Aug 29, 2014

Limbaugh: Evidence MSM Places No Value on White Life

via BUGS

Michael Brown gunned down by a cop in Ferguson, Missouri, has been broadcast 24/7 across the globe as a victim of racism. The 18 year old, 6’4″, 300 pound child is celebrated because the shooter was a White cop and the deceased is Black. This happens too frequently but not so rarely that it is unusual.

It is a media maxim that dog bites man is not a story but a man bites dog event is front page headline material. Given this rule of thumb a White youth shot to death by a Black policeman should receive universal coverage. It does not. The anti-White domination of newspapers, radio, television and the Internet suppresses the same scenario. It happened c. the same time in Salt Lake City and you have never heard of Dillon Taylor. He is nothing. He is White.

The killing has produced protest demonstrations that have garnered meager local coverage. Nothing national. Nothing international. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609079/Protesters-want-answers-transparency-in-officer-involved-shootings.html

Other stories reveal that the officer is non-White. A caller to Limbaugh identified him as Black. There is a video of the encounter from a camera on the officer. No news industry lawyer has filed a FOIA. Who cares? The victim was White.

The utter callousness of the anti-White hostile elite should make any White person’s blood turn to ice. White life means nothing. Whites are to be blended out of existence. Dillon Taylor is a casualty in the War on Whites and you may be next. However, in case you find yourself embroiled with the justice system you might scour your genealogy for a smidgen of Cherokee blood as your own Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.

Rush Limbaugh has rendered BUGSERs an unintended service. He is not on board with us – yet. He has illustrated the truth that the Mantra proves – that anti-Racist is a code word for anti-White. Get the message out. Post the Mantra today.

If you are a newbie to this site, please read the Mantra. It is like a college course on theses matters, distilled down to a paragraph.

Jewish Confessions to False Flag Terror: Slip of the Tongue or Macabre Mockery

via Fitzpatrick Informer

Israel’s terrorist arm of the government, Mossad, admits (accidentally?) they did 7/7 London bombings.


Larry Silverstein admits they pulled World Trade Center Building 7…what else did they pull?


Now, we are waiting for a confession on the Oklahoma City Bombing.


Cautious Outrage

via EricMargolis.com

The alleged beheading of freelance journalist James Foley by the shadowy ISIS (or Islamic State) has sparked outrage and horror around the globe.

I say “alleged” because we are not sure if the decapitation was real or faked.

After three decades of covering wars in the Mideast, Africa, Latin America, and Afghanistan, my reaction as a journalist was also outrage – but cautious outrage.

We westerners have a charming and quaint belief that killing people from the air by using bombs, rockets, shells, napalm and cluster munitions – or even nuclear weapons – is somehow not really as bad as ramming a bayonet into an enemy, blowing him to pieces with heavy artillery, or slashing his throat the way sheep are killed.

Air warfare is clean. Air warfare is the American way of war.

Furthermore, on the same day Foley was allegedly being decapitated, 19 people in Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, were publicly beheaded for various crimes. One of the men was executed for witchcraft. There was no outcry at all over this medieval horror. Saudi Arabia is suspected of charging political opponents of the monarchy with drug offenses, which carry the penalty of beheading by a sword-wielding executioner. Not a peep about this in the US media trumpeting the Foley story.

I’ve long travelled the same road as this courageous young man and countless other field journalists, covering extremely dangerous places all on my own, with no backup or support system. It’s very lonely and often demoralizing work.

When I was in the southern Angola bush covering pro-western UNITA forces fighting the Soviet-backed Angolan Marxists, I accepted the risk of being killed. But what, I asked myself, would I do if wounded or become desperately ill? The answer: crawl out 200 kms to South African Army lines.

As I relate in my book “War at the Top of the World,” I had to run Afghanistan’s Khyber Pass at night in a Toyota Land Cruiser, headlights off, pistol in hand, dodging roadblocks raised by Afridi tribesmen hired by the Communist regime in Kabul to kidnap me. Had I been taken, I would have been thrown into a 10-meter deep hole in the ground filled with snakes and ferocious biting insects until transferred to be tortured and likely killed in Kabul.

In this and a score of other hair-raising adventures in scary places like Syria, Albania, Kashmir, Iraq, Libya, or Burma, no one would have been able to get me out if I was jailed. No one really cared because I was on my own, working for numerous newspapers. Even al-Jazeera can’t get its jailed journalists out of Egypt.

Newspapers used me, and other young, reckless beginner journalists like Foley, to cover the really dangerous places. No medical or pension coverage for us: we were expendable.

I was usually more scared of diseases like hepatitis or meningitis than of bullets.

Meanwhile, pampered correspondents from the TV networks reported from four-star hotels, surrounded by a support staff and gophers.

Was Foley’s head really cut off? Hard to tell. We have been fed so much fake government war propaganda in recent decades – from Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators to Saddam’s hidden nukes – that we must be very cautious.

Look at the horrifying pictures of victims from Gaza: babies with heads blow open and bodies torn into pieces by heavy 155mm shells. What’s the difference between this and a decapitation? Only distance between killer and victim.

Of course I’m outraged that any journalist would be kidnapped and held for ransom, a specialty of ISIS and other jihadist gangs in the Sahara region. Europe has paid ransom and got many of its hostages back.

The US apparently refuses to do so. “We’ll never deal with terrorists,” goes Washington’s mantra, though it deals with plenty of terrorist governments. Problem is, any group today that opposes the US abroad is likely to be branded terrorists. No wonder terrorists are popping up everywhere.

Having myself come close to being taken hostage, I would have hoped to have been ransomed in the event I was captured. That seems a more civilized and effective way to deal with hostage takers and bandits, distasteful as it may be. And yes, paying ransom will encourage more kidnappings. Hobson’s choice. But I prefer bad choices that have happy endings.

Democracies should not allow themselves to be provoked by malefactors. But that’s just what ISIS members are now doing by mounting its video horror show. We must ask, why? Why are they trying to goad the US into broader and deeper military intervention into Iraq and Syria, where they live?

Could it be part of Osama bin Laden’s clearly expressed plan to drive the US out of the Mideast by luring it into a number of small wars, slowly bleeding the American colossus? So far, by invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and parts of Pakistan, the US may have stumbled right into Osama’s carefully laid trap.

Or is the orchestrated outrage over Foley the media prelude to direct US intervention in Syria where the jihadists backed by Washington are losing. It’s all very confusing. In Iraq, ISIS are demon terrorists. But across the border in Syria, they are on our side, fighting against the “terrorist” regime of Basher Assad.

We are tripping over our terrorists. Osama must be smiling.

Despite Cultural Marxist Propaganda, Most People Still Have No Friends of other Races

via Newser

Three-quarters of white Americans lack any minority friends, a survey finds: Their social networks, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, are "entirely white." The average white person with 100 friends, meanwhile, would have a single black friend, a single Latino friend, one Asian friend, and one mixed-race friend, the Washington Post reports. A black person with 100 friends would typically have eight white friends, per the survey. The data seem to prove the Chris Rock joke that "all my black friends have a bunch of white friends—and all my white friends have one black friend," Christopher Ingraham notes at the Post.

Among black Americans, about 65% have social networks consisting of only black people, the survey finds, per the Atlantic. For Hispanic Americans, the figure is 46%. The homogeneity among white people might be explained in part by our habit of making friends who are similar to us, Ingraham notes. There's also the persistent segregation in our communities, notes Zak Cheney-Rice at News.Mic: Fueled by housing discrimination and poverty, "geographical divides between white and black Americans are a defining characteristic of most US cities," he writes. Adds Ingraham: "The implication of these findings is that when we talk about race in our personal lives, we are by and large discussing it with people who look like us."

‘How the Jewish Lobby Controls Congress’: Revelations in The New Yorker

via DavidDuke.com

In yet another staggering display of Jewish chutzpah, the Jewish Supremacist-owned New Yorker magazine has published a detailed and lengthy exposition on how exactly the Jewish Lobby controls the US Congress and Senate, even giving actual—and sometimes shocking—examples of this power at work.

