Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Black mob attacks white Catholic school girls in the Bronx

What Happens if President Trump Tweets About Black-on-White Racial Attacks?

This is one of those stories you can imagine Donald Trump read while perusing the news at Trump Tower. [Bus driver allegedly does nothing while black teens attack white school girls, NY Post, 11-23-16]:
Four white 15-year-old Catholic schoolgirl friends laughing and chatting on their usual bus ride home were targeted in an unprovoked, racial attack that left them bloody and bruised, the teens told The Post Wednesday.
“Oh, white girl got money!” a young black man sitting with a friend commented as the girls travelled on the BX8 bus around 3 p.m. Tuesday after dismissal from St. Catharine’s Academy in the Pelham Gardens section of The Bronx. 
Before they knew it, the boys called up some female friends, who boarded a few stops away — and the girls said the group punched and kicked them while grabbing clumps of their hair. 
In an exclusive interview with The Post, two of the girls said the trouble began as soon as they boarded the bus to Throggs Neck — with the male riders leering at the 10th-graders and snapping their pictures. 
One of the victims, who only wants to be identified by the initials LT because the attackers are still at large, said they were in their school uniforms when the young men tried chatting with them and then threatened to “piss on them.” 
“Oh, you go to St. Catharine’s? What, do you have money? Go drink your coffee, white girl, and go shopping,” one of them said. 

Read More:

Debased Whites in Negro Ball Brawl

One of the most important steps on the long road back is rebuilding a healthy spirituality based around family, heritage and shared culture. It means a complete rejection of the vile and ugly jewish degeneracy that pervades today's U.S.S.A. There is nothing the jew fears more than the awakened Saxon. The White person who claims to be on our side but is still under the kosher spell of sports, pornography and nihilism represents no threat whatsoever to the nation-wreckers. If we're going to save our race, we first have to pull ourselves out of the semitic swamp. If you're cheering for living fossils and getting into comically inept fist-fights because you think Blue is better than Red you're not much better than the "More Somalis for Idaho!" traitors. Turn off the talmudvision. Purge the poison.

Fans were caught on camera throwing punches in the stands as the Miami Dolphins took on the San Francisco 49er’s at Hard Rock Stadium on Sunday.

Africa Ball cuckolds come to blows over who should be allowed to "direct." Degraded victims of the Long March Through the Culture turn on each other. Our healthy tribal instincts are redirected by the traveling merchant into cheering for our negroes instead of their negroes. Instead of fighting for survival against the gathering darkness they fight for the honor of a 70 I.Q. negro millionaire who would gladly kill Whites if given the opportunity. 

All eyes should have been on the field.

Or on the wall.

“Go back to New York. Leave, go to another country,” someone is heard saying on the video. “You know, take your Muslim quarterback.”

When this White "man" returns to his careerism on Monday he'll just silently endure the endless kosher insults. He'll loudly proclaim his loyalty to "diversity." Another White most act as the proxy enemy for years of frustration built up from cowardly obedience to evil.

“And as you can see in the video, the guy in the Suh jersey, of course, ended up landing punches to the 49er people’s face and also right next to a woman holding a small child,” he said.

Wear scraps of Chinese fabric with the name of a tar monster on it, so we all know who your "bull" is. Bring a child to sporting synagogue. Die.

Read More:

Can the Humanities Contribute Anything to the Modern World? by Jason Baxter

technology-vs-humanity jason baxter

There seems to be very little cultural space for humanistic studies. It is difficult to perceive how literature, philosophy, or theology could contribute to technological capitalism…

I would like you to imagine the following situation: Sometime after graduation a college student is hired as an intern at his university’s newly founded Center for Leadership Studies (CLS, it would no doubt be called). Within the first year of the internship, the CLS wins a major grant to host an international symposium, and the new graduate is asked to undertake the research needed to create the invitation list for the symposium. The goal is to invite leaders from all across the world, both from developed and developing countries, to identify and discuss the world’s most important problems, as well as develop innovative solutions. When our undergraduate sits down at the first planning meeting, what kinds of questions do you think will be brought up as particularly in need of solving: poverty, hunger, questions about infrastructure, women’s rights, disease, elementary education, and perhaps questions about technology, environmental issues, and extending the internet to the whole world, right? And what about the guest list? What kinds of people will be suggested as good candidates for the CLS’s Global Leadership Conference: influential politicians from the developing world, biologists, doctors experienced in fieldwork, medical researchers, experts on technology, computer scientists who deal with big data, engineers, and some creative business leaders, right?

Read More:

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Iranophobes on Parade. Will Iran be the target of the Trump regime? By PHILIP GIRALDI

Trump Iran
One of the most discouraging aspects of the filling out of the Donald Trump cabinet is the array of Iran haters that seem to be lining up in the foreign policy and national security areas. Trump has been personally advocating sensible policies relating to Russia and Syria but he appears to have gone off the rails regarding Iran, which just might be attributed to those who are giving him advice. A reversion to the relationship that prevailed prior to last year’s signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) between Iran and the so-called P5+1 consisting of the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and the European Union would be undesirable, to say the least, but that appears to be what is likely to develop. Or it could be even worse, finding bilateral support for “action” as a number of policy advisors in the presidential campaign from both parties were endorsing something like war against the Persians.
The irony is that the argument made then and now for attacking Iran were based on the threat of Tehran deciding to build its own atomic bomb. With the JCPA agreement, however, most would agree that any remaining concerns that Tehran might even be considering the development of a nuclear weapons program were greatly diminished. Iran has since that time been in compliance with the agreement, possible nuclear proliferation has been avoided, and, apart from the fulminations of the inevitable anti-Iranian politicians in the United States, the signatories to the agreement have expressed their satisfaction with the outcome. It has been Washington that has failed to live up to its part of the agreement by easing remaining restrictions that are being imposed against Iranian financial institutions and regarding the purchase of some commercially available dual use technologies.
Candidate Donald Trump did not need much prompting to pick up on the prevailing anti-Iran sentiment. In a number of campaign speeches he denounced the JCPA as a bad deal and vowed to tear it up upon taking office. Some of that sentiment might well have been derived from his desire to distance himself from foreign policy positions promoted by President Barack Obama that were subsequently endorsed by Hillary Clinton so it is no surprise that since being elected he has somewhat modified his stance. He is now veering towards trying to renegotiate the agreement, which would likely be impossible given that it has multiple signatories. He could nevertheless disrupt it by continuing or increasing sanctions on Iran.
Read More:

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics. A party obsessed with race won’t have much luck reaching out to non-elite whites. By Heather Mac Donald

Democratic pundits are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?
The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

Tell that valedictory for “post-racial bridge-building” to police officers, who have been living through two years of racialized hatred directed at them in the streets, to the applause of many Democratic politicians. Black Lives Matter rhetoric consists of slogans like: “CPD [Chicago Police Department] KKK, how many children did you kill today?” “Fuck the police,” and “Racist, killer cops.” Officers have been assassinated by Black Lives Matter-inspired killers who set out to kill whites in general and white police officers in particular. Gun murders of law enforcement officers are up 67 percent this year through November 23, following five ambushes and attacks over the November 18 weekend that left a San Antonio police officer and a U.S. marshall dead. A few days before those weekend shootings, anarchist wannabes in Austin led a counting chant based on the template: “What’s better than X dead cops?  X + 1 Dead Cops.”

President Obama welcomed Black Lives Matter activists several times to the White House. He racialized the entire criminal-justice system, repeatedly accusing it of discriminating, often lethally, against blacks. At the memorial service for five Dallas police officers gunned down in July 2016, Obama declared that black parents were right to fear that “something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door”—that the child will be shot by a cop simply for being “stupid.”

Obama put Brittany Packnett, a leader of the Black Lives Matter movement, on his President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Packnett’s postelection essay on Vox, “White People: what is your plan for the Trump presidency?” is emblematic of the racial demonology that is now core Democratic thinking. Packnett announces that she is “tired of continuously being assaulted” by her country with its pervasive “white supremacy.” She calls on “white people” to “deal with what white people cause,” because “people of color have enough work to do for ourselves—to protect, free, and find joy for our people.”

Read More:

Monday, November 28, 2016

An Anarchist We Can Work With. Keith Preston and the menace of the liberal state.

Keith Preston, The Tyranny of the Politically Correct: Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age, Black House Publishing, 2016, 184 pp., $16.00.
Despite its title, only a few of the essays in this new collection by Keith Preston deal specifically with political correctness, an expression of an ideology that, as he puts it, “regards any limits on the pursuit of power in the name of equality and progress to be intolerable.” [p. 2] Mr. Preston is an academic, speaker, and writer, who runs the He calls himself an anarchist, but one quite different from Hans Hermann Hoppe, whose book Democracy: The God That Failed was reviewed in American Renaissance in January 2002. Mr. Preston is a left-wing anarchist, so race realists will tend to view him with suspicion, but he is well worth reading.
By “left-wing” I mean a kind of family resemblance. When Mr. Preston is addressing the Alt-Right or libertarians, he does so as an outsider; when he is addressing left-wing organizations, he is doing so as one of them. This is because they emphasize the same things. He sees the U.S. government as a major threat to worldwide peace and freedom, and his focus is always on the underclass and those the Left identifies as victims of state repression.
His heart, therefore, is with the Left, which in his many criticisms he is trying to rescue from its alliance with pro-state liberalism, which thinks government power is the key to solving social problems. In reading his critiques of liberals, I thought of an observation I once heard about the Christian instruction to love our neighbors and our enemies–possibly because they may be the same people.
Why is Mr. Preston of interest to us? As he explains on his website, he wants to forge a kind of pan-anarchist, pan-secessionist movement that includes virtually all of those who “fall prey to the repressive High apparatus of the state.” Of course, his coalition would include the usual groups favored by the Left (racial minorities, drug users, sex workers), but he also wants to bring in groups traditionally despised by the Left. His list is long, and includes racists (his term), gun enthusiasts, tax resisters, motorcycle clubs, neo-Confederates, home-schoolers, born-again Christians, racial nationalists (also his term), militia groups, and people he calls “refugees from middle America.”
Ultimately what he wants is a “separation of race and state,” that would allow people with common interests of all sorts, including paleoconservatives and racial and religious groups, to live in homogeneous communities. He understands that “severe and irreconcilable differences . . . will inevitably arise, and that such differences are best managed according to the principle ‘peace through separation.’ ” [p. 90]
Mr. Preston clearly believes in freedom of speech and freedom of association, so when he talks about political correctness, he sees it not as a device for keeping language “sensitive” or polite, but as a tool of oppression and a way to make people accept state force as legitimate. A recurring theme of the book is his lament that so many of his comrades and allies on the Left have joined with the forces of conventional liberalism–the liberal state–to oppress, or at least marginalize, those they regard as enemies. And he is very much aware that race realists are on their list of enemies.

Read More:

Trump vs. Silicon Valley NICHOLAS M. GALLAGHER

Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General will likely have a bone to pick with Silicon Valley. Politico reports:
Sessions has also been critical of tech giants in the realm of high-skilled immigration. While tech companies have said they face a shortage of workers in science, tech, engineering and math, or STEM, fields, Sessions has described efforts to boost the number of H-1B visas as a “tremendous threat” to Americans.
“It represents the obliviousness of Congress and some of these economic forces to the reality of what’s happening: Half of STEM graduates are not finding jobs in STEM fields,” he said in a November 2015 interview with Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News who will be serving as Trump’s chief strategist in the White House.
Sessions hasn’t been shy about confronting the titans of the tech industry on the issue. In 2014 he challenged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a major proponent of immigration reform. After slamming his lobbying effort,, the senator charged: “So I would pose a question to Mr. Zuckerberg. I read in the news that Facebook is now worth more than $200 billion. Is that not enough money to hire American workers for a change?”
It would make a lot of political sense if the new Administration were to pick a fight with Silicon Valley over H-1B visa abuse. The Valley’s most outspoken immigration proponents have made two big tactical errors lately. One, they have increasingly embraced a partisan, Democratic agenda (and were not afraid in this election to go all-inon opposition to Trump.) It is the way of politics that that will now come back to bite them. Secondly, and much more grievously, they’ve chosen to fight on the most self-serving, least defensible possible ground: H-1B visas.
H1-B visa holders carry greater costs and fewer benefits than most other types of immigration—except to their employer. Normally, American workers suffer marginal competition on wages and jobs from immigrants, but gain through the new immigrant’s contributions to the national economy. This especially applies if the immigrant is an entrepreneur. But H-1B visa holders cannot leave their jobs without losing their legal status and so having to leave the country. This makes them cheaper and more pliable employees than their American counterparts. It’s not surprising, then, that H-1Bs have been tied to layoffs. They’ve also been named as a source of job loss to outsourcing; India views this sort of immigration as preparation for outsourcing as a form of industrial policy.

Read More:

When Orange Is Not the New Black

It doesn’t happen very often that I find redeeming social value in a column by Nicholas Kristof, but today is one of those days.

Recently, Kristof travelled to Oklahoma to research the mass incarceration of females. Of course, he begins by inveighing against all mass incarceration, but since everyone knows that young males commit far more crimes than do young females, we can easily defend the mass incarceration of males in terms of the concomitant reduction in crime. With female prisoners, the same is probably not the case.

If we decide to release more male criminals from prison we are very likely to see an increase in the crime rate. If we decide to release more female criminals from prison the chances are good that we will not. Besides, if we do the latter, more children will have mothers present in the home.

Of course, a television series called Orange is the New Black has glamorized and even eroticized life in a woman’s prisonThe show makes prison life seem cool and hot, though with an occasional instance of violence.

Inexplicably, Kristof does not mention the television show. But, he also does not mention the fact that his argument rests on a yawning division of the sexes.

Read More:

12 Reasons Why Liberals And Progressives Will Always Be Losers

The 21st century leftists have proven themselves to be utterly ignorant and incapable time and time again. And I believe there are specific reasons for this that has to do with their very core nature. The following demonstrates all the loser characteristics embedded in their psyches that draws the leftists to their equalist beliefs. And because they compensate their own shortcomings with their ideology rather improving themselves, it ultimately leads to a cycle of loserdom which they cannot escape from.
For the sake of simplicity, I will group liberals, progressives, SJW’s, feminists, degenerates, and all the rest under the title of ‘leftist’.

1. They don’t take care of themselves

“I think I’m beautiful, therefore I am.”

The leftists are such losers that they do very little to take care of themselves. As well as being short-term thinking hedonists, they don’t want to put any effort in life, so you’ll often see them eat unhealthy food and shun working out. This is why the leftist females tend to look like painted hogs while the men are usually low-T twigs. You’ll also see them do little to dress properly or maintain their looks other than to exaggerate their own ugliness for attention and shock effect.

Read More:

Jodie Ginsberg: The question of hate speech. The CEO of Index on Censorship spoke at the 30th anniversary of the Rafto Forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, Rafto laureates. It is my pleasure to be asked to speak to you today on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Rafto Foundation.
I represent Index on Censorship, an organization that was born, much like Rafto, to help give voice and support to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain but whose mission, like Rafto’s, quickly spread much wider. Index is a freedom of expression organization that campaigns against censorship globally and promotes the value of free expression.
Today I will talk about what I think is the hardest of all issues for free speech activists: the question of hate speech. And the question of whether it is possible to balance a belief in true freedom of expression for all with the recognition that, in many instances, hateful speech is used in such a way that can suppress the voices of minority and oppress groups.
What I want to offer today is a provocation. I want to argue that it is only by allowing free speech – that is allowing all forms of speech, including those espousing hateful views – that we can ultimately protect minority and oppressed groups. That the answer to hateful speech is not more bans or ever widening laws or definitions of hate, but finding mechanisms that better allow the speech of all groups to flow.
If the market for free ideas and the free exchange of ideas and opinions does not yet work perfectly, the answer is not to ban people from having a voice
I want to start by going back to basics and asking the question, why is free speech important? For me, and for Index, freedom of speech is the most important freedom because it is the freedom on which all others rest. If one cannot express freely one’s desires, one’s political or religious views, how can we be truly free? Without free speech, how can one speak out against the oppressor. Without free speech, the oppressed and marginalized are forced to suffer in silence.
John Stuart Mill wrote: “It is on the freedom of opinion and the freedom of expression of opinion, that the well-being of mankind depends” but I think Shahzad Ahmad, the 2014 winner of Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards said it better: “Freedom of expression. To me this is the ultimate freedom: it means the freedom to live, to think, to love, to be loved, to be secure, to be happy.”
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the First Amendment. It became a sort of mantra in the wake of the killings last year at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. You would think this was a freedom and a value on which we could all agree. And yet. And yet. The question of where we draw the line on free speech drives a wedge through our apparent agreement that free speech is a universal good with parameters on which we can all agree. And it is this ‘I am in favour of free speech BUT’ question that I want to address today.  

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Richard Spencer Responds to His Hail Victory Speech & Roman Salutes at A...

Donald Trump is Not a Fascist Nicholas Farrell

Straight talk from a historian of fascism.
Many thousands of words have already been written and many more will be written by the liberal intelligentsia claiming that the 45th President of the United States is a fascist.
Among the first to make the charge after Trump’s triumph was the hyper-trendy Simon Schama, British TV historian and professor at Columbia University, who tweeted at dawn the day after the election: “This calamity for democracy will of course hearten fascists all over the world.” He then told Radio 4’s Today program that “democracy often brings fascists to power; it did in Germany in the 1930s.”
Later, he explained on BBC1’s Newsnight: “It is clear to me how we pussyfoot around the malodorous, toxic element of race, which has played an incredibly important part of this. Anti-Semitism has long been part of populism.”
The trouble is, Mr. Trump is not a fascist, let alone a Nazi. Calling him Donald Duck would be more accurate than calling him Donald Duce. As for Jews, if anything, he wants to defend them–from Muslims. It is also absurd to say that anti-Semitism is part of populism in general.
The main reason Mr. Trump is not a fascist is the most embarrassing of all, for liberals that is: He is not left-wing. When leftists call hate figures “fascists,” the leftists nearly always have more in common with fascism than their hate figures do. If this were not so damaging–like branding a woman a witch in 16th Century–it would be hilarious.
To take a conveniently forgotten example, the 1939 alliance between fascism (Germany) and communism (Russia) against capitalism (Britain and France) was far more natural than the subsequent alliance between capitalism (America and Britain) and communism (Russia) against fascism (Germany). But democracy was not the only enemy the fascist and communist dictatorships had in common.
Few people even seem to know this, but Benito Mussolini, who invented Fascism in 1919 after the First World War, was a revolutionary socialist (what communists used to be called). He was therefore an internationalist who believed in world revolution and the abolition of nations. But the First World War forced him and many other socialists to recognize a fundamental fact about human nature: People are more loyal to their country than to their class.
Read More:

Millennial Tantrums Signal a Huge Boomer Parenting Fail BY MEGAN FOX

How did we get here? There are 18-year-olds (in other words, grown-ass adults) curled up in the fetal position in collegiate safe spaces rocking and crying because their favorite candidate lost an election. I'm not making this up or exaggerating for effect. Here is the evidence.

They're having cry-ins (which are supposed to be like sit-ins except lamer, with crying, coloring books, and lattes on hand to assuage the feelings of the perpetually offended). This new turn of American sensibilities makes me want to start a petition to change the lyrics of the National Anthem to the "land of the free and the home of the ... oh f*** it." Let's just turn ourselves over to the Chinese already. We don't deserve our independence when the next generation coming to rule us all needs a softie and a nap when handed disappointment.
What have you done, parents? I'm speaking to the parents of the current college-aged child. What have you done? Was it the participation trophies? The helicoptering? Never letting them lose? I want to know so that I do not make the same mistake when raising my own young brood. Like most things the Boomers unleashed on the world, their millennial children are profoundly despicable, immature, entitled, privileged, volatile, ignorant brats intent on getting their way despite rules, laws, and the rights of others.

Gone to Pot Christopher Sandford

It is seven o’clock on a peaceful late-summer evening here in suburban Seattle, and I’m sitting in my back garden smoking marijuana.
Passively smoking, I should add, lest I shock any reader by this sorry lapse, but smoking nonetheless.  This time of year, my property is especially fragrant with the acrid smell of pot, and a thick haze of the stuff lingers long in the air these balmy Northwest nights.  It has become one of the distinctive characteristics of our street, and indeed of much of Seattle, that environmentally obsessed city where all is decorous, the sidewalks are immaculately swept, the parks rigorously trimmed, proverbial for its snow-capped mountains and sparkling lakes, and now, too, for its odoriferous and pungent residential neighborhoods, where musky clouds roll through the homes of rich and poor alike, and an ordinary householder can become quietly stoned, regardless of his or her economic status or social prominence.  That’s the great thing about this new epidemic we’ve unleashed on ourselves here.  Just as its host society was originally meant to be, it’s completely egalitarian.  All drugs are morally neutral.  They will destroy your life, and the lives of your neighbors, quite irrespective of your race, creed, or religion.
How did we get here?  By popular demand.  In November 2012, the voters of Washington passed into law Initiative 502 by the impressive margin of 56 to 44 percent.  As defined by the Secretary of State’s office, the measure
shall license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over 21; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues.
The perceptive reader will immediately note the way in which our rapacious government hastens to insert itself in the commercial transactions of its citizens.  And “hastens” is the mot juste: Initiative 502 was certified on December 6, 2012, and the first retail licenses to sell pot were distributed less than a year later.  There was no consultation process for the millions of those whose lives it blighted.  It is all part of a new approach to local government here in the Evergreen State, in which action is taken according to the acclamation of the masses, irrespective of any laws or conventions established for decades, or even centuries, beforehand.  Normally shy to take the initiative, our legislature reacts with great speed to loud noises from the progressive-minded among the public.  Of course, combined with this commendable responsiveness to the will of the people, there’s the fact that the state realized some $67.5 million in sales and excise tax during the first 12 months of legally sanctioned pot, with that figure expected to reach $369 million by fiscal year 2019.
The state budget is not the only thing affected by the Pacific Northwest’s latest outbreak of officially tolerated public lunacy.  It’s been a bonus for the funeral industry, too.  According to data released in October 2015 by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), marijuana has been increasing as a factor in deadly auto crashes.  The number of drivers involved in fatal accidents who tested positive for weed increased 48 percent from 2013 to 2014.
“We have seen marijuana involvement in serious crashes remain steady over the years, and then it just spiked in 2014,” says Dr. Stali Hoff, the WTSC data and research director.  However, as the Seattle Times helpfully reminds us,
Just testing positive [for marijuana] doesn’t necessarily indicate if a driver was actually affected by the drug at the time of the crash, since marijuana can be detected in a person’s blood for days (possibly weeks) after consumption.
With that editorial evenhandedness that characterizes the main daily newspaper of one of the more weed-friendly places in the nation, the Times adds: “There was no way to know [in November 2012] how, if at all, Initiative 502 would affect road safety, or that within only three years it would controversially be seen as a public-safety issue.”
With due respect to the Times, the idea that more of Vietnam’s and Watergate’s children might enjoy a legal recreational toot or two when the opportunity arises before jumping in their cars and mingling with their fellow citizens doesn’t particularly strike me as news, controversial or otherwise.  It would strike me as news if they failed to do so.
Read More:

Trump U - Taki's Magazine - Steve Sailer

Donald Trump is not the most scholarly American, but he could do education a bit of good.
It’s not even all that necessary for Trump to appoint effective administrators to key roles in the Department of Education and in the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. Simply get rid of the Obama bureaucrats actively orchestrating with The New York Times their mutual jihads against common sense in schools.
For example, Trump could name Haven Monahan as undersecretary in charge of the campus rape culture crisis that spawned the Rolling Stone UVA hoax and that would be better for America than the Obamacrat currently in the job.
Likewise, a Trump Administration could merely cease the current regime’s culture war against local school districts over distractions such as transgender supremacy, as exemplified by the 2016 “Dear Colleagues” letter jointly sent by the Department of Education and Department of Justice demanding that boys who claim to be girls be allowed to shower in the girls’ locker room.
The president not wanting to deal with school bathrooms is one reason we have a federal system. Let states worry about that. If the states don’t want that hassle, let school districts handle it. If districts don’t want to touch it, principals can make the call.
Please share this article:

Tuesday, November 22, 2016


Editor's Note: This is the text version of a speech recently given by National Policy Institute President and Radix editor Richard B. Spencer at NPI's Become Who We Are 2016 conference
I don’t think I’m alone in thinking how surreal this all is.
Of course, those of us on the Alt Right always took President-elect Donald J. Trump and his chances seriously. Unlike everyone else, we weren’t surprised, or at least not that surprised. We knew he could win. Many of us thought all along he would win. The mainstream media, or perhaps we should refer to them in the original German—Lugenpresse—never did.
This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the Beltway Right proved they objectively understood politics better than the “Republican strategists” and “political consultants” snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It’s not just that they are leftists or cucks. It’s not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if those people are people at all, or instead soulless Golems, animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking points John Oliver said the night before.
But even though we always took Trump seriously, there was still a moment of unreality – or perhaps too painfully intense reality – when the state of Pennsylvania was called for Donald Trump, the moment when we knew Kek had smiled upon us, that meme magic was real. And though these terms are used half-jokingly, they represent something truly important--the victory of will. We willed Donald Trump into office, made this dream into reality. If you will it, it is no dream, a quote I’m sure our friends at the Anti-Defamation League know well. And this is only the beginning.

Read More:

Monday, November 21, 2016

The Real War on Science. The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. By John Tierney

The work of left-wing population alarmists inspired China’s monstrous one-child policy, which included forced abortions and infanticide. (JULIO ETCHART/ULLSTEIN BILD/GRANGER, NYC — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)

My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?
My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy). Mooney rails at scientists and politicians who oppose government policies favored by progressives like himself, but if you’re looking for serious damage to the enterprise of science, he offers only three examples.
All three are in his first chapter, during Mooney’s brief acknowledgment that leftists “here and there” have been guilty of “science abuse.” First, there’s the Left’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there’s the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.
Read More:

$26 Billion Dollars for the Jewish Lobby: Just the Tip of the Iceberg

$26 Billion Dollars for the Jewish Lobby: Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Pre-commentary by Dr. David Duke. An article in the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper has claimed that “Jewish charities” give more money to Israel than they do to education, and that this figure is of the order of $26 billion.
It is not anti-Semitic to point out the tremendous power of the Jewish Establishment in America and on a a global scale. One only has to look at the leading, powerful Jewish organizations that exist not only for direct Jewish advocacy in regard to Israel and perceived Jewish interests but in a wide range of domestic policies which these organizations view in the context of Jewish interests.
It is typified by the huge consortium of Jewish organizations called the Council of  Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which is comprised of the fifty richest and most powerful Jewish organizations in the United States. 
As Professor Kevin McDonald points out in this article below, this figure is actually not even the real total—it is considerably more.  As he points out, this figure does not include what is collected at synagogues—and then given to Israel—each month, because synagogues, schools and seminaries are not required to file tax returns.
This is of real importance for everyone who wishes to understand how the Jewish lobby in America works, and how it uses American money—and taxpayers—to keep the racist Jews-only state of Israel in business. Not only are these organizations unabashedly supportive of Israel, they take aggressive positions on most American domestic issues, such as destruction of the second amendment and promoting American open border policy.
Going back later you have a cup of coffee in the
In an is is you to be a selfish narcissist is going to but yourself and that your kids anymore anyway so you plan today
Read More:

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Murders Shot Up in 2015 by Jared Taylor


Blacks account for most of the rise.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has released its annual “Crime in the US” report for 2015, and as has been widely noted, arrests for violent crime were up 3.7 percent over the previous year. Murder–up 11.8 percent–showed a sharper rise than at any time in the last 25 years. This rise in violent crime is a reversal of a steady, almost continuous decline since 1994.
The BJS reported 10,800,000 arrests in 2015, slightly down from the 11,200,000 in 2014. However, in keeping with the rise in violent crime, arrests for murder were up 4.9 percent to 11,902. Arrests for rape (22,863), robbery (95,527), and aggravated assault (376,154) were all up a few percentage points as well.
Most commentators consider the BJS figures complete and accurate, but they are not. First, not all police agencies in the United States report crime information to DOJ. In 2015, the BJS got information from police departments that cover 247 million Americans. That left out 22.8 percent of the total 2015 US population of 320 million, so those crime data are completely missing from the report. Sometimes the BJS estimates what the actual national totals should be; sometimes it doesn’t.
Furthermore, the information that 77.2 percent of the country reported to BJS was inconsistent. In particular, some agencies distinguished whites from Hispanics, but many just lumped Hispanics in with whites. The BJS reports the Hispanic/non-Hispanic information it gets from local agencies, but the information is so incomplete that most of the time it is impossible to calculate separate crime rates for whites and Hispanics. They have to be treated as a single group.
Finally, the BJS reports numbers of arrests, which are far different from the actual numbers of crimes. Every year, millions of crimes are not even reported to the police, and even when they are, yet more millions of crimes do not lead to an arrest. For example, the National Crime Victimization Survey, which asks a huge sample of Americans about their experiences as crime victims found 578,580 cases of robbery in 2015, of which 358,141 were reported to the police. However, in 2015, police made only 95,527 arrests for robbery, which was just 26.7 percent of robberies reported to the police, and 16.5 percent of the robberies reported by Americans in the survey. (Interestingly, the victimization survey, which is a more accurate assessment of actual crime than arrest figures, found no increase in violent crime in 2015. There is no doubt about the rise in murders, however; police found the bodies.)
There is another reason arrests are not the same as crimes: some arrests lead to release without a charge and others end in acquittal. However, extensive survey and other data confirm that comparing arrest rates for different racial groups is a reasonably accurate way tocompare their actual crime rates.
Read More:

RAMZPAUL - The Truth (Revised)

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Fixing the Chicago Tribune Headline: Four Blacks, Who Shouted "Don't Vote Trump," Arrested for Attempted Lynching of White Male

PK NOTE: SBPDL still needs your help. The purges are upon us. You can make a donation via the PayPal link in right-hand side of the site, or you can make a tax-deductible donation to the Paul Kersey Fund at A donation of $225 gets you all 12 signed books by Kersey (the perfect Christmas gift!!). 

Remember the white guy who was attacked by a pack of n--gers in Chicago reminiscent of the frightening lynch-mob Mel Gibson once warned his estranged Russian girlfriend about? 

Come on, you remember. 

The pack of blacks spent the entire video yelling at some white guy they were attacking in broad daylight about how he had voted for Donald Trump, almost insinuating the violence was predicated upon his decision to utilize the franchise for a candidate they found objectionable. 

This pack of blacks even stole the white guys car. 
These black individuals were involved in a racial mob attack on a white male in Chicago. During the lynching, they yelled "Get the Trump voter."

Well, now four of these blacks have been arrested in the racial assault the Chicago Tribunefails to note was... a racial assault. [Four held after man beaten following car crash as bystanders yelled anti-Trump taunts, Chicago Tribune, 11-18-16]:
Four people have been charged after a man was punched and kicked as a crowd yelled, “Don’t vote Trump’’ a day after the presidential election, police said. 
Julian Christian, 26, of the 2500 block of 14th Avenue in Broadview, Dejuan Collins, 20, of the 9500 block of South Avalon Avenue in Chicago, Rajane Lewis, 21, of the 7800 block of South Euclid Avenue in Chicago, and a 17-year-old girl who is charged as a juvenile, were each charged with one felony count of Vehicular Hijacking, police said.
A video of the incident went viral and the victim, 49-year-old David Wilcox, acknowledged he supports Donald Trump but said that's not what started the beating on the West Side. 

Read More:

Friday, November 18, 2016

ICYMI: Dozens of black mobs target car dealerships for large scale car t...

USA drops bags of money in Russia that vanish without a trace

USA drops bags of money in Russia that vanish without a trace. 59278.jpeg

It is no secret that the United States uses a variety of levers to control social and political life of other countries of the world. Financial support for civil societies of the countries, which the US establishment chose as a zone of strategic interests, is one of those tools.

The USA's financial assistance for the "support of democratic foundations of the world," gives the US an opportunity to penetrate into the countries of Europe and Asia. It is not surprising that Russia appears to be a priority objective for the US State Department, as evidenced by the annual financial report from the department.

In 2016, the US State Department, which performs the function of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, has taken on Russia for the first time in five years. The annual financial report from the US State Department includes Russia on the top ten list of the countries, where the USA sends impressive amounts of money for different types of subversive activities that include propaganda. Noteworthy, the report reflects financial investment on the line of embassies.

 According to the US State Department, the mission of the United States is to build a prosperous, just and democratic world, as well as to maintain acceptable conditions for stability and progress to the benefit of the American people and people around the world.
The United States will be better prepared for challenges of tomorrow by investing in common security and prosperity. Every year, the US State Department allocates about 585 million dollars for the sake of world democracy and stability. As it turns out, a significant part of this money was used for building democracy in Russia.
The fact that Russia has been included in the top ten countries, in which the State Department supports "democracy," may mean that Washington is ready to "conduct a dialogue" with Russia, even though the top political leadership of the United States has referred to Russia before as an "isolated country," whose economy was "in tatters."
In last year's report, Russia was mentioned only once, in conjunction with the Islamic State.

 Read More:

Education is so far left, it can’t really see the right

The past week has been extraordinary in the most literal sense. As I’ve sat on panels, talked to reporters, and huddled with folks trying to make sense of things, I’ve been struck by how differently things appear to me than to the vast majority of folks in and around education. What’s going on?

A couple things, I suspect. But the biggest one is that, when I’m trying to explain the world of education to people who don’t work in or around education, I frequently wind up telling them, “You need to understand that the center in education is two standard deviations to the left of the American public.”

I’ll say this when talking to conservatives who are confused as to why they’ve been to education meetings or seen education stories where Democrats who support tax increases, race-based affirmative action, and gun control are termed “right-wingers.” The answer: because the Democrat in question supports charter schools or differentiated pay. You should see some of the quizzical looks I get when I say that.
I then have to explain that education skews so far to the left that expressing mainstream conservative concerns about federal overreach or the problems with race-based policy can be enough to get one classified as a clueless reactionary. I’ll explain that opposition to race-based affirmative action can be enough to get one branded a racist, that rejecting federal policies which strip due process rights from students accused of sexual harassment is sufficient to be labeled a misogynist, and that even using the phrase “illegal immigrant” is grounds for being reported to a bias response team as a xenophobe.

Read More:

«Israel» to Evacuate 78,000 Settlers in the Event of Hizbullah War

"Israeli" soldiers infront of a settlement

Amidst fears of war erupting with Hizbullah, the “Israeli” regime’s military forces had diverted from its traditional military principles.

The “Israel” Occupation Forces [IOF] had drawn up plans to evacuate settlements in the North in the event of war with Hizbullah, Haaretz had learned. The move marks a stark departure from consensus “Israeli” doctrine and is likely to spark heated debate.
According to Haaretz, the “Israeli” entity does not evacuate any settler neither does it abandon settlements under any military attack by an enemy, at any price; as any withdrawal from a single centimeter will be considered a failure, even a defeat.
Though, the report pointed that the IOF is not talking about withdrawing its forces but rather about an evacuation of settlers, as orderly as possible, from the conflict zone during hostilities to reduce casualties and enable the army to defend these locales more effectively.
Despite their awareness of the expected criticism, during this past year Kochavi and Home Front Command head Yoel Strick – who will replace Kochavi as head of Northern Command next year, when the latter becomes deputy chief of staff – have been formulating a comprehensive action plan called Safe Distance.
The plan, the details of which are being published here for the first time, is intended to be put into effect from the moment war breaks out in the north or, in the case of an intelligence warning, in the hours before the fighting begins.

Read More: