Wednesday, May 31, 2017


In the last 2 ½ years alone—from Charlie Hebdo to Manchester—there have been 20 Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States, killing a total of 381 people.  The vast majority of terrorists convicted in the US since 9/11 have pledged allegiance to Islamic groups: ISIS, al-Qaeda and their ilk.  Over 70% of the US State Department’s designated foreign terrorist organizations are Muslim in ideology and goals.  Muslim “grooming gangs” have roamed the UK for years, setting girls and young women up to be sexually used.  Over a thousand women were sexually assaulted in Germany on New Year’s 2016, largely by “foreign nationals.” Sexual crimes against women are increasing in Sweden, largely as a result of the massive influx of young Muslim men.  
Yet how do most Europeans, and far too many Americans, respond to this civilizational assault?  With sorrow and tears, “love trumps hate” and candle-lighting.  By creating memes with the appropriate victims’ national flag.  With cringing apologies for non-existent “Islamophobia” and promises to bring in even more Muslim “refugees” in order to demonstrate, once and for all (or at least until the next jihad) that we Westerners are truly open-minded and tolerant—even if it literally kills us.  The President of the United States cannot even temporarily stop immigration from a few terrorist-haven countries—because they happen to be Muslim-majority ones, and leftist American judges, like British politicians, privilege the rights of non-citizen foreigners over their own countrymen in the name of Leftist ideology and global humanitarianism.

Anti-Trump Hate Map by Westley Parker

We’ve documented nearly 200 attacks on Trump supporters.
The Anti-Trump Hate Map is an ongoing project of American Renaissance that displays criminal incidents in which Trump supporters were targeted for political reasons. Each marker on the map shows the location of an anti-Trump hate crime. Clicking on a marker opens a brief overview of the case. Red markers signify violent crimes; blue markers, property crimes; purple markers, “other” crimes.
You can find additional information about incidents by visiting this page and selecting the “Excel File” tab. By using the blue “Filter” drop-down menu, you can search and sort incidents by such things as location, type of offense, offender and victim race and sex, or in any combination.

Ancient Egyptians more closely related to Europeans than modern Egyptians, scientists claim


However Egyptologist says he is 'particularly suspicious of any statement that may have the unintended consequences of asserting – yet again from a northern European or North American perspective – that there’s a discontinuity' between ancient and modern populations

Scientists who managed to obtain full genome sequences of Ancient Egyptians for the first time have concluded the people of the pharaohs were more closely related to modern Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East rather than present-day Egyptians.
But the claims sparked suspicion from one leading Egyptologist, who questioned whether genetic analysis could justify such a sweeping statement and pointed to a long history of spurious attempts to separate ancient Egyptians from the modern-day population.
The mummies were taken from a single archaeological site on the River Nile, Abusir el-Meleq, which was inhabited from 3,250BC to 700AD and was home to a cult of Osiris, the god of the dead, making it a good place to be buried.
A complete genome sequence was obtained for three mummies and mitochondrial DNA, which is passed through the female line, was obtained from 90 individuals. They were dated to between about 1,400BC and 400AD.
The researchers, writing in the journal Nature Communications, admitted their sample “may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt”.
Nevertheless, they concluded the mummified people were “distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples”.
Read More:

The Best Defense is a Good Offense - Steve Sailer

What if Charles Murray is right? What if some of the various racial gaps in cognitive performance are due to genetics? Would that be the end of the world?
It is considered appropriate to hyperventilate as if you believe so.
On the other hand, what if Murray is wrong and his best critic, James Flynn, is right? Would that validate traditional liberal approaches to bridging The Gap?
Vox recently ran a long article by three professors entitled “Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ.” It was full of bluster about how “There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.”
But if you read the long article closely, you’d have discovered that what it was really about was how Murray is right and the conventional wisdom is wrong on (at least) 80 percent of the scientific issues:
(1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
(2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
(3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
(4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
Please share this article:

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Gorgo - Connecting With My Ancestors

