Oct 21, 2015

The Trump Train and the Southern Strategy: The Only Hope for the GOP

via TradYouth

The Republican Party and the forces of Conservative, Inc. have been following the same losing playbook for generations, gaining victory only when their voting base forces it, not by design. The last time the Republicans in any form actually tried to win goes back to the Southern Strategy of the mid-60s where the Party aimed to become a party of increasingly disenfranchised White Southern voters as the Democratic Party moved to be a coalition of non-White ethnic interest groups, unchecked immigration, and the degenerate lobby (abortion, sexual deviance, etc…).

The Southern Strategy did not just aim to be the Party of Southern Whites, however. The talking point of “States’ Rights” was used to court White voters in areas where the Federal government to force integration was doing busing campaigns at gunpoint.  They took White children across town to Black neighborhoods and take Black children into predominantly White neighborhoods. These forced integration projects of course turned out to be abysmal failures. In areas like South Boston it has taken over forty years for public officials to admit this.

Test scores either stayed the same or fell, community cohesion fell to pieces, and violence within schools also soared. Parental and community opposition to forced integration and busing led to protests throughout America with the Democratic politicians increasingly abandoning their States’ Rights and community choice position and throwing in with the Leftist elites of the new Democratic Party.

White communities felt like their voices weren’t being heard because Federal authorities steadfastly refused to change their positions on forced busing while local groups like the Boston School Committee denounced the busing program for causing “bloodshed and racial hatred.”

Democratic politicians like Boston Mayor Kevin White “banned all public meetings or gatherings of more than three people in South Boston to try to limit the opposition to busing,” but this left millions of White Americans on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line frustrated with their government officials and looking for representation for their concerns in an America that demographically and culturally was changing from the historic norms of traditional America.

Republicans were able to take a a huge segment of former Democrat voters through targeting White working- and middle-class folks. This started with Barry Goldwater coming out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the Southern Strategy really took its stride with Richard Nixon who ran on a “law and order” and States’ Rights. This platform appealed to White Americans who were concerned about integration, Federal overreach, and the rise of far-Left groups on America’s streets and universities. This strategy allowed the Republicans to go from losing the Deep South to Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1968 to taking clean sweeps of former Democrat–but majority White–areas of the Midwest and South throughout the 1970’s until today. States like West Virginia that held out as Democratic strongholds until recently have now gone solidly Republican.

Richard M. Nixon, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is seen arriving at the airport in Atlanta, Ga. with his wife, Patricia, on May 31, 1968. A crowd of about 350 people greeted them as Nixon visits the South to meet with delegates from various states. (AP Photo)
Richard Nixon capitalized on White voters through dog whistling racial issues in his campaign

The Southern Strategy was racial advocacy through a dog whistle when the political mainstream turned against explicit White ethnic advocacy. The Republican Party decided to cuck its base with a fundamentally dishonest game of steering to the Left while dog whistling to the Right.

The New York Daily News discussed the Southern Strategy by noting,
Nixon was hardly the first Republican to notice that Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legislation had alienated whites both in the South and elsewhere — Johnson himself had forecast that Southern whites would desert the Democratic Party…Johnson and the Democrats had wooed the black vote; Nixon would do the same for the white vote.”
As the Republicans lost the Black vote to the newly refashioned Democrats, they needed a base if they were going to compete in both State and Federal elections, that was found in the increasingly disenfranchised White folk of rural areas in the Midwest and South.

If the Republican Party had just been honest with itself and become vocal White advocates for Whites in America, we would likely not be in the same dire situation today that we now face. Driving into coded language about “States’ Rights” and “welfare cuts” did not answer the real racial problems in America, they only tried to court White voters into supporting the Republican Party. Republicans have always been shortsighted on racial issues, never actually wanting to defend the interests of Whites but using them as pawns in a battle against the Democrats, not the Democrats ideology.

The fact that Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town that was a hotbed of desegregation and Klan activity during the Civil Rights era, showed his rededication to the winning Southern Strategy that Nixon had won the Deep South on. Reagan in his declaration speech said “I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level.” This part of his speech was clear dog whistling on racial issues and issues of the Federal government forcing desegregation, busing and welfare programs on White citizens who didn’t want them.

The GOP could continue to win elections if
they actually listened to their White voting
base, they won’t because Republicans are
cowards and #cuckservatives
Washington Post correspondent William Raspberry said about Reagan’s speech that,
Reagan took the Republican Party from virtual irrelevance to the ascendancy it now enjoys. The essence of that transformation, we shouldn’t forget, is the party’s successful wooing of the race-exploiting Southern Democrats formerly known as Dixiecrats.”
Lee Atwater, a Reagan and Bush strategist explained the policy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.'”
The Republican Party became dominant in American politics due to racial dog whistling and courting racially aware Whites. That is without a doubt. The difference between Leftist news pundits and myself is that I don’t think that was a bad thing. Tribal welfare trumps the voting habits of every group of people in not only America, but the world. Whites should not be embarrassed about organizing for their best interests of their extended family. What White voters should have done is not throw in with the Republicans after the Republicans refused to follow through on their promises of fighting for White interests.

The 2012 election is a clear indicator of how high support is among Whites viewing the Republican Party as the de facto political vehicle for White interests.  If only White voters had cast ballots in the 2012 election, President Obama would have lost the electoral college 68 to 438, a stunning landslide for the Republicans. States like Mississippi in 2012 had 89% of all White voters cast their ballots for Mitt Romney while 93% of Black voters supported President Obama. There are clear racial divides in American politics and the Hispanic, Black, and Asian communities vote almost monolithically for the Democrat Party while over two-thirds of White voters stand behind the Republican Party.

Basic polling on issues of economics or social policy find that most voters cannot properly articulate the positions of their chosen candidates and Party. What matters is that American politics is winning the racial headcount. Black voters who are socially conservative on social issues still vote Democrat even though the GOP better articulates their religious views on abortion and gay marriage. Asians generally support lower taxes and should be as American Enterprise Institute’s Charles Murray says “a natural Republican constituency, Asians should define ‘natural’,” yet Asians voted 71% for Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

Regardless of individual social or economic views non-White voters have cemented themselves as the foundation and the future of the Democratic Party. Attempts by the Republican elite to promote non-Whites in the Republican Party, running more “diverse” candidates and investing countless millions of dollars in “minority outreach” have been met by communities of color with silence or outright mocking, but above all these programs have not made new Republican voters.

A sentiment shared by many of the Republican Party's base
A sentiment shared by many of
the Republican Party’s base
Washington Post reporter Janell Ross pointed out that,
“Data suggest that no amount of repackaging is going to produce major minority voter gains for Republicans. Only actual platform revisions and policy changes — real shifts in the party’s positions — seem capable of a job this big.”
The question would then remain: Why exactly would communities of color vote for Democrat-lite when they can vote for the real thing? The GOP has proven through the 1986 amnesty and dozens of failed programs to court non-White voters that have been met with abysmal failure in pushing up non-White support for the Republicans and an alienation of the White Republican base that leaving the Southern Strategy may very well be the end of the Republicans on the national political stage.

