Aug 24, 2015

Is Trump White America's Last Chance?

via American Renaissance

Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.
Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.
But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.

But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.

Mr. Trump’s positions on immigration are built on three principles: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. It’s startling to hear a politician even talk about what defines “a nation,” much less get it more or less right. The idea that immigration should benefit Americans rather than foreigners is revolutionary by today’s standards.

Many of Mr. Trump’s specific proposals could be implemented without much fuss. He would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers, which would make it impossible for illegals to work for anything but under-the-table cash. Anybody caught hiring illegals would be punished. He would end the Earned Income Tax Credit for illegals, and would stop granting visas to any country that refuses to take back citizens we want to deport. He would kick out every criminal alien who has served his sentence, unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to like keeping them here.

Mr. Trump would triple the number of ICE officials and end the policy of catch-and-release, under which ICE often tells local authorities who have caught an illegal to let him go. He would make H1-B visas harder to get, and would enforce a policy of hiring Americans first. He would set up a tracking system to catch and deport anyone who overstays his visa. He would deport any illegal alien who is a gang member, and would stop all federal payments to so-called sanctuary cities. All immigrants would have to prove they have the means to support themselves. Although this is not included in his policy paper, Mr. Trump has also said in interviews that he would scrap all of Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties. All these things could probably be done just by enforcing laws on the books or by changing regulations.


Some of Mr. Trump’s other ideas would take more work: his call for an end to birth-right citizenship, for example. Arguably, he could simply order agencies to issue passports and social security numbers only to children born of citizens and permanent residents. Or he could get Congress to pass legislation to this effect. In either case, the tangled  interpretations of the 14th Amendment would guarantee a legal challenge. Courts would probably find that the children of illegals are not citizens. Ideally, they would find that the 14th Amendment, which was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves, gives no child born of foreigners automatic citizenship.

Mr. Trump has also suggested in interviews that he wants to deport all illegals, not just criminals. This is by no means “impossible,” as critics claim. With E-Verify and employer sanctions, plenty of illegals would “self-deport,” just as Mitt Romney said they would.

The key, however, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. The vast majority of illegals would quickly decide to get their affairs in order and choose their own day of departure rather than wait for ICE to choose it for them. The main thing would be to convince illegals that ICE was serious about kicking them out. Ironically, the more ICE was prepared to do, the less it would have to do.


But those same images of Mexican families would raise a world-wide stink. They would send the libs and legals into a gibbering frenzy, so a Trump administration would have to have backbone. Deporting illegals–even tearful families with “deep roots in the community”–is entirely consistent with current law, so there could be no court challenge. It would be a simple matter of ignoring the gibbering, and getting on with the job. If churches harbored illegals, ICE teams would have to haul them out. Getting serious about deportation would set a marvelous example for the Europeans and would bring illegal immigration to a dead stop.

We might not even need the wall Mr. Trump plans to build, though it’s certainly a good thing to have. The trick would be getting the Mexicans to pay for it, as Mr. Trump promises they will. The position paper says a Trump administration would divert remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants, but it would be hard to verify which payments were from illegals, and plenty of them would love an excuse to stop sending money home anyway. The paper also says we could increase fees on visas issued to CEOs and diplomats, charge more for border-crossing cards, levy an entry fee at the Mexican border, and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. Making every Mexican who crossed the border pay a stiff fee until the wall was built sounds like a fine idea, but the others probably would not raise much money or would violate treaties.

One way Mr. Trump says he would make Mexico pay for the wall is to cut off foreign aid. Depending on how it’s calculated, handouts to Mexico runs to as much as $900 million a year. It’s hard to understand why Mexicans deserve even a dime of our taxes. Turning off the tap would be instant savings, whether to pay for a wall or not.


Finally, Mr. Trump’s “pause” in issuing green cards would be a wonderful thing, but it would probably require legislation. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual number of visas passed out each year from 290,000 to 675,000 (not including refugee or H1-B visas and all kinds of other dubious waivers and exemptions) and set up the diversity-visa lottery that lets in another 55,000 a year. Every year there are about one million people who become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or “green card holders.”
Of course, Mr. Trump could take a leaf out of Mr. Obama’s book and legislate by executive order. If President Obama can simply decide not to enforce the law against minors who were smuggled into the country–and then decide also to exempt the parents who smuggled them–President Trump could probably shut down the lottery and cut way back on family reunification.

There is no end to the good a president could do if he were really convinced that immigration should benefit us rather than foreigners. Today the executive branch is thick with people who make no secret of wanting “diversity” of every kind, and think immigration is the best way to get it. Imagine an executive run by people who were as sick of immigration–legal and illegal–as real Americans are. Imagine regular executive briefings on crimes committed by foreigners, on monthly deportation figures, on new miles of border wall completed, on frauds and criminals turned back at the border. Imagine an executive branch that cuts off funding to La Raza and MALDEF and all the “refugee” resettlement groups. Imagine a government that laughs at editorials in the New York Times, and that actually cares about the welfare of Americans.

A change in tone would be as dramatic as a change in policy because a president and his cabinet have tremendous influence that goes well beyond policy. They can put a subject on the national agenda just by talking about it. They can make it respectable just by continuing to talk about it. Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high-IQ, English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so. A Trump presidency could completely change what is said about the difference between a crowd and a nation, and what it means to be an American.

So far, Mr. Trump has said little about race, but President Trump would certainly be no pushover for blacks. Al Sharpton–whom Mr. Trump has called a “professional conman”–would never darken the White House door again, and the Black Lives Matter frauds would get the cold shoulder.

And a Donald Trump presidency is no longer pure fantasy. He continues to widen his lead over Republican competitors. He is the first choice of 24 percent of registered Republicans—11 points ahead of his closest rival, Jeb Bush. He also comes in first as a second choice: 14 percent to Jeb Bush’s 10 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Mr. Trump, which is eight points more than the 61 percent who view Mr. Bush favorably. A majority of Republicans who are likely to vote–57 percent–now think Mr. Trump will be the Republican candidate.

Just as important, according to a CNN/ORC poll of potential voters, Mr. Trump has pulled to within 6 percentage points (51 to 45) in a theoretical contest with Hillary Clinton. Just last month he was 16 points behind. Mr. Trump would get 55 percent of the white vote and 53 percent of the male vote; only women and non-whites continue to be strong Hillary backers.

The coming election is a combination of circumstances that will never repeat itself. Mr. Trump is a brand new face in politics, at a time when public trust in the federal government is close to a record low. His Republican opponents are nonentities. The most likely Democratic candidate is a shopworn harridan even her supporters don’t entirely trust.

Mr. Trump is also prepared to spend up to $1 billion of his own money to win the election. He says he turned down $5 million from a lobbyist, because he doesn’t want to owe favors to anyone. As the campaign continues, more and more voters will be impressed by his complete independence from special interests. Finally, when the time comes for street-level canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives, Mr. Trump will have armies of committed volunteers instead of the party hacks who are pushing his rivals.

There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and for their country.

White Independence

via The European Guardian

For a moment this summer, it appeared that Greece had defeated the global Zionist-plutocracy. In a hotly contested vote in which the forces of finance capital intervened, patriotic Greeks overwhelmingly voted to reject more austerity.

