Thursday, August 31, 2017


Their Satanic Majesties Request is, to my mind, the most British and therefore the most authentic of all Rolling Stones albums. Their characteristic hard-driving blues is put on the back-burner and suffused through a veil of psychedelia and English whimsy with which the band were seldom associated.
Up until 1967, most British popular music had been in something of a cultural cringe to America. The Stones were no different in this respect than many other British pop musicians, whether it was the “British Elvis” Cliff Richard curling his lip, the Tornados playing “Telstar” (a hit named after a NASA satellite), or even a young John Lennon, squawking like a Black R&B singer on “Twist and Shout.”
Before the Glimmer Twins of Jagger and Richards got into their song-writing stride with 1966’s Aftermath, the Stones could best be described as an American blues-rock cover band. Metaphorically they sat at the feet of blues, soul, and R&B legends, like Willie Dixon, Solomon Burke, and Chuck Berry. The same could be said for their arch rivals, the Beatles, who paid tribute to a slightly whiter American musical demographic, which also included Carl Perkins and Buddy Holly.
England’s growing subservience to American popular culture during the 20th century, both in music and film, had been tolerable while the British Empire retained it full glory, but following the Empire’s post-WWII collapse and betrayal at Suez in 1956, it became increasingly galling. This meant that anything that could work against this subservience would be guaranteed a warm response. The importance of the Beatles was that they represented the first sign of this.
After the first flush of success, and with the freedom created by becoming mainly a studio band, they moved away from their American musical roots, and developed a more sophisticated pop palette that included classical and Indian musical elements, as well echoes of earlier British musical traditions.
It was this crucible of creativity, presaged on Revolver (1966) and best expressed on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), that effectively helped to break the mental shackles of British popular music, and allowed it to overcome its inferiority complex to its blues-and-country-based roots. The album is more like a slab of British Victoriana on psychedelic steroids than anything American.
The remarkable success the album enjoyed suggests that it wasn’t only filling a musical gap, but also a psychic and emotional one; and one that was not entirely removed from the social and political trends of the day. The rich outpouring of musical talented that occurred at this time – The Who, The Kinks, Pink Floyd, the Stones, and others – effectively put America in the shade with music that no longer paid deference to America, at a time when Britain desperately needed a way to retain its self-respect.
Not only did pop success prove Britain’s “modernity” – the crux of much of its inferiority complex – but it also allowed Britons the conceit of seeing their culture as something more potently eclectic, sophisticated, global, and subtly tonal than America’s. This was a cultural backwash of empire, similar to the one the Greeks had unleashed on the Romans more than 2000 years before, although ultimately more trivial and superficial.
With this awakening came the realization that much of the heritage of American popular music owed a debt to British culture: English folk, the Border Ballads, the Christian hymn tradition, and even the call-and-response singing of Hebridean churches that later resurfaced in American gospel music.
Read More:

First They Came for the Nazis and Pedophiles… by THE SAKER

The Nazi pedophile: the ideal consensus villain
First, why was The Daily Stormer singled out for such crazy persecutions? Okay, okay – they are racists and Nazis. So? Does that really make them worse than anybody else? Last time I checked, none of the people involved with, or working for, The Daily Stormer had committed any personal crimes. Furthermore, had they committed any such crimes, why not go after them individually instead of going after their website? Why are the loyal corporations trying to shut down the speech of some individuals? Because they are ‘inciting violence’? That is ridiculous. The entire body of Marxist ideology is one long and never-ending incitations to (revolutionary) violence, yet nobody has ever tried to shut down all Marxist websites! Heck, the French national anthem is an incitation to violence! Since when does “free speech” exclude the incitation to violence?! Every single US President has made innumerable calls for violence (Trump recently against the DPRK), and yet nobody is censoring them? Could it be that the only reason The Daily Stormer is singled out is because it is relatively/comparably weak/poor and unable to defend itself?
Next, let’s look at the insipid notion that the Nazis were some kind of “horror of horrors”, some exceptionally evil phenomenon in human history and that therefore they deserve some special and unique form of political persecution. Here, again, let me get something immediately out of the way: I consider the Nazis of have been an abhorrent gang of arrogant genocidal racists maniacs. I do, I really do. I have *nothing* good to say about them. But what I categorically reject is the notion that they were somehow worse than all the other participants in WWII. Think of it, the Soviets? Peuhleeze! Just read Trotsky’s “Terrorism and Communism” or Lenin’s “Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” if you have any doubts about the fact that the Bolsheviks were genocidal maniacs! The Anglos? Need I remind everybody that the Anglos committed a butchery unique in world history: the genocidal extermination of all the ethnic groups of an entire continent (I call that a “pan-genocide”). How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki or the genocidal bombings of civilians in Germany? Yeah, I know, the Nazi genocide not only got a special name – the Holocaust, a misnomer by the way – but their genocide is the only one that has a mandatory casualty figure attached to it: 6 million (do you know of ANY other genocide which is always named along with an obligatory casualty figure? how about any other genocide whose exact number of victims cannot be legally investigated?). For seven decades now (actually, less, but nevermind that) we are told to mantrically repeat “Holocaust 6 million, Holocaust 6 million, Holocaust 6 million”. Why? Could it be that the real crime of the Nazis was not that they were genocidal maniacs, but that they lost WWII and that their (no less genocidal) enemies got to write the history of that war?
Then, it is true that nowadays everybody hates Nazis. Some for the right reasons (they were evil genocidal maniacs) and some for the wrong ones (the believe the anti-Nazi propaganda of the Ziomedia). But whether this is for the right or for the wrong reasons, most people hate Nazis. Not only that, but the simply use of the words “Nazi” or “Hitler” immediately disconnects the (already generally poor) critical/analytics capabilities of the vast majority of the people and that makes Nazis ideal villains. Could it be that the Nazis were singled out for repression by the AngloZionist Empire because they were ideal villains, “consensus villains” if you prefer?
I want to add here that even if we conclude that The Daily Stormer was singled out because it was weak and unable to defend itself, if we also conclude that the main crime of the Nazis was losing WWII and even if we conclude that the Nazis are perfect “consensus villains” this is no way implies that the Nazis were not every bit as bad as the imperial propaganda describes them. If I say that a murderer is not a rapist, that in no way implies that this murderer is a fine upstanding citizen since he still is a murderer. In the case of the Nazis this very much applies. For example, even if the Nazis did not kill 6 million Jews in gas chambers, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt, and not only by propagandists, that the Nazi Einsatzgruppenmurdered a huge number of civilians. In fact, Raul Hilberg, probably the foremost expert on Nazi atrocities, estimates that these units killed over 2 million people. So even if somebody could prove that gas chambers and crematoria were never used to kill anybody, this will not whitewash the Nazis from their atrocities.
Read More:

Ann Coulter: Why the Media Are in a Never-Ending Hunt for Right-Wing Violence

After I’d spent a decade begging Republicans, including a few presidential candidates, to take up the immigration issue, Donald J. Trump came along, championed the entire thesis of Adios, America, and swept all contenders aside.

It’s too late for the likes of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan to avoid humiliation, but if they don’t want to keep making asses of themselves in public by, for example, praising today’s version of the KKK, they should read my entire corpus of work, starting with Demonic. (Trump somehow grasped the whole point of that book, too.)
The reason normal people are suspicious of the media’s narrative on Charlottesville is that we’ve heard this exact same story many, many times before.
Facts on the ground:
— Approximately every other year since forever, liberal hooligans have been rampaging through the streets, beating people up, setting off bombs, killing cops, smashing store windows, assassinating politicians and burning down neighborhoods — against capitalism, Vietnam, Nixon, Wall Street, a police shooting, Trump, Starbucks, a sunny day.
— Conservatives, mostly families, have generally avoided even the mildest forms of political protest, and, when they finally are driven to petition the government over their grievances, they pick up after themselves — at tea parties, townhalls, Trump rallies and so on.
Result: The entire media are constantly on Red Alert for the threat of Right-Wing Violence.
The explanation for this apparent madness is that the left — both the scribblers and the shock troops — bear all the characteristics of a mob, as set forth more than a century ago by the father of group-think, French psychologist Gustave Le Bon. No behavior of the left is mysterious if you’ve read Le Bon — or “Demonic.” In The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Le Bon observed that the “complete lack of critical spirit” prevents crowds from “perceiving … contradictions.”

No matter the year or the circumstances, the media and their eunuch politicians are quick to blame any surprising violence on the Right-Wing Nazis of their imaginations — from Lee Harvey Oswald (communist) to Jared Lee Loughner and James Holmes (psychopaths) to the two stabbing murders on a Portland train earlier this year committed by a Bernie Sanders supporter, whom the media — to this day — insist, all evidence to the contrary, was a Trump supporter.

Did Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush Take Money From George Soros? No. That's Fake News.

On Monday, The Drudge Report linked a story at Breitbart attacking Republicans who had opposed Donald Trump during the GOP primary, tweeting, “Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush Took Campaign Cash from Soros.”

Soros, of course, is arch-leftist billionaire George Soros. The Drudge Report tweet linked to aBreitbart article titled, “Records: Soros Fund Execs Funded Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham in 2016.”
In reality, the article written by Matthew Boyle stated, “Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.”
Get it? Employees at Soros' firm. Not Soros. Not his firm. Employees, who it turns out may actually disagree with Soros on politics.
This is the definition of fake news.
Read More:

The Corrupt Midget

News brings word that the pint sized pundit, Ben Shapiro, is going to Berkeley to give a another speech. Judging by his twitter activity, he is hoping it will attract Antifa and be shut down by the city. It’s hard to know exactly. He could also be playing it the other way, hoping the event goes off without a problem. That way, he can blame the growing army to his right for the recent crackdown of speech by our masters. Like all of the boys and girls who color inside the lines, Shapiro needs to believe safety is a virtue.
Either way, this stunt is just that, a stunt to draw attention to himself, as well as an effort to re-establish his brand of Progressive punditry, as the extreme edge of acceptable. Calling Shapiro a Progressive may strike some people as weird, but that’s the truth of it. He embraces all of the blank slate arguments of the Left. He takes, as a given, that the Left’s moral framework is the default for society. You see that in his twitter rants about the alt-right. Shapiro is a man of the Left, just the lagging edge of it.
Shapiro is a also a notorious pen for hire, a guy who will say anything if you write a big enough check. He used to say nice things about Trump and the issues that Trump is now championing. Then the Wilks brothers hired him to be an anti-Trump loon, so he went full-on NeverTrump last year. Now that there is money to be made on the Trump train, Shapiro and all the other faux right-wing grifters have got on-board with Trump. One gets the sense that if Antifa writes him a check, he could be persuaded to support communism.
Of course, as that Charles Johnson piece reminds us, Shapiro was in on the Michelle Fields hoax a year ago. For those who have forgotten, she claimed to have been assaulted by a Trump campaign staffer at an event. Shapiro and several other fake conservatives demanded Trump quit the campaign over it. Shapiro even quit Breitbart over it, coincidentally just when the Wilks brothers check cleared. Video later revealed that the staffer in question merely brushed past Fields and she had been lying.
Read More:

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

A Tale of Two Sisters - Steve Sailer

Much of the mania of the moment stems from a growing crisis of faith among elites over how much longer they can expect the ideological dogmas under which they have prospered so mightily to withstand the onrushing findings of genetic science.
No family illustrates this tension more ironically than the Wojcicki sisters, Susan (the former landlady of Google guys Larry Page and Sergey Brin) and Anne (the former wife of Sergey).
Susan Wojcicki (pronounced Wo-jit-skee) now heads Google’s subsidiary YouTube. This month she has taken the lead in corporate America’s march toward censorship of genetic explanations for sex and race differences, getting Google engineer James Damore fired and installing a system for neutering the impact of politically incorrect videos.
Meanwhile, Anne Wojcicki is the cofounder and CEO of 23andMe, a well-known genetic testing service for quantifying your racial past and what your genes might portend for your future.
The Wojcicki sisters enjoyed the ideal nature and nurture for fabulous Silicon Valley careers. Their father was chairman of the Stanford physics department, their mother an energetic teacher at Palo Alto High School, and they grew up in faculty housing on the Stanford campus, surrounded by brilliant scientists.
And the Wojcicki sisters were in the right place at the right time to meet the right people.
Please share this article:

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Italy: Muslim ‘cultural mediator’ in Rimini rape says ‘rape is only worse at the start, later the woman becomes calm’

Italian police are still searching for suspects following the incident, which they have called a 'brutal and bestial attack'

‘Rape worse at start’ man takes flak

Comment after Rimini gang rape.
[A Polish tourist was raped and robbed in Rimini beach by four Africans while her boyfriend was forced to watch.]
(ANSA) – Rome, August 28 – A 24-year-old apparently Muslim ‘cultural mediator’ for an Italian migrant-reception cooperative got into hot water Monday by saying rape was “a worse act, but only at the beginning, when the willy goes in, then the woman becomes calm and you enjoy it like normal intercourse”.
There were calls for the man, Abid Jee, to be sacked over the Facebook post, which caused a stir despite being quickly removed.
Jee was commenting on the Friday night rapes of a Polish tourist and a transsexual prostitute by a reportedNorth African gang of four in Rimini.
A politician for the We With Salvini rightwing populist party, Saverio Solvini, also drew flak by commenting, in light of a rape by suspected migrants, who are generally treated more favourably by leftwingers: “But when will it (rape) happen to (House Speaker Laura) Boldrini and the women of the (centre-left) Democratic Party?”.
Read More:

Liberating the Jews…and Humanity as Well by Richard Edmondson

[ Ed. note – In the article below, Ariadna Theokopoulos offers some thoughts on how ordinary Jews might be helped to break the tribal bonds holding them to those Jewish elites who own the banking cartels and the media and who seem intent on saturating the world with skunk water. It is a much needed liberation…not only for the sake of ordinary Jews but all of humanity. ]
By Ariadna Theokopoulos
Peter Beinert, like many other Jewish pundits and the collective Jewish voice of ADL, is concerned about the growing anti-semitism of white Americans, as expressed in their Charlottesville chant, “Jews will not replace us.” His reaction is indignant contempt for those he sees – in keeping with a commonly held Jewish view — as losers envious and resentful of the success of their high-achieving betters:
Replace you? Where, behind the counter at Wendy’s? We’re successful, industrious, upper-middle class. You’re the dregs of society. Replace you? Don’t kid yourselves. When it comes to America’s class hierarchy, we replaced you and your kind long ago.
Beinert’s advice to Jews: throw some money at white churches to gain an ally and staunch the spread of “white supremacism.”
Cynical, arrogant and oozing Jewish supremacism as it may be, Beinert’s solution has an undeniably solid record of success: buying support and silencing resistance to Jewish power has worked very well with the US Congress and with Christian Zionist leaders.
In his review of Beinert’s article, “American Society Isn’t a Zoo and White People Aren’t Monkeys,” Gilad Atzmon excoriates Beinert for his open display of Jewish supremacism, and “stereotypical” arrogance and contempt for the white working and middle class.  Like Beinert’s article, Atzmon’s exhortation is addressed to Jews, warning them that strutting and openly celebrating “tribal self-love” is dangerous. Remember Auschwitz, he cautions.
Atzmon’s advice to Jews: self-reflect and behave yourselves.
In essence, Beinert advises the Jews on how to protect themselves from the enemy without (whites/Christians) while Atzmon urges them to protect themselves from themselves by taming the enemy within (overly exuberant Jewish supremacism). He does not allude to the wellspring of Jewish supremacism – Judaism. He has said repeatedly that he never criticizes Judaism or Jews, only “Jewishness.” Therefore his advice to “self-reflect” is not an invitation to examine, much less reform, the most problematic aspect of Jewishness: the ideology of Judaism.  It is basically a suggestion of behavioral therapy.
Both Beinart, the Jew, and Atzmon, the self-declared “ex-Jew,” fear the rising tide of nationalism, which Beinert labels “white supremacism,” neo-Nazism, and “anti-semitism.”
Read More:

Nick Fuentes - Attacked by the Conservative Establishment for Criticizin...

Alabama killer back on streets -- now as a rapist.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Americans are lucky to have Trump as President

The ZMan makes the following remark in a recent post:
After the election, I made the point that Trump was a warning shot to the ruling class. They had to reform and Trump was that opening for them. If not, the next guy was not going to be as easy to deal with as Trump.
It’s been almost 10 months since Trump’s election and still the ruling classes and those who support them, on both sides of the Atlantic, haven’t yet worked out why.
Last week, the German magazines Der Spiegel and Stern ran these on their front covers:
If social media is anything to go by, a lot of people out there claim to believe Trump is a white supremacist Nazi. The logic goes something like this:
1. Some Nazis protested the removal of a statue in Charlottesville.
2. They were joined by the alt-right, some of whom are Nazis, some of whom are rather unpleasant right-wingers, some of whom are perfectly pleasant right-wingers and some of whom are just ordinary people who want to express their dislike of liberal politics.
3. People who hate Trump demanded he condemn the entire alt-right as Nazis, i.e. to tell a barefaced lie about one of his main political support bases. Trump declined, and condemned the idiots on both sides.
4. Trump is therefore a Nazi.
Apparently this New York property developer with a Jewish daughter, a TV celebrity who has been a household name since the eighties, is a Nazi. Who knew?
Of course, nobody believes Trump is a Nazi: if they did, they’d not be writing articles in papers using their own names calling him a Nazi, they’d be shitting themselves with fear. The Nazi label is simply the latest attempt to pin something on Trump which they hope will bring about enough pressure to get him to resign or be forced from office. We’ve had misogyny, taxes, and collusion with Russia and none of them worked, so they’ve gone with Trump’s a Nazi. Trump’s opponents are simply lurching from one baseless accusation to another in the hope the American public will at some point agree on one of them and turf him from office. They then assume everything will go back to how it was, with nice Republicans like Mitt Romney losing elections (while being called a Nazi) to an exotic Democrat who will focus on transgender bathrooms and global warming.
Read More:

Russia does not seek leading role in Qatar crisis–will bolster Arab accords

KUWAIT CITY (Sputnik) – Russia does not want to compete with other states in order to take the lead helping to negotiate the settlement of the diplomatic row surrounding Qatar, and fully supports Kuwait’s efforts to solve the dispute, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday.
“We support Kuwait’s initiative. We do not want to compete with anyone. We definitely have good relations with all the countries involved in this rather difficult situation, and we have been actively basing our actions on the belief that Kuwait’s initiative deserves the support of everyone who could have a positive impact on the situation,” Lavrov told reporters.
The Russian minister noted that Moscow was ready to provide support in a format that would be considered appropriate by all the sides in the diplomatic dispute.
Read More:

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Hungary? By Matt Forney

Hungary is a country that Americans typically don’t think about, aside from trite “hungry” jokes and occasional cravings for goulash. On the other hand, Hungary is a country that the globalists and the fake news media are always thinking about, because it’s the one country in Europe — aside from Russia — that has completely slipped out of their grasp.
Google “Hungary” or “Viktor Orbán” (the country’s much-maligned prime minister), and you’ll see a nonstop procession of left-wing hit pieces on how backwards and intolerant the country is. Hungarians are racist! Hungary hates democracy! Hungary hates the European Union! Orbán is in bed with Vladimir Putin! Hell, I Googled Orbán’s name just now, and I was treated to these lovely, balanced articles that exhibit no bias whatsoever:
So according to the fake news media, Hungarians are homophobic and anti-Semitic, in addition to being racist, sexist, and reactionary. I’m surprised that leftists aren’t agitating to invade Hungary to “restore” their “freedom” and “democracy,” given that they’re itching to start World War III with Russia over nonexistent election hacking and the oh-so-pressing issue of gay rights.
The latest globalist line against Hungary is that they’re refusing to take in their “fair share” of refugees. The E.U. is threatening sanctions against Magyarország and longtime ally Poland because they won’t let the hordes of Muslims invading from Africa and the Middle East into their countries. Apparently, because Angela Merkel was so stupid as to think taking in millions of rapists from third-world hellholes was a good idea, the Poles and Hungarians have to pay for her mistake by letting said rapists loose in their lands.

TV news eager to protect black student who punches teacher in face in Mi...

ANTIFA: Media Backed Terrorists

Sunday, August 27, 2017

First Amendment in Peril? The Google/Apple duopoly on the mobile Internet seems unconcerned with free expression. By Aaron M. Renn

Image result for First Amendment in Peril? The Google/Apple duopoly on the mobile Internet seems unconcerned with free expression.
In the marketplace, traditionally understood, when a company produces a poor product or mistreats its customers, it faces market discipline—new ones come in and steal market share. That’s the theory, at least.
Too bad it’s not true right now, at least not on the Internet.
Google and Apple, with a combined 98 percent market share in mobile-phone operating systems, have banned Gab, an upstart Twitter competitor with a free-speech policy quaintly modeled on the First Amendment itself, from their app stores. Google cited “hate speech” as its reason for exclusion; Gab doesn’t censor. What few people yet understand is that Google and Apple have used their duopoly status to revoke the First Amendment on mobile phones. Because the Internet is now majority mobile, and a growing majority of all web traffic comes from mobile devices, the First Amendment is now effectively dead in the mobile sphere unless policymakers act to rein in the tech giants who serve as corporate gatekeepers to digital speech.  
Twitter ran into controversy last year when it was accused of censoring conservative voices. Gab founders Andrew Torba, an alumnus of Silicon Valley’s prestigious Y Combinator accelerator, and Ekrem Büyükkaya saw a market opportunity for a competitor focused on free speech—not just for conservatives but for dissidents globally. Last August, they launched Gab, a Twitter-like app where, according to company spokesman Utsav Sanduja, “Whatever is permissible under the First Amendment is what Gab allows onto its site.”
Gab grew slowly but has now reached over 200,000 users—a substantial number, though tiny compared with Twitter. It generated modest revenue through a “freemium” model, wherein users could pay to upgrade to a “Pro” level. Gab pulled off a coup by raising $1 million through crowd-funded investment. The company says that it is planning an Initial Coin Offering with its own digital currency based on the Ethereum standard. In short, Gab is a real company, with legitimate founders, a business strategy, revenue, more than 200,000 users, and seven-figure funding.
Apple and Google don’t agree. Gab built an app for Apple’s iOS operating system, but Apple wouldn’t approve it. This means that iPhone and iPad users can’t use the Gab app because users can’t install applications on those devices unless Apple approves them. Gab’s Android app was available through Google’s app store until yesterday, when Google banned it, citing violations of its hate-speech policy. “In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people,” a Google statement read. “This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies.” While Android users can install unapproved apps, it’s a cumbersome process, and being kicked out of the app store reduces the app’s reach.

HISTORY MAY NOT BE KIND TO ANGELA MERKEL. Sharia-adherents are flooding Europe to conquer and destroy it. By Joseph Puder

The British Daily Mail came out this week with a headline, “Meet baby Angela Merkel Muhammad: Syrian refugees living in Germany name their newborn after Chancellor.”  Unfortunately for Germany and Europe, many babies named Muhammad will be born in the coming years, and within a generation or two, both will have more people bowing to Mecca than those attending churches or calling themselves Christians.
History alone will have a fair judgment on Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor.  Yet, given the admission of over a million Middle Eastern and African migrants, many if not most are seeking economic opportunities their home countries failed to provide.  Islamist invaders, seeking to turn the heart of Europe safe for Islam, are among those migrants.  In the meantime, before history can render judgement, Islamist terror is gripping Germany.  The latest episode occurred in Hamburg.
On July 28, 2017, Ahmed A. (German authorities haven’t release his last name because of political correctness), carrying an 8-inch knife which he stole from a local supermarket in the Barmbek neighborhood, stabbed three shoppers in the supermarket, killing one of them.  The 26-year old Palestinian-Arab, originally from Gaza, then charged out of the store and attacked four other people in the street shouting, according to eyewitnesses “Allahu akbar” (God is Great).  According to a CNN-TV report, Torsten Voss, Hamburg’s state’s chief of the Constitutional Protection Office, said the “suspect” was one of 800 registered Islamists under observation in Hamburg, but that so far, he was not linked to any extremist network.  Both Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere avoided calling it terrorist attacks, despite clear evidence from eyewitnesses.  Hamburg’s mayor, Olaf Scholz, said it appeared that the attacker was someone who should have been forced to leave Germany.
The Hamburg attack was the latest reported Islamist attack on German civilians.  Last summer (July 19, 2016), a 17 year old Afghan refugee, yielding a knife and an axe on a train, attacked passengers near Wurzburg, Germany, slashing five of them around the head and torso while shouting “Allahu akbar.” He then fled the train and attacked a woman walking her dog before being cornered and killed by the German police.  A week later (7/26/2016), another refugee detonated a backpack full of explosives near a bar in Ansbach, Southern Germany.  The 27 year old Syrian blew himself up outside a wine bar, wounding 15 people.  He had recorded a cellphone video in which he professed his loyalty to the Islamic State. 
Read More:

The Alt-Right Is Not Who You Think They Are Southern, uneducated, generational racists? Not quite. By GEORGE HAWLEY

In tweets following the violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, former President Barack Obama quoted words from Nelson Mandela’s autobiography: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
The sentiment has resonated with millions of Americans and garnered some of themost “likes” in the history of Twitter. It also offered a stark contrast to the reaction of President Trump.
Yet while a moving sentiment, Mr. Obama’s comments, if taken literally, represent an incorrect interpretation of today’s racial challenges and the nature of the so-called alt-right. The statements imply an outdated theory of racism. Among many anti-racists, there has long been a naïve hope that racism is handed down from one generation to the next. If that cycle is broken, this view goes, then racial harmony can finally prevail.
Although scholarly literature provides some evidence for this argument, the alt-right shows that it does not tell nearly the entire story.
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right—which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials—forcefully condemns their parents’ generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough.
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly lambast the “boomers” for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and their failure to maintain America’s old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the alt-right’s vision, even older conservatives are useless “cucks” who focus on tax policies and forcefully deny that they are driven by racial animus.
Read More:

Black counselor sets white army nurse on fire in Leavenworth

Friday, August 25, 2017


Innocence is wisdom, and corruption is folly, NOT the other way around.
A corrupt age views innocence as an essential absence; that is to say, as a state of being “not guilty.” Since all ages are corrupt, to varying degrees, we never quite apprehend innocence for what it truly is: a positive presence.
Philosophy, after all, teaches that man’s telos is the Good; if this is so, then the condition of innocence can’t simply be dismissively consigned to the silly naivety of childhood, while “knowledge” and “wisdom” get to be associated with an individual’s embracing of the corruption that invariably attends maturity, thus demonstrating his complicity with that which spoils his innocence.
In truth innocence is wisdom, and corruption is folly, NOT the other way around.
Yet we, heirs to a highly corrupt age, tend to see things in precisely the opposite manner. Since innocence is erroneously regarded as a void, rather than a substance, we foolishly view those whom we perceive as innocent aslacking something that we have, instead of correctly viewing them as having something that we lack.
Thus, our attitude towards innocence is usually one of mingled envy and condescension. We envy those who are innocent, because we wish we could return to a time when life was “so simple” as to afford an innocent outlook for ourselves; now that we have lost our innocence, however, we regard things as having grown ever so much more “complicated” for us.
Our categorizing of the innocent as patent simpletons, in turn, casts ourcondescension into broad relief. With this same backhanded compliment (“Things are more complicated for us, unlike all those naïve suckers who have the luxury of being innocent”), we absurdly come to see our corruption as some sort of self-sacrificial virtue, rather than as a culpable vice we have chosen to embrace; we perversely cast ourselves—i.e., the corrupt—as the truly valuable ones, while the innocent are somehow conceived of as deadweight, ignorant as they are of what we haughtily presume to be “reality.”
Read More:

Anglin Broke the Internet (or Rather Overorganized, Overreacting Jewry Did) by COLIN LIDDELL

With the "Great Shuttering" the Internet just failed its first big stress test. But this will just make the Alt-Right stronger and its enemies weaker.
I vaguely remember some meme from a few years ago about Kim Kardashian’s fart-muffler “breaking the internet.” Apparently the meme they were trying to promote was that her latest ass-flaunting photo shoot was so stupendous that the internet could not handle all the traffic that her fat-cushioned shit tube was generating.
Of course, this was nothing more than a clever piece of marketing. The internet wasn’t at all broken (I distinctly remember that Pornhub was working fine that day). Also, it wasn’t even clear at that point what a “broken” internet would look like. However, the events of recent days—“the Great Shuttering,” as Richard Spencer has referred to it—give a much better picture of what a “broken” internet looks like.
One of the key aspects of the internet has always been its “freedom,” a word that, rightly or wrongly seems to have nothing but positive connotations in the wider culture. It has lowered the bar so that any talented person who can find a way to appeal can build up an audience from scratch. This element of freedom has been one of the defining characteristics of the internet, and one that everyone from pornographers, drug-pedlars, antifa, Al Qaeda, ISIS, sexual perverts, Neo-Nazis, and Andy Nowickihave been able to take advantage of.
The containment policy of the establishment was to stop whoever it was “outside the door” and arrest them for actual IRL offences rather than specifically for anything they had done or said on the internet. Those who were smart enough easily found ways round that, even in Europe with its Draconian “hate speech” laws. The Daily Stormerpositioned itself perfectly, spewing out legal hate speech to the full capacity of the US First Amendment, couching it with a little humour and throwing in an insincere caveat that they did not promote violence, which was technically and legally true.

War of the Classes - Steve Sailer

Francis Fukuyama hypothesized the ending of history, but he failed to foresee the increasingly popular practice of the mending of history to delegitimize the right of the politically weak to their pride and property.
Rewriting the past to help disinherit the powerless by demeaning their ancestors is an ancient practice currently growing in popularity. For example, this summer in Madison and Boston, government officials have obliterated or covered up grave markers commemorating prisoners of war who died in captivity.
This is justified as punching up against white supremacy. After all, who is more powerful than a dead POW?
Why are politicians today going out of their way to disrespect Confederate soldiers who died in Union prison camps more than 150 years ago? Because they can. Because this kind of vandalism is a classic turf-marking exercise understood by even the dimmest juvenile delinquents. Because desecration of memorials to the dead signifies that their living heirs are vulnerable to rapacity.
Further, this ISIS-like destruction of monuments can provoke individual losers in this struggle to overreact, which in turn is instantly used to justify more despoliation.
As a Hegelian, Fukuyama defined history as the struggle among ideologies, such as communism and fascism. He became famous for arguing that by 1989, history was over: Capitalist representative government had defeated its left and right rivals and nothing would ever change.
In reality, of course, what everybody who isn’t Fukuyama thinks of as history—the process that creates winners and losers—has been happening since Nineveh and Tyre, long before modernist ideologies ever emerged. Similarly, under whatever nominal rules of the game happen to be prevailing in the future, winners and losers will continue to be crowned after Fukuyama is forgotten. The game of power and property goes on forever.
Please share this article:

Thursday, August 17, 2017

YouTube, Money, Charlottesville & the Alt Lite

Donald Trump Is Right, Leftists Caught Staging Attacks On Jews

Black student attacks white kid with a GREAT letter from a teacher

Caste Masculinity: Sports and the War on White Manhood by James Wald

The Greek orator and statesman Pericles has given us the following aphorism. “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.” This has been reduced many times in the wider vernacular, especially as, “While you may not have an interest in politics, politics has an interest in you.”
Regardless of how the principle is stated, it is obviously true. It is also certainly true for sports as much as for politics. There are certain elements on the dissident right that believe sports are merely a diversion that should be shunned, especially as a mass spectator event (except for Nascar and other implicitly-White sports). Others believe that there is something in the European soul that craves mock-combat that relies on a mixture of skill, aggression, and heart — activities like wrestling that celebrate and hone the martial virtues.
A people cannot pin their entire hopes on feats of athletic prowess (victory must be claimed inside and outside of the ring), but symbols are important and are certainly being used by our enemies to wage ceaseless cultural war against us. A recent egregious example was HBO’s promo of a Cinco de Mayo showdown between Mexican boxing phenom Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and Julio Caesar Chavez Jr., in which the two fighters race toward each other, smashing a wall en route to their faceoff in Las Vegas. The ad is an obvious and-none-too-subtle dig at the border wall proposed by Donald Trump, and a variation on the progressive non-sequitur that the only way to enjoy other cultures is to obliterate the rule-of-law in America. Only this time instead of being lectured that we must forgo our vital interests in having plentiful Mexican cuisine, the message sent by HBO and Oscar De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions is that we can’t watch a boxing match between two Mexican nationals without ceding our sovereignty in exchange for the night of entertainment.
Sports media, of course, is like the rest of the media complex: rife with Jews highly antagonistic toward White America and its prerogatives. Richard Schaefer may no longer be with Golden Boy, and while the Golden Boy himself, former world champion Oscar De La Hoya, may have even bragged about beating one of the biggest Jews to come out of Harvard, he still knows how to play the Shabbos goy game and must know that his “wall” ad warms the cockles of the hearts of all the right people.
Read More: