Aug 11, 2015

‘He Has No Offers’: The Anti-White Gap in American Football

via Caste Football

High school teams that win their state championship in football are often predominantly White (often from suburbs surrounding big cities). It is the exception when predominantly black (urban) teams defeat suburban teams.

In roughly half of the 50 states, the leading high school running backs are white. Yet 99% of the running backs in the major college football programs are black.

Many white kids also dominate at the high school level at wide receiver and all defensive positions. Yet the major college programs have followed the lead of the NFL and are phasing out white players on defense and most offensive positions.

The NFL was racially integrated in the 1950s. In the integrated NFL of the 1960s, ’70s and into the ’80s, there were white stars at every position that is now all-black.

The reality is that from the Pop Warner level on, whites are racially slotted in football. It is only when there are few or no blacks that whites are “allowed” to play running back, wide receiver, defensive lineman, safety and cornerback. And even though every year there are roughly as many whites who star at those positions in high school as blacks, the “scouting services” are racially biased against whites, and so is the recruiting by the major college programs. That is how travesties such as the 2015 NFL Draft come about, when just one white player was drafted in the first round.

There is no shortage, for example, of excellent white high school running backs who have been told flat-out by college coaches that they do not recruit white running backs. They can say this and get away with it because no one who is prominent will speak out against it; in fact anyone who did would himself be called a “racist” just for pointing out anti-white racism. The reality is that big-time college football programs and the NFL practice extremist “affirmative action” policies in favor of blacks and against whites (and everyone else).

Take a gander at this thread, titled the Class of 2016, compiled by various Caste Football posters, in particular Dolphin15, about some top white high school football players. Here’s a sample from the thread, which can be found in its entirety here:

What do most of these players have in common? Hint: look for the words “has no offers” and notice how few offers most of the others have and how they are usually not from major programs.

In the paper today there is a blurb about Zac Kerxton, a junior WR for Battlefield HS in Haymarket, VA. He is 6-0, 180. In 12 games this year he has 56 receptions for 1,362 yards and 24 TDs. In the past 3 games he has had 2 four TD games. Battlefield is 11-1 and plays this Saturday for a spot in the VA 6A regionals.

Definitely one to keep an eye on. Maybe he’ll be able to walk-on at a Division I program since he’s got the wrong pigmentation to actually be offered a scholarship.

Blair Mulholland-Rivals 3 Star, Ran a 4.47 at a sparq combine, played on the number 1 team inWisconsin(Kimberly) has one offer from North Dakota.

Chad Crosbie- Ran for 1,286yds and 11TD’s for Trabuco Hills in California on a state champion team. Has no offers.

David Feliciano- Played for the State Champs and number one team in Texas at Allen High. A bigger back with good speed.

Triston Fairchild- Ran for 1,540yds and 20TD’s at Papilon La Vista South in Nebraska. Has one offer from Bryant.

Liam Morrissey- Ran for 1,545yds and 25TD’s for Lincoln-Way East in Illinois. Has great speed, no offers.

Masen Mitchell- A smaller back with good quickness and speed. Has over 800yards rushing in 6games. Plays defense as well. Plays at Chalmate in Louisiana. Has no offers.

Noah Lisk- A speedster from Carroll High School in Corpus Christi Texas. Hits the hole and is explosive. Has no offers.
Chris Haas- Plays for Coronado High in California. Has no offers.

Twinkletoes already mentioned Cole Gest who is an absolute stud. He plays at St. Edward in Ohio who was the number one ranked team in Ohio. He’s super quick and has speed. He are his highlights.

Jason Pirtle-He plays at Locust Grove in Oklahoma. He has no offers. Although he put up mind boggling numbers. He had 99 receptions for 2,096YD’s and 29TD’s. It’s absolutely ridiculous he doesn’t have an offer.

Travis Brannan- Playsrunning back at Vandergrift in Texas. Rushed for 2,680YD’s and 38TD’s but doesn’t have an offer. We all know why.

Austyn Borre- Plays running back at Pleasant Valley in Pennsylvania. Very well built. Said on his twitter he did 19 reps of 225. Breaks a lot of tackles. And has numerous long plays where he shows off hisspeed. He should be a big time prospect but has no offers.

Chris Schwarz- Plays at River Ridge in Florida. Ran for2,689YDS and 27TD’s. He’s very explosive and hits the hole very well. Has one offer from Division 2 Florida Tech.

Christian McStravik- Plays at Strake Jesuit in Texas. Arivals 3 star. Caught 44 balls for 739YD’s and 9TD’s. Ran a 48.35 400M. Has one offer from Air Force.

Reed Klubnik- Plays wide receiver for Austin Westlake in Texas. He had 77 receptions for 919YD’s and 11TD’s. Ran a 22.03 200M and 45 9¾ triple jump. Has one offer from Air Force.

JP Shofi- Plays at San Marino High in California. He had 81 receptions for 1,821YD’s and 25TD’s.Similar to Jayson Pirtle. Put up big time numbers and has great film. But has zero offers.

Griffin Lay- Plays RB for Kingwood High in Texas. He rushed for 1,685YD’s and 15TD’s. Very fast and quick. He has no offers.

Dawson Downing- Plays RB for Bishop Miege in Kansas. They were state champs. He rushed for 1,960YD’s and 31TD’s. He has no offers.

Jake Welsheimer- Plays WR at Shadow Mountain high in Arizona. He had 65 receptions for 1,055YD’s and 14TD’s. Very fast and smooth.He has one offer from D2 Adams State.

Ben Skowronek- A rivals 3 star. Plays at Homestead High in Indiana. He had 42 receptions for 841YD’s and 12TD’s. He has offers from Boston College, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, and NC State. Very athletic and can jump as seen from his basketball highlights on his highlight tape.

Hunter Hayes- Plays RB at South Fayette in Pennsylvania. They were state champs. He rushed for 2,103YD’s and 34TD’s. Also played defense. Has good speed and size. He has no offers.

Bob Drysdale- Plays RB at Brookfield high in Connecticut.He rushed for 1,496YD’s and 24TD’s. They were state champs. He has no offers.

Dain Duncan- Plays RB at Sabine high in Texas. His highlight wasn’t the best but he ran a 4.50 40 at a Sparq combine. He has no offers.

Kelby Brock- Plays WR at Maryville High in Tennessee. They are traditionally a state power and were state champs this past season. He has no offers.

Parker Orgeron-Plays at Mandeville in Louisiana. He is the son of college coach Ed Orgeron. He is a 3 star recruit on rivals. An athlete for his team but projects as a receiver in college. He has no offers.

Tanner Hall- Plays WR at Lambert High in Georgia. He is a rivals 2 star recruit. He has offers from Georgia State, Air Force, Navy, Army and Kennesaw State.
Matt Sexton- Plays RB and WR for Clinton High in Michigan. Rushed for 1,250YD’s and 18TD’s. Also plays defense. He has no offers.

Bailey Rogers- Plays WR for Wren high in South Carolina. He caught 67 balls for 1,258YD’s and 16 TD’s. Is very quick and fast. He has an amazing kick return to win the game. Has one offer from Lehigh.

Robert Adams- Plays WR Trinity High in Montgomery Alabama. He had 56 receptions for 743YD’s and 12TD’s. He has one offer from FCS Jacksonville State.

Jayson Hopper. Plays WR at Lexington high in South Carolina. He is a 3 star recruit on rivals. He has offers from App State, Charleston Southern, and Gardner Webb.

Parker Dumas- Plays WR at Mount Si in Washington. 6’5” and has offers from Wyoming and Eastern Washington.
Jeb Palka-Plays WR for Saline high in Michigan. They were state runner ups. He had 77 receptions for 940YD’s and 14TD’s. Quick and shifty. He has no offers.

Jonathan Hasley- Plays WR for Prestonwood Christian in TX. He is committed to OK State for Baseball but is a hell of a football player. He caught 119 balls for 1,571YD’s and 19TD’s. He has no offers for football.

Max Flower-Plays WR for Campolindo in CA. They were state champs. He is committed to CAL for baseball but has a Fresno State offer for football. He caught 56 balls for 1,052YD’s and 13TD’s.
Brockton Brown- Plays RB for Sheridan High in Arkansas. He had 942YDs rushing last season. He is very explosive and fast. He has no offers.

Cody Reece-Plays RB at Mt. Pleasant in North Carolina. He rushed for 3,141YD’s and 38TD’s. Yet not a single offer.
Nic Roller- Plays RB for Bixby in Oklahoma. They were state champs. He rushed for 2,026YD’s and 33TD’s. He has no offers and rivals list him as a FB.

Tucker Horak- Plays QB for Rossville in Kansas. They were state champs. He rushed for 2,089YD’s and 34TD’s. He also passed for 1,651YD’sand 22TD’s. Kid is extremely quick and shifty. He has no offers.
Braden Fochtman- Plays RB for Berlin Brothersvalley in PA. He rushed for 2,064YD’s and 30TD’s. Great athlete with speed and quickness. He has no offers.

Conner O’Donnell- Plays WR at First Assembly Christian in North Carolina. He caught 76 balls for 1,686YD’s and 10TD’s. He has offers from Akron and Virginia Tech.

Parker Oliver- Plays WR for Trinity Christian in Addison Texas. He caught 84 balls for 1,382YD’s and 13TD’s. He is a speedster and has a 10.83 100M. He has no offers.

Hunter Hagdorn- Plays WR for Manvel high in Texas. He has offers from Illinois and Harvard.

Grant Martin-Plays RB for Harrah high in Oklahoma. He rushed for 2,589YD’s and 37TD’s. He has no offers.
Tanner Thomas- Plays QB for Clifton high in Texas. He rushed for 1,924YD’s and 20TD’s. Kid is extremely fast and quick. He has no offers.

Jake Dyer- Plays RB for Whitesboro High in Texas. He rushed for 2,005YD’s and 23TD’s. He has no offers.

Breyden Despain- Plays WR for Oologah high in Oklahoma. He caught 53balls for 968YD’s and 10TD’s. He is a rivals 2 star. He has one offer from FCS Stephen F. Austin.

Tyler Tupa- Plays WR for Brecksville-Broadvie High in Ohio. He caught 80 balls for 1,253YD’s and 20TD’s. He is committed to Ohio as a safety.

Cole Rogers- Plays RB for Middletown South in New Jersey. He rushed for 1,867YD’s and 26TD’s. Great athlete. He has no offers.

Chase Smith- Plays RB for Azle High in Texas. He rushed for 1,503YD’s and 16TD’s. Very quick and shifty but is thickly built. He has no offers.

Isaac James- Plays RB for Lowell high in Indiana. He rushed for 2,410YD’s and 34TD’s. Also plays defense. He has no offers.

Keith Batkowski- Plays RB for Montoursville high in Pennsylvania. He rushed for 2,232YD’s and 26TD’s. Smaller but very quick and tough runner. He has no offers.

Jaden Rhea- Plays RB for Monrovia high in Indiana. He rushed for 2,120YD’s and 22TD’s. Slender built but has good speed. He has no offers.

Jacob Earl- Plays RB for North Vermillion high in Indiana.They were state champs. He rushed for 2,100YD’s and 34TD’s. Damn good football player. He has no offers.

Nick Santavicca- Plays RB for Yorktown High in New York. He rushed for 1,726YD’s and 13TD’s. Smaller but has good speed. He has no offers.

Nolan Eriksen- Plays RB for Clarkston high in Michigan. He ran for 1,697YD’s and 26TD’s. They were state champs in Michigan’s Division 1, which I believe is the biggest class. He is very fast and explosive. He has no offers.

Amazing isn’t it? Whites who excel in academics in high school often go on to bigger and better things in college and in their chosen professions. But in sports, particularly football and basketball, young white kids apparently peak in high school and have no value to colleges and the NFL. Or is there another agenda at work? Where’s that “open dialogue about race” that the government and media are supposedly encouraging?

The Caste System is glaringly obvious to those with eyes to see.

'Jew-Baiter' Obama: The Same People Who Brought You Iraq Are Opposing the Iran Deal

via The Occidental Observer

Sometimes Jewish comments related to anti-Semitism seem so unhinged that they surprise even me.  A Tablet article describes the meeting between Obama and a raft of Jewish leaders on the Iran deal (“Obama to Jewish Leaders: Lay Off the Iran Deal, and I Will Lay Off You“).
Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they can be even more dangerous, the president was told. The community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with  “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”

It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was responsible for taking America to war in Iraq.

But of course saying that the same people who promoted the Iraq war are now lobbying in opposition to the Iran deal is simply and obviously true, and certainly Obama was not so bold as to actually say that Jews promoted the Iraq war.  Obama’s statement is analogous to someone saying that the same people who control Hollywood movie and TV production also run the New York Times and much of the rest of the mass media: The worry is that people will connect the dots not with labels like “White liberals,” but rather with Jews who have attitudes related to their identity as Jews and entirely typical of the mainstream Jewish community but not at all typical of most Whites.

Unfortunately for AIPAC et al., as everyone who is not living under a rock knows, the perception that indeed Jews were a necessary condition for the Iraq war is a common belief so that quite a few people will connect the dots in a way that Jews don’t like. And in fact, Israel (with Netanyahu as spokesperson), Jewish neocons with high positions in the Bush administration, and yes, AIPAC (see, e.g., comments of Rep. Barney Frank and Matt Yglesias: “AIPAC and Iraq”) were critical in successfully promoting the war in Iraq (even though surveys reported that most American Jews opposed the war).

Disowning any Jewish involvement in the Iraq war has a long history. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003,
the main Jewish activist organizations [were] quick to condemn those who have noted the Jewish commitments of the neoconservative  activists in the Bush administration or seen the hand of the Jewish community in pushing for war against Iraq and other Arab countries. For example, the ADL’s Abraham Foxman singled out Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Rep. James Moran, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, James O. Goldsborough (a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune), columnist Robert Novak, and writer Ian Buruma as subscribers to “a canard that America’s going to war has little to do with disarming Saddam, but everything to do with Jews, the ‘Jewish lobby’ and the hawkish Jewish members of the Bush Administration who, according to this chorus, will favor any war that benefits Israel.”
Similarly, when Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) made a speech in the U.S. Senate and wrote a newspaper op-ed piece which claimed the war in Iraq was motivated by “President Bush’s policy to secure Israel” and advanced by a handful of Jewish officials and opinion leaders, Abe Foxman of the ADL stated, “when the debate veers into anti-Jewish stereotyping, it is tantamount to scapegoating and an appeal to ethnic hatred …. This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government.” (Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” pp. 15–16)
One has the feeling that Jews unhappy with Obama’s statement are doing their best to suggest that Iraq and Iran are completely different, that Jews had nothing to do with the Iraq war, and that the opposition of Israel and pretty much the entire activist Jewish community to the Iran deal is not at all about desiring a war with Iran.

Only the last of these is a possibility that reasonable people could differ on. However, it is quite clear that Israel and its fifth column insisted on terms that Iran would not and could not accept, therefore assuring that a negotiated deal could not happen (see here). In the absence of such a deal, war is indeed the only option. What the Lobby wants is nothing less than a U.S. war with Iran made possible by insisting on a deal that Iran cannot accept and then portraying Iran as intent on building weapons that are a danger to the entire world. In reality, this war would mainly be about punishing Iran and lessening its ability to oppose Israeli interests in the region rather than anything to do with an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Senator Chuck Schumer, who call himself the “guardian of Israel,” made the same point: it’s not really about the nuclear issue, but rather about Iran as a power in the region. David Bromwich, writing in HyffPo:
[Schumer] admits that the heart of the nuclear deal works against the development of nuclear weapons quite effectively. “When it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.”
There, for all his elaborate show of scruple, he gives the game away. The “nuclear aspects” are the substance of the agreement. That is why they call it the nuclear deal. But no, for Netanyahu and Schumer what offends is the prospect of Iran’s re-entry into the global community as a trading partner and a non-nuclear regional power of some resourcefulness. This emergence can only curb Israel’s wish to dominate for another half century as it has done for the past half century. That, and not anything resembling an “existential threat,” is the real transition at issue.
In the same way, the WMD ruse rationalizing the war with Iraq was promoted by Jewish neocon operatives in US intelligence organizations, neocon writers and talking heads with access to the elite media, and AIPAC influence on Congress and the White House —  with the ADL ready to pounce on anyone who noticed that Jewish identities and commitments were in any way relevant. The WMD ruse was a cover for the desire to fragment and weaken Iraq and cause instability in the region—long a goal of Israeli foreign policy throughout the region. The Iraq war strategy has been spectacularly successful in serving Israeli interests while creating a disaster for the United States.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The Tablet naturally rushes to the conclusion that Obama is stoking the flames of a completely irrational anti-Semitism:
Obama’s political tactics [point to] Nixon’s Southern strategy, which played on the racist fears of white southerners. If the purpose of the Obama Administration’s Jew-baiting is to silence potential critics of the JCPOA, it may also stoke a deeply ugly hatred that is no less dangerous to American society than racism.
Obama the Jew baiter. Not that it needs repeating here at TOO, but the Tablet article is yet another indication that Jews are simply incapable of acknowledging that the legitimate interests of Jews and non-Jews can differ or that it is possible to make a rational critique of Jewish power and the behavior that Jewish power enables.

She's Lost Control

via Radix

Like the “Pakis” in Jurassic World (and the UK), Donald Trump is out of control. 

In what appears like a coordinated hit, FOX News aggressively targeted Trump during the first Republican presidential debate. And with staggering speed, the Narrative swiftly shifted from Trump holding his own and even being identified as the winner in online polls (and Taiwanese cartoons) to the Beltway Right declaring a disastrous night for the Trump campaign and conservative organizations moving to freeze out The Donald.

The catalyst, of course, was Strong Professional Woman and GQ eye candy Megyn Kelly trotting out the curdled Democratic talking point of a “War on Women.” Trump skillfully reframed and launched a broadside against political correctness and conservative hate target Rosie O’Donnell. After the debate, Trump counterattacked Kelly and the White Knights of the Beltway Right leapt to Kelly’s defense, notably lumpy cuck cliché Eric Erickson. It’s worth noting even leftists seemed indifferent to the attack on O’Donnell. As the former progressive champion is already reduced to the status of a punchline in a Deadpool trailer, neckbeards had to be content with avenging Kelly’s outraged honor.

Trump’s continued attack against Kelly was probably a mistake in political terms, having already cost him his key advisor Roger Stone and shifting the national discussion away from immigration into a soap opera about internal dissent within Trump’s campaign. Yet on a deeper level, this might be the best thing Trump could have done. He is at his best when dismantling the efforts at shaming and signaling by his political opponents on both Left and Right, rather than when he’s trying to describe a political platform during the confines of a 10-person debate.

When Trump was forced into that position, it did not go well. Trump’s comeback against Kelly aside, he showed his utter lack of preparation. Having launched his campaign on the accusation that the Mexican government is exporting its underclass to the United States, it seemed he didn’t even bother to look up the easily available evidence that this is true. His answer on healthcare actually showed awareness of the deeper issues involved, but was delivered in such a rambling fashion that the only phrase that stood out was his odd claim that single-payer healthcare would have worked in the past, but not now. (One couldn’t help but wonder if he meant that such a system would work well, as it once did in Scandinavia, in a country still overwhelmingly White.) And when asked about his evident shifting positions on various issues, including abortion, Trump gave his one politician-style answer, referring vaguely to his “evolution” and making a context-free reference to Ronald Reagan.

Yet none of this really matters. It’s not as if other candidates offering up polished platitudes had anything more substantial to offer. After all, Jeb Bush spent the debate denying he ever supported Common Core and admitting he would pass amnesty, but would simply call it something different. And Trump isn’t being attacked on anything real. Instead, he’s being attacked because of the very things that make him so popular—his indifference to the Beltway Right’s opinion, his naked hostility to the press, and that self-confidence and assurance that borders on megalomania. The result may very well make him stronger.

The Beltway Right’s critiques of Trump are weak objections offered up by weak men. Take Eric Erickson’s prissy fretting about Trump’s attack on Kelly being a “bridge too far” and pompously lecturing about common decency. This from a guy who called a justice of the Supreme Court a “goat fucking child molester,” as the Trump campaign delightedly reminded reporters. And all it has done is embolden those making charges of “racism” against Erickson himself and calling for RedState to purge its comment section of racism, homophobia, and whatever other invented sins leftists have created.

Similarly, Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson moaned about Trump’s “rudeness” and his being “ungallant.” Goldberg even lazily signaled about “mouth-breathing anti-Semites and white nationalists.” In both the policies they support and the rhetorical tropes they deploy, the Beltway Right apparatchiks are just leftists a couple years behind the times. (You should at least be up to “shitlord” by now, Jonah.)
The heart of their objection is that Trump is emboldening people who should not be allowed to participate in the national conversation. As Kevin Williamson puts it:
It is true that the our inability to control our borders is an existential threat to these United States and that the crisis of illegal immigration is felt most intensely in downscale communities that do not register on Washington’s radar or Wall Street’s. But Trump’s buffoonery makes it less likely rather than more likely that something substantive will be done on the question. It is the case that the cult of political correctness is very much alive, that it is used to stifle criticism of powerful people and institutions and to render certain thoughts unspeakable. But if your solution to political correctness is to abandon manners and standards of conduct wholesale, then you are simply muddying the waters, making it less likely that we can respond intelligently to the little autocrats when they pipe up.
Yet if the inability to control our borders is an “existential” threat, meaning one that actively endangers the continued existence of the nation, why is the Beltway Right so blasé? After all, contra his complaints about “Trump’s buffoonery,” the only reason people are even talking about immigration is because Trump made it an issue, as The Donald himself pointed out during the debate. Williamson himself has characterized himself in the past as a “squish” on this apparently “existential” challenge. Trump has proven Peter Brimelow correct when he stated at the American Renaissance conference that all it would take is “one speech” to move immigration to the forefront of political consciousness.

More importantly, the Beltway Right, and National Review specifically, has gone out of its way to drive those who wanted to do something “substantive” on immigration out of the movement. Peter Brimelow, who used to write NR cover stories about the danger mass immigration posed to both the GOP and the nation, was famously purged over the issue, and John O’Sullivan demoted. National Review continuously crusades against political leaders like Pat Buchanan who actually would have done something about the immigration disaster and whose politics are far more moderate than many of the magazine’s own past editorials.

Even today, when former National Review contributor Ann Coulter penned the bestselling Adios America, a tightly reasoned case against the catastrophe American leaders have invited, the magazine’s sole acknowledgement was a bizarre non-review. Author Jay Nordlinger acted almost as if he didn’t know who Coulter was, ignoring her own past with the magazine and her termination, which led to her coining the #cuckservative prequel to describe the NR editors, “girlyboys.” Coulter was fired largely because of her comment in her post 9/11 column about converting Muslims to Christianity; as Eric Erickson showed with his initial reaction to #cuckservatism, references to Christianity are only permitted in the Beltway Right when it’s time to explain to the proles why they aren’t allowed to fight back against the people who hate them.

Goldberg makes the ritualistic invocations of Reagan in his attempted takedown of Trump, but as Nordlinger casually admits in his article, mass immigration has made Reagan’s career impossible. Even as President Obama executes an astonishingly overt and expansive program of demographic transformation more permanent and devastating than any military occupation, NR and the conservative movement remain utterly silent, focusing their attention on fedora tipping for m’lady and joining forces with noted American patriot Chuck Schumer to kvetch about Iran.

More importantly, it is supremely dishonest to pretend that the deliberately intellectually stunted Beltway Right is even open to serious discussion on important issues. The contemporary American conservative movement can’t even indulge the nostalgic conservatism of a Russell Kirk (who, we should remember, endorsed Pat Buchanan). Instead, conservatism today is a tired series of clichés about “American exceptionalism,” continuously redefined “values,” which are nonetheless defended as eternal, and faux patriotism towards the oxymoron of a “proposition nation.”

Serious scholars within the conservative movement were systematically driven out if they exceeded these narrow boundaries. M.E. Bradford, whose failed nomination to the National Endowment for the Humanities is widely regarded as the first battle of the civil war between the “paleoconservatives” and “neoconservatives,” expressed an authentic conservative position when he wrote:
To apply the rhetoric of the common good to the last thirty years of civil rights revolution is to ask whether the changes produced by Court and Congress in the official situation of the American Negro have been worth the danger to us all which went with these transformations of the United States Constitution: the risk of converting a nomocratic, customary, procedural government into a power able to attempt whatever it thinks fit; into a teleocratic instrument, ready and able to do whatever it defines as good. It is to ask whether the tradition of restricted Federal authority produced and natured by two hundred years of American history must give way because other grievances or misfortunes of one segment of our population are more important than limitations on the scope and outreach of the law which honor the liberty of all free men – or at least attempted to do so before the fundamental law was reconstructed by judicial ingenuity into something new and strange.”
In contrast, Matt Lewis tells us:
I‬ fear that more people on both ends of the political spectrum are‬ embracing what should be fringe‬ views in America. I can’t police the left, but my hope in writing this‬ is to sound the alarm on the right. And message is simple: Be‬ optimistic about America. Embrace our pluralistic society. And don’t let these vile goddamn racists pollute our message. They are not our friends, they are not on our team, and conservative leaders must roundly condemn them.
Apologizing in advance for my Eric Erickson-like language, but this pedo-faced simpleton has less insight into American politics than a flyover country CR chair snorting coke in a bathroom at CPAC.

And since Conservatism Inc. successfully drove out the Bradfords and replaced them with noodle-armed pushovers who think Charles Krauthammer is heavy reading, it’s no surprise the emerging Identitarian movement has no patience even for the ideological premises of paleoconservatism.

None of this was necessary. But this is the future they chose. By refusing to take action on what is becoming a civilizational crisis, and even banning serious discussion about it within the sanctioned American Right, conservatives not only invited the physical dispossession of their demographic base but their ideological dispossession by a new force that is alone capable of resisting the Death of the West.

Donald Trump, of course, is not a part of that movement. He may not even be the most hardline Republican candidate running for President on immigration. Yet he is a herald of what comes next because, even if his campaign ends tomorrow, he has shown the White base of the Republican Party is as impatient with Conservatism Inc. as they are with the “liberal media.”

They are not White Nationalists or even racially conscious, but they know the leaders of the American conservative movement gave away their country so liberals wouldn’t call them mean names. The frenzied attacks on Trump are a desperate attempt to break his threat to the Beltway Right’s control. Unfortunately for Conservatism Inc., its contempt of Donald Trump is being interpreted (accurately) as contempt towards its own voters. And unless those voters are given the choice of supporting someone who they think will actually resist their dispossession, they are going to stay home and once again, the Republicans are going to lose.

Donald Trump does not have the support of a majority of Republican voters. But he has the power, and perhaps the willingness, to destroy Republican chances in the next election cycle if he can maintain his level of popular support. As we know, the power to destroy a thing is the power to control it. Today, Trump has that power over the American Right. And perhaps in a far shorter time than many expect, so will we.

It’s Christian Axiology, Stupid!

via The West's Darkest Hour

Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:


“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”
Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.

Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.

Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.

Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.

In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.
“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”
That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.
“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”
The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.
“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”
Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.

It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.
“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”
I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.
“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”
Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.
“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”
After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.
“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”
If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.
“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”
Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?
“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”
I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.
“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”
I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.
“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”
I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.

All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.

A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.

toms cabin
Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.

Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.
“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”
It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:
Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.
Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.
“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”
Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.
“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”
In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.
“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”
I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.
“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”
Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.

Foreign Residential Investors, Leave Our Homes Alone!

via Nationalist Alternative

We ask this… What other group of foreigners so openly and brazenly snap up our properties? As we discussed in this earlier article, of all the “multicultural festivals” there are Melbourne, and there ARE many, it seems that for some reason the Chinese New Year festivities of 2014 just had to include not one, not two or even three but at least four stalls dedicated to selling homes which should be housing Australians trying to make it, to foreign Chinese buyers. We don’t see displays at the Lygon St festival for instance. Many say that it is unfair to criticise Chinese for buying properties, and that the fear is unfounded, but as we’ll see here, the criticism is more than legitimate, it is perhaps understated.

Others mention that the Chinese may, technically, be Australians, carrying Australian citizenship, or permanent residency, but we honestly ask, what difference does this actually make? Does it change loyalties? Does this fact make it any less difficult for Australians? It seems not. The purchasing continues unabated, with repeated and consistent accounts of Australians being outbid, often by ridiculous amounts by Chinese investors.
Below we catalogue the evidence which indicates that the concerns that this investment is out of control and inimical to our interests as a nation.

Little Bourke Street – China Town

he stretch of Little Bourke Street between Swanston Street and Exhibition street is also knows as Chinatown. This section is the Chinese district, though today barely distinguishable from much of Swanston Street and parts of Bourke and Latrobe Street. Here Nationalist Alternative found poster after poster after poster from companies selling property to Chinese.

ere we see an add from “EasyLink” a company making it “Easy” for this foreign property investment disgrace to continue. The poster was inside of a business. Needless to say, and Australian who cares about home ownership should boycott such businesses.



An external view of the poster.

Not property related, but another ad for “OzStudyNet”. Australia is turning into a haven for dodgy migration businesses profiting from the population ponzi. Many businesses have started up offering ‘study’ which is nothing more than thinly disguised backdoor migration routes. Australians take people in on good faith , but are themselves taken for a ride.


Below, an EasyLink business card.


Below are posters from Skysea International. Another two bit company dealing in property and taking part in the Great Australian Treason against our young people. Buying or selling? No sell no charge!


More EasyLink advertising.



A large poster which was up for several weeks in Little Bourke Street. This poster was for the Melbourne Property Expo which was held on the Labour Day long weekend. This Expo is not just confined to Melbourne, events were held in Brisbane and Sydney. This property expo is again, is clearly marketed towards specific people. Again, remember that we are told that there is nothing to worry about. Economists such as Michael Pascoe say we should embrace this type of activity. Some say we need such investment, but since Chinese interest increased exponentially, an increase of 266% being observed between January and August 2013, prices have also climbed. Chinese investors are NOT making it easy for Australians. It is demonstrably making it more difficult, and apologists like Michael Pascoe can lie and distort the truth all they like, but the indisputable fact remains, as Chinese Investment has increased, so to have prices and so to has the difficulty in Australians, in particular young Australians simply wanting a place to live in obtaining such a home., a website that lists homes around the world in Chinese, saw a 266 per cent increase in page views from China of Australian homes between January and August of 2013, according to the latest figures from the company. Australia is the second-most-popular destination for buyers from the mainland after the US, according to Juwai.

Below is another advertisement in Little Bourke Street for the property trade show.



Below another advertisement, again in Little Bourke Street.
Below are images taken at Melbourne Town Hall, where the trade fair was held. Again, we can see that the event is catered towards a specific group. We practice inclusion and tolerance and try to advocate assimilation and togetherness, and are kicked in the face with this blatant exclusion and division. We have every right to secure a home in our country, yet by obfuscating the language, and communicating in a way in which the select few would understand, we are excluded. It is clear that many White Australians who think that being tolerant and inclusiveness would result in reciprocal gestures are sadly mistaken.





Lastly, we leave you with some photos again, taken around Melbourne. These need no further comment.


This is just Melbourne CBD. Similar scenes are repeated in the suburbs. While stories remain anecdotal about the flood of investors, too many stories are being repeated too regularly for this to be simply nothing. And it doesn’t just end with property either. We are literally selling the farm.

In who’s interest is all this in? Do our politicians, whom are comfortable with their own home-ownership and investment property portfolio consider our loss of sovereignty, food security and living space an issue? It seems not. We are being sold out by a traitorous government which sees no objection in slowly handing our assets to those whose life and interests lie overseas.

This is an issue that neither major party will address, as they are bought and paid for by the property lobby. Neither will the Greens be too concerned, as home ownership is a bourgeois concept, and if its not tax payer funded ‘social housing’ they’re not interested. To be heard, we have to take the initiative ourselves.

We will continue to post articles on this issue, and suggest means by which Australians can begin to fight back.

The Growing Anti-White Agenda

via The Realist Report

In the aftermath of the alleged mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, reportedly carried out by Dylann Storm Roof, a disgruntled and alienated 21-year-old white man, Democrats and the liberal Marxist media are taking full advantage of the incident in their ongoing war on traditional America.

The shooting, which is said to have resulted in the deaths of nine black church members, including Clementa Pinckney, a S.C. state senator who also served as the lead pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church for the past 20 years, is being used by the political left and mass media to demonize gun owners, Southerners, pro-white racialist thinkers, conservatives and white Americans generally. Immediately following the shooting, President Barack Hussein Obama and other elite political figures began calling for gun control and other unconstitutional restrictions on speech, thought and the press.

“This is another great example where the media creates hysteria about the evils of white people, ignoring the fact that 85% of interracial crime is black on white,” Dr. Kevin B. MacDonald, editor of The Occidental Quarterly, pointed out. “They then use this to advance their laundry list of liberal and leftist causes—gun control, uprooting tradition, particularly in the South and generally creating the idea that somehow whites who identify as white and seek to advance white interests are a huge danger to society.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), anti-white hate organizations that have vehemently lobbied for “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws in America for decades, have used the purported shooting to attack “white supremacists,” a Marxist code word for any individual who recognizes their white racial identity and cares about the future of the white race.

Morris Seligman Dees, Jr. and J. Richard Cohen, the leaders of the SPLC, recently published an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that “white supremacists” must be confronted and viewed as the next target in the Orwellian “Global War on Terror,” a paradigm of American foreign policy concocted by neoconservatives and Israeli geopolitical strategists in the late 1970s that has been institutionalized in the West following the attacks of 9-11.

The SPLC has further alleged Roof was an active contributor to “white supremacist” websites, and was radicalized by “hate speech” posted on alternative blogs and websites.

“The only thing that rivals the horror of the murders is the disgusting way in which the government and media have exploited the deaths in order to advance their anti-white agenda,” James Edwards, a nationally renowned political commentator and host of the popular “The Political Cesspool” radio program, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS. “Many organizations and individuals have now been ‘linked’ to Dylann Roof, but none can reasonably be held accountable for the psychotic reaction this deranged individual had in response to reading truthful statements regarding interracial crime. My prayers go out to the families of the victims in Charleston. After the healing begins to occur it is my sincere hope that mature Americans can finally begin to have an honest conversation about race, rather than being subjected to a one-sided lecture.”

For its part, the ADL has hysterically denounced the “racism” and “anti-Semitism” contained in Roof’s purported manifesto, which has been published on the Internet, using the incident to argue that “white supremacism” poses a threat to all Americans.

The ADL and SPLC are unsurprisingly lobbying for tyrannical, un-American restrictions on speech and “hate crime” laws in the wake of the shooting, as are a number of contributors to the mainstream media.

Following the Charleston event, the elite news media, citing “terrorism experts” and agenda-driven “think tanks,” have argued that “homegrown extremists” and “radicalized neo-Nazis” have caused more violence than Islamic jihadis since 9-11. The New York Times and the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail both published articles on a study by the New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, entitled “Homegrown Extremism 2001-2015,” which claimed to show that traditional white conservatives are a greater threat to the West than radical Muslim terrorists.

The Confederate flag has also become a major target in the aftermath of the alleged Charleston shooting, with various politicians and government officials, including S.C. Governor Nikki Haley (R), calling for the removal and banning of the Stars and Bars. The Confederate flag still flies at many state capitols, as well as at private residences, businesses and other buildings, in the South.

“Another victim in South Carolina has been that symbol of nobility that for decades has proudly flown over the Capitol grounds in Columbia,” said Edwards. “In Charleston you can find the graves of the crew of the H.L. Hunley, the first submarine to ever sink an enemy vessel in the history of naval warfare. Led by Lieutenant George Dixon, those brave Confederates embody the kind of heroism and valor that those who hate the South can never have.”

On a positive note, pro-Confederate rallies are happening across the South as AFP goes to press.

As the political climate continues to heat up in America, sides are being drawn. The gun-grabbers, anti-white Marxist tyrants and culture destroyers are openly waging war on traditional America and everything she stands for.

Now is the time to stand with AFP and other patriotic Americans who refuse to bow before the altar of political correctness and tyranny.

While Greeks Starve, SYRIZA Spends Millions Housing Illegals!

via Golden Dawn, NY

The Athens Municipal Councilors Ilias Kasidiaris and Dimitra Velentza this morning were in Votanikos to observe the site where the SYRIZA government in cooperation with Mayor Kaminis are setting up an unlawful camp for illegal immigrants. The security measures at the site are draconic and there is 24 hour police protection to prevent the residents from reacting to the transformation of the area into a ghetto.  The construction is feverish and vehicles belonging to the municipality arrive in mass, carrying tons of materials and supplies.

Golden Dawn representatives entered the construction site and were in awe, there they saw a state of the art facility with hundreds of containers, electricity, water and even heat and air-conditioning!  The failed state of Mrs. Tasia and Dear Alexis now function perfectly to serve the illegal immigrants who invade our homeland in waves on a daily basis.

Our arrival was observed by teams from all the entangled TV channels, however, they were all barred from recording footage of the camp, including state television. The system doesn’t want the impoverished People under any circumstance to see the millions spent on the illegal immigrants, while the Greeks are starving and being bled dry.

Once the residents of the area realized our representatives were present, they approached us and asked for Golden Dawn’s support in their just struggle against the government’s illegal plans.  For our part, we vowed to confront the plan to colonize Greece, with every legal mean.  Already, the first appeals against the illegal camps have been prepared, but also for the illegal immigrant bill (granting Greek nationality to the illegal immigrants), and soon the residential committees will be organized to begin protest demonstrations against illegal immigration and crime.

Thinking of Voting, Eh?

via Alternative Right

On August 2nd, Canadian Prime minister Stephen Harper launched the longest and therefore most expensive electoral campaign in Canadian history, one that will culminate on October 19th with Canucks voting for their MPs.

Canada lives under a parliamentary monarchy, a system imported from Great Britain. But unlike in Old Albion, the political parties running in the federal elections differ from those running for provincial or city elections. While non-mainstream parties can do well at local elections if they campaign on local issues, they find it almost impossible to make a breakthrough at the federal level because of the constituency-based electoral system. Because of this, we have no nationalist party like France's Front National or even the BNP. Although we are not trapped in a two-party system, like our Southern neighbours, only a few mainstream parties can hope to have MPs elected.

At the moment, it is Stephen Harper’s Tories that lead the race. In power since 2006, Harper has adopted a radical neoconservative foreign policy and is trying to beat the US in Israel’s heart. According to Raphael Ahren from The Times of Israel:
"In the Middle East conflict, no other nation, not even the United States, has been so unstintingly supportive of the policies of Israel’s government as the Great White North." 
It is not so surprising therefore that Harper’s first electoral event was held in Montreal at the Ben Weider Jewish center with Quebecophobe and ultra Zionist candidate Robert Libman. If Harper tried to appeal to Quebecers in 2006 to have a majority of MPs, he now targets Quebec’s powerful Jewish minority, with candidates like Robert Libman and Pascale Déry.

Canada's own Cuckservative problem: Stephen Harper.
Harper has also been the staunchest supporter of mass immigration, despite condemning illegal immigration, the abuse of foreign workers, false refugee claimants, etc. These populist measures, limiting some aspects of immigration, were only a smoke screen. Under Harper, Canada has reached immigration records, accepting 265,000 new immigrants last year, despite being warned by the Fraser Institute that immigration was putting a $20 billion burden on taxpayers’ shoulders. The Conservatives’ ambition is clear – to gain the support of the ethnic blocs.

Opposing the Tories is Thomas Mulcair from the no-so-New Democratic Party. If Mulcair is a moderate, the left-wing NDP (no link to the German NDP) has been a radical socialist party since its inception in 1961. Part of the Socialist International, the NDP is similar to the French Front de gauche led by Jean-Luc Melanchon: unionists and socialists stand side by side with lesbian radicals, homosexual activists, far left thugs, gender theory advocates, and others from the loony left fringe.

Even though they are essentially a marginal grouping with no real chance of ever being elected to government, they became the official opposition during the last elections mostly due to a “protest vote” from disillusioned Quebec voters. The Bloc Québécois had almost collapsed so many Quebecers ended up voting for NDP candidates, many of whom had no experience nor knowledge in politics and had not even campaigned.

Brosseau: How did I get here?
The most famous case was that of Ruth Ellen Brousseau, an Ottawa Anglophone elected in the French riding (constituency) of Berthier-Maskinongé. Needless to say, she had not campaigned in this riding, where she had in fact never set foot. She spent most of the campaign in Las Vegas, where she was on holiday. The fact that she was elected shows without a doubt that the NDP’s success was due to a protest vote rather than to people’s adhesion to their program.

In third position, comes Justin Trudeau, son of the infamous Pierre Eliott Trudeau, who is wrongfully considered the father of Canadian multiculturalism. If Trudeau is not the one who implemented multiculturalism, he was at least responsible for making it the new state religion, and is also credited for implementing gun control, legalizing homosexuality and abortion, banning the death penalty, and opening our doors to mass immigration.

It would be unfair to blame the son for the faults of the father, though. The latter was a radical intellectual, a pro-communist thinker, and a disciple of the Frankfurt School. The son, by contrast, is actually more suited for a Miss America contest. Trying to benefit from his famous lineage, Justin has been totally mute when it comes to politics, refusing to make promises or discuss his economic plan for Canada. Actually, since his election as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, his only promise has been to legalize marijuana!

More popular than Canada's actual flag.
Trudeau, despite his lack of political knowledge, knows about marketing and has been trying to appeal to different ethnic minorities. He has been busy visiting mosques and synagogues and has been active on social networks, kowtowing to all religious celebrations… except, of course, Christian ones! After having two lame university professors as leaders, namely Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Party is now trying a more low-brow approach, cribbing from Paris Hilton’s success strategy with a man who is all about looks, bears a famous last name, and can’t utter a single original thought.

In Quebec, the separatist Bloc Québécois is still running. It is led by former Trotskyite, Gilles Duceppe, who left two years ago, in the wake of the party's crushing defeat at the last elections, and who has come back for this election as a Messiah figure.

Failed nationalism: Gilles Duceppe
The Bloc Québécois can promise anything because it will never be elected to national power, being only present in one province. Despite its claims of representing all Quebec separatists, the Bloc has lost the support of right wing nationalists by adopting a radical left-wing program, which makes it a separatist equivalent of the NDP.

Furthermore, its legitimacy is attacked by both federalists, who denounce the party for trying to dismantle the Confederation, and by separatists, who see no point in sending separatist politicians to Ottawa and wasting resources in this struggle. What matters to them is gaining independence by electing a nationalist government at home in Quebec. The Bloc is also known for supporting mass immigration, despite the fact that immigration has actually undermined the cause of independence, with the great majority of new comers feeling loyalty to Canada.

So, who should we vote for?

Voting in the next Canadian elections means voting for mass immigration no matter which party you opt for, as all the parties support it. To vote is effectively to condone mass immigration, what Renaud Camus calls the Great Replacement. Abstention is a political act, and a high level of abstention will show the lack of legitimacy of the people in power, whoever they are. It will also demonstrate that a new party is necessary as the system parties fail to represent the majority of Canadians, and this might convince some people of the importance of building a nationalist party in Canada.