In a predictable sell-out, however, Greek Puppet Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras then submitted to the demands of Judeo-plutocratic eurozone autocrats for more austerity (i.e., extortion) measures in return for a “bailout” loan of 86 billion euros. Tsipras lamented that he’d had no choice — resistance would have triggered the wrath of the Judeo-plutocracy.

Humiliated and vanquished, the Greek regime returned to the negotiating table to accept the surrender terms. The spectacle resembled an ISIS-style execution of a whole country — in full view of a global audience.

The final details remain to be hammered out, but there’s no doubt that the deal imposed by the Zionist-plutocracy on Greece will allow Athens neither to pay off its crushing debt nor to recover from the depression it’s in now. The deal is a triumph for finance capital. But it was exacted at a terrible cost — one that will eventually boomerang on the kosher quislings, the plutocrats, and their Overlord: the Jewish State of Israel.

Diagnosing the Problem (assessing the mark)

A recently revealed memo from the International Monetary Fund stated that Greece has assets of which it could be stripped. In an earlier scam, the IMF had already succeeded in inflicting tremendous damage on Greece via the austerity straitjacket Greece has been bundled in since 2010.

Gross domestic product was 25 percent lower in 2014 compared to 2008, and unemployment stands at 26 percent — with youth unemployment at a mind-numbing 52 percent.

The pension cuts, consumer tax hikes, and other draconian measures that Greeks will be subjected to in the new “deal” will kill off any rise in domestic demand necessary for the economy to grow. The 86 billion euro bailout that Greece will be given access to will be of little help, since practically all of it — 90 percent, by some estimates — will find its way back to ZOG: the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and German and French banks as “debt service.”

It is clear why the ZOG-ruled Eurozone imposed a Carthaginian peace on Greece, and it’s also clear its key motives were saving the Judeo-plutocratic financial elite from the consequences of their purposefully destructive socio-economic policies, enforcing the iron principle of full debt repayment, and crucifying Greece to dissuade others — like the Spaniards, Irish, and Portuguese — from revolting against debt slavery. As Karl Otto Po?hl, a former head of Germany’s Bundesbank, admitted sometime back, the draconian exercise in Greece is about “protecting German banks, but especially the French banks, from debt write-offs.”

The subjugation of the Greeks is the latest victory notched by finance capital since it began its scorched-earth counter-offensive against Europe’s White patriotic resistance. Yet its victory is likely to be Pyrrhic — an extremely costly affair that’s likely to lead to a White Revolution.

Rolling Back Regulation (the set-up)

Greece is only the latest episode in this ongoing global criminal enterprise.
In November 2009, the ZOG-20 met in Pittsburgh, during the depths of their planned financial destruction. At this meeting two half-baked measures were passed, which were in all actuality superficial actions not intended to address the fundamental problems. One was maintaining vast money-printing devaluation programs to perpetuate capitalist economic exploitation. The other was to make-believe they were regulating the financial sector. As the ZOG-20 Leaders’ Communique put it, “Where reckless behavior and a lack of responsibility led to crisis, we nevertheless will not allow any solution whatsoever that interferes with banking as usual.”

Yet finance capital and its allies were able to contain both thrusts and launch a counteroffensive that made legal citizens pay the price for the economic mess finance capital purposefully created.

In the United States, Wall Street bribed the government in 2008 to bail out the giant institutions whose balance sheets were fatally impaired by toxic subprime assets, instead of nationalizing them. Then, in 2009 and 2010, they gutted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of three key items that were seen as necessary for genuine reform: downsizing the banks; institutionally separating commercial from investment banking; and banning most derivatives and regulating the shadow banking system that had brought on the crisis.
As Cornell University’s Jonathan Kirshner writes, the “Dodd Frank regulatory reforms, and provisions such as the Volcker rule, designed to restrict the types of risky investments that banks would be allowed to engage in, have not simply been watered down.” They’ve been “waterboarded into submission” by “a cascade of exceptions, exemptions, qualifications, and vague language.” He concludes, “what few teeth remain are utterly dependent for application on the (very suspect) will of regulators.”

Instrumental in securing this outcome was the $344 million the industry spent buying the U.S. Congress in the first nine months of 2009, when legislators were taking up financial reform. Senator Chris Dodd alone, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, received over $2 million in bribes from Wall Street in 2007-08.

It also helped that there were powerful people in the new Obama administration who were sympathetic to the banksters, notably Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Council of Economic Advisers head Larry Summers. Both had served as close associates of Robert Rubin, who had successive incarnations as co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, Bill Clinton’s Treasury chief, and chairman and senior counselor of Citigroup. More than anyone else over the last two decades, Rubin embodies the Wall Street-Washington Zionist-plutocratic connections that dismantled the New Deal controls on finance capital and paved the way for the 2008 financial feeding frenzy.

Changing the Narrative (lying)

Finance capital not only successfully resisted effective reregulation. It was also able to change the narrative about the causes of the financial crisis, throwing the blame entirely on the state (i.e., the entity that they themselves control).

This is best illustrated in the case of Europe. As in the United States, the financial crisis in Europe was a supply-driven-crisis. The big European banks sought high-profit, quick-return substitutes for the low returns on investment in industry and agriculture, like real estate lending and speculation in financial derivatives, and placed their surplus funds in high-yield bonds sold by governments.

In the case of Greece, German and French private banks held some 70 percent of the country’s 290- billion euro debt at the beginning of the crisis. German banks were great buyers of the toxic subprime assets from U.S. financial institutions, and they applied the same enthusiasm to buying Greek government bonds. For their part, even as the financial crisis unfolded, French banks increased their lending to Greece by 23 percent, to Spain by 11 percent, and to Portugal by 26 percent.

Indeed, in their drive to raise more and more profits from lending to governments, local banks, and real estate developers, Europe’s banks poured $2.5 trillion into Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. It’s sometimes said that these countries’ membership in the eurozone “deceived” the banks into thinking that their loans were safe, since they’d embraced the tough rules for membership in the same currency union to which Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, belonged. More likely, however, a government’s membership in the eurozone provided the much-needed justification for unleashing the tremendous surplus funds the banks possessed that would create no profits by simply lying in the banksters’ vaults.

Besieged for having plunged the world into a financial maelstrom, finance capital was desperate to change the narrative in the aftermath of the inevitable implosion. This opportunity emerged with two developments in 2009-2010.

One was the announcement in late 2009 by Dubai that it could no longer pay the debts it incurred in building its ultra-modern luxury oasis for the global elite in the Persian Gulf. Dubai’s default, analyst James Rickards notes, “became contagious, spreading to Europe and Greece in particular.” The other event, coming on the heels of the Dubai debacle, was the discovery that Greece, via complex financial deals engineered by the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs in 2001, had fudged its debt and deficit figures in order keep within the strict rules for eurozone membership.

Greece’s debt in 2007, before the financial crisis, came to 290 billion euros, which was equivalent to 107 percent of GDP. Yet the banks showed no signs they were particularly worried about it then and continued to pour money into the country. The debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 148 percent in 2010, bringing the country to the brink of a planned, purposeful sovereign debt crisis.

