Jan 20, 2015

Rejecting Conservative, Inc.'s Growing Negrophilia

via Majority Rights

Some Mulatto with a White French mother (and White French girlfriend) intimates a stiff-arm salute and right-wing revisionism and he’s one of us? I think not.

Jews are bad for us. Ok, enough evidence. But from there the right goes on to stretch the inference, to where blacks are ok. ? Some are wise to the J.Q., some are separatists who need guidance to help the rest understand that we only want separation as well, not their exploitation, but to kiss their ass and act like they are in our interest group? Give us a break. To make matters worse, the right not only typically panders to blacks, but condemns Southern and Eastern Europeans as not being in our interest group.

The right has the hallmarks of a lack of courage and a general policy of pandering.
Among that, the right pander to negrophilic inclinations and diversions coming from females (the problem is only the “Muslims” or only the “Jews”) to masque their cowardice of standing up for our European people. They admire Dieudonné.

This perspective is allowed by female gate-keepers to Jewish and corporate power, and their divide and conquer as it augurs to have Europeans fighting one another; pandering to the basest puerile female inclination of incitement to competition - “don’t worry about those pretty mudsharks, or those rabid blacks getting over”, it doesn’t bother some White woman, whose fat-ass is in a powerful control point and can drive a hard bargain as a result.

And they don’t wonder why Atzmon thinks Dieudonné is wonderful?

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné

They might be able to get through female gate-keepers some, get on one side of a divide and conquer in their incitement - e.g., as favored by a particular group of European females.

That is a dubious strategy, let alone of merit as a battle plan. The troops, the people in full, as it were, must be grounded in their cause and authentically motivated as they will not be sufficiently, only focused on Jews. When you tell a young man that the tossing aside of what he is born to see as his ultimate treasure is not an important problem, or that some Mulatto with a lovely French wife is OK, simply because he coddles Faurisson’s focus on gas chambers and memes some covert intimation of a stiff-arm salute, how is that supposed to help his morale and address his concrete, fundamental concerns? And how is it supposed to gain her respect? Never mind an appropriate White woman for him. We hate Jews! Now that’s inspiration!

We can see who these self described elite don’t like. Who do they care about? Not White women, obviously, apparently not White men. Perhaps one other guy, one with E1b1b, if not the Jew on a stick ..besides perhaps advancement of their own position.

The last time I was in Paris, I had planned to stay five days but could only manage two. I was so absolutely disgusted, outraged to see the kind of women, whom I might dream of, only to see them with blacks. I had to get out, retreat to save my sanity.

Some right-wingers are saying we have to drop everything, basically adopt blacks and others as a part of our interest group and focus only on Jews. Blacks are OK, mudsharks are just genetically defective. Talk about someone whose balls have shriveled-up.

This is a woman of German descent, I care that she not do this and believe that she is not genetically defective – don’t you believe she has been corrupted?


Until fairly recently, I wondered to myself what were the genetic components among European women that made them most resistant to out-breeding. It was an intriguing question to me. It still is, to a limited extent. To my surprise, I found myself changing - upon a more complete survey of what is going on. I do believe that corruption of the culture and rule structure is the deeper concern. There are just too many Europeans who were perfectly good for centuries who are suddenly doing this, rupturing their ancient lines – it cannot all be written-off as genetic defects. It is a second black plague, but coming from different rats and using cultural auspices as its vector. This is not time for the medieval medicine of Christianity nor of scientism for that matter.

While being against the Jew is absolutely necessary and a primary concern, an antagonist of ours second to none, that is not a full culture, not even a grounding of an army to fight. The hermeneutic perspective implied by Majority Rights would be, as it premises our outlook on the full genus and species of our European peoples, the reconstruction of the ecologies of our cultures and people, addresses problems of our own making and ranks, problems and antagonists in due course.

The two world views that the right puts forth are Christianity and Hitler.

Some may foolishly wish to ignore the Trojan horse that is Christianity. Most people cannot play with its obvious absurdity, do not like the games that charlatans play “to make sense of” and dupe us with those tarot cards; others readily see the Trojan horse for what it is, implications of its texts and what it leads to being all too obvious.

Matt Parrott says that he has “given up on the generation 68ers,” but that appears to be just more of his bureaucratic straw-manning for the right –  brushing aside competition with false attributions of people who might know better and not let people put one over on younger folks. Perhaps he has a wish to see everyone who opposes Hitler and Jesus as “sixty eighters” whereas the hip kids “get it.” “ We are generation Identitaire!” - it is not the fault of the Jews or the right-wing White elitists and plutocratic traitors, it is the fault of older White people - older than Matt, anyway. It appears to be just an attempt to push-aside competition for the position of spokesman who might maintain that position by blowing smoke up the ass of the young and naive with Jesus stuff or pander to women with Hitler shit.

The well motivated idea is not to abandon “teaching” 68er’s, as his straw man suggests, but to allow the experience and abilities among those whom it may concern, though a bit older than Matt, to contribute to European interests where they might. And if they do not believe in Hitler and Jesus that does not mean that they need to be shamed, but rather that their experience has them honestly looking at these darlings of the right for their inadequacies and that they are prepared to forge a new, more authentic European way of life, unlike the young fogies made incredibly self righteous by the mixed fortune of growing up with the Internet.

Andrew Anglin says his eyes watered when he saw the clip of Nazi girls doing exercises in unison, he gushes over the rallies for Hitler, expresses admiration for the assimilation of the lock-step eusocial behavior of animal species such as birds, ants and bees. I find this sort of thing and the rallies, a whole nation beholden to one ranting inter-European war-monger, Hitler, repugnant; and I do not think that I am alone of any generation. Nor am I a baby boomer or a generation 68er, but an Xer – I will cop to that; I recognize a great deal of selfish destruction among the baby boomers (like a swarm of locusts); more, that the world war 2 generation were bamboozled by the context of the war into accepting radically anti-White changes, much commenced in The 1950’s. But to blame hippies, i.e. White men, is a convenient diversion for the Right to pander to feminist bitches and take the Jewish and corporate deflect at once.

No, I will not accept blame for things that happened before I was born or when I was a small child. I will not see myself as a failure because my attempts to do something about it were not facilitated by the Internet.

As I have mentioned previously, I can tell you from that perspective that the Internet provides huge advantages. Life is so much easier, everything from word processing to information acquisition, confirmation and comraderie is possible in a way that was impossible before. There is not much good to be said for years of isolation. However, it did not allow one to easily bypass lived experience and plug into what is mistakenly, sometimes badly mistakenly, presented as a fully considered system such as Hitler’s. One was forced to live through and see plainly the fact of its philosophical failures (along with the failures of liberalism).

As it stands and amidst the vast destruction of European peoples, the right reacts with renewed conviction in “the tried and true” - really, the tried and failed - Jesus and Hitler, rather than a genuine holistic concern for our peoples, which these views certainly are not. It pretends that we must put all aside in order to focus on the Jew. By ignoring our concern as a people with a complete, authentic set of concerns, they can engraft HItler worship as a pseudo-justification, as the Jew is presented as an all encompassing concern. Thus, taking comfort for their disastrous war plan as put forth by their savior, Hitler; failing that, they might fall back on Jesus as savior, rather than a concern for our people.

If sheer faith in Jesus or natural competition resulted in appropriate genetic pairings and justice then what is happening with miscegenation would not happen. The attitude of “just let it happen, the defective will be weeded out”, is very poorly considered.