The New Class War by Michael Lind

The Cold War has been followed by the class war. A transatlantic class war has broken out simultaneously in many countries between elites based in the corporate, financial, and professional sectors and working-class populists. Already this transnational class conflict has produced Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency. Other shocks are likely in store.
None of the dominant political ideologies of the West can explain the new class war, because all of them pretend that persisting social classes no longer exist in the West. Neoliberalism—the hegemonic ideology of the transatlantic elite—pretends that class has disappeared in societies that are purely meritocratic, with the exception of barriers to individual upward mobility that still exist because of racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Unable to acknowledge the existence of social class, much less to candidly discuss class conflicts, neoliberals can only attribute populism to bigotry or irrationality.
Like neoliberalism, mainstream conservatism denies the existence of classes in the West. Along with neoliberals and libertarians, conservatives assume that the economic elite is not a semi-hereditary class but merely an ever-changing, kaleidoscopic aggregate of talented and hard-working individuals. Meritocratic capitalism is threatened from within by a “new class” consisting of progressive intellectuals—professors, journalists, and nonprofit activists—who are said to be vastly more powerful than CEOs and investment bankers.
Marxism at least takes classes and class conflict seriously. But classical Marxism, with its secularized, providential theory of history and its view of industrial workers as the cosmopolitan agents of global revolution, has always been deluded.
Fortunately, there exists a body of thought that can explain the current upheavals in the West and the world very well. It is James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, supplemented by the economic sociology of John Kenneth Galbraith. Burnham’s thought has recently enjoyed a revival among thinkers of the center and center-right, including Matthew Continetti, Daniel McCarthy, and Julius Krein. Unfortunately, Galbraith’s sociology, along with his economics, remains out of fashion.
In their politics, Burnham and Galbraith could hardly have been more different, despite their shared friendship with William F. Buckley Jr. The patrician Burnham was a leader in the international Trotskyist movement before becoming zealously anticommunist and helping to found the post–World War II conservative movement. Galbraith, in contrast, was a passionate liberal throughout his life.
Yet both believed that a new ruling elite had displaced the old bourgeois and aristocratic estates. Burnham, following Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means’s The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932), coined the term “the managerial elite” in his worldwide bestseller The Managerial Revolution (1941). Later, in The New Industrial State(1967), Galbraith called the same group the “technostructure.” In his memoir A Life in Our Times (1981), Galbraith wrote: “James Burnham, partly because he was a stalwart right-winger well out of the political mainstream and partly because he was not a certified academician, never got full credit for his contribution. In early editions of The New Industrial State I was among those in default.”
In his essay “Second Thoughts on James Burnham,” George Orwell provided a succinct summary of Burnham’s thesis:
Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralized society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of “managers.” These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organize society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. . . . The new “managerial” societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centers in Europe, Asia and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom.
The thesis of this essay is that the theory of the managerial elite explains the present transatlantic social and political crisis. Following World War II, the democracies of the United States and Europe, along with Japan—determined to avoid a return to depression and committed to undercutting communist anti-capitalist propaganda—adopted variants of cross-class settlements, brokered by national governments between national managerial elites and national labor. Following the Cold War, the global business revolution shattered these social compacts. Through the empowerment of multinational corporations and the creation of transnational supply chains, managerial elites disempowered national labor and national governments and transferred political power from national legislatures to executive agencies, transnational bureaucracies, and treaty organizations. Freed from older constraints, the managerial minorities of Western nations have predictably run amok, using their near-monopoly of power and influence in all sectors—private, public, and nonprofit—to enact policies that advantage their members to the detriment of their fellow citizens. Derided and disempowered, large elements of the native working classes in Western democracies have turned to charismatic tribunes of anti-system populism in electoral rebellions against the selfishness and arrogance of managerial elites.

Computer Scientist’s €3,000 Fine for Facebook ‘Hate Speech’ After Criticising Soft Touch Police, Immigrants

A computer scientist in Germany has been fined over 3,000 euros after he complained in 2015 that criminal asylum seekers were being let go by police after robbing supermarkets.