The creditors, European authorities, and the business press used the ensuing panic to focus the blame solely on unchecked government borrowing, completely suppressing the role played by irresponsible foreign creditors and the Greek private sector. Equally significant, the same forces used Greece’s crisis to popularize the idea that sovereign debt crises caused by profligate spending had also overtaken Ireland, Spain, and Portugal — though these countries had public debt-to-GDP ratios that were rather low. In the case of Spain and Ireland, they were lower than Germany’s!

Passing On the Cost (the knockdown)

“Sovereign debt” is an illusion that the money-changers use to forge our chains, and this is why we live in the reality that we do: the money-changers didn’t “put” us in debtors’ prison; they instead constructed the prison around us — while we ate of the lotus. Ever since the debt crises of the 1980s, beaucoup-bribed authorities have enforced a rule that the state (i.e., the taxpaying legal citizens) must assume responsibility for any debt of Zionist-plutocratic predator-creditors that cannot be repaid by its private sector.

In Spain, Ireland, and many other countries in financial turmoil, it was the deadly alliance between the international Zionist-plutocracy and border-less domestic capitalists that brought countries to their knees, not government borrowing. As Mark Blyth writes, “sovereign debt crises are almost always ‘credit booms gone bust.’ They develop in the private sector and end up in the public sector. The causation is clear. Banking bubbles and busts cause sovereign debt crises. Period. To reverse the causation and blame the sovereign for the bond market crisis, as policy makers in Europe have repeatedly done to enable a policy of austerity that isn’t working, begs the question, why keep doing it?” Why? Cui bono? It’s good for the global Zionist-capitalist network of financial usurious parasites.

But the Eternal Victim has promoted a strong counter-narrative about the causes of the financial crisis, where the banks are the “victims” while “states” (i.e., White people) are the villains. This narrative enables the banksters to simultaneously escape financial pain for their irresponsible lending and for their opposition to the imposition of state restraints on their parasitical activities.

The controlled mass media quickly imported this changed narrative to the United States, where it was used not only to derail real banking reform but to prevent the enactment of an effective stimulus program in 2010. Brandishing the image of the United States becoming like Greece if the government increased its debt load by going into deficit spending, the U.S. regime succeeded in bringing about an American version of the austerity programs that were imposed in Southern Europe.

Christina Romer, the head of Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimated that it would take a $1.8 trillion stimulus to reverse the recession. Obama approved less than half of that, $787 billion, simultaneously failing to placate the Republican opposition while preventing an early recovery. Thus the cost of the follies of Wall Street fell not on banks but on ordinary Americans, with the unemployed reaching nearly 10 percent of the work force in 2011 and youth unemployment reaching over 20 percent.

Winning the Battle, Losing the War (lampposts and nooses)

The global Judeo-plutocracy’s success in halting reform, changing the narrative of the crisis, and having White people shoulder its costs is, however, likely to be a Pyrrhic one.

The combination of deep austerity-induced recession or stagnation that grips much of Europe and the United States with the absence of financial reform is deadly. The prolonged stagnation and the prospects of deflation have discouraged investment in the real economy to expand goods and services. Thus the Zionist-plutocracy has all the more reason to do what they did prior to 2008: engage in intense speculative operations designed to make super profits before gravity causes the inevitable crash.

With the move to re-regulate finance halted and derivatives trading continuing unabated, the creation of new bubbles is more than likely.

The non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total $707 trillion, wildly higher than the $548 billion in 2008, according to analyst Jenny Walsh. “The market has grown so unfathomably vast,” she writes, “the global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage of contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are difficult just to comprehend, let alone assess.” Former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC, agreed, telling one writer that none of the post-2008 reforms has “significantly diminished the likelihood of financial crises.”

The question then is not if another bubble will burst, but when. And when this happens, the likelihood of finance again being treated with kid’s gloves like the Dodd-Frank “reform” isn’t so assured.

Bitter Harvest (dancing on air)

The other blowback from finance capital’s current triumph is political, and it’s likely to unfold in Europe earlier than in the United States.

The melodrama unfolding in Greece is likely to heighten the strong anti-EU, anti-German, and anti- bankster feelings that are coursing through Europe at this point. One can only imagine the feelings of many Europeans if the normally sedate, liberal Financial Times columnist Wolfgang Munchau is moved to write in very emotional terms:

“By forcing Alexis Tsipras into a humiliating defeat, Greece’s creditors have done a lot more than bring about regime change in Greece or endanger its relations with the eurozone. They have destroyed the eurozone as we know it and demolished the idea of a monetary union as a step towards a democratic political union. In doing so they reverted to the nationalist European power struggles of the 19th and early 20th century. They demoted the eurozone into a toxic fixed exchange-rate system, with a shared single currency, run in the interests of Germany, held together by the threat of absolute destitution for those who challenge the prevailing order. The best thing that can be said of the weekend is the brutal honesty of those perpetrating this regime change.”

The question is: Who will harvest these boiling currents of resentment and anger in the European body politic?

With the radical left defeated in the showdown between Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and with Social Democrats in Germany and throughout Europe reduced to being Merkel’s helpers in aggressively promoting the interests of the Zionist-plutocracy, the most likely beneficiary of the dramatic events of the last few weeks will be the surging radical right, with its anti-EU, nationalist, and populist appeal.

Not surprisingly, the anti-euro chief of France’s National Front, Marine Le Pen — who increasingly laces her speeches with anti-capitalist, anti-globalization rhetoric — took up the cudgels for Greece in the recent face off. The EU, she declared, “mocks and brushes aside the popular wish expressed in the Greek elections and it seeks to impose a policy of austerity, the continuity of a policy of austerity which the Greek people no longer want.” Posing a rhetorical question no doubt asked by many Greeks, she wondered aloud, “Confronted with the choice, who will win? Autochthonous Whites or Judeo-Dictatorship?”

Le Pen is not to be underestimated. “Left-wing voters are crossing the red line because they think that salvation from their plight is embodied by Madame Le Pen,” a French Socialist senator admitted to The New Statesman. “They say ‘no’ to a world that seems hard, globalized, and implacable. These are working-class people, pensioners, office workers who say, ‘We don’t want this capitalism and competition in a world where Europe is losing its leadership.’”

Le Pen may become president of France in the 2017 elections. And if she does, a not unimportant contribution to her victory will have been the dramatic events of the last few weeks in Brussels and Berlin.

Chemi Shalev: American Jews Must Oppose Trump’s Immigration Policy

via The Occidental Observer

Influential antarian, Jew "journalist,
Chem Shalev
Haaretz columnist, Chemi Shalev, complains that Jewish organizations have not been up in arms about Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policy. The reason Jewish organizations must act is because over 90 years ago the US passed an immigration restriction bill that shut off the flow of Eastern European Jews to America.

The basic logic here is that the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the Original Sin of White America. The attempt on the part of Americans to fashion their immigration policy to retain an ethnic status quo as of 1890 was so horrifically evil that Jewish organizations have a duty to once again bring all the pressure they can muster to allow in every last immigrant who wants to come to America. Needless to say, Israel’s immigration policy — clearly engineered to retain Jewish ethnic dominance — is not at issue for Shalev.

