Nov 19, 2015

Head of French Jewish Lobby’s “Solutions” to Paris Attacks: More Muslims, More Wars, and More Censorship

via The Occidental Observer

Roger Cuckierman, the head of the official French Jewish lobby (the CRIF), was invited to speak on French public radio to pontificate on the latest horrifying Islamist terrorist attacks in Paris attacks killing at least 129 people. In the “secular” French Republic, state-employed journalists apparently think being the head of a tribal-religious ethnic lobby formally representing one-sixth-of-one-per-cent of the French population is grounds for of being given ample time on the airwaves.

Armed with his supposed moral authority, Cuckierman naturally made a number of demands and suggestions:
  • France’s tradition of secularism (laïcité) should be abolished in order to finance “moderate” Muslim clerics: “It is unhealthy that in France mosques are financed by foreign countries. There should be an Islam of France with imams who speak French and who respect the values of the Republic. Perhaps we should, even in violation of the law of 1905 [instituting secularism], have France pay the imams.”
  • State control and censorship of social media should be reinforced: “[Social media] are complicit, perhaps implicitly, in the acts committed because they facilitate, in a few weeks, the transformation of a good Catholic peasant of the southwest into a jihadist [sic!]. It is time that the entire world put pressure [on social media] so they react as they successfully did to remove pedophilia from social media.”
  • More wars in the Middle East, possibly with boots on the ground: “We are in a world war, Pope Francis said so. Therefore the West should wake up and be ready to fight in a strong way on the ground too. The Islamic State is enemy number one.”
For Cuckierman, the Paris terrorist attacks are then due to failure on the part of the French to integrate Islam (more Muslims are just fine), to social media, and to insufficient wars in the Middle East.

These are lies. Quite obviously, the ultimate causes of the Paris terrorist attacks are unassimilable mass Muslim immigration, France’s fragmentation into a Balkanized mess of mutually-hostile ethno-religious communities, and the destruction of secular Arab nationalist regimes on behalf the American Empire and Israel, leading to the creation of the Islamic State.

And who, above all else, has been simultaneously promoting mass Muslim immigration and multiculturalism in France, and has given unconditional support for Israel as an ethnically Jewish State with a Jews-only immigration policy? Why, tribal activists like Roger Cuckierman!

Cuckierman, self-styled top representative of his tribe, is a professional scammer. His “multiculturalism,” his “Islam of France,” and his “war” on the Islamic State are all scams. The fact that he supports Afro-Islamic “multiculturalism” in France and Jews-only monoculturalism in Israel shows that he full knows these are scams. Indeed, Cuckierman himself has written on how thanks to immigration:
It is clear that our children and grandchildren will live in an environment where Christian culture will have lost influence to the benefit of Muslim culture. … Demography is not only a social science, it’s especially an evolving whole of facts which modify the political and social environment in which we live. I am thinking of course of the demographic balance in Israel, like the demographic balance in France. I draw from this only one conclusion: Let us have many children!
He is fully aware of how the policies he is promoting are detrimental to indigenous Europeans and their interests.

Indeed, consider all of the endless emotional manipulation and intellectual sophistry we are so diligent in documenting here at The Occidental Observer, they are all ethnically-motivated and ultimately genocidal scams. Those of the warmonger Bernard-Henri Lévy, of the pedophile Daniel Cohn-Bendit, of the verbose Simon Schama, of the “half-thinker”[1] Emmanuel Todd, and of the self-proclaimed “chosen child of God” Abraham Foxman, are all ultimately the same. Despite or even thanks to their variations in branding, their occupying different niches in the ideological spectrum, their appealing to different segments and generations of gullible goyim (“diversify your investments”), the final outcome is the always same: They maintain their exorbitant privileges and national existence, whereas we grow ever-weaker, become persecuted minorities, and are ultimately blended into oblivion. By a thousand different ways — the liberal, the libertarian, the Marxist-Leninist, the anarcho-socialist, the neoconservative, etc., etc. — they all (with very, very few exceptions indeed) come to the same anti-European conclusion.

When will our people learn? Unfortunately our people are rather trusting (and even gullible) and are not always the sharpest with wordplay. Traditional expressions and proverbs reflect the accumulated wisdom and even the collective soul of a people. Now meditate upon the definition of the Yiddish insult “goyishe kop”: “Someone who fails to use his/her head; a dull mind. Someone who thinks like a non-Jew, [literally,] ‘non-Jewish head.’” Richard Prasquier is an Ashkenazi Jew born in Poland, as such his ancestors likely used this anti-gentile expression for generations. I tend to think such an expression could only emerge from centuries of experience scamming dim-witted goyim.[2] Prasquier, Lévy, Cohn-Bendit, etc, show the same contempt for us today.

Personally, I’m a rather conciliatory type. While political change is inevitably messy, I believe that enlightened nationalism — the simple insight that each people should be ruled by their own in their own state — can for the most part be implemented quite humanely . . . but only if people work constructively together and tribal leaders like Roger Cuckierman stop agitating for the destruction of European nations.

[1]Alain Soral’s expression.
[2]At the risk of being rude, imagine if White parents scolded their children for poor grades by shouting “nigger-head!” Admittedly, symmetrically anti-Jewish expressions do exist in our languages. In modern French, “faire ton juif,” “to be Jewish,” means to be niggardly. In English, the noun “Jew” has given us the verb “to Jew,” meaning to scam.

