Apr 11, 2016

Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly, and the Fraud of Conservative Media

via Right On

For years, the sleeping giant of American nationalism has been lulled to slumber by the lies of corporate-owned "Right-wing" media outlets like Fox News. The conservative media's hysterical reaction to Donald Trump has revealed them as phonies.

One of the things I find absolutely delightful about this year’s presidential election is watching the Leftist media forced to defend people they hate in the service of trying to stump Donald Trump. In crowing about the Donald’s loss in the Wisconsin primary earlier this week, the media was forced to side with winner Ted Cruz, an autistic momma’s boy who pals around with preachers who advocate executing homosexuals. Similarly, in order to push the meme that Trump is a knuckle-dragging misogynist, they’ve had to pretend that Fox News spokesbimbo Megyn Kelly is Edward Murrow with a vagina.

Kelly is and always will be a tabloid hack, employed solely for her peroxide-drenched looks. In typical female fashion, she regards her hurt feelings over Trump’s comments about women to be more important than the actual issues. The best quote I ever heard about Kelly came from a woman Karl Ushanka and I met in line at a Trump rally near Omaha. We were talking about Kelly and I described her as a “lightweight,” to which the woman interjected, “Oh come on, you don’t have to be so polite! She’s a bitch!”

Indeed, Trump’s candidacy has exposed the rot within the so-called “conservative” media. Unlike Leftist media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, who sincerely believe the nonsense they spew, Rupert Murdoch established Fox News out of a cynical desire to tap the wallets of Right-wing Americans. One of 21st Century Fox’s major investors is Saudi Prince Alwaweed bin Talal, a Trump opponent who has used his influence to prevent Fox News from covering stories that put Muslims in a bad light.

Similarly, the “cuckservative” slur came to prominence last year as a response to media outlets like RedState and National Review who spend more time trying to please the Left than fighting for conservative values. With Trump having done more for American nationalism in nine months than the Right-wing intelligentsia has done in fifty years, the mandarins of “respectable” conservatism are now pushing the #NeverTrump meme out of fear for their jobs. We even have so-called “conservative” women using their gender in SJW-style attacks on Trump.

I saw this in full display on the eve of the Wisconsin primary, when I attended both a Ted Cruz town hall in Madison hosted by Megyn Kelly, then lucked into a VIP seat at a Donald Trump town hall in Milwaukee hosted by Sean Hannity. Watching the news media behind the scenes was a truly nauseating experience, like a farmer discovering a zoophile having sex with his cows. Fox News’ “conservatism” is a fraud for ratings and nothing more.

I arrived at the Cruz event at 10 AM on the dot, finding a seat near the back of the hall. Despite Lyin’ Ted’s popularity among the Wiscucksinites, only about 500 people could be bothered to show up. Shortly after I got my seat, Megyn Kelly entered stage left to pep us up and remind us to cheer wildly at the beginning of each commercial break. With her Trump-inspired Max Headroom hairdo and sheer black getup, she looked like a sex slave from The Fifth Element.

Ted Cruz came in ten minutes later, to overenthusiastic applause from the pensioner audience. As soon as the show began, Kelly burnished her bimbo credentials by tossing him softball questions about Trump and his “attacks” on his wife Heidi, as well as National Enquirer’s allegations of his infidelity. Cruz continued his non-denials of the latter and also had the stones to claim that Trump is “afraid of strong women.” Is he running for the Democratic nomination now?

As repulsive as Ted Cruz is in an ordinary campaign setting, he’s even more disgusting under the glare of TV lighting. Lyin’ Ted was sweating so much during the interview that Kelly’s toadies had to re-apply his pancake makeup during each commercial break. It’s clear that he was excited by merely being close to a semi-attractive woman; he kept leaning into Kelly, exposing his bulletproof vest and making it look like he was wearing a bra. You could almost imagine a wet spot forming on the crotch of his khakis.

The rest of the town hall was just as stomach-turning. Cruz took questions from some vetted audience members, hedged on his anti-abortion views (claiming that he wouldn’t punish women for getting abortions if doing so were illegal), and continued to sweat like a nerd in a titty bar. Near the end, Kelly brought on lobotomy victim and failed presidential contender Governor Scott Walker to discuss why he endorsed Cruz (hint: it’s because Reince Priebus told him to). After Kelly was done filming, Cruz was also joined by his wife Heidi, fellow undersexed pervert Carly Fiorina, and Utah Senator Mike Lee for a meet-and-greet.

The most striking thing about the Cruz event was the absence of protesters. Madison is well-known for its hippie-dippie Leftist politics: Wisconsinites snidely refer to the city as “77 square miles surrounded by reality.” Not only that, we were just a few blocks from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Yet while Leftists go out of their way to disrupt and riot at Trump rallies, they apparently don’t regard Cruz as a threat, because the only protesters were a sad, squat Mongolian and a homeless guy shilling for John Kasich.

After eating lunch, I hit the road for a Trump rally at the Milwaukee Theatre. I arrived about an hour-and-a-half before the doors opened, with an anemic crowd of about 50 people in line. While I was there, a cute blonde came up to us, telling us she was with Sean Hannity’s show and that they were looking for VIPs to fill out the audience. I took her up on the offer, and she led about a dozen of us over to the Pabst Theater a few blocks away, where the show was being filmed.

I’ve never cared for Sean Hannity – he’s a blow-dried gasbag who could fellate a dog turd with a smile on his face – but he at least outstrips Megyn Kelly in the professionalism department. Prior to the show starting, he held a Q&A with the audience where he made unfunny jokes, crowed about how “beautiful” Wisconsin women are (what a load: Wisconsin girls are barely senescent lardlumps who think having pendulous udders can compensate for their obesity), and exhorted us to cheer like maniacs when the interview began.

Donald Trump and his wife Melania came on stage at 5 PM to thunderous applause. The interview itself was fairly standard stuff, with Hannity grilling Trump on the issues and soliciting comments from Melania. In contrast to Cruz’s pubescent leering at Megyn Kelly, Trump confidently sat back in his chair and kept patting Melania on her thigh in a display of ownership. During one of the commercial breaks, Hannity and Trump also tried to shanghai one of the audience members into proposing to his girlfriend of two years.

After the show ended, I hoofed it back to the Milwaukee Theatre in time for Trump’s rally. In an ill omen for the Donald’s Wisconsin campaign, not only was there no line to get in, but the theater was only about two-thirds full. There also weren’t any protesters inside the building or out, though that was likely because Bernie Sanders was holding his own rally nearby. In a moment of unintended hilarity, Trump walked on stage to the tune of Cypress Hill’s “Insane in the Membrane”:

The content of Trump’s stump speeches has changed considerably since his Iowa campaign. With most of his opponents now out of the race and licking their wounds, he turned to emphasizing how NAFTA and free trade has hurt Wisconsin’s economy. While the crowd was fired up, the anemic showing (by Trump’s standards) – only about 1,500-2,000 people – presaged his defeat in the primary the next day.