I won’t dispute Shalev’s point that the main concern of White America in 1924 was the influx of Jews, but of course he fails to contextualize this concern properly. As I noted elsewhere, there was an
explicit concern about lack of assimilability. Although the bias toward Northern Europeans did indeed discriminate against Southern and Eastern Europeans, it was obvious from the debates that the main concern was Eastern European Jewish immigrants, large percentages of whom were radicals (see here, p. 271 ff) and none of whom identified with the people or culture of Christian, Northern European America. Support for immigration restriction was centered in rural America, particularly in the South and West; as John Higham noted, “Jews, as a result of their intellectual energy and economic resources, constituted an advance guard of the new peoples who had no feeling for the traditions of rural America” (Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984, 168–169). Lack of rapport with the traditional people and culture of America was apparent among the New York Intellectuals and among Jewish radicals who were entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. In the immigration debates of 1924 Representative Knud Wefald of Minnesota emphasized lack of sympathy with traditional American culture:
I for one am not afraid of the radical ideas that some might bring with them. Ideas you cannot keep out anyway, but the leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals nor with those of northern Europe, who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us.
Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories, they compose and dish out to us our jazz music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924, 6272)
Thus a main concern in addition to the very large numbers of radicals among Jewish immigrants and the fact that sympathy for the far left was entirely mainstream within the Jewish community,  was that Jews were fast becoming an intellectual elite with very different attitudes than the traditional people of America. These concerns are more than justified given the subsequent history of the US, and particularly US immigration policy where Jewish organizations led the campaign culminating in the 1965 immigration law that ended the ethnic status quo legislated by the 1924 law and opened up immigration to all the peoples of the world.

Unlike the 1924 law, the 1965 immigration law was not at all in response to public outcry but to prolonged pressure that was organized, funded and led by the organized Jewish community; it also occurred in the context of the ascendancy of Jewish-dominated intellectual movements that undercut the intellectual basis for immigration restriction rooted in the legitimate ethnic interests of the traditional people of America (see herepassim).

Since 1965, the mainstream Jewish community has strongly supported increasing the numbers of immigrants, as for example in their support of the Schumer-Rubio immigration amnesty/surge immigration bill in 2013. During the public debate, Jewish organizations once again flogged the 1924 law as the epitome of evil.

The immigration policy advocated by Jewish organizations for the US has always had two main components:
  • Maximize the total number of immigrants; in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the 1965 law that removed the bias toward Western Europe, Jewish immigration activists switched to focus on maximizing total numbers.  (See here, p. 291)
  • Promote the idea that immigrants not be chosen for their ability to make an economic contribution to the U.S. The assumption is that, apart from those who are “dangerous or a threat to national security,” all immigrants in whatever numbers have a positive impact on the society as a whole  (see previous link, p. 277-278). Family reunification, which has been a bedrock Jewish attitude at least since the 1940s (see previous link, p. 277-278),  is the basis of chain migration which has been one of themain reasons why numbers of immigrants has skyrocketed.
So that leaves us with Shalev’s concerns about the relative silence of Jewish organizations:
The U.S. might desperately need immigration reform but that does not excuse the deathly Jewish silence on Trump’s outrageous statements. … If one wants to be generous, one can ascribe the American Jewish muteness to other preoccupations, ranging from summer vacations to arguments over the Iran deal. Perhaps, like some Republican presidential hopefuls, they are simply afraid of the kind of verbal retribution that Trump might unleash if he is criticized. Others still might be motivated by the kind of deep seated hatred of Obama that has caused many Jews to hear, see or speak no evil of any of his potential adversaries.
The most disconcerting possibility, however, is that Jews are losing their historical support for immigration as a defining value of the American ethos; that they are no longer moved by the plea “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,” written by Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty.
I rather doubt the latter reason is at all likely, and I won’t comment further on the glaring intellectual blind spot shown by Shalev where it’s morally okay for his people to have an ethnostate but anathema for European Americans.

However, it is interesting that Jewish organizations have remained relatively silent. As noted regarding the 2013 immigration debates, Jewish organizations were not at all shy about advocating the immigration amnesty/surge bill, finding their rationale in a supposed uniquely Jewish morality while making moral condemnations of its opponents.

It makes sense to suppose that since Jewish organizations are very publicly opposing Obama’s Iran deal, it might seem poor strategy to have Jewish organizations taking sides against Trump. One issue at a time. Also, there may well be a strand of Jewish thinking that any Republican would be relatively good for Israel given the unanimity of Republican opposition to the Iran deal. Still, I really can’t believe that Jewish activists would be bothered by a second Clinton presidency given her support among fanatical  Zionists like Haim Saban and her coterie of neocon foreign policy people.

Further, the immigration debate will be with us long after the vote on the Iran deal in September. Plenty enough time to pull out all the heavy artillery for the 2016 election. After all, lots of pundits are still predicting that Trump will be forgotten as a candidate in a few months. And from their point of view, the nomination and then resounding, often-predicted defeat of a Republican populist candidate would be cause for great rejoicing—a resounding defeat for the traditional people and culture of America.

Also, Trump’s policy statement has been roundly criticized in the mainstream media which has long reflected the views on immigration of the organized Jewish community. Here it would be silly not to mention Jews as media owners, media producers, and as able to expunge voices that violate the current racial zeitgeist (see here and here).

In a real sense, much of the mainstream media functions as a proxy for the views of the organized Jewish community; proxies have a similar effect but have the advantage of not calling attention to Jewish identities and interests. As Patrick Cleburne notes in a comment on the thousands that are expected to turn out for a Donald Trump rally in Mobile, Alabama:
 A couple more events like Mobile looks like being and we are going to be deluged with Nuremberg rally comparisons. No one who can stir up the Serfs like this is going to be trusted.
Implicit in this statement is that Jewish concerns about White people turning into Nazis dominate the mainstream media. And although the media’s comparisons will be with Nazi rallies, it will be their proxies in the media making the comparisons, not Jewish organizations — at least for the time being.

This calls attention to the fact that Jewish organizations would do well not to take a public stance on Trump simply because he has touched a public nerve. It’s one thing to ruin careers of people with relatively little power, but certainly Trump is not so easily dealt with given his celebrity status, his wealth, and what increasingly seems to be his political deftness. The weakness of Jewish power is that, despite Jewish influence on the media, it has typically opposed strong trends in traditional American culture (public presence of Christianitygun controlthe public culture of homosexuality) that remain popular with substantial percentages of the public despite Jewish media influence.

This is also true of immigration. Despite the tsunami of positive messages on immigration emanating from the mainstream media, Trump’s policies on immigration are clearly in sync with the views of most Americans. Jewish attitudes on immigration are certainly not deeply rooted in popular attitudes among White Americans. The anti-White revolution has been a top-down phenomenon which has occurred because fundamentally America is now an oligarchy, not a democracy. Trump’s populist appeal is a real threat to our new, hostile elite because it is fundamentally uncontrollable.

In addition, it is quite possible that another reason for the relative silence is that the aura of Jewish moral superiority that has been so important for Jewish success has been slipping noticeably lately. This has occurred particularly on the left with the success of the BDS movement because of the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians, and anyone who is remotely familiar with Israel is quite aware of Jewish double standards and hypocrisy on immigration as a moral imperative.

The loss of the Jewish image of victimhood and moral superiority would indeed be a very large step in the right direction. If and when Jewish organizations feel that it would be counterproductive to issue statements supporting immigration, it would be a great sign that things really are changing. I rather doubt that we are there yet, but their aura of moral superiority has never been so vulnerable.

Classical Nihilism

via Soul of the East

It’s a common refrain among self-described conservatives and libertarians in America that both the modern bureaucratic managerial state and mass culture have veered wildly out of control, headed in an ever increasing totalitarian direction, and must some how be reined in. Their prescription is almost always a return to the Constitution, along with the supposed values of the Founding Fathers, and some form of classical liberalism; as one constitutionalist slogan declares, the answer to 1984 is 1776. What is often absent from sloganeering is any meaningful analysis of how society developed from the original republic to the current oligarchic, Leviathan surveillance state.

Certainly assorted bogeyman figures and political movements are blamed in passing (just think back to Glenn Beck’s schizophrenic chalk board scribblings), but very few mainline conservatives and libertarians would dare entertain the notion that classical liberalism, which the American Constitution is an expression of, may itself be the mother of all the problems they now bemoan. Or to put it another way, either the Constitution is inherently too weak to stop its increasing irrelevance and the expansion of the Leviathan state, or totalitarianism is the natural, if not entirely foreseeable, progression of the original constitutional order.

One American, the Orthodox monk Fr. Seraphim Rose (1934-1982), was willing to entertain such notions, and boldly exposed classical liberalism as the first stage of unfolding revolutionary nihilism in his careful and prophetic study of the nihilistic dialectic. Through Rose’s clear-eyed vision, liberalism has always been a faulty compromise between traditional authority and what he called the Revolution, that is the drive to uproot and overthrow traditional authority:
The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect, is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the nineteenth century this compromise took the form of “constitutional monarchies,” an attempt-again-to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief representatives of the Liberal idea are the “republics” and “democracies” of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while professing to believe in both.
Yet such a mixture is unnatural and ultimately one element must give way to the other. As Rose noted, the Revolution “cannot be stopped halfway, it is a force that, once awakened, will not rest until its ends in a totalitarian Kingdom of this world.” That is to say, returned an earlier mentioned slogan, 1984 was conceived in the womb of 1776. So in the end, as the Italian traditionalist Julius Evola observed, similar to Fr. Seraphim Rose, in his Men Among the Ruins,
The beginning of the disintegration of the traditional sociopolitical structures, or at least whatever was left of them in Europe, occurred through liberalism.
Why must this be so? According to Fr. Rose, this is because the Old Order was “founded on absolute truth,”
…wherein sovereignty was vested in a Monarch, and authority proceeded from him downwards through a hierarchical social structure.
Liberalism, on the other hand, as an outgrowth of Renaissance humanism, places sovereignty in the hands of “the people” and authority is seen as “proceeding from below upwards.” It is not grounded in anything transcendent, even if it did in its infancy utilize the Christian vocabulary of that era.

How's that Constitution working out for you?
How’s that Constitution working out for you?

In the American political arena, many conservatives and libertarians, in addition to their idolatry of the Constitution, often chant the mantra of “We, the People,” while they, supposedly, are the true bearers of the will of “the people.” Such a claim is all quite ludicrous, as atomized, multicultural America no longer has anything that could even remotely pass as a homogenous population – there is no People. The American Empire is a hodgepodge of increasingly polarized, balkanized, and alienated racial, ethnic, and other sectarian groups. But even beyond that, the very concept of popular sovereignty is the root of the problem. After all, every totalitarian party, be it the Bolsheviks or the National Socialists, claimed to rule under the mantle of the will of the people, and the notion that the vulgar masses are especially wise or good has not been born out by history. If anything, quite the opposite seems to be the case.

So to return to the “spirit of 1776” is not the return of some lost golden age of constitutional justice, but rather a mad attempt to play out the entire fiasco all over again. The answer to the later stages of the nihilistic dialectic, careening in our age toward total destruction, is not solved by a return to one of the early stages, the nihilism of liberalism.

Russia vs. America: Queer 'Marriage,' Jewish Subversives, and Erasing History

via TradYouth

My ongoing series about the differences in how Russia and America handle both international and national issues might someday become the equivalent of a Jeff Foxworthy “You Might be a Redneck” skit.

If you believe that destroying the entire moral foundation of your nation to appease a Jewish led global elite that hates you is a good idea…. You might be an American.”

The Russian version makes a little bit more sense to sane individuals around the world and might go a little something like “If you want to preserve your historical culture, make your nation demographically and spiritually healthy, and stand against subversive globalists both at home and abroad… you might be a Russian.”

The battle between the international globalists who are led by America and the forces of nationalism, Faith and Tradition who are led by Russia is heating up with every passing day. To nationalists and Traditionalists in America and in every nation, it is becoming increasingly clear that no matter what your Homeland is, Holy Mother Russia better embodies your worldview and values than any regime in the West currently does.

The great gulf between Russia and America can be found when evaluating issues of Identity, Faith and the view on organic society. The American-led Atlantacist forces desire to destroy Traditional Western Christian civilization and replace it with a globalist, consumerist, cultureless and secular world that will serve as the endless manpower to a capitalist oligarchy of traitorous Gentile business owners and Jewish bankers who will rule over all of humanity.

There will be no room for national identity, authentic religiosity, or unique cultures if the globalists win this fight. A globalist victory means total defeat for all peoples and cultures, White, Black, Brown and Yellow. All people who yearn to be free must unite together against globalism, we will either be victorious or all hang separately.

Russia has continually stood for the rights of nations to be sovereign and free from international influence and occupation. The Eurasian Alliance is just one of many examples of Russia protecting the rights of nations to govern themselves. A coalition of secular nations such as Syria and China, Islamic nations like Iran and Lebanon, and Christian nations like Belarus are coalescing around President Putin and Russia to become a united front against the forces of globalism.

A Traditionalist International is forming and American and European nationalists should come under this banner to chop the root of the globalist tree here at home.

There’s gotta be some White Privilege down here somewhere!

Almost everything America does is aimed at displacing the founding stock of the nation and attacking the spiritual and cultural values of those who work every single day to maintain the crumbling empire. America has not merely declined, it’s become an inversion, a threat to everything it once represented.

White workers need advocates. We need voices. The dignified middle class lifestyle our parents enjoyed is slipping away from us. We’re sinking into the welfare trap, the abysmal “service economy,” and in uncertain odd jobs. This isn’t about developing a Leftist class consciousness, it’s about gathering together and refusing to be left behind, refusing to be the scapegoats for the privileges enjoyed by others.

I support all nationalist and secessionist movements in America from a variety of different backgrounds and identities, but my first goal is to empower my own people to fight globalism, capitalism, communism, and secularism in our communities. My people deserve a voice, we deserve political control of our homes, and that is why we must challenge the American regime.

As a people we must look for global alliances with Russia and any global force standing for Identity and Tradition so we can throw the globalist bosses off our backs. This current system is the enemy of everything we hold dear; it is time to break free from this tyranny and live as free and healthy White men and women once again, united by our communities, families, and shared vision.

