Sep 15, 2015

Establishing the White Genocide Thesis

via Counter-Currents

White Nationalists are united in the belief that our race is threatened with simple biological extinction. This is often dismissed as alarmism, but, as I have shown, one can make a very simple and compelling argument that whites will go extinct if present trends continue. The purpose of White Nationalism is to interrupt those trends.

Some White Nationalists go one step further, arguing that our race is being intentionally driven to extinction, i.e., that whites are the targets of genocide. This claim too is dismissed as not just alarmist but crazy. Nevertheless, I shall argue that white genocide is actually happening. There are people in positions of power who are promoting policies that they know will lead to the extinction of the white race. Unless, of course, we stop them.

To establish the white genocide thesis, we must do three things. First, we need to define genocide in a way that is consistent with a slow process leading ultimately to extinction. Second, we need to show that white extinction is not a mysterious force of nature but the result of human choices and actions. Third, we need to show that white extinction is not just an unforeseen, unintended consequence of these policies, but rather their deliberate, intentional effect.

It seems counter-intuitive to claim that whites are the victims of genocide. Whites are not being slaughtered by the millions, which is the image that most people have of genocide. To all appearances, our race is powerful, prosperous, and populous. But defenders of the White Genocide thesis point to the 1948 United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which in Article II defines genocide as

. . . any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; . . .

This definition of genocide is much broader than outright mass murder. In particular, points (c) and (d) are consistent with characterizing policies that destroy a group slowly, over long periods of time, as genocidal as well. So genocide comes in two forms, which we can call fast, hot genocide and slow, cold genocide. White extinction falls into the latter category.

White extinction means that in every white nation, reproduction rates have fallen below replacement, which means that more whites will die than are being born, until whites cease to exist as a distinct race.

There are five principal causes of white extinction. I am sure that other factors could be added to this list, but if just these five problems were addressed, I would no longer fear for the future of our race.
  • An ethic of hedonism, individualism, and selfishness that denigrates reproduction and family life;
  • Feminism, which encourages women to pursue careers instead of making family life their primary occupation;
  • The widespread use of birth control and abortion to decouple sex from pregnancy and pregnancy from child-rearing;
  • The rising costs of family formation, chiefly caused by racial integration—which is the driving force behind suburbanization and ex-urbanization in order to find safe spaces for whites to raise families—and by non-white immigration and offshoring industry, which lower wages for whites;
  • Miscegenation, in which individuals reproduce their own genes but not their race by mixing with another race.
These factors are not blind forces of nature, like an asteroid colliding with earth. They were all created by human beings. Some of them, like feminism, birth control pills, legalized abortion, and overturning racial segregation, immigration restrictions, and bans on miscegenation are quite recent. They were hatched in the minds of intellectuals, artists, scientists, politicians, educators, and advertisers. They were made real by changing people’s beliefs and values, and by altering the laws and institutions that govern us.

But all of these things could be changed. People could be taught to value family life over selfishness, hedonism, and careerism; feminism could be discouraged; access to birth control and abortion could be restricted; laws could be changed to make family formation affordable; racial separation, immigration restriction, and economic nationalism could become policy again; miscegenation could be outlawed. Indeed, White Nationalists support just such policies to halt white extinction.

But to establish the white genocide thesis, we must show that white extinction is the intended result of the policies we oppose. The first three causes of white extinction are simply products of the pursuit of individual freedom. The last two are products of individual freedom and racial egalitarianism. So isn’t it possible that white extinction is just the unintended consequence of individualism and racial egalitarianism?

Of course it is possible, and in many cases, it is true. The majority of people who advocate individualism and racial egalitarianism are simply unaware that these values are promoting the ongoing extinction of the white race. Our job is to inform them.

But when such people are informed, their reactions fall into several categories. Some will simply refuse to accept that white genocide is taking place. Of those who accept that white genocide is actually happening, some will wish to stop it, and others will not. Of the latter, some will simply not care, and others will actually cheer the process on.

There is, however, a difference between people who might sign on to policies promoting white genocide after the fact and those who might conceive and execute such policies before the fact and with full awareness of their consequences. What evidence is there that such people exist?

First, the burden of proof needs to be shifted. For is it really plausible that the leaders of dozens of white nations have adopted similar policies antithetical to the long-term survival of their own peoples, yet none of them knew what they are doing? Yes, it is fashionable to deride politicians for thinking only in terms of the next election. But that is not really true. Politicians are, for instance, rather far-sighted when it comes to their personal career ambitions and plans.

Beyond that, our ruling elite does not consist simply of democratic politicians. Moreover, the ruling elites in every form of society are noted for thinking and planning ahead. Both government intelligence agencies and private think tanks are in the business of generating long-term predictions based on current trends, and planning accordingly. Thus it is just not plausible that our leaders are unaware of white extinction. They either don’t care about it, or they want it to happen.

Second, it is no longer controversial that Jews are massively overrepresented among Western elites in politics, the media, business, academia, and the professions. Jews are, moreover, among the principal promoters of trends conducive to white genocide, for example: non-white immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, feminism, and sexual liberation. Of course any attempt to blame Jews for white genocide can be hijacked into hairsplitting about historical causation. From a practical point of view, however, it is more important—and less controversial—to note that the organized Jewish community is the linchpin of opposition to nationalist, especially racial nationalist, attempts to rectify these problems going forward. How we got here is ultimately less important than how we can save ourselves. And Jews are blocking the exit.

Now, is it really plausible that the leaders of the Jewish community “know not what they do”? Jews, after all, are the people most aware of the conditions that promote or prevent genocide. Thus Jews support the existence of a Jewish state, Israel, as a refuge from genocide. Yet they oppose any attempt to preserve white homelands for white peoples. Israel is for Jews, but Poland, Sweden, Germany, France, and so forth are for everyone. Jews see intermarriage as a threat to Jewish survival, but they promote miscegenation for other groups and oppose anyone who would ban it. Jews recognize that a strong sense of Jewish identity, including pride in their history and achievements, is necessary for Jewish survival, but they promote multiculturalism and white guilt for the rest of us.

Now, not all Jews promote destructive ideas merely for the goyim while exempting themselves. Jews may promote intermarriage for others, but they practice it as well and at higher rates than other groups. Jews promote feminism to others, but the primary victims of Jewish feminism are the Jewish men who marry these harridans. Jews promote an ethos of selfishness, individualism, and materialism to others. But they practice it as well, and secular Jews typically have very low reproduction rates.
In short, many Jews don’t just preach nihilism, they practice it as well. Unfortunately, because Jews are so influential, they have the power to drag us along in their wake. They are the vanguard of nihilism. They are not hypocrites, preaching nihilism for thee but not for me. But that makes them even more evil, because hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and they don’t care enough to even offer lip service.

But while some Jews are leading us into extinction, others are goading us from behind but have no intention of sharing in our fate. These are the Jews who praise multiculturalism, open borders, and miscegenation for us, but prefer to opt out because they know that such policies would lead to their extinction.

They aren’t just being “inconsistent” about principles. They are being perfectly consistent with their real principle of collective self-interest. They are not upholding “double standards,” because their single standard is collective self-interest. These Jews have a live and let die philosophy. They seek to profit from our destruction as a people, and they not only promote our decline but actively suppress our resistance to it.

Aside from Jews that are actively pushing and pulling us toward our destruction, there are surely some who are doing neither. Some simply lack the power to do us harm, even if they might want to. Others are entirely ignorant of what their leaders are doing. But one category is conspicuous by its near absence: righteous Jews, i.e., Jews who know white genocide is taking place, who understand their people’s role in it, and who have warned whites and worked to stop it. That relative silence is actually more damning than the din of anti-white hatred emanating from the Jewish community.

In short, we know that white genocide is happening, because Jews in high places, with the power to promote or prevent white genocide, cannot be unaware of what is happening, yet they do nothing to stop it and everything to stop us from stopping it.

The third and most compelling piece of evidence for white genocide is that people actually say that they support it. The only people who say outright that whites should be exterminated are marginal cranks, Dr. Kamau Kambon, a sometime Black Studies professor and the owner of Blacknificent Books, who declared, “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet.”

The subtler advocates of white genocide, like Noel Ignatieff, a Jewish Harvard professor and the editor of the journal Race Traitor (subtitled Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity), speak of “deconstructing” the “concept” of whiteness, which sounds like a harmless language game until you grasp that they think that race just is a social construct.

MiscegenationalismBut the most common advocates of white genocide simply promote race-mixing as a solution to racism. They tacitly agree with White Nationalists that racial diversity within the same system leads to strife, so to eliminate strife, they promote miscegenation to create a homogeneous mongrel race. The most influential advocate of what I call “miscegenationalism” was European unity pioneer Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who was himself of mixed race (his father was white, his mother Japanese). In his book Practical Idealism, he declared:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

Interestingly enough, Coudenhove-Kalergi did not envision the disappearance of the Jewish people but instead expected them to be the ruling elite of a miscegenated world. (He himself was not Jewish.)

Why is it important to establish that white extinction is actually white genocide? It is easy to understand why people might shy away from such a truth, for it implies that whites are not just the victims of a ghastly mistake, or an impersonal sociopolitical “system,” or an inhuman cosmic or historical destiny, but of knowing malice—of principled enmity—of diabolical evil. It is hard to accept that such evil exists, much less that it wills our annihilation.

But if we are to save ourselves, we have to understand the forces that are arrayed against us. We need to know that our attempts to raise people’s consciousness and win their allegiance will eventually come up against not just ignorance and indifference but diamond hard malice. Eventually we will make all the friends that we can make, persuade all the people we can persuade, and only enemies will remain—enemies that cannot be converted but must simply be defeated.

Being Cuckolded: Empathy and Pathological Altruism -- A White Disease Leading to White Genocide

via Western Spring

First, use the Big Lie technique to convince many easily suggestible and low I.Q. Whites that all people are just the same as them and fill their tiny brains with idiotic and meaningless slogans such as: We all bleed red blood, or We’re all pink inside, or We all love our children, and many similar nostrums and then it is an easy next step to have them cuckold themselves and commit their own suicidal genocide to benefit people who really are not like them at all and who will not only pollute the White gene pool but will, if their numbers are large enough, and if their birthrates are high enough, replace the White populations.
This is what we are seeing in Europe right now.  It is also happening in North America, but Europe–the ancestral homeland of all Whites–is in the news right now as millions of non-Whites simply walk across borders and take over White nations and replace a dispirited and beaten down White population full of weak minded and weak bodied people who, in many cases, are welcoming their replacements.

We are seeing the mass genocide of Whites right before our eyes.

Don’t be part of your own destruction.  Do what you have to do to separate out from the invading hordes of non-Whites.  They are not your kind, Whitey, not at all.  Their genes will destroy your genes.

First, there will be fewer blonds and fewer light colored eyes. Then, there will be fewer with white skin.  Head shapes will change.  Body styles will change. Personalities will change. Whites will be transformed into non-Whites via bedroom genocide as weak willed Whites mate with non-Whites and turn themselves into non-White baby factories.

Save yourself and your family line, Whitey.  You may not be able to save the ignorant White masses, but you can save yourself and yours.  You may become the new Adam or Eve of all Whites who are still White in the future.

You have an absolute right to continue to exist as a White person.  And, the more White people there are, the greater is the chance that you and yours will survive the great extinction of White genes that is now upon us.

Be White, live White, think White, pray White, survive White, prevail White.  Do not let yourself be blended away.

More on Moderates and Extremists

via Occident Invicta

Commenter curiosetta makes a few excellent points in this post:
There are moderate racists too. Moderate racists believe (for example) blacks are The Problem and they pose a threat to a civilised society. But being moderate they only think that and voice that. They don’t actually advocate using force to subjugate blacks (segregation, camps, etc). Radical racists do advocate the use of force. One might say the radicals take the claims of the moderates to their logical conclusion.
Radicals are just moderates with the balls to “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. What tends to happen is the moderates become a widespread movement, which is not quite offensive enough to motivate people to do anything (freedom of speech etc). And this widespread movement shields the minority of radicals and nurtures them deep inside the movement, and this protection is what allows the radicals to gain power and influence and take over society. By the time anyone realises the radicals have taken over it is usually too late (classic example: Nazi Germany).
Moderate feminists claim men are The Problem and pose a threat to civilised soicety, and radical feminists just take this premise to its most logical conclusion and call for the subjugation of men, or even the extermination of men. Radical feminists are shielded by the moderate ones and nurtured deep within feminist movement, and that is how they are able to infiltrate the media, politics, education system etc.
Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.
Therefore you could argue that moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) are actually far more dangerous than the radicals, precisely BECAUSE they are able to maintain a thin veneer of social acceptability. The person advocating the subjugation of men is not a threat because they are openly hateful and dangerous….. but the person advocating He for She is dangerous because they are helping to implement the same basic ideology, but they are viewed as harmless and innocent – and even well meaning.
Radicals = “We want to subjugate men/ jews”
Moderates = “We just want to empower women/ Germany and protect them from outside threats”
> They would be the feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity
Men actually have LESS legal rights than women. So in order to achieve ‘gender equality’ in 2015 we need to either strip women of their extra rights, or afford those rights to men too, so that men can be equal to women.
There are no rights that men have that women do not also have. There are many rights that women have that men have not yet been afforded (in areas such as reproduction, divorce law, child custody, health, genital integrity, criminal justice etc etc).
Now… you give me an example of a feminist campaigning for gender equality. Ready, steady, go…..

First, a minor disagreement. Claiming that blacks cause social problems is not racist, it is at worst a xenophobic expression. Claiming that blacks are inherently inferior as a race would actually be racist. Only a tiny minority of Westerners hold genuinely racist beliefs. There are far more racists in Asia and the Middle East than there are in the Western world.

With that out of the way, I think this is an excellent post because it makes one very important point:
Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.
This is quite frankly a brilliant bit of analysis. Consider the case of Malala Yusufzai for example. Malala’s face was quickly hijacked by feminists which in turn made her an international feminist icon. Malala’s position on girl’s education is entirely moderate and acceptable and almost impossible to disagree with. The question is: Can Malala Yusufzai be classified as a feminist? I would think not. To the best of my knowledge, she has never whined about “Patriarchy” or “Institutionalized oppression” or “Male privilege.” I have read parts of her diary in Urdu and she sounds like a typical teenage girl who enjoys school and shopping for bargains at Jinnah market.  I admit that I haven’t been keeping up with any news pertaining to Malala, so if she has turned into a textbook gender feminist subscribing to a dialectical reality, please feel free to correct me.

Anyhow, this is precisely what Curiosetta is talking about. Any attack on the extremist ideology of feminism will be misrepresented as an attack on sweet moderate Malala. This feminist icon is in fact a human shield protecting a hateful and intolerant ideology.


via The West's Darkest Hour

Greg Johnson’s preface to North American New Right, vol. 1, contains these paragraphs:
“Metapolitics” refers to what comes before the political, i.e., the foundations of politics, including both (1) political ideas, i.e., the intellectual case for a particular political order, and (2) a concrete community that embodies those ideas in the present and will serve as the seed of a new political order to emerge in the future.
Before the White Republic can become a reality, it must first be a fantasy, a dream, a vision of a possible world.
The trouble I see with this is that Johnson and the rest of white nationalists fail to follow the steps of the Nazis. The heroic Germans didn’t sit in armchairs with “metapolitic” projects. They formed a tough, virile political party to move the masses.

The same could happen in our days with Greece’s Golden Dawn, especially after the financial accident that is coming. Why have the Americans eluded the creation of a tough political party and resort instead to essayism, effete “communities” and conferences admitting women?

The Majority of Homosexuals Are Spreading HIV on Purpose, and It’s Being Covered-up

via TradYouth

The “LGBT community” has come a long way from its origins in the underworld. As recently as the 1980s, individuals engaging in homosexual activity were perceived as being in the grips of a ghastly suicidal perversion; devoid of dignity and grossly lacking in respect for the human body. They were pariahs, a minority of freaks with short life expectancies, sinking in a world of substance abuse, mental illness, crippling diseases, and predation upon the innocent.

Thirty years later, queers haven’t changed a bit, but now they’ve got friends in high places. The knife-wielding transexuals we grew up fighting on the streets of fictional New York City in Final Fight (an export from the “call them as you see them” Japanese) have been rehabilitated by Jews into pop culture’s offering of a heroic ideal. Symbols of white Western manhood, the cowboy and the soldier, have been reduced to nothing more than costumes for degenerates to cosplay in. Millions of alienated youth and victims of child molestation are teetering on the margins, and their anguish–which suggests a genuine need for counseling or a helping hand–is instead used to drive them over the edge through perpetual exposure to vile, dishonest propaganda from the rocking cradle to the hearse.

In most of the West, to insinuate sexual intent when homosexuals adopt children is a taboo that will expose dissidents to violence, employment termination, or mass media induced defamation. The gangsters in Chinos have been given a seat at the table of world power by the Jewish establishment, largely due to the intersectionality (a Cultural Marxist/Jewish buzzword) of the two groups’ interests and membership.

Systematic suppression aside, the idea that homosexuals–or at least a significant portion of them–seek to and actively do molest children has always been scientific and social consensus. Yet, the fact that homosexual men have the strongest gender preference for little boys out of all “combinations” of couples when they adopt must be presumed to be innocent, for the same reason Darwin’s theories were censored in favor of the party-line propping Lamarckism in Stalin’s Russia.

Anecdotally, “gay” men, when they interact with normal people, get along best with straight women and girls, not heterosexual men or boys. With one out of every four queers admitting to having had sexual contact with a boy under 16 as an adult, it can be concluded that gay adoption is nothing more than an organized child grooming ring enjoying a degree of legal immunity.

The immunity comes from the arresting effects of Jewish-enforced political correctness on law enforcement, a problem that Australian customs officials admitted made them hesitant to ask too many questions about the little boy Peter Truong and Mark Newton “adopted” in Russia. Truong and Newton sexually abused the six year old, and shared him with fellow queers around the world.

It took extra time for police to rescue the boy, because the two sadistic fags brainwashed the innocent soul to think what they were doing to him was normal. Something similar is happening on an industrial scale in public schools and many private schools, which are mandating homosexual propaganda (thanks to pressure from Jewish lesbians, such as the NEA’s Randi Weingarten) in a thinly veiled fashion for kindergartners all around the country. There is an unending list of cases of this sort that you can find through very elementary research that never breaks the glass ceiling separating local media and national media. And there are more similar tragedies that are happening as we speak, perhaps even right next door if you live in a state where homosexuals are allowed to adopt or utilize surrogates.

Scouts on Patrol

Dr Goldberg can spin it a million ways to Saturday, but on “TLA Gay” (“The world’s leader in gay adult home entertainment”) the second most popular gay porn movie at the time of this publication is Fathers and Sons 2, which is about two older homosexual men who compel their own teenage sons to be shared in an orgy. Shortly after the Boy Scouts announced that they would be lifting a ban on queer counselors, a porno called Counselor Week at Camp Liberty has shot up to #4 on the best seller list.

Summer camp and Boy Scout themed pornography is a well-worn fetish in the “LGBT community”, and thus this new policy has them barely containing their excitement. On the same website, there are dozens of films popular enough for multiple sequels dedicated to this scenario, such as the “Into the Woods” series, “Scouts on Patrol”, “Campfire Twinks”, “Chicken Patrol”, and scores of others, featuring teen or pre-teen looking boys dressed in knock off Boy Scout uniforms.

Bug Catchers and Gift Givers: More Common Than You Think

Even though 20% of all homosexual men in America have HIV/AIDS (which is definitely a very low ball estimate) and men who have sex with men account for 61% of all new cases every year , modern medicine in the field has outpaced research for virtually every other crippling disease.

The billions poured into treating HIV has allowed homosexuals to live longer than ever, in contrast to people with more common yet equally deadly diseases that do not. The fruit of this social [mal]investment can be seen in the numerous drugs tailored to prevent HIV, from Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which make you immune to the virus while taking it, all the way to HIV “morning after pills” that retroactively protect homos from HIV if taken 72 hours after unprotected anal, blood, semen, or fecal contact.

The quiet outrage over hundreds of billions spent over the years so that homosexuals don’t have to use condoms has led to the creation of FAIR (“Fair Allocation In Research”), a syndicate composed of scientists and doctors protesting the horrifically disproportionate amount of money given to HIV research, all while diseases that kill millions every year in the United States are ignored by both public and private grant-givers, as seen in the chart below. The only other illness where funding outpaces deaths per year is another STD homosexuals are very prone to getting: Hepatitis B:

Death Rates

With all the resources and treatments available for gay men exposed to HIV/AIDS, researchers are feigning confusion (or else lose their jobs) as to why the rate of infection per year is today approaching 1980s levels. Additionally, even those who perform homosexual anal penetration without condoms on average organically have to engage in violent sodomy 122 times to make seroconversion likely.
The only explanation we can conclude here is that homosexuals just don’t care about giving other people AIDS, and in many cases, actively seek the infection as part of a morbid, homocidal sexual fantasy.

Viral Loads
The Homocidal “POZ”, the Willing “NEGS”,
and “Barebacking” Culture
One fairly popular colon-unfriendly pornographic film is called Viral Loads, directed by a rather mysterious figure named Paul Morris of Treasure Island Media. The star of the film is “Blue Bailey”, a real life HIV vector who engages in a condomless orgies with scores of men, many whom are HIV negative. The prospect of spreading HIV is the very draw of the film, and Treasure Island Media takes it to an utterly repulsive level:
“The willing, hungry lad gets gang-fucked by a roomful of studs. Most are poz [HIV-positive], some are neg. Who the fuck cares? Not Blue, that’s for fuckin’ sure.
To finish up his man worship initiation, we bring out a brimful jar full of more than 200 poz loads. Blue’s good buddies Dayton O’connor and Drew Sebastian carefully squirt every fucking drop up Blue’s knocked-up ass. Max X slurps Blue’s jizz-leaking ass throughout, establishing himself as the new world’s felching-champeen.”
Other films produced by the company–widespread despite legal liabilities–portray homosexuals eating, receiving, and even injecting HIV positive semen into themselves. The media and the suit-and-tie queers play off “bug-catchers” and “gift-givers” as a fringe, but the facts say otherwise. Away from the eyes of the general public, homosexual lobbies financed by Jewish elites (including major GOP donors like Paul Singer) such as the Human Rights Campaign are working to actually repeal laws that punish those who maliciously expose others to HIV/AIDS or withhold their status from partners.

According to a survey of London homosexuals, 94% were likely to forego condom use with a stranger if he was good looking. In a 2013 study by Sanchez, Sineath, Kahle, et al at Emory University, 43% of HIV positive men had condomless anal intercourse with people who were likely HIV negative. 72% of HIV positive men were likely to perform sexual acts without condoms in general, compared to 61% of HIV negative homosexuals.

The union of capital and state that is stifling social and scientific criticism of the homosexual “lifestyle” at the moment has ultimately brought the mental illness of homosexuality–once contained by public shaming–to a new level of depravity. According to Dr Bob Cabaj, the former president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “bug chasers” (those who actively seek to contract HIV/AIDS) account for 10,000 of the 40,000 new cases of HIV in the United States every year. Add that 28,500 of these approximately 40,000 cases are from men who have sex with men, which means that more than 1/3 of all new cases of homosexual HIV/AIDS are transmitted by bug catchers! Cabaj has expressed dismay at what he calls a “cover up” by the gay establishment on a practice that is far more mainstream than they are willing to admit. Their dilemma is that real life queers are wildly different from the bogus facade portrayed on Will & Grace for breeder consumption:
“Yeah, it’s an active cover-up, because they know about it. They’re in denial of this issue. This is a difficult issue that dredges up some images about gay men that they don’t want to have to deal with. They don’t want to shine a light on this topic because they don’t want people to even know that this behavior exists.”
The positively huge (no pun intended) “barebacking” culture is practically just a front for AIDS aficionados. One such “dating site”, called “PozConvert”, has thousands upon thousands of members. On its front page it states the following:
“Where POZ And NEG Men Meet. is an utterly unique, and completely debased, online destination for fearless, slutty Barebackers who think that the best CUM is CHARGED Cum.
So are you ready to Get CHARGED UP? Then join today!“
“Charged up” is fag lingo for the act of transmitting AIDS, and this is by no means the only site, despite its gloating, proud advertisement. Online forums such as “” (breeding is a term used by queers to describe the act of giving someone HIV, it is treated in LGBT culture as being the equivalent of heterosexual reproduction) and 22,628 member forum provide copious amounts of material focused on bug-chasing and match making “poz” with “neg”.

Grindr, a gay sex app similar to Tinder, has revolutionized homosexual interactions and allowed gift givers and bug chasers to roam freely. Those growing up in the era of fairy cultural dominion and Grindr, young men trapped in this ugly world ranging from 13 to 29, have experienced an increase in HIV of 132.5% according to the CDC.

On Grindr, HIV flows like poppers and Cyndi Lauper music at a chic East Village apartment. Most of the time, it’s just queers who get off on it, but in some cases, older perverts lie about their HIV status when they molest suggestible underage boys on the platform. In the latter case, these individuals are charged with aggravated assault, which gets upgraded to a more serious class of felony if HIV is transmitted, but the Human Rights Campaign and other Judeo-homosexual organizations are already making inroads towards repealing such laws.

After a number of failed attempts to pass the “REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act”, which seeks to eliminate additional punishments for those who expose others to HIV (including minors) through rape or by lies, its 2015 iteration is being forwarded once again. Its sponsors are black California Marxist Rep. Barbara Lee, homosexual activist Rep. Jim McDermott, Jew Rep. Adam B. Schiff, and Cuban-Jew Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Judging from the momentum fags have garnered as of late, this could be the year they can spread HIV with impunity.

HIV: The Gay Fetish We’re Subsidizing

The first case of HIV/AIDS to reach North America was a 15 year old black boy named Robert Rayford in the late ’60s. Robert was a street kid who was molested for pay by St Louis’ small but aggressive homosexual clique. In ’69 Missouri, homosexuality and child-abuse were both heavily frowned upon, and so Rayford died without the disease becoming an epidemic, even though the strange sores prolifically spreading around his body that bewildered doctors at the time were misdiagnosed.

By the 1980s, AIDS finally made its way to cosmopolitan hubs like San Francisco and New York City, and Queer America was being ravaged. The advent of Penicillin had previously granted homosexuals some leeway in contracting the multitude of horrid STDs they are dozens and hundreds of times more likely to be vectors of, but this was different. When medical science finally uncovered that HIV was uniquely prevalent with men that have sex with men, they titled it GRID: Gay Related Immune Deficiency.

The queer movement, which by the glamorous, drug-fueled ’80s was increasingly mainstream amongst the gluttonous and self-worshipping bourgeois intelligensia (most of the figures being Jewish), suddenly suffered a huge setback. The likelihood of a painful, publicly humiliating death, where your macabre hatred of nature would be visibly exposed like a scarlet letter meant that recruitment was starting to flatline (literally).

On top of this “perfect storm”, America at the time was in the midst of a “Silent Majority” counter-attack against the Jewish sexual revolution that had been already successfully installed in parts of Europe–the climate was hostile. Famous fag poster boys that had barged into the homes of Joe Sixpack and his longhaired sons, such as Freddie Mercury and Liberace, suddenly began dropping like flies from the disease.

Organized Queerdom joined with Organized Jewry to lobby for medical research into HIV that would quickly act as a tourniquet to stop the homosexual movement from collapse. San Francisco, one of the world capitals of faggotry, by 1984 saw a massive crackdown by the state, much to the fury of the gay lobby, that closed all of the city’s bath houses and private sex clubs in an effort to control the disease.

No matter how promiscuous normal people are, the chances of spreading HIV through vaginal intercourse are literally 1 in 1,000,000, so that was off the table. Outside of homosexual activity, drug addicts who shared needles (some of whom practice homosexuality as well) are the second largest group of infected by a wide margin. The Western world at the time was not too concerned with a disease that could be prevented by covering up when practicing violent homosexual sodomy and using your own needles instead of one you pick up off the ground when shooting dope. Reason prevailed for a period, and diseases that are far more common and inflict suffering on more people were prioritized by research budgets and charities.

But organized Queer and its Jewish enablers found light at the end of the tunnel when hemophiliac children were being seroconverted through the use of tainted blood products. The deaths of the Ray brothers and Ryan White were especially touching to the public, as they were innocent children who had contracted the disease through blood transfusions, and the Jewish controlled mass media as well as homosexual NGOs with substantial war chests exploited this to the fullest possible potential.

Both the Ray brothers and Ryan White were portrayed as victims of persecution and ignorance about HIV because of the fear with which they were treated in their settings (and this had some truth to it, as they were both genuinely harassed), while skilled propagandists ground through many shifts to turn them into America’s martyrs.

What was omitted is that the blame for the deaths of these young hemophiliac boys was firmly on the shoulders of the very homosexuals whose pressure groups exploited their misery to guilt the public.

The Ray Brothers were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 1986, and Ryan White in 1984. Yet, the FDA banned homosexuals and drug addicts from donating blood on March 24th, 1983, and from that day henceforth all blood donated to plasma centers and blood banks from individuals identified in these ‘high-risk groups’ was ordered segregated and destroyed. Unfortunately, the FDA did not go far enough in demanding orderly HIV screening as a prerequisite, and some contamination still occurred.

The issue with blood donation deferments was that homosexuals were expected to report their “lifestyle” based on the honor system. Blunders by greedy myopic capitalists specializing in blood transmission products in screening blood plasma during the ’80s have culminated in heavy lawsuits, so it’s possible that HIV blood got in through some kind of time window between the FDA’s announcement and its implementation. Could the Ray Brothers and Ryan White have contracted the illness prior to the ban and plasma segregation, even though they were under the constant watch of doctors for their hemophilia years prior to their seroconversion? Or could an HIV infected homosexual have lied about his sexual practices and knowingly donated blood in order to infect unwitting strangers during this time period? Cui bono?

While knowing that HIV/AIDS is climbing at a rapid pace among homosexuals today, homosexual groups have shown how much they care about the general public by brazenly demanding the FDA lift all bans on blood donations from men who have sex with men. The media has predictably echoed their complaint about this so-called “violation” of their rights. According to an apologia by Jew Emily Greenhouse for the New Yorker:
“In the quarter century since Ryan White was infected in Indiana, America’s blood supply has become tremendously safe, thanks to advanced screenings (and re-screenings) and accurate tests. There is still a very small amount of risk: the chance of receiving blood infected with H.I.V. from a transfusion is currently less than one in two million; according to the Red Cross, the estimated rate of people contracting H.I.V. from donated blood is a little over one person per year.”
In typical Jewish “intellectual” whack-a-mole, Greenhouse talks about how safe the blood supply has become, and that this ought to be the reason why homosexual men should be allowed to donate. Why the blood supply is safe today is pretty obvious, but by keeping a straight face while essentially arguing that blood transmissions ought to be more dangerous , Greenhouse showcases her race’s utter insanity and misanthropy in its social engineering, along with the flagrant disregard of the homosexuals she represents.

HIV/AIDS Business Boom

The legacy of a successful putsch by homosexual organizations in the ’80s is embodied by the 75 HIV/AIDS agencies and non-profits dedicated to collecting funds and lobbying on behalf of the infected today. The Zionist occupied federal government of the United States allocated a whopping $30.7 billion dollars towards research, as well as domestic and global HIV/AIDS medication in 2016 alone. A comparatively small fraction of this sum goes to actual education on prevention, such as the miracle cure of not sodomizing a stranger (s).

The people who contract HIV/AIDS are largely vile, insane, and irresponsible. But there are admittedly some cases where outliers get the disease. Yet, the money dedicated to combating AIDS from a global perspective (where non-homosexuals spread AIDS in continents like Africa through promiscuous heterosexual sodomy), which is what advocates use as a justification, does not justify accumulated deaths per year. For example, 1.2 million people die from AIDS annually around the world, compared to 2 million who perish from the much more treatable and random illness of tuberculosis. Yet the World Health Organization has repeatedly complained that private capitalists and Western Jewish controlled governments putting money aside for HIV ignore tuberculosis. The multi-national corporation funded “Global Fund” dedicates 52% of its grant money to AIDS, yet only 15% to tuberculosis. Obama’s last fiscal plan cut global tuberculosis spending considerably in order to spend more on the already cash-flush cause of HIV/AIDS.

In the end, most of this $30.7 billion is used domestically to subsidize all kinds of programs, special privileges, and treatments for queers who, as older “POZ” homosexuals (thanks to being inculcated with more shame compared to young faggots) in the documentary “The Gift” ( 14:48) remark, have no excuse to be contracting HIV anymore.

Think of the “LGBT” sexual fantasy taxes and corporate profits you’re contributing to are financing next time a loved dies from criminally neglected diseases like COPD, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and even cancer. Were it not for this system and the Jews running it, science would’ve advanced in treatment options for these diseases at the same lightning fast pace HIV research moves. One day, when we have our Nuremberg, somebody’s gonna have to pay for that.

Google Admits to Manipulating Search Results to Conceal Jewish Media Domination

via The Realist Report

In a brazenly transparent move to conceal the reality of total Jewish ownership and control over Hollywood (not to mention mass media and the entire “entertainment complex” shaping American popular culture), Google is literally manipulating its search engine to remove “Jews” as the correct answer to the direct question: “Who runs Hollywood?”

The Times of Israel reports:
Picture 1

Google on Friday removed a “direct answers” search result that replied “Jews” in response to the query: “Who runs Hollywood?”
The automatic first answer produced by the search also highlighted a link to a news story on the New Observer website headlined, “Jews Boast of Owning Hollywood—But Slam Gentiles Who Say the Same.” The site, which features sensationalist stories heavy on conspiracy theories, describes itself as “a free and independent news service designed to present current affairs without the spin of the controlled media.”
The same “Jews” answer was also produced for Google mobile searches, and also appeared when Google auto-completed a “Who Runs Hollywood?” search request.
News of the problematic result prompted a slew of headlines early Friday ridiculing Google. The Guardian, for instance, went with, “Who runs Hollywood? Google has an answer, but it’s not a good one.” The New York Daily News was straighter: “Who runs Hollywood? Google to fix search result that claims ‘Jews’ do.”

Picture 2

Google quickly issued a statement promising to deal with the problem, and noting “that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.” By Friday afternoon, Israel-time, the search was no longer producing the offensive result.
The problematic result did not appear to have been a function of deliberate outside skewing of Google’s algorithm, or Google bombing, but rather was evidently a consequence of lots of readers posing variations on the “Who Runs Hollywood?” question, and trending in relatively large numbers to the New Observer article and other like it.
Indeed, even after Google’s evident Friday recalibration, ordinary Google searches for the same question, “Who Runs Hollywood?” produced prominent links to such articles as “Travolta says Gay Jews run Hollywood” and “Is it true that Hollywood is run by Jewish people?” The top search results as of this writing, understandably, however, were several articles highlighting the whole “Who Runs Hollywood?” direct answers search result affair.
In the article, The Times of Israel staff note on two separate occasions that the correct answer provided by Google when asked “Who runs Hollywood?” – Jews run Hollywood, of course, by their own admission! – is a “problematic result,” and that the factually accurate answer provided by Google with numerous links demonstrating its veracity is “offensive.”

The Jews are openly admitting that the fact anyone, anywhere in the world with access to the Internet can type into Google (or other search engines for that matter) a simple question such as “Who runs Hollywood?” and be exposed to the reality of Jewish control, influence, and perversion of our society is both “problematic” and “offensive.” Indeed, the truth is both problematic and offensive to the Jews, because it undermines their nation-wrecking, anti-White, anti-Christian agenda. This explains why Jews try their hardest to prevent people from knowing the truth about them.
Can they be more obvious here folks?

The war being waged by organized Jewry against White Western Christian civilization rests entirely on us remaining either ignorant of Jewish power and influence and/or too intimidated to challenge, expose, or resist it. The Internet is eroding and undermining those factors on a daily basis.

Unsurprisingly, mainstream news outlets are describing the accurate answer provided by Google when asked “Who runs Hollywood?” as “anti-Semitic,” i.e., correctly describing the reality of Jewish power and influence over Hollywood and the mass media.

Picture 3

This once again demonstrates a central point I have been trying to communicate to the world: in the parlance of our times, the word “anti-Semitic” literally describes someone or something that accurately describes or articulates basics facts about Jews and their power, influence, and perversion of White Western Christian civilization. Stating basic, elementary facts about Jews, their agenda, their outrageous crimes and lies directed against their non-Jewish enemies, etc. is fundamentally “anti-Semitic.”

And people are starting to discover these essential facts for themselves, thanks largely to the Internet. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no getting it back in.

The Great Convergence

via Radix

Read this text . . . or at least skim it for tone and argument:

Trump’s White Nationalist Fans Discredit His Candidacy

Those unfortunate enough to follow the right-wing Twittersphere will likely have a passing familiarity with the label “cuckservative,” coined in the Web’s feverish backwaters, but brought into vogue this summer with the ascendance of Donald Trump. The term is not a compliment. A portmanteau of “cuckold” and “conservative,” it has its origins in the white-nationalist movement, as Richard Spencer, president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute, told the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel:
It is the cuckold who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, loses control of his future. This is an apt psychological portrait of white “conservatives,” whose only identity is comprised of vague, abstract “values,” and who are participating in the displacement of European Americans — their own children.
Matt Lewis, a Daily Caller reporter who in July became among the first to be accused of “cuckservatism,” augments this explanation: “The people who throw this term around are most likely referencing a type of pornography whereby a (usually, white) man is ‘humiliated’ (or ironically thrilled) by being forced to watch his wife having sex with another (usually, black) man.”
Last weekend, National Review became the target of this crowd, which folded the hashtag “#NRORevolt,” prompted by . . . Jonah Goldberg’s denunciation of unthinking Trump partisans, into “#cuckservative” — and eventually, in honor of Goldberg’s heritage, “#kikeservative.”

This racialism may not have been caused by Trump, but its explosion has coincided with his, and while, as The Federalist’s Ben Domenech has noted, “‘identity politics for white people’ is not the same thing as ‘racism,’ nor are the people who advocate for it necessarily racist,” among Trump supporters there appears to be significant overlap. This should give the ranks of good and decent people supporting Trump pause.
Domenech ably chronicles the circumstances that have fueled Trump’s rise: “If a large — sorry, yuge — portion of the country wants existing bipartisan immigration laws to be enforced, and one party tells them ‘Yes,’ but means ‘No,’ and the other party tells them, ‘No’ but means ‘You’re a racist,’ then it’s only a matter of time before some disruptor is going to emerge to call them out for their game.” A “mad-as-hell” moment was entirely foreseeable.
But the disruptor who has emerged is proving less disruptive than dangerous. Demolition can be a political strategy — if you know what you’re doing well enough to avoid massive collateral damage. Trump doesn’t. He’s not merely an overgrown rich kid, a loutish but ultimately amusing clown; he is a particularly revolting species of id — vulgar, unprincipled, and increasingly poisonous. Perhaps he really does want to blow up certain parts of the current political consensus. But in the process he is also managing to blow up the boundaries of respectable public discourse, and to create space for the most unsavory ideological elements. He is exactly the type of rhetorical bomb-thrower who attracts support from the most extreme, racially charged corners, and exactly the type of opportunist who will play footsie with them if it serves his purposes.
In political life, supporters reflect their candidates, and while it may be true that Trump is such a protean entity that he has managed to capture support from various constituencies, the most level-headed Trump supporters should reconsider their horse. You can’t separate the Trump who rebuffs the “PC police” from the Trump who vilely insinuates knowledge of Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycles. You can’t separate the Trump who reasserts the need for national identity, and for the national sovereignty that protects it, from the Trump who propagates baseless conspiracy theories about the Mexican government. It should tell us all we need know of Trump’s candidacy that he does not have the coherent worldview or the rhetorical discipline required to attract genuine conservatives without also attracting their distant, deranged kin.
Where would you guess this was published? or the Huffington Post? The New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle? Or was it The Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Watch” blog? It certainly could have been placed at any one of these venues, without any changes.

The actual publisher is National Review Online[1] ; the author is one Ian Tuttle, the William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute. Here’s a picture of him, which was apparently taken just before a croquet match.

Yes, NR might have disagreements with Salon, the HuffPost, or the SPLC on taxing Wall Street or foreign policy (in the sense that the latter organizations are much saner on these issues). But are we not witnessing a remarkable convergence on the questions of race, culture, and identity—which are really the only issues that matter? And is this not the ultimate outcome of William F. Buckley’s quest for respectability
As the Great Convergence takes place, we’ll win the hashtag wars.


  1. I admit that I cheated a little. The ellipsis in the fourth paragraph marks a place where Tuttle writes “my colleague Jonah Goldberg,” which would have given the game away.

Support for Golden Dawn Skyrockets as Illegal Invaders Riot, Burn Lesvos Island

via Golden Dawn, NY

What a difference 9 months can make. In January 2015 Lesvos was essentially a “Red Island” the island voted overwhelmingly for SYRIZA with 32.97%, followed by New Democracy at 30.39%, The Communist party at 10.81%, ANEL at 5.30%, PASOK at 5.12%, Golden Dawn at 4.66%, and POTAMI at 4.26%.

Today, the island literally burns, an estimated 30 thousand Afghani, Pakistani, Syrians and other assorted desert people roam the once wealthy and peaceful island, rioting, looting and breaking into houses. A Greek woman was stabbed today and robbed, she survived but the story did not make it past local news.  The numbers continue to grow and the once “progressive” leftist residents are now in a state of shock at the lack of police protection for them and their property.

There are reports of the amount of people saying they will vote for Golden Dawn skyrocketing. The Mayor is responding to this by saying they will not have elections on the island. On the surface he says this is to “protest the governments inaction”, however the real reason is they fear the humiliation of losing a “red island” to Golden Dawn.

The Greek media, and other western outlets ignore interviewing Greeks on the island, however one Polish news agency went there and interviewed Greeks:

Despite the media blackout, footage such as this continues to leak out. Golden Dawn is the only party that has the solution and the will to carry it out. The borders must be patrolled by our Armed Forces, land sea and air. On land, Frontex, the private agency that “manages” the northeast border, must be replaced by our ground troops, the sea must be patrolled by our Navy, and the air by our Air Force, because very soon the “refugees” and “irregular migrants” will be parachuting into our lands from the sky.

The Erasure of Equality

via Alternative Right

We live in the Age of Equality, but few grasp its essence. It is the yearning – after eons of organization and evolution – of all life to return again to the amoeba and sludge stage, and for all atoms to shed their electrons and become simple hydrogen again, lost in the vastness of space. It is the thing that the great charlatan Sigmund Freud described as "The Death Wish."

It resonates in the most pervasive form of our contemporary culture: PORNOGRAPHY, which washes through the self-inflicted and therefore Faustian media of the internet as an orgy of equality: orifices and appendages – Black, White, Asian, "other," gay, and straight, male and female (and all the other genders rendered meaningless by the act)  – pressed together in one unholy communion; no borders or constraints: the cunt equated with the womb, the asshole with the oral orifice, the tongue with the penis, etc., etc., in infinitum, et ultra in a great unending Black Mass of inversion, perversion, and equality.

But the Cult of Equality has also created its giant colossus – a vast icon to subconsciously transmit its signal throughout the world – and in true egalitarian style, after several decades of existence, this has been levelled with the dirt. But not before it has been imprinted into our memories, seared and burnt in, as the Mark of the Beast is described in The Book of Revelations, by the most memorable deed of the 21st-century, the infamous act of “9-11.”

Yes, look at the obvious iconography of the World Trade Centre again! Which mathematical symbol does it resemble? Turn it on its side and look again! Two great elongated rectangles performing their act of equating.

But just what are they equating?

The earth and the sky, obviously: man and God, or God and the Devil; up and down, superior and inferior; the very idea that all these should, or even can be different. It is hard to miss now. Once seen it cannot be unseen.

Nothing is an accident.

Consider its position: on the edge of the land and the sea. It strives even to equalize the land and the ocean in its eternal war to equalize everything and reduce all to primordial sludge. And what of its destruction? Was that a hopeful sign? An end of the Kali Yuga? Or was that one more act of equating; equating that which is solid with that which is immaterial; that which exists with that which no longer exists, but which performs its act of non-existence in our minds?

And the timing – the date – 9-11! The two ones suggestive of the buildings themselves, and therefore equality! And the number nine – the ultimate number as the highest single-digit number, a cosmic rune symbolic of completeness in the esoteric thought of a number of faiths. Nine months we are in the womb, and on the ninth day of the eleventh Jewish month Av both temples of Jerusalem were destroyed.

Hitler vs. Stalin

via Renegade Tribune

As for a comparison of Stalin and Hitler, Stalin was clearly a megalomaniac. Take a look at all the Stalin iconography versus that of Hitler. How many massive statues and murals featured Hitler as their focus? Stalin was a cold-blooded murderer, his track record leads to this conclusion. Stalin was behind the mass murder of his own people. Where did Hitler ever conduct any mass murder campaign, let alone that of his own people?

The Stalin regime produced the Soviet Gulag, a system of death camps purposefully designed to starve and work inmates to death. Hitler’s concentration camps spanned a twelve year period from 1933 to 1945. In 1937, there were only 7,500 prisoners in four concentration camps: Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Lichtenberg. Note that war at this point was less than three years away. German camps were originally designed to rehabilitate the inmates, hence the sign “Arbeit Macht Frei” i.e. learning a trade and becoming a productive German citizen led to the inmate’s release. According to Bernadac, Reichsführer Himmler “wanted the concentration camps to be primarily re-education centers, genuine courses that should result in lasting conversions.”

Before the war, German inmates were released from the camps after satisfactorily completing their rehabilitation process. Of course, the release process ceased with the beginning of the war.

By contrast, only a tiny percentage of inmates ever returned from Stalin’s death camps during a 71 year period spanning both side of WWII. Soviet camps were first established in 1919 under the Cheka. By the early 1930s, camp populations had already reached significant numbers and by 1934 the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, now under the NKVD, had several million inmates. A peacetime incarceration rate of several million inmates versus several thousand, how do these two leaders compare on this point alone?


Murderous Stalin felt the need to have his troops backed by “blocking units” tasked to execute anyone retreating from the front. He also branded anyone captured as a traitor and later executed these former prisoners, while sending family members to the camps. Where did Hitler ever have such policies? Hitler stated his intentions openly and never planned nor used the “sneak attack.” Unlike Stalin and his communists, who openly stated their intent for world conquest and domination, Hitler never had any known design for world conquest or domination.

Hitler tried repeatedly to prevent war by offering peace terms. These terms were rejected in toto by the allies who wanted war. Stalin sought a bloody global revolution that would lead to a communist victory and domination over the world. He planned the sneak attack on Germany after signing a non-aggression pact. Stalin had 22,000 poles murdered in the attempt to decapitate the Polish government and thereby any possibility of a Polish counter revolution. He then blamed this atrocity on the Germans. Where did Hitler ever order the mass murder of a country’s leaders and intelligentsia? When did he ever blame any actions, taken by himself or his government, on others?

The Soviet regime under Stalin considered a citizen insane if they did not recognize communism as the political paragon of virtue and slavishly support the “workers paradise” without question. Where did the National Socialists ever consider people crazy for not slavishly following their system? When did they ever incarcerate citizens in insane asylums for disagreement with their policies?

Unlike the sole example provided by Stalin’s Conversation with A.M. Kollontai, there are far too many other examples of these differences to list.

LD: The Stalin conversation with Alexandra Kollontai may never have taken place. There are definite indications that this entire diary conversation with Stalin is an outrageous fabrication or forgery, in which case what we are dealing with here is a worthless document. 

As for the number killed by Stalin and his soviet henchmen, never – ever – give the Jew, or his shabbos goy, the benefit of the doubt, for they will most assuredly repay balanced fairness with a knife to the back or a slash to the throat.

Instead assume the worst imaginable possibility and then multiply a thousand fold.
How many truths might it take to balance the scale of lies Jews have been feeding the goyim for centuries?

Danzig Baldaev, Drawings From the Gulag
012 (1)
Naked Christian women were lined up for inspection by Jewish commissars when they first arrived in Stalin’s gulags. The prison guards had their pick of the most attractive women.

As a result of exhaustion from overwork and starvation rations, many of the women suffered from vaginal prolapse.


In Stalin’s camps sadistic thugs were allowed to murder inmates by electrocution, stabbing, hanging, decapitation, and the insertion of red-hot crowbars into the anus.

In Stalin’s torture camps Christian inmates were sodomized, as in this picture, by having long iron needles thrust up their rectums.

Arizona Prison Teacher Raped by American Indian Prisoner

via Compulsory Diversity News

Convicted rapist Jacob Harvey
This story caught my eye because the subjects name was so out of step with his photo. Quoting, picture follows:
A convicted rapist has admitted carrying out a brutal attack on a teacher in an Arizona jail classroom.

Jacob Harvey stabbed his victim in the head with a pen, forced her to the ground and raped her after she was left alone with the convict in a prison classroom, investigators heard.
Jacob Harvey? Yeah, right. My first thought was that he was a beaner who perhaps was adopted and given an Anglo name. But since this is the American Southwest, the next logical step was featherhead, and bingo ... Four years ago, at 17 years old, he was arrested for raping another woman after forcing his way into her apartment. Her toddler was in the home with her. Quoting the link directly above:
In this case, the suspect knocked on the victim's door requesting a drink of water. When the victim opened the door to hand him a glass, he forced his way in by physically assaulting her, and then sexually assaulting her. [...] Within 48 hours of the updated law enforcement bulletin, the lead investigator was contacted by the suspect's caseworker with the Tohono O'odham Nation Reservation Child Welfare Division in Sells.
So, Rapes-You-For-Agua (RYFA) is his real name. But what of the female teacher raped in the prison, how in the world did that happen, and what is being done about it? Quoting:
The Arizona Attorney General's Office is asking for dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a teacher who was brutally assaulted and raped after being left in an unguarded prison classroom with a convicted sex offender.

Normally, such tests are given in the visitation room, which is monitored by security cameras and corrections officers. But on that day, because of a special event, she was sent to an unmonitored classroom, handed a radio and told to use it if there was any trouble, her lawsuit says.
Well, at least RYFA apologized during his sentencing today. Manners are everything. However, the Attorney General's rude handling of the event might raise some eyebrows:
"Plaintiff is an ADOC (Arizona Department of Corrections) employee who routinely worked at the prison complex," Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Weisbard wrote in his motion to dismiss. "By being placed in a classroom at the complex, the officers were not placing Plaintiff in any type of situation that she would not normally face. The risk of harm, including assault, always existed at a prison like Eyman." [...]