Trends show that the Republicans supporting liberal positions and catering to non-Whites is not winning new non-White voters, it is only losing millions of White voters for the GOP. If Mitt Romney had received the same amount of support that John McCain did in 2008 he would have won the election in 2012, but …”Romney won 1.3 million fewer than McCain in 2008.”

Henry Wolff of American Renaissance wrote after the 2012 election that,
If whites do become a minority of the electorate, even a successful strategy of consolidating their votes will not work at the national level. But in the meantime, any Republican support for amnesty, more legal immigration, and any other policy that increases the non-white percentage of the electorate would only add fuel to the Party’s funeral pyre.”
The Republicans only hope is to return to the Southern Strategy and actively work to win White voters but due to Political Correctness and the corruption of the Party by the Zionist and business lobby, the chances of the Republican Establishment turning back towards White voters is unlikely, if impossible.

Now as the Republican Party has decided to become “more inclusive,” which is a nice way of saying that the Party is abandoning their base lock, stock and barrel and still expecting the base to turn out at the polls it appears that the Republicans are done for, at least that is until the rise of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has positioned himself to be the first candidate since Pat Buchanan in the early 1990s to do what the White Republican base actually wants on immigration; deportation of illegal immigrants and enforcement of Federal immigration laws. While the mainstream GOP candidates have to follow the marching orders from the big Party donors and elites and cater to illegal immigrants and the desires of big business lobbies, Donald Trump can afford to actually speak to the desires of the Republican Party base.

The fact that Donald Trump is not a bought man by the big money donors of the Republican elite such as the Chamber of Commerce who cares far more about corporate tax rates than they do about the ethnic composition or cultural well-being of their country, who are the absolute worst shills for unchecked immigration, is why he can follow the views of the base wherehalf of Iowa’s expected Republican caucus-goers favor deportingand80 percent of voters [who] see illegal immigration as a serious national problem.” Almost by what appears to be an accident, Donald Trump has positioned himself as a fighter of the “silent majority” as Nixon was and once again rally the White voters of America.

Donald Trump is standing for White Americans on immigration and that is why the Jewish elite will have to attempt to destroy him
Donald Trump is standing for White Americans on immigration and that is why the Jewish elite will have to attempt to destroy him

While Donald Trump is speaking to White Americans like few politicians since the 1980’s have, he also has positions that could actually win him more minority support than his GOP competitors. Trump’s immigration plan speaks to both White and non-White voters, the majority of whom have been hurt by both illegal and legal immigration. Breitbart reported that:
A 2012 Pew Poll found that 69 percent of Americans want to place greater restrictions on who was allowed into the United States. A recent poll from Kellyanne Conway found that a plurality of Americans wish to see a moratorium on immigration for the time being. And a separate poll by KellyAnne Conway found that Hispanics, by nearly a seven to one ratio, want employers to hire workers already in the country rather than importing foreign workers to fill jobs. Black voters support this measure by a ratio of almost 30 to 1.”
No one, other than Jewish elites and self-hating White liberals, want to have their jobs and communities filled with people who drive down wages, increase crime and further fragment America’s already broken and failed multicultural experiment. By not even trying, Trump could get the largest White, Black and Hispanic support that the GOP has had in recent elections, all while not apologizing and groveling like the rest of the Republican contenders.

In the bizarre world of the 2016 Presidential Election it looks as if nothing can stop a former reality television star and business mogul from becoming the populist candidate for the White working and middle class. While I do not think that Donald Trump is anything but a civic nationalist, any basic understanding of economics unskilled Third World immigration is bad for America, Donald Trump is blowing the dog whistle for White racial interests harder than any other candidate, and louder than the Republic elites would ever dream a candidate would do in our politically correct age.

The reason that Trump can dominate is because the #Cuckservatives of the Republican Establishment are forced by their own allegiance to political correctness or the demands of their paymasters are forced to fight politically with both hands tied behind their back. Even Zionist lackeys like Senator Ted Cruz point out that “The people who show up at the polls, who elected you and me, and who elected this Republican majority… far too many of the Republican donors look down on those voters as a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes.”

trumpppThere is a disconnect between the Republican base and the donor class, a divide that is both religious and racial. The Jewish mega donors hate the fact that the Republican base is both Christian and White. Jews have a religious and tribal hatred of both Christianity and the European people, primarily because of our long history as being the front-lines of the Christian Church for the past two thousand years. Jewish elites want to destroy Christianity and the European people through their social, political and economic weapons so it should not be surprising that their interests are the opposite of the interests of White Americans.
Republican mega donors like Sheldon Adelson, Norman Braman, Howard Jonas, Mel Sembler and the rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition believe in strong borders and defense for Israel, but a prostrated and defenseless America and Europe. These donors like Fred Zeidman make immigration an issue about the Jewish people and what is best for the Jewish mercantile class, not what is best for the American people.

Zeidman told reporters that the GOP has to support amnesty because “The rest of the party has to understand what we as Jews have always understood — that this is a nation of immigrants and to ignore them is to end up losing.” While standing strong on immigration enforcement and deportation of illegal immigrants will win elections and votes, the Jewish power structure of the GOP is not interested in victory or the desires of everyday White folks, only positions that benefit fellow Jews politically and financially.

The battle lines of 2016 are going to be the Jewish backed candidates and the White American’s candidate. Whoever the GOP picks to go up against Donald Trump is assured to be kosher and the primary battle and potential election with Trump possibly running independent will get bloody. To the Jewish puppet masters of the Republican Party to lose control of the Party, albeit temporarily, to someone who cannot be bought or sold is something that cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

While Donald Trump is neither a Traditionalist nor a White nationalist, he is a threat to the economic and social powers of the international Jew. For this reason alone as long as Trump stands strong on deportation and immigration enforcement we should support his candidacy insofar as we can use it to push more hardcore positions on immigration and Identity. Donald Trump is not the savior of Whites in America, he is however a booming salvo across the bow of the Left and Jewish power to tell them that White America is awakening, and we are tired of business as usual.

The march to victory will not be won by Donald Trump in 2016, but this could be the stepping stone we need to then radicalize millions of White working and middle class families to the call to truly begin a struggle for Faith, family and folk. For this reason alone I will campaign for Donald Trump because as the saying goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and that is doubly true if that person is viewed as an enemy by the International Jew.

For Every Black Lynched During Jim Crow, Ten Whites Are Murdered Today

via The Audacious Epigone

The question isn't whether or not reparations should be paid out, it is whether or not they should stop being paid out.

From 1882-1968 3,446 blacks were lynched in the US. That comes to an average of just under 40 blacks per year. In 2011, to take a recent year in which data are readily available, at least 448 whites were murdered by blacks (keeping in mind that the rate of black-on-white homicide is several times higher than the rate of white-on-black homicide and that in more than one-in-three cases of homicide the murderer is never identified). If we subtract from this figure the number of blacks murdered by whites during the same year (193), we still get a net interracial white body count of 255.