The New Yorker magazine—owned by Jewish Supremacist Samuel Irving Newhouse—who, along with his brother Donald, owns Advance Publications, whose holdings include the worldwide Condé Nast publications—has carried the article in its September 2014 issue, supposedly written to answer the question “The lobbying group AIPAC has consistently fought the Obama Administration on policy. Is it now losing influence?”

The lengthy article does not ultimately answer its own question, most likely because the evidence that it then amasses, shows incontrovertibly that the American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC) completely controls Congress through its ability to fund the campaigns of all would-be Congressmen and Senators—from both parties.

The article starts off by boasting with the astonishing revelation that the most recent additional $225 Million “in emergency aid to Israel” for the “Iron Dome” system was passed almost in secret by just five (5) US Senators!

The article explains:

On July 22nd, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had sent a letter to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, seeking an immediate payment of $225 million. . . The Senate, preparing for its August recess, hastened to vote on the Iron Dome funding. . . At first, the appropriation was bundled into an emergency bill that also included money to address the underage refugees flooding across the Mexican border.

But, with only a few days left before the break began, that bill got mired in a partisan fight. . . The next morning, with the halls of the Senate all but empty, an unusual session was convened so that McConnell and Reid could try again to pass the bill; Tim Kaine was also there, along with the Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. 

“There were five senators present and literally no one else!” the staffer said. “They reintroduced it and passed it. This was one of the more amazing feats, for AIPAC.”

Thus even the allocation of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars of US taxpayers’ money is made almost behind closed doors—at AIPAC’s demand.

The New Yorker then boasts article then that an AIPAC reception during its annual policy conference draws most congressmen and senators than any other government meeting except a joint session of Congress or a State of Union address:
AIPAC is prideful about its influence.  Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”

The article then reveals exactly how the Jewish Lobby accomplishes such control, by making sure that anybody seeking office has to get AIPAC approval before they even start.

Quoting Jewish Supremacist Thomas Dine, a former executive director of AIPAC, the New Yorker reveals that AIPAC is always careful to stay in the background while arranging funding for its candidates:

“We made the decision to be one step removed,” Dine said. “Orrin Hatch once said, ‘Dine, your genius is to play an invisible bass drum, and the Jews hear it when you play it.’ ”

Thomas Dine

Because of their regional funding system—where the money collected to fund pro-Israeli candidates is dispersed through a number of Political Action Committees, the New Yorker says that it is “difficult to track the amount of money they channel to political candidates.

This issue aside, the New Yorker continues:

But everybody in Congress recognizes its [AIPAC’s] influence in elections, and the effect is evident. . . AIPAC’s hold on Congress has become institutionalized.

“If you have a dream about running for office, AIPAC calls you,” one House member said. Certainly, it’s a rarity when someone undertakes a campaign for the House or the Senate today without hearing from AIPAC.

In 1996, Brian Baird, a psychologist from Seattle, decided to run for Congress. Local Democrats asked if he had thought about what he was going to say to AIPAC. 

“The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. They come to you and say, ‘We’d be happy to host ten-thousand-dollar fund-raisers for you, and let us help write your annual letter, and please come to this multi-thousand-person dinner.’ ”

Baird continued, “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” 

For Baird, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about two hundred thousand dollars in each of his races—“and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other way: a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing.”

Baird, who is now retired from Congress, continued:

The contributions, as with many interest groups, come with a great deal of tactical input.
“The AIPAC people do a very good job of ‘informing’ you about the issues. It literally gets down to ‘No, we don’t say it that way, we say it this way.’ Always phrased as a friendly suggestion—but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to say ‘occupied territories’! There’s a whole complex semantic code you learn. . . . After a while, you find yourself saying and repeating it as if it were fact.”

Baird also said that soon after taking office, he went on a

“[V]irtually obligatory” trip to Israel: a freshman ritual in which everything—business-class flights, accommodations at the King David or the Citadel—all paid for by AIPAC.

The effect of such strict control upon Congress was detailed by Baird on how Congressmen vote when resolutions relating to Israel come up. Baird said that he had seen first hand the “devastating destruction of hospitals, schools, homes, industries, and infrastructure” in Gaza during Israel’s 2009 “Operation Cast Lead.”

When an AIPAC-sponsored resolution to condemn a UN report on the atrocity was introduced in the House, and three hundred and forty-four members voted in favor of the Jewish Lobby’s demands. Baird told the New Yorker:

When we had the vote, I said, ‘We have member after member coming to the floor to vote on a resolution they’ve never read, about a report they’ve never seen, in a place they’ve never been.’

When key votes are cast, the question on the House floor, troublingly, is often not ‘What is the right thing to do for the United States of America?’ but ‘How is AIPAC going to score this?’ 

There’s such a conundrum here, of believing that you’re supporting Israel, when you’re actually backing policies that are antithetical to its highest values and, ultimately, destructive for the country.

In addition to controlling Congressmen while in office, the New Yorker reveals, the power of the Jewish Lobby extends to their post political career as well.

Staff members fret about whether AIPAC will prevent them from getting a good consulting job when they leave government.

“You just hear the name!” a Senate aide said. “You hear that they are involved and everyone’s ears perk up and their mood changes, and they start to fall in line in a certain way.”

Just like the Jewish Supremacist boasts about how they control the media, or Hollywood, this frank admission about how the Jewish Lobby controls the government of the United States will not be condemned by the ADL, SPLC or other Jewish organizations as “antisemitic” –because it is Jews making the claims.

If however, any non-Jew were to write such an article, these Jewish pressure groups would be screaming for blood—because no-one except Jews can write about Jewish power.

It is the old rule: one set of standards for Jews, another set for non-Jews.

Honey Maid: Homosexuality Is Now Wholesome

via The Political Cesspool

Forget what the Bible says, Honey Maid has spoken.

Here is the description of the ad:
Today we celebrate all families. From working moms to two moms; stay at home dads to single dads; adopted kids to surrogate kids. Honey Maid recognizes that the reality of family has changed, but the wholesome connections that all families share will endure.
Perverts = wholesome? Welcome to 1984.



Absolutely disgusting. This is by far the most offensive commercial I have ever seen, and that’s saying something.
I was watching basic, prime time network television with my family when this came on the other night. My wife and I were appalled. Thank God that our four-year old daughter wasn’t paying attention because I really wasn’t planning to be forced to explain to her what a Sodomite is while she is still so innocent.

Media Hides Race in Mob Attack of White Guy

via Incog Man

CBS Atlanta depicts fake white perpetrators in West Point black-on-white hate crime mob attack.

From Council of Conservative Citizens
CBS Atlanta is trying to run interference and confuse the public about the near fatal racially motivated mob attack in West Point, MS.

To read more about the attack, click here.

All the attackers were black. CBS Atlanta is perpetrating a hoax. They used this stock photo to depict the attackers as being black and white.

CBS Atlanta used a stock picture to falsely depict the racially motivated black on white mob attack as being perpetrated by a racially mixed group. In the bottom half of the article CBS Atlanta quotes from the police press release saying all the attackers are black. However, they know that 90% of readers will not get that far. They know that most readers will only read their headline “Miss. Police: Beating Of Marine ‘Does Not Appear To Be A Hate Crime,’” look at the picture, and read the first few lines.

CBS Atlanta is intentionally leading the readers to assume that it is not a racially motivated hate crime and to believe the attackers were black and white! This is tantamount to an outright hoax!

David Knighten was entering a Waffle House when a black male warned him not to enter. The man feared that Knighten would be attacked because he is white. However, Knighten’s friend Ralph Weems was already inside. When Knighten entered he found his friend Weems already surrounded and being menaced by black males. Police had to be called to rescue them.

The pair were then followed down the road and attacked. Weems was nearly killed and reportedly has permanent brain damage. Knighten told police that the mob was using racial slurs.

But this is how CBS Atlanta described it:
Friends and relatives tell WCBI-TV that Weems and a friend, David Knighten, were at Waffle House, and got into an argument with as many as seven men. It involved some racial slurs.
CBS Atlanta falsely reports the incident as some kind of mutual argument where both sides called each other racial slurs.

This is why the media has ZERO CREDIBILITY!