While White men in America trudge off to work every day so that they can work and pay taxes to maintain the infrastructure, social programs and globalist endeavors of the American Empire in an economic environment where wages are tumbling and both legal and illegal immigrants are taking the few remaining jobs that haven’t already been shipped overseas to the Third World. The System spends nearly all of its time attacking Whites through every available economic, social and legislative means.

Whites are the ones who have shed the majority of the blood in the wars for America, mine the coal so that the lights stay on, plant and harvest the crops that keep the nation fed, build the roads, maintain the complex infrastructure network, scan and bag the groceries for hordes of–legal and illegal–immigrants waving EBT cards, and perform the functions necessary to keeping the American Empire grinding forward.

One would think that if White Americans make up the vast majority of the military strength, industrial output, and tax revenue for America that we would be respected stakeholders in the project. They’re committed to degrading, disenfranchising, and destroying us, and they can’t be bothered to consider how attacking the White American worker impoverishes and endangers everyone, including themselves. That’s how hatred works.

The most recent attacks on the Confederate flag and Southern Identity are getting to what would be called ludicrous levels if we lived anywhere but the modern day Babylon known as the United States of America. It is not enough for the enemy to simply take down Confederate flags from around the land and use the Jewish controlled media to insult and denigrate both our Confederate heroes and those who keep the memory of their sacrifices alive in the modern day, now the Leftist forces are actually looking to disinter Confederate heroes and move the remains of the dead for the sake of political correctness.

A statue that has stood for over a hundred years in Memphis Tennessee and the graves of both General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife is going to be unceremoniously moved from the park that recently was also stripped of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s name; “A Memphis city council committee voted unanimously to approve ordinances to remove the statue — which depicts Forrest mounted on his horse — and the grave.

The new America, burning and destroying anything the oligarchs disagree with
The new America, burning and destroying anything that represents Identity

While Republicans have proven themselves totally dedicated to capitulation in the face of the organized Left, the legal process of removing General Forrest was too long for a group of Black activists that used a shovel to begin digging up General Forrest and his wife and have declared “We are going to bring the back hoe, the tractors and the men with the equipment to raise Bedford Forrest from the soil of Memphis.” The organized Left and their Republican shoeshine boys are moving on a path of total cultural destruction for Whites, another symptom of the disease of Americanism.

Memphis is not the only city working to tear down Confederate monuments, Birmingham Alabama is currently looking to remove a Confederate soldier monument that does not have a Confederate flag anywhere near it, the simply notion that a Confederate monument exists is offensive enough to deem it in need of being cleansed from the public sphere by the Leftist elite. Towns and cities across Dixie are having their culture and history actively attacked in a culture war where only total destruction is acceptable.

Hillary Clinton recently said that taking down the Confederate flag in South Carolina isn’t enough, the long march towards eradicating “racism” also known as “White people and White culture” is never over as long as White Americans are still alive. Clinton said “America’s long struggle with racism is far from finished,” a battle cry to continue and ramp up attacks on heritage and Identity. There is no way to get off the train of Americanism other than secession because the end goal of both the Democrats and the Republicans is total cultural and ethnic genocide.

Attacks on the ability for White communities to worship and maintain Traditional Christian values are also ramping up. No portion of our private or public lives is allowed to exist without a political correctness comissar there to ensure we toe the Party line of diversity, inclusion and modernism. If you don’t believe me, just askTwo Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel who were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit.


Persecution, mocking and attacks against Christians and clergy in America is now commonplace. Not just in courtrooms, but on the streets of our cities and towns

Churches are now being told they might lose the ability to get insurance if they refuse to perform homosexual “weddings.” Lawsuits and attacks on the right for churches to maintain Traditional Christianity are bubbling up all around America, supported by high-priced lawyers, activists and government officials. National Review reported thatthe Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity ‘sometimes’ apply to churches and has stated that a ‘church service open to the public’ is not a ‘bona fide religious purpose’ that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization ‘closely associated with the United Methodist Church’ wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.

Modern America has no room for organizations or churches who disagree with the gospel of the false god of Americana. The System will use lawyers, lawsuits, laws and outright persecution to silence opposition and force churches and civic organizations to put in their pinch of incense, or else face being bankrupted or jail time. Traditionalism and America cannot coexist, from the highest levels of government all the way down to your local neighborhood Church.

In America those who stand for the rights of the unborn are labeled as “extremists” while multi-million dollar organizations like Planned Parenthood can discuss “less crunchy” methods to kill unborn babies so they can cut up aborted children to sell for parts to medical companies.

A pro-life organization the Center for Medical Progress exposed  multiple Planned Parenthood officials for breaking Federal law when it comes to trafficking human body parts for profit but instead of prosecuting the offenders, Democrats are rushing to the defense of Planned Parenthood and Republicans remain almost nearly silent. A recent article describes howFour Democrats in Congress — Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke — have written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking them to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. ” America is a regime where those who expose lawbreakers who are using murdered babies like a shop for used car parts are facing investigation and prosecution for bringing crimes to light. There is no justice in America, only degeneracy and depravity.

If you think you can simply hide from this System, think again. President Obama has announced a plan to literally hunt down White enclaves and break up White communities for the crime of simply being White. President Obama has assembled a secret database to find White areas where Whites are demographically homogeneous or economically succeeding.

The New York Post reported that  “A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of ‘racial and economic justice.’

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document ‘inequalities’ between minorities and whites.”

The Republicans and Democrats will systematically dismantle and destroy all displays of our Faith, our Identity and even wipe out our communities. Working to retake America is like standing in an ocean with a bucket to try and protect a sandcastle and trying to throw water back to sea to stop the rising tide. Only a total break from the American System can guarantee the survival of our unique Identity, culture and Faith.

All is not bleak however, on the opposite side of the world there is hope, the Russian nation is leading the charge against these degenerate forces of globalism from America.

A picture is worth a thousand words
A picture is worth a thousand words

While the United States Supreme Court is legalizing homosexual “marriage” here in the States, in RussiaMoscow’s top court has upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years.” Gay marriage is called an “abomination” by both Russian Orthodox Church officials and elected government representatives.

While America is working to steadily erode our rights to firearm ownership and the ability to carry firearms for the protection of our lives, families and property, in Russia “the Russian government eases restrictions, allowing citizens to carry licensed weapons for the purposes of ‘self-defense.’”

The Republicans and Democrats are looking towards amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, increasing so called “sanctuary cities” around the nation and giving in-State tuition to illegal immigrants. In Russia the government is actually working to crack down on illegal immigration to protect the Russian nation and Russian jobs. Just recentlyThousands of immigrants from countries such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam have been detained across Russia over the past several weeks as part of a broader effort to weed out illegal immigrants living and working in the country.”

American police are not even allowed to enforce Federal immigration laws in “sanctuary cities” across America, even as illegal immigrants murder, rob, rape and beat law abiding citizens on a daily basis. In Russia however the State is ramping up enforcement of immigration laws with “raids on thousands of locations, including work places, markets, lodgings, hotels and people’s homes” to hunt down and deport illegal immigrants.

Russians celebrate their history and fight for a brighter future for their children
Russians celebrate their history and fight for a brighter future for their children

Russia also actively celebrates its history with marches, parades, concerts and events that bring out hundreds of thousands of Russians a year to feel pride in their heritage, their Identity and their shared Russian Orthodox Faith. While the American government is doing everything they can to rewrite history, destroy landmarks and dismantle feelings of national pride, Russia actively is advancing national Identity and promoting a healthy form of patriotism to the youth.

One of the biggest victories Russia has accomplished recently is cracking down on NGO’s or Non-Governmental Organizations, one of the biggest ways that the globalists pump money and resources into nations to work to destabilize the government, the Identity of the people and the culture. RecentlyRussia’s parliament has passed a law banning ‘undesirable’ international organisations.. According to the legislation, the prosecutor general and foreign ministry can register as undesirable any ‘foreign or international organisation that presents a threat to the defensive capabilities or security of the state, to the public order, or to the health of the population.'” 

The NGO’s that Russia is specifically looking at is ones backed by the United States, the European Union and Jewish billionaires like George Soros who back the homosexual movement, abortion, moral relativism and the principles of globalism.

Under this new lawthose who work for such organizations could be sentenced to as much as six years in prison” which is a good start towards bringing those who push degeneracy to our youth and work to degrade our cultures to justice.

It must be understood that many NGO’s around the world both in America and in Europe are the activist arm of organized Jewish power. The Jewish financiers use their money gained from globalist trade deals, usury and marketing moral decay in the form of “popular culture” to the West to then fund pet projects to wage open war against Faith, family and folk.

NGO’s in many cases work as fronts to get money, activists, resources and lawyers to more radical organizations. Groups like FEMEN and Pussy Riot are backed by Jewish oligarchs such as George Soros, German Jew Helmut Josef Geier and American Jewish businessman Jed Sunden. Prostitutes and Leftists activists are given a “salary allegedly around $1,000” a month, a large amount in Eastern Europe, to be the foot soldiers of the New World Order. The cause of disrupting church services, desecrating crosses, attacking clergy and working to promote decadence is a fanatical organized Jewish hatred for Christianity, European Identity and Traditional Western Civilization.

Jewish oligarchs have been promoting groups like FEMEN in Eastern Europe for years, who consider attacking bishops to be activism
Jewish oligarchs have been promoting groups like FEMEN in Eastern Europe for years, who consider attacking bishops to be activism

Jewish forces from around the world unite behind causes that are funded with Jewish money to promote their anti-Christ agenda. A combination of media moguls, “intellectuals” and various dissident groups all get behind the work done by groups like Pussy Riot and FEMEN to use their activism to promote a wider agenda to the European people. From Jewish writer Alek D. Epstein to Jewish TV station owner Viktor Shenderovich and Jewish political activists Garry Kasparov and Boris Nemtsov the forces of organized Jewry and globalism all work to promote the insidious worldview set forth by organized Jewish oligarchs.

President Putin and the Russian Duma have taken a huge step to work to clamp down and crush these various front organizations that are funding Atlanticist backed protest groups by banning NGO’s that are bad for the best interests of the Russian State, the Russian culture and the Russian people. Already the law is having a positive effect for the Russian people.

Within weeks of the law taking effectThe MacArthur Foundation, a US NGO that supports academic and human rights initiatives, will shut down its activities in Russia after lawmakers included it on a ‘patriotic stop list’ of foreign groups… The 12 organisations listed on the stop list also included business magnate George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the US pro-democracy NGO Freedom House, as well as Polish and Ukrainian non-profits.

These recently banned NGO groups have been actively working to attack Traditional Christian values and the stability of nationalist governments in Eastern Europe for years. Now as Russia asserts Herself as a global power and the defender of Traditionalism the traitorous elements of Russian society that are backed by the Zionist Occupied Governments of the West and various business leaders are being kicked out of Russia so Russia can be governed by the Russian people, not globalist oligarchs with a plan for total global domination.

We as American nationalists, as Christians and as supporters of self determination should continue to enthusiastically support the advances Russia is making in regards to becoming the Third Rome. May we learn from their example on how to take your country back from the globalist Jewish elites and create alliances with the Russian people to fight our common enemy, the globalists, organized Jewry and traitors within our own nations. Long live Mother Russia and may she continue to fight the good fight for Faith, family and folk.

Who Will Defend Christian Europe?

via Cambria Will not Yield

“It may be tempting for the historian to arraign great men, prosecute them and convict them. It panders to his prejudices, inflates his ego and is invariably successful, since they are not present to defend themselves.” – Weyl and Marina


Let’s pretend I’m a talk show host. On my second show I have a panel of experts discussing the negro. All the experts take it as a given that integration has been a failure. In light of that fact, the experts are discussing whether it would be better to send all the blacks back to Africa or to relocate them to a few states in the United States.

The third show is dedicated to feminism. The demonic nature of feminism is taken as a given. That abortion will once again become illegal and abortion doctors will receive the death penalty is agreed upon with virtually no discussion at all. What the panel of experts is divided on is how strict the measures should be in order to insure that the laws of a Christian patriarchy are adhered to. The consensus of the panel is that the laws must be very strict at first, because so much damage has been done by matriarchal rule. But once patriarchy is reestablished, there can be a certain relaxing, but no abeyance, of some of the stricter laws.

The fourth show is about the homosexual menace that so recently threatened to destroy the last vestiges of Western civilization. Again, the sinfulness of sodomy is taken as a given by the panel. What is necessary is to determine the punishment for the public advocacy of homosexuality. Eschewing the medieval practice of punishing the private, hidden homosexuality, the panel agrees on the necessity of punishing any public advocacy of homosexual rights or any public display of homosexuality.

The fifth show is on the subject of the democratic heresy, not just as regards the American experiment in democracy, but also as regards the various European democracies. Democracy as a religion is condemned out of hand. What the panel discusses is the nature of the monarchy that is to be adopted. Shall it be an absolute monarchy, or a constitutional monarchy with a republican and popular element? But at no point in the discussions is there any talk of reviving the American and modern European satanic experiments in ‘some-are-more-equal-than-others’ democracy.

The first show is the show that determined the subject matter for all the subsequent shows. In that first show the necessity of preserving and defending the European peoples’ Christian faith was discussed. The panel agreed that freedom of religion only applied to freedom within the Christian faith. The freedom to advocate another religion other than Christianity, the freedom to build a heathen church and the freedom to oppose the laws stemming from a Christian government, such as the laws prohibiting abortion and miscegenation, would be strictly forbidden.

Of course my talk show would never be allowed. The liberals would never allow such public ‘blasphemy.’ They would never permit the public condemnation of legalized abortion, democracy, and sodomy, and the advocacy of segregation and favored religion status for Christianity. And of course the reason the liberals would not permit a television show challenging the sacred cows of Liberaldom is because the liberals fought long and hard to establish their power. Why should they give it up by allowing any type of challenge to their power? That would be rather foolish, wouldn’t it? But the liberals were not always in power in the West; there was a time when they needed – and were granted – free speech in order to advance their agenda. When they were partly inside and partly outside of the government, the liberals used the Phil-Donahue-talk-show method of coercion: “Let’s discuss sodomy,” “What really is wrong with gay marriage?,” “Why not permit race-mixing?,” “Why not permit abortion?” Once that which is sacred and must be preserved is no longer taken as a given, but is instead open for ‘discussion’, then that which is sacred will not be preserved. I remember, many years ago, cancelling my subscription to National Review when they ran an article on abortion titled, “Abortion: A Spirited Debate.” No magazine claiming to be conservative can treat abortion as a debatable issue. Conservatives are called upon to defend the Christian West, not to debate the relative merits of Christian morality and liberal morality.