The Badger State was always going to be a tough row for Trump to hoe: Wisconsinites are basically Iowans with fewer IQ points and a higher blood alcohol content. The state’s agrarian economy and lack of racial diversity isolate it somewhat from the globalization and mass immigration that has devastated other states. Like Iowans, Wisconsinites are also naive and trusting, traits that invasive species like Lyin’ Ted are all too happy to exploit.

Ultimately, though, Cruz’s victory in Wisconsin and his support from “Right-wing” hacks like Megyn Kelly are unlikely to derail the Trump Train. The race has now moved to the Donald’s turf on the East Coast, with his native New York voting in two weeks and most of the remaining Northeastern states voting the week after that. Sleazy preachers with perspiration problems don’t get much of an audience on the Eastern Seaboard. I blame New York values.

If Trump fails to win the nomination, it’ll only be after an unprecedented barrage from the party establishment and media. President Obama, supposed sworn enemy of the Republicans, hasn’t faced a tenth of the scrutiny that Trump has in less than a year of campaigning. On the upside, whether he succeeds or not, Donald Trump has done a massive service in putting the mainstream conservative media out of business.

Florida Kids Had to Fill-Out “How Much Privilege Do You Have?” Questionnaire

via White GeNOcide Project

In Tampa, Florida, a Black/Hispanic teacher gave her students a questionnaire to guilt trip them for being White, straight, male, and able-bodied.

The questionnaire, titled “How much privilege do you have?” was handed out by Yoselis Ramos, the teacher of a Spanish class in Monroe Middle school.

Seventh and Eighth-graders had to fill out the form, despite Ramos not seeking the permission of the principal to do so.

The questionnaire required children to circle categories from 7 columns; “Race“, “Skin Color“, “Religion“, “Sex“, “Gender“, “Sexual Orientation“, and “Disability.

Ramos has been removed from the classroom while this is being investigated further.

If you’re White, male, straight, and able-bodied, you are considered to be “privileged”, by the anti-White system.

If our governments were really interested in fighting “privilege” they would start in the third world, where women are basically slaves, and where you can be killed for being the wrong race.

But “equality” is not about making the world a fairer place; it’s part of a much larger agenda which is about getting rid of White countries.

That’s exactly what the anti-Whites mean when they say “diversity.” They mean White genocide – to get rid of the White majority.

Weird Science: Is It Time to Abort “Racial Realists”?

via TradYouth

The skinhead and militia scenes which were central to White Identity in the nineties had taken on a toxic stigma by the turn of the century, resulting in a transition to “racial realism” which strove to be academic, intellectual, formal, and explicitly elitist both socially and politically. Rather than repairing or providing an alternative to the populist projects of the prior decade, White Advocacy retreated from populist politics altogether into the ivory tower of human biodiversity research, criminal statistics reporting, and a revival of scientific racialism.

Academically, this was all generally positive. The wealth of scientific evidence pouring in from recent advancements in genetics and widespread genetic testing were sufficient to overwhelm even the most well-funded and organized mainstream academic effort to bury the truth of racial diversity in cardinal human characteristics. My own initial interest in racial issues was here, in the strictly academic.

I was a nineties Internet “skeptic” who had stumbled onto a forbidden field of inquiry. The whole thing made me feel like a latter-day Galileo, hoisting my “skeptic” cohorts on their own petard of following “science” wherever it led. It turns out that the same neckbeards who eagerly chortle about the willful ignorance of biblical creationists are even more fanatically beholden to their egalitarian humanist ideology than the “fundies” are to theirs.

Politically, this development has been a disaster, one which is metastasizing as we speak. Scientific racialists are quick to remind you that the scientific process has no political motive, but they’re slow to remind themselves, it appears. The political project of White Advocacy has become hopelessly corrupted by the most vulgar errors in basic metaphysics and morality, concluding from their bell curves and regression tables that eugenics, racial purity, and the domination of the “superior” race are philosophical prerogatives.

The “White Race” has become merely a codeword for “master race” in their lexicon, always subtly and sometimes directly implying that they’re really only talking about the finest specimens of the racial stock. Given the affinity for “North Asians” and fixation on Ashkenazi cleverness, one struggles to discern how their vision for the future differs meaningfully from your typical upscale Palo Alto or Ann Arbor neighborhood, save perhaps for the Hispanic nannies and Black garbage collectors being replaced by robots.

At the risk of confirming suspicions that I’m a “radical antisemite,” I struggle to see why a pro-White organization should be publishing works like, “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement.” At the risk of confirming suspicions that I’m a Christian zealot, I struggle to see why a pro-White organization should be publishing articles supporting abortion for White people. That particular article helpfully explains that since abortions are primarily performed by less wealthy Whites, it’s morally good since poor people are cognitively inferior and therefore deserve to die…
First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy.
Later on in the article, this pseudonymous “Aylmer Fisher” paragon of cognitive excellence mistakenly pegs folks with Down’s Syndrome as dysgenic threats to our racial hygiene. I can say with absolute certainty that Mr. Fisher himself poses a greater dysgenic threat to our racial stock than people with Down’s Syndrome.
Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.
First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense.
As it goes with Jewish and homosexual entryism, it goes also with pro-abortion degenerates. First we have an argument over whether they should be allowed, which they win, then they work purge their critics opponents as soon as they’re allowed in. There once was a conversation over whether they should be permitted, then there was an active discussion over how to go about purging us. Now we’re purged.

The conclusion is foregone. My side, the side which insists that Jews are not our common kindred and have an agenda that’s at best competitive and at worst virulently hostile, has already lost. My side, the side which insists that homosexuality is degenerate, has already lost. My side, the Christian side which cherishes the life taking form in a mother’s womb, has already lost. Because, you see, it’s all about “What is superior in man?”

This whole time I was under the impression that it was all about advocating for my extended family, …not just the ones who know how to rock a designer suit.
While national populist revolutions have been demonstrating successful models around the world, America’s “race realist” leadership and their equally degenerate and deranged “New Right” brothers abroad in Western Europe are enraptured by this neo-colonial fever dream of an “Archaeofuturist” ascent of Nietzschean supermen for whom God is dead. They can harness the scientific principles of evolution to evolve into gods themselves, after all.

Even with Donald Trump’s success with a civic nationalist variant of national populism right under their noses, one in which he proudly boasts of loving the less educated, the unemployed, and the struggling single moms (translation: inferior people), they’re still hopped up on this toxic nonsense. What our movement has is an elite which is identical to the rest of our elites in all but one way; they’re racial supremacists. That’s not what we need. What we need is an elite dedicated to mentorship, stewardship, and solidarity with its kindred, …from the profoundly mentally retarded on up to Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

There are humane and moral ways to promote the health and prosperity of our posterity without resorting to that most cruel of measures, …barbarically dismembering our own flesh and blood. Positive eugenics can include encouraging people with known genetic disorders to voluntarily sterilize themselves, encouraging successful people to have larger families, and taking a more active role in the lives of our least capable to assist them in making more sustainable family management decisions. We mustn’t ever be tricked into believing that we must abandon our humanity in the service of our race.

I hesitate to abandon the “altright” label to these types just yet. Though if this separation ends in divorce, you’ll find me on the populist “1488’er” side of the divide with the working class and underclass victims of globalism, globalization, and mass migration. Our vision is one where our future children can end up in stable traditional families in a harmonious homeland, not Richard Spencer’s radical vision where half of them end up in medical waste bins and the other half end up in space pods.

The Intellectual Rot at the Heart of the Beltway Right: Conservatism, Inc. Lashes out at What It Can't Understand

via American Renaissance

The conservative movement has a bold new strategy for victory: complain about white “racism.” Someone named Ian Tuttle is complaining about the Alt Right in an article called “The Racist Moral Rot at the Heart of the Alt Right” in National Review. In Mr. Tuttle’s musings, there’s an undertone of earnest despair, which raises the depressing possibility that he may actually believe what he is saying.

The cause of Mr. Tuttle’s angst is a recent report by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos on the Alt Right at Breitbart. Breitbart has covered this emerging intellectual and political movement in a relatively objective manner. The authors seem to have tried to understand their subject and report what they have found, something almost unprecedented in modern journalism. The reaction from the Beltway Right has been hysteria.

Mr. Tuttle’s article is an extended display of anti-white virtue of the kind that delights the multi-culti Left. At the same time, it is Exhibit A for why the Alternative Right is, in fact, right, and why whites who want to live in a First-World nation so desperately need it.

Mr. Tuttle accuses the Alt Right of opposing the triumph of “liberal democracy” and “classical liberalism as such.” Yet, his only evidence for this is that the Alt Right dissents on race–not that it wants to institute theocracy, central planning, Oriental despotism, or anything else he believes is opposed to “liberal democracy.” Mr. Tuttle seems to think that anyone who rejects current racial orthodoxies–orthodoxies that have prevailed for only 50 years or so–becomes a sworn enemy of “classical liberalism,” the Constitution, and all things good and beautiful. It is as if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the supreme achievement of 2,500 years of Western Civilization, and that anyone who disagrees is barely human.

“Minicons” like Mr. Tuttle, to use Prof. Paul Gottfried’s term for them, often claim they are “classical liberals,” but those who actually have some familiarity with the history of American conservatism know that thinkers as varied as Richard Weaver, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and other figures once celebrated by “conservatives” questioned core principles of the Enlightenment. And if the terms Left and Right mean anything, the former refers to those who hold equality as their highest value, whereas the latter refers to those who recognize hierarchy. It is strange, indeed, that Mr. Tuttle is outraged by the Alt Right’s rejection of “egalitarianism.”

Mr. Tuttle is outraged by the heresies of racial consciousness as expressed by Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer. He writes: “Taylor’s ‘race realism,’ for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally–that is, biologically–different. Spencer, who promotes ‘White identity’ and ‘White racial consciousness,’ is beholden to similar ‘scientific’ findings.”

One can’t help pitying anyone who puts scare quotes around the word “scientific.” It is more likely that the world is 4,000 years old, or that the Prophet Mohammad split the moon, or that Odin built the world out of the bones of a dead giant, than that different populations didn’t become biologically different over the millennia. In his eagerness to demonstrate his orthodoxy, Mr. Tuttle took the most implausible position possible, one repudiated by his own magazine and one that even the mainstream media is slowly backing away from.

Mr. Tuttle appears to be unaware of the history of his own publication, National Review. He pretends that race does not exist, but National Review has a long history of recognizing the collective interests of whites. In a June 2, 1964 editorial on the 10th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, it noted that the Civil Rights Movement is more properly known as “the Negro revolt,” and that school integration by judicial fiat was “bad law and bad sociology.” The editorial concluded that “race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954.”

At one time, William F. Buckley recognized that demographics shape any political and cultural order. As he put it when defending segregation in “Why the South Must Prevail:”
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.
As we look upon the ruin of once-great Southern cities such as Selma and Jackson after desegregation, and Northern cities such as Detroit and Chicago after restrictive covenants were banned, how can anyone disagree with Buckley?

Michael Barone admitted “racial differences” are real in National Review in a review of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance.” And while National Review has a long history of running away from too frank of a discussion of racial realities, the writings of men such as John Derbyshire on the reality of race are still hosted by NRO.

Conservatives, we are told, have a commitment to “constitutional, and generally Judeo-Christian, values,” unlike the evil Alt Right. But what are “constitutional values?” Presumably Mr. Tuttle means some vague belief in the separation of powers or limited government.

But Barack Obama has already shown he can unilaterally impose sweeping changes in immigration law or gun control without raising anything but impotent whimpers from the ostensible opposition party. The fierce debate over who will fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia is an acknowledgement that the Supreme Court is already the most important body in the federal government–an innovation never foreseen by the Framers. Ted Cruz is running on a promise to “restore the Constitution,” but if the Constitution needs to be “restored,” it has already failed. That venerable piece of paper has been no barrier to expanding government power. As Joe Sobran, another great man fired by National Review, frequently observed, “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

And what are “Judeo-Christian values?” The Founding Fathers would not have recognized such a term. Since Muslims will soon outnumber Jews in the United States, when will National Review or its “center right” successors start penning tributes to “Abrahamic values?”

Mr. Tuttle seems to argue that the “Western, liberal democratic order” is synonymous with Western Civilization itself. Of course, this is absurd; Western civilization began with the Greeks. But more important, even if it dated back only to 1776, it doesn’t follow that “the liberal democratic order” precludes recognition of the realities of race. That “order” has already been suspended throughout the West whenever it conflicts with the demands of multiculturalism.

Private property and freedom of association have been suspended by “civil rights” laws. Even as this is written, police are busting into apartments and homes in Europe, arresting people for the crime of peacefully dissenting from their government’s policy of replacing them with Muslims. In the “land of the free,” we now live under an increasingly oppressive security state designed to protect us from Muslims.

We would enjoy far more of the “freedom” conservatives talk about if we simply admitted that people are different and that Western societies have nothing to gain from importing vast numbers of Third Worlders who bring welfare dependence, terrorism, crime, and sweeping political and cultural change. The consequences of this unprecedented demographic transformation are indistinguishable, and perhaps even more severe, than the consequnces of military defeat and conquest–but National Review is worried that Vladimir Putin won’t do what we tell him to do.

Indeed, if the “Western, liberal democratic order” is to be preserved, only racial consciousness will preserve it. If there is one tenet held universally within the Alt Right, it is that changing demographics–specifically the transformation of America into a majority non-white country–will make mainstream conservatism irrelevant. The liberal media openly celebrate this transformation. As the demographic analysis of the electorate in any primary state shows, politics is about different groups with different preferences. Everyone practices identity politics when it counts. But when it comes to the utterly unprecedented replacement of the existing American population with leftist Third Worlders, the American conservative movement says not only we should not discuss the possible implications, but anyone who does is guilty of “moral rot,” and that simply by raising the question we become enemies of the “Western, liberal democratic order.”

Mass immigration is a mortal threat to the Western order that Mr. Tuttle says he loves. Why take the chance with what former National Review editor Peter Brimelow called the “unprecedented experiment being performed?” Mr. Tuttle huffs that it’s “simply nonsense to suggest that American conservatism was willfully complicit in the rise of the identity-politics Left.” But if that’s true, why is the Beltway Right so eager not just to accept the egalitarian premises of the Left, but to concede the Left’s authority to police the moral boundaries of the Right? Rich Lowry went so far as to thank the “anti-fascists” who told him to fire his employees. At some point, it’s hard to distinguish weakness from treason.