It is likely the case that, over the course of US history, more whites have been killed by blacks than blacks have been killed by whites. And with every passing year, that black advantage over whites in interracial murders increases.

Of course it naturally follows from this that the biggest intellectual sensation in the US today is a black guy who profitably laments things like white privilege and the legacy of slavery, a message that Colin Flaherty parsimoniously reduces to three words: "White people suck"!

Perhaps it's unfair to be so dismissive of the work of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Besides making life miserable for Coke executives, Coates accurately perceives that rather than fading into the past, racial strife is America's future. Google's Ngram corroborates that insight:

The Present Day Survival of the Volsungs-Light and Hope for the Future

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

Read The Volsunga Saga

These are dark days for the Aryan race but this should not come as any surprise to the majority of my readers who are aware of the Prophecy of the Vala (Voluspa, Poetic Edda). The time leading up to Ragnarok will be one of increasing conflict and this is mirrored in the very word itself R-A-G-N-A-R-O-K > K-O-R-A-N-G-A-R (Spear of the Koran, Gar being Germanic for the word spear). Islamic fundamentalism will be the catalyst for the coming world war for the two concepts cannot reside side by side-W-A-L-H-A-L-L-A > A-L-L-A-H-L-A-W (Sharia Law). Our Germanic and Aryan heathen spirituality and way of life over the millenia has been the object of attack by the followers first of YAHWEH, then of the Christ and now by the followers of Allah and his prophet Muhammad.

The western apologists who have not only allowed but engineered events for millions of Muslims to invade the west refer to Islam as a 'religion of peace' whenever the latest Islamist atrocity takes place. These are the true followers of Islam not the peaceful hard working citizens who are merely cultural muslims. The true muslim like the true Christian or follower of Judaism is a fanatic for fanaticism is encouraged in the holy books of all three Abrahamic religions. The word Islam shares the same root as the Arabic word salem which means peace but Islamists interpret this to mean that personal peace can only be attained by submission to Allah. If one doubts the warlike nature of Islam one only has to consider its history and the foothold that it gained in Spain and Portugal-by CONQUEST! The idiotic and traitorous politicians who control the west today are set to allow yet more floods of these fifth columnists (despite the apparent objections presented to the media) into our lands, first of all to leach off the rest of us and then to increase their growing militant cadre. So Ragnarok my readers is inevitable!

However dear readers there is light and this light I reveal to you now. There has been much talk and many books written in recent decades on the supposed bloodline of the Holy Grail. The book that sparked all this off was The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln in 1982. This legend has proven to be a nice little earner for those involved in churning out this nonsense. The truth of the matter is that yes there is a Holy Bloodline and yes there is a Graal but they have nothing to do with the fictional characters of the New Testament. The real Holy Bloodline is that of the Volsungs. It is Germanic and it is Woden-born. The Volsungs are no more mythical than the characters of the New Testament and are actually rooted in history. What I reveal to you today is that their bloodline has survived!

Throughout the western world thousands of people with the blood of the Volsungs live and breathe and yet are blissfully unaware of their lineage! Indeed only in recent months have I become aware that two of my kinswomen are of the Volsung line through their maternal ancestry. I want to make it quite clear here and now that I am not of this lineage although my blood has become mixed with the Volsungs. Their maternal relatives have been made aware of this heritage. However being of the Volsung blood does not always guarantee a Volsung mindset. I suspect that 99.99% of them are unaware of their heritage and even if the majority were informed few would understand its true significance and even less would act upon it. Nevertheless this revelation should give us hope for the future for from this line will emerge the future leaders and heroes of our race. It gives us a focal point, even if symbolic that we can rally around.

My kinswomen trace their ancestry direct to our High Lord Woden via Aslaug, the daughter of Sigurd Sigmundsson and the shieldmaiden Brynhildr. Aslaug had had 4 sons via Ragnar Lodbrok: Ivar the Boneless, Hvitserk, Ragnvald the Mountain-High and Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye. It is through the historical hero Hrolf the Ganger that my kinswomen trace their ancestry to the Volsungs via Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye. It is conjectured by some scholars that the Germanic hero of heroes, Sigurd/Siegfried may be none other than the first century chieftain of the Cherusci and saviour of Germany, Arminius/Hermann. I am undecided about this and keep an open mind.

In the coming months I will write more about the Volsungs, possibly on my Celto-Germanic Culture, Myth and History blog. Here are links to some of my earlier articles about the Volsungs: http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/volsunga-saga-heroism-and-blood-purity.html, http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/der-ring-des-nielungen-work-of-left.html, http://celto-germanic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/odin-and-volsung-clan.html, http://armanen.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-helm-of-awe.html, http://armanen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/further-insights-on-aegishjalmur.html

The ADL: Defamation Has Nothing to Do with It

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Jonathan Greenblatt, current head of the ADL
“Fighting defamation” of Jews was the ostensible purpose of the ADL (original name “Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith”) when it was founded 102 years ago this month. But fighting defamation really had nothing to do with it. The purpose of the ADL, then as now, was to keep Gentiles — specifically, the host populations of those nations where Jews reside — under control.

When the ADL was founded in 1913, the president of the Atlanta, Georgia B’nai B’rith, a Jewish sweatshop boss named Leo Frank, had just been convicted for the sex murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, one of his employees. Despite overwhelming evidence of Frank’s guilt, the Jewish power structure — financiers, press barons, underworld figures, and the B’nai B’rith itself — organized a massive advertising, editorial, bribery, pressure, and public relations campaign which attempted to reverse the jury’s verdict and set Frank free. They failed. But one of the things they did was create the ADL. Remember that: The ADL was founded to leverage Jewish money and influence to nullify and defeat a jury’s verdict and set a sex murderer free — because that sex murderer was a Jew. That, ladies and gentlemen, had nothing to do with “defamation” of Jews.

My Cambridge dictionary defines defamation as “damaging the reputation of a person or group by saying or writing bad things about them that are not true.”

The arrest and conviction of Leo Frank had nothing to do with defamation of Jews. It had nothing to do with Jews at all, the large population of which in Atlanta were utterly unmolested and undefamed.

But the Jewish campaign to free Leo Frank had as its basis the claim that the people of Atlanta and of the South generally were rabid, irrational, unreasoning bigots and Jew-haters and that this supposed “anti-Semitism” led them to prosecute and convict an innocent Jew. That claim is false — the truth is that the South then and now is the most pro-Jewish section of the United States. And that claim damages the reputation of Southerners. Therefore it was the ADL itself, from its very inception, that was engaging in defamation — the defamation of an entire people; a people they wished to intimidate, bully, and control.

Just this year, the ADL declared that the traditional Celtic cross, used by the Irish and other European peoples for millennia, is a “hate symbol.” What did that have to do with “defamation” of Jews? Exactly nothing. The purpose the of the ADL’s list of proscribed “hate symbols” is to intimidate and shame White people by demonizing any cultural symbol that might unite them or help them achieve a sense of shared identity. You may be sure that the Jews’ own cultural symbols — such as the menorah and the Star of David — are not on the “hate list,” despite the fact that they are often used by murderous gangs (like the Israeli “settlers” who drive families out of their homes so they can take over) and terrorists (like the Irgun bombers who helped found the state of Israel) and the assassins of the Mossad.

Just this week, Jonathan Greenblatt, the new ADL boss, called up Barack Obama and asked for an increase in the immigration of non-Whites from Syria into the United States, and also demanded more “action” to overthrow the government in Damascus, saying “We’re not telling the president how to do it, but we have a role to play in advocating that the U.S. increase its involvement in resolving this conflict.” What did that have to do with “defamation” of Jews? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But it had everything to do with using our dwindling wealth and the blood of our soldiers to invade a country which never did us any harm, overthrow its government, and set up a puppet regime that will be more friendly to the Jewish state. And it had everything to do with opening our borders even further, so that White Americans will continue to be displaced by non-Whites and our formerly orderly, civilized, advanced, and united society will be ripped apart by multiculturalism, violence, and chaos.

Just a month ago, the ADL called for the banning of writer and historian David Irving’s “Make Up Your Own Mind” history tours of Poland and Latvia. What did that have to do with the “defamation” of Jews? Nothing at all. But it had everything to do with muzzling and bankrupting Irving, who, as one of the very best researchers and investigators of the World War 2 era, has debunked or cast into serious doubt many of the exaggerated tales of Jewish losses during that war. The Jewish “holocaust” stories are a major source of funds and sympathy for Jewish groups and the state of Israel, and the guilt they induce in naive Whites is a major tool used to justify the mass invasion of formerly White nations and to demonize Whites who organize for White interests — “Oh, you say you want White people to survive… that’s just what the Nazis said, and you know where that leads!”

Just this August, the ADL launched what they called their “50 States Against Hate” initiative, through which they hope to pressure the five states which still do not have ADL-drafted “hate crime” laws on their books to cave in and enact such “laws.” What does that have to do with “defaming” Jews? Nothing whatever. But it has everything to do with intimidating Whites into keeping quiet about their dispossession and looming genocide. It pretty much says everything about the lavishly-funded ADL’s ability to control legislatures when you note that 45 states did enact such “laws” based on the ADL-written “model statute” handed to them along with a few hints about press coverage and campaign donations. Now they’re working on the remaining five states, and they’re not ashamed to use Leo Frank as the poster boy for their campaign.

What these “hate crime” laws do is create two tiers of citizens in this country, with a different set of laws and punishments for each tier. One tier is for people who do what their televisions tell them to do and never complain about the conversion of America into a Third World slum. The second tier is for White people who do want their race to survive and do oppose the non-White invasion. If a first-tier person is suspected of a crime, he will get the normal amount of police scrutiny and face the normal amount of punishment if convicted. But, under the ADL’s “hate crime” laws, a second-tier citizen suspected of exactly the same infraction will get vastly increased police scrutiny and suspicion, and face far higher sentences if convicted because the legal assumption will be that he was “motivated by hate.” The entire purpose of these ADL-created “laws” is to intimidate Whites into keeping their heads low and their mouths shut while their throats are being cut. “Defamation” of Jews has nothing to do with it — control of Whites and the silencing of dissent are the real motivations.

One the ADL’s pet projects recently has been the legalization of so-called “gay marriage” and the promotion of “equality” for sexual perverts in every sphere of life. The ADL was the main force behind a Jewish coalition that filed a pro-perversion amicus brief before the Supreme Court on the homosexual “marriage” issue. Vice President Joe Biden said that the ADL and other Jewish groups have “driven gay marriage changes” in the US. (He thought that was a wonderful thing, of course.) When the court decision went their way, the ADL even tweeted “love wins,” borrowing the homosexual slogan of the day. The ADL crowed that they were “on the right side of history.” What does all this have to do with “defamation” of Jews? Not a damned thing. What it has to do with is lowering the already suicidally-low birth rate of Whites, confusing young Whites about their sexuality and even their sexual identity, and enlisting impressionable and naive Whites to make so-called “gay rights” their cause du jour and the focus of their young lives. All of these things work together to reduce the number of those most undesirable things possible in this world, in their view: White children.

This becomes even more obvious when you look at the ADL’s strong support of the state of Israel, which is so pervasive and intense that it has led to repeated calls for the ADL to be required to register as the agent of a foreign government. In Israel, however, “gay marriage” is outlawed, and the ADL says nothing about it. In Israel, marriage between Jews and non-Jews is also forbidden, and the ADL says nothing about that, either. Guess being on “the right side of history” really means promoting and encouraging homosexuality, and other perversions of the sacred, in White countries — and opposing those same perversions in the Jewish state. It means promoting racial mixing on a genocidal scale in White countries — and demonizing, ostracizing, even criminalizing, those Whites who oppose it. But it means exactly the opposite in the Jewish state, where keeping Jewish blood pure is the categorical imperative.

What does the ADL’s decades-long push for disarming the American people have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

What does the ADL’s association with — and accepting money from — organized crime figures like Meyer Lansky and Moe Dalitz have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the Jews at the ADL lobbied state legislatures for “anti-paramilitary training” statutes to prevent the kind of citizens’ militias that the Founding Fathers supported and depended on, what did that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL was caught with thousands of stolen confidential police files and private personal information on thousands upon thousands of Americans of all political persuasions, what did that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL defames the German people with preposterous and long-debunked atrocity stories such as the canard about Germans manufacturing soap out of the corpses of murdered Jews, what does that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL was caught encouraging and soliciting the wiretapping of the phones of private citizens deemed to be “enemies,” what did that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL “No Place for Hate” program gains control of our children’s classrooms in hundreds of schools across the country and teaches our children that pride of race and heritage and culture — if they’re White — is the ultimate evil, what does that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL sponsors training seminars for police officers and FBI agents, teaching these hapless men in uniform that White Americans who have the impunity to want their race to survive, as Jefferson and even Lincoln indubitably did, are evil terrorists who deserve special law enforcement attention, what does that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

When the ADL sends law enforcers and Congressmen on all-expenses-paid “fact finding” trips to the human-trafficking capital of the world, Israel, for indoctrination or “training,” where who knows what really happens or how many shekels change hands, what does that have to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews?

The answer, of course, is that none of these things had anything to do with fighting the “defamation” of Jews, and everything to do with controlling White people, terrorizing White people, corrupting the political and judicial systems of White people, intimidating White people, destroying the pride and cohesion of White people, shaming White people, capturing the minds of the children of White people and turning them against their own kind, making it difficult or impossible for White people to organize in any way for their own interests or defense, and doing everything possible to lower the birth rate of White people so that our hated race will, one day soon they hope, pass forever from the Earth.

South Africa’s Dutch Reformed Church Embraces Sodomy

via Faith & Heritage

The Dutch Reformed Church logo decorated
with a sodomite flag. The motto reads:
“One Body and One Spirit”
Nearly four years ago, I wrote a piece in defense of a Baptist minister who was shunned by a theologian from the Dutch Reformed Church (in South Africa) for publicly opposing sodomy as sin. In my conclusion to that piece I noted, “The Dutch Reformed Church is an apostate whore. All true followers of Christ should necessarily leave her. I have been ashamed to say I was baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church for many years now.” Again, that was a call I made four years ago. Now that call needs to be repeated and, if possible, with increased intensity.

On Friday, 9 October, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa followed in the footsteps of many other mainline Protestant denominations in the West, officially embracing sodomy and re-defining the concept of “marriage” in deviation from biblical norms. In 2012, Nathanael Strickland had also predicted that it would be a matter of time before it is accepted in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and earlier this year he turned out to be right. I must admit that I was a little surprised that the church in South Africa modified their position in the very same year as the PCUSA, since traditionally ecclesiastical degeneracy in South Africa has been five to ten years “behind” the U.S.

The official position of the DRC, as eventually accepted by 114 votes to 63, reads:
(2) The General synod accepts that hetero- and homosexual persons living in a personal relationship of obedience to God, can fully participate in the privileges of the church as covenant community.
(3) The General synod re-affirms … that marriage can only be considered the union of one man and one woman … [but] (4) in light of (2) we acknowledge civil unions between people of the same sex that is marked by love and fidelity – and provide the opportunity for ministers who do not consciously object, to confirm these unions in the church.
(5) The same Christian-ethical standards (for life and practice) are to be maintained for the ordination of all ministers, regardless of sexual orientation. Point 7 of the decision of 2007 [which determined that gay ministers should remain celibate] is overruled.1
Note that the distinction made between a “marriage” and a “civil union” is, particularly in the South African context, confusing at best. The bill (incidentally supported by the this very same church at the time2) which passed full sodomite “marriage” with equal marital rights in South Africa in 2006 was actually known as the “Civil Unions Act.” The church has now moved from their former Radical Two-Kingdom position, as expressed in 2006, to a fully apostate position in 2015. The church’s position places it in the category of heterodox at best and the word “Reformed” in its name has become meaningless.

It is valuable, in order to get to the heart of the problem, to look at some of the arguments made in favour of this decision during the synodal deliberation preceding it. A perusal of the live blog on the discussions reveals that though a majority of elders argued in favour of the biblical doctrine, an overwhelming majority of clergy and seminary professors promoted the Marxist position. Some true gems were produced in contending for the Marxist side: Rev. Monte Sahd, for example, made the following argument: “I ask that the church [finally] makes a non-discriminatory decision: that heterosexual and homosexual relationships be considered equally.” A delegate from the floor said that the church “can’t consider our own apology or racism as sincere if we reject the blessing of same-sex marriage.” Rev. Andre Bartlett, one of the main proponents of the Marxist position, noted that in his twenty-eight years as a minister he has worked with couples of various sexual orientations and that, in every case, “it is the same love. I had to ask myself the question, where does love come from? The Bible tells me love comes from God.” Later he would also argue for the same case by noting, “Biblical justice demands that all people be treated with dignity and equally. . . . [H]eterosexual and homosexual couples that live in a faithful and obedient relationship to God should enjoy the same ecclesiastical rights and privileges.” A professor in Old Testament from the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria, Alphonso Groenewald, argued, “The Bible teaches us to accept people as they are. To accept the full humanity of all people.” The head of that same department of Old Testament Studies, professor Dirk Human, supported his colleague: “The Bible helps us understand: All people should be treated equally, have equal rights and equal standing in the church.” Dr. Ben du Toit pleaded that if the church “impairs the dignity [of homosexuals] by not giving them equal rights, it is . . . a form of violence.” At one stage during the discussion a delegate literally said: “I think it is unfair that we have to make a freaking [sic] decision [for gay people] today. We must never forget who we are – a bunch of freaking [sic] sinners. Romans 1 is not about gay people, it is about us.” 3 

All things considered, the award for the worst performance of the entire synod would have to go to the aforementioned Rev. Monty Sahd. I quote a reporter’s live blog from the synod’s proceedings on the Thursday:
10:34 am
“I apologize that I refer people in terms of their sexual orientation. They are much more than that,” said Rev. Monty Sahd after he referred to “homosexual persons.”
He says that [at the] 2013 [synod] more than a yes or a no was introduced into the discussion. “Yet another word was added, apart from yes / no – Maybe!, maybe, but we should do a further study.” “I hope, pray, that today the ‘maybe’ can be turned into a ‘yes’.” He says there is a woman in the gallery for whom he has to apologize. She could not be legitimized as minister in 2007. Because she is gay. Monty Sahd started crying. “I want to look her in the eyes, and apologize for the pain.”4
These statements and performances represent the theology of the Dutch Reformed Church today. It is solidly Marxist, egalitarian, and sentimentalist, but it is in absolutely no way Christian. Without refuting each of the quotations one by one, I think that the general sentiment of them all is that “biblical” (read “humanist-social”) justice demands the elimination of all divinely ordained and revealed distinctions and borders, both societal and moral. The Law-Word, all the authority of God, is epistemically replaced by the zeitgeist-inspired sentiments and law of man. This is in reality, by definition, Satanism, and it has its theological-historical origin with the ideology of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. This is outright rebellion against the sovereignty of God. Between the white guilt and the borderless acceptance of sexual deviancy promoted at this synod, these men and women can and should be considered disciples of Voltaire and Marx, perhaps also of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, but certainly not of Christ.

Sadly for my people, still about 30% of Afrikaners are members of this denomination (an estimated 70% of which could be considered active). For a people born out of the Reformation, who have historically claimed to exercise a divine calling to hold dominion and spread the gospel in Africa, this is a historically significant defeat. Any and all claims to a legitimate covenantal response by our people are void. The institutional church is, for the most part, dead. When this is the case also in Afrikanerdom, which has always been the covenantal carrier of the faith in South Africa, and when one considers also that only 4% of children born in South Africa today are white (including both Afrikaners and Anglo-South Africans) and that the South African government seems hellbent on using sodomy to persecute Christians, the immediate future of Christianity in this part of the world looks very bleak indeed. It would seem that the only possible way forward from here is, with complete trust in the divine promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the conquering Church of Christ (Matt. 16:18), to have many children and raise them in true covenantal obedience, to build congregations who explicitly embrace and teach biblical truths and the laws of God, no matter how politically incorrect, and to create and strengthen communities of like-minded kinsmen.

The Revolution Will Be Podcast

via Radix

There will be a lot of great podcasters at Become Who We Are:
So we’re going to try something new—a group podcast with audience participation.

Around 4 PM, after the speeches from the day are complete, we’ll gather on stage and record a conversation, about the conference and everything else that’s going on in the world. And we’ll be able to field questions from the audience. This should be fun. And each participant can post the results on his respective feed.

Register for Become Who We here.

Nationalism: 5 Reasons to Get Involved!

via StateOfNation

The Case for Racial Re-Armament

via Alternative Right

Anti-Racism is the unilateral nuclear
disarmament of today
In recent months, thanks to the migrant crisis, it has become increasingly apparent that Racism is not some sort of elemental and supreme evil, as the Left would have us believe, but rather a defence system that encompasses many options from the mild to the extreme.

Those countries that wisely deploy Racism – from Japan with its almost zero intake of refugees to Switzerland where voters recently strengthened the power of the anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party – stand a better chance of preserving their ethnic and racial characters, while those that don’t are doomed to be colonized, genocided, or divided in racial conflict, as their earlier ethnomasochism inevitably switches to defensive racism.

The idea, still dominant in the West, that Racism is simply and always evil, and that anti-Racism is the only true moral position is essentially a category error. A category error is "a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category." In the case of Racism, something that is a valid part of group survival is erroneously judged as if it were merely an issue of individual taste.

Most racially aware White people I know wish to apply their Racism at the group macro level in political decisions effecting issues like immigration policy and cultural continuity, rather than the personal level, where they are quite willing to judge individuals (Whites or non-Whites) as individuals. Others, however, do wish to apply their Racism on a personal level as well, but even there it is no more discriminatory than the political correctness of Liberals and Leftists who defriend or shun those without the "correct views."

The idea of anti-Racism may have had a certain, tenuous validity, back when White survival was not an issue and there were cases of decent non-Whites being attacked, insulted, or turned down for jobs. But even then Racism cut both ways. At the height of the so-called “racist” 1950s, just as many, if not more, Whites were unfairly discriminated against than non-Whites. How else do you think Whites, with their superior talents, were pushed out of positions of power in Wall Street, academia, and the media? Our racial naivety, it seems, has deep roots.

The nasty, evil racist party behind this poster
did rather well in recent Swiss elections.
But even where Racism has had unpleasant rough edges, at which decent non-Whites have suffered, it is hard to denounce such Racism categorically, because it is essentially a defence mechanism in the same way that armies, minefields, and borders are. This inevitably means that, in application, there will be innocent victims and collateral damage. Not everyone killed in a war deserves to die either, but only an unrealistic idealist would argue in favour of the abolition of armies and weapons. If Racism started making too many exceptions, it wouldn’t be Racism anymore, nor would it be effective at doing what it’s supposed to do – protect the identity, security, and future of an ethnic group that is under demographic attack.

But even though a degree of Racism is essential to group survival, and increasingly so in the West, it continues to be held in great contempt by those populations that need it the most. As an inverse to this, Racism is enthusiastically and unashamedly practiced by those populations that need it the least, namely those inhabiting vile Third World hell holes that few people would want to colonize. Haiti or Detroit, for example, could easily maintain their racial character without any of the Racism that inevitably descends on any non-Black foolish enough to walk around unguarded. Dysfunction also has defensive properties, so it seems.

But what of those Whites who reject Racism as an nonnegotiable evil. How should we view such people? The correct way to view them is as a kind of Pacifist.

Many of them, despite their rigorously maintained myths of denial, realize that race exists and that most races have serious conflicts of interest with each other. They may even be dimly aware that we are already living in a low-grade state of perpetual race war. But rather than accepting that grim reality and preparing accordingly for the inevitable struggle, they entertain instead the Utopian hope that racial peace can somehow "break out" by a miraculous act of collective will. In this way, they are identical to the nuclear disarmament protesters and sympathizers who were prominent in European countries during the Cold War.

In the UK, for example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a powerful force that was supported by many of the great and the good in the land, including prominent writers, TV personalities, and churchmen. Other hands were also noted: Rabbi Saul Amias, the co-chairman of the Jewish Group of CND boasted that “there is hardly a single group of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament...which does not have a strong Jewish nucleus.” (The New Unhappy Lords, p. 157)

Communism only killed 100 million people. Let's try to be nice to them.
CND saw two waves of popularity, one from 1957 to 1963, and one from 1980 to 1989. It is interesting to reflect on what factors may have determined the movement’s rises and falls. The first wave was sparked by Britain’s development and testing of its own hydrogen bomb, after which CND marches were part of a pre-sixties, proto-hippie, counter-culture of beatnik poetry, campfires, singalongs, and open-toed sandals (with a big of shagging thrown in, as the world was going to be destroyed anyway, luv.).

The movement died out in the wake of the Cuba Missile Crisis, when the notion of unilateral disarmament was discredited by the positive spin put on President Kennedy’s uncompromising stance in that affair. Another significant factor might have been the arrival, after 1963, of the real 1960s pop culture of music, drugs, and sexual liberation, spearheaded by bands like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, which gave alternative expression to society’s rebellious animus.

The second wave started around 1980, and saw CND grow again to a mass movement, with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of sympathizers. This was in reaction to the late intense period of the Cold War, which saw Soviet Bloc expansion into Afghanistan and an arms race between Red Army SS20 missiles and NATO cruise missiles. The movement may also have got added impetus from the collapse of the Labour Party, which was unelectable for all of the 1980s, making CND a surrogate political opposition to the deeply polarizing figure of Mrs Thatcher. The movement collapsed again with the ending of the Cold War.

My face painting trumps your nuclear missiles.
But while the details of the movement are interesting, of greater significance is the attitude behind the belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament, which closely resembles the mindset of today's White anti-racist.

The typical CND activist believed in the naive and dangerous notion that if one side laid down its weapons then the other would follow. They had an unsubstantiated belief that all people were essentially good and the same as them, and that conflicts simply arose out of misunderstandings and counter-threats to perceived dangers, therefore all that was needed to eradicate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth was to start a virtuous cycle by making the first positive move.

The CND activist of the 1980s not only had a smug certainty that she was morally superior to other people, but also a conviction that she was more courageous because she was not afraid to let her guard down and give up her country's weapons of mass destruction first.

This attitude is exactly identical to that of today’s anti-racists. They think that the way to end the threat and hostility to Whites is to not defend White interests and abandon White security. Only by lowering our guard and taking great pains to demonstrate how unracist we are, can we reassure non-Whites and get them to reciprocate. The anti-racist believes that once Whites lower their guard enough and apologize enough then non-Whites will discard their own feelings of racial animosity, and we will all live together in perfect harmony (see picture below).

The anti-Racist future?
Of course, even if that were true, it would just mean the extinction of Whites through race-mixing and the higher birthrates of non-Whites. But also, nothing is better guaranteed to stoke non-White Racism than White anti-Racism – the opposite of its intended effect.

Faced with White racial disarmament and the chance to exploit Whites in various ways – whether it be through rape or rent-seeking – non-Whites will seek to justify their Racism against us. Although in many cases they don't even feel the need to bother: our weakness being justification enough.

But where there is any kind of moral debate – usually SJW-assisted – the absence of present oppression by Whites will be countered by casting up past oppressions. With perfect equality of opportunity granted, non-Whites and their White enablers will simply cavil about inequality of outcome and the legacy of past White Racism. This is the pattern we have seen develop in our supposedly post-Racial West through concepts like "White privilege" and "micro-aggressions."

The less Racism that Whites show, the weaker we become vis-à-vis other competing groups. This weakness then impels our racial foes to be even more Racist in order to exploit the opportunities of our racial disarmament. It should be remembered that Racism is not just a method of justifiable defence. In the wrong hands, it can also be an effective tool of attack and conquest, and Whites are now clearly under such attack.

Just as pacifism and unilateral disarmament were not effective ways to deal with the totalitarian threat posed by a Communist Russia responsible for tens of millions of peacetime deaths, so today anti-Racism is not the way to deal with the race war that is unfolding all around us. Peace and respect among the races can only be achieved when Whites reassert the natural order in their own countries and their hegemony in the wider World. Only through racial rearmament will peace be achieved.

Who Is or Isn’t a Member of a Particular Race?

via Western Spring

As we Whites face an on-going genocide against us, it is important for us to know who is us and who is not us so that we may breed us and not breed not us.

We must not become the baby makers of not us and we must purify our kind in order to evolve higher and finally become a new species–by all definitions of the term*–that is incapable of bearing children with those who are not our kind.

We are not here to improve mankind, or to serve the needs of those who are not us, but to peacefully, lawfully, non-violently and naturally–via the fundamental processes of evolution, which includes natural selection–replace it with a new model of mankind–we Whites are that new model of mankind once we evolve just a little bit more. We are here to fix a broken planet and make it a place where we can live peaceful, happy, righteous, just, and free lives as we see fit. We are here to spread the love of all that is good and just and alive and to bring light to a dark world that is falling ever more into evil and But to evolve that little bit more, we need to think right and live right. False thoughts, about mankind, about race, about existence itself, are holding us back from our evolution and can eventually doom us.

Our highest destiny is not pre-ordained and it is not guaranteed. It is not yet written. We have to write it. We have the potential. It is in our DNA code. We were born with it.

Those who want to consciously take the evolutionary path higher need to fully understand that race is real. Race is to human as breed is to dog as variety is to rose. They also have to understand some basics about evolution and DNA–and I’ve written about those basics in other columns, essays and books.

Just as a quick summary of some of these basics, here are two quotations from two important people that succinctly state truths that I’ve written hundreds of pages about:


“[T]he varieties of mankind are so different that similar differences found in any other animals would warrant their classification in different species, if not in different genera.” –Charles Darwin


“Living organisms must necessarily compete, for food, for mates and for living space, especially with other members of their own species [i.e. those they can breed with]. They must avoid predators and other dangers. For all these various reasons, some will leave more offspring than others, and it is the genetic characteristics of such preferred replicators which will be passed on preferentially to succeeding generations. This is the essence of natural selection.” — Francis Crick (Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the shape of DNA).

Most distinct peoples over the centuries have, as a natural product of their attempts at survival as they are, and for self-identification, for self-determination and for self-sovereignty, defined who is one of them by who they are descended from. The bottom line is that one’s DNA code matters. In fact, it matters more than anything else as to who we truly are.

Here are some of the ways various groups of humans have used to determine who is like them and who isn’t.

Orthodox Jews say a person with a Jewish mother is a Jew.

The Nazis, with the Nuremberg Law of 1935, said that a person with four White German grandparents was of German blood.

The SS standard–You had to prove that all direct ancestors born since 1750 were not Jewish.

Native American tribes today generally use Blood quantum laws or lineal descent rules, or a combination of both, to determine who is a tribal member. Under the Blood quantum laws, different tribes use different percentages to determine who is a member of a particular tribe. Some use 1/2 which means if one of your parents was a member of the tribe you are also considered a member. Others use 1/4 which means one grandparent was a member of the tribe, so you are also a member. Others use 1/8, which means if you had one great grandparent who was a member of the tribe, you are in; 1/16 means one gg grandparent, and you are in; 1/32 means one ggg grandparent and you are in.

Native Hawaiians are defined in U.S. law Title 45 CFR Part 1336.62 as “an individual any of whose ancestors were natives of the area which consists of the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778. However, there is a movement among more full blooded Native Hawaiians today to recreate their people with more Hawaiian blood than defined under this law, since under this law one would only need to have had one pure Hawaiian ancestor who was born prior to 1778 and then could have every other ancestor since then not be a native Hawaiian. Clearly this could lead to blond, blue eyed Hawaiians–which are not really Hawaiians at all.

1865 Florida Law stated that one-eighth Black blood (= one great grandparent) means that you are Black (or “colored” in the preferred word for that day).

There were also laws at various times and places that stated that one-sixteenth Black blood (=one gg grandparent) and one-thirty second (=one ggg grandparent) means you are Black.

ONE DROP RULE–Any known ancestry makes you Black. This covers invisible Blackness, i.e. Blacks who can pass as White are still Black under this rule.

While the Nuremberg Law of 1935, shown above, may have a surface attraction for awakened Whites, one must remember that the Germans back then weren’t really that concerned about Blacks and Browns in Germany, because there so few of them. The Germans were more concerned about the real and present threat to their purity as Aryans presented by Jews who could sometimes pass as Aryans and who could insert Jewish genes into the Aryan blood of the country.

Today, to be truly White–call if pure White–or Aryan–one must understand that while all White miscegenation is bad for White survival, some miscegenation is inherently more harmful than others. Whites mating with Blacks is the most harmful to our White DNA code as it takes us genetically back to Africa, is more disruptive of our DNA code than other mixes, and takes longer to “distill” out the Black genes than it does to distill out Jewish, Yellow, Red or Brown genes.

However, keep in mind that given the sheer number of Han Chinese and other Yellows in the world, miscegenation with them, if done on a large scale, could turn the whole planet Yellow in just a few generations.

Remember, gene frequency is important in the human population. As I’ve written before, and as nature has been very accommodating in giving us natural color coding for the major races, one might think of the various major races as different colors of paint and one might also think of those colors of paint as “wanting” to paint the whole world with their color and no other colors.

The race with the greatest quantity of paint that keeps increasing its percentages is the most probable winner in the long view of existence. However, the race with the most paint today (meaning, of course, the most populous) today, may not be the most populous tomorrow. There are any number of events–diseases, natural disasters, wars. miscegenation–that can reduce groups or even eliminate them.

We Whites should be aiming to become the most populous color. Some have said that we can’t outbreed other peoples. Maybe that’s true or maybe it’s not. I do know that the more Whites there are, the better is the chance for our individual and group survival and evolution. Some also argue that we Whites should breed for quality not quantity. This is nonsense. We Whites have the quality within our genes. We need to let all those potential Whites we carry around in our germ cells (sperm and eggs) out to do their thing in the world. Quality will come with quantity and it has ever been so that some of our greatest Whites were born of very mediocre White parents.

Nature screams out to all organisms: “GO AND MAKE MORE LIKE YOURSELF. THAT IS YOUR PURPOSE.” Are you listening and acting on this, Whitey? If not, you’d better start. Just do it.

*Some of us believe Whites are already a different species from all non-Whites and would be considered as such by mainstream science but for the fact that we can still (unfortunately) bear viable children with non-Whites.

Angela Merkel, Prime Signatory of Europe’s Death Warrant

via Majority Rights

Dutch TV subtitle: “The European Union and
Turkey together will accelerate
Turkey’s accession”
Even the title of this article does not do enough to convey the scale of the stunningly disingenuous ‘negotiation’ that Angela Merkel engaged in on Sunday. It was not a negotiation, it was Merkel just taking Europe’s queen piece and both rook pieces off of the chessboard and tossing them through the window as Turkish mouths widened in grotesque delight.

As is well known, many of the migrants that are flowing into Europe at Angela Merkel’s own invitation—and because of the perverse incentives created by governments like Germany and Sweden—make their transit through Turkey before arriving in Europe. At the same time, Merkel has been facing an internal party revolt as various opportunists are taking the crisis as a chance to challenge her leadership. Some others are revolting against her because the number of migrants that their regions are being asked to accept are more than their infrastructure can ever hope to efficiently handle.

Under these pressures—particularly the pressure arising from the fact that Merkel’s concept of ‘no upper ceiling to migration’ was bound to clash with material constraints eventually—Merkel then found herself thrust into a negotiation with Turkey. The European Union had attempted to bribe Turkey with 3 billion euros, but the Turks decided that it was not enough.

So Merkel went to Turkey and offered them a faster track toward EU accession and visa-free travel, in addition to the bribe that had been previously offered.

Predictably, Erdogan and Davutoglu immediately decided to retract their side of the pseudo-informal ‘agreement’ as soon as Merkel went home. They have clarified that they actually made no promises to stop the migrants within their territory from travelling into Europe, ultimately. In fact, they have no intention of doing anything to stop the migration wave itself either:

DW, ‘Turkey demands additional EU funding to address migration’, 19 Oct 2015:

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that an agreed sum of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) in return for Turkey’s cooperation in stemming the flow of migrants in Europe would not be regarded as sufficient.
Speaking on Turkish television one day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Istanbul on Sunday, Davutoglu said that the money would come from the “IPA” fund - money already earmarked for Turkey as an EU membership candidate . He said that Turkey wanted additional cash.
The 3 billion euro IPA fund proposal is no longer on the table, as we have said we will not accept it,” Davutoglu said. “As for fresh resources, we’re talking about a 3 billion euro amount in the first stage. But we don’t want to fixate on this because the requirements may go up, and the assessment for this would need to be done annually.”

Tit-for-tat diplomacy

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday offered Turkey the prospect of support for faster progress on its bid to join the European Union as well as an accelerated path to visa-free travel for Turks. This followed the summit in Brussels last week where EU leaders had agreed on a migration “action plan” with Turkey, where the figure of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) had been discussed.
Chancellor Merkel on Sunday had hailed as “very promising” progress on an EU-driven “action plan” after talks in Istanbul with Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Davutoglu, whose ruling AK Party faces a general election on November 1, appeared keen to avoid any impression of weakness in dealing with European nations. They said earlier the the EU had only recently realised Turkey’s value in the crisis.

Davutoglu: Turkey ‘not a concentration camp’

Prime Minister Davutoglu caused further controversy on Monday, saying that his country was “not a concentration camp” and that it would not host migrants permanently to appease the EU.
“I said this to Merkel too. No one should expect Turkey to turn into a concentration camp where all the refugees stay in,” Davutoglu said.
The talks had however resulted in a “positive response” to the government’s request for visa liberalization, he said.
His comments came as the flow of people along the so-called “Balkan Route” into Europe via Turkey continued, with thousands of people streaming Monday into the Balkans, where tighter border controls forced people to sleep in freezing temperatures. More than 630,000 people have landed on Europe’s shores so far this year, most of them making risky sea crossings from Turkey to Greece. -ss/msh (Reuters, AFP)
All of those events were actually absolutely unnecessary from a straight power perspective. Why? Because, while Turkish politicians have a lot of bluster, and while they can deploy the threat of unleashing the migrants, the Turks were nevertheless negotiating from an extremely weak position.

Despite having had historical cultural connections to the regional groups to their west, south, south-east and east, Turkey has spent the past 20 years burning all of its bridges in all directions. In summary—and it is definitely a summary—Turkey’s position looks like this:
Turkey is not some shrewd player. It’s one of the most clownish and absurd players in the world at the moment, and although it has experienced some significant economic growth internally, its foreign policy is a complete shambles and it is nowhere near to being a serious world power.

Should we really believe that Merkel is so stupid that she could not find anything to use to twist the arms of the Turks? The Turks should never have been in a position to be the ones making any demands there.

Any European negotiator who wanted to really play the game the tough way could have given a variety of responses that could twist the arms of the Turks based on the above facts, such as:
  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just don’t talk to you about EU accession ever again, until you remove the remnants of the Turkish Army from Cyprus?”

  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we cancel all the NATO events that are on the calendar concerning Turkey?”

  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we continue using the National Endowment for Democracy to assist your domestic political opponents so that they can erode your electoral powerbase and replace you with someone who will run Turkey in the way that we want?”

  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just ignore you and hedge against you demographically on a 30 year time frame, cultivating links with Kurds in the eastern part of your country so that we can encourage them to defy Ankara later and block you from having political control over a large section of your domestic energy resource base?”

  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just misplace boxes full of weapons and ammunition into the hands of the PKK? I’m sure you remember what that was like for you the last time we did that. In fact, since the PKK does so much independent illegal fundraising inside European countries, we could just stop policing them at all and see how you like that?”

  • “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just close the border between Turkey and the European Union, and build a giant fence surmounted by barbed wire and security cameras? The amount that it costs to take care of the migrants for a week, is probably the same amount as it costs to build the fence.”
Those kind of responses from a European negotiator, would have been the correct signalling and would have likely produced a much more palatable response from Turkey.

Rather than doing anything like that, Merkel instead went in and sat down on a golden throne next to Erdogan, and followed the exact choreography that the architects of Erdogan’s election campaign wanted her to follow. She let Erdogan—a man who literally has been implicated in electoral fraud multiple times and is presiding over a ramshackle failure of a foreign policy—look strong, let him look competent, let him look like he was in charge, and gave him absolutely everything he wanted, absolutely for free.

No one is that absurdly fucking stupid by accident. Merkel had to have been doing that on purpose. That is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached. It really is.

Furthermore, whose idea was it to send Merkel—a person who actually wanted the migrants to enter Europe in the first place—to have a negotiation with Turkey to try to keep the migrants out of Europe? I would love to know who was responsible for that absolutely stupid idea. Who on earth in their right mind would send Merkel to negotiate for the defence of Europe’s borders while knowing about all the pro-migration actions that she had engaged in prior to that?