Tuesday, June 19, 2018

The 1820s: The Decade of Andrew Jackson by Bradley J. Birzer


Nothing dominated the American conversation of the decade of the 1820s more than the idea of Andrew Jackson as president. The back-and-forth between the pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson forces is bewildering and dizzying even to the biographer who has the grand advantage of hindsight…

The Great Depression of 1819 and the Missouri slavery question of the same year ended, rather abruptly, the so-called “Era of Good Feelings.” In that fell year of 1819, Andrew Jackson, the “Hero of New Orleans,” remained not just the great symbol of what America had done, but also the great hope for what the American republic could achieve in the coming decades. He had become an American myth, and, as such, the vast majority of the American people clung to his image throughout the 1820s as the one person who could, perhaps by sheer force of will, restore the glories of the republic of 1776 and 1787. Indeed, the very people who saw him as the future of America were those who had flooded the West after the conclusion of the War of 1812. In large part, though through no intention of his own, Jackson had secured the republic for his very own constituency. That he had, as governor of Florida, given each male the vote—irrespective of race, religion, or property ownership—was not lost on a frontier people who believed they had as much right to remake the land as they had to govern themselves. True, Jackson had not been a great legislator or a great judge, but he had more than proven himself in the third branch of governance, the executive. Perhaps, many conjectured, that same executive prowess would work in a civilian office as well as it had in a martial one.
In terms of American culture and interest, nothing dominated the conversation of the decade more than the idea of Andrew Jackson as president. The back-and-forth between the pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson forces is nothing but bewildering and dizzying even to the biographer who has the grand advantage of hindsight.[1]At some point, the American people must have experienced a kind of “Jackson fatigue” due to his frequent appearances in the newspapers. The brutality of the 1824 and, especially, the 1828 elections becomes almost comedic farce and tragedy wrapped into one, at least for the modern-day biographer. Despite the elections being contests between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, the real division of the decade was between Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. Clay was the real opponent—so much so, that John Quincy Adams, despite being the sixth president of the United States, must have felt like one of America’s least important persons, a mere prop, extra, or stagehand in his own play.
If Jackson had thought of assuming the White House prior to 1821, no records indicate this. Indeed, as a good republican and a man fiercely in love with his wife and his farm, he just wanted to retire from public life. He had done his duty, he knew, and he was ready to retire to the good life. Yet, that very same republican longing that told good men to retire rather than pursue power also laid claim to the virtuous leader. When called to serve, serve he must. Republicanism informs and frees as much as it possesses and demands.
Read More: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/06/1820s-decade-andrew-jackson-bradley-birzer.html

Putin vs. Putin by K R Bolton


Putin vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right, Alexander Dugin, Arktos Media Ltd., 2015.
Alexander Dugin, formerly professor of sociology at Moscow State University, headed the “Center for Conservative Studies” at that institution. That there could exist any such entity itself indicates something about Russia. Dugin is founder of the Eurasian movement, primary ideologue of contemporary Eurasianism, founder-ideologue of the “Fourth Political Theory,” which itself has a lengthy pedigree in Russia going back to the “Slavophils” of the 19th century, and has had input into Kremlin policy, although how much is uncertain. As such, Dugin is often portrayed as a boogeyman by Western academics and Russophobes, as an almost Rasputin-type figure, influencing from behind-the-scenes. Russopobes and Western academics require such a figure to enable them to help perpetuate certain key myths on what Churchill regarded as “enigmatic” when writing of Russia. Dugin is portrayed by these types as a “fascist,” which enables them to maintain the mediocre standards of Western academe, to ensure their papers are published by idiot-reviewed journals, and definitely does not require them to undertake any sound scholarship in regard to historical, ideological and philosophical antecedents, which are put in the “too hard” basket by budding “scholars” at the very start of their entrance into the unhallowed halls of academia.
This collection of essays on Putin, and several appendices on Fourth Political Theory, provides insights into a man and his times by someone well-positioned to observe in a detached manner. Dugin makes it clear that he is supportive of Putin not only as the man who is best for Russia, but as the nearest to a real statesman that exists in the world. However, the reader should not assume that such praise indicates Dugin as a Putin fanatic, nor even that Putin is regarded as having real greatness; merely that Putin is the best available, and could be much more. Hence the title “Putin vs. Putin” considers two sides to someone trying to balance factions while maintaining Russia’s sovereignty, yet without an ideological foundation. There are the liberal elite, and the great mass of Russians whose orientation is collectivistic as distinct from the hyper-individualism that the West and its Russian adherents are trying to impose.
We are reminded that Putin came from the Yeltsin milieu, and that he is from Saint Petersburg, not Moscow. This latter point has much symbolic, archetypal meaning, and will especially be appreciated by those of us who are Spenglerians. All that in Russia that is from hell comes from Saint Petersburg, an enduring reminder that there have been previous attempts to de-Russify Russia, to Westernize her with the importation of the crassest models of the Late West, the West in decay, and that this started with “Peter the Great,” who built Saint Petersburg as the capital of a new, “Western” Russia; that this was continued with Catherine the Great, sundry Marxists, particularly Trotsky, with the latest attempt by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Spengler had called these attempts at Westernization “Petrinism,” after Peter the Great.1 Such is the endurance and depth of Russian archetypal forces that even Bolsheviks failed to destroy the Russian soul,2 and only ended up, under Stalin, resurrecting and strengthening her.3
Read More: http://thermidormag.com/putin-v-putin/

Racial Immunity by David Cole

Twelve years ago, when actor Michael Richards launched into his epithet-laced tirade against a loud table of black revelers at the Hollywood Laugh Factory, the line that stood out to me as the most jarring was, ironically, the only one in which the former Seinfeld star didn’t say “nigger”: “Fifty years ago we’d have had you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass!” It was an homage to a time when blacks could not show disrespect to a white person. Even if a white guy was indeed doing something wrong, if a black man corrected him, that could be cause enough for a beating (or worse).
Human nature being what it is, it must have been amazing to live in a country in which you were immune to criticism or correction from millions of your fellow citizens. In the early part of the 20th century, blacks constituted a majority of the population in Mississippi and South Carolina. Can you imagine being able to stride through your state knowing that over half of your fellow residents live in abject fear of offending you?
How many of us would turn down that kind of power?
Michael Richards was clearly in the wrong that night in 2006. If you don’t like loud audience members, don’t play clubs that force two-drink minimums on patrons (or, you could be like me and avoid comedy clubs entirely—shit, I’d rather face an Einsatzgruppen firing squad than have to sit through a night of stand-up). The black customers were shouting so that the waitress could hear their mandatory drink orders, and “Kramer’s” concentration got thrown. But he was right about one thing: Fifty years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered that the blacks were just following the rules. Richards absolutely could have exacted revenge for his humiliation.
That’s the magic of racial immunity…which is why I don’t blame blacks for seeking it today. It’s an understandable desire. Not a healthy one, but understandable. This desire is currently manifesting itself in a campaign on the part of black activists to stop whites from calling the cops on black people. Since April, the following “news” items have gone viral in the national press:
Two black dudes went into a Starbucks, refused to order anything, and demanded to jointly use the bathroom. Per policy, they were asked to leave, and when they wouldn’t, the cops were called. As a result of public outcry (“public” defined in this case as bored leftists looking to jack off on outrage), Starbucks’ CEO closed all stores for a day of “diversity and tolerance training,” and a new nationwide policy was enacted to ensure that one needn’t have to order food or drinks to claim a table at Starbucks, and the bathrooms are now open to all, from the homeless to the glory-holers
Read More: http://takimag.com/article/racial_immunity_david_cole/print#axzz5ItTyroJx

EXCLUSIVE: Police officers reveal the TRUTH about crime & “justice” in the UK

Right now, Britain is like the Wild West of Europe, and it’s been said our police have lost control of our streets.
I asked serving members of the British Police what it is like to be a police officer in the U.K. today. Their truths will make you weep.
This is Dave’s story:
“In 1999 I was suspended from the police over an allegation of assault against an Asian male who had beaten his girlfriend in the street.
“It was a night shift and I was crewed with a female probationer. Without backup or assistance, I needed to use CS spray and my baton to control the situation and arrest the man.
“My accuser is a 6ft 4” kick-boxing expert, an alleged enforcer for a local drugs baron. He’s suspected of one murder and has been convicted for various violent offences, including firearms. I am 5ft 6” and weigh 12 stone in all my kit.
“He made a complaint of racially aggravated assault and I was charged and suspended.
“I was told by my division commander, off the record, that the only reason I was being charged was because the police didn’t want to deal with the publicity of acknowledging I acted within the rules for the use of force. In fact, the force paid him £12k in compensation before the case even got to court, during which time my accuser was shot in a drugs feud and I was listed as a suspect. He survived.
“After a four-day trial at Crown Court, it took just 20 minutes for me to be found not guilty. Unanimously.
“I returned to duty broken. I lost my first marriage from the stress of it all.
“When I returned to work I was put on a race and diversity course, implying I had acted with prejudice despite the not-guilty verdict. I was also given a written warning over my conduct during the investigation.”
Now ask yourself why anyone would want to be a police officer in the UK today.
Why would anyone want to join when this is how we treat the people tasked to protect us? When crime has reached all-time highs and public trust is at an all-time low?
Machete gangs on mopeds race through London’s streets threatening to kill for a watch or phone, with no fear of recrimination. Shootings, stabbings and acid attacks are so commonplace they barely raise an eyebrow in the news. The Metropolitan Police Force has been accused of losing control of London.
And yet it has managed to assert a vice-like grip over its own employees, preventing them from speaking out about the impossible position they are in and the lack of support they receive from their seniors.
Read More: http://hopkinsworld.com/exclusive-police-officers-reveal-the-truth-about-crime-justice-in-the-uk/

Book Review: The Praise Of Folly by PEDRO BLAS GONZALEZ


The Western Canon is the spring from which diligent readers gather the will and clarity of mind to battle the militant aberrations that dominate postmodern life. The literary and philosophical works that make up the Western Canon form a vibrant tapestry whose theme is sublimity. Another word for this contribution to western civilization is wisdom.
Besides Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy, one of the most emblematic works of the Western Canon that makes wisdom its alpha and omega is Erasmus of Rotterdam’s The Praise of Folly. WhileThe Consolation of Philosophy has personified lady wisdom engage in conversation with Boethius – who awaits execution – The Praise of Folly has folly lamenting how little respect she gets.
In trying to gain recognition for her essential involvement in all manner of human behavior and affairs, folly finds herself ignored and betrayed by man. Standing before a crowd of onlookers and wearing a fool’s costume, folly suggests to those present that they ought to build her a monument to honor her contribution to human affairs since time immemorial.
Thus, folly articulates the catalog of human traits, beliefs and behavior that are impossible without engaging with folly. The Praise of Folly is Erasmus’ no-nonsense tribute to the permanent things, those essences that inform man’s nature. Folly, who is never coy, let’s the reader know that she is embedded in the marrow of human nature.  Folly’s blatant attack on human stupidity leaves no stone unturned. But this is only the beginning. While folly takes aim at imbecility, the havoc it wreaks on human affairs and the platitudes it cherishes, folly’s brightest ire is reserved for hypocrisy.
The Praise of Folly is a work of satire. However, in Erasmus’ case satire acts as a mirror that is placed in front of man, while the author dares the reader to ignore the truths it conveys about us. The book begins with frolicsome folly sizing up her listeners. In the latter part of the work folly unleashes a tempest of chastisement on man. Like the vast majority of authors and thinkers that make up the Western Canon, Erasmus was a spiritual aristocrat, in addition to being a Christian non-conformist. These qualities make Erasmus a solitary thinker – a precondition for intellectual honesty.
Folly assures the people who are gathered before her that she is not a counterfeit “nor do I carry one thing in my looks and another in my breast.” The latter is an affront to shysters of every stripe. Yet folly is aided by many human traits. Of central importance to human affectation, she signals out self-love and flattery.
Read More: https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/14/book-review-praise-folly/

Should immigration policy be based on tears?

Monday, June 18, 2018

Bringing Julian Assange Home

The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy.
The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be.
They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home.
Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in JulianE’s case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected.
We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a US extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture.
I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him.
In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”.
This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech.
Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.
The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.
Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as “the icon for your generation”.
This was the same Clinton who threatened to “obliterate totally” Iran and, who, as US secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.
Read More: https://www.globalresearch.ca/bringing-julian-assange-home/5644447

In 1971, the US Navy Nearly Fought the Russians and It Would Have Been to Back a Genocide in Bangladesh


In 2016, the United States backed India’s application to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group — but didn’t support Pakistan’s. This marked an extraordinary turning point in the United States’ relationship with these historical adversaries.

In 1971, the United States sent part of its Seventh Fleet to threaten war with India on Pakistan’s behalf.

The reasoning behind the deployment is stranger still — it was supposedly to befriend China.

The convoluted Cold War schemes of Pres. Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger help to explain why the United States threatened war with the second most populous country on Earth while also seeking to court the most populous country on the planet.

When the United Kingdom withdrew from colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent in 1947, the territory was partitioned into Hindu-majority India under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and Muslim Pakistan under Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

However, there were large Muslim populations on both the western and eastern flanks of the Indian sub-continent — resulting in Western and Eastern Pakistan being separated by over a thousand miles, with India in the middle.

Western Pakistan contained the capital, where the Punjabi political elites of the new nation resided. East Pakistan was populated by the Bengali, an entirely different culture speaking an entirely different language.

Read More: https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/1971-us-navy-nearly-fought-russians-and-it-would-have-been-back-genocide-bangladesh/ri23843

Sunday, June 17, 2018

In 33% White New York City, the Police Department Just Admitted the Secretive Gang Database is 99% Non-White



Previously on SBPDL: In 2017 New York City, a 33% white city and President Trump's hometown, Non-Whites committed 93.1% of the murders and 97% of the nonfatal shootings


We were warned about a rising tide of color almost a century ago. 

The civilization white people built in the United States of America is now being capsized by the tide of color overwhelming the western world. [New York City’s Gang Database Is 99% People of Color, Chief of Detectives Testifies, Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, June 14, 2018]:
NEW YORK CITY — Ninety-nine percent. The number sent an audible gasp throughout the City Council chamber. Chief of Detectives Dermot F. Shea had just read off the percentage of people of color on the NYPD’s controversial — and until now — largely secretive gang database.  
In 2018, New York City is still a 33 percent white city.

Yet 99 percent of New York City secretive gang database is non-white.

Western civilization is drowning in a sea of color, racial groups incompatible with sustaining not only our way of life, but adhering to the standards of civilized life white people have set.

Read More: http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2018/06/in-33-white-new-york-city-police.html

An Extraordinary Thing Happened At Jordan Peterson's Indianapolis Performance

Zašto komunisti ne mogu izdražati Jordan Petersona
Y'all know I've been intellectually crushing on Jordan Peterson for months now, basically ever since I discovered him via the Lindsay Shepherd story back in December. And then, when he mind-spanked Cathy Newman in that Mother Of All Interviews back in January? Well, that was it. I was hooked, and I've spent many hours binge-watching his videos since. He is currently on a speaking tour, promoting his book, "12 Rules for Life" - which is a must-read.

When I discovered he was coming to Indy, Mr. Mock and I were pretty stoked. We bought tickets, and spent a little extra on VIP passes so that we could meet him and attend a smaller Q&A session with him.

You guys, I was really struck by the youth of the audience. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but while Mr. Mock was parking, I stood inside the Murat and people-watched as folks made their way into the theater and through the security lines. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of attendees were younger than 30. The theater seats 2500, and it was close to sold out. I saw many gay, male couples. I saw tatted-up biker-like folks. I saw spectacle-wearing, book-carrying student-types. It was as diverse a crowd as I could have imagined. And I loved that.

When Dr. Peterson made his way onto the stage, you'd have thought you were attending a rock concert. It wasn't the expected polite applause you'd imagine might be appropriate for a lecture of this sort. It was full on, raucous, whooping and hollering cheers. We were in the 5th row, where it was easy to see Dr. Peterson's facial expressions, and as he looked at the audience - smiling humbly and nodding slightly - taking it all in, it seemed to me that he wasn't altogether used to this kind of reception. I expect he receives it often, but it seemed like something that still surprises him. It reminds me of how Daisy and I are still shocked when someone is all excited to meet us. You're simultaneously delighted and humbled all at the same time, that you have a palpable level of impact on another person. It's overwhelming, and for us at least, it's not something you get used to.

