the Western powers to exhaust themselves in the West, while he built up his strength in the East. This strategy was revealed in a speech he gave six months before WWII, when tensions were high following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia:
"Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally 'in the interest of peace,' to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents."
Stalin quoted in Stalins Falle by Adolf von Thadden
It is a remarkable fact that when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the Red Army had a three-to-one superiority in tanks and aircraft, and they were already mass producing their main battle tank of the war, the T-34. This was not some peaceful Ruritania cruelly invaded by the fascist jackboot.

Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, a Soviet intelligence officer who defected to the UK in 1978, wrote a famous book Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? under the pen name Viktor Suvorov. This contends that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by the Germans against a Soviet invasion that was planned for July 6th. While this date seems a little too precise and Rezun's thesis over-dramatic, the essence of his claims are far from preposterous.

Military expansion was in high gear well before the Germans even invaded Poland. By 1941, the Red Army surpassed 5 million men. According to historian Roger Reese:
"There were 198 rifle divisions in 1941, compared to fewer than 30 in 1927; 31 motorized rifle divisions in 1941 and none in 1927; 61 tank divisions in 1941 and none as late as 1939."
Roger Reese, Stalin's Reluctant Soldiers: A Social History of the Red Army, 1925-1941
It is often said that the bloody nose the Red Army received from the Finns in the Winter War, in which they suffered over 300,000 casualties, persuaded Stalin to avoid war with Germany for as long as possible. This is not entirely believable.
Firstly, the Winter War was fought under unusual conditions that would not be repeated in a Summer war with Germany; secondly the Red Army was concentrating much of its build-up on offensive weapons like tanks and planes, and believed in a theory of offensive warfare; and, thirdly, when the Germans struck, much of the Red Army was exposed by being placed too far forward in positions more suited to attack than defence. This last reason also accounted for the extremely high number of Red Army casualties in the opening months. Soviet officers, like Major General Pyotr Grigorenko commented on the large concentration of Soviet forces near the German frontier in occupied Poland:
"More than half the troops of the Western Special Military District were stationed around Bialystok and to the west, therefore in territory extending like a wedge deeply into that of the probable enemy. A troop arrangement of this kind would only have been justifiable... if these troops had been earmarked to launch a surprise attack. Otherwise, half of them would have been surrounded in a moment."
Quoted in Unternehmen Barbarossa by Walter Post
But whatever the exact details of the military situation, it is clear that Stalin believed war with Germany was inevitable, and was hoping to pick the moment, preferably after Germany had been weakened by other conflicts, and intended to fight it on advantageous terms with a great superiority of force. If the Germans had not attacked, you can sure that the Red Army would have done so, at least within a few years.
Preemptive war?
But surely none of this is important, some will say. After all, Germany lost the war anyway, and all of Eastern Europe fell under Communist tyranny for 40 years. Yes, that’s true but think of the difference between a war of Stalin’s own choosing and the one foisted upon him by operation Barbarossa.

In the first case, the Red Army would be starting from the line of the Vistula and advancing in full strength against a Germany involved in war with Britain and possibly America. Victory would have meant the conquest of not only Eastern Europe, but probably also Central and even Western Europe, with Germany and France falling into the Stalinist orbit. We can guess what kind of job opportunities this would have created for the likes of Vasily Blokhin.

Instead of this scenario, however, the Red Army got the stuffing kicked out of it and started its advance from the Volga. By the time they reached Berlin, they had lost around 14 million servicemen dead and many millions more wounded. They were a much weakened and demoralized force that was incapable of going much further against organized resistance, and could only be impelled forward by the prospect of raping German women.

Operation Barbarossa was also a major factor in bringing America into the war, both by raising the stakes and by making American involvement in a war against Germany an easier burden to bear. Without an Eastern Front, the US would have faced the full brunt of German power in the Battle of the Atlantic and North Africa, the likely point of engagement. It is unlikely that the US would have relished that. Operation Barbarossa made American involvement in the European war a much easier proposition, and was thus the reason that the Americans were in Europe at the end of WWII, armed with nuclear weapons, and able to keep the Red Army at bay.

Operation Barbarossa was many things, including a brutal grasp by the Nazis for living space, but it was also a historical event of overwhelming importance that, in the dislocation of Stalin’s evil plans for World dominance and the damage it inflicted on the Red Army, was the main reason that Western Europe remained free to make its own mistakes in the post-war period.