You can trace the rise or fall of authentic conservatism in the United States by the stature of the men who have been banned from National Review. We’ll be reading Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, John Derbyshire, and Mark Steyn a half century from now. Who can say the same of Rich Lowry, Kathryn Jean Lopez, or Jay Nordlinger?

The Alt Right is rising because it actually has something to say about the issues of the day. The Beltway Right simply repeats slogans about “the Constitution” or “freedom,” and seems to believe that doing so will salvage something from the coming wreck of the West that their blindness to race is only hastening.

Identity is the issue of the 21st century, and whites, as whites, will either defend their right to exist or they will disappear. If we disappear, everything conservatives care about will disappear, too. An increasing number of conservatives are beginning to understand that. The Beltway Right has made a nice living accomplishing nothing for the last half century. We can’t afford to waste any more time. We have to do the hard political and intellectual work of building a real resistance to the status quo. If Mr. Tuttle did a little more reading and little more thinking he might have an honorable role to play in this great struggle.

Why Is "The Left" so Consumed with Queer Men Using Women's Bathrooms?

via Angry White Dude

Paypal (the worst company in the world…don’t get me started) recently announced they would not build a planned location in Charlotte because North Carolina banned men from using women’s bathrooms. Maybe North Carolina should kill homosexuals like the Islamic countries where Paypay is proud to do business.

Any number of libtarded celebrities and politicians have announced they will not travel to The Old North State because of the new law. Socialist NY Governor Andrew Cuomo has banned official travel to North Carolina. Which brings to light the question: why are liberals so consumed with men peeing, pooping, or perving in ladies washrooms?

So what’s the answer to liberal support of men using women’s bathrooms? It’s simple if you’ve been paying attention and/or reading AWD for the past few years:

AWD had a little fun with the issue a while back:


Men with boobs, chicks with d***s, transexuals in every pot, liberals and the Democrat Party will support anything that is freaky deaky. Just don’t ask them to support any patriotic and traditional norm that has existed in America for over 200 years. No, traditional American values are hateful and only exist because of some imagined privilege.

I’m glad my grand-dad isn’t alive to see Bruce Jenner, who once was a national hero be named Woman of the Year.

The Democrat Party has rejected normal people and chosen to represent the small percentage of freakazoids. Want to have sex with animals or children? There’s a Democrat waiting to support you with legislation liberal wacko judges will uphold!
Charles Barkley, one of the worst people on Earth, says the NBA should not hold the All Star game in Charlotte because NC won’t allow men into women’s bathrooms. Personally, I don’t care if they ever hold the NBA All Star game again. But Barkley says it’s because he’s against any form of discrimination. Hmmmm, wonder how he feels about all those white people not getting jobs or accepted to universities to make room for lesser qualified minorities under Affirmative Action? But, but, white privilege!

Any parent should ask themselves, do you want this alone in the public bathroom with your daughter?


Or, worse yet, this?


Bravo to North Carolina for banning freakazoid men from female bathrooms! Paypal, New York and liberal idjits can shove it sideways. I’m sure they probably have already. Let the Democrats continue to support every trans-something except the Pontiac Trans-Am (Global Warming). At least they’re finally out of the closet.

That socialist/communist/idiot Bernie Sanders and Our Corrupt Lady of the Cankles are the two contenders for the Democrat nomination illustrates exactly why the Democrat Party now is a domestic enemy to America.

I hope some 6 foot transsexual dribbles on Hillary’s $2000 heels at the urinal!

Dickson vs. Lincoln

via James Edwards

Sam Dickson
As we continue our coverage of Confederate History Month 2016, we revisit an extraordinary paper written by my good friend and frequent on-air guest, Sam Dickson.

Even in the Christian schools in the South it’s amazing to see the amount of worshipful Lincoln propaganda these days. Dickson helps us set the record straight in his booklet, Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln.

The real Lincoln, says Dickson in this punchy, source-referenced booklet, was quite different than the one portrayed in television, school­books and motion pictures. The author marshals evidence from throughout his career to show that Abraham Lincoln was a hypocrite, an opportunist, an instigator and wager of ruthless war, and the nation’s first political tyrant. Particularly critical of the 16th president’s savage war against the Confederacy, the author contends that Lincoln should be regarded as a dangerous forerunner of such liberal collec­tivists as Franklin Roosevelt.

For his own efforts, Sam had this to say:
The astonishing thing about this paper on Abraham Lincoln is that it is needed at all or is considered controversial. In my opinion, one does not have to be a scholar to ferret out obscure and suppressed facets of history to see Abraham Lincoln as he was.
My views on this subject are not unusual. They are those of the overwhelming majority of Southerners both immediately before, during and for decades after the War between the States. My views were also shared by many in the North and the West. Only the passage of time and the studious cultivation of the myth of Abraham Lincoln, coupled with his timely death (timely in the sense of being providential for his place in history) have caused Abraham Lincoln to be raised to the level of a sacred cow in American history.
Well said.

If you love the South and want to learn about the man that Lincoln truly was, then you must read Sam’s incredible expose.

The Political Cesspool Radio Program is the only mainstream talk radio show in the world that dedicates a portion of each live broadcast in April to the celebration and preservation of Confederate history and heritage.

We have used our media venue to celebrate Confederate History Month every year since our very inception back in 2004. A parade of Southern celebrities have found their way to our studio in April and it is once again our honor to present to you this year’s on-air tribute to the South, which will continue in grand fashion on Saturday night!

The Pro-Life Temptation

via Radix

Few issues divide our movement—whether we call it identitarianism, race-realism, or the “alt Right”—like abortion. To some, the practice is akin to murder, and its acceptance shows the degeneracy of the Left. To others, abortion—and contraception more generally—are eugenic practices, which are about the only things keeping our societies from falling into complete idiocracy.
I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the “liberation” of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.

Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving their countries in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.

Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.

First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don’t simply say “who cares what they do, they’re not my tribe.” Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.

Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.

Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.

The Pro-Life Movement is Dysgenic

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.

The Identitarian Case

Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like “the right to life.” It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.

The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children. When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it’s “racist” or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

A Better Way

For those of us who believe that the sexual revolution and women’s liberation have been disastrous for society, it is tempting to lash out at contraception and abortion. Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.

It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice: Just take away their access to abortion and contraception, and they’ll have to stay home and raise children or stop having sex at all! Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.

A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society. The case that babies are more fulfilling than cubicles should not be hard to make, and has been self-evident to every society not infected with the virus of leftism. Indeed, data shows that as feminism has progressed across the Western world, women have become less happy. The program of the Left fails by its own standards.

Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly. Much of the campus unrest we see has been estrogen-driven, and to be honest, it is not surprising that young women, prone towards conformity and cheap sentimentality, buy into modern leftism. But to me, the saddest thing is that we’ve come to a point where 20-year-old “men” are unashamed to show their faces in public while proudly demanding “safe spaces.” Careers are more appealing than relationships and families only when men and women are discouraged from exhibiting the traits that make them attractive to the opposite sex.

Perhaps nothing is more important than advocating for a return to more natural relations between the sexes. But that does not mean we mindlessly oppose everything that the Left supports. In the popular imagination, the pro-life movement is associated with opposition to women’s liberation and the rest of the leftist agenda. In reality, its positions lead to dysgenics and are justified through appeals to the same universalist principles that are allowing mass Third World immigration and other forms of suicidal liberalism. The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.

On the Regressive Left

via Atlantic Centurion

One of the year’s top keks
An intellectualizing term for SJWs (social justice warriors) that has become popular of late is the regressive left. According to people who proudly consider themselves thoughtful and rational and liberal, so-called regressive leftists are extreme in their racial, gender, cultural, and social demands to the point of harming the cause of progress in general. The designation hovers somewhere between tone-policing and a genuine aversion to extremism, though it may be impossible to get an honest answer, let alone consensus. Either way, the point is very clearly to draw a line between the good leftists and the mean leftists. The impetus for doing such damage control is also clear; the regressive left’s penchant for festering resentment can propel movements like the alt-right into greater prominence. And this is undoubtedly true—vitriol towards specific groups will alienate them from you and make them into the dreaded and loathed reactionary. Many men are uncomfortable with third-wave feminism’s crusade against not merely gender roles but the idea of gender itself, as well as the imperative to “smash the patriarchy.” Many White people are uncomfortable with #BlackLivesMatter activists drawing upon postcolonial and critical theory mantras against the very notion of White people in their quest for “liberation.”

Another aspect of their regression is the infantile mindset that pervades their activism—demanding safe spaces, having speakers they don’t like dis-invited from college campuses, and wanting statues of dead people removed for not having current year values. Give in to our whims or else we will scream and call you racist. Very mature of them.

A bit of a digression for a moment: there is an older usage of the term regressive left which has some overlap in terms of people covered, but means something quite different. In another context, particularly criticisms of multiculturalism from the left, regressive leftists are leftists who tolerate illiberal or not-progressive behaviors and cultures imported from overseas for the sake of maintaining their goals of diversity and anti-racism. This leads them to excuse things like jihad and patriarchy among Muslims, for example, since the perpetrators are people of color. Maajid Nawaz, a kebab who resides in Britain, is widely credited with this usage. Someone can be a regressive leftist in both senses, and often one is.

The usage that is becoming more common now relates to confrontational perspectives on feminism, racial grievance-mongering, and political correctness, i.e. social censorship. In short, leftists attack regressive leftists for being too aggressive in their identity politics. What they seem to implicitly realize is that identity politics has the potential to destroy their coalition. On the alt-right, we know that the fundamental contradiction of the contemporary left is diversity—can Swedish homosexuals and Semitic Muslims share a land, let alone a political movement?

The answer is, maybe. Yes, if they can maintain their strategic alliance against straight, ethnocentric White people who are the historical majority of both Europe and her settler colonies. No, if they allow their core interests to overpower the alliance, e.g. Islamic jurisprudence suggests gay liberation and feminism are haram, New Left ideology identifies Whites as the oppressor class that the oppressed people of color must overthrow, etc. In other words, if the identity politics of each coalition member group are allowed to run unfettered, the left will implode. Diversity + proximity = conflict.

Extreme non-white identity politics and gender politics will also frighten off some White liberals and moderates, who are still important coalition members and will be for a few more decades. I am not referring to the marxist, Jewish, or sjw ideologues here, but just rank-and-file people who consider themselves liberal or progressive. These people don’t really want to live under sharia law, or have their children given gender reassessment surgery because they picked up the wrong toy at pre-K, or be told repeatedly how racist and evil they are. They were drawn to the left in the first place for a variety of reasons, but few did so because they hated their civilization. If they are made to confront the ugly reality that vanguard “progressives” want to progress to the end of Western civilization, people, and values, they might get a little skittish. Combined with immigration pressures, seeing explicit anti-white sentiments erupt from the regressive left could make good goys go fash.

A 2013 study published in the Association for Psychological Science found that the rising tide of diversity makes people of whiteness more tribal. From the abstract:
[R]acial minority groups will make up a majority of the U.S. national population in 2042, effectively creating a so-called majority-minority nation. In four experiments, we explored how salience of such racial demographic shifts affects White Americans’ political-party leanings and expressed political ideology. Study 1 revealed that making California’s majority-minority shift salient led politically unaffiliated White Americans to lean more toward the Republican Party and express greater political conservatism. Studies 2, 3a, and 3b revealed that making the changing national racial demographics salient led White Americans (regardless of political affiliation) to endorse conservative policy positions more strongly. Moreover, the results implicate group-status threat as the mechanism underlying these effects. Taken together, this work suggests that the increasing diversity of the nation may engender a widening partisan divide.
When someone on the left uses the term regressive left, they are engaging in apologetics on behalf of leftism towards Whites, a rare sight under the occupation government. Please don’t abandon progressive because of a few bad apples. It’s basically a NAxALT; not all leftists are like that. Don’t be so concerned about the throngs of vibrant protestors yelling at you, the ((((college professors)))) explaining why Whiteness is an oppressive social construct that needs to be abolished, the limp-wristed communists telling you that White male opinions are invalid. These people are crazy and not really what the left is about. We promise.

You are still going to have to become a minority though; that’s non-negotiable.

Political Pathology and the US Election

via Alternative Right

The Left has had a strong tendency to pathologize its opponents, which is ironic because Leftism itself has many of the characteristics of some of the worst diseases – parasitism, cancer, AIDs, you name it. Also, opposition to Leftism correlates extremely well with signs of health in any social entity – purging, quarantining, slimming down, improving fertility, etc.

The idea of pathologizing opponents does not naturally belong on the Left, but on the Right, the side of health rather than disease. Before the setbacks of the 20th century the Right was well ahead of the Left in applying disease and other biological metaphors to sociological and political studies, as seen in the work of Hobbes and Spengler. It was only by creating the now discredited pseudoscience of psychoanalysis that the Left was able to gain the upper hand in pathologizing its opponents. Terminology like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobe" is the hangover of this temporary ascendancy.

The Real Right – the Alt-Right – has a duty to reclaim the language of pathology and there is no better place to start than with the present US Presidential elections, where we see Americans (and some illegals) voting for a range of candidates whose policies will obviously impact upon the health of the US "body politic."

The first thing that should be said is that none of the candidates standing represent a healthy, balanced, organic position, as this would be impossible under present conditions. Even Trump represents an ideologically confused brand of civic nationalism, mixed in with mathematically illiterate populist promises and all manner of unresolved contradictions and potential conflicts. It is difficult to see how this, in its present form, would ensure the revival and survival of the American body politic, which in constitutional terms is set up to be perpetually schizophrenic, with one branch of government negating the other.

Ironically, the nearest thing we have to "healthy voting" in the present electoral cycle is that of certain ethnic minority groups voting for more "gibemedat" and influence by supporting one or the other of the Democrat candidates. But this is only because their relation to greater American society is essentially a pathological one of "parasitism" – in terms of benefits and behaviour subtracting from the common good. Needless to say, White voters voting for parties that empower such parasitism are voting entirely pathologically.

Parasitism broken down by race.
But "parasitical" groups seeking their best interests is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are one or two interesting twists that should be mentioned. Historically speaking, the Black community has done far better with less "empowerment" and freebies than it has with more. This is because under Jim Crow and Segregation it was forced to develop relatively disciplined patterns of behaviour that favoured its rise.

There is also the problem that any parasitical entity faces, of over-exploiting its host. An America in which its core group – the hard-working White majority – is reduced to an over-exploited, overtaxed, and passively aggressive minority, is hardly likely to be a healthy host for those minorities that subsist on its strength and vitality.

But minorities aside, viewing the election from the point of view of America's core White majority, the truth is that none of the political options on the table represent positive political health and the reversal of dysgenic trends. The best that can be said is that they represent lesser degrees of political pathology, with Trumpism being the least pathological, followed as we head towards the more pathological end of the spectrum by Cruzism, Sanderism, GOPism, and Clintonism.

But there are two ways to measure a phenomenon, either by its position – i.e. where it is – or by its trajectory – where it is heading. By the first metric, the position of none of the candidates equates with political health. By the second, Trumpism and possibly Cruzism can be viewed more positively, as attempts by voters to move away from the old two-party system and its globalist model towards something healthier. Sanderism, while extremely confused in terms of identity, could also be seen as sharing in this dynamic.

But while we can make the case that the trajectories of Trumpism, Cruzism, and even Sanderism are all healthy relative to the pre-existing political necrosis (represented by the likes of Obama, McCain, Romney, and the Clintons), we should never make the mistake of extrapolating a trend in a straight line. Unforeseen factors always intervene, and inherent contradictions can arise.

Trumpism can only be viewed as a healthy political tendency if it leads to a situation that ensures the fundamental health of the American political entity and its core population. As race is a key determinant of any society and its health, this issue inevitably has a racial dimension.

Harmonious multiculturalism?
So how could the Trump tendency be viewed as politically healthy? In two main ways, either by leading towards (1) a stable racial agglomeration, in which the various races that make up America maintain their distinct identities but develop a symbiotic system built around the dominance and demographic growth of America’s core White group; or (2) a state of racial separation, where the various groups maintain their identities and secede from one another, with Whites receiving the lion's share of land and resources, and also exercising a loose hegemony over the non-White splinter states.

In medical terms, the first option has vague similarities with Oriental or ancient systems of medicine, like Ayurveda, which seek a balance between the different organs, tendencies, or "humours" of the body – aligning the chakras, that sort of thing. While the second option has similarities with radical modern surgery. Think Ben Carson separating some unrelated Siamese Twins.

In the first case Trumpism would have to become race realist and identitarian, at least to the degree that the ethnically conglomerate former Hapsburg Empire once was. In the second case, it would have to be explicitly White nationalist – at least until the necessary separation and reorganization of the country took place, after which it would have to assert a positive identity of America as an essentially European entity in the same way that Israel defines itself as Jewish. Obviously there is an enormous distance to go before Trumpism could reach that point.

If we consider the difficulties, crises, and conflicts that would doubtlessly arise between the transition from Trumpism as it now exists to something a lot more racially aware, then we realize just how diseased the present-day American body politic is. Even with a Trump presidency, the national prognosis must be one of lingering ill health, leading to medical emergencies and drastic operations, rather than a process of gentle healing through mediation and thinking good thoughts.

Stanford Student Leader: It’s not Anti-Semitic to Claim Jews Control Media, Economy

via DavidDuke.com

The main quadrangle of Stanford University
A member of Stanford University’s Student Senate argued that it is “not anti-Semitism” to claim Jews control “the media, economy, government and other social institutions.”

Gabriel Knight, a junior, made the remark at a Student Senate meeting Tuesday addressing a proposed resolution on anti-Semitism, according to the Stanford Daily, the main campus newspaper. Knight also said, “Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

He apologized later in the meeting after Jewish community leaders and a Jewish student accused him of anti-Semitism. . . . Read more

The Repulsive Right

via Counter-Currents

I have a confession to make.

As insightful, reasonable, and well-written as most articles are at Counter-Currents, I really don’t enjoy reading them. The same goes for articles found on American Renaissance, VDARE, and similar sites. Who would enjoy the kinds of articles published by the Alt Right these days? These sites reveal not only how genetic differences among human races lead inexorably to discord, strife, and violence, but also how the mainstream (and mostly white) elites of Western civilization continue to ignore this central fact of life despite the discord, strife, and violence piling up all around them.

No one likes being told they are unequal to others. No one likes to see their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow buried under the wet blanket of genetic fatalism. No one enjoys watching their own kind creep its way to extinction with open borders, cultural Marxism, and unhinged liberal policies.

I don’t read the Alt Right for enjoyment. I read it for Truth.

I read it for evidence and arguments with which I can bolster the political beliefs that I wish I didn’t have. In fact, I wish the liberals were correct in many of their views. I feel like I’m traipsing through a Beach Boys song as I think about it. All races are equal. Wouldn’t it be nice? We’re all descended from Rousseau’s noble savage? Wouldn’t it be nice. Free college, free cellphones, free healthcare, free money, free everything for everybody. Wouldn’t that be nice!

So what this amounts to, in my life at least, is my well-educated, well-read, well-intentioned liberal friends constantly offering pleasing evidence to show how they are right, while I counter with evidence that absolutely sucks to show how I’m right. Essentially, it’s Walter Sellars’ “Wrong and Wromantics” against “Right and Repulsive” me.

Good times.

A case in point is the topic of what to do after the Brussels bombing. A friend of mine argued that the key to beating ISIS is to understand that ISIS targets Muslims more often than non-Muslims. He claims we need to ally ourselves with these “good” Muslims and fully integrate them into our society in order to prevent Muslims from ever wanting to commit acts of terror in the first place. Then we can starve ISIS and other terror organizations of oxygen until they desiccate and disappear. A nice story, isn’t it?

I, on the other hand, responded by saying that the key to beating ISIS is to keep killing them until they aren’t around anymore.

Pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say?

Anyway, as “evidence” my friend presented an astonishingly stupid and dishonest Politico article called “Inside the FBI’s Secret Muslim Network.” It basically told him everything he wanted to hear, namely that when Muslims are woven into the multi-ethnic, rainbow-colored AIDS quilt of liberal America, they start ratting on each other. They become our allies. They become one of us.

The article sings the praises of Dearborn, Michigan, a town with a large Muslim population and a Muslim chief of police, one Ron Haddad. Dearborn, the article claims, could not be more different than Molenbeek, Brussels, the Muslim neighborhood which harbored a Muslim terrorist after the Paris attacks. In Dearborn, for example, the police chief

makes regular visits to Dearborn’s 38 schools and its many mosques. He sponsors a program called “Stepping Up,” which includes an annual awards ceremony . . . for residents reporting crime. At least twice in the past several years, fearing influence from ISIL or online propaganda on their children, Haddad says, Muslim fathers have turned in their own sons. In another case, it was students at a largely Muslim high school calling about a troubled peer.

Twice in the past several years, huh? According to the religionofpeace.com, as of March 30th, 2016, there have been 28,052 deadly Muslim terror attacks in the 5,313 days since 9-11. So let’s do the math. That’s nearly 5.3 attacks per day. Assuming that each of these wayward sons intended to launch an attack of his own, the Dearborn Muslims have reduced this rate by 3.76 x 10-4.

So, I’m feeling safer. How about you?

I love how the article mentions crime. We in America are not really concerned about Muslim crime per se. We have the blacks and the Hispanics for that. We are worried more about Muslim terror. 9-11, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, that kind of thing. We are also worried about how the threat of terror makes Muslims more intimidating when they encroach upon our culture and way of life.

Notice also how the article refers to a potential terrorist as “troubled.” No, a troubled youth is someone who dies her hair purple and sticks safety pins in her cheeks because she’s overweight and has given up on being popular. Someone who seriously contemplates Jihad at age 14, on the other hand, is not troubled. He’s psychotic.

The article then claims how US Muslim communities “on the whole” have been cooperative with US law enforcement vis-à-vis reporting terror, as if this were a good thing. What does “on the whole” mean anyway? 80 percent? 90 percent? These numbers are too low. We should not be prepared for anything less than 100 percent cooperation with US law enforcement when it comes to entire communities. That was the attitude we took at Waco, Texas in the early 1990s, wasn’t it? Well, why not now with Muslims? This article is basically saying that there are some Muslim communities in America that don’t cooperate with law enforcement. On the whole, isn’t that a bad thing?

Essentially, we have to abandon the idea of the glass being half-empty or half full with regards to Muslims. Given their blood-soaked recent history, we can’t afford to. Instead, we need to view the glass as either full or not full. 98 percent ain’t gonna cut it. You’re either on board 100 percent or you’re the enemy.

Here’s another gem from the article:

The result, U.S. officials say, is that Muslim neighborhoods here are cooperating against Islamist terrorists to a degree that can’t be found among their counterparts in Europe.

Is this supposed to be reassuring?

First of all, there are a lot more Muslims in Europe than in America. So that might account a wee bit for some of the differences we’re seeing. Secondly, Islamic terror, violence, and cultural encroachment are really bad in Europe and getting worse daily. So we deserve pats on the back because compared to Brussels we’re doing pretty well?

The article then delves into how law enforcement plans to

get closer to the source of alienation, and “off-ramp” young people drawn by ISIS or other radical propaganda, bringing them back to society with therapy and counseling before it’s too late.

To accomplish this, the FBI will be forming “Shared Responsibility Committees” which will join forces with an all-unicorn team of therapists, social workers, educators, and religious leaders across the country in order to “come up with intervention strategies” to deal with potential terrorists. Given the trail of blood that Muslims leave behind everywhere they go, such an approach is jaw-droppingly stupid. This is something Muslim mothers and fathers should be doing to their kids when they’re four. It’s not our responsibility. It’s their responsibility.

Of course, the article fails to mention how much this well-meaning outreach is going to cost the taxpayers.

Ernst Seger, Lion, Bismarck Fountain, Wroclaw, Poland
Ernst Seger, Lion, Bismarck Fountain, Wroclaw, Poland

The article continues by tut-tutting law enforcement for entrapping Muslims like the Newburgh Four and complaining absurdly that such hardline tactics only create more terrorists. It then concludes by claiming that the (relatively mild) anti-Muslim rhetoric of the GOP is threatening to harsh the carefully-laid mellow that law enforcement believes it has achieved with American Muslims. The article points to two whole instances of terror attacks being spoiled by American Muslims, one in 2010 and the other in 2014. It also offers a quote from a Department of Homeland Security official who claims “unequivocally” that “Arab Muslim and South Asian communities across this country have become one of the greatest resources of protecting homeland security.” This official, one George Selim, has an Arabic name and is presumably an Arab and a Muslim himself.

Insert sarcastic comment about how much we believe this person .

What the article does not include (and what would be most frightening to read) is that Muslims, who, according to the article, make up less than one percent of the US population, have been responsible for nearly 50 percent of American deaths caused by terror attacks since 9-11. If you include 9-11, then that percentage rises to something like 98 percent. And if you include all terror-related deaths of American servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, then we’d be able to draw a nice asymptotic line towards 100, wouldn’t we?

The point here is that whatever our law enforcement is doing with the miniscule amount of Muslims we already have in America, it isn’t working. And if one percent of the population is responsible for fifty percent of our terror deaths, then it is reasonable to conclude that five percent would be responsible for five times that number, or 83.3 percent.

So, wouldn’t it make sense to ban all Muslim immigration indefinitely to keep this from happening? Wouldn’t it also make sense to investigate and police Muslim Americans enough to make the ones prone to terror want to leave the country, thereby reducing this number even further? Wouldn’t this all cost less and be more effective than Ph.D. group hugs from Shared Responsibility Committees?

Yes, this is bad news. But we on the Alt Right have to be vigilant these days about being the bearers of bad news. We cannot let up with the wet blanket on all the wromanticism of well-meaning liberals. We cannot shy away from being repulsive. For instance, if there were fewer Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics in America and we returned to the 90 percent white majority we had in 1965, America would be a safer, stronger, wealthier, and more cohesive country. This is a true statement. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be said, regardless of how repulsive it may sound to some.

This reminds me of an encounter I had with another liberal friend. After I barraged her with arguments similar to the ones above, she shuddered and complained that what I was saying was distasteful.

I responded by saying, “Yes, it is. Yes, it is.”

The Fiends of Liberaldom Have Marred God’s Creation

via Cambria Will not Yield

In vision he was borne away, where Lethe’s slippery wave
Creeps like a black and shining snake into a silent cave,
A place of still and pictured life: its roof was ebon air,
And blasted as with dim eclipse the sun and moon were there:
It seemed the grave of man’s lost world—of Beauty caught by blight.
The Dreamer knew the work he marred, and felt a Fiend’s delight.

-Thomas Aird, from his poem “The Devil’s Dream on Mount Aksbeck”

I try to personalize my prayers as much as possible. But when atrocity after atrocity is visited upon the white people of every nation, it is hard to avoid the generic prayers such as, “God save the white, tortured innocents of South Africa,” or, “God bless the European people, give them the strength, faith, and vision to drive the Moslems from their lands.” Then in my own nation there is the continual slaughter of the white innocents by black barbarians. Very seldom am I able to fit a specific name to my prayers for the victims, they have become, sadly, too numerous. But please God, don’t ever let my soul become numb to the atrocities visited upon my people, because should that ever happen I will cease to have a soul.

Let me turn then to the people who do not have souls, the liberals. They have hardened their hearts against their own people, and as a result Satan has come into their hearts to occupy the space that should have been reserved for pietas, the love of kith and kin, which elevates the soul and unites us with the God who enters human hearts. If you refuse to have a human heart, and the liberals have made that refusal, you will have a satanic heart. The liberals are not “clinically insane” or “psychologically maladjusted”; those are modern concepts. The liberals are demonic; they hate and attack their own people, because they cannot strike out directly against their master’s eternal enemy, Jesus Christ. And what could be more cowardly than striking out at an enemy by attacking his children? As the reign of terror in France became publicized, many of its European supporters had to concede that Burke was right to criticize the Revolution. But still, at that time, and right up to our satanic present, the intelligentsia of Europe have failed to acknowledge what the French Revolution was all about:
The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate him “with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul, and with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the Sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces his image in man.
Before his own death Robespierre had modified his direct assault on the Deity. He held festivals in honor of a divine being that was much like the nature gods worshipped at the Woodstock Festival in 1969. And that has been the tack of all the Jacobins, except the Russian communists, right up to the present. The Christian God is still assaulted through His people, but He is assaulted in the name of a large array of nature gods. The negro is at the top of the liberals’ Mt. Olympus, but their religion contains a large pantheon of lesser gods as well. All the pagan deities of the liberals are opposed to Christ and the European people who bore His image, which is why they have become the liberals’ gods. The Satanic hatred of Christ and His people is the essence of liberalism.

One of the most striking things about modern liberalism is its overt, moral ugliness. The liberals used to put the poisonous brew of feminism, miscegenation, infanticide, and homosexuality into fancy wine bottles marked ‘equality,’ ‘freedom of choice,’ and ‘integration,’ and they told us the wine was good for us. Now they put their poisonous brew in a witches’ cauldron that contains a deadly mixture of negro worship, feminism, Islam, sodomy, and legalized abortion, and tell us we must drink from the cauldron even if it means our death. They don’t think they need to disguise their evil intentions any longer, because they think that there are no white people left who will dare to defend the white race.

The first assault on Christian Europe was launched on the racial wall of fortress Europe. Once that wall was breached, every other wall protecting Christian Europe was breached as well. Once the image of God in man is blurred, and that is what race-mixing does, the image of Satan replaces the image of Christ. Who do we see in the faces of the colored barbarians? Who do we see in the faces of the aborting doctors and the feminists? And who do we see in the faces of the sodomites and the Islamic invaders? It is Satan. I once saw a diamondback rattlesnake rear up and attempt to strike. He missed and was killed by a man with a garden hoe. His hissing sounded like something from hell. I feel the same way about the black barbarians, the Moslems, and the feminists. They look and sound like something from hell, and of course that is what they are – creatures from hell.

There are many pockets of European resistance to Islam. But the resistance movements will fail if the European people do not resist as white Christian Europeans. You cannot be a non-racist Christian, because without a racial home a man has no spiritual spine. And you cannot be a white nationalist without faith in Christ, because without faith a man lacks the heart to sustain him in the day of battle. The evangelicals slavishly worship the state of Israel, because they are looking for a racial home. They think that you can’t be Christian and ‘racist,’ so they seek to fuse their Christian faith with the Jewish faith. The Roman Catholics are more syncretic than the evangelicals; they are integral Jacobins. For them the chosen ones are the non-Christian and non-white people of the world. The Roman Catholic Church’s New Jerusalem is an open tent where all, except the white Christian, can enter.

There will be no European dawn until the Europeans return to their racial home. It is there that they must fight the battle against Satan and his minions. All the non-Christian faiths are united in their opposition to the people who believed that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. How can we believe that the spirit of God was infused into human flesh without believing that our racial identity is linked to our faith in Christ? We can’t. As their faith in the incarnation of Christ waned, so did the Europeans’ faith in their racial identity wane. Disembodied minds do not need a racial identity. Men with hearts of flesh do. If we don’t need a racial home, why do the liberals seek such a home with the colored barbarians? And why do the evangelicals seek a home with the people of Israel? Why do the European people kick against the goads? We have a home presided over by a loving God; it was the source of our ancestors’ strength, the strength of faith, hope, and charity. Surely such a home provides more comfort than a sports team, Israel, or the spiritual wasteland of the heathen people.

If white people try to influence the liberals by appealing to their humanity or to their reasonableness, they will fall prey to either the Moslems or the colored barbarians, because such appeals are signs that the Europeans still do not understand what liberalism is. Satan has no humanity and he is quite rational; in fact, he is maniacally and single-mindedly rational. Whatever serves his desires becomes law. And it is his desire that the white race shall be destroyed.

Satan now has his own people in power throughout the West. I don’t think this means we should give up, but I do think we should be aware of the satanic nature of liberalism and act according to that awareness. This means that we should realize once and for all that the police and the military are not our friends. They serve the liberals, so whom will they come down on when whites protest against the Islamic massacres of whites or the black atrocities? They will come down on the white protestors. Every protest of the non-white invasions of the European nations, à la Camp of the Saints, is met with force. It sickens me to see white policemen joining forces with Islamic Jihadists and colored barbarians to force white protestors back into their houses to cringe in terror before Third World barbarians. When the black barbarians warned whites that a Trump victory would mean black violence in every city (as if we don’t already have black violence in every city), I read the responses of some white nationalists who said that it would be a relief, because then they could start shooting the blacks. That is all well and good, and I applaud their fighting spirit, but the white nationalists seemed to think they would be joining with the police against the black barbarians. That will not be the case. The police will be fighting in support of the enemies of their people. Do not ever expect help from the liberals against any enemy of the white race. Time and time again we have seen Islamic and black atrocities ignored and even countenanced by the liberals’ police forces, who spend most of their time looking for ‘right-wing conspirators,’ such as the Bundys. And we know what constitutes a right-wing conspiracy: It is any white man who wants to protect his racial home against the Islamic savages and the barbarians of color. He is a right-wing terrorist who must be crushed to make Liberaldom safe for Satan’s minions.

The liberals have created a second ‘Fall of man’ civilization. They have rejected God, preferring, because of their intellectual pride, the advice of Satan rather than the loving wisdom of God. And secondly, they want to eradicate the image of God in man by mixing the blood of God’s people with the blood of demons. They can’t literally create a second Fall, but by rejecting God and turning to the colored races the liberals have placed mankind in the same place that the world was in before the Flood.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Then, in direct contrast to the global warmists, God tells us He will not destroy the earth again in that fashion:
And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” If Noah lived today, the Christian utopians and their secular liberal counterparts would call him a racist, a homophobic, and a drunkard. Can’t we see what has happened? The devil’s own have attacked the only civilization that produced moral beauty, the beauty of men and women adhering to the will of God, in the name of a utopian kingdom of moral ugliness. How can we possibly compare the civilizations – Christian Europe and the liberals’ Babylonian empire? No man, and no civilization, can stand up to the scrutiny of an enemy who is determined to see only his or its faults, but if you are committed to knowing the truth, the truth that will set men free, you must take a man and a civilization “for all in all.” And by that standard, the difference between Christian Europe and modern Europe is the difference between heaven and hell.

All the European fairy tales are true – there are still dragons to be slain. We have let the liberal dragon ravish Christian Europe for far too long. Let’s put democracy and cowardly niceness behind us and imitate the heroes of old Europe, who slew dragons and fought the heathens in the name of Christ the King. The cross of Christ and the sword of the Christian knight are like unto each other. So it is with our hearts as well. We are united to His heart whenever we reject the moral ugliness of modern, utopian Europe for the moral beauty of the antique Europeans and the civilization that they built in response to Christ’s divine love.