He spoke for just over an hour, and you guys - I was RIVETED. We all were. He's incredibly soft spoken, and even though he's mic'd up, and even when you're sitting up close, there's this urge to lean forward and turn your ear towards him, so as to not miss a word. It was part story-telling, part university lecture, and part pep-talk. It related to his book - yes - but much of his discussion was about perception vs. reality - and how people see what they value, but often miss what's truly important, and how we can approach life in a way that best reflects our most important values.

Read More: https://www.sott.net/article/388398-An-Extraordinary-Thing-Happened-At-Jordan-Petersons-Indianapolis-Performance

The Truth Perspective: Lord of the Underworld: The Secret Life of Carl Jung

carl jung
Carl Jung is a giant of 20th century history and thought, widely regarded as a pioneer of the psychology of the unconscious. His defection from Freud and his ideas like the archetypes of the unconscious are widely known, even if many have not read his works. But there is a hidden side to the man that few are aware of. From visions of the gods to an acceptance of polygamy and a plan to revitalize civilization by returning to the paganism of the past, Jung privately held some ideas that don't appear in his published works - and which may come to many as a shock.

https://media.sott.net/srn/20180616ttp-lord-of-the-underworld-the-secret-life-of-carl-jung.mp3

Read More: https://www.sott.net/article/388375-The-Truth-Perspective-Lord-of-the-Underworld-The-Secret-Life-of-Carl-Jung

This Abandoned Macy's Is Now A Homeless Shelter Housing Its Former Employees



The Macy’s at the Landmark Mall in Alexandria, Virginia used to be an iconic and historic building. In what is now undoubtedly a sign of the times, it has been converted into a homeless shelter until the property can be razed and its owner, the Howard Hughes Corporation, can repurpose the property and build something new at its location.

Even more telling, this homeless shelter houses many of those who used to work at the very same Macy’s.

In the realm of brick-and-mortar retail, the times are definitely a changin’. We have often, on this site, detailed not only the slow and painful death of brick-and-mortar retail as it has been occurring, but also how the value of once coveted mall property has disintegrated and similarly, how landlords of these properties now find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place – tenants are dropping like flies, sales numbers used to help calculate rent are on the decline and property appraisals have been underwhelming. This has led to a influx of abandoned property, not unlike the Macy's in Alexandria, just sitting and waiting to be repurposed.
Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-15/abandoned-macys-now-homeless-shelter-housing-its-former-employees

Russia Just Displayed Serious 'Soft Power' With a Moscow Parliamentary Forum - It's More Important Than You Think

Russia is capitalizing on vast reserves of soft power inherited from the USSR, just as the US's image suffers one blow after another due to an unbridled militarism and stoking of global war and conflict. 'Soft Power' is the the new buzzword among Russian elites, and they are intent on creating more of it - they smell blood.

The event we will discuss in this essay received virtually no coverage in Western media and, in fact, got rather meager coverage even in Russian media, being overshadowed by other, more popular developments such as preparations for football’s World Cup and the annual live Q&A of Vladimir Putin with the nation, called “Direct Line” which came two days later but was getting a lot of advance air time to encourage the public to send in videos and text questions.
Moreover, it was known that The Boss would not make an appearance at the Forum but would instead be in Austria on his first state visit abroad since his election. This surely diminished the Forum’s newsworthiness to the general public. The only intensive Russian television presence at the Forum was the little studio taking interviews for the “Parliamentary Hour” an informational show about Duma activities broadcast weekly on the state channel Rossiya-1/Vesti 24.
Finally, and conclusively, the Forum was the first of its kind and its outcome beyond a rather anodyne Declaration prepared in advance was unforeseeable.

However, the Forum was a big deal if measured by several objective parameters. It attracted serious delegations from national parliaments around the world, including several major countries. Sixteen of the delegations were headed by the Speakers of the respective assemblies.
To be sure, many of those countries with delegations headed by the speakers of their parliaments are minor players:  Mongolia, Ecuador, Armenia, Namibia, Rwanda, Uruguay, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, South Ossetia.  But on the other side of the argument there was a large delegation from Mexico, whose Speaker made a substantial and very friendly speech at the start of the Forum. More to the point, at the Round Table on Latin America, a Mexican deputy said very plainly that the United States has shown itself to be “unfriendly” and the country now looked to improve relations with Russia, first in the economic area.
It is also bears mention, that several important  regional parliamentary assemblies represented by their directors spoke out in the Plenary Sessions. I have in mind in particular the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and the Central American Parliament.  In addition, regional economic groups including Mercosur were represented.

Read More: https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russia-just-displayed-serious-soft-power-moscow-parliamentary-forum-its-more-important-you

Can the EU Become a Partner for Russia? by THE SAKER

shutterstock_511676236
The re-nomination (albeit somewhat reshuffled) of the “economic block” of the Medvedev government has elicited many explanations, some better than others. Today I want to look at one specific hypothesis which can be summed up like this: Putin decided against purging the (unpopular) “economic block” from the Russian government because he wanted to present the EU with “known faces” and partners EU politicians would trust. Right now, with Trump’s insane behavior openly alienating most European leaders, this is the perfect time to add a Russian “pull” to the US “push” and help bring the EU closer to Russia. By re-appointing Russian “liberals” (that is a euphemism for WTO/WB/IMF/etc types) Putin made Russia look as attractive to the EU as possible. In fact, the huge success of the Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum is proof that this strategy is working.
This hypothesis is predicated on one crucial assumption: that the EU, under the right conditions, could become a partner for Russia.
But is that assumption warranted? I personally don’t believe that it is, and I will try to lay out the reasons for my skepticism:
First, there is no “EU”, at least not in political terms. More crucially, there is no “EU foreign policy”. Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the “EU” does not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless the so-called “EU” has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects “more equal than others” (say, the UK versus Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise considering that even the so-called “EU leader” or “EU heavyweight” – Germany – only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elitewhich doesn’t give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The undeniable fact is that the so-called “EU foreign policy” has gone against the vital interests of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US. Forget about those fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and “force multipliers“: command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European (I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red, white and blue as it gets. Forget about the “Eurocorps” or any other so-called “European armies” – it’s all hot air, like Trudeau’s recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will let that happen? I sure don’t! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more US troops on their soil, not less and they are all pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion, hence the need formore and bigger military exercises close to the Russian border. And just to cover all its bases, NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America.
Read More: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/can-the-eu-become-a-partner-for-russia/

Germany’s migration chief fired amid an asylum agency fraud scandal

Will This Immigration Bill End The Invasion and Reverse the Demographic ...

Patrick Little, Dr. David Duke & The Southern Dingo Hangout Conversation...

Billy Roper’s Speech at 2018 Nationalist Solutions Conference by Billy Roper

After Tom Kawczynski’s speech was mine, then Jason Kessler’s. We have a break now before the banquet and Dr. David Duke’s speech. Here is a pretty close transcript of the speech I just gave to the Nationalist Solutions conference.
“It’s truly a pleasure to spend this time with all of you and to have a few minutes to express my gratitude. You see, it still is humbling beyond words for me each time I visit the American Freedom Party website and find, in that bottom right hand corner, my little novel ‘Hasten The Day’ listed alongside far more serious and worthy books by Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Sunic, and Dr. Krieg. I’m flattered to even be mentioned in the same breath as you, gentlemen, and to be in the same room.
In 2012, when I suspended my own Presidential campaign, we gave my endorsement to the candidate for the American Freedom Party, whom I had met and discussed our shared vision with when he visited my state, and to Dr. Abernethy. Like all of you, I feel it’s an honor to learn from so many intellectual giants who, even had they not a single political bone in their body, could have been leaders of any industry they chose, and would have been recognized as without peer in any field of endeavor. I certainly wish that I might have had professors such as these to guide me when I was in grad school, it would have absolutely saved me some time in becoming fully aware of the nature of the challenges our people face. In fact, I know you agree with me when I say that any future White “ethnostate”, a term I used as the title of my newest book, would be fortunate indeed to have this braintrust at its helm.
The following year I had the privilege of spending a week with Dr. Sunic as as well as Rachel Pendergraft and Pastor Thomas Robb at the Soldiers of the Cross Training Institute, where we presented lectures and seminars on the subject of the potential balkanization of America, my particular area of research focus. Then in 2015 I was interviewed by the AFP about my support for your 2016 Presidential candidate, the late great Bob Whitaker, a friend and patriot for our people whom we all miss.
My current role as a blogger, author, podcaster of The Roper Report, and political activist is primarily to encourage people in my ShieldWall Network to become persons of influence in their communities through civic-minded grassroots participation and local activism. We are, to not put too fine a point on it, White Nationalist preppers.
Back in 1994, Dr. Brent Nelson of the Council of Conservative Citizens wrote a groundbreaking book called ‘America Balkanized, Immigration’s Challenge to Government’. I attended Dr. Nelson’s state CCC meetings and was honored to speak at one about my Master’s Thesis project ‘PaleoAmerican Ethnic Diversity’, and it was through his book and my subsequent conversations with Dr. Nelson that I began to study the issue of balkanization, myself.
Read More: https://theroperreportsite.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/billy-ropers-speech-at-2018-nationalist-solutions-conference/

Not All Politics Is Identity Politics by Ralph Leonard

In the often polarizing and intense debates on identity politics you often encounter three talking points from those who oppose those who criticise identity politics. First, that all politics is identity politics. Second, critics of so called “identity politics” ignore the specific oppression of marginalized groups and third, they perpetuate a white male chauvinist worldview.
This particular form of argumentation is flawed because it ignores the fact that there have been many different critiques of identity politics by non-whites, many of whom have been deeply involved in struggles against racism, injustice, and colonial oppression. I of course believe white people should also be able to criticise identity politics and not have their arguments delegitimized simply because of they are white or a man. What should ultimately matter is if the content of the argument is good or not, not the skin color or gender of the author.
However, it is interesting to note that critiques of identity politics by non-white leftists and progressives often get ignored in much of the popular debates on this topic. Some people who take the anti-anti identity politics stance will say, or imply, that non-whites who critique “identity politics” are either inadvertently perpetuating class reductionism or are being exploited by white men to denigrate and erase the specific struggles of people of color, or worse that they are basically Uncle Toms.
I wonder then how these sordid types would react to the likes of Paul Gilroy or A.Sivanandan? How about Anthony Appiah? Edward Said (the author of Orientalism for goodness sake!)? Or Kenan Malik? All of whom are non-whites, most of whom are extremely critical of racism in Western societies and Western imperialism too but who have also criticized identity politics. Are they just regurgitating a white male chauvinist view of the world? I don’t like to do the whole “speaking as a [insert identity of choice]” as if it adds more weight to my opinions, but as a bisexual “man of color” I criticize identity politics not because I oppose the rights of marginalized groups, but because it is an impediment to these struggles of liberation.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Who Murdered Chef Anthony Bourdain?


I come to know about Chef Anthony Bourdain through his travel and exploration of the Philippine cuisine. His down to earth style struck a chord right away.
But it is his untimely death that is making the rounds here and abroad. So I asked why? Fortunately, our friend John provided us the link to a Political Velcraft article that narrows it down to what Chef Bourdain did before he was suicided. The ongoing mainstream narrative is that Bourdain hanged himself in his French hotel room on account of guilt for his child and other bullshit they could think of.

Read More: https://geopolitics.co/2018/06/16/who-murdered-chef-anthony-bourdain/

Cannibalism and Cloned Meat: Why is the Establishment Promoting Total Degeneracy? – Jay Dyer


Read More: https://jaysanalysis.com/2018/06/16/cannibalism-and-cloned-meat-why-is-the-establishment-promoting-total-degeneracy-jay-dyer/

The Populist Wave in Europe

Merkel’s Gov’t on Brink as Germans Reject Open Borders!!!

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Charged with Fraud, Had Connections to Cli...

How Governments Make Us Kill Each Other