And that is the big difference between the conservatives and the liberals. People will always act according to their religion. The liberals, now that they have total power, use the iron fist; they do not debate. They believe in an anti-Christian, anti-white utopia with the sacred negro at the center. They will not debate the moral rectitude of their religion; their duty is to defend it against the enemy – white Christians – by any means possible. Why, when they were in power, did not the conservatives defend their faith with the same zeal that the liberals now defend their faith? The conservatives of the early 20th century and the mid-20th century did defend their faith. The problem was that they did not believe in European Christianity. They believed in a fusion of democracy and Christianity. And such a fusion is a false religion. In the name of democracy the liberals penetrated and then consumed conservatism. What does modern conservatism consist of? Nothing. Conservatives are just an adjunct of liberalism, begging liberals to allow them to be part of Liberaldom by showing them that they too love the negro.

The case of the anti-sodomite, Christian baker of Colorado is an example of how the new ‘iron fist’ of liberalism operates. The sodomite branch of the liberal machine waited until they had complete power and then bared their fangs. Two pig-gutted sodomites had traveled from another state to the Christian Colorado bakery, and asked the owner, a professed Christian, to make them a sodomite wedding cake in 2012. You know the rest – the man refused to countenance sin by baking a “gay” cake. The sodomites went to court, and the baker lost. He appealed and the appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision. Facing the prospect of stiff fines, the baker has chosen to no longer make wedding cakes, thus losing 40% of his business. Another mom-and-pop bakery in Oregon was fined $135,000 by a state bureaucrat on July 4th for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple three years ago. Both cases prove what we should have known when the gay rights movement started – liberalism has nothing to do with compassion for sinners, it is about the celebration of sin and the punishment of the Christian opponents of that celebration. “Don’t impede the onward march to utopia or we will trample you to death!” is the liberals’ firm resolve.

It was significant that the sodomites’ feminist lawyer had argued that the baker’s religiously based refusal to bake the cake was not valid, for the reason that white people once cited their religion in order to ban inter-racial marriage. This ‘brilliant’ argument evidently convinced the judge, who upheld the lower court’s ruling. There are two points to be made in response to the feminist lawyer and the liberal judges. First, just because the Christian religion was once cited to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage does not invalidate the Christian baker’s claim that he should not be forced to bake a cake for sodomites or lose his livelihood. Secondly, Christians should also be against inter-racial marriage, because it leads to the legalization of abortion and sodomy by defacing the image of God in man, but the Mom and Pop bakers were not guilty of such sentiments nor was the Colorado baker. Would that they were. I think the old adage, ‘in for a penny, in for a pound,’ applies here. The liberals will not let you be half-liberal, so why not go all the way and become a white Christian European who loves his own racial hearth fire above all others?

Some military man, perhaps it was MacArthur or perhaps Robert E. Lee, once said that the words which describe all failed military campaigns are “too late.” The white people of the United States have discovered too late that civil rights meant negro dominance and the extermination of white people, equal rights for women meant legalized abortion, and gay rights meant the mandated acceptance of sodomite marriages. So long as evil was put in virtuous terms, white grazers did not see evil for what it was. First, they were weakened by the Phil-Donahue-type discussion, then they were completely overwhelmed by the virtuous fa├žade of the demon movements. “Who would be so base that they are against civil rights? Who would be so vile that they are against equal rights for women? Who would be so devoid of humanity that he would not forgive homosexuals? And who would be so tyrannical that he would be undemocratic? If any, speak – for him have I offended. None? Then none have I offended, keep on grazing in the fields of oblivion.”

Even before the feminist revolution, which preceded and led to the homosexual revolution, the liberals’ sinister purposes were crystal clear during the civil rights movement, which was really the miscegenation movement. If racial harmony was really the liberals’ goal and not the extermination of whites, the suggestions in such books as American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, written in 1971 by Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, would have been followed. In that book the two authors pointed out that virtually every prominent America statesman, including Abraham Lincoln, suggested some sort of separation of the races for the sake of the white race and the black race. Weyl and Marina proposed that if the right of private association, the right to segregate in schools, housing, and civic organizations, was upheld, then a non-utopian harmony could be achieved between the races. But such moderate, well-thought out proposals were vehemently rejected by the liberals. Why? Hasn’t it become obvious? The liberals do not want racial harmony, they want the extermination of the white race, just as they want to deify Lady Macbeth and destroy Christian marriage. What will it take for white grazers to turn away in disgust and horror from the liberals’ trough?

The whole liberal agenda is bad because it harms white, Christian Europeans. That should be our primary reason for opposing liberalism. But we must also point out that the “civil rights” movement has been a disaster for blacks; they now have no one to check their savagery, which they practice on each other as well as on whites. Nor has liberalism been beneficial for women. They now have the right to be bimbo newscasters and garage mechanics, but so many have lost that uniquely feminine spirituality that is necessary to be truly female. And the homosexuals? Is it really compassionate to tell them that the sin of sodomy is something they should celebrate?

The liberals claim to be humane, compassionate human beings. In fact, the liberals would have us believe that they and they alone are humane and compassionate. We must get past “we too are humane and compassionate, we don’t hate blacks, we don’t hate women, we are not homophobic” etc. That is not true. It is not a case of “we too are humane and compassionate,” it is a case of the liberals being devoid of all humanity. They use words like compassion to push a cruel, merciless agenda down the throats of white grazers who stand befuddled and amazed before the liberal juggernaut of scientists, educators, and New Age theologians. It is only the white, prejudiced, Christian European who is humane and compassionate. I object to using the term “humanist” to describe liberals. They are not liberal humanists – there is nothing human about them – they are inhumane monstrosities. Do Christian Europeans hate? Of course we do — we hate because we love much. We don’t hate Uncle Remus, but we do hate militant black savages who prey on white people. We don’t hate Florence Nightingale, but we do hate Lady Macbeth and all those feminist harpies that have followed in her train. And we don’t hate homosexuals, we feel sorry for them, that is, until they become militant, and then we do indeed hate them. When I was growing up, I didn’t even know what a homosexual was until my late teens. And when I heard about their existence, I felt sorry for them. They would never know the feeling a man gets when that one special silken gown enters his life. Of course feminism has killed the silken-gown femininity, so maybe modern heterosexual men will never know that feeling either. But the point is I didn’t hate homosexuals. But I do hate them now, when they militantly attack the silken-gown ethos of the Christian knight and the Christian hearth fire. I feel the same about the feminists as I do about the barbarians of color and the homosexuals. Pity dies, and a fighting hatred takes over when they threaten the European hearth fire. This seems so obvious that I shouldn’t have to write it down, but it isn’t obvious to the vast majority of white people, or else they would not go so gently into the Babylonian night of liberalism. They would rage against the dying of the light of Christian Europe, and then the light will not die.