Seeing that our people are not the true concern and that White men are not able to hold up to Jews and blacks because they are not organized by these “leading voices”, by anything other than Jesus and Hitler, females will allow for the Jesus guys to beguile people from their hypergamy; and allow for the Hitler guys to prevent the ethnocentric from coming up with a better solution, better cultural guidelines to supersede the horrific injustice and destruction as a result of stupor and exploitation; they will revert to scientism, “nature’s competition, the way it is”, so say our god, Adolf. One of their hopes is to add females to the ranks by pandering to their most puerile inclination to incite competition. “Blacks are ok, they were no problem before the Jews manipulated them.” Talk about weak White men. And how does that hold up to EGI? Do we really need them so badly that we can ennoble them and their White women because they might think they are wise to the J.Q.? Will not people, our own included respect us more if we do not pretend that we care so much about them, as much as ourselves, even to where their fucking us, literally, is no problem?

Hitler was great, he targeted millions of Slavics for elimination – pretty White women and all. Get rid of that competition. Seems to be a pattern among the right.

Again, some take the tack that we should not worry about these White women going to blacks, they are genetically defective and being weeded-out. That is small consolation and when one views, even by happenstance, the White women that non-Whites are getting it finally becomes apparent that genetics cannot be all of the problem.

There is something to be said for the men who will not try to rationalize it; and a wariness that should be applied to the kind who do rationalize it, as the ones with bad instincts for our people, who contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. The idea that one who hates miscegenation is being distracted from the J.Q. is nonsense, as I have said all along, as it inexorably leads to the J.Q. through investigation of its various causes.

While I used to be more curious about what sort of women would be least disposed to this, now I do see the culture and its rules as more fundamental an issue. As humans, we are born very incomplete, and it is incumbent upon those looking after the social rule-structures of our culture to assimilate the proper guidance of our behaviors, even to our own best interests. We could say, like Uncle Adolf, that it is all about competition and struggle at bottom, denying human agency and the corrective guidance of culturally mediating rules, parenting, stewarding and cooperation between European groups. We can allow his e1b1b and all is struggle at bottom perspective to work its wonders, pandering to those who would just as soon see Europeans kill one another for all it really cares about Europeans.

But if we are to be true to ourselves, yes, we must be vigilant against Jews and the Israel Lobby as they operate against European interests from seven choke points and their genetic/cultural pattern; we must be vigilant against their liberal Marxist lackeys - Je ne suis pas Charlie. But neither are we Dieudonné. We must be vigilant against the Right’s pandering - including pandering to the increased one-up position of females within he disorder of modernity, where they are more powerful gate-keepers than ever - with the rupture of social classificatory bounds through anti-racism their base propensity to incite genetic competition more arbitrary than ever, where there will be guys coming from every direction, looking to show how tough they are by pandering to females as to how “objective”, rational, above it and liberal that they are. No.

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné.

From Wikipedia
Dieudonné M’bala M’bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known by his stage name Dieudonné (French: [djø.dɔ.ne]), is a French comedian, actor, and political activist. His father is from Cameroon and his mother is French. Some of his performances and associations have been controversial and he has been convicted for antisemitism.
Dieudonné initially achieved success with a Jewish comedian, Élie Semoun, humorously exploiting racial stereotypes. He campaigned against racism and was a candidate in the 1997 and 2001 legislative elections in Dreux against the National Front, the French far-right political party that he perceived as racist.[1][2] On 1 December 2003, Dieudonné performed a sketch on a TV show about an Israeli settler whom he depicted as a Nazi.
Some critics argued that he had “crossed the limits of antisemitism” and several organizations sued him for incitement to racial hatred. Dieudonné refused to apologize and denounced Zionism and the Jewish lobby.[3]
Dieudonné approached Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front political party that he had fought earlier, and the men became political allies and friends.[4] Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson appeared in one of his shows in 2008.[5][6] Dieudonné described Holocaust remembrance as “memorial pornography”

Gluttons for Injustice

via Radix Journal

Have you heard about the devastating bombing on a NAACP building in Colordado?? If you haven’t, that’s a HUGE problem, according to the self-proclaimed voice for millennials Mic.

While the entire world was glued to last week’s attacks in Paris, a “bombing” occurred in Colorado Springs—and we apparently should’ve been just as concerned with it as the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Is it because over a dozen people died? Well, no, because no one was killed or even hurt in the supposed explosion. Was the building destroyed? Actually no, only a small portion of an exterior wall was charred. So… why do we need to discuss it then? Because it reveals the “horrific” disparity in how we report terrorism, as reported in “One Tweet Perfectly Sums Up the Big Problem With How We Talk About Terrorism.”

That tweet, by one Sally Kohn, contains the profound wisdom of: “Muslim shooter = entire religion guilty. Black shooter = entire race guilty. White shooter = mentally troubled lone wolf.” That tweet definitely pulls on the heart strings of liberals and might make sense to them… if they fail to realize that all Whites need to feel guilty for slavery, the Holocaust, and every other bad thing done by a few Whites in history. And it’s not like White men aren’t considered the root problem for mass shootings. Hell, according to that Washington Post article, Fort Hood wasn’t even caused by radical Islam (when it clearly was). Instead, it had more to do with the problem of White men owning guns. (Does the shooter look White to you?)

The argument of the Mic article is that when White men commit terrorism, they are labelled crazed outliers and are never singled out as the problem. When others, such as Muslims, commit terror, their whole religion is unfairly blamed. This is a double standard, in the opinion of the writer and the tweeters she cites, and we should not rush to consider jihadi actions as a Muslim problem.

Before tackling that argument, it’s worth exploring the alleged bombing of the NAACP building. There’s pretty convincing evidence that it’s a hoax. The charred marks on the building were there in a Google Image from six months ago. The “suspect” looks like the stereotypical representative of White supremacy, even driving a white pick-up truck. Rumors circulate that the FBI knows this a hoax and are annoyed they have to investigate it, but they can’t discard it because that would show they don’t care about the growing problem of neo-Nazi terror.

Even if it isn’t a hoax, all it amounts to is one White guy, lacking good sense, placing a firecracker against a wall. There’s no larger context for this action and there’s no community anywhere that would offer support to the Roman Candle Bomber. On the other hand, the Paris attacks fit into the larger context of Muslim aggression towards the West and many Muslims throughout the world support the actions of the militants. Thus, it isn’t an isolated event. The NAACP bombing is. This argument is easily refuted.

But let’s be honest though—the writer of the article knows this fact perfectly well. The real reason for the article is to vent the eternal, unsatisfied outrage of the Left. Despite controlling our culture and dominating Western society, they are not content and continually seek any instances where they browbeat White men. For example, not only do college campuses suffer the tyranny of rape culture, they also are filled with the toxicity of “microaggressions.” A Microaggression is private speech between White males that non-White males might offensive. Vox incredibly blamed this phenomenon for why non-Whites don’t succeed in college, in spite of the fact that people with common sense would see this “issue” as a made-up problem. However, that’s the point.

The triumph of the Left means they have to make up problems to satisfy their resentment. They’re gluttons for injustice—and like any junkie, they need their fix wherever they can find it. Turning the Hebdo shooting into a story about White privilege and Islamophobia soothes this craving, and so does rape culture hoaxes and microaggression hysteria. The thought that a normal White person somewhere and somehow might enjoy doing normal White things drives them into an uncontrolled fury, and that fury demands sacrifices. Egalitarians love feeling like victims and they relish getting back at oppressors.

This thirst for vengeance will never be quenched. They will always have micrononsense to rail against… unless the idea of equality as the highest virtue is toppled.

A History of Mossad False Flags: Separating the Wheat From the Tinfoil Hat Chaff

via TradYouth

The recent attack in Paris has been subject to a wide array of suspicion, especially thanks to the timing that coincides with global advances in the Palestinian movement, very convenient suicides, inconsistent eyewitness accounts, and other (merited) conspiracy theorist catnip. My verdict is that, yes, the Mossad may have played a role in the massacre, but by having to dig through the junk like “They’re crisis actors!”, “where is the blood?”, “They’re sipping mojitos with Timothy McVeigh and Tupac on a beach in Tel Aviv!”, and “Nazi Bankers and Rothschilds did it!” as is typical of the thought-contraceptives put forth by Alex Jones and Gordon Duff (Veteran’s Today), empirical skepticism becomes lost in a sea of easily debunked false information.

It’s not hard to see why generally informative and sound websites such as the The Daily Stormer and The Daily Slave are constantly undergoing Level 7 DDoS attacks and having their Paypal funds frozen, while InfoWars, Veteran’s Today, and the myriad of blogs riding on their coattails are more or less allowed to monopolize the discourse without hindrance and carve out a nice niche for themselves.     

Mossad false flags are a very real phenomenon that do not require superpowers, crisis actors, or extraterrestrial technology to pull off. When your ethnic group is close-knit and has grossly disproportionate influence over the world you are a political kingmaker and thus above the law, combine this with a historical reputation for moral bankruptcy and materialist Machiavellian “ethics” and logically no amount of cynicism or crimes against humanity is off the table.

According to ex-Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky’s tell all book By Way of Deception, there are no more than 30-35 Mossad agents operating at any given time. The reason, he says, they are able to launch False Flags is due to their recruitment of Sayanim, or diaspora Jews, who are sympathetic to their cause and willing to collaborate in missions. They’re real people, with real business and political connections, and a network of media conglomerates that function to cover for them.

Crumple up that tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap:

Argentina 1994:  Attempt To Frame Iran For AMIA Bombing

The bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires killed 85 people and injured scores of others. According to the narrative, a white Renault van filled with ammonium nitrate brought down the building, and immediately Mossad took over the direct “investigation”. For 2 decades, the case has been filled with intrigue and deceit, with almost all of the conclusive evidence pointing back to the Jewish community itself.

Originally, a group of Argentinian policemen designated as “Neo-Nazis” and “Hezbollah-linked” were tried in court on the charges. Carlos Telleldin, the alleged supplier of the car bomb used in the attack, was (according to WikiLeaks) offered a bribe of $400,000 dollars to falsely implicate and testify against the policemen and Iran. In a shocking revelation reported by the Times of Israel, it was recently discovered that the Jewish ex-interior minister of Argentina, Carlos Corach, was the one who supplied the bribe. Further investigation uncovered decades later that other prominent Argentinian Jews worked to cover up and thwart the investigation, such as Ruben Beraja, then-president of the DAIA (A Jewish organization similar to the ADL).

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that Argentinian Engineers summoned to court refused to endorse the idea that a car bomb took down the AMIA. Instead, many believe the bomb was already planted inside the Jewish center, presumably by someone already inside. Regardless of how it happened, Israel and Argentinian Jewry tried desperately to place the blame on Iran and Hezbollah, in spite of utter lack of evidence.

The latest news revolved around an agreement struck between the Argentinian government with the Iranian government to establish an independent truth commission in 2013. A Jewish prosecutor and prominent Zionist, Alberto Nisman, sued to stop the fact finding mission and won. His stated motive is that no more investigation was needed and that it was certain the bombing was the work of the Iranians, even as intelligence officials from around the world question the dearth of evidence.

After it became obvious that the attempt to blame Iran and Hezbollah for the terrorist attack failed to pick up steam or garner sympathy for Jews during a reboot of the allegations in the mid-2000‘s, the Israelis began to discourage further inquiries. In January 2014, the former Israeli ambassador to Argentina Yitzhak Aviran , told the Jewish newspaper Agencia Judia de Noticias, that the Mossad had killed all of the “culprits” and no more investigation should be pursued because the Argentinian government was incompetent. The Israeli government itself was furious at Aviran’s statement and denied any plausibility to it. Argentinian government foreign minister Hector Timerman in response reiterated the notion that the Israeli government was continuing to sabotage evidence gathering.

Verdict: It was most likely the Mossad or someone with connections to them who blew up the AMIA.  The powerful Jews within the Argentinian government were at the very least hired or conspired to bribe their way into framing Iran over what the press called “The worst attack on the Jewish community since WWII”.

Egpyt 1954: Jews Hatch Plan To Murder Western Civilians While Leaving Fake Clues Implicating Neo-Nazis and Islamists

In the 1950‘s, Mossad agents Moshe Marzouk, Schmuel Azar, Yosef Carmon, Meir Max Bineth, and Avraham Zeidenberg began operating in Egypt disguised as “Neo-Nazis”, Islamic militants, and nationalists. Operation Susannah, as it was dubbed, recruited members of the Egyptian Jewish diaspora with the goal of murdering British and American civilians and planting evidence that would implicate Muslim Brotherhood, nationalists, and other groups Israeli intelligence sought to build animosity against. The plot was uncovered by the Egyptian government and a number of the conspirators were sentenced to prison or death, while both the British and U.S. governments weakly protested the heinous and unscrupulous conspiracy.

For more than 5 decades, the Israeli government and its global Jewish media collaborators denied the allegations by using the typical canards of “anti-Semitism”, “blood libel”, and how such accusations would lead to “another Holocaust”. The Israeli media and public for years knew that the Israeli government was guilty, but thanks to the country’s Military Censorship Laws, all talk of it was prohibited and much of the world was kept in the dark. Despite denial of any connection to the nine Jews who were tried and convicted of the evil plot, in 2005 Israeli President Moshe Katsav awarded surviving operatives, indirectly admitting that they were guilty.

Verdict: Mossad is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Germany 1986: La Belle Disco Bombing,  Qaddaffi Framed and His Family Murdered

In former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s second book, The Other Side Of Deception, he divulges information regarding the terrorist attack on the La Belle Night club in West Berlin that sparked the horrific “retaliation” bombings by Ronald Reagan that killed 60 Libyan civilians, including Muhammar Qaddaffi’s infant daughter. Mossad’s “Operation Trojan”, according to Ostrovsky, utilized networks planted in Libya to mimic transmissions celebrating the attacks to supposed terrorist cells (page 115). While segments of the CIA were aware that this was a false flag by the Mossad, the deciphered transmissions were used to convince other branches of the U.S. government that Col. Qaddaffi had directed and sponsored the disco bombing, thus laying the grounds to assassinate him. Jewish controlled media in the United States also fomented hatred against Libya, making the brazen act of murder legitimate in the public eye.

According to declassified KGB and Stasi documents analyzed in Richard Belfield’s A Brief History of Hitmen and Assassinations, the terrorists who attacked the La Belle disco were affiliated with or working for the Mossad and CIA. In an interview with German public media Frontal, Odd Drevland, the attorney for prime suspect Mohammad Amairi (who at the time was living peacefully in Norway) admitted after years of speculation that his client was indeed a Mossad agent.

Verdict: Mossad is guilty.

Iran 2000’s–Ongoing: Jews Recruit Jihadists While Pretending To Be CIA To Murder Civilians

With Iranian nuclear scientists being murdered left and right in terrorist attacks, the culprits were found out to be the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran (MEK) who were being trained by the Mossad. So intricate was the conspiracy that, according to Time Magazine, Mossad agents even re-created a model of the home of one victim, physicist Majid Jamali Fashi, for the terrorists to train in.

Leaked U.S. intelligence memos also found that Mossad agents were masquerading as CIA operatives, using everything from forged passports based on real identities (thanks to the access Jews have to America’s databases) to American dollars, and between 2007-2008 recruited members of Jundallah, a Sunni Muslim Jihadist organization based in Pakistan, to launch asymmetrical attacks on Iran and foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ites. The Mossad agents had collaborators in Mosques who dedicated themselves to recruiting for this cause. The intelligence officer who released the memo complained that the Mossad was looking to murder Iranian officials and civilians in a series of false flag attempts.

Verdict: Mossad is guilty.

How This Relates To The Charlie Hebdo Attack

As is the pattern in the above attacks, the Mossad is once again being put in charge of investigating the alleged Jihadist attack in Paris. Recruiting, arming, and directing the Kouachi brothers (described as being “dim-wits” by people who knew them) in one of France’s unsupervised “No go zone” Mosques would certainly not be difficult, especially considering the fact that they were even able to infiltrate the top echelons of Hezbollah.  Finding idiots to entrap in bogus terrorist plots is a standard practice of the FBI, so the only thing the Mossad would need is to provide real weapons to the brothers, who are reported as having wielded Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers.

The sudden and strange suicide of Limoges police chief Helric Fredou as he wrote the investigative conclusions based on his interviews and evidence gathering regarding the Charlie Hedbo shooting should also raise red flags.  According to Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad , the Mossad is historically very influential in France, presumably due to the country having the largest Jewish community in Europe. The ID left in the car and the phone call taking credit during the shooting, are almost formulaic characteristics used time and time again in Mossad false flags.   Victor Ostrovsky has claimed that Jewish communities around the world work in tandem with the Mossad and never question their demands, moral or not. Benjamin Netanyahu is already using the tragedy to encourage attacks on Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinians, and seemed fairly content, even waving and smiling, during the somber mood in Paris.

The truth is still being uncovered, and it could very well be that this terrorist attack is exactly what the Jewish controlled media says it is.  Even if so, healthy skepticism without the paranoia is always warranted in this dark age of very real lies and deceit, and I’m not the only one who feels something is wrong with this story.  If the Kourachi brothers really just snapped and wanted to shoot some cartoonists that have been drawing Muhammad for a decade (while leaving the depictions hanging up in the offices of CH, paradoxically), it doesn’t mean that the next terrorist attack won’t be an actual false flag.

THE PATRIARCHY and Proper Manhood

via Alternative Right

Be a "man of steel," not a "playa"
Recently The Patriarchy, a Facebook page geared towards young nationalist men, ran a series of posts, each of which featured an eye-catching picture of a highly attractive young woman possessed of an apparently impeccable traditionalist orientation and mindset. In each case, the text below the comely lass took the form of a pep talk: “Come on lads, don’t give up! Play your cards right, get your shit together, and something like this could be yours!!!”

Responses to these posts, which I am paraphrasing here, ranged from  expressions of sullenly cynical Return of Kings-esque bon mots (“No way a girl like that really exists in the West – these days, they’re all a bunch of fat, skanky liberal feminist sluts!!!”) to effusions of simple mouth-agape admiration (“Whoa, she’s HOT!!!”) to displays of good-naturedly brazen, jovial braggadocio (“Get away from her, you bunch of losers… she’s MINE!”), to general declarations of approval with the overall message of the post (“What an inspiring speech! I won’t give up!”), each post more emphatic than the last (as signified here by the copious quotation marks).

And I suppose it was all somewhat touching, in a way. The editor in question (I presume a slightly older, though still rather young man, perhaps in his early 30s) wished to instruct his youthful comrades not to despair, because dark as things may seem, victory is actually within their grasp; “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” and all that. But I nevertheless found something about the scene quite unsettling; watching the feeding frenzy of commenters, each desperately tearing away a digestible message from the bewitching images on display, reminded me that even among those pockets of resistance to the cultural miasma that is the rancid mainstream, an air of conspicuously degraded sensualism still pervades.

The original poster, in his defense, intended for the girls on display to function as incentive for the guys reading (and more notably, staring, swooning, and drooling) to become better men. Nor were the pictures salacious, unduly provocative, or otherwise exploitative. Still, the fact that these images were utilized as a form of enticement has unavoidable pitfalls, if character formation is indeed what is being aimed at.

In the first place, the message delivered by the Patriarchy poster, while surely motivated by a heartfelt wish to give encouragement, is plainly unrealistic. No matter how good a man you train yourself to be, you are simply not guaranteed an attractive wife, or any wife, for that matter. The cold, hard “facts on the ground” are that many good people do end up alone, and many rather shitty people have no problems whatsoever finding companionship. Rejection and heartbreak aren’t necessarily ameliorated by the cultivation of self-improvement. Attractive people—both male and female— are much like the rest of us, in that they aren’t necessarily drawn to what is best for them; therefore, contra Patriarchy, becoming a more responsible and upright man isn’t likely to have the effect of winning you the girl of your dreams.

In fact, those “manospherian” jerks may just be right on this score: being an outright asshole is probably the best way to get many women to be attracted to you. But we shouldn’t be led to think that this depraved tendency is limited to those of the female persuasion. In fact, it also applies in reverse; that is, mean, bitchy women often have an undeniable (if unaccountable) way of becoming man-magnets. 

Our sex drives, quite simply, fuck us all up in one way or another, often causing us to see deep-seated character flaws as “sexy” while sweet, admirable traits are regarded as “boring.” Thus, becoming more righteous almost certainly won’t make a person more wanted by the opposite sex. This isn’t to say that men shouldn’t strive to be better than they are; it is simply to point out that attaching a hypothetical pretty girl to the hook (“If you bite at this bait, here’s what you get in return!!!”) is irresponsible rhetoric, almost amounting to a salesman’s “bait and switch.” 

Moreover, even if improving one’s own lot were assurance of romantic success, such a prospect shouldn’t be the reason one aims to improve oneself. One always hopes, of course, that the unrelenting cultivation of a life of virtue will eventually be rewarded, but unfortunately there is absolutely no guarantee of such an outcome. Dangling images of gorgeous girls before the faces of young men as incentive, even if done from the best possible motives, nevertheless invites, and even solicits, a certain ignobility of spirit from them; one suspects that one who operates from this proposition won’t become righteous for righteousness’s sake, but will rather, like Limp Bizkit, “do itall for the nookie.” Men who behave thusly for these reasons are nothing more than abject slaves to their passions; the fact that they’ve sublimated their desire to get laid, as in this case, doesn’t make their baseness any the less pronounced.

This consideration, in turn, leads to a more subtle, and finally more crucial one. It is fair, I think, to acknowledge that beautiful women will, to some extent, always dominate the attentions of men. We men  are, to a great degree, rendered helpless in the presence of female beauty; its very sight rivets us and makes us catch our breath, as the widespread reaction of the Patriarchy readers to those “honey-shot” photos can attest.

Yet our entrancement need not, and ought not, lead us into psychological servitude. True masculinity, in fact, is characterized by an ability to detach ourselves from that which would own us, control us, fling our souls into disarray. A mature man is a master, even of his own weaknesses; he is a stalwart, even in the face of that which would undo him. He appreciates beauty, but doesn’t let it overwhelm him; for the sake of his own dignity and well-being, he refuses to be manipulated. He maintains control, and disdains the notion of allowing his wayward ego to make him vulnerable to flattery, lust, or status-acquisitiveness.

The sexual revolution, which has run its course over the past six decades, has had a baleful effect, both on femininity and masculinity. It has rendered both sexes debased and debauched, albeit in different ways, with divergent manifestations. The Patriarchy site deserves credit for striving mightily to reverse this blighted, long-term trend. However, its editors may be well-advised to mix in a hearty helping of stoicism into their stew of general rhetorical encouragement next time around. A man is ultimately nothing, after all, if he can’t stand alone.

Are You an 'Anti-Semite' if You Repeat What Jewish Elites Say about Jews!

via DavidDuke.com

This commentary sounds almost like it could have been by comedian Jeff Foxworthy – he’s made a career out of answering the question, “You’re a redneck if...  Below you will find a Jewish-sponsored Gentile guilt project designed to make you feel guilty and turning you into an “anti-Semite” for having opinions that have strong basis in truth. — Dr. David Duke

French comedian Dieudonné has been convicted in court eight times on antisemitism charges for daring to make fun of Jews.  While he makes fun of all peoples, interestingly, he has only faced charges for his jokes regarding Jews. It’s okay to make jokes and ridicule everyone else.

