Dec 5, 2014

Are You an Atavistic, Academic, or Altruistic Racist?

via TradYouth

Atavistic Racism
Dr. James Watson, the brilliant scientist who helped pioneer the field of genetics, signed up for yet another round of attacks and denunciations by the political police when he decided to sell his Nobel Prize earlier this month in light of the fact that, as he put it, “No one wants to admit that I exist.” His “mistake”, one he cravenly attempted to apologize for, to no avail, was being frank during an interview about the scientific realities of meaningful racial differences.

His reputation and public life is permanently ruined, with no opportunity for redemption, precisely because his intellect and achievements lend so much weight to what he said. Unlike, say, Kramer, whose expletive-laden nightclub outburst was dramatically more hateful and hurtful, Watson’s passing remarks matter because they pierced the unscientific narrative imposed on the scientific community, that no intelligent and qualified scientists acknowledge that race exists and matters.

During yet another failed attempt to rehabilitate his reputation earlier this month, Watson insisted that he’s “not racist in a conventional way“. We all know what he was trying to say, essentially that he’s “not a hater”, that he has no ill will toward non-whites and strives to behave equitably. He is a classic and type-true case of a specifically “academic” variety of racialism. His is neither atavistic, that is to say instinctive or emotionally-charged. Nor is it altruistic, as he has no loyalty to his ethnic or racial identity.

Atavistic Racism

This is commonly understood to be the “bad” type, and it’s the type you’re being accused of when you’re being accused or racism. It’s the type that’s lampooned in comedy and gut-wrenchingly portrayed by directors hoping for an Oscar nomination. With some possible autism spectrum exceptions, everybody’s a little bit racist. We humans tend to project certain assumptions onto people based on how they look, and we would continue doing it even if a good share of the stereotypes and assumptions we carry weren’t based on truth.

Even Jesse Jackson admits that having a black guy following him down the sidewalk is more unnerving than having a white woman following him down the sidewalk. Some starry-eyed neo-Marxist ideologues would like to live in a world where our atavistic responses to racial and sexual differences were “social constructs” which could be eventually “deconstructed”, but the best we can actually hope for is to maturely and respectfully deal with our human nature as individuals and as groups rather than indulging in denial or wishful thinking.

While we’re just about all atavistic racists, including every last one of our “anti-racist” commenters, some have it more than others and some deal with it more gracefully than others. While I can spout off the latest genetic research on human biodiversity from memory and have made a life’s calling out of advocacy for “my people”, I’m actually less racist in this sense than most. I’ve always been fascinated by other cultures, have always enjoyed engaging with a wide range of people from a wide range of backgrounds, and I was stunned and confused by a recent study confirming that three quarters of White Americans have no non-white friends. I, Matt Parrott, have several non-white friends, despite being Matt Parrott, even after they’ve all googled ‘Matt Parrott’.

I believe that befriending and behaving respectfully and equitably toward “the other” is perfectly compatible with both academic racialism and altruistic identitarianism. In my years in White Nationalism, I’ve noticed that there’s a relatively even, if rarely acknowledged or discussed, divide on this topic, with about half of White Advocates pretending that they’re not conventional bigots as an “angle” and the other half pretending that the conventional bigots among us don’t exist.

While it’s healthy and natural to feel more comfortable and warm with one’s own than with one who doesn’t share our identity and culture, hateful and hurtful expressions of atavistic racism are repellent to our better instincts, they make enemies where we need to be making allies, and (of course) they play into our opponents’ worst stereotypes about our motives and goals.

Academic Racism
Academic Racism

Academic Racism

What many people don’t get about academic racism is that it can exist entirely independently of atavistic or altruistic racism. In fact, many of the more prominent academic racialists are in mixed-race marriages. William Saletan, Slate’s science and bioethics correspondent, famously attempted to reconcile his liberal Jewish worldview with his knowledge of human biodiversity. He was forced to offer an involuntary and unconvincing apology shortly after his foolhardy attempt at honesty in science journalism, but well-presented truths ring louder than the most shrill apologies, as Dr. Watson can attest.

Facts exist independently of politics, and any given set of facts can be grappled with in any number of ways by folks of differing political persuasions. The only real problem comes when political acts are predicated on falsehoods. For example, falsely presuming that Blacks have the same aptitude for engineering as Asians could result in a futile search for invisible obstacles and secret privileges causing the disparity. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, though. I, for example, favor American universities setting aside more engineering seats for Black Americans than for Asian students studying abroad, because I believe investing in the education of American citizens should take priority over investing in the education of foreign nationals.

There’s an implied assumption, a false one which is too frequently perpetuated by academic racialists themselves, that meritocracy is a virtue and that the scientific facts imply that behaving meritocratically is socially and economically advantageous. Meritocracy exists in opposition to loyalty. The two are incompatible, and loyalty eventually wins, as a simple matter of game theory. The success of Jews in our Ivy League institutions is one such example of how this process plays out in real life: White Christian academic institutions embraced meritocratic principles in the 20th Century, allowing a wave of genuinely gifted and motivated Jews to rise to prominence. Once in prominent positions, Jewish academicians wielded their power to loyally favor their own, so acutely that the typical Ivy League Jew is now less talented than the typical Ivy League White Christian.

For too many, academic racialism ultimately amounts to a sort of rhetorical citadel we identitarians wall ourselves off in because the facts are so clearly and vividly on our side. After over a century of psychometric research, spanning every continent and identity on the Earth, accounting for every last possible hypothetical challenge, racial differences in intelligence have persisted as one of the few ironclad things to hang one’s hat on in the typically murky and fad-prone field of psychology. For every possible objection to the presented facts, we have a conclusive response.
The science is in, and there’s more going on than the color of skin.

And, yet, we do ourselves a disservice by holing ourselves up in this bunker, regardless of how well-fortified it may be. Because, ultimately, quantifying and clarifying the differences between the races isn’t what we’re about. Even if my people were the least intelligent, had the shortest average gestational period, and produced the ugliest babies, …they’re still my people.

When we argue for separate communities and self-determination on factoids, insisting that we should be separate from Black Americans because they tend to commit dramatically more violent crime, we’re making an implicitly supremacist argument where supremacy and inferiority are beside the point. After all, should we follow from that logic that our own people are inferior to East Asians because our own people tend to commit dramatically more violent crime than they do? We have a right to exist in our own communities granted by God and nature, and have no more need to explain ourselves than a family has to explain locking its doors at night.

Altruistic Racism
Altruistic Racism

Altruistic Racism

The term “racism” is a bit of a misnomer, here. As a more accurate term for the locus of altruism would be either a “tribe”, an ethnic group, or an extended family. Altruistic Racism is the proposition that biological identity is a factor (not the factor) in defining one’s identity and community. It’s distinct from atavistic racism in that it’s abstract rather than instinctive, and that it’s pro-active rather than reactive. It’s the conscious and willful decision to love, support, and uplift the kinfolk who share your values and vision for the future, and only those kinfolk who share your values and vision for the future.

It entails loving the kinfolk who are at the left tail of the bell curve in terms of intelligence and achievement. It entails planting seeds to create shade you’ll never enjoy for distant cousins you’ll never meet. It entails discarding our contemporary individualism in favor of conceiving of oneself not as a discrete and complete self-contained atomic unit of identity, but as one strand of fabric in an inter-generational quilt of human experience which transcends time, space, social class, and subculture.

It’s the type of “racism” that we need more of, because it’s the constructive kind that brings people together and pulls people toward developing solutions and firm goals rather than toward accusations and arguments. It’s about simple and wholesome loyalty, and that’s bigger than all the physiological responses and facts and figures combined. It’s something Black Americans, Jews, Latin American immigrants, and pretty much everybody save for we White folks already take for granted. Without it, our people will eventually be lost to history, and with it will be lost our unique signature expression of life, our artistic expression, our pursuit of knowledge and discovery, and our experience of our faiths.

Dave Whelan in the Cross-Hairs: Accused of 'Anti-Semitism' and 'Racism'

via Western Spring

Dave Whelan is a former professional soccer player with Blackburn Rovers and Crewe Alexandra football clubs who was forced to give up his playing career through injury. He is something of a legend however having built up a multi-million pound sports business empire and now owns Wigan Athletic football club. He is the former owner of JJB Sports and the current owner of the DW Stadium where Wigan Athletic and Wigan Warriors RLFC play and is reputedly worth more than David Beckham.

He is therefore a man of renown who has proved himself as a ‘go-getter’ in whatever field of endeavour he turns his hand, and at the age of seventy-eight, someone whose lifetime achievements are such that any reasonable person might be prepared to overlook any small personal eccentricity or foible that might come to light during a moment of unguarded conversation. Yet despite this, Dave Whelan has surprisingly become embroiled in a very public ‘hoo-hah’ that finds him standing in the cross-hairs of organised Jewry, who are clearly ‘out for blood’. 