"Plaintiff wants to create an artificial impression that the ADOC officers knew she was in danger but she did not know," he wrote. "It makes no sense. Of course, if Plaintiff did appreciate the danger of her situation, as an employee, she could have done something about it."
So ... If she knew she was in danger, she would have done something about it - but she didn't do anything about it so she must have thought she was safe - and she wouldn't have thought she was safe unless everyone else in that prison had thought she was safe too - therefore the event was neither predictable or preventable by the administration of the prison and what happened is a risk she should have expected from working in a prison.

That's some damn fine kike-work there Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Weisbard! Though I wonder what the policies and procedures have to say about leaving unarmed, untrained-for-self-defense females around convicted rapists. The thing is, I bet that in the Topsy Turvy world of feminist liberation (I can do any job a man can do!) to require extra security on her behalf would have been sexism - so put on the gender blinders and let the rape begin!

This is very remniscent of what happened to Phillip Chism (Young Obama Doppleganger and also a Teacher Rapist) in prison. A known rapist and violent offender, who was left unattended and ended up violently assaulting a female prison employee.

Why would women want to put themselves in such a position? Why would such a job be so appealing that you are willing to get violently assaulted and even raped to be a part of that profession? I think about this in terms of military roles as well. What are you trying to prove? Why is this worth it? And then, when the inevitable happens, the lawsuits fly and the kike-lawyer (and/or kike-media) comes to tell you that you got what you deserved. Hear you roar!

On Jews, History, and “Refugees”

via The Occidental Observer

“There landed yesterday at Southampton from the transport Cheshire over 600 so-called refugees, their passages having been paid out of the Lord Mayor’s Fund. . .There was scarce a hundred of them that had, by right, deserved such help, and these were the Englishmen of the party. The rest were Jews. . . . When the Relief Committee passed by they hid their gold and fawned and whined, and, in broken English, asked for money for their train fare.” -Daily Mail, February 3, 1900

All of a sudden, ‘refugee’ is the most ubiquitous word in common parlance. Every other housewife has become an armchair aid worker. Every other college student has become an expert on geopolitics, migration and ethnic conflict. Every other man has demanded his government do something. And, of course, every dissenter from the binge on empathy has become a “racist.” Although I have touched on the subject of pathological altruism before (see here and here), I have to confess to being almost stupefied by the manipulative blitzkrieg recently unleashed by the mass media and the controllers of culture, as well as the astonishingly successful response it has provoked among our people. My two closest friends, who share my worldview entirely, recently confided that they too were stunned into despondent silence by the sudden escalation of the demographic assault on European man. One sent me a message stating simply: “This is it. The invasion has well and truly started. This is the beginning of the end.”

Panic and pessimism aside, there is room for sober reflection on the nature and context of what is currently transpiring across the West. We may be aghast at these developments, but we cannot pretend to be surprised by them. This latest demographic onslaught is merely the gross acceleration of a process that has in fact been several decades in the making. The invasion didn’t start last week, or last year. The invasion started when we handed over power and influence in politics, the media, education, and finance to foreign, treasonous and hostile elites. Unlike previous invasions, the hordes now streaming into White nations aren’t armed. They don’t have to be. The keys to our territories were handed over many years ago, when we allowed the gates of our culture and the minds of our children to be infiltrated by perfidious doctrines. The territories the dark peoples are presently engaged in seizing are not robust, cohesive White nation states. If they were, we could rest assured that the invasion would fail. Unfortunately, the majority of White nations are now characterized by apathy, cowardice, degeneracy and wanton self-destruction. Following from that fact, there is little or no resistance. The West has doused itself in gasoline for decades — now is simply the moment of its self-immolation.

One of the incapacitating factors behind the lack of resistance is that oft-heard word: ‘refugee’. Shakespeare famously wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. To the rational and informed thinker, an invader by any other name would sound the same alarm. But to the sheep-like masses, the word ‘refugee’ has an almost mystical power: it is provocative and emotive. It is morally compelling to a greater extent than ‘immigrant,’ ‘migrant,’ or even ‘asylum seeker.’ It conjures images of war zones, mass devastation, starvation, destitution, and genocide. It isn’t so much a noun as a call to action, working feverishly on the minds of media-incubated pathological narcissists who live in search of new opportunities for virtue signalling.  I lost count of the number of people I encountered last week who were eager to engage me in casual conversation on the fashionable topic of “refugees,” and macabre images of drowned infants. The level of my ensuing disgust was only matched by the level of their confusion when I attempted to pull the wool from their eyes. Ask any one of these sleepwalkers some searching questions about the extent of their knowledge concerning the relevant politics, geography and sociology of the current crisis and you will draw a blank every time. They want “fast-food” news and politics bite-sized chunks that make them feel intelligent and good about themselves, and of course, that’s exactly what the media gives them. Don Marquis once observed that when you make people think they’re thinking, they will love you but if you really make them think they will hate you. Ask them to sit down to a five-course banquet of increasingly complex demographic, economic, political and sociological themes and you will soon find that the erstwhile bubbly conversationist has been replaced by a lethargic drone. What they want are the quick and easy buzzwords and phrases that act as approving signposts for what they perceive to be virtuous action: “refugees,” “women and children,” “starving,” and “drowning.” Just don’t tell them most of the migrants are male, that they have been filmed throwing away food, and that they often drown each other for tribal reasons.

When I wrote “Drowning in Altruism,” now almost six months ago, I sensed that the manipulators of public opinion were very keen to make drowning the emblem of the invasion of Europe. This didn’t require any psychic or prophetic powers on my part. As the article made clear, the level of exaggeration and misrepresentation surrounding the drowning of illegal invaders indicated that a high level of media manipulation was involved. Such emblems are incredibly important in provoking moral outrage, and they have proven the best and most enduring form of the Trojan horse. For over a century, Jews have been highly adept at creating emotive emblems for their alleged sufferings. Between 1880 and 1905, Jewish journalists and community activists invented the emblems of murdered babies and “hacked off breasts” in order to present themselves as victims during what were essentially a series of economically-motivated, low-level, inter-ethnic squabbles in the Russian empire. It was during the mass exodus of Jews from Russia at this time that the word ‘refugee’ first came to be used on a similar scale to what we are seeing today. Under this label, more than 1.5 million Jews gained relatively easy entry to the United States, with all of the attending consequences. Mass Jewish migration to the West (1880–1910) proceeded under many of the same lies cloaking the true motivations of the current crop of “refugees.” These lies, succinctly expressed, amount to the narrative that the “refugees” are fleeing large-scale violence, as well as religious, political or cultural oppression. In both cases, the lies cover the true nature of the migration the mass movement of peoples for economic and material enrichment.

In modern scholarship, thanks to the work of non-Jews like John Klier, the refugee narrative of the mass movement of Jews from Russia has been declared unsustainable. It’s now commonly acknowledged by scholars, but rarely publicized, that the pogroms were fictitious, the oppression non-existent, and the mass migration economically motivated. Yaacov Ro’i writes in Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union that “a disproportionately large number of Jewish migrants to the United States came from areas that were typified by economic depression along with a low level of anti-Semitic violence. This indicates that economic hardship constituted the main impetus for Jews to migrate abroad.”[1] Ro’i is still being disingenuous here. For “low level of anti-Semitic violence” read “entirely untouched by violence or any form of social disturbance.” In the MIT-published The New Comparative Economic History, Leah Platt Boustan contributes a solid but not flawless piece titled: “Were Jews Political Refugees or Economic Migrants? Assessing the Persecution Theory of Jewish Emigration, 1881–1914.” Boustan states that whereas earlier historiography was replete with accounts of babies being roasted alive and whole villages razed, hard evidence has proven that the two decades between 1881 and 1901 were actually “relatively quiet for the Jews of Russia.” Boustan remarks that the main pressures exerted on Russia’s Jews were those commonly associated with mass migrations more generally: “rapid population growth and a possible demographic transition, as well as urbanization, residential crowding and ongoing industrialization.” After reviewing scores of data, Boustan concludes that “the timing of Jewish migration, like that of other migrations to the New World, responded to economic conditions. Jewish migration was particularly influenced by the health of the United States economy.”

Nothing, then, about the propaganda emblems that acted as a key to unlocking the gates of the West. No apologies to the duped millions who protested, donated, and agitated on behalf of their own future competitors.

Atrocity emblems accompanying mass population movement rarely have any basis in fact. These movements are motivated much more frequently by the banalities of human need and competition. In these mass migration scenarios, areas experiencing population growth will produce a young “transition cohort.” This large cohort crowds the home labor market, lowering wages and increasing the net benefit of migration. Because the home markets cannot manage their own growth, they export the surplus cohort, presenting the intended destination countries with objective social problems, prominently, but not exclusively, in the form of competition for resources now experienced by the indigenous youth cohort. In the United States c.1900 the impact of the Jewish cohort was not felt immediately it was felt most acutely for the first time when the next generation came of age and indigenous White youth were forced to compete with Jews for Ivy League places etc. The competition was severe, leading to the introduction of the numerus clausus and eventually the 1921 Immigration Act. However, native birth rates in 1900 were still of a sufficient level for the competition to actually take place. By contrast, with declining birth-rates across the West, and the world’s lowest in Germany, the importation of African and Middle Eastern cohorts represent the incomparably worse scenario of wholesale displacement rather than impending competition.

Political disquiet can be a convenient mask for the demographic and socio-economic drivers of mass migration outlined by Boustan. While there has been much talk about Syria as a zone of war and destruction, little has been made of the fact that, like the Russian Jews in 1880, it has one of the highest population growth rates in the world (2.4%). In the seven least-developed of Syria’s 14 governorates, women have between 3.8 and 6.2 children. Their fertility rates are not expected to decline much in the next 15 years. In 2010, Nabil Sukkar, a Syrian economist formerly with the World Bank, said “We have a population problem, no question. Unless we cope with it, it could be a burden on our development.” Sukkar said labor supply was growing about 4.5 percent a year, due to rapid population expansion in earlier decades, outpacing the capacity of Syria’s economy to create jobs for the cohort of 250,000 young people arriving on the job market every year. “Too big a population means a high burden on government services, such as education, electricity and health care,” he said. “Perhaps in 20 years the growth rate will go down to 1.5 percent as in Egypt, but in the meantime we do have a problem.” Since Syria is now exporting its entire surplus cohort, Sukkar’s problem, like the similar one facing Africa, is now Europe’s problem.

Like the migration of the Jews from nineteenth-century Russia, we now face the immigration of people who are reproducing more prolifically than us and who have outgrown the pace of their own economic development. And like the migration of the Jews from nineteenth-century Russia, we are being fed the lie that they are refugees. In “Myth and the Russian Pogroms” I noted the importance of Jewish self-representations as “refugees,” and the effect their use of emotive emblems via the media had on the Western public mind:

Other major sources of pogrom atrocity stories were the New York Times, the Times (London), and the Jewish World. The Jewish World furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter “to visit areas that had suffered pogroms.” Most of the other papers simply reprinted what the Jewish World reporter sent them. The atrocity stories carried by these newspapers provoked global outrage. There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris, Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, “it was in the United States that public indignation reached its height.” Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred on by reports of “brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses, senseless slaughter, painful suffering and unbearable grief.”

Faced with entirely fictitious emotive emblems, Westerners flocked to set up ‘Refugee Committees’ and other charitable organizations for Jewish migrants, and many attended protests agitating for the easing of immigration restrictions that inhibited the easy entry of the poor victims. Sound familiar? Looking at the crisis we face today and the hordes of duped White liberals, can we really see any difference?

More than a century separates the two "refugee" invasions — but so little has changed.
More than a century separates the two “refugee” invasions — but so little has changed.

Of course, Jewishness and the concept of the refugee are intimately bound up together. Like Jewishness, the concept of the refugee rests on alleged victimhood, temporariness, flux and statelessness, as well as heavy emphasis on Western guilt and moral obligations. Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront of both critiquing native reactions to so-called refugees, and shaping the way “refugees” should be seen by contemporary society. One of the best examples is British refugee “expert” Professor Tony Kushner. In Remembering Refugees: Then and Now, Kushner attempts to portray historical and contemporary “refugees” (exclusively non-White), as victims of societies bent on harshly misrepresenting them. He writes that “Refugees themselves, often, by necessity and circumstances, marginal figures, rarely can shape the dominant images others hold of them especially as their representations are fashioned more by myth than reality.”[2] One could very easily substitute ‘refugees’ for ‘Jews’ to gain an insight into Kushner’s own self-concept.

More pertinently though, his entire argument is bankrupt. As discussed above, Jewish ‘refugees’ from nineteenth-century Russia expertly fashioned their own mythological representation as victims of harsh and violent oppression, and found shaping the dominant images others held of them rather easy. Similarly, the contemporary Jewish-dominated media is making light work of shaping majority images of the current population movement into the West, and the “refugees” are the chief beneficiaries, rather than victims, of this process.

A Jewish Panegyric to "Refugees"
A Jewish Panegyric to “Refugees”
Kushner’s work is both a panegyric to the wholly-imagined “contributions” of “refugees” and immigrants, and a bitter condemnation of a Britain that imposed “draconian measures” against successive waves of “desperate” victims. Kushner writes of an “open season” on asylum seekers during the late 1990s, a period when Britain actually ushered in the fastest rate of foreign immigration in its history, resulting in an acute housing shortage and an ill-fated inflation of property values. When not condemning Britain for refusing to open its doors to hundreds of thousands of Roma Gypsies, Kushner teaches courses for White English students on “Refugees in the Twentieth Century.” Rather tellingly, he also teaches a course titled “The Making of Englishness,” which advances the familiar Jewish argument that White nationalities and identities are simply harmful, diseased, “racist” constructs which should be slated for destruction if the world is to enter a better age. Demographic dilution, if not total annihilation, is the surest way of weakening and destroying a working sense of national and ethnic identity. Supporting refugees, whether by political agitation, propagandizing their fabricated tales to White students, or helping to mould and disseminate their emotive emblems, thus fits the goals and aspirations of organized Jewry very well.
In the United States, organized Jewry is working hard to get the government to take in more “refugees,” and is using its own fabricated “refugee” history as moral leverage for this activism. But the supposed altruism of these Jews is as false and misleading as the “refugee” history they continue to scam the masses with. Often these links are organic. One of the most prominent Jewish organizations working to bring Syrians to the United States is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), founded in 1881 to assist the masses of Jewish economic migrants masquerading as refugees fleeing baby-roasting, breast-hacking Russians. HIAS has come a long way from its days organizing protests on behalf of the “persecuted Jews of Russia,” and it has chalked up many successes in the effort to break up Western ethnic homogeneity. Along with other Jewish organizations, it played a prominent role in overturning America’s 1921 Immigration Act, opening the nation up to vastly increased Third World immigration. In addition to its world headquarters in New York City, HIAS maintains offices in Buenos Aires, Djabal and Goz Amir, Chad, Nairobi, Quito, Ecuador, and Tel Aviv. Since its beginnings, this organization has been party to the immigration of more than 4.5 million individuals, the vast majority of them Jews and non-Whites, to the United States and other White nations around the world. And despite its high-flown rhetoric (“Welcome the Stranger; Protect the Stranger“), Leonard Glickman, former HIAS president and CEO, is quite aware that what his organization is doing is good for the Jews. As he once put it, when asked why his organization was importing Somali Muslims: “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” HIAS has had remarkably little success in resettling non-Jewish refugees to Israel.

Traditionally, the United States has taken it upon itself to admit half the refugees worldwide who are identified as being in need of immediate resettlement. Experts anticipate that by the time the refugee evaluation process is completed, some 400,000 will be recognized as needing resettlement. This will present America with a request to absorb 200,000 Syrian refugees. But U.S. resettlement quotas now stand at 70,000 people total, from all over the world, per year. HIAS and Jewish groups are asking to increase this quota to 100,000 per year. Melanie Nezer, HIAS Vice-President, has appealed to the lachrymose and mostly fabricated narrative of Jewish history, stating that: “As a Jewish community, we understand what it means to be refugees without getting any help. We would have been in a different place if the world had stepped up then.” No mention of the millions of Jewish ‘refugees’ who gained easy entry to the West on a series of lies between the years 1880 and 1914.

Surveying these latest events I could only recall the old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The patterns we are seeing today are mere replications of older follies. Emotive emblems, pathological altruism, a lack of long-term thinking, a complete absence of rational analysis. We’ve been here before. We’ve seen the same phrases and the same lies. The nineteenth-century Jewish invasion of the West ushered in our cultural decline and a loss of control over our political, economic, and spiritual destiny. The twentieth-century multi-ethnic invasion of the West, which will continue long after the resettlement of the Syrians, will usher in our demographic oblivion. With horror we see the truth: We are refugees in our own lands.


[1] Y. Ro’i Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, (Frank Cass, 1995), p.37.
[2] T. Kushner, Remembering Refugees: Then and Now (Palgrave, 2006), (p.1).