And that’s the catch folks. You can criticize just about anyone for anything. You can put out pornographic drawings of the most revered man in Islam, the Prophet Mohammed, with exaggerated Arabic features,  having sex with his genitals hanging out, and that’s no problem.

But don’t make a cartoon of the butcher of Zion, Netanyahu, with the same Jewish symbols they put on their bombs and the physical features of Jews as they do to Arabs, and you might go to jail in Europe.

Lucky for me, my shtick — being a redneck — is still legal in the United States, thanks to those rednecks who wrote the Bill of Rights.

But with headlines in Britain and around the world screaming that 45% of English people hold anti-Semitic views, I called my big stereotypical Jewish broker and got me some shares in British FEMA camp construction companies! (Don’t believe that folks!)

The 45% figure was according to a poll conducted by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism that I read about in The Daily Mail Newspaper. For those of you who live on a dirt road off of a dirt road, or your hounds chased away the paper boy, and you weren’t able to get a copy of the Daily Mail, but you are wondering whether you are an anti-Semite, I’ll explain to you what constitutes anti-Semitic views. Ready?

If you think that Jews have too much power in the media, then you are an anti-Semite.

Doesn’t matter that Jews in leading Jewish publications such as the Los Angeles Times and  The Jewish Chronicle and many others boast of that their tribe (2 percent of the U.S. population) has overwhelming power in the media. If you believe them you are definitely… an anti-Semite.

If you think that Jews believe they are better than other people, you might be an anti-Semite.

Below is a picture of and quote from one of the most revered religious figures in Israel over the last 4 decades  — Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Not only was he the chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, the Shaas Party he was the spiritual leader of was in coalition with Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party in the government of Israel. He has made repeated statement that not only are Jews better than every one else, that the entirety of the rest of humanity, 99.9 percent of the world’s population, was created to be servants to Jews, that being their sole purpose on earth. He called for “wiping out the seed” of the Palestinians from the world, and he said that Gentiles were made to work, and bind, and sow and reap, and Jews were meant to sit like an effendi, a master, and eat.

Of course anyone who said such hateful words in context towards blacks in America would be universally condemned by both blacks and whites. Was Rabbi Yosef condemned?

Nope. When he died last year he was given the largest funeral in the History of Israel with universal Jewish adulation. But if you know about Yosef, you are definitely an anti-Semite.

If you think that Jews talk about the Holocaust to get sympathy, chances are you are an anti-Semite.

Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli cabinet minister, admits that the Holocaust and the “anti-Semite” accusation are used to manipulate those who criticize Zionists. So this former member of the Israeli government must be an anti-Semite as well. Watch the YouTube video featuring her below and you can see her statements taped from a live news program in the United States. If you believe the former Israeli cabinet minister is telling the truth… you are an anti-Semite.

If you believe that Jewish people chase money more than others, odds are you are an anti-Semite.

Does one have to say anything more than mention the largest predator bank on Earth: Goldman Sachs. Must we show this universal character by pointing out the rise of the almost entirely Jewish Oligarch’s  in Russia who stole 45 percent of Russia vast natural wealth in only 3 or 4 years. That doesn’t mean all Jews chase money like this, but com’ on, pound for pound, really who chases money more than Jews?

If you think Jews are not as honest in business as other people, it just may be that you are an anti-Semite.

This one is also self-apparent. The greatest financial thefts in world history have been at the hands of this small enigmatic people. The most powerful banker in world history, Mayer Rothschild, built much of his great fortune in financial frauds that are carefully recorded and cherished in Jewish written biographies of him. Do we have to mention the Jewish Oligarchs of Russia again, or Goldman Sachs, or the biggest single-handed thieves in the history of Wall Street, such as Bernie Madoff, and Jewish Rogue’s gallery before him.

But if you know that Jews have made up a larger share of business crooks on a per capita basis… just knowing that fact…. that makes you an “anti-semite.”

If you think Jews loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to the country they live in, well, I have news for you, you are an anti-semite.

steven steinlight jewish advocacy american jewish commitee
Steven Steinlight once head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish organization in America makes clear the loyalty that Jewish communist expects!

Here are the words of Steven Steinlight, a leading Jewish intellectual in America and former head of the largest, most powerful Jewish Organization in America, The American Jewish Committee. Here are his own carefully written words from a magazine article he wrote:

“I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.”

So now we know that the former head of National Affairs of one of the largest Jewish organizations believes that “typical Jews” are raised with loyalty to Israel and the Jewish people above the nation in which they live and above all other peoples around them.

He must be a an “anti-Semite” right?

Oh no, Jews can’t be anti-Semites, only Gentiles who believe this leading Jew can be anti-Semites.  Boy, those goys are really stupid unmensch…

True France, True Europe: A Survey of Mercury, Venus, and Marr

via The Occidental Observer

If you had to pick one man and one woman to represent the spirit of France, a good choice would be Voltaire (1694-1778) and the film-star Brigitte Bardot (born 1934). They stand for brains and beauty, wit and style, irony and compassion.

First consider Voltaire, that icon of free speech and the unfettered mind. He was like the god Mercury, sharp-witted messenger of the gods, wing-footed and roaming the universe. Liberals and neo-conservatives have invoked his name again and again since the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.

Raging Fanaticism

But if Voltaire were alive and writing today, those same liberals and neo-cons would be clamouring for his head. This is because he did something forbidden in the modern West: he noticed racial patterns.
All of the other peoples have committed crimes, the Jews are the only ones who have boasted about committing them. They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if this nation some day became deadly to the human race. (Letters of Memmius to Cicero, 1771)
It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they at the first exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion. As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that in abhorring them they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764)
Can you imagine how the freedom-loving neo-conservatives would react to passages like that? But the neo-cons would be wise to consider what he said about “raging fanaticism.” The murdered liberals at Charlie Hebdo could have learnt something from Voltaire too. Their cartoons were crudely obscene. Voltaire could be obscene with style:
Were the Jewish Ladies Intimate with Goats?
You assert that your mothers had no commerce with he-goats, nor your fathers with she-goats. But pray, gentlemen, why are you the only people upon earth whose laws have forbidden such commerce? Would any legislator ever have thought of promulgating this extraordinary law if the offence had not been common? (Philosophical Dictionary, entry for “Jews,” Vol. 6)
Charlie Hebdo did not genuinely believe in free speech, because the magazine sacked a writer who made a mild comment that plugged into a stereotype about Jews. What would it have done to Voltaire? This is his summary of Jewish history:
This people, after their captivity at Babylon, had no other alphabet than the Chaldæan; they were not famed for any art, any manufacture whatsoever; and even in the time of Solomon they were obliged to pay dear for foreign artisans. … Their stay in Babylon and in Alexandria, during which individuals might instruct themselves, formed the people to no art save that of usury. … In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched. Still, we ought not to burn them. (Philosophical Dictionary, Vol. 6)
If Voltaire were alive and writing today, the “Je Suis Charlie” crowd would want him prosecuted and imprisoned for what modern French law calls incitation à la haine raciale – “incitement to racial hatred.”

Brigitte Bardot
Brigitte Bardot
That would certainly happen to Mercury because it’s already happened to Venus, a.k.a. Brigitte Bardot. After her career as a stunningly beautiful film-star, Bardot became a campaigner against cruelty to animals. Like Voltaire, she noticed racial patterns in this kind of behaviour and like Voltaire she wrote about them. That’s why she’s been convicted five times of thought-crime:
In her 1999 book Le Carré de Pluton (“Pluto’s Square”), Bardot criticizes the procedure used in the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. Additionally, in a section in the book entitled, “Open Letter to My Lost France”, Bardot writes that “my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims”. For this comment, a French court fined her 30,000 francs in June 2000. She had been fined in 1997 for the original publication of this open letter in Le Figaro and again in 1998 for making similar remarks. In her 2003 book, Un cri dans le silence (“A Scream in the Silence”), she warned of an “Islamicization of France”, and said of Muslim immigration: “Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own.” (Brigitte Bardot in Wikipedia)
So the French state persecutes a patriotic Frenchwoman who speaks against the destruction of her homeland. Note that Bardot’s present husband, Bernard d’Ormale, is a “former adviser of the Front National, the main far right party in France, known for its nationalist and conservative beliefs.” The Front National has also been persecuted by the French state for its views.

But what did Charlie Hebdo, that symbol of freedom, think of the party? Simple: it wanted the Front National banned and organized a petition to that end (for this and more background to the Hebdo affair, see the excellent summary posted at Those Who Can See).

The Will of the State

So that’s a brief survey of Mercury and Venus in France. Now let’s cross the channel and look at Marr’s behaviour in Britain. I’m talking about Andrew Marr, a prominent British liberal who has worked as political editor for the BBC and who regularly appears on television and radio. In 1999, following the publication of the dishonest and totalitarian Lawrence Enquiry, Marr addressed the horrors of White racism. How was Britain to extirpate them? He first recommended “widespread and vigorous miscegenation” and “more taxes” to “regenerate inner-city ghettos.” Then he revealed the true liberal attitude to free speech:
And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too. (Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don’t listen to a pampered white liberal like me, The Guardian, 28th February 1999)
You can’t accuse Marr of hiding his Stalinist tendencies. As Lytton Strachey nearly said, he believes in free speech, within limits; that is to say, in the free speech of those with whom he agrees. Liberal horror at the Hebdo massacre is deeply hypocritical. If the target had been someone they disagreed with, they would have objected only to the means, not to the end of censorship.

But liberals like Marr are not confined to the BBC or Labour party. Today they’re also found among so-called conservatives. Boris Johnson, the part-Jewish, part-Turkish Tory mayor of London, is another hypocrite and double-thinker. After the Hebdo massacre, he spoke up firmly for “enlightenment and freedom.” He also said this:
Boris Johnson reacts to Paris atrocity: ‘We are all Jews today’
Boris Johnson has spoken of his sadness at the suffering of the French Jewish community and declared “we are all Jews today”. …
“People must be in a state of absolute anguish after what they saw in the supermarket in Paris, he told the Jewish News. “I’ve been reading about the state of morale of the community there and about the level of immigration – I feel very sad about it. Nous sommes tous juif aujoud’hui [sic] (we’re all Jews today).”
Johnson said that, though there was no intelligence of an imminent terror threat to London or the capital’s Jews, the “particular” risks of terrorism against Jewish targets were “constantly part of our assessments”. He said: “[We’ll do] everything we can to protect every community. We’re working flat out to monitor the guys who mean us harm.” …
He said he “absolutely” understood heightened fears of British Jews about anti-Semitism and called for “vigilance. We come down like a tonne of bricks on any sign of anti-Semitism or hate speech. We work closely with the CST [Community Security Trust] to fight it.” … Paying tribute to the “heroic” actions of [the Muslim] supermarket worker Lassana Bathily [who protected many Jewish customers], Johnson said: “he showed the spirit and humanity that people need to see now. He represented the spirit of the not just the overwhelming majority of people but also the overwhelming majority of Muslims.”
Leaders of the Board of deputies, Jewish leadership council and London Jewish Forum were among members of the Jewish community joining the hastily-arranged rally, organised by the French Embassy. The Campaign against Antisemitism also joined the crowds – and urged supporters to do the same. A spokesman said: “When it is unsafe to speak your mind in the press, uphold society’s laws or be Jewish, history tells us that freedom itself is at stake.” … (Boris Johnson reacts to Paris atrocity: ‘We are all Jews today’, Jewish News, January 12, 2015)
Look at the double-think revealed in that article. On the one hand, the Jewish Community Security Trust helps the British authorities to “come down like a tonne of bricks on any sign of anti-Semitism or hate speech.” On the other hand, a spokesman for the Campaign against Antisemitism thinks that “freedom itself is at stake” when “it is unsafe to speak your mind in the press.”

Israel is your home

The same double-think is at work all over Europe. In December 2014 the Times of Israel reported that a Swedish politician had made a bigoted and unacceptable claim:
A far-right Swedish leader has caused an uproar in his country after saying people who identify as Jews cannot be seen as true Swedes. Björn Söder, party secretary of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party and also deputy speaker of parliament, told newspaper Dagens Nyheter there were some groups in Swedish society who were citizens but belonged to other nations — namely Jews and Sami. … Söder’s remarks have angered many in the country. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said he found the statements “very, very scary,” the Guardian reported. Löfven has called the Swedish Democrats “neo-fascist.” Jewish leaders have also lashed out at Söder. The president of the Council of Swedish Jewish Communities, Lena Posner Körösi, told the Guardian: “I am appalled that Sweden’s third largest party can express itself in this way about Jews and other minorities.”
Jewish leaders have also lashed out at Söder. The president of the Council of Swedish Jewish Communities, Lena Posner Körösi, told the Guardian: “I am appalled that Sweden’s third largest party can express itself in this way about Jews and other minorities.” She said the comments reminded her of “1930s Germany.” Willy Silberstein, chairman of the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism, said “I am Jewish and born in Sweden. I am just as much Swedish as Björn Söder,” according to Swedish English news website The Local. (Swedish far-right leader: Jews are not true Swedes, The Times of Israel, 18th December 2014)
But there’s someone who goes much further than Björn Söder and thinks that Jews are not true members of any European nation. After the Hebdo massacre and the four murders in the kosher supermarket in Paris, this is how Israel reacted:
Israeli officials are now hoping for a further increase in immigration from France, which accounted for the largest number of immigrants to Israel last year – 7,000, according to the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency. In this spirit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday night: “I want to tell every Jew in France and in Europe that Israel is your home.”
While Mr Netanyahu was less strident today, saying “any Jew who wants to immigrate will be met with open arms”, Daniel Ben-Simon, a former member of the Knesset from the Labor party, said the damage was done.
“The tragedy is a tragedy for France and you can’t single out Jews as a sect,” he said. “You can’t exploit any incident, tragic as it may be, to promote immigration. There are things that are not kosher.” (Paris attacks: French Israelis urge relations to emigrate to escape anti-Semitism, The Independent, 11th January 2015)
There you have it: according to the Israeli prime minister, there are no Jewish Europeans, only Jews in Europe, because Israel is their true home. And sure enough: the victims of the supermarket murders were buried in Israel, not in France.

But I admire Benjamin Netanyahu for doing his job and promoting the interests of his own people. I wish so-called mainstream politicians and journalists in Western nations would do the same. They don’t. Instead, they lie and deceive. The journalist Max Hastings is another pseudo-conservative who promotes liberal fantasies about Muslims. He reacted to the Hebdo massacre by condemning the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and calling for more surveillance by the state. But he wasn’t honest about the causes of the “terror threat”:
On Thursday, the director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, made a rare speech, warning it was almost inevitable that an attack in this country would get through sooner or later. ‘Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know that we cannot hope to stop everything,’ he said.
The price of living in an open society, with the precious freedoms we take for granted, is that all of us, great and small, are vulnerable to attackers consumed by hatred for our culture, its values, and manifest superiority to those from which they come.
Globalisation places a disturbing number of such people in our midst, rather than far away in Somalia or Iran. The good news is that although Islamic fanatics can cause us pain and grief, they pose no existential threat as did Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union. … What can we do to protect ourselves against them? It is pointless to focus on tightening border controls, desirable though this is for other reasons. Most terrorists who launch attacks in the West prove to be citizens of the nations they seek to injure, some of them born here.
In truth, Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping. … The vast majority of Muslims in this country are decent and loyal citizens who utterly reject association with such horrors as those which have taken place in Paris. … (MAX HASTINGS: Why the liberals who defended traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools, The Daily Mail, 10th January 2015)
Like Nick Cohen, Max Hastings didn’t mention immigration once, let alone name it as a direct cause of Muslim terrorism in the West. Instead, he used the weasel-word “globalisation.” Why are there Pakistanis and Somalis all over the Western world? According to Hastings, it’s not by the treachery of our hostile elite and its collaborators, but because of “globalisation.”