The Heresy of Technological Choice

via The Archdruid Report

Among the interesting benefits of writing a blog like this, focusing as it does on the end of industrial civilization, are the opportunities it routinely affords for a glimpse at the stranger side of the collective thinking of our time. The last few weeks have been an unusually good source of that experience, as a result of one detail of the Retrotopia narrative I’ve been developing in the posts here.
The detail in question is the system by which residents of my fictional Lakeland Republic choose how much infrastructure they want to have and, not incidentally, to pay for via their local tax revenues. It’s done on a county-by-county basis by majority vote. The more infrastructure you want, the higher your taxes are; the more infrastructure you can do without, the less of your income goes to the county to pay for it. There are five levels, called tiers, and each one has a notional date connected to it: thus tier five has the notional date of 1950, and corresponds to the infrastructure you’d expect to find in a county in the Midwestern states of the US in that year: countywide electrical, telephone, water, and sewer service; roads and related infrastructure throughout the county capable of handling heavy automobile use; and mass transit—specifically, streetcars—in the towns.
The other tiers have less infrastructure, and correspondingly lower taxes. Tier four has a notional date of 1920, tier three of 1890, tier two of 1860, and tier one of 1830. In each case, the infrastructure you’d find in such a county is roughly what you’d find in a midwestern American county in that year. With tier one, your county infrastructure consists of dirt roads and that’s about it. All the other functions of county government exist in tier one, tier five, and everything in between; there are courts, police, social welfare provisions for those who are unable to take care of themselves, and so forth—all the things you would expect to find in any midwestern county in the US at any point between 1830 and 1950. That’s the tier system:  one small detail of the imaginary future I’ve been sketching here.
Before we go on, I’d like my readers to stop and notice that the only things that are subject to the tier system are the elements of local infrastructure that are paid for by local tax revenues. If you live in a county that voted to adopt a certain tier level, that tells you what kind of  infrastructure will be funded by local tax revenues, and therefore what the tax bills are going to be like. That’s all it tells you. In particular, the tier system doesn’t apply to privately owned infrastructure—for example, railroads in the Lakeland Republic are privately owned, and so every county, whatever its tier, has train stations in any town where paying passengers and freight may be found in sufficient quantity to make it worth a railroad’s while to stop there.
The tier system also, and crucially, doesn’t determine what kind of technology the residents can use. If you live in a tier one county, you can use all the electrical appliances you can afford to buy, as long as you generate the electricity yourself. Some technologies that are completely dependent on public infrastructure aren’t going to work in a low tier county—for example, without paved roads, gas stations, huge government subsidies for petroleum production, military bases all over the Middle East, and a great deal more, cars aren’t much more than oversized paperweights—but that’s built into the technology in question, not any fault of the tier system. Furthermore, the tier system doesn’t determine social customs and mores.  If you live in a tier four county, for example, no law requires you to dress in a zoot suit or a flapper dress, drink bootleg liquor, and say things like “Hubba hubba” and “Twenty-three skidoo!” This may seem obvious, but trust me, it’s apparently far from obvious to a certain portion of my readers.
I can say this because, ever since the tier system first got mentioned in the narrative, I’ve fielded a steady stream of comments from people who wanted to object to the tier system because it forcibly deprives people of access to technology. I had one reader insist that the tier system would keep farmers in tier one counties from using plastic sheeting for hoop houses, for example, and another who compared the system to the arrangements in former Eastern Bloc nations, where the Communist Party imposed rigid restrictions on what technologies people could have. The mere facts that plastic sheeting for hoop houses isn’t infrastructure paid for by tax revenues, and that the tier system doesn’t impose rigid restrictions on anybody—on the contrary, it allows the voters in each county to choose for themselves how much infrastructure they’re going to pay for—somehow never found their way into the resulting diatribes.
What made all this even more fascinating to me is that no matter how often I addressed the points in question, and pointed out that the tier system just allows local voters to choose what infrastructure gets paid for their by tax money, a certain fraction of readers just kept rabbiting on endlessly along the same lines. It wasn’t that they were disagreeing with what I was saying. It’s that they were acting as though I had never said anything to address the subject at all, even when I addressed it to their faces, and nothing I or anyone else could say was able to break through their conviction that in imagining the tier system, I must be talking about some way to deprive people of technology by main force.
It was after the third or fourth round of comments along these lines, I think it was, that a sudden sense of deja vu reminded me that I’d seen this same sort of curiously detached paralogic before.
Longtime readers of this blog will remember how, some years ago, I pointed out in passing that the survival of the internet in the deindustrial age didn’t depend on whether there was some technically feasible way to run an internet in times of energy and resource limits, much less on how neat we think the internet is today. Rather, I suggested, its survival in the future would depend on whether it could make enough money to cover its operating and maintenance costs, and on whether it could successfully keep on outcompeting less complex and expensive ways of providing the same services to its users. That post got a flurry of responses from the geekoisie, all of whom wanted to talk exclusively about whether there was some technically feasible way to run the internet in a deindustrial world, and oh, yes, how incredibly neat the internet supposedly is.
What’s more, when I pointed out that they weren’t discussing the issues I had raised, they didn’t argue with me or try to make an opposing case.  They just kept on talking more and more loudly about the  technical feasibility of various gimmicks for a deindustrial internet, and by the way, did we mention yet how unbelievably neat the internet is? It was frankly rather weird, and I don’t mean that in a good way.  It felt at times as though I’d somehow managed to hit the off switch on a dozen or so intellects, leaving their empty husks to lurch mindlessly through a series of animatronic talking points with all the persistence and irrelevance of broken records.
It took a while for me to realize that the people who were engaged in this bizarre sort of nonresponse understood perfectly well what I was talking about. They knew at least as well as I did that the internet is the most gargantuan technostructure in the history of our species, a vast, sprawling, unimaginably costly, and hopelessly unsustainable energy- and resource-devouring behemoth that survives only because a significant fraction of the world’s total economic activity goes directly and indirectly toward its upkeep. They knew about the slave-worked open pit mines, the vast grim factories run by sweatshop labor, and the countless belching smokestacks that feed its ravenous appetite for hardware and power; they also know about the constellations of data centers scattered across the world that keep it running, each of which uses as much energy as a small city, and each of which has to have one semi-truck after another pull up to the loading dock every single day to offload pallets of brand new hard drives and other hardware, in order to replace those that will burn out the next day.
They knew all this, and they knew, or at least suspected, just how little of it will be viable in a future of harsh energy and resource constraints.  They simply didn’t want to think about that, much less talk about it, and so they babbled endlessly about other things in a frantic attempt to drown out a subject they couldn’t bear to hear discussed openly.
I’m pretty sure that this is what’s going on in the present case, too, and an interesting set of news stories from earlier this year points up the unspoken logic behind it.
Port Townsend is a pleasant little town in Washington State, perched on a bluff above the western shores of Puget Sound. Due to the vagaries of the regional economy, it basically got bypassed by the twentieth century, and much of the housing stock dates from the Victorian era. It so happens that one couple who live there find Victorian technology, clothing, and personal habits more to their taste than the current fashions in these things, and they live, as thoroughly as they can, a Victorian lifestyle. The wife of the couple, Sarah Chrisman, recently wrote a book about her experiences, and got her canonical fifteen minutes of fame on the internet and the media as a result.
You might think, dear reader, that the people of Port Townsend would treat this as merely a harmless eccentricity, or even find it pleasantly amusing to have a couple in Victorian cycling clothes riding their penny-farthing bicycles on the city streets. To some extent, you’d be right, but it’s the exceptions that I want to discuss here. Ever since they adopted their Victorian lifestyle, the Chrismans have been on the receiving end of constant harassment by people who find their presence in the community intolerable. The shouted insults, the in-your-face confrontations, the death threats—they’ve seen it all. What’s more, the appearance of Sarah Chrisman’s book and various online articles related to it fielded, in response, an impressive flurry of spluttering online denunciations, which insisted among other things that the fact that she prefers to wear long skirts and corsets somehow makes her personally responsible for all the sins that have ever been imputed to the Victorian era.
Why? Why the fury, the brutality, and the frankly irrational denunciations directed at a couple whose lifestyle choices have got to count well up there among the world’s most harmless hobbies?
The reason’s actually very simple. Sarah Chrisman and her husband have transgressed one of the modern world’s most rigidly enforced taboos. They’ve shown in the most irrefutable way, by personal example, that the technologies each of us use in our own lives are a matter of individual choice.
You’re not supposed to say that in today’s world. You’re not even supposed to think it. You’re allowed, at most, to talk nostalgically about how much more pleasant it must have been not to be constantly harassed and annoyed by the current round of officially prescribed technologies, and squashed into the Procrustean bed of the narrow range of acceptable lifestyles that go with them. Even that’s risky in many circles these days, and risks fielding a diatribe from somebody who just has to tell you, at great length and with obvious irritation, all about the horrible things you’d supposedly suffer if you didn’t have the current round of officially prescribed technologies constantly harassing and annoying you.
The nostalgia in question doesn’t have to be oriented toward the past. I long ago lost track of the number of people I’ve heard talk nostalgically about what I tend to call the Ecotopian future, the default vision of a green tomorrow that infests most minds on the leftward end of things. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last forty years, you already know every detail of the Ecotopian future.  It’s the place where wind turbines and solar panels power everything, everyone commutes by bicycle from their earth-sheltered suburban homes to their LEED-certified urban workplaces, everything is recycled, and social problems have all been solved because everybody, without exception, has come to embrace the ideas and attitudes currently found among upper-middle-class San Francisco liberals.
It’s far from rare, at sustainability-oriented events, to hear well-to-do attendees waxing rhapsodically about how great life will be when the Ecotopian future arrives. If you encounter someone engaging in that sort of nostalgic exercise, and are minded to be cruel, ask the person who’s doing it whether he (it’s usually a man) bicycles to work, and if not, why not. Odds are you’ll get to hear any number of frantic excuses to explain why the lifestyle that everyone’s going to love in the Ecotopian future is one that he can’t possibly embrace today. If you want a look behind the excuses and evasions, ask him how he got to the sustainability-oriented event you’re attending. Odds are that he drove his SUV, in which there were no other passengers, and if you press him about that you can expect to see the dark heart of privilege and rage that underlies his enthusiastic praise of an imaginary lifestyle that he would never, not even for a moment, dream of adopting himself.
I wish I were joking about the rage. It so happens that I don’t have a car, a television, or a cell phone, and I have zero interest in ever having any of these things. My defection from the officially prescribed technologies and the lifestyles that go with them isn’t as immediately obvious as Sarah Chrisman’s, so I don’t take as much day to day harassment as she does. Still, it happens from time to time that somebody wants to know if I’ve seen this or that television program, and in the conversations that unfold from such questions it sometimes comes out that I don’t have a television at all.
Where I now live, in an old red brick mill town in the north central Appalachians, that revelation rarely gets a hostile response, and it’s fairly common for someone else to say, “Good for you,” or something like that. A lot of people here are very poor, and thus have a certain detachment from technologies and lifestyles they know perfectly well they will never be able to afford. Back when I lived in prosperous Left Coast towns, on the other hand, mentioning that I didn’t own a television routinely meant that I’d get to hear a long and patronizing disquisition about how I really ought to run out and buy a TV so I could watch this or that or the other really really wonderful program, in the absence of which my life must be intolerably barren and incomplete.
Any lack of enthusiasm for that sort of disquisition very reliably brought out a variety of furiously angry responses that had precisely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is that I simply don’t enjoy the activity of watching television. Oh, and it’s not the programming I find unenjoyable—it’s the technology itself; I get bored very quickly with the process of watching little colored images jerking about on a glass screen, no matter what the images happen to be. That’s another taboo, by the way. It’s acceptable in today’s America to grumble about what’s on television, but the technology itself is sacrosanct; you’re not allowed to criticize it, much less to talk about the biases, agendas, and simple annoyances hardwired into television as a technological system. If you try to bring any of that up, people will insist that you’re criticizing the programming; if you correct them, they’ll ignore the correction and keep on talking as though the programs on TV are the only thing under discussion.
A similar issue drives the bizarre paralogic surrounding the nonresponses to the tier system discussed above. The core premises behind the tier system in my narrative are, first, that people can choose the technological infrastructure they have, and have to pay for—and second, that some of them, when they consider the costs and benefits involved, might reasonably decide that an infrastructure of dirt roads and a landscape of self-sufficient farms and small towns is the best option. To a great many people today, that’s heresy of the most unthinkable sort.  The easiest way to deal with the heresy in question, for those who aren’t interested in thinking about it, is to pretend that nothing so shocking has been suggested at all, and force the discussion into some less threatening form as quickly as possible. Redefining it in ways that erase the unbearable idea that technologies can be chosen freely, and just as freely rejected, is quite probably the easiest way to do that.
I’d encourage those of my readers who aren’t blinded by the terror of intellectual heresy to think, and think hard, about the taboo against technological choice—the insistence that you cannot, may not, and must not make your own choices when it comes to whatever the latest technological fad happens to be, but must do as you’re told and accept whatever technology the consumer society hands you, no matter how dysfunctional, harmful, or boring it turns out to be. That taboo is very deeply ingrained, far more potent than the handful of relatively weak taboos our society still applies to such things as sexuality, and most of the people you know obey it so unthinkingly that they never even notice how it shapes their behavior. You may not notice how it shapes your behavior, for that matter; the best way to find out is to pick a technology that annoys, harms, or bores you, but that you use anyway, and get rid of it.
Those who take that unthinkable step, and embrace the heresy of technological choice, are part of the wave of the future. In a world of declining resource availability, unraveling economic systems, and destabilizing environments, Sarah Chrisman and the many other people who make similar choices—there are quite a few of them these days, and more of them with each year that passes—are making a wise choice. By taking up technologies and lifeways from less extravagant eras, they’re decreasing their environmental footprints and their vulnerability to faltering global technostructures, and they’re also contributing to one of the crucial tasks of our age: the rediscovery of ways of being human that don’t depend on hopelessly unsustainable levels of resource and energy consumption.
The heresy of technological choice is a door. Beyond it lies an unexplored landscape of possibilities for the future—possibilities that very few people have even begun to imagine yet. My Retrotopia narrative is meant to glance over a very small part of that landscape. If some of the terrain it’s examined so far has been threatening enough to send some of its readers fleeing into a familiar sort of paralogic, then I’m confident that it’s doing the job I hoped it would do.

More Poverty Porn in Eastern Kentucky

via TradYouth

White privilege on display
With predictable regularity, the anti-White media remembers for the duration of a documentary or long-winded think piece that there are White people in poverty, too. The Guardian’s latest article, America’s Poorest White Town, is the latest paint-by-the-numbers piece in a long series of pieces which have been written every few years ever since LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” there half a century ago. They all anchor their narrative in LBJ’s visit, indulge in some poverty porn about how those people live, shake their heads about the welfare dependency and drug problems, and then sneer about how they “vote against their interests” by failing to be loyal Democrats.

Wait. Hold up. This one breaks from the script on that last count!
My dad was Republican. I’m raised a Republican and voting Republican. That’s just the way it is,” he said.
This is routinely, and sometimes sneeringly, characterised by Democrats in other parts of America as poor white people voting against their own interests. It’s a view that exasperates Davis.
“They say, why aren’t these people voting their self-interest? People always vote their self-interest if they can see it. If they believe the government doesn’t work, if they believe that the Democrats don’t really give a shit about people like them, don’t want to be in the same room with them, they want their vote but don’t want to hang out with them, then as they see it they’re voting their self-interest,” he said.
A more concise explanation of the basic mechanics of identity politics has never been spoken. Actually, a Democrat did show up on the national stage recently who does give a shit about people like them: Jim Webb. But he received no traction and was actively despised by the rest of the party. Of course he was. While he sports an Asian wife and checks the mandatory multicultural boxes, Webb hasn’t done nearly enough to distance himself from his whiteness and maleness to suit the fiercely anti-white mood of its base and anti-male mood of its insiders.

The article attempts to describe the real economic problems affecting the community, but gets sidetracked on a tangent about how racist the locals are.
“We’re in a place right now where a tonne of coal costs about $68 to mine in eastern Kentucky and about $12 to mine in Wyoming. They’re importing more Wyoming coal here than they’re using east Kentucky coal. But if you ask people why this is, it’s Obama. They won’t blame the market, they blame the policy. It’s been very convenient to shift it to the black guy.”
Hostility to the US’s first black president runs deep. In an editorial, Beattyville’s largest circulation newspaper, Three Forks Tradition, described Obama as “trying to destroy the United States as we know it”. It accused him of waging war on “Anglo-Saxon males, who work for a living, believe in God and the right to keep and bear arms” and called the president and his then attorney general, Eric Holder, “race baiters with blood on their hands”.
“He has driven racial wedges between the people that will take generations to heal,” the editorial said without irony.
The irony, supposedly, is that the local editor is the real racist for noticing the racially charged agenda of the Obama administration and Holder’s justice department. Even when the Blacks are millionaires with the most powerful titles in America, they’re still the victims of White “racists,” …even if those Whites are the most wretched and powerless Whites in America. Not to get recursive here, but the failure to get the obvious irony rests squarely on The Guardian’s Chris McGreal.

The article closes with the conclusion that it’s pretty much hopeless, and that the only real hope is to escape Appalachia altogether. If it is hopeless, it didn’t have to be. Had America spent the last several decades investing in the regions which actually needed investment, there would be hope. Instead, America’s invested trillions and trillions in its Black minority, then heaped on tens of millions of impoverished immigrants from around the world and invested trillions in them. Trillions more have also been invested in bombing the impoverished foreigners who couldn’t be bothered to relocate here.

Had a fraction of America’s squandered beneficence been invested in rural Appalachia, Beattyville would have ubiquitous high-speed Internet, passable roads, resourceful schools, and serviceable public infrastructure. It wasn’t, and neither Democrats nor Republicans have the least interest in correcting this betrayal of its most needful citizens. The Jewish lobby will keep getting its wars in the Middle East, the Black lobby will keep getting its “programs,” the business lobby will keep getting its job-destroying “free trade” deals, and the struggling folks in America’s dying small towns will keep getting the shaft.

And they’ll continue getting the shaft until they figure out that mere job training, drug abuse treatment, and more “work ethic” aren’t enough to save themselves. They have to get in the game, figure out that everything in modern politics is identity politics, and start fighting like hell for their identity…their white identity.

The local elites, always eager to suck up and signal to fancy outsiders, will fight back if they do. The rest of the nation will respond with even more attacks and insults against them than they habitually cough up at “hillbillies” and “country trash.” If the good people of Eastern Kentucky can muster up the courage to stand their ground against the bullying and shaming which rains down on Whites who fight for their interests, then there is indeed a great deal of hope for the future of Beattyville.

Our Forefathers Were Right: The Egalitarian Nightmare They Tried to Prevent Is upon Us

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

"Pull Up Your Pants" signs going-up in Mississippi
Only individual black people could collectively create a world where their actions would necessitate "We Must Stop Killing Each Other" signs to be placed in yards, as a reminder... not to kill one another. 

St. Louis has them. Baltimore has them too. Montgomery, Alabama as well.

Only individual black people could collectively create a world where their actions would necessitate "Pull Up Your Pants" signs... [Laurel rolls out 'pull up your pants' signs,, 11-17-15]:
The Laurel Police Department and Mayor Johnny Magee are asking citizens to pull their pants up when they are out in public. 
"We're trying to bring awareness to our young people to pull up your pants," Police Chief Tyrone Stewart said. "No one wants to see your underwear." 
Chief Stewart put up the first sign outside of the municipal court court building Tuesday morning.  
"When you come here to our facilities, we want you to act right," Stewart said. 
"On a weekly basis, you see these young people coming to court, and the way they're dressed with their pants hanging below their buttocks, and you have to have one of the personnel here to tell them to 'pull up your pants before you come in the courtroom.' That's disturbing because that's something these young people should have learned at home." 
Stewart said his department is stepping in and trying to close that educational gap. 
"We're not here to regulate exactly what you've got on, but they're walking a fine line with the law of how they are dressing," Stewart said. "And a lot of times, I really don't think they have somebody in their lives that is just being honest and telling them the truth, 'Hey, when you go, people are going to look at you different whether you're doing business or whether you're trying to get a job, they look at how you are dressed.'" 
Mayor Johnny Magee said, "We want people's minds to be on this. You open doors going into stores now, and you've got 'please pull up your pants before you come in. If you don't pull up your pants, don't come in.' It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't have to get to that point that you have to tell people to pull their pants up. Of course, I talked to a police officer in Atlanta. He said they love it because as soon as they start running, they can't run. Their pants are going to fall down, and they're going to trip themselves up. So they don't even realize that they want to be criminals, but with their pants down, it's a plus for the police department." 
Magee said he has been discussing baggy pants since he was a city council member. 
"I used to do a newsletter every month and distribute it throughout Ward 6,' Magee said. "I would always put in the newsletter things that I noticed during that month, and pretty much every month, I had in there that you need to pull your pants up because nobody wanted to see your drawers." 
The city of Laurel does not have any kind of ordinance against baggy or saggy pants, but Stewart said he and Magee are working with city attorney Deidra Bassi on drafting one. 
"She has some concerns about the constitutionality of it if somebody chose to challenge it, but we're going to get there," Magee said. "We'll see what happens there. There are other cities that have done it in Mississippi and in other states, so we'll be looking closely at that to see what we can come up with."
When you understand America is irredeemable, you'll be able to just laugh at these stories: they stand as the absolute proof of the insanity of our egalitarian nightmare.

The Shock of History

via Radix

Michel Houellebecq’s Submission is a novel of the history of our time. This makes it an “important” novel, perhaps the first one to be written in this century. At its core, Houellebecq is asking his readers, you and me, who we are and where we are going.

For the past decade or so, Houellebecq has been the chronicler of postmodern Western nihilism. His novel The Elementary Particles could be described as F. Roger Devlin distilled into fiction; in Platform, Houellebecq delves into the third-world sex tourism, revealing the emptiness of the lifestyles idealized in Eat, Pray, Love and The Hangover Part II.

And something happens at the end of Platform—an Islamic attack on the pleasure pots of Thailand. (Incidentally, Platform was published about the time of the Bali bombings.) It’s this intrusion of history into the day-to-day—and the examination of the consequences of Western man’s belief that “pleasure is a right”—that elevates Houellebecq above postmodern picture painters like DeLillo and Bret Easton Ellis.

Like in DeLillo’s White Noise, Submission begins in a morally bankrupt academia and ends with greater events engulfing its protagonists. Whereas the chemical spill for DeLillo’s Jack Gladney is merely a prelude to inner strife and soul-searching, for Houellebecq’s Francois, the Islamic takeover of France allows him, perhaps for the first time, to glimpse larger, historical meaning.

Most of what has been written on this book so far has failed to grasp that point. Yes, as The London Review of Books states, this is the work of a “nihilist,” but Houellebecq is a self reflective one. Like Nietzsche, Houellebecq knows that “God is dead, and we killed him.” Unfortunately for today’s champagne socialists and caviar conservatives, one cannot leave a God-sized hole in a civilization and expect it to be filled by McDonalds, Social Security, and endless entertainment.

By now I am sure most readers know the outcome of Submission’s plot. The Muslim brotherhood seizes power and, after an initial struggle with “nativist” elements, bends France to its vision. In doing so, we see feminism destroyed, something like the institution of the family put back together again, and a will reasserting itself over society. At the end of it all, Houellebecq’s vision is less about Islam and its battle with hegemonic liberalism and more about the need of Westerners to align our souls with some social order and, dare I say, “become who we are.”

But this author readily admits, using Islam as a foil for this is either a stroke of genius or quite wrongheaded. For Identitarians and many others on the alt right, France’s eventual “Submission” to Islam in the novel is a hard pill to swallow. But ultimately, the themes Houellebecq forces us to confront are not just those external threats we see and are exposed to every day, but that of the void at the heart of our civilization. As Heidegger cryptically put it, “Only a god can save us,” and our hour is getting late.

With Open Gates: The Forced Collective Suicide of European Nations

via Death of Nations
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
128 civilians were murdered by Islamists in Paris. Keep your homes , your family and loved ones safe if you live in Europe. I wish you all the best of luck for the future, we are facing harsh times.

Mahomet, Emperor of the French

via Atlantic Centurion

The events of November 13, 2015 will live in infamy in the public memory for some time. Millions of Facebook accounts have signaled their solidarity with the victims of the attacks by placing a filter of the French tricolor, the symbol of the Fifth Republic, over their profile pictures. It is a well-intentioned, but frankly meaningless non-action, and perhaps even a non-thought. How many of these people grasp the true context and reality of what has happened to France, what will continue to happen, and why? Presumably very few, though ignorance alone would be sufferable. What the French body politic practices is not ignorance, it is deceit, and deceiving an entire nation for the wrong reasons is indefensible treason.

From the left, which is hegemonic in Western European politics and media (France is ruled by socialists), the narrative is already a delusional miasma of doctrinal talking points about Islam and multiculturalism:
  • Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Terrorism has no religion.
  • The refugees are fleeing terrorism; they aren’t terrorists.
  • We can’t let the far-right take advantage of this tragedy.
Pay no attention to the ethno-religious origins of the suspects, or the Syrian passport checked in Greece. As a foul, vulgar far-rightist, I cannot help but wonder why I am not allowed to politicize events like this while leftists are allowed to politicize the Charleston church shooting, to give one of many examples. Surely if Whites are collectively responsible for racially-motivated shootings, Muslims are collectively responsible for religiously-motivated shootings, bombings and terror attacks. Thankfully for the narrative, this only runs in one direction and most people are totally fine with that. Muslims are a designated oppressed class and therefore protected by law, media and society. Terrorists just happen to be Muslim and the ones that are aren’t real Muslims anyway, goy.