In recent months Jewish groups have become increasingly aware that the harsh military reprisals by the Israelis against the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza, and the willingness of diaspora Jews to turn a blind eye to these while constantly reminding everyone, at every opportunity about the atrocities they suffered during World War Two, have given rise to a public awareness of the hypocrisy of this situation and a degree of resentment towards Jews generally amongst sections of the public sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Groups representing organised Jewry, such as the Community Security Trust (CST), have for years now been collecting and recording details of every incident that could possibly be construed as an expression of anti-Jewish beliefs or attitudes and they routinely present these to the police and to establishment politicians as ‘evidence’ of the need to impose, maintain and strengthen our already Draconian ‘hate speech’ legislation. Naturally therefore, sensing a rising tide of public disquiet regarding the behaviour of the Israeli military – the raining down of phosphorous bombs upon defenceless Palestinian women and children — the CST and other organs of organised Jewry are currently engaged in a campaign to remind the public that while all forms of racism are of course equally evil, ‘anti-Semitism’ is the most heinous form of racism, more evil than any other, and should not be tolerated even in our most private thoughts.

This is where Dave Whelan comes in. His involvement in this affair started last month when he appointed former Cardiff City Football Club boss, Malky Mackay, as Wigan Athletic’s new manager.

At the time Mackay was still being investigated by the Football Association over claims he sent private text messages on his mobile phone, of a homophobic, racist and sexist nature while at Cardiff.

According to newspaper reports, Malky Mackay had been reported to the Football Association after a number of allegedly racist and homophobic text messages were found by police. The messages were recovered by the police after a raid on the home of Crystal Palace’s former director of football, Ian Moody, in connection with an investigation into suspected illegalities surrounding player transfers.

Referring to Jewish football agent Phil Smith, a text from Mackay’s phone apparently said: “Go on fat Phil. Nothing like a Jew that sees money slipping through his fingers”.
Mackay is also thought to have referred to Israeli club, Maccabi Tel Aviv as simply “the Jews” and has also been accused of describing in another text, Cardiff City FC owner, the Malaysian Vincent Tan, as a ‘Chink’.

It doesn’t appear as though Malky Mackay is to be prosecuted by the police for incitement to racial hatred however, the remarks made cannot therefore have been regarded by the Crown prosecution Service as sufficient to secure a criminal conviction. It appears however, that the police subsequently took it upon themselves to report the content of Mackay’s private text messages to Cardiff City Football Club, who then passed the details on to the Football Association, and along the way, someone leaked them into the public domain so that a civil action could be taken against Mackay for allegedly ‘bringing the game of football into disrepute’.

It is worth noting here, that had the content of the text messages not been leaked into the public domain, then irrespective of their alleged content, they could not have brought the game into disrepute. They were private remarks between two friends and the public would have been unaware of them and clearly therefore someone has been instrumental in creating circumstances deliberately contrived to produce a public row over the issue of alleged racism, and not just mere ‘common or garden’ racism, but anti-Semitism, its most ‘heinous’ and ‘unforgivable’ form.

Just who might be responsible for this we cannot say, but it is useful in these situations to apply the principle of ‘Cui bono?’ — literally, ‘who benefits’, from this situation?

As a consequence of the action by the Football Association against Malky Mackay, pressure was then brought to bear upon Dave Whelan, urging him not to consider Mackay for the position of manager of Wigan Athletic. It was at this point that Dave Whelan is alleged to have made further ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ comments of his own, and this was the moment the cross-hairs move from Malky Mackay, to the much bigger target and one that would attract far more publicity for someone’s campaign to draw public attention to the insidious threat of bourgeoning ‘anti-Semitism’.

Initially, on Wigan Athletic’s club website, Dave Whelan stated referring to his intended appointment of Malky Mackay, “”I know that this appointment will draw criticism in some quarters but we go into it with our eyes open and we have nothing to hide on this subject.

“Malky made a mistake, he knows that, we know that and we have discussed this issue at length face to face.

“He apologised publicly for what happened at the time and has paid for what he did, in terms of the bad publicity he has received since and will no doubt continue to suffer in the future.

“But I believe that it is now time to move on.

“Contrary to the way he has been portrayed in recent months, the Malky Mackay I met this week, and who has been vouched for by the many different people from whom we have sought advice before making this appointment, is an honourable man.”

Whelan continued: “He is a committed family man with decent values and is a professional who has worked and thrived for over 20 years in the multi-cultural world of modern football.

“There is nothing more to say about this subject. As far as I am concerned, we draw a line under it from today.”

These remarks by Dave Whelan are obviously the words of a man who is taking a broad view of an unfortunate situation in which a hitherto accomplished football manager and colleague, with a distinguished career both as a player and a manager behind him, has been embarrassed by the revelation in public of remarks that should have remained private. Dave Whelan is renowned as a plain speaking man for whom honesty and loyalty towards his friends and colleagues is a given and he clearly spoke with good intent in an attempt to spread oil over troubled waters.

Later, however, in a further attempt to explain that no offence was intended by Malky Mackay in his comments regarding Phil Smith, Dave Whelan allowed himself to be interviewed by David Conn the well known sports reporter for the Guardian newspaper. In that interview with David Conn, who is Jewish, Dave Whelan is reported to have stated when asked whether he thought what Mackay had said was not offensive, because he believes negative stereotypes about Jews loving money: “Do you think Jewish people chase money a little bit more than we do? … I think Jewish people do chase money more than everybody else. I think they are very shrewd people … the Jews don’t like losing money. Nobody likes losing money … I don’t think that’s offensive at all.”

It would appear that Dave Whelan didn’t realise he was talking to a Jew during this interview and allegedly went on to say that he did not think there was “a lot wrong” with anything Mackay had said, and there was no malice or disrespect in the statement about Smith, adding: “It’s telling the truth. Jewish people love money, English people love money; we all love money.”

Dave Whelan’s remarks reported in the Guardian newspaper were later condemned by Simon Johnson, a former Football Association and Premier League executive who also happens to be Jewish and is the chief executive at the Jewish Leadership Council.

“Unfortunately Mr Mackay and now Mr Whelan have referred to some of the worst old-fashioned tropes which have been used in the past as the basis of antisemitism and stereotyping of Jewish people,” he said. “Mackay used offensive language to insult a fellow participant in football using a tawdry racial stereotype.”

Consequently, the reporting of Dave Whelan’s remarks made in defence of Malky Mackay, have now resulted in an announcement by the Football Association that they intend to level charges against Dave Whelan too, for also bringing the game of football into disrepute.

Unwisely, Dave Whelan has subsequently allowed himself to be interviewed by the BBC’s David Ornstein, who would also appear to be Jewish, and in that interview Whelan attempts to apologise for any offence caused by his remarks defending Malky Mackay, but Ornstein prolongs the interview, interpreting everything that Whelan says in such a way that Whelan is induced to apologise repeatedly and in an increasingly profuse and imploring manner. The full text of this interview can be found on the BBC website.

When one considers that the allegedly offensive words used by both Malky Mackay and Dave Whelan are rather mild, falling well short of what might be regarded as either insulting or an incitement to racial hatred, one might have assumed that Jewish commentators and Jewish spokespeople would have regarded both Mackay’s and Whelan’s profuse apologies as more than enough redress for any affront to their feelings, but no!

Despite all the apologies it is becoming increasingly apparent that organised Jewry and others are looking to ‘take a scalp’, if not two, and a chorus of Jewish spokespeople, and Jewish individuals have been encouraged or induced to line-up to take ‘pot shots’ at Dave Whelan over an issue that ostensibly is really not a big deal, and which should never have been made public.

Anti-racism campaign group ‘Kick It Out’ has questioned whether Whelan is a “fit and proper person” to run a football club, stating: “The remarks act as another example of the culture which continues to exist within football and further proves that some in positions of power seem comfortable sharing those views either privately or publicly. These comments must not go unchallenged and have to be investigated by the Football Association.”

West Ham Football Club owner David Gold, who is Jewish, has been quoted in the press complaining about the remarks made. He apparently said he has known Mr Whelan for several years and was “saddened” by his remarks. “I’m struggling to accept it and there it is in black and white. It’s undeniable”.

Labour MP Ivan Lewis, who is Jewish, and also the ex-chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation, has also called for the Football Association to take the “toughest possible action” against the ‘Latics’ chairman. He told the BBC: “What we discovered yesterday was that Dave Whelan shares Malky Mackay’s abhorrent anti-Semitic and racist views. In my view, the FA has to now take the toughest possible action against Dave Whelan.”

The Jewish ‘Community Security Trust’ (CST) has accused Dave Whelan of reflecting “the persistence of dinosaur attitudes in football”. They said the remarks had showed that further efforts must be made to combat racism in the sport.

A CST spokesman said: “Dave Whelan’s comments invoked anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money and his apology suggests that he still doesn’t understand why his comments were offensive.

“It is an indication of how widespread such outdated attitudes still are within football, and how much work needs to be done to eradicate this way of thinking.”

The Board of Deputies of British Jews vice-chairman, Jonathan Arkush, said Mr Whelan had brought the game into disrepute with “outrageous and offensive” comments. “You cannot insult a whole group of people, and then say, ‘I would never insult them’, and hope that’s ok”. Furthermore, the Jewish Chronicle newspaper has revealed they have conducted widespread telephoning of Jews in the Manchester and Wigan area in order to discuss this issue.

The Football Association has now charged Dave Whelan with breaching its rules on racism and an investigation is under way. The FA’s governance division has written to the former footballer turned businessman. In a statement the FA said: “We take all forms of discrimination seriously. As with all such cases, this will be dealt with as a priority”.

The FA have charged Dave Whelan with an aggravated breach of its rule against improper conduct and bringing the game into disrepute, just one day after receiving the Wigan Athletic owner’s “observations” about his comments. Football’s governing body said it is alleged Whelan breached the relevant rule, E3(1) of the FA handbook, because his comments were “abusive and/or insulting and/or constitute improper conduct and/or bring the game into disrepute”.

The charge alleges this breach was “aggravated”, according to the FA’s rule E3(2), because “it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or nationality and/or religion or belief”.

In a television interview Dave Whelan has stated he will quit if he was found guilty of racism.

He said: “Should they even suggest I’m guilty I would immediately resign from my position as chairman of Wigan Athletic. I hope they don’t and I don’t see anything like that happening because I’m absolutely anti-racist, always have been, always will be.”
Dave Whelan is of course what most reasonable people would describe as ‘a plain speaking northerner’, and in his interview with David Ornstein attempts to explain that all nationalities are given ‘nick names’ and have stereotypical qualities attributed to them as part of everyday ‘banter’ and without any malice intended.

Jews are often portrayed stereotypically as ‘tight-fisted’, ‘lacking generosity’ and ‘pre-occupied with money matters’, in much the same way that such qualities are also light-heartedly attributed to the Scots.

In this respect I am reminded of a long running marketing campaign by one of my former employers, the Scottish Provident Life Assurance Society, who for many years sponsored a regular and very successful cartoon strip in the prestigious financial magazine ‘Money Management’, featuring the humorous antics of caricatured cartoon characters who were portrayed as ‘canny Scots’, careful with their money. The cartoon strip was published under the title, ‘Clan McCanny Chronicles’. This was an example of Scots using an unfortunate national stereotype in a positive way, and with humour, turning it to their advantage.

One might say that this is an example that Jews could learn a lot from, except that such an assertion makes the naive assumption that the campaign against Dave Whelan and Malky Mackay really is merely a spontaneous attempt by an array of Jewish individuals to combat anti-Jewish hatred, rather than a thinly veiled attempt by Jewish supremacists, influential within organised Jewry, to use trumped up charges as a means of intimidating those who might be inclined to criticise Jews generally or for their often unquestioning support for Israel and the Israeli military.

The former assumption of course requires one to believe that an assertion that ‘Jews are more concerned with money matters than non-Jews’, or equating the term ‘Chink’, when used in connection with an Oriental person, with terms such as ‘Brit’ or ‘Limey’ when used in connection with a Briton, are manifestations of racial hatred, so serious they warrant destroying the careers of two distinguished sporting personalities.

Not all of the Jewish individuals mentioned in this article will of course be a party to the machinations of Jewish supremacists, some will themselves be dupes of the hype, but there is clearly an orchestrated campaign against Dave Whelan and Malky Mackay which reflects badly upon organised Jewry as a whole and which is attempting to instil within the public, fear of Jewish influence as a means of indirectly suppressing criticism of Jews and Israel.

I very much hope that Dave Whelan sticks to his guns and refuses to resign irrespective of what the Football Association may decide. The words he and Malky Mackay have used regarding Jews and Vincent Tan are not complementary, they are less than flattering, but they are not evidence of racial hatred, nor indeed would they qualify as insulting. Other than the few unflattering words reported, the careers of both Dave Whelan and Malky Mackay have been exemplary and provide no evidence that either man has ever acted malevolently towards people of a different race and it is unacceptable that they should be pilloried in the press in the way they have and that they should face the kind of charges levelled at them by the Football Association.

One thing is for sure, if these two men are forced to resign their positions over a matter so trivial, this affair will have entirely the opposite effect intended by those who ostensibly claim to be campaigning against anti-Semitism. It will be seen as an entirely unwarranted, spiteful and needlessly gratuitous display of Jewish power, and while it may make people more careful about what they say in public, it will serve to provoke strong private feelings of antipathy towards Jews.

If Jewish groups sincerely wish to make Jews more popular, the way to do this is for Jews to stop doing the things that make Jews unpopular and to use their influence for the benefit of the host community among whom they live. For individual Jews this is not such a major issue, but for Jewish organisations that owe their very existence to the perpetuation of a separate Jewish identity and the perpetuation of a minority culture built upon a strong in-group/out-group mentality towards others, such a proposition is of course, highly problematic.

In any event, it is unacceptable that minority groups should be able to target and for their own ends, publicly pillory through the media, distinguished sporting and business personalities in the way that Dave Whelan and Malky Mackay have been pilloried in recent weeks. A culture of tyranny has been created by the race relations  industry which now bears down upon our people and under which even the most private of conversations are not safe from inquisitors who seek to persecute anyone who holds views deemed politically incorrect. This is an intolerable situation and it must end!

HITLER'S TABLE TALK Study Hour, Episode 38

via Carolyn Yeager

Fight for Fuhrer and Folk
Ray Goodwin and Carolyn Yeager read and comment on the May 14-20, 1942 lunch and dinner table monologues by the German Leader, as taken down in shorthand by aide Henry Picker. Included in this episode:
  • The importance to the rise of National-Socialism of having its own national press;
  • The people want a leader - leadership is a masculine trait;
  • Lax patriotic standards during the First World War and the issue of handing out decorations to both Germans and foreigners;
  • Danger of arming small nations, and the faults of diplomats;
  • Usefulness of Japanese alliance and necessity of swift decisions toward Russia;
  • Why National-Socialism is not for export and the special qualities of and decorations for the German worker;
  • The new Man and the accomplishments of the National-Socialist revolution (this is some very inspiring prose);
  • Good relations with the Czechs.
The edition of Hitler's Table Talk being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.

MSM Shift Focus from Michael Brown to Eric Garner to Continue Stirring-Up Hatred against White America

via Daily Slave

I think it is safe to say that the Jew media made a big mistake in trying to use Michael Brown as some sort of civil rights icon.  They tried to sell him as a gentle giant when all the evidence indicated that he was anything but.  Darren Wilson the police officer who shot Brown came off as someone who was telling the truth about the circumstances that led to the shooting.  Conflicting witness testimony didn’t help their cause nor did Brown’s robbery of a convenient store right before the shooting.

As a result of this failure, the Jew media has turned their attention to the case of Eric Garner a large Black man who died after being choked by a New York City police officer several months ago. This particular incident was caught on video showing the police confronting Garner over illegal cigarette sales with one officer jumping on him and choking him from behind while others piled on top of him. A few seconds after this happens he pleads with the officers telling them he couldn’t breathe.  He eventually passed out and died.  His death was ruled a homicide.

Yesterday, a grand jury declined to indict the officer who put the choke hold on Garner.  Judging from the video, it is bizarre that they chose not to indict the officer.  I don’t think he should have been charged with murder, but an involuntarily manslaughter charge may have been appropriate.  The officer’s actions seem to have been excessive considering the situation.  Others might disagree, but a jury trial would have probably been the right course of action here.

Due to the fact that the police officer who choked Garner was White, we now see the Jew media pushing this story as a way to keep stirring up the Blacks and Marxists.  In this case, I can see why people would not be happy with the actions of the police.  Even though this negro was a bit combative, he wasn’t lashing out in violence and certainly didn’t need to die over black market cigarette sales.  Unfortunately, we see that the Jew media is amplifying the importance of this story and it is not because they care about this dead negro.

It is obvious that the Jew media is only pushing this because the victim was Black and the alleged bad guy was White.  We don’t see the Jew media spending hours upon hours of media coverage on the various cases of Blacks murdering or attacking Whites.  A White man in St. Louis was just beaten to death with a hammer by a gang of negro monkeys and we don’t see mass outrage in the media do we?  In fact, when was the last time we saw any sort of mass outrage in the national media about a White man getting killed?

This once again shows the insane double standard of the Jew media.  They only excessively cover these specific cases just so they can stir up the Black population against Whites.  It is utterly ridiculous and it shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt the Jew media is.  Jews should be banned from owning or operating any type of media enterprise in America considering their horrendous track record of pushing dubious agendas and lies.

Nothing Will Satisfy the Pampered, Privileged Black Underclass

via Incog Man

Angry Negrotude once again descends upon America. “Reverend” Al Sharpton, sometime anchor on MSNBC (when his race hucksterism work allows) and Anthony Gray (one of several attorneys glommed on to the Brown family for buckage); ranting yesterday on live TV “news” about the Ferguson Grand Jury’s decision. Sharpton owes about 4.7 million in back taxes yet drives a Rolls Royce Phantom — the planet’s most expensive production automobile. These kind of slimeballs and PC apparatchiks now richly thrive in today’s Jewed America.

Face facts, White people: Nothing will ever satisfy the black race. NOT A GD THING. Well, maybe them totally ruling the roost and owning us Whites outright as slaves, perhaps.

Now I watched the news conference the night before last when district attorney Robert McCulloch, read a long statement outlining the absolutely huge efforts they made to present all the evidence to the Grand Jury. The man was totally fair-minded, logical and articulated the case for the decision persuasively. You could readily see that. That is, of course, if you have any brains.

Yet the very next day (even after all the burning and looting), blacks were everywhere in the liberal media vehemently attacking the guy. Why? Because he’s White, that’s why. Same thing with the governor. This clearly demonstrates what huge racists blacks are. You can see the media and blacks tip-toeing around that fact all the time. Plus, media mavens were pissed because McCulloch gave them a hard time for using the case to fill the “24 hour news cycle.” He was absolutely right, too.

Just stop and think for a moment: The two cases they made a big stink about, Trayvon Martin and this ridiculous Michael Brown bull crap, clearly shows the idiocy of blacks. Neither so-called “victim of racism” deserved the time of day. In fact, we can be reasonably certain both gangsta boys would have eventually committed a crime, probably against another homie (93% of all murders of blacks are committed by other blacks, most of the rest are by criminal Mestizos).

Michael Brown’s stepdad, pants hanging low, exposing his underwear, excitedly screaming “BURN THIS BITCH DOWN” after the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson. And it looks like his homies sure were listening, too. Brown’s mother had just finished her crying on cue, while mouthing the black’s favorite line of BS: “I ain’t done nuttin’ to nobody and anybody who says so is a liar.”

Even the DA releasing all of the information put before the Grand Jury — all of the physical evidence, three different autopsies (one by famous pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, for chrissakes) and thousands of pages of transcribed testimony still failed to satisfy the spoiled blacks and stinking GD liberals.

What more, I ask you, can anyone do?

And WHITE officer, Darren Wilson’s description of what happened matched the physical evidence perfectly. Plus, Wilson seems genuinely to be a pretty nice, level-headed guy.

Why don’t they believe him? Because he’s White, that’s why. Isn’t that what they call racism?

Well, let me just say this: Even if you had a bird’s eye view of exactly what happened, that would not satisfy these punks. They really don’t care. Not only that, the corporate Jew News, obviously doesn’t care either. They just want to continue the blackness BS on all us “evil White racists” out here to drive us insane. It’s never-ending.

Blacks kill White people all the time, like Brandon Howell, who back in September beat an elderly White couple in their Kansas City home (both died in the hospital); then went outside to brutally shotgun to death 3 more elderly Whites. Imagine if the races were reversed?

Sure, I’m a big pro-White guy and all. But even so, you can easily see what a lousy race blacks are. Asians really can’t stand them, either. Hell, even a lot of blacks think other blacks suck. That’s where they try to differentiate between being simply black and being just another “Nigger.” Let me tell you ALL blacks are merely one step away from utter Negrodom sooner or later.

The Pugh center released a report not too long ago showing 1 out of every 3 black males out there has been, is currently or will do prison time at least once in their lives. That’s why liberals make such a big deal about felons getting the right to vote once again. They need that voting block for the democraps so they can continue turning America into a racial pigsty.

These brainwashed liberals hate us awakened Whites. They can’t even allow the use of the word “demon,” like when Wilson described the face of Michael Brown attacking him. Stupid liberals actually said that meant Wilson was racist, like the site OPEN MIC, where they link to a crime story I had here, calling me a “White supremacist.” They don’t care one iota about the White victim I wrote about — only little old me using a word describing how blacks behave.

A regular INCOG MAN reader who calls herself, “LaydeeLiberty,” commented here with a very pertinent fact. She noted how Whites didn’t go haywire, burning down businesses and looting after OJ Simpson walked, now did they? OJ was clearly guilty, yet blacks celebrated uproariously because they got one over on us Whiteys, caring nothing about the victims and their families.

I am so sick and tired of this hypocrite black victimhood crap going on and on and on and on — I can’t tell you. Especially when I also have to see them turned into the Heroes of the Ages in movies and TV all the damn time.

Blacks are seriously sadistic, who enjoy inflicting pain, like when a black woman in Houston, Texas, killed 12 year-old Jonathan Foster by using a 6,000 degree welding blowtorch. And she did it on friggin’ Christmas eve (2010).

These criminal blacks are constantly killing themselves and us White people every minute, of every GD day. Blacks suck hugely. Big effin’ time. Spoiled, militant, criminal, sadistic, whiny, nervy, lazy, smelly, loud and demanding. Cripes, they are like this everywhere. I see them acting up on the streets, in stores, restaurants, businesses all the time over the least nonsense. They think the entire damn world “owes them’ because of slavery or some such BS.

Blacks of all kinds think us evil Whiteys are secretly “racist” and hate them merely because of their skin color — it makes ZERO difference whatever we do, say or don’t say for these spoiled rotten brats. Like I’ve said here a million time before: The punks need to be dealt with severely. Lethal force, if necessary.

They need to know we’re sick and tired of the bull.

Let me state another pertinent fact: Blacks have never had it so good as they do in America. Just think about the way blacks live in Africa, for crying out loud. A black friend of my father’s once took a trip to Africa and when he returned, expressly told my dad he now thanked God for slavery. No BS. I was there when he said it.

But that’s not enough for them, apparently. Instead of working hard and trying to advance themselves on an individual level, they want it and they WANT IT ALL NOW.

David James INSET
David James shot dead during an argument in a city park. These kinds of violent altercations with random blacks actually happen all the time.

Actually, I think a lot of what’s going down these days is due to spoiled blacks disappointed that Obama’s election didn’t turn each of them into instant millionaires overnight.

Let me reiterate: Backs are inherently violent and brutal criminals. Not only do they look for the quick fix money-wise, but are hot-headed nutcases. They’ll stab you or shoot you dead in a heartbeat over the most ridiculous thing, like the White Air Force veteran on the right shot dead as a doornail by a 69 year-old black, Trevor Dooley. The silverback was angry about a 14 year-old kid skateboarding, while David James was playing basketball with his daughter nearby. She had to watch her father die.
The black race has gone clearly off the rails.

And it will only get worse and worse, because it’s just like the deal with spoiled children — trying to placate the brats only increases their internal resentments until they one day lash out at you with possibly deadly force. This behavior is not at all limited to blacks in mob situations (although black gatherings usually turn out bad for someone, black or White), but also on an individual basis. Innocent Whites are literally in mortal danger from these psycho apes everywhere they go, even if they don’t know it.

Not only do blacks act out violently, but have a built-in propensity for degradation, moral or otherwise. Look at any city or country they control and you will get the deal. Hell, blacks in America would rather spend money on some shiny set of hub caps than renovating their property. Most blacks really don’t care about much beyond getting high, drunk or laid.

Everything you see happening today is only going to get worse and worse, until this nation goes completely haywire and convulses in death and destruction. Maybe that’s the idea, huh?

Yep, America’s black BS quotient has now gone off the richter scale.

[Forgive me a minute for a little grand standing: My original speculations here on my site about what happened to officer Wilson on that day were amazingly accurate. Plus, I completely scooped multimillion dollar websites and corporate Jew News with my release on the Internet of the Grand Jury’s final decision at 8:37PM EST — almost an hour before the DA made it official and at least 6-10 minutes before NYT and USA Today reported Wilson’s lawyers said he did not have to turn himself in, probably meaning he was not to be indicted. I nailed it. Thanks to INCOG pal
REDACTEDand all those who support my writings and photoshop illustration work here. You know who you are.]

The New Reality Based Community

via Radix Journal

Hegel explained Napoleon. Marx interpreted the Eighteenth Brumaire. And Karl Rove gives us Ferguson.

During those carefree days when American arms seemed utterly triumphant in the supposed Cradle of Civilization and the Beltway Right talked giddily of a Permanent Republican Majority, Karl Rove, probably not knowing fully what he was saying, uttered the most profound statement that has ever come from a political consultant:
“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Ironically for the products of a university system marinated in relativism and post-structuralism, the American Left reacted with rage. Alongside the faded “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers on high MPG vehicles were the defiant adhesives proclaiming the owner a “Proud Member of the Reality Based Community.” Rove, if he indeed said it, supposedly had given the game away by showing that the Bush Administration was ruled by ideology and indifferent to the facts that supposedly justified the Iraq invasion. Unlike the Bushite theocrats, the American Left would be guided by facts and evidence, rejecting sensationalism and empty media slogans, and adopting an ironic and cynical posture exemplified by the likes of Jon Stewart.

Well, that didn’t last long.

All it took for dissent to transform from “patriotism” into “treason” was the election of a black President. In the age of Obama, the American media seems to have made the collective decision to simply stop reporting. Instead, the poisonous combination of a 24-hour-news cycle and the revenue-driven clickbait culture of the Internet has led to a new way of doing business.

Reporters function less as fact finders than as story-tellers. They exhibit social cues, peddle hate porn, and spell out the expected responses from their audience. If someone does not display the correct reaction, the media attacks. Rather than confronting power, journalists reinforce power and hunt down and punish dissenters from the established Narrative.

The best recent example of this is Ferguson. With the exception of the ill-considered decision by conservatives to repeat Gateway Pundit’s claim that Officer Darren Wilson suffered an “orbital fracture,” the American Right was spectacularly vindicated by the grand jury. Almost everything leftists said about the Michael Brown case, including the claim that he had his “hands up,” was a lie. Yet far from being embarrassed, the media is actually raising the stakes and talking up legal changes that would make it easier to indict people like Darren Wilson.

As this is written, another “Dindu Nuffin” case is being promoted around one Eric Garner in New York City. While the death of Eric Garner seems far less justified than the shooting of “Gentle Giant” and attempted cop-killer Michael Brown, even in Garner’s case it’s not the “execution” that the media seems determined to promote.
Garner did not die of asphyxiation or a supposed “chokehold.” The NYPD officers involved were not charged because the evidence did not exist to charge them. And engaging in constant criminality and resisting arrest, as blacks are wont to do, leads to continual confrontations with police. These kinds of situations are going to occur fairly consistently as long as many young African-American males consciously choose to behave as criminals and turn their “communities” into low level war zones.

Nonetheless, there are now threats of “race war” by black guests on CNN and Louis Farrakhan at massive rallies at American universities. Apparently, even though we’re overlooking Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty so we can talk about Michael Brown and Eric Garner all day, we’re still apparently “ignoring” black deaths at the hands of White policemen. It goes without saying that to mention the far more numerous and far less justified White deaths at the hands of black criminals… er, “youths,” is to confess oneself a bigot. The correct way to interpret black and White crime is to chalk it up to chance, being in the “wrong place at the wrong time,” namely, America in 2014. Being beaten to death with a hammer by a pack of Negroes screaming “Kill the White People” is an accident, like being hit by lightning.

We should not overlook the other media campaign taking place right now--the supposed “UVA rape” story featured in Establishment mainstay Rolling Stone. It has already resulted in attacks on the fraternity where the rape supposedly took place, the supposedly temporary suspension of Greek life at the University of Virginia, and of course, demands for more “anti-rape” and pro-feminist programming at American universities.

As universities have already all but abolished the presumption of innocence when it comes to rape and enthusiastically fund and pamper every feminist group that could possibly exist, it’s unclear how else to interpret this campaign except as a ploy for simply more money. It already seems redundant and unnecessary to note that this “rape” almost certainly didn’t happen, and the inevitable pushback is already appearing even in the likes of Reason magazine and the Washington Post.

But what difference does it make? Steve Sailer notes that the UVA “rape” story owes more to fictional hate porn (is there any other kind?) like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo than anything occurring in the real world. Yet he errs when he writes:
Numerous identity politics uproars, such as Ferguson, Trayvon, and Duke Lacrosse, have turned out to be humiliating fiascos for the national press when all the facts are finally toted up. Note that these were the mainstream media’s wars of choice, battlegrounds chosen to teach the public lessons.
Says who? Sure, on lonely corners of the Internet you can find out the truth about Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, and the Duke Lacrosse story, but those facts are discredited because they are being reported by conservative or “racist” sites.
  • Ferguson is already being used successfully to implement policy changes and empower protests nationwide. Officer Darren Wilson has resigned from his job. The New York Times published his address right after he married. Sites like “Getting Racists Fired” are hunting down those who criticize the riots. Hollywood will soon memorialize the story of the “Gentle Giant.” On balance, Ferguson has strengthened the Left, not weakened it. The end result is a net transfer of resources to the Left.
  • George Zimmerman will live in fear and disgrace for the rest of his life, despite doing everything someone is “supposed” to do. Trayvon Martin will be remembered as a civil rights hero: Colleges around the country are already feeding their students the party line, and Martin’s death is used as a rationale to take away Americans’ right to self-defense. As intended, the case taught White Americans not to interfere with black criminality in their neighborhood and the media didn’t back down in the slightest.
  • As for the Duke Lacrosse case, the prosecutor did actually meet with professional disgrace. However, the case did nothing to discourage the climate of hysterical feminism and rape accusations on campus, as we see with the current situation at UVA. The accuser in the case, Crystal Mangum, actually went on to be a campus speaker at the University of North Carolina and was given a respectful reception. It should be noted that the University of North Carolina is the same university that greeted Congressman Tom Tancredo with brick-throwing protests by a far Left organization, leading to the arrest of a leftist caricature. Students for a Democratic Society member, child of privilege, and “Morehead-Cain scholar” Haley Koch is now trying to rustle our jimmies as an “anti-assimilationist,” BDSM porn star named “Chloe Camilla.” (Edgy.) Mangum’s future career was similarly predictable – she went on to be convicted of second degree murder for stabbing and killing her boyfriend, though you can help her by buying her awesomely titled book “Last Dance for Grace.” Incidentally, Cosmopolitan is still telling your next one night stand what to think about all this by running cheerleading interviews with her from her jail cell. (She didn’t do nothing.)
In every one of these cases, events have played out in a way that would appear ridiculous and exaggerated if it were portrayed in a Harold Covington novel. Yet this is the world we live in, and these facts have done nothing to change the overall media Narrative of White oppression, the wild charges and groundless speculations by media figures and leftist activists, and the continual transfer of resources from European-Americans to activists, academics, and media figures who seem to derive their livelihood from feeding on their White host. In fact, each new artificial crisis strengthens the status quo, even as we inevitably find out it was based on half-truths or outright lies. They aren’t “humiliating” failures, they are successes.

Rove, if he indeed said the quote about the history making empire, was correct when he said that the hegemonic power creates its own reality. However, he misidentified the source of that power as the state. Power in the modern West is more concealed, if not more diffuse, and it lies not with the head of the state or even the army, but with those who shape consciousness and the Narrative by which people interpret events. Where the “Western” media does not hold sway, as in Russia, we find an entirely different political climate where different things are possible.

What drives those who wield this power? While the real source of dominion lies with the financiers and corporate bosses of the media conglomerates, the ideology informing the foot soldiers still has a power of its own. Mark Stern of Slate recently wrote a piece entitled, “I’m Grateful to Be Gay–Otherwise I Might Have Been a Horrible Person.” Like Patrick Bateman’s favorite musical “Oh Africa, Brave Africa,” it’s a laugh riot. Stern writes:
What if, given the privilege of heterosexuality, I turned against all the vulnerable and disadvantaged people, who, as a gay man, I inherently empathize with? As part of my job, I regularly read the writings of people in whom something has broken or withered—people who have lost the ability to see the humanity in others. I put myself in the mindset of people who dehumanize and vilify and hate. I become intimately acquainted with the twisted beliefs of those who, encountering a person they don’t quite understand, lash out with cruel loathing and immoral rage. Because I am gay, it is basically impossible for me to become one of these people. The identity—a professional minority-basher—just doesn’t fit, and besides, they wouldn’t exactly welcome me into their club.
Forget for the moment the reference to heterosexual “privilege” from someone who brags within the same column about professionally “milking” his homosexuality. (Phrasing?)

Forget the leftist confusion about whether the party line is that the “far right” is fanatically homophobic or that “fascism itself is a gay thing.” (#Slatepitch–it’s both)
And forget the glaringly obvious point that the entire humblebragging essay is simply another example of a progressive proudly proclaiming “I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup” (like those who are “broken,” “withered,” “cruel,” and “immoral.”)

Stern is signaling his participation in a caste. White identity allows you the “privilege” to mobilize against other European-Americans. Eventually, this culminates in claimed membership as either an avowed self-hating White, or, more commonly, membership in an official victim group such as women, homosexuals, noncisgenders, or whatever else. Just as prior caste systems were defined by vocation as much as race, so does the new caste system ensure that there is never a self-consciously White voice that could disturb the Narrative which justifies the status quo.

The role of Jewish privilege in all this and the Tribal motivations underlying much of this goes without saying. But ideology takes on a power of its own. And if politics has taught me anything, it’s that most functionaries and foot soldiers on all sides really do believe their own propaganda.

The result is a kind of perfect merger of identity and ideology, where ideological needs can actually transform the basic facts of someone’s biological identity. As Mark Steyn noted:
“George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of endemic White racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as a Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard.” (The Undocumented Mark Steyn, 30)
The result? Further burdens will be dumped upon those European-Americans who can’t or won’t break out of their identity as Whites. Further devastation will be wreaked on communities and individuals as the media deploys one egalitarian “teaching moment” after another. And life will be that little bit harder each and every year for Whites who want to start families, live in safe communities, and enjoy a standard of living that their parents or even grandparents could have taken for granted.

The purpose is, as Haley/Chloe might put it, “anti-assimilationist”–preventing European-Americans from identifying or organizing as European-Americans. Rather than competing for greatness, we compete for victimhood and the corporate and political sponsorship that officially designated victims are entitled to. But the media, academic, and broader political system still need White bogeymen to justify their own power. And so White consciousness will be stoked, purely as a negative, in order to perpetuate a Narrative impervious to facts and justify more self-serving policies.

Long term, this may lead to unintended consequences that could threaten the status quo. But in the short term, it will always be better for each individual to soldier on try to avoid attention–or even join the other side and individually profit from his people’s collective destruction.

The only good news is that the repression is becoming increasingly overt, as reporting is now simply name-calling more than anything else. When every Huffington Post story reads like a press release from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the President has to hold a press conference every time a black guy gets arrested, it underlies the terrible fragility of the System and the hysteria required to keep it functioning.

Furthermore, as we see in Ferguson, constantly telling non Whites they are being oppressed and murdered by Europeans can lead to outbreaks of violence and disorder that can easily slip out of control. It’s an admission of weakness to say that Identitarians must put our faith in instability rather than an existing political movement, but the good news is that the very tactics the System is using to protect itself are undermining its long-term legitimacy. Even as repression increases, they are preparing the way for us.

Unfortunately, we should have no expectations that most people are spontaneously “waking up” or see what’s happening. The depressing reality is that the last few years have shown that most people really will believe whatever they are told to believe. Only give it a few years (if that) before your typical housewife is as opposed to separate men and women’s rooms as she is to opposition to gay marriage. As John Derbyshire noted, most people really do not like dissidents and want to go along with the flow. The actual “reality based community” is always a minority.

European-Americans may adopt racial realism with startling swiftness as soon as the boot is removed and egalitarianism loses its official mandate. Yet one can’t help but mourn the utter irrelevance of truth, facts, and evidence in what passes for the public discussion and the confirmation that Freedom Failed with every new headline on Gawker. “Quid est vertias?” asks the Roman. “Check your privilege,” comes the reply.

How to not Get Shot by the Police

via Alternative Right

With the amount of police shootings liberals are complaining about these days you’d think that a black man can’t walk outside without getting brutally massacred by cop. In fact, that’s what some liberals are actually saying. But even if you’re black, it’s actually really easy not to get shot by the police. Furthermore, there are steps YOU, as a black man, can take to not only avoid getting shot by the police, but to avoid negative police interaction PERIOD!

At this point, you’re probably asking “But Bob, HOW do I not get shot by the police?” Let me start with my credentials. I have a quarter century’s experience in not getting shot by the police. For years, I’ve been able to not only avoid getting shot by police, but I’ve been able to generally avoid negative police interaction period. Now, you may be on the verge of a pavlovian response, ready to scream “WHITE PRIVILEGE” as your liberal slaveowners have told you to scream–before you do, let me tell you that yes, I did utilize White Privilege, and you can too. I’ll get to that.

Stop fucking listening to these people. They do not have your best interests at heart. We do.

First, here are a couple of steps you can take RIGHT NOW to avoid getting shot by the police.

1. Don’t shoot at cops.


Really, really common mistake. Even seasoned pros like Vonderitt Meyers are capable of making this fatal error. The reasoning behind this one is simple: if you shoot at a police officer, they are going to shoot back at you, probably killing you (they are actually trained in the use of firearms). So, if you see a police officer, don’t shoot at him, even if you did do something wrong or unlawful.

2. Don’t beat up cops.


Another all-too-common mistake. If you physically assault a cop, there is a very large chance that they will opt to use lethal force. It doesn’t matter if you’re unarmed or are carrying a knife or other weapon. If a cop feels that their life is in danger, they are going to fucking shoot you. So stop it before it starts: don’t beat up or attempt to attack an officer of a law in any context whatsoever.

3. Do what the police tell you to do.


If there is a gun sticking in your face, and a police officer is screaming at you to put your hands in the air. Actually put your hands in the air and follow all further commands. DO NOT under any circumstances reach for the gun, or airsoft pistol, sticking out of your pants. I don’t care if you’re 12 years old and it doesn’t matter if it’s a toy gun. Don’t fucking do it. Ever. It will get you shot.

4. Stop dressing like a criminal.

Seriously, clothes go a very long way. If you’re an inner city street urchin, get yourself a nice sweater vest and pants that fit. Wear them in public. Get some nice shirts that fit. DO NOT steal them. This brings me to my next point.

5. Stop acting like a criminal.

If every interaction with police involves you shifting around and constantly saying that you “Did not do anything,” you are giving off the exact OPPOSITE signals that you want to give off. Speak proper english. Go to school and do not skip classes. Do not be a huge piece of shit in class. Go get your GED if you dropped out. Get a job. Don’t point your modified airsoft gun at bypassers. Perform none of the actions seen in this video:

6. Stop actually being a criminal and encourage your buddies to do the same.

If you stop being a criminal and your friends stop being criminals and their friends stop being criminals, maybe the police in YOUR neighborhood will stop treating you like criminals. This may not work in the next neighborhood over, because after all, black people commit the most crime and murder per capita of any group in the entire country, but it could work in YOUR neighborhood!

The last three in particular are a great way to mimic a lot of the benefits of white privilege. After all, most white people aren’t criminals. Meanwhile, one in three black men are going to go to jail at some point in their life. If you want to change the way black people are viewed in America, the answer isn’t burning down your local Quiktrip on the insistence of white communist sympathizers–the answer is changing yourself.

Hopefully, this guide will help you in dealing with police officers in your neighborhood. Next time you have an interaction with one, make it a positive one, and be sure to thank them! After all, they are working really hard to clean up your crime infested inner city community.

Congress Unanimously Passes Bill Confirming American Subservience to Israel


In an open display of Jewish Supremacist power over Congress, that body has unanimously passed a bill which ties America to Israel even more closely than before, promising increased financial and military aid—even though America is technically bankrupt and unprecedented millions of Americans are on welfare.

The news that Congress unanimously passed the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, promoted by the Jewish Supremacist senator Barbara Boxer, has not surprisingly been almost completely suppressed by the Zio-media dominated media aimed at non-Jewish readers.

The Jewish press, aimed at Jewish readers, has however been cock-a-hoop at the news, and carried it prominently in all their publications in an orgy of self-congratulatory ecstasy of their power over the goyim.

The Jewish Press Updates website, for example, boasted that the:

House of Representatives passed Wednesday night legislation that reaffirms the strategic partnership between the United States of America and the State of Israel in these days of need. S. 2673, the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, which now heads to President Barack Obama’s desk, reaffirms that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States.

In March, the House passed H.R. 938, the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act with a vote of 410-1, which laid the groundwork for today’s legislation. In addition, the measure directs the president to report to Congress on coordination between the U.S. and Israel on cybersecurity. Another provision states the U.S. should institute a policy of including Israel in the visa waiver program.


“I am proud that the House and Senate spoke with one voice to pass this bill that reaffirms and strengthens the relationship between the United States and Israel,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the bill’s two original sponsors in the Senate. “I look forward to the president signing this critical legislation.”

The Times of Israel could not contain itself in boasting to its Jewish readers just how extensive the bill is:

The legislation deepens US-Israeli cooperation on defense and energy, and expresses “the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States.” In addition, it authorizes an increase of $200 million in the value of US weapons held in forward stockpiles in Israel, to a total of $1.8 billion. In the event of an emergency, Israel can access the stockpiles as long as it reimburses the US for any weapons used.

The bill also expands cooperation on research and development, business, agriculture, water management and academics.

The bill also offers a verbal guarantee of Israel maintaining a qualitative military edge over its neighbors and requires the administration to take steps toward allowing Israel to be included in the top-tier category for license-free exports of certain US defense technologies and products as well as to provide more frequent and more detailed assessments on the status of Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors.

And then, just to remind its readers of the Jewish lobby’s power over the US government, the Times of Israel added that:

Earlier this year, Congress increased US funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, to $351 million for fiscal year 2015 from $235 million the previous year.

The Times of Israel ended off by quoting the American Jewish Committee congratulating Congress for its “moral leadership” in passing the legislation, “which proponents said would create a special status for Israel.”

The move to strengthen ties between America and Israel comes only a few days after it was announced that the leadership of the Jews-only state had lied to America over the Pollard affair.

In addition, the lengthy record of Zio-treason against America, dating from the time of the Lavon Affair, the attack on the USS Liberty and countless other acts of betrayal, all make the unanimous passing of the new bill even more outrageous than would otherwise be the case—and serve as conclusive proof of the power of the Jewish Lobby over the American government.

Trotskyism, Neo-Conservatism, & the Straussian Conquest of the Conservative Movement

via Counter-Currents

Grant Havers
Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique
Northern Illinois University Press, 2013

A main pillar sustaining the practice of mass immigration is that Western nations are inherently characterized by a “civic” form of national membership. Western nations express the “natural” wishes of “man as man” for equal rights, rule of law, freedom of expression, and private property. Mainstream leftists and conservatives alike insist on the historical genuineness of this civic definition. This civic identity, they tell us, is what identifies the nations of Western civilization as unique and universal all at once. Unique because they are the only nations in which the idea of citizenship has been radically separated from any ethnic and religious background; and universal because these civic values are self-evident truths all humans want whenever they are given the opportunity to choose.

To include the criteria of ethnicity or religious ancestry in the concept of Western citizenship is manifestly illiberal. Even more, it is now taken for granted that if Western nations are to live up to their idea of civic citizenship they must relinquish any sense of European peoplehood and Christian ancestry. Welcoming immigrants from multiples ethnic and religious backgrounds is currently seen as a truer expression of the inherent character of Western nationality than remaining attached to any notion of European ethnicity and Christian historicity.

The reality that the liberal constitutions of Western nations were conceived and understood in ethnic and Christian terms (if only implicitly since the builders and founders of European nations never envisioned an age of mass migrations) has been conveniently overlooked by our mainstream elites. These elites are willfully downplaying the fact that the liberal nation states of Europe emerged within ethnolinguistic boundaries and majority identities. Those states possessing a high degree of ethnic homogeneity, where ancestors had lived for generations—England, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark—were the ones with the strongest liberal traits, constitutions, and institutions. Those states (or empires like the Austro-Hungarian Empire) composed of multiple ethnic groups were the ones enraptured by illiberal forms of ethnic nationalism and intense rivalries over identities and political boundaries. In other words, the historical record shows that a high degree of ethnic homogeneity tends to produce liberal values, whereas countries or areas with a high number of diverse ethnic groups have tended to generate ethnic tensions, conflict, and illiberal institutions. As Jerry Muller has argued in “Us and Them” (Foreign Affairs: March/April 2008), “Liberal democracy and ethnic homogeneity are not only compatible; they can be complementary.”

Mainstream leftists and conservatives have differed in the way they have gone about redefining the historical roots of Western nationalism and abolishing the ethnic identities of Western nations. Eric Hobsbawm, the highly regarded apologist of the Great Terror in the Soviet Union, persuaded most of the academic world, in his book, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (1989), that the nation states of Europe were not created by a people sharing a common historical memory, a sense of territorial belonging and habitation, similar dialects, and physical appearances; no, the nation-states of Europe were “socially constructed” entities, “invented traditions,” “imagined” by people perceiving themselves as part of a “mythological” group in an unknown past. Hobsbawm deliberately sought to discredit any sense of ethnic identity among Europeans by depicting their nation building practices as modern fairy-tales administered by capitalists and bureaucrats from above on a miscellaneous pre-modern population.

Leftists however have not been the only ones pushing for a purely civic interpretation of Western nationhood; mainstream conservatives, too, have been trying to root out Christianity and ethnicity from the historical experiences and founding principles of European nations. Their discursive strategy has not been one of dishonoring the past but of projecting backwards into European history a universal notion of Western citizenship that includes the human race. The most prominent school in the formulation of this view has come out of the writings of Leo Strauss. This is the way I read Grant Havers’s Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique (2013). In this heavily researched and always clear book, Havers goes about arguing in a calm but very effective way that Strauss was not the traditional conservative leftists have made him out to be; he was a firm believer in the principles of liberal equality and a unswerving opponent of any form of Western citizenship anchored in Christianity and ethnic identity.

Strauss’s vehement opposition to communism coupled with his enthusiastic defense of American democracy, as it stood in the 1950s, created the erroneous impression that he was a “right wing conservative.” But, as Havers explains, Strauss was no less critical of “right wing extremists” (who valued forms of citizenship tied to the nationalist customs and historical memories of a particular people) than of the New Left. Strauss believed that America was a universal nation in being founded on principles that reflected the “natural” disposition of all humans for life, liberty, and happiness. These principles were discovered first by the ancient Greeks in a philosophical and rational manner, but they were not particular to the Greeks; rather, they were “eternal truths” apprehended by Greek philosophers in their writings against tyrannical regimes. While these principles were accessible to all humans as humans, only a few great philosophers and statesmen exhibited the intellectual and personal fortitude to fully grasp and actualize these principles. Nevertheless, most humans possessed enough mental equipment as reasoning beings to recognize these principles as “rights” intrinsic to their nature, so long as they were given the chance to deliberate on “the good” life.

Havers’s “conservative critique” of Strauss consists essentially in emphasizing the uniquely Western and Christian origins of the foundational principles of Anglo-American democracy. While Havers’s traditional conservatism includes admiration for such classical liberal principles as the rule of law, constitutional government, and separation of church and state, his argument is that these liberal principles are rooted primarily in Christianity, particularly its ideal of charity. He takes for granted the reader’s familiarity with this ideal, which is unfortunate, since it is not well understood, but is generally taken to mean that Christianity encourages charitable activities, relief of poverty, and advancement of education. Havers has something more profound in mind. Christian charity from a political perspective is a state of being wherein one seeks a sympathetic understanding of ideas and beliefs that are different to one’s own. Charitable Christians seek to understand other viewpoints and are willing to engage alternative ideas and political proposals rather than oppose them without open dialogue. Havers argues that the principles of natural rights embodied in America’s founding cannot be separated from this charitable disposition; not only were the founders of America, the men who wrote the Federalist Papers, quite definite in voicing the view that they were acting as Christian believers in formulating America’s founding, they were also very critical of Greek slavery, militarism, and aristocratic license against the will of the people.

Throughout the book Havers debates the rather ahistorical way Strauss and his followers have gone about “downplaying or ignoring the role of Christianity in shaping the Anglo-American tradition” – when the historical record copiously shows that Christianity played a central role nurturing the ideals of individualism and tolerance, abolition of slavery and respect for the dignity of all humans. Havers debates and refutes the similarly perplexing ways in which Straussians have gone about highlighting the role of Greek philosophy in shaping the Anglo-American tradition – when the historical record amply shows that Greek philosophers were opponents of the natural equality of humans, defenders of slavery, proponents of a tragic view of history, the inevitability of war, and the rule of the mighty.

Havers also challenges the Straussian elevation of such figures as Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Hobbes, and Locke as proponents of an Anglo-American tradition founded on “timeless” Greek ideas. He shows that Christianity was the prevailing influence in the intellectual development and actions of all these men. Havers imparts on the readers a sense of disbelief as to how the Straussians ever managed to exert so much influence on American conservatism (to the point of transforming its original emphasis on traditions and communities into a call for the spread of universal values across the world), despite proposing views that were so blissfully indifferent to “readily available facts.”

Basically, the Straussians were not worried about historical veracity as much as they were determined to argue that Western civilization (which they identified with the Anglo-American tradition) was philosophically conceived from its beginnings as a universal civilization. In this effort, Strauss and his followers genuinely believed that American liberalism had fallen prey to the “yoke” of German historicism and relativism, infusing the American principles of natural rights with the notion that these were merely valid for a particular people rather than based on Human Reason. German historicism – the idea that each culture exhibits a particular world view and that there is no such thing as a rational faculty standing above history – led to the belittlement of the principles of natural rights by limiting them a particular time and place. Worse than this — and the modern philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, were to be blamed as well — the principles of natural rights came to be separated from the ancient Greek idea that we can rank ways of life according to their degree of excellence and elevation of the human soul. The modern philosophy of natural right merely afforded individuals the right to choose their own lifestyle without any guidance as to what is “the good life.”

Strauss believed that this relativist liberalism would not be able to withstand challenges from other philosophical outlooks and illiberal ways of life, from Communism and Fascism, for example, unless it was rationally grounded on eternal principles. He thought the ancient Greeks had understood better than anyone else that some truths are deeply grounded in the actual nature of men, not relative to a particular time and culture, but essential to what is best for “man as man.” These truths were summoned up in the modern philosophy of natural rights, though in a flawed manner. The moderns tended to appeal to the lower instincts of humans, to a society that would merely ensure security and the pursuit of pleasure, in defending their ideals of liberty and happiness. But with a proper reading of the ancient texts, and a curriculum based on the “Great Books,” the soul of contemporaneous students could be elevated above a life of trivial pursuits.

This emphasis on absolute, universal, and “natural” standards attracted a number of prominent Christians to Strauss. The Canadian George Grant (1918-1988), for one, was drawn to the potential uses Strauss’s emphasis on eternal values might have to fight off the erosion of Christian conviction in the ever more secular, liberal, and consumerist Canada of his day. Grant, Havers explains, did not quite realize that Strauss was neither a conservative nor a Christian but a staunch proponent of a philosophically based liberalism bereft of any Christian identity. Grant relished the British and Protestant roots of the Anglo-American tradition, though there were certain affinities between him and Strauss; Grant was a firm believer in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon civilization and its rightful responsibility in bringing humanity to a higher cultural level. The difference is that Grant affirmed the religious and ethnic particularities of Anglo-Saxon civilization, whereas Strauss, though a Zionist who believed in a Jewish nation state, sought to portray Anglo-American civilization in a philosophical language cleansed of any Christian particularities and European ethnicity.

Strauss wanted a revised interpretation of Anglo-American citizenship standing above tribal identities and historical particularities. Strauss’s objective was to provide Anglo-American government with a political philosophy that would stand as a bulwark against “intolerable” challenges from the left and the right, which endangered liberalism itself. The West had to affirm the universal truthfulness of its way of life and be guarded against the tolerance of forms of expression that threaten this way of life. Havers observes that Strauss was particularly worried about the inability of liberal regimes, as was the case with the Weimar republic, to face up to illiberal challenges. He wanted a liberal order that would ensure the survival of the Jews, and the best assurance for this was a liberal order that spoke in a neutral and purely philosophical idiom without giving any preference to any religious faith and any historical and ethnic ancestries. He wanted a liberalism that would work to undermine any ancestral or traditionally conservative norms that gave preference to a particular people in the heritage of America’s founding, and thereby may discriminate against Jews. Only in a strictly universal civilization would the Jews feel safe while retaining their identity.

Havers brings up another old conservative, Willmo0re Kendall (1909-68), who was drawn to Straussian thought even though substantial aspects of his thought were incompatible with Strauss’s. Among these differences was the “majoritarian populism” of Kendall versus the aristocratic elitism of Strauss. The aristocrats Strauss had in mind were philosophers and statesmen who understood the eternal values of the West whereas the majoritarian people Kendall had in mind were Americans who were conservative by tradition and deeply attached to their ancestral roots in America, rather than believers in universal rights concocted by philosophers. While Kendall was drawn to Strauss’s scepticism over unlimited speech, what he feared was not the ways in which particular ethnic/religious groups might use free speech to protect their ancestral rights and thereby violate – from Strauss’s perspective – the universality of liberalism, but “the opposite of what Strauss fear[ed]”: that an open society unmindful of its actual historical roots, allowing unlimited questioning of its ancestral identities, against the natural wishes of the majority for their roots and traditions, would eventually destroy the Anglo-American tradition.

Havers brings up as well Kendall’s call for a restricted immigration policy consistent with majoritarian wishes. While Havers is primarily concerned with the Christian roots of Anglo-American democracy, he identifies this view by Kendall with conservatism proper. The Straussian view that America is an exceptional nation by virtue of being founded on the basis of philosophical propositions, which somehow have elevated this nation to be a model to the world, is, in Havers view, closer to the leftist dismissal of religious identities and traditions than it is to any true conservatism. Conservatives, or Paleo-Conservatives, believe that human identities are not mere private choices arbitrarily decided by abstract individuals in complete disregard of history and the natural dispositions of humans for social groupings with similar ethnic and religious identities.

These differences between the Straussians and old conservatives are all the more peculiar since, as Havers notes, Strauss was very mindful of the particular identities of Jewish people, criticizing those who called for a liberalized form of Jewish identity based on values alone. Jews, Strauss insisted, must maintain fidelity to their own nationality rather than to a “liberal theology,” otherwise they would end up destroying their particular historical identity.

Now, Straussians could well respond that the Anglo-American identity is different, consciously dedicated to universal values, but, as Havers carefully shows, this emphasis on the philosophy of natural rights cannot be properly understood outside the religious ancestry of the founders, and (although Havers is less emphatic about this) outside the customs, institutions and ethnicity of the founders. As the Australian Frank Salter has written:

The United States began as an implicit ethnic state, whose Protestant European identity was taken for granted. As a result, the founding fathers made few remarks about ethnicity, but John Jay famously stated in 1787 that America was ‘one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors,’ a prominent statement in one of the republic’s founding philosophical documents that attracted no disagreement (230).

This idea that Western nations are all propositional nations is not restricted to the United States, but has been applied to the settler nations of Canada and Australia, and the entire continent of Europe, under the supposition that, with the Enlightenment, the nations of Europe came to be redefined by such “universal” values as individual rights, separation of church and state, democracy. As a result, mainstream liberals and conservatives today regularly insist that Europe is inherently a “community of values,” not of ethnicity or religion, but of values that belong to humanity. Accordingly, the reasoning goes, if Europe is to be committed to these values it must embrace immigration as part of its identity. Multiculturalism is simply a means of facilitating the participation of immigrants into this universal culture, making them feel accepted by recognizing their particular traditions, while they are gradually nudge to think in a universal way. But, as Salter points out,

This is hardly a complete reading of Enlightenment ideas, which include the birth of modern nationalism, the democratic privileging of majority ethnicity, and the linking of minority emancipation to assimilation. The Enlightenment also celebrates empirical science including biology, which culminated in man’s fuller understanding of himself as part of nature (213).

Liberals in the 19th century were fervent supporters of nationalism and the essential importance of being part of a community with shared traditions and common ancestry. Eric Hobsbawm’s claim that Europeans nations were “ideological constructs” created without a substantial grounding in immemorial lands, folkways, and ethnos, should be contrasted to the ideas of such liberal nationalists as Camillo di Cavour (1810–1861), Max Weber (1864–1920), and even John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). While these liberals emphasized a form of nationalism compatible with classical liberal values, they were firm supporters of national identities at a time when a “non-xenophobic nationalism” was meant to acknowledge the presence of what were essentially European ethnic minorities within European nations. None of these liberals ever envisioned the nations of Europe as mere places identified by liberal values belonging to everyone else and obligated to become “welcome” mats for the peoples of the world.

Moreover, Enlightenment thinkers were the progenitors of a science of ethnic differences, which has since been producing ever more empirical knowledge, and has today convincingly shown that ethnicity is not merely a social construct but also a biological substrate. As Edward O. Wilson, Pierre van den Berghe, and Salter have written, shared ethnicity is an expression of extended kinship at the genetic level; members of an ethnic group are biologically related in the same way that members of a family are related even though the genetic connection is not as strongly marked. Numerous papers – which I will reference below with links — are now coming out supporting the view that humans are ethnocentric and that such altruistic dispositions as sharing, loyalty, caring, and even motherly love, are exhibited primarily and intensively within in-groups rather than toward a universal “we” in disregard for one’s community. Strauss’s concern for the identity of Jews is consistent with this science.

The Straussian language about “natural rights” belonging to “man as man” is mostly gibberish devoid of any historical veracity and scientific support. Hegel long refuted the argument that humans were born with natural rights which they never enjoyed until a few philosophers discovered them and then went on to create ex nihilo Western civilization. Man “in his immediate and natural way of existence” was never the possessor of natural rights. The natural rights the founders spoke about, which were also in varying ways announced in the creation of the nations of Canada and Australia, and prescribed in the modern constitutions of European nations, were acquired and won only through a long historical movement, the origins of which may be traced back to ancient Greece, but which also included, as Havers insists, the history of Christianity and, I would add, the legal history of Rome, the Catholic Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the Bourgeois Revolutions.

The Straussians believe that the way to overcome the tendency of liberal societies to relativism or the celebration of pluralistic conceptions of life without any sense of ranking the lifestyle of citizens is to impart reverence and patriotic attachment for the Anglo-American tradition by emphasizing not the heterogeneous identity of this tradition but its foundation in the ancient philosophical commitment to “the good” and the “perfection of humanity.” But this effort to instill national commitment by teaching citizens about the classics of ancient Greece and the great statesmen of liberal freedom is doomed to failure and has been a failure. The problem of nihilism is nonexistent in societies with a strong sense of reverence for traditional practices, authoritative patriarchal figures, and a sense of peoplehood and homeland. The way out of the crisis of Western nihilism is to re-nationalize liberalism, throw away the cultural Marxist notion that freedom means liberation from all identities not chosen by the individual, and accentuate the historical and natural-ethnic basis of European identity.

Recent scientific papers on ethnocentrism and human nature:

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism
Perhaps goodwill is unlimited but oxytocin-induced goodwill is not
Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans
Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty
We Take Care of Our Own