- Alex Jones
- Alt Right Finland (Banned by Twitter)
- Alternative Right
- America First Media
- American Conservative
- American Renaissance (Banned by Twitter)
- American Renaissance (Gab)
- American Spectre (Banned by Twitter)
- Angelo John Gage
- Ann Coulter
- Ann Kelly
- Ann Sterzinger
- Ashley Rae
- Baked Alaska (Banned by Twitter)
- Baked Alaska (Gab)
- Based Monitored
- Battle Beagle
- Black Pigeon Speaks
- Brett Stevens (Banned by Twitter)
- Brett Stevens (Gab)
- Brittany Pettibone
- Cassandra Fairbanks
- Charles Murray
- Current Year
- Daniel Friberg
- David Duke
- Defend Evropa
- Dissident Right
- Drudge Report
- Edward Snowden
- Eli Mosley (Banned by Twitter)
- Evan McLaren
- Faith and Heritage
- Faith Goldy
- Fash Brittania (Banned by Twitter)
- Fashy Haircut
- Gavin McInnes
- Generation Identity (Banned by Twitter)
- Generation Identity (Gab)
- Henrik Palmgren
- Hunter Wallace (Banned by Twitter)
- Hunter Wallace (Gab)
- Ian Miles Cheong
- J Burton
- Jack Posobiec
- James Allsup (Banned by Twitter)
- James Allsup (Gab)
- James Damore
- James Edwards
- James Woods
- Jared Taylor (Banned by Twitter)
- Jared Taylor (Gab)
- Jim Goad
- John Morgan
- Jordan Peterson
- Julian Assange
- Justin Raimondo
- Katie McHugh
- Kevin MacDonald
- Lana Lokteff
- Laura Ingraham
- Laura Loomer
- Lauren Southern
- Lew Rockwell
- Lucian B. Wintrich
- Manly Task
- Mark Collett
- Mark Steyn
- Matt Drudge
- Matthew Drake
- Mike Cernovich
- Mike Enoch
- Millennial Woes
- Niall Ferguson
- Nick Fuentes
- Nicole Pettibone
- Nigel Farage
- Official NRX
- Orwell N Goode
- Pat Condell
- Paul Joseph Watson
- Paul Kersey
- Paul Nehlen (Banned by Twitter)
- Peter Sweden
- Proud Boys
- Red Ice TV
- Richard Spencer
- Ricky Vaughn 2
- Robert Stark
- Roger Stone (Banned by Twitter)
- Roger Stone (Gab)
- Scott Adams
- Sean Hannity
- Sebastian Gorka
- Spectre (Gab)
- Stefan Molyneux
- Steve King
- Steve Sailer
- Tara McCarthy
- Tolerant Fellow
- Trad Youth (Banned by Twitter)
- Tucker Carlson
- Viva Europa
- Voice of Europe
- Vox Day (Banned by Twitter)
- Vox Day (Gab)
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
The Geopolitical Vision of Alfred Thayer Mahan. One hundred years later, the insights of the American strategist continue to have extraordinary relevance today. By Francis P. Sempa
December 1, 2014, was the 100th anniversary of the death of Alfred Thayer Mahan, the renowned naval historian, strategist, and geopolitical theorist. It was an anniversary, unfortunately, that went largely unnoticed. Beginning in 1890 and continuing for more than two decades, Mahan, from his perch at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, wrote twenty books and hundreds of articles in an effort to educate the American people and their leaders about the importance of history and geography to the study and practice of international relations. His understanding of the anarchical nature of international politics, the importance of geography to the global balance of power, the role of sea power in national security policy, and history’s ability to shed light on contemporary world politics remains relevant to the 21st century world.
Mahan, the son of the legendary West Point instructor Dennis Hart Mahan, was born in 1840, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1859, served in the Union Navy during the Civil War, and thereafter served on numerous ships and at several naval stations until finding his permanent home at the Naval War College. In 1883, he authored his first book, The Gulf and Inland Waters, a study of naval engagements in the Civil War. It was his second book, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783(1890), however, that brought him national and international fame. The book, largely based on Mahan’s lectures at the Naval War College, became the “bible” for many navies around the world. Kaiser Wilhelm II reportedly ordered a copy of the book placed aboard every German warship.Read More: http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-geopolitical-vision-of-alfred-thayer-mahan/
As I was reading my monthly Bible—guess what that is—I came across an enthusiastic review of a book, written by a French political philosopher, Pierre Manent, entitled Metamorphoses of the City. I rushed to buy a copy.
The book purports to be an account of the evolution of European political systems from the days of Homer to our present time. An exciting challenge, but the result is rather paradoxical. The author is basically an historian of philosophy and offers, most of the time, a rather clear though often disputable presentation of a succession of political doctrines in lieu of political systems. However, they are rather loosely related, and the further one reads, the more nagging the simple question becomes: What does the author want to prove, or even to say? What issue is he tackling? What general idea runs through the book? One feels very much as if one is reading Leo Strauss: The more one understands every word or chapter—even if to disagree—the hazier the rationale for the succession of notions. The contrast is striking between the fuzziness of the general purpose and the utter precision and almost picky erudition of the comments on each author. What is interesting when describing an evolution is to understand why one stage leads to another, which is precisely what the reader is hard put to assess in this particular case. The author himself ascribes the birth of each following stage simply to the (unexplained) decay of the previous one.
It must be added that the reader gets no help from the rather prejudiced ideas presented in many chapters. For the sake of brevity I shall pinpoint only a few significant ones. The usual liberal hailing of Athenian democracy under Pericles (the author’s constant reference) just as usually ignores the fact that only the tributes paid at that time by Athens’ so-called allies allowed a lull in the otherwise constant fighting between the richer and the poorer. To see the Roman caesars’ power as an anticipation of that wielded by Machiavelli’s prince presupposes that the former could take the same cynical view of their own power as the latter did. Thereupon, to claim that Christianity had no political ideas—i.e., notably to suppose that Saint Augustine preached an exclusive concern for the Great Beyond, and therefore practically to overlook the Middle Ages in the history of Europe’s political systems, as the author does—I cannot but find simply preposterous, unless one considers the ubiquity and endurance of Christian kingdoms for almost a millennium to be a negligible fact. To see the condottiere as fathering the contractual peacemaking chief constable that is Hobbes’s sovereign is a play on words. And can it be reasonably said that Rousseau’s hidden intention, while building his theory of democracy, was to allow the domination of the rich over the poor? The concluding 50 pages are still more puzzling. All of a sudden we learn that history is only intelligible as a “progress towards the universal” in which Judaism, Christianity, and Greek philosophy (a clearly Straussian trinity) play a definite but unsatisfactory role, because none achieves a truly “universal universality.” Which leads to praising Kant for his seeking such universality, but also to criticizing him for his lack of “universalizing operation,” whatever that means. The book ends by deploring the absence of “mediation” without bothering to define between whom (the author mentions pell-mell mediation between mankind and God, men and men, individuals and mankind, body and mind), even though the development of nations, deemed to be a side effect of Lutheranism, seems to represent such mediation. All the same, nations being apparently unable to overcome their nationalism, we are now stuck with an idolatry of mankind, which the author thinks partly justifiable in view of the Shoah, but which eventually “offer no resources for mediation.”
At this point the average reader is bound to try to take stock of what he has read. Personally, all this fogginess set aside, I cannot bring myself to believe it possible to write almost 500 pages without having at least some semblance of an idea in mind. So, while confessing my inability to fly in such rarified atmospheres, I shall venture an hypothesis about the meaning of the whole endeavor, which could be taken as bearing a sort of involuntary lesson.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
So far, we have found 9 white police officers murdered by blacks in 2014. We found 5 cases of whites killed by blacks while working at a pizza shop or delivering pizza. There are other cases of whites being murdered by blacks while delivering other things.
We found 6 cases of white taxi cab drivers killed on the job by black males. This is a shockingly high number. It suggests that white cab drivers are far more likely to be murdered by a black male than white police officers.
All told, we have tabulated 350 black on white murders. We challenged the left-wing to send us white on black murders. We even asked the SPLC for a list of white on black murders. So far we have only found three blacks murdered by white people in 2014.
Black on white murder is being censored at every level. The fact that we could compose a list this big shows that it is even more common that we thought it was. We never dreamed we would get up to 350.
Think we missed one? There is a form to submit more murders at the bottom of the list. Please double check that we do not already have it.
One white on black murder is a major national news story. Where is the outrage for the daily occurring black on white murders?Read More: http://topconservativenews.com/2014/12/we-documented-331-black-on-white-murders-that-occurred-in-2014/
‘I’m glad I don’t have any weapons in my house’: Former Chicago Bears quarterback Jim McMahon thought about killing himself when he realised he was getting dementia ‘from football’.
Former Chicago Bears quarterback Jim McMahon has admitted he contemplated suicide when he realised he was getting dementia, which he blames on the punishment he sucked up during this football career.
He said he would leave home and forget how to get back and spend weeks at a time in a darkened room because the pain in his head was so bad.
In his darkest moments, he said, he thought of ending his life.
'I am glad I don't have any weapons in my house or else I am pretty sure I wouldn't be here,' he said. 'It got to be that bad.'
McMahon is one of several players in a federal lawsuit filed last month in California that accuses teams of dishing out powerful drugs to keep players on the field despite injuries.
He is also part of a class-action lawsuit which the NFL has agreed to settle for $765million without admitting it hid the risk of concussion from players.
McMahon, 54, spoke about his struggles with dementia and depression with a small group of reporters, including Associated Press sports writer Andrew Seligman, yesterday.
He was clear that he believes his health problems were brought on by the beating he suffered as a professional footballer.
McMahon playing with the Chicago Bears in 1983. He said he had three to five diagnosed concussions and, he believes, many more that went undiagnosed
McMahon said he had three to five diagnosed concussions and who knows how many more that went undiagnosed, reported the Associated Press.
He also suffered injuries to his kidney, broken ribs, an addiction to painkillers and even a broken neck he claims that team doctors never told him about.
It was only five years ago, after X-rays and an MRI, that doctors told him he had broken his neck at some point.
McMahon believes it happened while he was playing with the Minnesota Vikings in 1993, when he got sandwiched by two Giants defenders in a playoff game at New York - and was left unable to move his legs.
Monday, December 29, 2014
The very rich often live in expensive houses, but that’s not where most of their wealth is.
In fact, for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, only about 9% of their total net worth is tied up in their home. That’s compared to 63% for the broad middle class.
That’s among the revealing findings of research, released earlier this month, from Edward Wolff, an economist at New York University who studies the wealth distribution. His work analyzed the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to peek into the widely differing portfolios of the wealthiest 1%, the next 19%, which can be loosely thought of as the upper middle class (though the top of this range is getting very wealthy as well), and the middle 60%, or the broad middle class.
The top 1% of Americans – who have a net worth of more than $7.8 million – hold nearly half their gross assets in unincorporated business equity and other real estate. They have an additional 27% of wealth in financial securities, such as corporate stock, mutual funds and personal trusts.
But typically, little of their wealth is tied up in their personal residence.
For the middle class, the picture could hardly be more different. Nearly two-thirds of their wealth is in their residence. It’s easy to see why: Imagine a young family with a $200,000 home, a $150,000 mortgage, and $50,000 in cash and retirement accounts. That’s not a family that’s putting their bottom dollar into their home. But that family would have 80% of their gross assets in their principal residence.
The upper middle class has a very different financial profile as well. The “next 19%” — those with more than $400,000 in assets, but less than $7.8 million – have less tied up in business equity and financial securities than the rich, and less tied up in housing than the middle class. But comparatively, they have more of their wealth – hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars – in their pension accounts (which includes accounts like IRAs, Keogh plans, 401ks, defined contribution pension plans).Read More: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/12/26/how-to-save-like-the-rich-and-the-upper-middle-class-hint-its-not-with-your-house/
What is acceptable speech on campus these days?
Apparently, if you attend Brandeis University, you can express the most outrageous opinions about dead policemen, advocate violence, and countenance an attack on the student journalist who exposes it.
A petition on Change.org explains:
On December 20th, Brandeis student journalist Daniel Mael reported on inflammatory statements made by a Brandeis student leader on Twitter. Referring to the two NYPD policemen, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, who were recently assassinated, she wrote, “I have no sympathy for the nypd officers who were murdered today,” and “lmao [laughing my a—off] i just really dont have sympathy for the cops who were shot. i hate this racist f—ing country.” Most alarmingly, the student leader’s online messages included calls for violence in comments like, “burn this country down,” and, “i need to get my gun license. asap.”Commenters, responding to Mael’s article, posted disparagements, curses and threats to the student who had insulted the dead policemen. Daniel Mael immediately and in no uncertain terms publicly condemned these reactions.Soon however, Mael himself became the target of personal, sometimes violent threats to his safety and well-being made by his fellow students on the Brandeis campus and others. Instead of censuring the hatred expressed toward innocent murder victims, an array of student groups, including several students in student leadership positions at the university, launched a campaign of vilification and intimidation against Mael, demanding that the Brandeis administration punish him for doing nothing more than truthfully reporting hateful comments made in a public forum by a student in a position of authority at the university.University officials have a legal and moral obligation to protect their students. Since the crisis began on December 20th, University President, Fred Lawrence, has remained silent. This silence encourages the violent incitement against Daniel Mael, who did nothing wrong. At the same time, it implies official tolerance for community members using derogatory language to intimidate a student journalist — behavior that may be in violation of the school’s own code of conduct.Brandeis officials must take immediate steps to ensure that no harm will come to any student. The climate of intimidation and hostility to free speech on the Brandeis campus must end immediately.We call on Brandeis Trustees and Brandeis President Fred Lawrence to take the following steps:
Read More: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/28/brandeis-student-under-attack-for-calling-out-leftist-hate/
- Declare that any Brandeis student who threatens or intimidates another student will be held accountable.
- Condemn any Brandeis student or faculty member who expresses support for the murder of policemen, or any human being, for that matter. Students have the right to their opinions; the University has the duty to judge some opinions as beneath contempt.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Lewis H. Lapham of Hearst Magazine fame is a man on a mission. Recently at an event in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Hirshhorn Museum, called “Days of Endless Time,” Mr. Lapham plumbed the depths of time in lighthearted, humorous banter with two writers. The conversation gave a peek into the rich literary world of Mr. Lapham’s New York-based magazine, Lapham’s Quarterly.
In a recent issue of Lapham’s Quarterly—titled “Foreigners”—one will find contributions from Flannery O’Connor, Marco Polo, and Albert Camus. The LQ website announces that the forthcoming issue “traces the global history of ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and our charts and graphs follow that of nineteenth-century immigrants, men and women who have ‘gone native,’ common enemies among nations, and barbarians at the gates. Lapham’s is not your typical quarterly.
In 2007, the inaugural issue, “States of War,” went to press. The magazine contained dozens of essays and excerpts from writers ranging from Thucydides to Mark Twain. A publication dedicated to a single topic each quarter—religion, arts & letters, sports, Eros—Lapham’s Quarterly is a bountiful feast for the ravenous mind. My favorite issue, published in the winter of 2013, was on the topic of intoxication.
“Wine, dear boy, and truth,” reads the issue’s epigraph—a quote from Alcaeus, circa 600 BC. “Wine is a peephole on a man.” Among the issue’s contributors are Omar Khayyam, Dorothy Parker, Plato, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and St. Hilegard of Bingen. The art interspersing the excerpts and quotes of literary giants include the mythical—a terracotta sculpture of the head of Dionysius from Pakistan (c. 400) and a portrait ofBacchus in the court of Midas by Dirk Valkenburg (1700) and the Triumph of Bacchus by Diego Velazquez (1628); the anticipated classic images of Gin Lane by William Hogarth (1751) and The Drunkard’s Progress: from the First Glass to the Grave by Nathaniel Currier (1846). Images of the sacred include The Ecstasy of Mary Magdalene by Louis Finson (c. 1605). Images of contemporary icons of various degrees of intoxication include James Bond (Sean Connery) pouring a glass of Bollinger for his lady of the night in Goldfinger and, on the inside front cover, Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn) posed mid-puff with her lengthy cigarette holder in the middle of a party.Read More: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/12/laphams-quarterly-magazine-anxious-age.html
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Friday, December 26, 2014
Writing in The Times of Israel, Hila Hershkoviz takes on a prickly question—Are Jews White?
In response to Haaretz article “Jews, white privilege and the fight against racism in America” (by Benjy Cannon 4/12/14) I would like to say loud and clear: Ashkenazi Jews are not white.
Every time I read about a Jew somewhere identifying as a white person, I cringe. As an Israeli Jew, who like most other Israeli Jews, is completely foreign to the concept of Jews being “white” I would like to address this article to my Jewish brothers and sisters in America.
Ashkenazi Jews who identify as “white”, please understand the following:
1.History and identity – As late as 1987 the US legally defined Jews as non-white. To the best of my knowledge, 50 years ago Jews had the same skin color as they do today. I deduce that white is not skin color, it is first and foremost an issue history and identity. The “white people world” is represented by its European (often colonial) history, it’s culture, heroes, it’s Kings, ethos, faith etc. – and Ashkenazi Jews are not part of that world. Their heroes are the Maccabees and not the Vikings or Joan of Arc, their Kings are David King of Israel and Hezekiah King of Judah (both archeologically confirmed historical figures) and not Kings Edward and George.
Secondly, Jews are not a “religion”. While in the Western world identities fall under the categories of religion or race, Middle Eastern people have tribal identities that are based neither the former nor the latter. Jews, similar to Pashtuns (who also often have pale skin and yet would not identify as white people) and other Middle Eastern Tribes, are neither religion nor race but a tribe. Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which is often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.
Read More: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2014/12/8/jews-europeans-and-whiteness
Welcome to America. Enjoy the Free Napkins and Straws. ‘Little Failure,’ a Memoir by Gary Shteyngart
His delightful debut novel, “The Russian Debutante’s Handbook” (2002) — which recounts the bumbling efforts of a Russian émigré trying to buy himself a slice of the American Dream — showcased his antic sense of humor and his ebullient, idiomatic prose, while his futuristic 2010 novel, “Super Sad True Love Story,” revealed his ability to combine sharp-edged satire with deeper, more heartfelt meditations on love and loss and mortality.
Mr. Shteyngart’s evocative new memoir, “Little Failure,” is as entertaining as it’s moving, and it underscores the autobiographical sources of his fiction. His heroes tend to share not only his self-esteem issues and biting wit, but also his appreciation of the absurdities of life on both sides of the former Iron Curtain. He gives us a visceral sense of what it was like to be uprooted as a child from the monochromatic world of the U.S.S.R. and plunked down in 1979, in the perplexing and gloriously Technicolor world of the U.S. of A. In doing so, he poignantly conveys his parents’ hard-fought efforts to make new lives for themselves in America, while using humor to chronicle his own difficulties in trying to bridge the dislocations of two cultures.
Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/books/little-failure-a-memoir-by-gary-shteyngart.html?_r=0
Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.
Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.Read More: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/10/ten-conservative-principles.html
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The German PEGIDA movement held its largest meeting yet last night to protest what they call the ‘Islamisation of the Western World’, despite stiff opposition from all sections of Germany’s elite including politicians, media, and the arts.Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/17500-germans-gather-to-sing-christmas-carols-against-islamisation/
What New Left History Gave Us. The New Left historians’ withering critiques of liberalism have proven enormously influential. But do they hold up in our more conservative age? by Rich Yeselson
In this age of partisan and ideological polarization, something unusual happened in May: A writer from the right delivered an encomium to a writer from the left. The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney—a relentless libertarian who has never seen a government program he did not view as a squalid arrangement between statist liberals and corporate welfare seekers—paid tribute to Gabriel Kolko, a historian identified with the New Left of the 1960s who had passed away earlier that month.
Carney wrote that Americans typically believe a classic “fable” that courageous “trust busters” like Teddy Roosevelt used “the big stick of federal power to battle the greedy corporations.” Kolko’s work, especially his most significant book, The Triumph of Conservatism (1963), though little known today to anybody but specialists in early twentieth-century history, “dismantled this myth.” Carney quoted Kolko’s core argument: “The dominant fact of American political life” in the Progressive Era “was that big business led the struggle for the federal regulation of the economy.” And to both Carney and Kolko, this is pretty much everything you need to know.
It’s hard to call a historian “forgotten” in a country in which the phrase “that’s ancient history!” is about the most withering description of irrelevance imaginable. But Kolko is, at least, semi-forgotten. While a nontenured faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania during the Vietnam War, Kolko, at great risk to his academic career, exposed to the media and led protests against a university research program in chemical and biological weaponry funded by the Defense Department. Penn froze his salary and forced him to leave. Perhaps if Kolko had remained at an Ivy League research institution, he would have been better known at the time of his death. Instead, he ultimately spent most of his career teaching at York University in Toronto, writing several highly critical works about U.S. foreign policy before living his final years in Amsterdam.Read More: http://www.democracyjournal.org/35/what-new-left-history-gave-us.php?page=all
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Scientists have discovered that a sizeable minority of women have Y-chromosome gene sequences in their blood. This is interesting because as you may know, Y-chromosomes are the chromosomes that belong to men, so ladies, what are they doing there, and where did they come from?
An obvious answer would be from pregnancy with a male son, every woman who has been pregnant still carries cells from her fetus within her bloodstream. Cells from the pregnancy will reside within the mother’s bloodstream and organs for the rest of her life. Even if the pregnancy was terminated or if there was a miscarriage these said genes would remain with the Mother. There is a name for this so-called condition, it is called microchimerism (1), which is named after the Greek chimera, a mythical, monstrous fire-breathing animal that is composed of the parts of three animals a lion, a snake and a goat. Okay so that explains it, well at least it does for the women who have given birth to sons. But what about the women without sons that still had male cells in their bloodstream?
This called for a study (2) that was done by immunologists at the Fred Hutchinson Caner Center in 2004. In this study they took samples from 120 women who had never had sons. They found that 21% of these women had male DNA. The women were then categorized into 4 groups according to pregnancy history: Group A had only daughters, Group B had had one or more miscarriage(s), Group C had induced abortions and Group D had never been pregnant before. The prevalence of male michrochimerism was considerably greater in Group C although it was still present in each group. Group A 8%, Group B 22%, Group C 57% and Group D 10%.
The conclusions of this study noted that the possible sources of male michrochimerism included, known pregnancies, miscarriages, vanished male twin, or sexual intercourse. This means, that through intercourse alone there is a potential for women to hold onto male genes and DNA within their organs and blood stream for their entire life!Read More: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/18/this-study-will-make-you-think-twice-about-who-you-are-getting-into-bed-with/
America’s continual aggression towards North Korea is not based on any alleged human rights abuses but rather because that nation is an openly declared enemy of the state of Israel, and has long been identified by the Jewish Lobby as a target for destruction along with Iraq, Iran, and Syria, an investigation by the New Observer has concluded.
Read More: http://newobserveronline.com/jewish-lobby-real-reason-america-seeks-war-north-korea/
Even before the gavel has sounded on the Republican-led 114th Congress, these treacherous cowards shamelessly, eagerly, it seems, squandered perhaps the one opportunity they had to stop, in his tracks, America’s first cultural Marxist, anti-American, palpably evil president.
If ever there were, there can no longer be any doubt. Barack Obama is bent on turning the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the conquered and the home of the weak. He is an egalitarian globalist who hates America. He has repeatedly spat upon the very Constitution he was sworn to uphold.
Last month Republicans were elected by “We the people” in an unprecedented landslide – in a Democratic Party bloodbath – with clear marching orders. They were given one task and one task alone.
Stop Barack Obama.
They have failed both miserably and willfully.
Read More: http://eaglerising.com/12941/no-longer-republican/
Monday, December 22, 2014
Elie Wiesel: Conscience of Mankind and Saintly Humanitarian or Liar, Hypocrite, and Terrorist? BY JOHN TAYLOR
There are many religions that specifically forbid the consumption of pork. The meat is considered “unclean” and non-kosher. Is there a reason for this? Is there more to this religious teaching that we should all be aware of?
It seems as though the religions that condemn pork consumption are on to something, in fact there are many scientific claims to back this up.
Pigs are scavengers by nature, which means that they will eat almost anything, including rotten food, feces, urine, carcasses and even cancerous growths. Unfortunately the digestive system of a pig is incapable of effectively removing these accumulated toxins from the body because a pig will digest its food entirely in about 4 hours. This is simply not long enough to remove the excess toxins that were ingested, these toxins are then stored directly in the fat cells and organs of the pig itself.
“Sweating like a pig” yet? Ironically enough, that statement isn’t true -pigs do not have sweat glands which means they are unable to remove excess toxins by sweating (like we do). So naturally this means that pork meat would be a much more toxic meat than others and when you consume it you would be taking in those toxins as well. With our current environments, we really don’t need to expose our bodies to even more toxins if we don’t have to.
According to an investigation by Consumer Reports, 69% of all raw pork samples tested (of about 200 samples) were contaminated with a dangerous bacteria known as Yersinia enteroclitica. This bacteria can cause fever, gastrointestinal illness, diarrhea, vomiting and cramps.Read More: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/11/23/why-you-should-never-eat-pork/
First, to catch up to speed: here's the big post connecting Erdely and Renda, how Jackie's tale echoes Renda's Senate testimony about Jenna, and Emily Renda's two years visiting the White House. Now to tie the politics behind it all.
The UVa rape scandal has now turned into a media hoax scandal. This has not changed the UVa president's determination to punish fraternities. Fraternities are still under her thumb for now, despite the cause of her actions being revealed as a lie. The finger pointing on the media-activist side is flaring up, as "Jackie", Sabrina Erdely and Emily Renda all take turns distancing themselves from each other and throwing each other under the bus. Erdely is in hiding or re-reporting. "Jackie" is being Jackie. What is Emily Renda up to? She is project coordinator for the Vice President of student affairs at UVa. Sounds benign. There is also one gigantic role that the media has glossed over whenever they have reported on Renda and her connection to the story. Emily Renda is the subcommittee chair of the "prevention" division of the Virginia Governor's Task Force on Combating Campus Sexual Violence. The UVa rape story is a perfect illustration of the way politics works in America. Academia creates, the media pimps, and eventually the public supports what credentialed, unelected officials recommend to legislatures and regulators.
Today’s preferred way to think about immigration and the nation-state is exemplified in the title of a 1964 pamphlet that the Anti-Defamation League published posthumously under the name of John F. Kennedy: A Nation of Immigrants. The next year, the martyred President’s brother Teddy had his name put on the 1965 immigration act of such large and unforeseen consequence.
The pages of JFK’s little book are seldom read anymore, but its mantra of a title has proved wildly successful at sacralizing mass immigration as some kind of hereditary national onus. “My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. . . . That’s the tradition we must uphold. That’s the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come,” orated President Barack Obama as justification for his November 2014 demand that, when it comes to immigration, America must have a government of men and not of laws.
While the Preamble states that the Constitution is ordained so that “We the People of the United States” can “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” the concept of posterity has vanished from respectable immigration discourse. The Obama amnesty invokes a civil right to be here that illegal aliens inherit, but not from their ancestors: Like insanity, amnesty is hereditary; you get it from your children. After all, we live in an age of globalism and minoritarianism: The 300 million American citizens are the majority, while the 7 billion foreigners are the minority.
This slogan of a Nation of Immigrants has not proved terribly productive intellectually, fostering not unsentimental scholarship but schmaltzy ancestor worship. For example, when it was revealed in the press last year that Dr. Jason Richwine had earned his Harvard Ph.D. by quantitatively analyzing the achievements of Hispanics over multiple generations, finding that today’s illegal-alien “Dreamers” and their children were unlikely to live up to the fond hopes so casually invested in them, he was immediately shoved out of his job at a conservative think tank.Read More: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/January/39/1/magazine/article/10826668/