Under the Fifth Republic, the native French (and any ethnocentrism they express) are viewed with suspicion and hostility by the state, which is a proposition nation—liberté, égalité, fraternité—committed to multiculturalism, Diversity™ and signaling. As such, the notion that the ethnic French are the victims of Islamic terror is impossible. The real victim is multiculturalism, which will now come under attack by those evil bigots who irrationally hate Muslims and think that if France had no Muslims there would be no Muslim terrorists. France cannot let the far-right champion the interests of the ethnic French because that would undermine France’s image as a diverse and progressive Current Year® country that places the needs of others before itself, to the point of suicide. Self-hate is a virtue among traitors. The Fifth Republic, evidently, is not run by the French for the French. This is not unique as far as postwar European governments are concerned, but it is particularly ironic given the history of France and the decolonization of her overseas holdings. It is pretty offensive that Algeria gained independence as a nation-state as France became a multi-ethnic state. For what purpose was releasing Algeria from the republic justified if importing Algerians became state policy?

That the Fifth Republic believes in multiculturalism for France but nationhood for the Third World is wholly incompatible with its own history and policies towards other countries (my Anglo sensibilities demand consistency and fairness). If nationalism is irrelevant to the functioning and flourishing of a country’s population, why on earth did France release the Islamic population of Algeria from her control in 1962—thus creating the nation-state of Algeria—and welcome millions of European pied-noirs and North Africa Sephardim into Metropolitan France from Algeria? Was it because France was aware that ethnic French people and jews could not live under a postcolonial Islamic state safely? Wouldn’t Diversity™ have been a great, if not the greatest strength Algeria had? There must have been a vestigial nationalism felt by the French towards their emigres as one folk who should live together. Even importing North African jews could be rationalized in the wake of WWII. But why then over the following decades did France welcome millions of Muslims into its territory from Africa and the Middle East as laborers, including their former wartime enemies, Algerians? I thought Algerians and French people were incompatible under the same political union!

If France was going to adopt multiculturalism and import millions of Algerian Muslims and give them citizenship, it would have been more efficient to simply keep Algeria as an integral part of France. Was nationhood appropriate for Algeria because the ethnic conflict between French settlers and North African Muslims couldn’t be resolved without the French evacuating Algeria? So when there is ethnic conflict between French natives and Afro-Islamic colonists in France, as there has been with varying degrees of intensity for decades, is the solution not nationalism for France and not the Muslim evacuation of Europe? Can France withdraw from Paris like it did from Algiers if identity-based violence gets out of hand there?

No, it can’t. France is being colonized by tribal Muslims while promoting multiculturalism and anti-identity for her native sons and daughters. We already know nationalism for European peoples is verboten, so this is a problem that the Fifth Republic literally cannot solve under its current configuration. France must place the interests of all her minorities first, even when those minorities are violently anti-French, as they were in 2004, 2014, and twice in 2015. The French state is set up to encourage the migration of Muslims into the country and to defend them against French nationalism. That is not a legitimate government; it is run for a foreign minority. It is a Semitic client-republic. Unless the French nation politically separates itself from the French state or electorally deposes the Fifth Republic, Mahomet is Emperor of the French.

Is It Time for the Rehabilitation of National Socialism?

via Western Spring

There are many forms of nationalism that have evolved to meet a variety of needs throughout history and depending upon one’s perspective and the circumstances prevailing at the time, they have been variously viewed as: heroic liberating movements, at one end of the scale; as movements of oppression and genocide at the other extreme; and every shade in between. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.
In Germany during the 1930s, racial nationalism in the form of German National Socialism, came to be regarded by ethnic Germans as a movement of heroic liberation from the oppressive conditions that had been imposed upon Germany following her defeat during World War One. Furthermore, as the Wehrmacht later advanced across the Soviet Union during the early years of World War Two, the German conquerors were regarded by many Ukrainians and ethnic Germans living under Communist oppression in Russia, as liberators and their arrival seen as a cause for celebration.

Since the end of World War Two however, mainstream liberal and left-wing political reactions to the horrors of that conflict have caused German National Socialism, and by implication all forms of European racial nationalism, to be regarded as oppressive and inherently genocidal in nature.

Since World War Two, German National Socialism has been widely portrayed, throughout the mass media of the West and through our education systems, as the epitome of evil: as an ideology positing the German people as a ‘master race’; as an ideology intent upon world conquest; as an ideology designating all non-White races and all non-Germanic peoples as sub-human; and as an ideology hell bent on physically exterminating those supposedly sub-human peoples, together with every last vestige of their cultures, in the most depraved and barbaric fashion.

Wehrmacht Soldiers Bandaging Wounded WomanAs a consequence, we routinely encounter stories that the German people under National Socialism, created concentration camps in which enemies of their regime, together with prisoners of war and people from all minority groups, most especially the Jews, were subjected to imprisonment, slavery, starvation, non-consensual medical experimentation, beatings, torture, summary execution for the most trivial reasons, and of course genocide by gassing in specially converted lorries and buildings and gas chambers, specially constructed for the purpose. Furthermore it has been alleged that the Germans made soap from the bodies of the people they had murdered, shrunken heads, ashtrays from the skulls of their victims and lampshades from their skin.

Despite this demonising of the National Socialist regime, there have ever since the end of World War Two been a minority of German people who have denied the worst of these allegations as wartime propaganda fabrications that have been perpetuated for political reasons, and members of this German minority have been prepared to go to prison under laws enacted to make so-called ‘Holocaust denial’ illegal. Indeed, not only have a minority of Germans been prepared to speak out in this way, but so too have an increasing number of individuals, predominantly from other European countries, and as time has passed, certain of the more grotesque allegations, which were at one time regarded as true, have since been recognised as absurd untruths — as wartime black propaganda fabrications, of the sort that this minority of Germans and others have claimed all along.

No-one now asserts that the Germans made soap, or shrunken heads, or ashtrays, or lampshades from the bodies of people they are alleged to have murdered. In an age when DNA testing is widely available, it is no longer credible to maintain these fictions.

Wehrmacht Soldier on Mototbike Speaks to WomenFurthermore, whereas it was once claimed that every German concentration camp was the site of genocidal gassings, such claims have since been scaled down, such that only those camps that were during the post-war period inaccessible to Western academics — those located in Eastern Europe – are now claimed to have been ‘Death Camps’, and the camps that were easily available for inspection by Western academics have been downgraded to the status of mere forced labour camps. The reason for this scaling down being the obvious absence of any large gas chambers capable of being used for anything other than the routine fumigation of clothing to eradicate lice and other disease bearing agents.

Also, whereas it was once claimed that three-million of the alleged six-million Jews murdered by the Germans were killed at Auschwitz in Poland, despite the existence of German camp records showing a total of approximately 70,000 deaths, approximately 29,000 of which were Jews, the Polish authorities have since revised the claimed total number of victims at Auschwitz down to just 1.1 million.

All of these developments have tended to draw the World War Two narrative regarding the oppressive and allegedly genocidal nature of German National Socialism closer to the assertions of the German minority referred to earlier, and it is a great pity therefore that many European countries, including Germany, persist in retaining laws that are obviously now outmoded, discredited and iniquitous, outlawing critical examination of the facts surrounding the so-called Holocaust.

These laws were implemented in order to demonstrate that war crimes allegedly committed by the Germans, were so demonstrably heinous, that no-one should ever be allowed to question the damning allegations made by the victorious Allies and Jewish survivors. Such an assertion however is no longer credible and the retention of these laws is increasingly being seen as a desperate politically motivated attempt to suppress the truth, to deny freedom of enquiry and to deny freedom of speech.

Undoubtedly, large numbers of people did die in ghastly conditions in the German concentration camps which were predominantly forced labour camps, and this should not be overlooked, but so did large numbers of Germans, both prisoners of war and civilians die in ghastly conditions in Allied concentration camps and forced labour camps towards the end of World War Two and after.

Wehrmacht Boy SoldiersTwo wrongs don’t make a right, but as the victors in World War Two, the Allies have applied a double standard in their dealings with the issue of war crimes. War crimes allegedly committed by the Germans have been accepted almost without question as the gospel truth, no matter how far-fetched or exaggerated they appear. The Germans have been defamed as a result, and National Socialism as an ideology has been made taboo, whereas war crimes allegedly committed by the Allies, which are in many cases directly comparable to those alleged against the Germans, have in the majority of cases never been officially recognised, let alone properly investigated.

War is a ghastly process in which two opposing sides inflict violence upon each other with the intention or terrorising their opponent into submission or else destroying them utterly.

No side emerges with clean hands from a war, particularly a war on the scale of the two World Wars of the last century. The desperate and ghastly nature of warfare means that inevitably so-called war crimes are committed, as we humans are not able to remain dispassionate in situations in which we see our comrades injured and dying all around us, and human nature being what it is, some degree of hot-headed retribution, unjustifiable in the cold light of day, is always summarily visited upon the vanquished.

Wehrmacht POWs Disappear in Russia

War temporarily makes monsters of us all, but justice and reconciliation demand that we allow truth to prevail once the fighting stops. My belief is that seventy years after the end of World War Two, at a time in which few who lived through that war are still alive, there is a case for the Third Reich, the period of National Socialism in Germany, to be re-examined from an unbiased perspective and for the taboo associated with National Socialism to be recognised for what it is – unnecessary and unjust.

Conditions within Europe are changing rapidly. In recent years we have seen immigrants from the Third World pouring into Europe in unprecedented numbers, and this year we have seen illegal immigrants and supposed refugees swarming across Europe’s borders and marching in huge columns  demanding to be given food, water and shelter at each way-station, and demanding passage to those destinations renowned for the most generous welfare systems. We have been warned that Islamic State fighters are amongst these hordes of migrants and we have witnessed increasingly frequent acts of violence perpetrated against our people on the streets of our capital cities. We are faced with new dire existential threats which require Europeans to have the freedom to respond in any effective way we can.

We need the freedom to organise in our own self-defence, in the defence of our nations, and that freedom is dangerously constrained if we continue to allow all manifestations of European nationalism to be defamed through smear by association with the increasingly discredited atrocity allegations made against  German National Socialism.

Let us remove the scales of political correctness from our eyes, let us sweep away the last vestiges of the wartime black propaganda that have obscured our eyes and with clear vision, think again!

At What Age Do Men Peak?

via Return of Kings

A common belief in the manosphere—and one I’ve stated myself—is that a man’s value can peak up to his early 40’s, allowing him to get a far higher quality or quantity of women than in his early 20’s. This is due to the argument that women prefer a more mature man with resources and refined charisma than a bumbling young guy lacking in confidence. A closer examination of this theory, however, shows that many other variables are at play for determining a man’s real-life results, and that the common man may be better served securing long-term partners before waiting for his supposed “peak” to arrive, especially if he doesn’t practice game.

On the surface, it’s hard to argue against the idea that a man will get the best women at an age he’s likely to possess more qualities that women want. That sweet spot will likely be in his mid 30’s, where he has a high level of resources, game, and social status but still maintains a hopefully youthful aesthetic that doesn’t turn off the most beautiful women in their early 20’s or even late teens. The problem is that this has so many conditions and exceptions that it’s not at all useful for men who don’t actively practice game that is mainly based on cold approaching.

The “men peak in their mid 30’s” theory applies if:
  • A man regularly approaches at least 25 young women each month or is an extrovert with access to high-value social circles.
  • He lives in a city where 18-25 year old girls prefer mature man with resources (e.g. Southeast Asia, Colombia, Ukraine).
  • He was a late bloomer and possessed practically no game ability in high school or college.
  • He lies about his age to women in the 18-25 age range since many of them don’t want a man 15+ years older.
You will get the best women of your life in your 30’s if you started learning game in your early 20’s from scratch and continue to approach actively up to 40 years of age. This constitutes less than 1% of Western men, and it doesn’t even apply to me.

The most beautiful girl I ever had sex with was in Brazil back in 2008. I was a 29-year-old grungy backpacker staying in a hostel with an unkempt ponytail, but it was extremely helpful that I went out at least four times a week to approach women. My most prolific year was 2011, when I was 32 and in Poland, going out most nights of the week to approach women with beauty standards that are lower than what I prefer today.

I’ve since peaked. I’m getting pretty girls but not obviously hotter than the one in 2008 and nowhere near more quantity than in 2011. This is in spite of the fact that my resources and game is multiple times higher. The reason for this is simple: I’m no longer approaching a lot of girls. It turns out that access to women, regardless of your existing value, is the main determinant of the results you’ll end up getting. I was meeting ten times more women each week a few years ago than now, and even if I had less game skill, resources, or even a private bed back then, I still got both higher quality and quantity.

I know what you are thinking: “But if you approach the same number of girls today as you did in 2008, you’d get hotter.” That could be true, but there are two major constraints:

1. Most young girls don’t prefer men in their mid 30’s and beyond. Maybe in the historical past a young girl wanted a far older man, but such a girl today prefers one that is not too far from her in age. I’ve had to change many of my game routines to prevent my age from coming out before strong attraction is established.

2. You will not be able to maintain a consistently high level of game effort. I physically and mentally can’t approach a high number of girls anymore. My energy is lower and my tolerance for the modern woman is also lower even though I’m still rather horny. I used to do ten or more approaches a night out, but now I can barely do three, and that’s if I manage to go out at all. I’m unable to put in the 2-4 hours daily of work that would really maximize my current value, which suggests that the most amount of game work you’re willing to do likely peaks with your energy, horniness, and female tolerance, not your value or game skill. Most guys I know maximize their game effort in their mid to late 20’s and start dropping off in their 30’s.

A man’s paper value will be highest after 30, but this doesn’t exist in isolation from the effort he’s able to apply, the access to young girls he’s able to meet, and the fact that those young girls don’t usually prefer men over 35 as their first choice. Ironically, I find that a man’s paper value actually goes up when he stops focusing on getting laid, because women are inhibitors to a man’s ambition and serve as a massive opportunity cost in realizing his true potential, but then his game results will sharply decrease, suggesting an inverse correlation between personal value and sex results.

There are two different tracks a man usually follows. If he’s a natural, and knew of game at a young age from an older male role model, his peak will be in college (early 20’s), where he has the right game to sleep with the highest number of girls in their prime. The second track is for the man who had to manually learn game in college or after. His peak in terms of quality and quantity will likely come about five years after he started studying game, when he has the most efficient combination of raw game knowledge and horny energy. For this second group of men, their peak will be in their late 20’s or early 30’s. If you’re using game to get laid, your peak will directly coincide with the number of approaches you’re doing each week starting with the time your game is at a moderate level, not how much status you have or your theoretical knowledge of game.

There are ways that you can prolong or extend your game peak, such as moving to countries where age gaps don’t bother women, injecting yourself with testosterone so you remain motivated to approach high numbers of women, lying to women about your age, and constructing Excel spreadsheets full of sex goals that motivate you when biology no longer does, but these are external inducements that only show how flawed the “men peak in their mid 30’s” narrative is. Unless a man is paying for sex outright through prostitution or Russian-style “sponsorship,” his ability to get 18-25 year olds will begin dropping gradually after 35, while his ability to get promiscuous mature women who had their spins on the carousel will skyrocket.