Mark and Moshe

Hastings’ deceit and dishonesty are also found in a much more famous and influential journalist: the neo-con Mark Steyn. As you would expect, Steyn has been writing and talking extensively about the Hebdo massacre. He’s been stressing two themes: the suffering of Jews and the corruption of our political elite. Here are examples:
I can’t claim to have known Georges Wolinski, the 80-year-old cartoonist among the dead on Wednesday, but I met him briefly, a few years ago. Via Laura Rosen Cohen, I learn of the strange, circular journey of his life and death. His father was a Polish Jew who fled to Tunisia to lead a life free of pogroms. Georges was born there in 1934. Two years later, his dad was murdered, and the family moved again, this time to France.
And on Wednesday, like his father, the son was killed.
Wolinski père fled Jew-hate in Europe to be murdered in the Muslim world.
Wolinski fils fled Jew-hate in the Muslim world to be murdered in Europe, by Muslims. (#JeSuisCharlie – But You’re Not, Steyn Online, 9th January 2015)
And what did all these grandees [European ministers] decide [in their meeting after the Hebdo massacre]? Well, like the lads of the cyber-caliphate, they’re all about the Internet – that’s to say, “while safeguarding that it remains, in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression”, they’re going to lean on Internet providers “to create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing”.
Ah. So to honor the memory of all those cartoonists who died for free speech they’re going to police free speech ever more rigorously. This is already a culture in which a Yorkshireman can be arrested for posting a video of him dumping a Koran in the toilet, and in which the useless totalitarian twerps of the Scottish Police openly threaten the citizenry that they’re under constant surveillance. What’s more likely under the new security regime? That they’ll be cracking down on ISIS recruiters and firebreathing imams? Or just creating makework schemes for Constable McPlod to chastise the multiculturally insensitive? (Allahu Hackbar!, Steyn Online, 12th January 2015)
Heavens. I’m sure the Jewish community in all European nations will be up in arms and cease its generous donations to the politicians responsible for the surveillance state and the destruction of free speech. Or possibly not. Here is something from November 2013 that Steyn is not pouring sarcasm on:
European Jewish Congress Calls on EU to Set Up State Surveillance of “Intolerant” Citizens
In a move described by a leading civil rights group as a “dark day for European democracy,” Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress (ECJ) and former president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski (real name Stoltzman), have called on the European Union to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens of all 27 EU member states suspected of “intolerance.”
The two EJC leaders made the call at a “European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” (ECTR) submission to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
… Further, the draft statute goes on to say that “defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group … with a view to … slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to the false charges” may be considered ‘group libel’ and, therefore, may be treated like acts of intolerance” as well as hate crimes.
Conspicuously absent, however, is any mention of balancing this with freedom of speech. (European Jewish Congress Calls on EU to Set Up State Surveillance of “Intolerant” Citizens, The New Observer, 9th November 2013)
When will Mark Steyn name the most important enemies of free speech and most important facilitators of mass immigration from Muslim nations? Never, I assume. That would mean being honest about the causes he pretends to believe in.

Sinister Neo-Con

But there was an honest Jewish writer who should be honoured for long ago warning what Muslims and other non-Whites were doing to the West. By the time of his death in March 2013, Larry Auster had been condemning mass immigration and liberal race-politics for over twenty years. Auster was a true defender of European civilization. As such, he saw Mark Steyn for what he is: an enemy of European civilization:
The worst of Steyn, redux
Posted at year’s end one year ago was my discussion of Mark Steyn’s explicit call for the destruction of Europe at the hands of Muslims (followed by a must-read discussion by VFR [View from the Right] readers). Steyn wrote:
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent. Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill.
From which I concluded:
… Steyn is not just a guy using a “trick” to gain personal success. On top of his relatively innocent, con-man aspect, there is his sinister, neocon aspect, in which he fools people into thinking that he’s standing up for the West, when in fact he’s doing just the opposite. (“The worst of Steyn, redux,” View From the Right, 4th January 2007)
Steyn is shocked, shocked, that mass non-Western immigration has been going on in this establishment
… We see here the phoniness and emptiness of Steyn. He, perhaps the most widely published “conservative” columnist in the world, has NEVER discussed immigration AT ALL, even in the mild passing way that is done by all manner of conservative columnists. But now suddenly wanting to talk about the issue after having been totally silent about it all these years, he complains that no one can talk about it because of the racism charge! What right has he to make this complaint, given that he had ample opportunity to discuss the issue and avoided it like the plague? For example, he wrote innumerable articles about the Muslim threat in the West without once mentioning the fact that it was by Muslim immigration that Muslims had entered the West and were still entering it. You would think from reading Steyn that Muslim had sprung out of the ground. (“Steyn is shocked, shocked, that mass non-Western immigration has been going on in this establishment,” View From the Right, June 3, 2009)
When Larry Auster died, he and his ideas were ignored by the mainstream media in which Mark Steyn continues to flourish. But honest ideas about Islam did appear in the mainstream media after the Hebdo massacre:
Anjem Choudary on the Charlie Hebdo attacks: ‘Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression’
After yesterday’s Paris shooting, in which four journalists on satirical publication Charlie Hebdo were killed, Muslim activist Anjem Choudary has written an open letter entitled ‘People Know The Consequences’. In the letter, which was published by USA Today, Choudary says: “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.”
He adds: “Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
The post asks: “Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?” and Choudary adds: “Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.” (Anjem Choudary on the Charlie Hebdo attacks: ‘Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression’, The Independent, 8th January 2015)
Choudary nails the hypocrisy of Western liberals and the “Je Suis Charlie” crowd. They represent appeasement and surrender to Islam and other Third World invaders. Mark Steyn and Max Hastings represent neo-con posturing and deceit.

It’s Voltaire and Brigitte Bardot who represent the true spirit not just of France but of Europe as a whole. And that spirit is growing stronger. I predicted a year ago in “Moshe is Monitoring You” that big changes would soon took place in Europe. I think I was right. Moshe Kantor has a lot more people to monitor now.

Golden Ages

via Whitaker Online

Romantics say there were “Golden Ages” in prehistory, before there was ANY writing. Conveniently, there are no records to prove otherwise.

Mommy Professor writes to get her meal ticket. She says there were “Golden Ages” when there was the MOST writing.

The “Golden Ages” of Mommy Professor always involve LITERATURE. The Elizabethan period to her is a LITERARY “Golden Age”. But the texts fawned over by Mommy Professor had no bearing on England’s POLITICAL POWER. The plays of “Shakespeare” disappeared for decades after being written. Meanwhile England grew its territory and political power.

Few notice this. But Europe’s “high” literature from the “early modern period” was remarkably SILENT about the New World. Considering the colonization of the New World was so significant, why was it so rarely written about?

The literature of Mommy Professor doesn’t refer to reality. Her “Golden Ages” usually happen during or just before a massive collapse! Periclean Athens was the cause of Athens’ total defeat to the Spartans. Rome’s “Golden Age” included the final destruction of the Roman Republic. The most approved of Spanish texts were from Spain’s decline. Germans’ literary “Golden Age” was when Napoleon took over.

Under Napoleon, people called the Germans “the Folk of poets and thinkers”. To Mommy Professor that is a compliment. This just shows how silly Mommy Professor is! “The Folk of poets and thinkers” was about “educated” Germans who were lost in “high” literature and being trounced. They were a laughing stock.

Enemy soldiers can be marching through the streets. But so long as “intellectuals” are publishing, Mommy Professor will call it a “Golden Age”.

Top 9 Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories

via Counter-Currents

1. Attackers had blue eyes.

This rumor would imply that the killers were in fact special forces and that the Kouachi Brothers were patsies. It’s only source seems to be with Caroline Fourest, a writer and television personality with a history of false reporting, defamation, and plagiarism. She often refers to anonymous sources who confirm her contentions that all religious people are evil, particularly white men.

Shortly after the attack she said, “there is a young journalist, a young contributor to Charlie Hebdo who had a Kalishnikov pointed at her nose and told recite the Koran and I’ll spare you. Then she started reciting lines over and over and he said you have very pretty blue eyes he told me that or very pretty eyes, I forget.”

Conspiracy theorist promoting this line cut the clip after “blue eyes.” Because Fourest runs through the sentence very quickly, and because of written cues and preparation before the clip, “he said” becomes “she said,” which means the attacker was not a Kouachi.

Furthermore, she seems to be embellishing the story of the employee who let the Kouachis inside. This employee testified being told, “I will let you live so that one day you may read the Koran.”

There was similar confusion over the first stage of the Mohammed Merah attacks and unverified claims in the media that the attacker had blue eyes. One wonders if that had anything to do with the upcoming Presidential election and rising popularity of Marine Le Pen.

2. The Kouachis shot blanks at the police.

This rumor is based on the armchair forensic analysis of the video of the cop being murdered on the sidewalk. There is no sight of blood after 5 seconds, and there is a puff of dust on the sidewalk when the kill shot is given. The interpretation of these conspiracy theorists is that the bullet hit the sidewalk and the cop was playing dead or that the attackers were shooting blanks.

What we can determine is that this was not a headshot, nor does it seem that the heart or an artery was hit. The visuals are consistent with a shot that would immobilize the victim and eventually be fatal. A live round hitting the pavement would have created debris (there is none in the video).

If this was a blank being fired, are they suggesting that only the cop faked his death and that all of the employees were killed with live rounds? Or have all of them decided to cut links with their family and friends to disappear and assume new identities for the sake of a false flag attack that has no clear return address? Either these theorists (like StormCloudsGathering) are too stupid to understand the implications of this detail, or their goal is disinformation.

3. The attackers’ vehicle had white rear view mirrors, whereas the Kouachis vehicle did not.

The Kouachis did put some forethought into their escape (though their planning was not perfect). It is common practice to cover new cars being delivered to a dealership and cars that have just been detailed with white plastic over spots likely to get spoiled. The rear view mirrors were likely covered with this plastic, which they later removed in order to slow down the police investigation.

However, readers should note that is in fact possible to change the entire color of a car in minutes. The process is called Plastidip. It is sprayed on the car like a regular paint (often with a distinctive matte finish, but not always). Here is a demonstration of how it is removed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_YPSBzNi14).

The Kouachi Brothers undoubtedly studied the Mohammed Merah attacks. Merah painted his helmet and changed the appearance of his scooter in between murdering the paratroopers and the victims at the Jewish day school.

4. Kouachis left behind an ID card, reminiscent of the passport at the WTC.

One of the most ridiculous aspects of the WTC attack was the discovery of an intact passport belonging to a hijacker which was supposedly found in the rubble soon after the attacks. This is another detail that makes this seem like a frame up of patsies who were not involved in the attacks.

In looking at the Kouachi attacks it is clear that they are neither total pros nor total bumblers. It seems like they were comfortable handling their weapons and achieved their objective, but they also went to the wrong address at first and then had a shoe fall out of the car which was retrieved because they planned on changing from their tactical gear into civilian clothes. Also, it was the brother who seems to have received less training who left behind his wallet with IDs in his tactical clothes after he changed out of them.

5. The Jews did it.

While simply answering the question “who benefits?” may be enough in Cairo and Beirut to conclude an investigation, we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
The State of Israel has certainly carried out Black Terror attacks in the past, even those that ostensibly targeted Jews. In my article on “Jewish Demographic Destiny,” I predicted that Israel would carry out Black Terror attacks in France, which I believe came true near Gare du Nord in March 2014.

However, a common theme in Mossad Black Terror plots (both those admitted and those alleged by professional analysts) is that they never plan on killing Jews. At least 7 Jews can be counted amongst the victims at Charlie Hebdo and HyperCacher. That is already more than the number of Israeli citizens who died in the WTC attacks.
As Israel craves citizen-soldiers and Netanyahu needs to shore up support before his upcoming election, they definitely benefit, but no serious person can believe they are behind the attacks.

6. Marine Le Pen did it.

There are several versions of this floating around that either the FN alone, the Gladio stay-behind armies, or a combination of the Gladio paramilitaries and the Mossad (!?) carried out the attacks. This trades on the same “who benefits” logic mentioned above.

The guys who carried out the Strategy of Tension are either very old or already dead. They were also the useful idiots of the DC government in Europe. If this really was a Gladio operation though, wouldn’t they rather have Russophone Ukrainian separatists as the culprits, since containing Russia is the higher priority of NATO right now? Would the attackers at least have strongly agreed on who they work for based on whether the oligarchs want to invade Syria or Yemen?

7. ISIS or Al Qaeda is behind this.

This is basically the official story. However, this explanation has problems of its own. The Kouachi Brothers, who attacked Charlie Hebdo, and Coulibaly, who attacked HyperCacher, claimed that they were fighting on behalf of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) and the Islamic State (Syria/Iraq), respectively. To multiply the confusion about two masters, as it turns out Al Qaeda and IS have broken their alliance (just as Al Qaeda had earlier broken with al Zarqawi).

One of the Kouachi brothers spent time in Yemen several years ago, and there have been reports that they may have made a recent trip to Syria, though details remain scant.

They may have briefly met someone in the Middle East with links to either jihadist organization, but what is beyond a doubt is that their mentor and trainer was Djamel Beghal, a veteran of Algerian jihadism, dating back to the ’90s. Chérif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly were in jail with him, and they visited him regularly after he was released to the pastoral landscapes of Cantal.

The three attackers put in a great deal of effort and planning to coordinate attacks with each other, but they couldn’t get their story straight on who they worked for.

8. Lassana Bathily is a “Righteous among the Ummah” who saved the lives of many Jews . . . or not.

Lassana recounted his story to the press that he was working in the basement of HyperCacher when several patrons came down to escape the terrrorist attack. He huddled them into the fridge and turned off the light and the refrigeration before going upstairs to convince the killer not to go downstairs.

The only problem is that he is not even mentioned in the stories of three survivors which were recounted in the Israeli Press from Rudy Haddad, Mickael B., and Yohan Derai and on Europe 1 Radio by Sophie. These accounts have their own variations and technical problems (were the freezers left on or not, did a baby really stay in a freezer at -10 C for 5 hours without getting frostbite, etc.?). But it is clear that Coulibaly did not intend to kill all of his hostages, and Lassana did not save them. Coulibaly killed three initially and only killed a fourth when a hostage tried to grab a gun.

9. The strange end of Coulibaly

The end of the hostage crisis at HyperCacher is the strangest part of this whole affair. In the video, the swat team seems to take no defensive measures while shooting into the store, one of the swat team runs in alone when they knew there were booby-trap bombs inside, the swat team appear to shoot in the direction of each other when Coulibaly jumps out the door, and finally (this must be seen to be believed) Coulibaly appears to be handcuffed when he runs out the door. I am at a loss to explain any of this and invite any expert to explain these bizarre elements.