Along with another White couple, college students Denton James Ward and Lauren Bailey Crisp were out on a date in 2012 at a McDonald’s in College Station, Texas, when all four Whites were attacked by a black mob yelling anti-White slurs. Ward was brutally beaten to death and the wounded Crisp was finished off during an accident rushing to the hospital. As usual, the race of the attackers was blatantly scrubbed by the local media and whole tragic story not even reported nationally.

INCOG NOTES:

Just read up on how badly beaten that guy was. It was so bad they had to put him in a medically-induced coma so they could operate on him. The poor guy may in fact be brain dead, even though the lying media had reported him in “fair condition.”

Hate crime? Of course it was.

This kind of thing happens all the time these days — not only in how the anti-White media works to pull the wool over our eyes about the violent black race, but that us Whites are constantly attacked on the streets by these criminal animals.

It’s all because blacks have been turned into hopped-up, White-hating militants by a Jewish-controlled media out to slowly rob us of our own lands and turn our White race into a minority for their long-running racial ambitions of global governance. You’ve seen for yourself all the decades of anti-White BS in the movies and TV. It’s getting worse and worse by the day.

Stop and think for a minute if White mobs had murdered lone blacks on the street. They would be screaming bloody murder on all the channels, 24/7. You know it, I know it.

Funny, how your supposed “conservative” FOX news says nothing about this kind of thing, huh? That’s because they’re part of the bigger scam being done to White Americans. They want to placate you with the sense of conservatism — while keeping us Whites in the dark for as long as possible, just like all the other news channels. Hell, the people at FOX are every bit as ruinous to decent, moral White Americans as the rest.

They know that should the general White population get the real score going down, the Jewish NWO agenda of White-Genocide would be totally destroyed. As it should be. That’s why so much effort is made by these subversive hypocrites to keep US WHITES STUPID.

16 Ways Whites Can Train for Safety in a Multiracial Society

via The White Voice

If you're reading this, no doubt you're acutely aware of the epidemic non-White on White crime rate everywhere. It's a top priority and personal responsibility to stay prepared and continue to spread awareness of these brutal crime reports. Also, we should learn from them. I'm not suggesting to "blame the victim", rather ask yourselves what would you have done different, how could that have altered the turn of events or even prevented the crime?

Many (White) black sympathizers live in most to all White areas and haven't been preyed upon aka "culturally enriched", and do not (yet) understand the reality they and their kin are faced with. I hope many of them will finally pay attention. Although there are cities/"bad parts of town", that we know to avoid (whenever possible), know not to leave your guard down when in a "better part of town" either.

Criminals (when they obtain transportation)-will beeline to these areas (more likely at night when they're less visible), to take advantage of what they see as an opportunity. What could that be? In no particular order-robbery (armed or not) carjacks, rapes, "knockouts", mob beatings, ("knockouts" and mob beatings I deem attempted murder), breaking into homes, the possibilities are endless.

Someone I know personally recently told me of a Vet clinic broken into overnight. There was blood everywhere due to the broken window climbed into to steal ketamine (drugs). Even the garbage had been gone through. The security camera revealed the identity of the perpetrator. Great part of this? The "ketamine" stolen was the display which held water filled syringes! The real ketamine was locked away. No animals were harmed, which was the main concern.

Although some on the following list are "common sense practices", it's surprising how one may not think to do simple things!

Some safe practices I suggest include-in no particular order,and certainly not limited to are:
  1. Try not to go out after dark (anywhere, but especially known "bad areas"), if you can help it.  For some it's not an option due to their scheduled commitments. Is there security or management you can ask to follow you out? It's more challenging in the Winter when darkness falls as early as 6:00. If you do, be keenly aware without looking paranoid-of your surroundings at all times. This ties into the third on the list.
  2. Monitor and train your children!!! Do they catch the bus to school? If so, can they be walked to it & waited with for the bus by you or another trusted adult? Teach them these ways of awareness and self defense just as you would a fire drill-it could save their lives just the same! Do they ever have to stay home alone? Go over all details regarding that. Talk with them and look for changes in behavior and/or appearance. Make sure they're not being bullied in any way (by peers or adults). This can be anything from being made fun of to verbal assault, physical bullying, theft of personal items, even sexual abuse. Often times victims hide what happened ranging from fear, to not wanting to worry someone, to shame, or even guilt (self blame). Of course they deserve a carefree childhood, but we're responsible to instill survival instincts. All the garbage the media exposes them to has them growing up quicker than ever already unfortunately. This information will be a protective of information/training.
  3. Have weapons 24/7. Obviously, if you can legally obtain a firearm and a concealed carry license with training, would be optimal. If not, blunt and/or sharp objects can be a great defense, mace (aka "pepper spray"), etc. Everywhere you go. Hornet spray kept behind a desk is a simple addition.
  4. If in a parking area you're not comfortable in (if you have a key remote w/ alarm)-use it as you approach the vehicle IF you find it appropriate. Not only does it help you locate the vehicle quicker, but the horn sounding w/ lights flashing is a deterrent for a would-be "opportunist". I've done this on a few occasions and felt it was an asset to my safety.
  5. If you're physically able: Again, try to get and stay fit, including at least basic self defense moves. Whether with or without a weapon, it betters your odds if/when ever found in a defensive situation.
  6. Females tend to be looked at as "easier prey". We know this already. If you're out alone, take special heed to all of this. Remember, there's safety in numbers. Do you have to carry a purse? Where are you going? Can the essentials fit into your pockets? Dress accordingly. You don't want to look especially attractive as if you were going on a date or an event when you're simply going to work. In other words, it's normal to want to look attractive, but realistically clean and covered is the order of the day. Likely you'll be alone commuting to & from work with errands. And take into account the customers and co-workers you'll be in contact with while at work.
  7. Body language! Stand straight and confident, aware not fearful. Better to be perceived as someone who'd give a fight than an easy victim/target any day.
  8. Cellphones! When commuting, shopping, etc., if you're on a cellphone it can be distracting to the point of becoming an easy victim. Not only for being focused on the cellphone, but that they are a highly sought after item of many thieves.
  9. Be observant, always. In places where there are more people (transient), such as commuting, shopping, events, restaurants, etc.. Here's a somewhat humorous (yet useful), way to be keen eyed: Think of a situation where you've been in one of these transient areas and you spot someone you find attractive and take quick looks they likely don't notice so you can look a few times. Same with "crowd watching", which is being observant. Not only for yourself, but if you see anything suspicious aimed at the facility or other people, you'd be a great source of information to identify, locate, even detain a suspect (all within reason, of course).
  10. If you drive, lock your doors AS you enter and exit the vehicle, making sure the keys are in your hand, in ignition, or on your person, noticing the perimeter of the vehicle and where you're headed on foot. Also note the drivers/vehicles/pedestrians in your view. When approaching your vehicle upon return, observe anyone nearby, making sure to use the windows as a reflection of what's behind you. While unloading items such as groceries, look around before turning your back for even a second, unloading quick. One woman attacked while unloading groceries was assaulted and fought back with a frozen turkey! Luckily, she made noise and put up a fight and nearby citizens reacted, running to her aid by beating down and detaining the perpetrator until police arrived. Where I live, a woman I work with told me she was going to Wal-Mart just after dark and saw several suspicious looking blacks roaming the parking lot. She then decided to cancel the errand without even parking and called her Husband. The next day it was revealed it was local gang doing this often looking for trouble (or should I say, opportunity?)
  11. If your car is parked within signal distance, have the remote by your bedside. Why? If you hear someone breaking in-hit the alarm button, you'll have more time to grab your weapon, call 911, and/or whatever else your instincts would have you do to defend yourself. That alarm may even run them off.
  12. Fueling your vehicle: Upon exiting the vehicle, lock all doors and you should already have a weapon on your person. Keep your eyes on the entire area. There have been numerous reports of thieves entering unlocked vehicles from the other side while it's being fueled. Many women tend to have a purse visible-ready for the taking.
  13. Transactions: There have been several instances of assault, even murder while attempting to exchange items such as a man murdered when he met someone from Craig's list to sell an I pad. IPhones are very sought after at the moment. Don't risk it. When making purchases at a register, be mindful who is around you at all times, especially when you reveal the method of payment and while leaving.
  14. Keep doors, windows, gates, vehicles locked at all times! Use extra locks, deadbolts, and security systems. I used to work for different millionaires in their households while they were away. Guess what? I kept everything as secure as in an inner city-one can never be too safe.
  15. Always trust your instincts. They're there for good reason. If you ignore them, you may really regret doing so.
  16. This is not being paranoid, but realistic By being safety wise, one has more control over their personal space. It is responsible self-preservation, and that is a powerful, positive thing!

Our Football Coaches Weren't Marxists Imposing Integration

via MajorityRights.com

Vince Lombardi
Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.

Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.

Consider “the great football coach”, Vince Lombardi, and his indignation with regard to “racism.” Vince Lombardi was not a “cultural Marxist.”

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced nature
In 1960, on at least one team, a color barrier still existed in the NFL. But Jack Vainisi, the Scouting Director for the Packers, and Lombardi were determined “to ignore the prejudices then prevalent in most NFL front office in their search for the most talented players.” Lombardi explained his views by saying that he “... viewed his players as neither black nor white, but Packer green”. Among professional football head coaches, Lombardi’s view on discrimination was not de rigueur in the midst of the American civil rights movement.
An interracial relationship between one of the Packer rookies and a young woman was brought to the attention of Lombardi by Packer veterans in his first training camp in Green Bay. The next day at training camp, Lombardi, who had a zero tolerance policy towards racism, responded by warning his team that if any player exhibited prejudice, in any manner, then that player would be thrown off the team. Lombardi, who was vehemently opposed to Jim Crow discrimination, let it be known to all Green Bay establishments that if they did not accommodate his black players equally as well as his white players, then that business would be off-limits to the entire team.
Before the start of the 1960 season, he instituted a policy that the Packers would only lodge in places that accepted all his players.
This same paradigm that flouts “equality” would insist on integration of “the best.”

Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even its better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.

But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists and immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”

It has been rightists who are overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and it is blueprint for disaster - setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness, paradigmatic incommensurability as opposed to inequality).

Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons - equality/inequality - is what our football coaches were going by - not cultural Marxism - when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them:


Runaway objectivism, flouting “equality”, is a load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame derives of our ranks, not from Jews

Monsters' Ball

via Radix

The series finale of HBO’s highly rated vampire soap opera, True Blood, concluded with an ostensive picture of Southern Family Values. The show flash forwards several years and the protagonist, the blonde Southern Belle Sookie Stackhouse is pregnant, and her baby daddy—though we do not know see his face—is presumably her husband and appears to be White. Her brother Jason, an incorrigible ladies man, is happily married to a blonde he met a few episodes earlier, and they have a few blond children.

They are hosting a neighborhood dinner outside the family’s ancestral antebellum estate, and Sookie serves her friends and family a home-cooked meal at a picnic table, underneath a Weeping Willow and illuminated by lanterns and the stars.

As Sookie is part fairy, Jason and his wife are the only couple of the opposite sex and same race and species. I may have missed one or two, but the couples include an interracial shape-shifter/human with two mulatto kids; a vampire/human (both children of intolerant parents); a witch/human; fairy/human; and, my favorite, Lafayette—a gay, Black, semi-transgendered witch and his White, vampire boyfriend.

A vampire-human wedding dominates much of the episode, with one character noting that the State of Louisiana bans such weddings. He asks how anyone could deny their love, despite some minor problems: the vampire bride lost control of her urges and killed her groom's three daughters; the couple cannot reproduce; and the groom will age while the bride maintains eternal youth.

The penultimate scene preceding this display of domestic bliss shows two vampires enslaving and torturing Sarah Newlin, a blonde Christian evangelical leader who has led various anti-vampire crusades. (Viewers are expected to view this scene with schadenfreude rather than pity.)

While conservatives love to hate this show, I have not seen any reaction to the final episode. It may come, but I doubt the final scene will inspire their ire. I looked over the anti-True Blood articles in the two main anti-liberal Hollywood websites—the Media Research Center and Breitbart’s Big Hollywood—to see their complaints: sex and violence, jokes about Republicans and Ted Cruz, hate criminals wearing Obama masks (would they be less upset if they wore Sarah Palin masks?), and other kvetching.

Breitbart.com ran eight separate stories (12345678) on an episode in which vampires and the Yakuza attack a fundraiser for Ted Cruz and a character used the portmanteau “Republicunt.” The True Blood producers had asked Sarah Palin to guest star in the episode, which she turned down. She told Breitbart, in full self-parody mode,
Nice try HBO. I’d put any mama grizzly in America against a vampire any day; for only one of them actually exists. The left wants to talk about a 'war on women'? Keep engaging in your misogynist attacks on women you disagree with and we’ll see who wins your self-inflicted war in the court of decent public opinion.
Breitbart and the Media Research Center are correct in one sense: no doubt, True Blood's writers and producers vote predominantly for Democrats, and the show takes cheap shots at Republicans and Christians. But such things are superficial and dispensable to the essence series. And characteristically, conservative critics ignore, or are unable to understand, the more fundamental and insidious ways in which Hollywood engages in culture distortion.

True Blood’s premise is that scientists have synthesized human blood into the brand “True Blood”; since vampires no longer need to prey on innocent victims, they are able to “come out of the coffin” and acknowledge their existence to humans. As the show continues, other supernatural beings, including witches, shapeshifters, werewolves, fairies, and even a Maenad, are revealed.

The opening credits feature signs with phrase like “God Hates Fangs” (get it, like “god hates fags”), alongside images of police beating civil rights activists and KKK cross-burnings. The aforementioned Sarah Newlin, along with her husband, the Rev. Steve Newlin (who turns out to be a closeted homosexual), Republican Congressman David Finch (also a closeted homosexual), and Republican Governor Truman Burrell (not a closeted homosexual, but his wife cheated on him with a vampire) all promote various anti-vampire positions ranging from opposing the “vampire rights amendment” to putting vampires in concentration camps to experimenting on them before committing mass genocide.

Though the show portrays hateful Christians negatively, it is not entirely anti-Christian. In one episode in Season 6, Sarah Newlin attempts to massacre a group of vampires in a warehouse by opening the roof and letting the sun in. She tells herself that God wants her to do it. Yet in the same episode, a Black minister gives a sermon about a recently deceased White character. He praises his devotion to God and says that he understands that he violated Christian gospel, because he knew “he was telling the truth.”

The message is clear: Christians are good when they promote love and understanding, even if it involves ignoring the Bible; they are bad when they promote hate.

What should we make of this? Charlene Harris, the author of the show’s source material, The Southern Vampire Mysteries, welcomed the idea that the show promoted gay rights, stating,
When I began framing how I was going to represent the vampires, it suddenly occurred to me that it would be interesting if they were a minority that was trying to get equal rights.
Despite debates about vampire marriage, “coming out of the coffin,” “God hates fangs,” and Harris’s explicit statements, True Blood’s producer Alan Ball (who is gay) insisted that this was not the case. According to Ball,
To look at these vampires on the show as metaphors for gays and lesbians is so simple and so easy, that it’s kind of lazy. . . . If you get really serious about it, well, then the show could be seen to be very homophobic because vampires are dangerous: They kill, they’re amoral.
Even the most noble and good vampires have to restrain their urge to kill humans—and they always slip up. Moreover, while the vampires are publicly demanding equal rights, they have their own secret government and code. When Bill Compton, the most compassionate vampire in the first few seasons of the show kills a vampire who was going to kill a human, he is punished because vampires are never allowed to view a human's life as equal to that of a vampire’s. The same vampire council that publicly promotes “equal rights” has its own mantra that state, “Humans exist to serve us. That is their only value.” At later points in the series, he plots to destroy the true blood factories to force vampires to feed on humans.

BuzzFeed’s Louis Pietzman noticed the problem.
On True Blood, the larger fears about vampires—that they’re out to kill, corrupt, and ultimately destroy human society—are entirely accurate. The struggle for vampire rights is not the noble fight of the civil rights movement, because it’s not simply about letting vampires live their lives in peace alongside humans: Vampire rights means that innocent people are going to die.
Additionally, many of the vampires do not have politically correct backgrounds to make them ideal victims. Sookie's love interest, Bill, was a slave-owning Confederate soldier before he was turned, and fan favorite Eric Northman was a Viking before becoming a vampire and served in the SS during World War II.

Yet Pietzman and Ball do not realize the other reason why a civil rights allegory fails. In the words of the Vampire King of Mississippi, Russell Edgington, "Why would we seek equal rights? You are not our equals.” By almost every standard, they are superior to humans, and they discuss this amongst themselves. They can fly; they can hypnotize or “glamour” people; they are faster and more seductive; they have eternal life, can survive almost any injury; and their blood serves as a cure-all drug and powerful psychedelic. Edgington tells Northman, "Adolf was right; there is a Master Race . . . it's just not the human race."

Similarly, the vampire movie series Underworld treats vampires as evil Southern racists who enslaved and then later oppressed werewolves. (The first movie was about how the daughter of the head vampire needed to mate with a werewolf to save civilization.) While propaganda, it was at least plausible.

In today’s political culture, only the less capable need "civil rights." Once America lifted legal and social restrictions on Jews, they managed to excel (in fact, they even excelled with these restrictions). For all intensive purposes, Jewish “civil rights” are about punishing criticism (or noticing) of Jewish power. While Asians will often try to gain special privileges, Asian civil rights groups do little more than complain about Stephen Colbert's "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."

While Asians and Jews may not be as übermenschy as Eric Northman, they have some things going for them, which makes granting them “civil rights” unnecessary. Blacks and Hispanics, in contrast, need “civil rights” in order to achive success as a group at all.

For a supernatural analogy to the beneficiaries of "civil rights," the zombie show The Walking Dead is a better example.  Zombies, or “walkers,” have few instincts beyond killing and eating brains, and destroying everything in their path. In small numbers, they are easily dealt with, but when they gather in herds, they destroy everything in their path.

In the series, there are only two characters who have had any allusions that walkers can be saved or treated as anything other than a scourge that must be eliminated.

In the second season of the show, the protagonists happen upon a rural farm in Georgia. As the apocalypse arrives, the farmer, Hershel Greene, looks to the Biblical story of Jesus' raising of Lazarus as a way of understanding the chaos. He claims that people are overreacting and considers the zombie problem as something similar to AIDS—walkers can be saved! The protagonists learn that he puts zombies in a barn and feeds them live chickens, hoping for a cure. The notion is obviously inane, and Hershel eventually comes to his senses. But examples of the human willingness to wish or pray away existential threats get much worse. In the fourth season, an 11-year-old girl named Lizzie insists that zombies are just different and can be their friends. She feeds them dead rats and rabbits. She tries to play “tag” with them. She even threatens to kill her adoptive mother-figure, Carol, after she kills a walker. Refusing to believe that the walkers are bad, Lizzie stabs her sister so that she might return undead and harmless to prove the goodness of walkers to Carol.

Carol and Tyrese (the show is fully integrated) discuss the situation. In a different time, they would try to find Lizzie a therapist; but during a zombie apocalypse, they can’t tolerate psychopathic altruism. They kill the child.

It's hard not to view scenes like this as expressing something about the racial realities of our time: the sentimental, naive, and caring nature of White people, which can be beneficial in certain contexts, disastrous in others.

True Blood might have beeen the ultimate program for postmodern American liberals: on the surface, the show was about "civil rights" and post-White self-righteousness; underneath, it allowed fans to indulge in the fantasy of being part of a sexually liberated, superior elite.

The Walking Dead seems to express something quite different: that it's time to rebuild communities and put childish things aside.

Pakistani Sex Gangs and the Stephen Lawrence Effect

via Alternative Right

The latest case to emerge of sexual grooming and abuse by Pakistani gangs committed against English children in the Northern town of Rotherham has finally pushed the issue to national breakthrough and media saturation level, but in essence this is nothing new. It is only the magnitude – 1,400 victims (conservative estimate) in a town of a quarter of a million over 16 years – that is different.

It is a horrifying thought, but if the entire UK were like Rotherham, we could project a national total of 336,000 child sex abuse victims. Thankfully, not the whole of the country is cursed with Pakistani immigrant communities.

But as big and newsworthy as this case is, it is just the same old story of ethnic crimes and misdemeanours being green lighted, downplayed, or soft pedalled for fears of someone being called a "racist" somewhere, sometime.

The template for the particular combination of leniency and denial that British authorities demonstrate towards ethnic crime has its roots in the Stephen Lawrence case of 1993. Lawrence, was a young Black man who was stabbed to death while reportedly waiting for a bus in a part of London that was considered by some of the locals as "off limits" to Blacks. This was the same part of London, by the way, that reacted to the Black-led London riots of 2011 by organizing vigilante demonstrations.

Following Lawrence's killing, five suspects were arrested, but none were convicted due to a lack of evidence. In 2012, two of the five were finally sent to jail after double jeopardy laws were revoked by Parliament. But rather than the long, drawn-out process to jail those accused, the case was most noticeable for the way it was used as a political sledgehammer to force through radical reform of the police and other institutions that were described as being "institutionally racist."

A key point of the Lawrence case is that it happened fourteen years into an eighteen-year period of Conservative rule (1979-1997). The Conservative Party at that time was a party that was very unpopular with Blacks and other ethnic minorities. This was because it was associated with White middle class voters, claimed to be strong on law and order, and was supposedly unsympathetic to welfare and "affirmative action" policies, although it was often forced by this perception to be the opposite.

During this time there was therefore a fear that Blacks, especially in London, were not only being "economically excluded" but also emotionally alienated from the wider society. As proof of this the 1980s saw frequent riots in Black areas like Brixton and Toxteth.

At the heart of these disturbances was Black dissatisfaction at policing methods, which they felt unfairly targeted them, even though such profiling was due to the much higher rates of social dysfunction, drug abuse, and crime typical of young men of Afro-Caribbean origin, rather than the fact they were non-White as other non-White groups with low crime rates were not similarly targeted.

Rioting against "racism" by committing . . . racism
 Going along with this reality, there was naturally an entrenched attitude among police officers that Blacks should be policed more intensely than other demographics. This found expression on the ground in stop-and-search tactics targeting young, Black males who dressed and behaved in ways suggesting an affinity with drug and gang subcultures.

Another aspect of this was the belief among police that young Black males, who themselves became victims of crime, like Stephen Lawrence, were not always entirely innocent. This is exactly the same attitude – but much more justified – that social workers, police, and child protection authorities in Rotherham had towards the young female victims of Pakistani sex gangs.

Such attitudes by police towards young Black males reflect the sensible, "tactical" thinking of police functionaries, and such views were repeatedly borne out by their experience. But politicians were more wary of the "strategic" consequences of this attitude, as the inevitable resentment it brewed fed through to the wider Black community, and raised fears of Blacks becoming increasingly disconnected from society. This fear, which was widespread during the years of Conservative rule (1979-1997), followed through into the period of Labour rule, and continues today.

With the landslide election success of Tony Blair's New labour in 1997 and 2001, the political will to implement a much more radical approach to the Black problem was created. The first big step was to commission a government inquiry into the Lawrence case, chaired by Sir William Macpherson.

The resulting report, published in 1999, highlighted instances of police neglect and incompetence in the Lawrence investigation, but, much more significantly, it made wider points, claiming that there was a culture of "institutional racism" in British police forces in general that needed to be tackled.

PC PC: Sir Ian Blair
This led to an effective cultural coup d'etat in Britain's police forces, as a new regime of political correctness was introduced, with campaigns to stamp out "racism," "sensitivity training" for experienced officers, and the elevation of those officers who were seen as holding the right PC credentials, like Sir Ian Blair, who was selected as Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police in 2005.

Efforts were also made to greatly expand the number of ethnic minorities in the police. In this increasingly diverse workplace, officers who made comments that could be construed as "racist" or "politically incorrect" were demoted, dismissed, or simply denied promotion.

In terms of actual policing, many of the same methods were retained. Police forces continued to profile Blacks and concentrate on high crime areas, but there was a complete change in presentation and the internal culture of the police forces. For example, the London Metropolitan Police's Operation Trident, set up to target Black crime gangs in London, was given the misleading slogan: "targeting gun crime."

These efforts to give the British police a more PC image also took place at a time when the policing powers of the state were being increased due to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the July 7th, 2005, terrorist attacks in London. There was an obvious synergy between these two movements. With terrorism from British Muslims becoming a threat, alongside endemic crime from British Blacks, there was increasing pressure to offset the need for strong policing against these communities – and the resulting alienation – with greater leniency and political correctness elsewhere.

This led to police forces taking a more hands-off approach to certain aspects of ethnic crime, especially when it was something related to an ethnic community's cultural practices, identity, or social organization. Things like forced marriages, genital mutilation, Islamic hate preaching, voter and social security fraud, and low-grade substance abuse were downplayed or dealt with through community liaison, or simply turned a blind eye to.


This was, in short, the Stephen Lawrence Effect, exactly the same factor that allowed Pakistani sex gangs to run rampant through the vulnerable youth of several English towns, without being challenged, except by the likes of the BNP, until they reached the point where they became impossible to hide. But this still doesn't make earlier instances of neglect any more understandable.

The report into sexual grooming by Rotherham Borough Council found that:
"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
The report also mentioned that police and local authorities ignored, disbelieved, and "effectively suppressed" evidence of abuse.

Typically, populations of South Asians in the UK, including Hindus and Sikh, tend to congregate in certain areas and then serve as unified and powerful voting blocs for the Labour Party, and occasionally the LibDems, in constituencies and local authorities.

This gives them enormous influence and power that atomized White voters don't enjoy. The benefits include the appointment of people of Asian origin to Labour Party and council positions that they are often unqualified for, the targeting of spending to benefit the ethnic group involved, and a loosening of standards that involve treating the ethnic group in question with kid gloves. This can range from failure to impose proper health and hygiene standards on local restaurants to more serious matters. While all ethnic minorities benefit to some degree from this system, no group has abused it quite as grotesquely as the Pakistanis.

The sad truth is that the multicultural state, in its desperation to include and harmonize all the different elements from which it seeks to compose itself, has created a poisonous culture of "anti-racism" that creates the space for such evil to flourish and go unchallenged in the name of community cohesion." This is because challenging such practices invariably reveals the existence of glaring and largely ineradicable racial differences that undermine the "blank slate" premises of the multicultural state.

True as it is, the fact that Pakistani males have a far greater tendency towards interracial grooming and child rape is not one that the UK is yet ready to fully accept and act upon, despite the Rotherham case. What we are likely to see over the following weeks is merely new forms of denial, along with a variety of ineffectual cosmetic measures that will play well to the media. This may involve yet another enlargement of the nanny state our more efforts to liaise with community leaders. Improving public morals, imposing draconian sentences, and clearly profiling the danger group, however, will not be on the menu.

The Rotherham case is mainly significant because it gives a clear number that can be used to quantify the abhorrent costs of multiculturalism – in one town alone 1,400 child victims! If the nationalists can't make progress with this kind of stat, they aren't really trying.

Journalists Lie, People Die: Second Thoughts on Foley

via Counter-Currents Publishing

James Foley, Aleppo, July, 2012
My initial reaction to the beheading of American journalist James Foley by Islamic militants was horror and outrage. But then I learned more about Foley’s work, and my feelings changed. As Gregory Hood writes:

[Foley] had a specific agenda with his work–he was trying to expose the “atrocities” of the Assad regime and support the “democracy” movement. Foley may have been a freelancer, but his worldview was eminently predictable and pro-Establishment–trying to break down questions of race, religion, and identity into a game of good egalitarian democrats versus bad reactionaries.

Thus, he was quick to draw critical attention to incidents that the media would call Islamophobic, like when an American military officer made comments critical of Islam during a class on terrorism. He tweeted out articles that we would consider parody, asking if right wing terrorism was as big a threat as Al-Qaeda. And he aggressively, incessantly pushed for NATO intervention in Syria and arming the opposition to Bashar al-Assad . . .

Foley, in short, actively supported the toppling of the Assad regime and the arming of anti-Assad groups — which has led to the deaths of countless innocents — and one of those anti-Assad groups cut off his head.

So there is a God, after all.

ISIS are still savages. They are still the distillation of everything evil and rotten in Islam. They did it for the wrong reasons. But this time, they got it right.

Nearly 200,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, which never would have happened if the United States were not in the business of bumping off enemies of Israel on the orders of the organized Jewish community which runs this country.

James Foley was not the architect of these policies, but he was more than just a passive supporter. He was not a general, but he was an eager foot soldier in service of the Judeo-American strategy of overthrowing secular nationalist Arab leaders like Saddam Hussein, Muammar el-Qaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad – in the last two cases by giving aid to Islamist militants, including al-Qaeda and ISIS.

There will never be liberal democracy in the Middle East, and supporting groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood would not promote liberal democracy anyway. The best we can hope for in that part of the world are secular, authoritarian nationalist leaders like Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad. Such regimes are also better for the freethinkers, women, and religious minorities who are being persecuted by Islamists.

But America’s foreign policy is not determined by American interests, or by Arab interests, but by Jewish interests. Secular Arab regimes are strong and prosperous, and Israel does not like strong and prosperous enemies. Thus they must be smashed. Not to replace them with “democracy,” which is impossible. Simple chaos will do, and simple chaos is what we have.

James Foley probably never shot, tortured, beheaded, buried alive, stoned, or ate the flesh of a Syrian. But by supporting the false narrative justifying the war against Assad, Foley helped make those atrocities — and the widening atrocities in Iraq — possible. He had blood on his hands. So his death satisfies my sense of justice.

It is a pity that more propagandists don’t die. It might encourage more responsible reporting. And, as with all wars, it is a pity that the foot soldiers not the generals take the brunt of the blowback. Because we might live in a better world if the warmongers get a taste of the terror, destruction, and death they inflict on others.

When William Pierce asked “Who Rules America?” his answer was not the president, congress, and judiciary, but the owners of the news and entertainment media. Because the media shape the consciousness and values of the public, they can raise up or cast down any political leader. The media promulgate the ruling orthodoxy, drum up hysteria for its witch hunts and crusades, and expose and destroy dissenters. They are not neutral or innocent or merely exercising “freedom of speech” (which they actively deny to dissenters).

Thus enemy journalists are legitimate targets in war zones. And since journalists fight without uniforms, under false pretenses, and by means of lies, it is appropriate to treat them as partisans and spies, not as soldiers. If ISIS and other jihadi groups continue to mete out summary justice to journalists in the Middle East, it might give them second thoughts about the lies they are telling and the agendas they are serving.

It might even give them second thoughts about serving as foot soldiers in the war on whites here in America.

The Rotherham Pathology

via The Occidental Observer

The horrifying scandal in Rotherham (previous versions covered copiously for TOO by Tobias Langdon) continues to unfold. A report commissioned by the city council stated that at least 1400 children were sexually abused over 16 years.
It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators. This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day. … One young person told us that ‘gang rape’ was a usual part of growing up in the area of Rotherham in which she lived. …
Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. The first of these reports was effectively suppressed because some senior officers disbelieved the data it contained. This had led to suggestions of cover- up. The other two reports set out the links between child sexual exploitation and drugs, guns and criminality in the Borough. These reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.
The authorities knew about it but did not act because of fear of being labeled “racists”:
By far the majority of perpetrators were described as ‘Asian’ by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.
And, this collective attempt to remove the ethnic element continues. As James Delingpole notes, the BBC’s report didn’t mention ethnicity until 20 paragraphs in. Delingpole continues:
And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:
By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as “Asian” by victims. [Another BBC report stated "The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled 'racist' if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as 'Asian' men." Majority?? Perhaps 51% It would be much closer to the truth to say they were all Asian.]
Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren’t “Asian” (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not? …
[It happened] because the kind of politically correct, left-leaning and basically rather thick people that local authorities like Rotherham Council tend to have working for them are so paralysed by modish concerns about cultural sensitivity that they have made an obscene judgement call: better to allow at least 1400 kids to be hideously abused than to be thought guilty of the far greater crimes of being thought a bit racist or accidentally offending someone.
(And this isn’t an incident confined to Rotherham by the way. The same thing happened recently in Oxford, again involving men with decidedly un-Anglo-Saxon names, again over a long period of time because all the relevant authorities were scared of sounding the alarm in case they came across as racist)
When I told a friend about this, his immediate reaction was that White people deserve to go extinct if they allow this sort of thing to happen. Allowing industrial scale rape of your children by ethnic outsiders is simply inconceivable in a healthy society.

It’s hard to disagree with that. This is a pathology so extreme that it should really be considered a collective psychosis. And of course we see the same thing throughout the West — at its worst among northern Europeans.

In attempting to explain this, I have discussed the tendency of Europeans to form moral ingroups rather than kinship-based groups which are the norm in the rest of the world — a component of European individualism. It’s a very adaptive mechanism, resulting in high-trust societies relatively free of the corruption, nepotism and ethnically based strife so common in many parts of the world.

But when the reins of the culture have been captured by hostile elites that have decreed that multiculturalism is a moral imperative and massively incentivized their creation, it can lead to extremely maladaptive consequences as we see here.

These consequences are exacerbated in bureaucratic contexts where conformity to microcultural norms set by the higher-ups and avoiding doing anything that might threaten one’s career become paramount. One can only guess at what was going through the mind of Shaun Wright, police commissioner of Rotherham and Labour councillor in charge of children’s services at Rotherham Council from 2005 to 2010.

Dark Age America: The Population Implosion

via The Archdruid Report

The three environmental shifts discussed in earlier posts in this sequence—the ecological impacts of a sharply warmer and dryer climate, the flooding of coastal regions due to rising sea levels, and the long-term consequences of industrial America’s frankly brainless dumping of persistent radiological and chemical poisons—all involve changes to the North American continent that will endure straight through the deindustrial dark age ahead, and will help shape the history of the successor cultures that will rise amid our ruins. For millennia to come, the peoples of North America will have to contend with drastically expanded deserts, coastlines that in some regions will be many miles further inland than they are today, and the presence of dead zones where nuclear or chemical wastes in the soil and water make human settlement impossible.

All these factors mean, among other things, that deindustrial North America will support many fewer people than it did in 1880 or so, before new agricultural technologies dependent on fossil fuels launched the population boom that is peaking in our time. Now of course this also implies that deindustrial North America will support many, many fewer people than it does today. For obvious reasons, it’s worth talking about the processes by which today’s seriously overpopulated North America will become the sparsely populated continent of the coming dark age—but that’s going to involve a confrontation with a certain kind of petrified irrelevancy all too common in our time.
Every few weeks, the comments page of this blog fields something insisting that I’m ignoring the role of overpopulation in the crisis of our time, and demanding that I say or do something about that. In point of fact, I’ve said quite a bit about overpopulation on this blog over the years, dating back to this post from 2007. What I’ve said about it, though, doesn’t follow either one of the two officially sanctioned scripts into which discussions of overpopulation are inevitably shoehorned in today’s industrial world; the comments I get are thus basically objecting to the fact that I’m not toeing the party line.
Like most cultural phenomena in today’s industrial world, the scripts just mentioned hew closely to the faux-liberal and faux-conservative narratives that dominate so much of contemporary thought. (I insist on the prefix, as what passes for political thought these days has essentially nothing to do with either liberalism or conservatism as these were understood as little as a few decades ago.) The scripts differ along the usual lines: that is to say, the faux-liberal script is well-meaning and ineffectual, while the faux-conservative script is practicable and evil.
Thus the faux-liberal script insists that overpopulation is a terrible problem, and we ought to do something about it, and the things we should do about it are all things that don’t work, won’t work, and have been being tried over and over again for decades without having the slightest effect on the situation. The faux-conservative script insists that overpopulation is a terrible problem, but only because it’s people of, ahem, the wrong skin color who are overpopulating, ahem, our country: that is, overpopulation means immigration, and immigration means let’s throw buckets of gasoline onto the flames of ethnic conflict, so it can play its standard role in ripping apart a dying civilization with even more verve than usual.
Overpopulation and immigration policy are not the same thing; neither are depopulation and the mass migrations of whole peoples for which German historians of the post-Roman dark ages coined the neat term völkerwanderung, which are the corresponding phenomena in eras of decline and fall. For that reason, the faux-conservative side of the debate, along with the usually unmentioned realities of immigration policy in today’s America and the far greater and more troubling realities of mass migration and ethnogenesis that will follow in due time, will be left for next week’s post. For now I want to talk about overpopulation as such, and therefore about the faux-liberal side of the debate and the stark realities of depopulation that are waiting in the future.
All this needs to be put in its proper context. In 1962, the year I was born, there were about three and a half billion human beings on this planet. Today, there are more than seven billion of us. That staggering increase in human numbers has played an immense and disastrous role in backing today’s industrial world into the corner where it now finds itself. Among all the forces driving us toward an ugly future, the raw pressure of human overpopulation, with the huge and rising resource requirements it entails, is among the most important.
That much is clear. What to do about it is something else again. You’ll still hear people insisting that campaigns to convince people to limit their reproduction voluntarily ought to do the trick, but such campaigns have been ongoing since well before I was born, and human numbers more than doubled anyway. It bears repeating that if a strategy has failed every time it’s been tried, insisting that we ought to do it again isn’t a useful suggestion. That applies not only to the campaigns just noted, but to all the other proposals to slow or stop population growth that have been tried repeatedly and failed just as repeatedly over the decades just past.
These days, a great deal of the hopeful talk around the subject of limits to overpopulation has refocused on what’s called the demographic transition: the process, visible in the population history of most of today’s industrial nations, whereby people start voluntarily reducing their reproduction when their income and access to resources rise above a certain level. It’s a real effect, though its causes are far from clear. The problem here is simply that the resource base that would make it possible for enough of the world’s population to have the income and access to resources necessary to trigger a worldwide demographic transition simply don’t exist.
As fossil fuels and a galaxy of other nonrenewable resources slide down the slope of depletion at varying rates, for that matter, it’s becoming increasingly hard for people in the industrial nations to maintain their familiar standards of living. It may be worth noting that this hasn’t caused a sudden upward spike in population growth in those countries where downward mobility has become most visible. The demographic transition, in other words, doesn’t work in reverse, and this points to a crucial fact that hasn’t necessarily been given the weight it deserves in conversations about overpopulation.
The vast surge in human numbers that dominates the demographic history of modern times is wholly a phenomenon of the industrial age. Other historical periods have seen modest population increases, but nothing on the same scale, and those have reversed themselves promptly when ecological limits came into play. Whatever the specific factors and forces that drove the population boom, then, it’s a pretty safe bet that the underlying cause was the one factor present in industrial civilization that hasn’t played a significant role in any other human society: the exploitation of vast quantities of extrasomatic energy—that is, energy that doesn’t come into play by means of human or animal muscle. Place the curve of increasing energy per capita worldwide next to the curve of human population worldwide, and the two move very nearly in lockstep: thus it’s fair to say that human beings, like yeast, respond to increased access to energy with increased reproduction.
Does that mean that we’re going to have to deal with soaring population worldwide for the foreseeable future? No, and hard planetary limits to resource extraction are the reasons why. Without the huge energy subsidy to agriculture contributed by fossil fuels, producing enough food to support seven billion people won’t be possible. We saw a preview of the consequences in 2008 and 2009, when the spike in petroleum prices caused a corresponding spike in food prices and a great many people around the world found themselves scrambling to get enough to eat on any terms at all. The riots and revolutions that followed grabbed the headlines, but another shift that happened around the same time deserves more attention: birth rates in many Third World countries decreased noticeably, and have continued to trend downward since then.
The same phenomenon can be seen elsewhere. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of the formerly Soviet republics have seen steep declines in rates of live birth, life expectancy, and most other measures of public health, while death rates have climbed well above birth rates and stayed there. For that matter, since 2008, birth rates in the United States have dropped even further below the rate of replacement than they were before that time; immigration is the only reason the population of the United States doesn’t register declines year after year.
This is the wave of the future.  As fossil fuel and other resources continue to deplete, and economies dependent on those resources become less and less able to provide people with the necessities of life, the population boom will turn into a population bust. The base scenario in 1972’s The Limits to Growth, still the most accurate (and thus inevitably the most vilified) model of the future into which we’re stumbling blindly just now, put the peak of global population somewhere around 2030: that is, sixteen years from now. Recent declines in birth rates in areas that were once hotbeds of population growth, such as Latin America and the Middle East, can be seen as the leveling off that always occurs in a population curve before decline sets in.
That decline is likely to go very far indeed. That’s partly a matter of straightforward logic: since global population has been artificially inflated by pouring extrasomatic energy into boosting the food supply and providing other necessary resources to human beings, the exhaustion of economically extractable reserves of the fossil fuels that made that process possible will knock the props out from under global population figures. Still, historical parallels also have quite a bit to offer here: extreme depopulation is a common feature of the decline and fall of civilizations, with up to 95% population loss over the one to three centuries that the fall of a civilization usually takes.
Suggest that to people nowadays and, once you get past the usual reactions of denial and disbelief, the standard assumption is that population declines so severe could only happen if there were catastrophes on a truly gargantuan scale. That’s an easy assumption to make, but it doesn’t happen to be true. Just as it didn’t take vast public orgies of copulation and childbirth to double the planet’s population over the last half-century, it wouldn’t take equivalent exercises in mass death to halve the planet’s population over the same time frame. The ordinary processes of demography can do the trick all by themselves.
Let’s explore that by way of a thought experiment. Between family, friends, coworkers, and the others that you meet in the course of your daily activities, you probably know something close to a hundred people. Every so often, in the ordinary course of events, one of them dies—depending on the age and social status of the people you know, that might happen once a year, once every two years, or what have you. Take a moment to recall the most recent death in your social circle, and the one before that, to help put the rest of the thought experiment in context.
Now imagine that from this day onward, among the hundred people you know, one additional person—one person more than you would otherwise expect to die—dies every year, while the rate of birth remains the same as it is now. Imagine that modest increase in the death rate affecting the people you know. One year, an elderly relative of yours doesn’t wake up one morning; the next, a barista at the place where you get coffee on the way to work dies of cancer; the year after that, a coworker’s child comes down with an infection the doctors can’t treat, and so on.  A noticeable shift? Granted, but it’s not Armageddon; you attend a few more funerals than you’re used to, make friends with the new barista, and go about your life until one of those additional deaths is yours.
Now take that process and extrapolate it out. (Those of my readers who have the necessary math skills should take the time to crunch the numbers themselves.) Over the course of three centuries, an increase in the crude death rate of one per cent per annum, given an unchanged birth rate, is sufficient to reduce a population to five per cent of its original level. Vast catastrophes need not apply; of the traditional four horsemen, War, Famine, and Pestilence can sit around drinking beer and playing poker. The fourth horseman, in the shape of a modest change in crude death rates, can do the job all by himself.
Now imagine the same scenario, except that there are two additional deaths each year in your social circle, rather than one.  That would be considerably more noticeable, but it still doesn’t look like the end of the world—at least until you do the math. An increase in the crude death rate of two per cent per annum, given an unchanged birth rate, is enough to reduce a population to five per cent of its original level within a single century. In global terms, if world population peaks around 8 billion in 2030, a decline on that scale would leave four hundred million people on the planet by 2130.
In the real world, of course, things are not as simple or smooth as they are in the thought experiment just offered. Birth rates are subject to complex pressures and vary up and down depending on the specific pressures a population faces, and even small increases in infant and child mortality have a disproportionate effect by removing potential breeding pairs from the population before they can reproduce. Meanwhile, population declines are rarely anything like so even as  the thought experiment suggests; those other three horsemen, in particular, tend to get bored of their poker game at intervals and go riding out to give the guy with the scythe some help with the harvest. War, famine, and pestilence are common events in the decline and fall of a civilization, and the twilight of the industrial world is likely to get its fair share of them.
Thus it probably won’t be a matter of two more deaths a year, every year. Instead, one year, war breaks out, most of the young men in town get drafted, and half of them come back in body bags.  Another year, after a string of bad harvests, the flu comes through, and a lot of people who would have shaken it off under better conditions are just that little bit too malnourished to survive.  Yet another year, a virus shaken out of its tropical home by climate change and ecosystem disruption goes through town, and fifteen per cent of the population dies in eight ghastly months. That’s the way population declines happen in history.
In the twilight years of the Roman world, for example, a steady demographic contraction was overlaid by civil wars, barbarian invasions, economic crises, famines, and epidemics; the total population decline varied significantly from one region to another, but even the relatively stable parts of the Eastern Empire seem to have had around a 50% loss of population, while some areas of the Western Empire suffered far more drastic losses; Britain in particular was transformed from a rich, populous, and largely urbanized province to a land of silent urban ruins and small, scattered villages of subsistence farmers where even so simple a technology as wheel-thrown pottery became a lost art.
The classic lowland Maya are another good example along the same lines.  Hammered by climate change and topsoil loss, the Maya heartland went through a rolling collapse a century and a half in length that ended with population levels maybe five per cent of what they’d been at the start of the Terminal Classic period, and most of the great Maya cities became empty ruins rapidly covered by the encroaching jungle. Those of my readers who have seen pictures of tropical foliage burying the pyramids of Tikal and Copan might want to imagine scenes of the same kind in the ruins of Atlanta and Austin a few centuries from now. That’s the kind of thing that happens when an urbanized society suffers severe population loss during the decline and fall of a civilization.
That, in turn, is what has to be factored into any realistic forecast of dark age America: there will be many, many fewer people inhabiting North America a few centuries from now than there are today.  Between the depletion of the fossil fuel resources necessary to maintain today’s hugely inflated numbers and the degradation of North America’s human carrying capacity by climate change, sea level rise, and persistent radiological and chemical pollution, the continent simply won’t be able to support that many people. The current total is about 470 million—35 million in Canada, 314 million in the US, and 121 million in Mexico, according to the latest figures I was able to find—and something close to five per cent of that—say, 20 to 25 million—might be a reasonable midrange estimate for the human population of the North American continent when the population implosion finally bottoms out a few centuries from now.
Now of course those 20 to 25 million people won’t be scattered evenly across the continent. There will be very large regions—for example, the nearly lifeless, sun-blasted wastelands that climate change will make of the southern Great Plains and the Sonoran desert—where human settlement will be as sparse as it is today in the bleakest parts of the Sahara or the Rub’al Khali of central Arabia. There will be other areas—for example, the Great Lakes region and the southern half of Mexico’s great central valley—where population will be relatively dense by Dark Age standards, and towns of modest size may even thrive if they happen to be in defensible locations.
The nomadic herding folk of the midwestern prairies, the villages of the Gulf Coast jungles, and the other human ecologies that will spring up in the varying ecosystems of deindustrial North America will all gradually settle into a more or less stable population level, at which births and deaths balance each other and the consumption of resources stays at or below sustainable levels of production. That’s what happens in human societies that don’t have the dubious advantage of a torrent of nonrenewable energy reserves to distract them temporarily from the hard necessities of survival.
It’s getting to that level that’s going to be a bear. The mechanisms of population contraction are simple enough, and as suggested above, they can have a dramatic impact on historical time scales without cataclysmic impact on the scale of individual lives. No, the difficult part of population contraction is its impact on economic patterns geared to continuous population growth. That’s part of a more general pattern, of course—the brutal impact of the end of growth on an economy that depends on growth to function at all—which has been discussed on this blog several times already, and will require close study in the present sequence of posts.

That examination will begin after we’ve considered the second half of the demography of dark age America: the role of mass migration and ethnogenesis in the birth of the cultures that will emerge on this continent when industrial civilization is a fading memory. That very challenging discussion will occupy next week’s post.