The true peak for modern men is therefore dependent on having solid game ability and access to girls during the time he’s most girl-crazy. For most guys this will happen before 30, and almost never for men beyond 35. I just turned 36 and I’m so far from my peak that I am having trouble approaching even 10% of the girls I was doing just four years ago. It’s getting easier for me to attract women between 25-30, but it is not easier for me to get girls in the 20-25 range than a couple years ago (it’s about the same). In terms of the most desirable women of society, it will very soon become harder for me every year to attract the women I want.

We now live in a time where girls in their prime don’t care about a man’s resources. That trend is spreading to more traditional parts of the world, which means women will start to place more value in exciting metrosexual clowns than mature men with ample means. I still have to work just as hard as before to get them because the things we see as having value are not seen as valuable to young women. We’re becoming established and wise while they increasingly prefer shiny, dancing cocks that make them feel drama, tension, and fun.

I’m satisfied at what I’m getting now based on the little amount of work I’m putting in, but in terms of peak, that has passed for me, and attracting 21-year-olds will not get easier with each new year, no matter how much I grow as a man.

After Driver-Card Victory, Oregon Immigration Patriots Aim for E-Verify and Official English


Last year, voters in the supposedly “blue” state of Oregon overturned the illegal-alien driving privileges the state’s Democratic legislature and governor had approved in 2013. To capitalize on that victory, Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR), the group that spearheaded the effort, has launched an ambitious new endeavor to require larger businesses to verify the legal presence of their employees by using E-Verify. If successful, this initiative could force a substantial decline in Oregon’s illegal-alien population and fuel the national surge in immigration-patriot sentiment sparked by the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.

OFIR already has a proven track record and ability to overcome formidable odds. Consider its first victory over “driver cards” for illegal aliens.

In late April 2013, by a better than two-to-one margin (Senate: 20-to-7; House: 38-to-20), Oregon’s state legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which implemented “driver cards” for illegals. On May Day, before hundreds of cheering illegal aliens and their advocates, then-Gov. John Kitzhaber signed the bill.

However, OFIR immediately announced it would seek, via citizen-initiated referendum, to give Oregon voters the chance to overturn the bill in the 2014 general election. To this end, over the next five months, hundreds of activists affiliated with OFIR’s “Protect Oregon Driver Licenses” project worked to collect the 58,142 voter signatures required to refer the bill to the ballot. By early fall, they had succeeded.

A year of campaigning ensued. Modestly funded and therefore unable to undertake an aggressive television and radio campaign, OFIR’s grassroots patriots drummed up voter support via old-fashioned retail politicking. Volunteers addressed civic and political groups, wrote newspaper commentaries and Letters To The Editor, and manned literature booths at gun shows, state and county fairs, and other events. In one of the campaign’s best-attended functions, Derek Hernandez, then Western Regional Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, addressed volunteers and led an anti-driver-card rally along one of Salem’s busiest boulevards.

Driver-card forces, led by the so-called “YES for Safe Roads” committee—significantly, a name that avoided specifying for whom the cards were intended—amassed endorsements from elected officials, civic organizations, labor unions, faith groups, and the farm, nursery and restaurant lobbies whose members benefit most directly from illegal, low-wage labor. (By contrast, the only major group that formally opposed driver cards was the Sheriffs of Oregon Political Action Committee.) To fund their campaign, the YES Committee collected more than $500,000 in contributions—including $50,000 from actress Eva Longoria’s “Latino Victory Project“—surpassing opponents’ intake by a ten-to-one margin.

But here, money didn’t portend the outcome. As noted above, on November 4, 2014, voters rejected driver cards overwhelmingly: 66 percent (983,576 votes) to 34 percent (506,751 votes).

In other words, two-thirds of Oregon’s ballot-casting citizens had rejected the illegal-alien driver cards that two-thirds of their state legislators had approved and that countless Establishment officials and institutions had supported—as clear a demonstration of the elite-vs.-people divide on immigration as has been seen in modern-day politics.

For OFIR activists, the win was immensely satisfying. Still, their elation was tempered. Impressive as it was, theirs was a defensive victory. It prevented the implementation of a measure that would have drawn more illegal aliens to their state—but did not enact any new measures that would induce illegal aliens already there to leave.

To that end, however, they now had concrete evidence of two things:
  • First: via Oregon’s initiative and referendum process, grassroots activists can successfully introduce and even change state policy on immigration.
  • Second: Given the chance, a solid majority of voters, even in a reputedly “blue” state like Oregon, will vote to remove illegal immigration’s “magnets.”
In strategy sessions in late 2014 and early 2015, OFIR’s board of directors determined upon an ambitious new goal: to seek to place onto the 2016 general-election ballot a measure to require Oregon employers with five or more employees to verify their new hires’ U.S. legal presence via the federal E-Verify system.

To craft the measure, OFIR worked with attorneys from the Immigration Reform Law Institute as well as an Oregon-based attorney, who modeled its text on South Carolina’s mandatory E-Verify law—a law which, to date, has withstood all legal challenges.

OFIR’s reasoning behind an E-Verify initiative was simple. If E-Verify were mandated for the state’s employers and their job applicants vetted for lawful U.S. presence, jobs held by illegal aliens, once vacated, would be filled by legal workers. Newly-created jobs would go to legal workers immediately. Within a few years, the state’s U.S. citizens and legal residents—of whom, currently, almost 120,000 still are unemployed—would hold the overwhelming majority of Oregon jobs.

And if they weren’t able to get Oregon jobs, OFIR’s board reasoned, substantial numbers of the state’s illegal aliens would leave—and illegal aliens elsewhere would choose to stay away.

For evidence, OFIR looked at what mandatory E-Verify helped do for Arizona. After that state implemented mandatory E-Verify in 2007, notes the Federation for American Immigration Reform, its illegal-alien population “declined by about 100,000 between 2008 and 2009, or about 18 percent.” If Oregon voters could be convinced to mandate E-Verify, OFIR’s board concluded, the same could happen in their state.

At the annual state fair this fall, OFIR volunteers collected the 1,000 “sponsor signatures” the Oregon Secretary of State’s Elections Division needed to set the E-Verify initiative in motion. The next step was for the Attorney General to craft a 15-word draft ballot title, Yes and No statements and a summary statement for the remaining signature petitions that will summarize what the initiative, if enacted, will do.

The draft ballot title and language for the E-Verify initiative petition were unacceptable to OFIR and its attorneys, so the group now moves into the “comments” period. Attorneys must justify any challenges to the language used by the Attorney General. State statute is frequently cited in the challenge language. Late last week, OFIR’s comments were submitted for review by the Attorney General, who will review all comments submitted by all parties and then release a certified ballot title. If OFIR finds that unacceptable, the state Supreme Court can then be accessed for help in resolving the dispute over the language.

Once everything is approved OFIR will work to collect the remaining signatures, totaling 88,184, that it will need by July 2016 to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

If OFIR succeeds in this, its in-state polling shows the measure stands a good chance of passage on Election Day. And to that end, the group has secured pledges of initial financial support from immigration patriots both inside and outside Oregon.

But OFIR isn’t stopping there. In addition to the E-Verify initiative, the group is working to qualify a measure to make English Oregon’s official language and thereby put a brake on the proliferation of state- and local-government business conducted in foreign languages.

As outlined in its text, the initiative’s main purpose is this: to stipulate that “no law, ordinance, decree, program, or policy of this state or any of its subdivisions shall require the use of any language other than English for any documents, regulations, orders, transactions, proceedings, meetings, programs or publications” (with several exceptions that include “to protect the public health or safety” and “to protect the rights of criminal defendants and victims of crime”).

As with E-Verify, OFIR has collected 1,000 sponsor signatures and advanced the measure to the title-writing phase.

Here, however, the group has hit a snag.

The initial draft ballot title from the Attorney General’s office had explained the initiative adequately: “Requires government actions/communications in English (with specified exceptions); limits laws allowing non-English documents/services.” But, after complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union and others during the comment period, the Attorney General altered the title to come up with this gibberish for the remaining signature petitions:
Changes state/’subdivision’ (undefined) laws regarding English/other-language use and requirements; exceptions; authorizes lawsuits.
OFIR’s reaction was immediate—and scathing. OFIR founder and past president Jim Ludwick, in an interview with Salem’s Statesman-Journal newspaper, termed the new title “gobbledygook.”[Petition title irks immigration reform group, by Carol McAlice Currie, September 16, 2015] Cynthia Kendoll, OFIR’s current president, commented that “the Attorney General is trying to confuse voters”; no-one reading the title, she contended, “could possibly know that the underlying ballot proposal would make English the default language of government operations in Oregon.”

OFIR has appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking that it reject the Attorney General’s certified ballot title in favor of one that clearly delineates the initiative’s purpose.

If OFIR wins the appeal, it will proceed with the initiative; if not, the group will move forward with the E-Verify measure alone.

And with this, OFIR moves into autumn and the crucial remaining year before Election Day 2016. In October in Salem, the group kicked off the stretch run with its annual “Pizza and Politics” event attended by about a hundred of the state’s premier grassroots activists. President Kendoll outlined the two initiatives’ progress and made a pitch for help in the coming year. Attendees heard as well from state representatives Mike Nearman (an OFIR board member) and Greg Barreto, who spoke about the past legislative session. And they heard from Oregon Republican Party chairman Bill Currier, whose executive committee and many core precinct-level activists strongly support OFIR’s initiatives and will be of great help in the coming campaign.

Stay tuned for another Oregon dispatch early in the New Year.

And in the meantime, for up-to-date news, visit OFIR’s website And—should you find opportunities for meaningful action lacking in your own states—OFIR invites you to lend your time and talents to help us wage the fight in our corner of the nation.

The Paris Attacks — Who Benefits?

via Darkmoon

We might ask ourselves the following: Who created the Muslim refugees swarming over Europe? Who created and financed Al Qaeda and ISIS? Who benefits from the tragic attacks in Paris?

If all the roads in ancient Europe lead to Rome, then we know who built them. And if all the answers to our questions about the Paris attacks lead to one mad dog criminal entity, then we know who is responsible.

Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Unfortunately for America and the rest of NATO, there are 315 million Gentiles living on that land. It is said that America and Israel have a ‘Special Relationship.’ As I understand this relationship, Israel has the right to bribe American politicians by giving a small percentage of the multi-billions in aid and debt forgiveness US taxpayers must pay every year in tribute to the nation that controls their politics, their banking system and their media. In return Israel protects America by killing any elected official like President Kennedy who resists the will of the Zionist entity.

The ‘War on Terror’ is nothing but the US and its allies killing the Gentiles who live on the lands Israel claims or who are capable of resisting the genocide of Palestinians and others who neighbor Israel.

The US created Al Qaeda in the late 1970s in order to trick the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan so they could force the locals to fight the Soviets for them. This led to the bankruptcy of the Communist regime as planned. The end of the Soviet era gave the US military and its masters on Wall Street and in Israel free rein to trample undefended nations all over the world.

In 1996 Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others wrote A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm for Prime Minister Netanyahu. These men formed the Project for A New American Century which transmitted these ideas to the Bush and Obama administrations. PNAC and the Jewish Lobby allowed Israel to attack the US on 911 and get away with it.

Al Qaeda was blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. America’s Jewish controlled media let Israel do it. The Israelis were the only ones with access to the Towers. Why did WTC 7 collapse so neatly when it was never hit by a plane? Tell me how the steel girders were cut by a random fire that was not intense enough to melt any of the glass? Shouldn’t we expect to see glass to melt before steel in all of those collapse videos?

Fortunately for Israel and Wall Street, thinking forbidden thoughts is not allowed in the New and Improved Zionist States America.

Early in 2002 General Wesley Clark was given a list of 7 nations which  were to be invaded. It came from Israel. Iraq was first on that list. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 911 because Israel did it. And the Iraqi regime despised Al Qaeda which works for the CIA. The Obama admin continued Israel’s war against her neighbors by attacking Libya and Syria. The US also used drone strikes to stir up trouble and foment sectarian strife in Pakistan. The latter country is supposed to be an American ally.
But as General Hamid Gul who helped America in her war against the Soviets in Afghanistan said, ‘The Americans shove  a knife in you as they pat you on the back.’
Since 911 it has been illegal to give aid to Al Qaeda because the US government claims they attacked America. But the law against treason is no barriers to the pro-Israel politicians in both of America’s political parties. ISIS used to be called Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I really don’t see how any Muslim can honestly believe that Al Qaeda and ISIS represents them. The Saudis have cut off food imports to Yemen which imports 90% of its food. Fortunately for them, Russia under Putin has been airlifting them food. The Saudis have been bombing even more hospitals than Obama. And the Saudis sent 500 Al Qaeda fighters who had been working for them in Syria to Yemen.

I do not understand why the American public allows Obama and the Congress to fund and arm both Al Qaeda and ISIS. And I wonder about the CIA giving missiles to Al Qaeda linked terrorists so they can shoot down commercial passenger liners at 31,000 feet. And that was after ISIS had falsely claimed they had shot down the MetroJet airliner over Egypt.  Where was the outrage from the press and the politicians over the insanity of arming terrorists with weapons capable of downing passenger jets?

The US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria plus the drone strikes  in North Africa and Pakistan has created refugees by the millions. About one million Syrians are in the process of returning to Syria. A Syrian general recently appeared on TV asking for additional refugees to return to Aleppo province and surrounding areas.

George Soros has been busy encouraging refugees to head for Europe. Some of these people have professionally forged passports. They are the kind of expensive forgeries only a nation state could produce. Hint: If the shoe fits, Israel ought to wear it.

So who benefits from the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe and the Paris attacks?

Israel benefits from the attacks in Paris because they give Netanyahu cover for the slaughter of unarmed Palestinians and the seizure of their lands. This is an ongoing genocide that will require distractions from time to time.

The Bankers who need a National Security State also benefit. When I was still in high school, I knew our government would take all of our rights though no one could imagine a 24 hour surveillance state like we have today.
No one could have imagined as late as September 10, 2001 that the government would be groping our genitals at airports. And no one would believe that Americans would put up with this molestation of human dignity.
My premise was that Wall Street would steal all of our money. The Bankers would need an oppressive Police State to stop the citizenry from lynching them. But the thievery is far worse than we could have imagined at that time.
Catherine Austin Fitts said they stole so much money that they will have to commit genocide to balance the books. Our pensions and savings have become hollow. The money we need has been stolen and sent overseas. We need to arrest the Bankers and to seize their assets just to survive without tens of millions of Americans being starved to death.
Another beneficiary to the Paris attacks would be those who want war.
The US and NATO could start a war against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. But they could never win. The US military will not accept any mass suicide missions from the men who stole their pensions and savings. They will not die and risk World War III to protect the dying Petrodollar. I do not see a Mideast war. War against Russia in the Ukraine would be impossible without France and Germany so I don’t see that happening either.
In the next few days the Russians and their allies will cut off all supply lines to ISIS and the other Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Iraq and Syria. It is all over but the dying for the terrorists. The terrorists would be better off going to Europe and supplementing their welfare payments by engaging in petty thievery and drug peddling.
There is one war still possible. Obama’s Amnesty program has made a Three Way Race War a very real possibility on the Day the Dollar Dies and the Nationwide Food Riots begin.

The Muslim refugee crisis could make a Race war in Europe possible as soon as their economies collapse. The European Bankers have set up programs to steal from their depositors’ accounts when their banks fail. That would normally get people mad enough to throw rocks at them.

The people of Europe could easily be distracted if there were an armed rebellion by a Muslim minority. People in most of Europe are unarmed.
After the dust settles from the International Race Wars the Bankers would hope to convert us to an IMF digital currency they publish and control. They will be happy if they can continue collecting interest on money they create out of nothing after the International Race Wars are over.