The 52-year-old German made his comments on August 22nd of 2015 at the height of the migrant crisis, Wochenblatt reports. He noted that asylum seekers were going into German supermarkets and helping themselves to items and instead of being arrested they were let go with warnings.
He wrote on Facebook: “I am in favour of the setting up of civil defences and the punishment of flogging, then they might feel at home when they get their skull smashed with a truncheon. Violence is probably the only thing that they understand, and we should try to make them understand us.”
After his post, the 52-year-old was arrested by police and taken to jail. He was then put on trial and accused of attacking asylum seekers’ human dignity, slandering them, and insulting them. He was eventually convicted and forced to pay a fine of 3,150 euros.

The verdict was initially appealed by the man’s defence lawyer as the computer scientist argued he was directing his anger at specific asylum seekers and not asylum seekers as a whole. He also claimed he was not the original author of the statement and had copied what he had seen written in a magazine online.
Read More:


To read full article,click: Alternative Right: A TALE OF TWO TERRORISMS:

 When Muslim leaders respond to terrorist attacks on their Christian subjects better than Western leaders do.

Despite the offbeat eccentricity of its leader, the Gaddafi regime played a vital role in maintaining peace and stability in the Mediterranean Basin. When, on a whim, the West decided to use its special forces and air power to oust Gaddafi as part of theArab Neocon Spring in 2011, it unleashed all sorts of problems.

The Manchester bomb attack was part of the blowback, but so was the much less reported terrorist attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt a few days later, which killed even more people, and also included many children.

While the first attack targeted young woman involved in a culture of degeneracy (check out Ariana Grande's slutty content, or rather don't bother), the second attack targeted people making a religious pilgrimage. I'll leave it to you to decide which one represented the greater tragedy. Also note the inefficacy of prayers in dealing with terrorism, as the second group of victims were already engaged in praying.

While the Manchester bomber’s Libyan connections are well-known, the attack on the Coptic Christians also had a Libyan connection, with ISIS using its camps in Libya and its network of Libyan refugees in Egypt to mount the attack.

So how did the two countries involved deal with roughly equivalent attacks by Islamic terrorists? Well, in the UK the government of Prime Minister Theresa May immediately went on the offensive. But oddly enough not against Muslim terrorists. Instead they directed their ire at the US government, as reported by the Evening Standard:
"UK Government ministers hit out at their US counterparts on Wednesday evening after the New York Times published crime scene photographs showing bloodstained fragments of Salman Abedi's bomb. The graphic pictures appeared a day after the bomber's name was briefed to the US media against the wishes of Greater Manchester Police, hours after Home Secretary Amber Rudd revealed she had told US authorities not to leak material about the atrocity."

Friday, May 26, 2017

Models from the world's first agency for 'modified humans' have spent $3 MILLION between them on surgery to look like characters such as a Ken doll, Britney Spears and an ALIEN

  • The Plastics of Hollywood agency boasts the fakest people on the planet who have spent over $3 million between them on surgery

  • Reality series Plastics of Hollywood will feature 12 human dolls 

  • Agency set up by Argentinian Marcela Iglesias who now lives in LA

  • Says her members were born in wrong bodies and needed surgery to transform

  • Show features human Ken dolls, an alien, an elf, and Jessica Rabbit lookalike 

  • A TV show is set to follow the most plastic people on the planet who have spent close to three million dollars on surgeries and procedures.
    Plastics of Hollywood will feature 12 human dolls including Ken Dolls Rodrigo Alves and Justin Jedlica, Jessica Rabbit imitator Pixee Fox, Kim Kardashian wannabe Jennifer Pamplona and alien lookalike Vinny Ohh.
    Talent manager and producer, Marcela Iglesias, from Los Angeles, California said: 'We are the world's first agency for the most modified human beings.
    'They are incredible characters who have had plastic surgery, cosmetic procedures or just have very extreme looks.
    'From surgery and procedures, the dolls have spent over three million dollars altering how they look.

    Read More:

    Philippines 'Dirty' Duterte facing ‘same ISIS dynamic’ as Assad in Syria

    Philippines 'Dirty' Duterte facing ‘same ISIS dynamic’ as Assad in Syria

    Someone has unleashed ISIS, which forces the Filipino government to come down hard, to declare martial law, and then the international organizations will demonize Duterte, Patrick Henningsen, Executive Editor of 21st Century, told RT.

    Fighters linked to ISIS went on a rampage in the Philippines' city of Marawi. The country's President Rodrigo Duterte has declared martial law there.
    RT:  With terrorism as his new target, do you think Duterte will receive much international support, given that his war on drugs was condemned by many and called too brutal?
    Patrick Henningsen: This President is already under intense scrutiny by the sort of wider international community, if you will, and specifically by the US. He has sort of gone at loggerheads with Washington on more than one occasion. This is a bit of a tight spot, a bit of a Catch-22 for Duterte in the Philippines because he will already have been somewhat demonized for his heavy-handed approach to organized crime and the organized drug trade that has affected his country. So comparisons will be made to Ferdinand Marcos. This is bit of public relations issue for this President and this government. It will have to be ironed out.
    At the end of the day he is in the exact same situation, very similar situation that Bashar Assad in Syria was in early on in the sort of the terrorist takeover of that country in the early days of the FSA, and then Al-Nusra Front, and then later ISIS. So he has to balance out this public relations issue – is he too heavy-handed? Most people would say looking at Syria that you can’t be heavy-handed enough when it comes to dealing with ISIS. So we’ll see how much progress he makes on the island in the next few weeks.
    RT:  With terrorism apparently spreading around the world, don't you think Duterte-style harsh measures should be an option now?
    PH: What is really interesting if you look at Syria, as the test case, we just came back from Syria on a one-month fact-finding mission. If there was any criticism of Assad – especially early on in 2011-2012, but especially in the beginning of the crisis in Syria – the criticism from Syrians would have been: “He wasn’t heavy-handed enough.” You can sort of look at that situation and Duterte is probably looking at that situation in Syria, and then taking a sort of more tougher tack because if this gets out of hand, if he starts losing cities, towns, provinces or governorates to terrorist control, then you have a really big problem on your hands. There is also this issue of military equipment. Are they ready to deal with that size of a problem? Quite possibly not. And if they are, they will need to be able to sort of rearm and modernize some paramilitary aspects of the Philippine forces, which they may be or not may not be ready for. So going in hard, going in strong in the beginning, might seem like a better option now after looking at what has happened in Syria over the last six years.
    Read More:

    PROVOKING WAR: Israel Attacks Syria Again, as Syria Fires Back at Israeli Warplanes

    Israel has attacked Syria again, but this time Syria actually fired back – raising concerns about this conflict blowing-out into a wider war. 

    For the first time in 6 years, Israel officially acknowledged an airstrike in Syria, after a pre-down raid. However, according Syria’s military, an Israeli plane was downed and another hit another while carrying out strikes against Syria near the famed desert city of Palmyra.
    “The Jewish state does not usually confirm or deny each individual raid but may have been led to do so this time by the circumstances of the incident.”
    Could Israel be providing a type of air support for ISIS and other terrorists operating in Syria, particularly around Palmyra? What other reason would Israel give to intervene in an area which has been liberated from ISIS control by the Syrian Army and the Russian Airforce?
    A similar conclusion could be drawn by the brutal US attack against the Syrian Army forces killing at least 80 back in September at Deir Ezzor – which allowed ISIS to advance past a position previously defended by the Syrian military.
    Traditionally, the standard line Israel will give to justify attacking Syria would be to “stop Hezbollah weapons deliveries.”
    Another possible motivation for Israel to raise tensions could be in order to justify an increased land-grab in the contested Golan Heights area – which UN Peacekeepers have left vacant after fleeing in 2014, leaving the area open to increased theft. Israel had illegally seized much of the area from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed it in 1981 – a move which was never recognized internationally.

    Read More:

    ISIS conquers Philippines city of Marawi (PHOTOS) by ADAM GARRIE

    The Philippines city of Marawi has reportedly been taken by ISIS in the most brutal way imaginable. According to the Amaq Agency, over 70 Philippines soldiers have been killed. However, the Philippine Army have contradicted this report saying that only 8 of their soldiers have been killed. It remains to be seen which report is the more accurate figure.
    ISIS have set up check-points around the city in a manner reminiscent of how they came to control cities like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.
    New pictures have been released by al-Masdar depicting the rapid conquest of the city by ISIS.
    The rapid gains ISIS is making in Philippines could gain the group a foothold in South East Asia. Unlike previous Islamist insurgencies in Philippines, ISIS openly claim to hold regional and indeed global ambitions.
    Read More:

    Audit: U.S. Army Loses Track of $1 Billion-Plus Worth of Weapons, Other Equipment in Iraq

    US army Humvees are loaded into trucks during a logistical operation to clear equipment and heavy machinery as part of pulling out of Iraq, at the Balad military base, north of Baghdad, on August 27, 2010 a week before the US military is due to end its combat mission in the country. AFP PHOTO/AHMAD AL-RUBAYE (Photo credit should read AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP/Getty Images)

    The U.S. Army has lost track of more than $1 billion worth of weapons and other equipment destined for local allies combating the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq, including an Iran-allied group of Shiite fighters, reveals a report.

    According to a declassified government audit of the Iraqi Train and Equip Fund obtained by Amnesty International through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, hundreds of Humvees and mortars, as well as tens of thousands of rifles, remain unaccounted for due to a lack of central database for keeping track of U.S. taxpayer-funded military equipment.
    “This audit provides a worrying insight into the US Army’s flawed – and potentially dangerous – system for controlling millions of dollars’ worth of arms transfers to a hugely volatile region,” declared Patrick Wilcken, the arms control and human rights researcher for Amnesty, in a statement.
    “It makes for especially sobering reading given the long history of leakage of US arms to multiple armed groups committing atrocities in Iraq, including the armed group calling itself the Islamic State,” he continued.“The need for post-delivery checks is vital. Any fragilities along the transfer chain greatly increase the risks of weapons going astray in a region where armed groups have wrought havoc and caused immense human suffering.”
    The U.S. Army provided the unaccounted weapons and other military equipment to the U.S.-backed Iraqi Army, Kurdish Peshmerga troops, and the Iran-allied Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), a predominantly group of Shiite fighters sanctioned by Baghdad.

    Amnesty International has accused PMU fighters, also known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and al-Hashd al-Shabi, of committing atrocities against civilians in Iraq using weapons from the United States and other countries.
    Read More:

    Thursday, May 25, 2017

    "Dangerous Woman" Meets Dangerous Man by Mark Steyn

    The pop star Ariana Grande has canceled the remaining dates of her "Dangerous Woman" tour following the murder of 22 fans (at the time of writing) and the injury of dozens more at her concert in Manchester. The Manchester Royal Infirmary reports that half the victims brought to the hospital overnight are children. The killer was a suicide bomber. Theresa May says the police believe they know his identity. The usual, predictable details will follow. [UPDATE: He's Salman Abedi, the Manchester-born son of Libyan refugees and another "known wolf".]
    As The Independent's headline has it:
    There's only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before.
    That's not actually the "only" way Britain could respond, but it seems the way to bet, judging from the responses of the political class. "Carry on" is a very British expression. One thinks of the famous scene in one of the most famous of the Carry On comedies, Carry On Up The Khyber, surely the most insightful film ever made about Afghanistan: as you'll recall, the revolting Khasi of Khalabar grows ever more enraged at the British Governor's refusal to let the shelling and destruction of Government House disrupt his dinner party. Even when the Khasi has the main course replaced with the head of a decapitated fakir, Her Majesty's viceroy declines to let his eye be caught by these vulgar attention-seeking jihadists. The film received unenthusiastic reviews from London critics in 1968. One would not have predicted that half-a-century later it would be official British policy on the home front.
    Easier said than done, alas. A couple of hours ago, as I write, the Arndale shopping center in Manchester was evacuated, somewhat chaotically, with hundreds of customers stampeding for the exits lest they be the cause of The Independent's next carry-on editorial. The Arndale was the scene of the city's last big terror attack - in 1996, when the IRA totaled it. Two hundred people were injured, but nobody died, and you don't have to be a terror apologist like Jeremy Corbyn to find the bad old days of Irish republicanism almost quaint by comparison. A few weeks ago the BBC reported that "approximately 850 people" from the United Kingdom have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for Isis and the like. That's more volunteers than the IRA were able to recruit in thirty years of the "Troubles", when MI5 estimated that they never had more than a hundred active terrorists out in the field. This time maybe it's the exotic appeal of foreign travel, as opposed to a month holed up in a barn in Newry.

    Read More:

    Who’s Afraid of Whom? - Steve Sailer

    Increasingly, social-grievance jihadis are getting themselves worked up over casting decisions in movies, TV shows, plays, and even operas, labeling anything they disapprove of as “whitewashing.”
    Granted, the number of beneficiaries of disputes over which celebrities will get which roles is miniscule. But the various contradictory controversies, when considered together, are revealing for what they show about the unprincipled nature of contemporary moral crises.
    In the past, acting was less concerned with issues of identity-politics authenticity, or even all that much with authenticity at all. Performing was basically conceived of as Let’s Pretend for grown-ups. Who was putting on the show was less important than how much showbiz professionalism they put into it.
    The most admired actor of the mid-20th century, Lord Laurence Olivier, was famous for insisting that what he was doing was just playacting.
    Please share this article:

    Tuesday, May 23, 2017


    John Boorman's spectacular Arthurian epic Excalibur is one of those films everyone ought to have seen. It is one of those rarest of gems: a film that ennobles the spirit just by dint of having watched it. It is a Gesamtkunstwerk of the highest order that lifts one onto a higher plane, so that when one leaves the cinema, one has the barely controllable urge to do great deeds. And it is a film for the Right - not necessarily for the Alternative Right, but for the True Right, for the Right without compromise, for the Right that is elitist, for the Right that strives for the highest, for the Right that lies beyond the tainted, half-hearted measures of Fascism and National Socialism, yet which eschews despotism and embraces paternalism. 

    There have been many reinterpretations of the legend in just about every medium possible. Famous filmic versions include Knights of the Round Table (1953),Camelot (1967), First Knight (1995) and King Arthur (2004), and there is an upcoming treatment of the legend called King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, a typical Guy Ritchie affair, where Sir Bedevere is played by a Negro. And these people have the audacity to talk about cultural appropriation! Next they will be trying to claim the pyramids..... Oh wait..... And I thought after the disaster that was Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, it could not get any worse. It always does though.

    The major difference between those latter two works and Excalibur is in style and interpretation. The latter two present a veritisimitable version lifted from Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, while Excalibur's source material is Thomas Malory's Le Mort d'Arthur with support from Alfred Lord Tennyson'sIdylls of the King.

    The reason for this is the films by Fuqua and Ritchie are typical examples of Leftist propaganda, both tools for promoting the immigrant invasion, just as Monmouth'sHistoria was a tool to legitimate the Norman-Breton invasion. Boorman, like Malory and especially Tennyson, concentrates more on the mythic, and is therefore, in accordance with Julius Evola's assertions, Rightist. It also borrows themes from Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle, which in turn was inspired by the mythic texts Der Nibelungenlied and Volsungasaga. The use of Wagner's music is extremely apt, for Excalibur is a modern Gesamtkunswerk of the highest order.

    Read More:


    Here we go again. 19 people are dead and 50 wounded in a suspected jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, a target that the jihad murderers apparently chose because of its concentration of pre-teens and tweens, so as to maximize the potential to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). But don’t be unduly concerned: Britain’s criminally feckless Prime Minister Theresa May is on the job, saying in a statement: “We are working to establish the full details of what is being treated by the police as an appalling terrorist attack. All our thoughts are with the victims and the families of those who have been affected.”
    As canned responses go, that one is particularly packaged, processed, and colorless. How grand that she is thinking about the victims and their families. And the police are on the job! Marvelous! Britons can go back to sleep, knowing that selfless public servants such as May are working tirelessly to protect them. 
    But there was one key element that May left out of her statement: an apology. 
    One of the things she should apologize for is the routine aspect of her response to this latest jihad massacre. There was nothing she said about this jihad attack that could not have been said about ten jihad massacres before it, and will not be said about the next ten. The Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said after the jihad bombings in New York City in September 2016 that such attacks were “part and parcel of living in a big city” and that people would just have “to be prepared for these sorts of things” to happen, and May is behaving as if she has thoroughly internalized these instructions.
    Read More:

    Maxine Waters Reveals Proof Trump is Russian Agent ��

    Sunday, May 21, 2017

    China ‘dismantled entire CIA operation’; killed, jailed ‘score of CIA spies’ by ALEXANDER MERCOURIS

    Image result for China ‘dismantled entire CIA operation’; killed, jailed ‘score of CIA spies’

    New York Times report confirms that between 2010 and 2012 China dismantled the entire CIA spying operation in China, jailing and executing a score of spies.

    report in the New York Times sourced to 10 ‘current and former officials’ says that between 2010 and 2012 China dismantled the entire CIA operation in China, rounding up, executing and jailing up to 20 spies working for the CIA.
    It seems that in one case the Chinese executed one of the captured spies in the courtyard of a government building in front of his colleagues of whatever institution he was working for in order to impress on them the risks of spying for the CIA.
    It seems this was the biggest single defeat the CIA has suffered since the end of the Cold War, and to this day officials remain divided as to its cause, with some blaming a mole (their suspicions apparently centre on one individual who is now said to be living in an Asian country) whilst others blamed sloppy handling by the spies’ handlers in Beijing.   Regardless it seems that the whole episode continues to cause recrimination within the US intelligence community to this day.
    Setting aside the question of how China detected and broke this spy ring, there are a number of points to take from this episode.
    The first is that though the New York Times article claims that by 2013 China had supposedly lost its ability to detect US spies working in China, the defeat seems so devastating that it is most unlikely that the CIA spying operation in China has fully recovered to the level of before 2010.
    The second is that though the Chinese acted decisively and ruthlessly to smash the CIA spy ring, they also acted discreetly.  Contrast the little we know about this affair – and the total silence China has maintained about it  – with the huge fuss the US made about the so-called ‘Russian illegals‘ , who were rounded up by the FBI at roughly the same time in 2010.
    Contrary to some claims, the ‘illegals’ were not spies but sleeper agents Russian intelligence tried to embed in the US to support future spying operations there.  Since none of them was actually a spy the charges brought against them were relatively minor, and all of them were quickly deported to Russia, where they were exchanged for actual US spies Russia had arrested and was holding in prison.  Despite the fact that none of the ‘illegals’ were spies, the affair dominated the news for several days with one of the individuals arrested – Anna Chapman, who was an intelligence courier not an ‘illegal’ – becoming an overnight media star.

    American Renaissance vs. the Far Left by Chris Roberts

    One of the most bizarrely enduring political myths is that there is some kind of shady link between high finance, big business, and white advocates. Leftists seem to believe that the corporate board of Walmart is full of race realists, that the Koch brothers have a vendetta against black people, that Goldman-Sachs funnels money to militias, etc.
    It is all a fantasy, of course. With vanishingly few exceptions, the wealthiest people and organizations in the world support more immigration, affirmative-action and integration, and oppose any kind of white identity. This is public information. You can look up how many Fortune 500 companies donate to the NAACP, La Raza—and to the foundation behind AmRen, the New Century Foundation (zero, of course). You can also just as easily find out which companies filed amicus briefs in favor of affirmative action and against President Trump’s attempted travel bans.
    No matter what Noam Chomsky or Louise Mensch think, AmRen does not receive any money from Russians, Wall Street, or a secretly sympathetic FBI. Our money comes from white people who believe in us. Big money opposes us at every turn.
    There are far-left political websites that are also entirely reader supported, such as The Baffler, Jacobin, Current Affairs, Dissent, n+1, In These Times, and New Inquiry. Ferociously pro-Bernie sites, always brimming with sardonic cultural criticism, do not get checks from the “one percent.” This really does set them apart from mainstream leftist media. The largest investor in the New York Times, for example, is Mexican businessman Carlos Slim, one of the richest people on Earth. Vox is funded largely by media companies and venture capital groups.
    Naturally, The Baffler et al. claim that their lack of support from “Davos Men” makes them more authentic, courageous, and truly left-wing. But for all their “anti-system” posturing, they get a great deal of mainstream coverage and respect, if not money.
    For example, their print publications are carried in elite liberal arts college libraries and plenty of public universities. Indeed, n+1 is so popular in universities that they brag about it on their webpage, where they offer institutional subscriptions for $150.00 a year. The strong ties most of these magazines have with universities isn’t surprising, since so many of their contributors are academics. Byline after byline at each of these sites shows a university connection.
    These magazines are also carried in bookstores. Their articles rail against capitalism, retail chains, and big box stores, but step into any Barnes & Noble and you’ll find Jacobin, The Baffler, and n+1 every time, and all the others most of the time.
    Read More:

    Saturday, May 20, 2017

    Curing the Campus PC Pox by ROBERT WEISSBERG

    Today’s college campuses are hotbeds of anti-intellectual insanity—a world of micro- aggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces, speech codes, cultural appropriations and mandatory sensitivity training where the slightest impolite utterance, regardless of intent or heartfelt apologies can result in harsh punishment. Can this be reversed? The answer is “yes” but this will require a devious pathway that begins by seemingly encouraging the opposite—yet more PC to, eventually, kill the beast. Let me explain.
    Analyzing the PC distemper invariably focuses on a reign of terror by snowflakes, cupcakes and social justice warriors seeking to punish anything (“hate”) that might possibly offend anybody but particularly members of certain privileged categories.
    Not true though it is absolutely correct insofar as these misguided airheads are the ones doing the actual damage.
    What really drives this insanity is the absence of clear-cut rules regarding the PC-cosmology. Anarchy, not malevolence is the core of the problem, since nobody in advance knows that is hateful, let alone its punishment. Today’s campus PC disaster is the classic illustration of life without the rule of law. How can a Goodthinkprofessor escape the little Torquemadas if he has no idea of what they consider “offensive”? Life thus abounds with ever-changing wooly-headed rules, many invented on the spot with Kafkaesque variations. We obviously need a clear PC code that defines offensiveness and stipulates its punishment.
    The solution requires each campus to create an assembly of students, administrators, professors and activists to formulate a “PC Code.” Now, unlike the American Constitutional Convention dominated by White Protestant Males (including 25 who owned enslaved persons), this Assembly of Social Justice Warriors (ASJW) will be a truly representative law-making body. The school will also pay students members generously and benefits will include free meals, trips and conferences. We cannot foresee its exact composition and final size (at least 500, hopefully), but it will certainly include representatives from multiple communities of color, the LGBTQIA community and practitioners of other erotic predilections such as S & M as well as those previously marginalized, stigmatized and voiceless, those associated with indigenous peoples (particularly if negatively impacted by climate change), and where feasible, delegates from the currently incarcerated community.
    Then there are the Assembly’s procedural rules, for example, can a single delegate, thanks to intersectionality, represent more than one perspective. Might a disabled lesbian of color be counted as three votes? Voting rules are particularly important. Will each community vote en bloc or will members freely pick their unique identity per vote so our black disabled lesbian might align with fellow blacks on issue “A” but and with the disabled community on issue “B”?
    Read More:

    Harvard Study Shows Unprecedented Anti-Trump Media Bias — Except For When He Bombed Syria By Chris Menahan

    A new Harvard study published on Thursday found unprecedented levels of anti-Trump bias from the major media in Trump’s first 100 days in office, with NBC, CBS and CNN generating over 91 percent negative coverage.
    The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analysed news reports from the print editions of The New York TimesThe Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, as well as “the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).”
    Here’s what they found:
    – President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
    – Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
    – European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
    – Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
    – Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

    Read More: