Comment on White Genocide in USA by Jack Smith.
This is one of the best pro-white sites in America. It must spread to Europe. It is our duty to help this site grown ever more powerful and influential . By raising money and using that money to advertise in order to recruit new members, we would be off to a good start.
We should also offer a program of training, with a reasonable cost, to upgrade the knowledge and problem solving ability of self-identified and like-minded ideologues. I have created such programs before and I would love to submit a presentation, in writing, about such a training program. The training program that I speak of ,has one objective: train the strongest recruits to become part of activist agit-prop cadres, capable of planning and carrying out political warfare (initially nonviolent) against our enemies.
Jack Smith Also Commented
White Genocide in USA
Adapted from Mother Jones Propaganda Piece Praising the FBI
Quazi Mohammad Nafis was a 21-year-old student living in Queens, New York, when the US government helped turn him into a terrorist.
His transformation began on July 5, when Nafis, a Bangladeshi citizen who’d come to the United States on a student visa that January, shared aspirations with a man he believed he could trust. Nafis told this man in a phone call that he wanted to wage jihad in the United States, that he enjoyed reading Al Qaeda propaganda, and that he admired “Sheikh O,” or Osama bin Laden. Who this confidant was and how Nafis came to meet him remain unclear; what we know from public documents is that the man told Nafis he could introduce him to an Al Qaeda operative.
It was a hot, sunny day in Central Park on July 24 when Nafis met with Kareem, who said he was with Al Qaeda. Nafis, who had a slight build, mop of black hair, and a feebly grown beard, told Kareem that he was “ready for action.”
“What I really mean is that I don’t want something that’s, like, small,” Nafis said. “I just want something big. Something very big. Very, very, very, very big, that will shake the whole country.”
Nafis said he wanted to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, and with help from his new Al Qaeda contact, he surveilled the iconic building at 11 Wall Street. “We are going to need a lot of TNT or dynamite,” Nafis told Kareem. But Nafis didn’t have any explosives, and, as court records indicate, he didn’t know anyone who could sell him explosives, let alone have the money to purchase such materials. His father, a banker in Bangladesh, had spent his entire life savings to send Nafis to the United States after his son, who was described to journalists as dim by people who knew him in his native country, had flunked out of North South University in Bangladesh.
Kareem suggested they rent a storage facility to stash the material they’d need for a car bomb. He said he’d put up the money for it, and get the materials. Nafis dutifully agreed, and suggested a new target: the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Nafis later met Kareem at a storage facility, where Nafis poured the materials Kareem had brought into trash bins, believing he was creating a 1,000-pound car bomb that could level a city block.
In truth, the stuff was inert. And Kareem was an undercover FBI agent, tipped off by the man who Nafis had believed was a confidant—an FBI informant. The FBI had secretly provided everything Nafis needed for his attack: not only the storage facility and supposed explosives, but also the detonator and the van that Nafis believed would deliver the bomb.
On the morning of October 17, Nafis and Kareem drove the van to Lower Manhattan and parked it in front of the Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street. Then they walked to a nearby hotel room, where Nafis dialed on his cellphone the number he believed would trigger the bomb, but nothing happened. He dialed again, and again. The only result was Nafis’ apprehension by federal agents.
“The defendant thought he was striking a blow to the American economy,” US Attorney Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement after the arrest. “At every turn, he was wrong, and his extensive efforts to strike at the heart of the nation’s financial system were foiled by effective law enforcement. We will use all of the tools at our disposal to stop any such attack before it can occur.”
How many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them? Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?
Federal officials say they are protecting Americans with these operations—but from whom? Real terrorists, or dupes like Nafis, who appear unlikely to have the capacity for terrorism were it not for FBI agents providing the opportunity and means?
Nafis is one of more than 150 men since 9/11 who have been caught in FBI terrorism stings, some of whom have received 25 years or more in prison. In these cases, the FBI uses one of its more than 15,000 registered informants—many of them criminals, others trying to stay in the country following immigration violations—to identify potential terrorists. It then provides the means necessary for these would-be terrorists to move forward with a plot—in some cases even planting specific ideas for attacks. The FBI now spends $3 billion on counterterrorism annually, the largest portion of its budget. Our nation’s top law enforcement agency, traditionally focused on investigating crimes after they occur, now operates more as an intelligence organization that tries to preempt crimes before they occur. But how many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them? Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?
Those are the questions I set out to explore beginning in 2010. With the help of a research assistant, I built a database of more than 500 terrorism prosecutions since 9/11, looking closely and critically at every terrorism case brought into federal courts during the past decade. We pored through thousands of pages of court records, and found that nearly half of all terrorism cases since 9/11 involved informants, many of them paid as much as $100,000 per assignment by the FBI. At the time of the story’s publication in Mother Jones in August 2011, 49 defendants had participated in plots led by an FBI agent provocateur, and that number has continued to rise since.
Historically, media coverage of these operations—begun under George W. Bush and continuing apace under Barack Obama—was mostly uncritical. With their aggressive tactics essentially unknown to the public, the FBI and Justice Department controlled the narrative: another dangerous terrorist apprehended by vigilant federal agents!
But in late 2011, the conversation began to shift. A couple of months after my story in Mother Jones and following the announcement of a far-fetched sting in which a Massachusetts man believed he’d been poised to destroy the US Capitol building using grenade-laden, remote-controlled airplanes, TPM Muckraker published a story headlined: “The Five Most Bizarre Terror Plots Hatched Under the FBI’s Watch.” Author David K. Shipler, in an April 2012 New York Times editorial, questioned the legitimacy of terrorism stings involving people who appeared to have no wherewithal to commit acts of terror: “Some threats are real, others less so. In terrorism, it’s not easy to tell the difference.” Stories in other major news outlets followed suit, and by October 2012, a post in Foreign Policy was asking: “How many idiot jihadis can the FBI fool?”
Which brings us back to Nafis. “The case appears to be the latest to fit a model in which, in the process of flushing out people they believe present a risk of terrorism, federal law enforcement officials have played the role of enabler,” reported the New York Times, after the Justice Department announced Nafis’ arrest. “Though these operations have almost always held up in court, they have come under increasing criticism from those who believe that many of the subjects, even some who openly espoused violence, would have been unable to execute such plots without substantial assistance from the government.”
In the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal law enforcement profile of a terrorist has changed dramatically. The men responsible for downing the World Trade Center were disciplined and patient; they were also living and training in the United States with money from an Al Qaeda cell led by Kuwaiti-born Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. In the days and weeks following 9/11, federal officials anxiously awaited a second wave of attacks, which would be launched, they believed at the time, by several sleeper cells around the country.
Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born, high-ranking Al Qaeda official became something of the terrorist group’s Dear Abby. Have a question about Islam? Ask Anwar!
But the feared second wave never crashed ashore. Instead, the United States and allied nations invaded Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s home base, and forced Osama bin Laden and his deputies into hiding. Bruised and hunted, Al Qaeda no longer had the capability to train terrorists and send them to the United States.
In response, Al Qaeda’s leaders moved to what FBI officials describe as a “franchise model.” If you can’t run Al Qaeda as a hierarchal, centrally organized outfit, the theory went, run it as a franchise. In other words, export ideas—not terrorists. Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations went online, setting up websites and forums dedicated to instilling their beliefs in disenfranchised Muslims already living in Western nations. A slickly designed magazine, appropriately titled Inspire, quickly followed. Article headlines included “I Am Proud to Be a Traitor to America,” and “Why Did I Choose Al-Qaeda?”
Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born, high-ranking Al Qaeda official who was killed in a US drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011, became something of the terrorist group’s Dear Abby. Have a question about Islam? Ask Anwar! Muslim men in nations throughout the Western world would email him questions, and Awlaki would reply dutifully, and in English, encouraging many of his electronic pen pals to violent action. Awlaki also kept a blog and a Facebook page, and regularly posted recruitment videos to YouTube. He said in one video:
I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. I invite them to join us in our new front, Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the greatest army of Islam will march forth.
Al Qaeda’s move to a franchise model met with some success. US Army Major Nadal Hassan, for example, corresponded with Awlaki before he killed 13 people and wounded 29 others in the Fort Hood shootings in 2009. Antonio Martinez, a Baltimore man and recent convert to Islam who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for trying to bomb a military recruiting office, sent Awlaki messages and watched Al Qaeda propaganda videos online before getting wrapped up in an FBI sting operation.
The FBI has a term for Nafis, Martinez, and other alleged terrorists like them: lone wolf. Officials at the Bureau now believe that the next terrorist attack will likely come from a lone wolf, and this belief is at the core of a federal law enforcement policy known variously as preemption, prevention, and disruption. FBI counterterrorism agents want to catch terrorists before they act, and to accomplish this, federal law enforcement officials have in the decade since 9/11 created the largest domestic spying network ever to exist in the United States.
In fact, the FBI today has 10 times as many informants as it did in the 1960s, when former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover made the Bureau infamous for inserting spies into organizations as varied as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s and the Ku Klux Klan. Modern FBI informants aren’t burrowing into political groups, however; they are focused on identifying today the terrorist of tomorrow. US government officials acknowledge that while terrorist threats do exist from domestic organizations, such as white supremacist groups and the sovereign citizen movement, they believe the greatest threat comes from within American Muslim communities.
The FBI’s vast army of spies, located today in every community in the United States with enough Muslims to support a mosque, has one primary function: identify the next lone wolf, likely to be a single male age 16 to 35, according to the Bureau. Informants and their FBI handlers are on the lookout for young Muslims who espouse radical beliefs, are vocal about their disapproval of American foreign policy, or have expressed sympathy for international terrorist groups. If they find anyone who meets the criteria, they move him to the next stage: the sting operation.
The terrorism sting operations are an evolution of an FBI tactic that has long captured the imaginations of Hollywood filmmakers: undercover drug busts.
On a cold February morning in 2011, I met with Peter Ahearn, a retired FBI special agent who directed the Western New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, in a coffee shop outside Washington, DC, to talk about how the FBI runs its sting operations. Ahearn was in the bureau’s vanguard as it transformed into a counterterrorism organization in the wake of 9/11. An average-built man with a small dimple on his chin and close-cropped brown hair receding in the front, Ahearn oversaw one of the earliest post-9/11 terrorism investigations, involving the so-called Lackawanna Six—a group of six Yemeni American men living outside Buffalo, New York, who attended a training camp in Afghanistan and were convicted of providing material support to Al Qaeda. “If you’re doing a sting right, you’re offering the target multiple chances to back out,” Ahearn told me. “Real people don’t say, ‘Yeah, let’s go bomb that place.’ Real people call the cops.”
Indeed, while terrorism sting operations are a new practice for the bureau, they are an evolution of an FBI tactic that has for decades captured the imaginations of Hollywood filmmakers. In 1982, as the illegal drug trade overwhelmed local police resources nationwide and funded an increase in violent crime, President Ronald Reagan’s first attorney general, William French Smith, gave the FBI jurisdiction over federal drug crimes, which previously had been the exclusive domain of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Eager to show up their DEA rivals, FBI agents began aggressively sending undercover agents into America’s cities. This was relatively new territory for the FBI, which during Hoover’s 37-year stewardship had mandated that agents wear a suit and tie at all times, federal law enforcement badge easily accessible from the coat pocket. But an increasingly powerful Mafia and the bloody drug war forced the FBI to begin enforcing federal laws from the street level. In searching for drug crimes, FBI agents hunted sellers as well as buyers, and soon learned one of the best strategies was to become part of the action.
At its most cliché, the Hollywood version of this scene is set in a Miami high-rise apartment, its floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the cresting waves of the Atlantic Ocean. There’s a man seated at the dining table; he’s longhaired, with a scruffy face, and he has a briefcase next to him. Hidden on the other side of the room is a grainy black-and-white camera recording the entire scene. The apartment’s door swings open and two men saunter in, the camera recording their every move and word. The two men hand over bundles of cash, and the scruffy man then hands over the briefcase. But instead of finding pounds of cocaine inside it, the two guests are shocked to find the briefcase is empty—and then FBI agents rush in, guns drawn for the takedown.
Federal law enforcement officials call this type of sting operation a “no-dope bust,” and its the direct predecessor to today’s terrorism sting. Instead of empty briefcases, the FBI today uses inert bombs and disabled assault rifles (and now that counterterrorism is the bureau’s top priority, the investigation of major drug crimes has largely fallen back to the DEA). While the assumptions behind both types of stings are similar, there is a fundamental flaw as applied to terrorism stings. In drug stings, federal law enforcement officials assume that any buyer caught in a sting would have been able to buy or sell drugs elsewhere had they not fallen into the FBI trap. The numbers support this assumption. In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, the DEA seized 29,179 kilograms, or 64,328 pounds, of cocaine in the United States.
In terrorism stings, however, federal law enforcement officials assume that any would-be terrorists caught would have been able to acquire the means elsewhere to carry out their violent plans had they not been ensnared by the FBI. The problem with this assumption is that no data exists to support it—and in fact what data is available often suggests the opposite.
Few of the more than 150 defendants indicted and convicted this way since 9/11 had any connection to terrorists, evidence showed, and those that did have connections, however tangential, lacked the capacity to launch attacks on their own. Of the more that 150 defendants, an FBI informant not only led one of every three terrorist plots, but also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.
The informant goaded them on the whole time, encouraging the pair with lines like: “We will teach these bastards a good lesson.” For his work on the case, he received $100,000 from the FBI.
The FBI’s logic to support the use of terrorism stings goes something like this: By catching a lone wolf before he strikes, federal law enforcement can take him off the streets before he meets a real terrorist who can provide him with weapons and munitions. However, to this day, no example exists of a lone wolf, by himself unable to launch an attack, becoming operational through meeting an actual terrorist in the United States. In the terrorism sting operations since 9/11, the would-be terrorists are usually uneducated, unsophisticated, and economically desperate—not the attributes for someone likely to plan and launch a sophisticated, violent attack without significant help.
This isn’t to say there have not been deadly and potentially deadly terrorist attacks and threats in the United States since 9/11. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire on the El-Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002, killing two and wounding four. Afghan American Najibullah Zazi, who trained with Al Qaeda in Pakistan in 2008, came close to attacking the New York City subway system in September 2009, with a plan to place backpack bombs on crowded trains coming to and from Grand Central and Times Square stations. Faisal Shahzad, who trained with terrorists in the tribal regions of Pakistan, attempted but failed to detonate a crude car bomb in Times Square on May 1, 2010. While all three were dangerous lone wolves, none fit the profile of would-be terrorists targeted today in FBI terrorism sting operations. Unlike those caught in FBI stings, these three terrorists had international connections and the ability to carry out attacks on their own, however unsuccessful those attacks might have been for Zazi and Shahzad.
By contrast, consider another New York City terrorism conspiracy—the so-called Herald Square bomb plot. Shahawar Matin Siraj, a 22-year-old Pakistani American, struck up a friendship with a seemingly elderly and knowledgeable Islamic scholar named Dawadi at his uncle’s Islamic Books and Tapes shop in Brooklyn. Dawadi was an FBI informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was put on the government payroll in September 2003 to stoke Siraj’s extremist inclinations. Siraj asked if Eldawoody could help him build a nuclear weapon and volunteered that he and a friend, James Elshafay, wanted to detonate a car bomb on one of New York’s bridges. “He’s a terrorist. He wants to harm the country and the people of the country. That’s what I thought immediately,” Eldawoody said in court testimony.
Siraj introduced Dawadi to Elshafay, who had drawn schematics of police stations and bridges on napkins with the hopes of plotting a terrorist attack. Elshafay’s crude drawings prompted Siraj to hatch a new plan that involved the three men, Dawadi’s supposed international connections, and an attack on New York’s Herald Square subway station. The two young men discussed how they’d grown to hate the United States for invading Iraq and torturing prisoners. In Eldawoody’s car, the three of them talked about carrying 20- to 30-pound backpack bombs into the Herald Square subway station and leaving them on the train platform. Their conversations were recorded from a secret camera in the car’s dashboard. From April to August 2004, the men considered targets, surveilled the subway, checked security, and drew diagrams of the station. The informant goaded them on the whole time, encouraging the pair with lines like: “We will teach these bastards a good lesson.” For his work on the case, Eldawoody received $100,000 from the FBI.
The evidence from the sting was enough to win convictions, and Siraj was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Elshafay 5 years. But it was also clear from the trial that Siraj was a dimwitted social recluse—a mother’s boy with little capacity to steal a car on his own, let alone bomb a subway station as part of a spectacular terrorist attack. In fact, Siraj was recorded during the sting operation as saying: “Everyone thinks I’m stupid.”
The question underlying the Herald Square case can be asked in dozens of other similar sting operations: Could the defendants have become terrorists had they never met the FBI informant? The answer haunts Martin Stolar, the lawyer who represented Siraj at trial and fully expected to win an acquittal through an entrapment defense. “The problem with the cases we’re talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents,” Stolar said. “They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”
The practice is only growing. Though developed under the Bush administration, terrorism stings have become even more common under President Obama. While the Bush administration used terrorism stings to its greatest degree in 2006 and 2007—60 defendants were prosecuted and convicted from terrorism stings during those two years—the Justice Department began to shy away from the practice toward the end of Bush’s second term in office. In 2008, Bush’s last year as president, the US didn’t prosecute anyone from a terrorism sting.
to the highest standards of professional conduct, integrity, and fairness.”
Today, federal prosecutors announce arrests from terrorism stings at a rate of about one every 60 days, suggesting either that there are a lot of ineffective terrorists in the United States, or that the FBI has become effective at creating the very enemy it is hunting. Both conclusions are fraudulent FBI disinformation claims.
The FBI is pro-moslem and all of its programs are designed to:
suppress evidence of Islamic terror,
prevent identification of Moslem terrorist rings (there are almost no lone wolf Islamic terrorists)
Identify white citizens and organizations that attempt to resist Moslem terrorism
Liquidate white citizens capable of defending themselves against Moslem terror
Distract attention away from Moslem terrorists and towards nonexistent white terrorism
Spy on foreign and domestic US antiterror operations and sabotage them if possible
Coordinate cooperation with foreign terrorist cells outside of CONUS
Constantly pressure the US military and all counter terror efforts to treat Islamic terrorists like US citizens and give them all the legal rights of US citizens even including the Miranda warning.
Utilize bureaucratic red tape to slow down, negate, and over price long term Islamic terrorist trials
White Genocide in USA
We are looking for voluntary Helpers with Idealism. People who want to help counter political correctness, spread the truth about immigration, political InCorrectness, Race Realism.
German: Helfer, freiwillige Mitarbeiter gesucht
Idealists who want to make a difference
We want Idealists who do this as a work of love. Who are against political correctness, for race realism, concerned about immigration, quotas, Main Stream Media lies. Basically, the only pay is the satisfaction to work for a great project to help inform the world, to try to make a difference. In exceptional circumstances we might consider a small financial contribution to a motivated, hard working helper in financial distress.
Anything from “consultants” who occasionally answer short specialized questions to people who can dedicate larger amounts of time. We have marked the most important skills, the most time consuming jobs.
Kontaktform is broken
To contact us please email to npi [at] pc2 [dot] rip. Yes this domain really exists. Or comment below on the disqus board.
Helpers with these skills needed
into (and rarely from) German. Native German speakers would be great. We would love to translate entire articles from VDARE for example.
Citation and research. Help to prove all our statements, find citations, sources, proof
Proof reading: find bugs and mistakes
Journalist writing: improve on our writing quality
Writing entire articles. Work on racismwiki.org
Social media propaganda on reddit, Facebook, comments, …
SEO Search Engine Optimization
Contact with other relevant web sites, bloggers, activists, famous writers, etc.
Technical: Computers and Internet,
Wikimedia, WordPress, ..
Writing in Windows, Microsoft Expression Web, Live Writer, plugins, etc.
Web server, LAMP, Unix, FreeBSD
Disqus discussion board moderation
Cartoonists to illustrate topics. We have ideas how to make the cartoons but cannot draw ,
graphic illustrators, photo processing
avoid legal problems, use public domain, own production
European and international hate speech laws. How to avoid to unnecessarily run afoul of hate speech laws. Disclaimers!
Internet law, fair use,
Organizer: if we really find a bunch of helpers, someone might coordinate helpers.
There are many articles, book reviews, book excerpts in English that deserve to be accessed in German. If you write good German, can use google translate and then fix the clumsy translation, you might do it. Lots of work to do.
2) Writing, Citation and Research
We are scientists and researchers. We don’t want to write gossip articles. Rather we want to meticulously document every simple statement we make.
Find links to prove statements, find the most prestigious main stream media, government statistic or original research citations.
Citations: Find quotes, articles, links, original sources, original research, original government statistics. This usually involves a bit of Googling, reading a few articles, following a few links. We want to have everything very well documented, and that is hard work and hampers efficient writing.
“Encyclopedias”: You just know all about political correctness, race realism, etc. Thus you can easily find sources to prove statements, answer questions, ….
Scientific skills in statistics, scientific methodology a plus.
Proof readers: people who can pick up errors, correct mistakes.
Journalists. You have such great writing skills. You can greatly improve on the text, make them nicer and better, but within the parameters set by us.
You can write entire articles about topics we suggest or even you suggest.
3) Social Media Propaganda
You understand the topics and enjoy discussing it in social media. Reddit, Facebook, digg, tumbler. You post to message boards by friendly sites like Amren, etc. You don’t just blindly spam, rather know to spread the sites’ news in places and ways that are welcome.
4) Computer consultants
Needed for troubleshooting, asking questions, deciding on plugins, securing server against attacks, ….
LAMP (Linux, Apache, MYSQL): some server adjustments, server security against attacks. Regular expressions.
Windows, Windows live writer troubleshooting, plugins
Expression Web 4
SEO: search machine optimization! Really important.
Helpers needed to research, translate, do social networking propaganda for Fluechtling.net and a few immigration critical and race realism sites. Please tweet and otherwise advertise this request linking to http://fluechtling.net/help/ (Fluechtling is German for “refugee”). German: fluechtling.net/hilfe/
Helpers needed to research, translate, do social networking propaganda for Fluechtling.net and a few immigration critical and race realism sites.. Please tweet and otherwise advertise this request linking to fluechtling.net/help/ . German: fluechtling.net/hilfe/ (Fluechtling is German for “refugee”).
White Genocide in USA
Adopting Leftist Tactics To Defeat The Left
Subversive conservatism objects to victories gained over the left by using tactics developed by the left. Conservatives claim that tactics are “owned by certain groups” and regardless of their utility, ‘”any who want to be conservatives are not allowed to use leftist tactics.” Conservatives especially do not want any whites to defeat the left, ever. We of the right wing use any tactic that works in this war against white genocide.
On Friday, the 16th of June 2017, in New York City, Laura Loomer of The Rebel Media raided the stage of the controversial quasi-Trump-killing ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ recreation of Julius Caeser. Once on stage, Loomer interrupted the play and yelled about the violent rhetoric that the play was implicitly portraying against Donald Trump and the political-right.
Moments after Loomer got on stage, another protestor named Jack Posobiec rose in the midst of the crowd and started comparing them to Nazi propagandists. In essence, it was an excellent use of the left’s own tactics against them, and it gave the left a taste of its own medicine. And, on Saturday, other protesters once again interrupted the play protesting the same issues.
Of course, in response to these events, the standard “respectable” conservatives responded with disgust. David French of National Review tweeted that “Anyone on the ‘right’ who defends the BS that went down at the play tonight (16 June 2017) is showing themselves to be tribalist, not conservative.”
Ben Shapiro, writing at the Daily Wire, called the incident “idiotic snowflake-ism” and argued that “…the right was in serious danger of capitulating to the left’s ‘hate speech’ argument by reversing it on the left.”
Reading statements like this, it soon becomes apparent why standard conservatives have failed to conserve much of anything—they are like France during World War II, or, at best, maybe Italy. In fact, when reading comments like those from Shapiro and French, one has to wonder whether these two conservatives, or other conservatives like them, have ever found themselves in a real physical confrontation.
The reason why this is doubtful is because anyone who has been in a one-of-one fight knows that when you are confronted with an existential threat, and if you fight by Queensbury rules while your enemy does not, then the chances are very good that you will lose that battle. Indeed, if a punk comes at you with a jagged bottle after throwing dirt in your eyes, and you are worried about hitting him below the belt with your gentlemanly “fisticuffs”, then you will likely leave that fight in a body bag, and he won’t.
Well, the left is a punk, and they have been coming at the right with a jagged bottle for some time now, so is it any surprise that some on the right have decided to start fighting dirty, just like the left does.
You don’t worry about boxing rules when this guy is coming at you with a meat cleaver !
Note as well that there is nothing necessarily immoral about escalating and fighting dirty if the situation calls for it. After all, even cops are allowed to use whatever tactics and force are necessary to subdue an attacker and keep the public safe so long as the force is proportionate to the attack and so long as the force used is in response to an attack.
Thus, if talking fails and a gangbanger pulls a gun on a cop, then it is completely moral for that cop to stop that threat using whatever type of lethal force tactic is necessary, be it shooting, stabbing, batoning, choking, or whatever. The key point is that the cop must stop the threat.
Even in larger-scale conflicts this idea of mutual escalation and proportionate tactical reaction has been understood as necessary. For example, in World War I, when the Germans started using large-scale chemical warfare, the Allies did not merely buck-up and carry-on as if the old rules still applied. No, they too started using chemical warfare until the other side learned from painful experience that enough was enough, and that the use of chemical warfare simply was not worth the cost.
Indeed, appeals to Germany’s better nature did not stop them from using chemical weapons. And principled arguments did not sway them either. No, only the pain and harm received from experiencing the same tactics that they used was sufficient to teach the Germans not to use chemical weapons again after the end of the First World War. Well, the same is true for the left today.
Principled appeals and rational arguments do not work with the left, as has been evidenced for years. But painful experience can change a leftist’s mind quite quickly; consider, for example, the fact that the Antifa thugs are not all that eager anymore to attack the right after receiving a thrashing in return for their troubles.
David French, conservative, said: Anyone on the “right” who defends the BS that went down at the play tonight (e.g. the victory over the left) is showing themselves to be white tribalists, not true conservatives.” Nothing is more damning to the image of conservatism than statements that “conservative” like French puke out. Conservatism has been a group of loosers and essentially pro-left for the past 50 years.
In World War 1, both sides used gas, but one side only did so in a self-defense response to the other, and that is a difference that makes all the difference.
At the same time, we should not be surprised by the fact that many leftists only learn from painful experience rather than from rational arguments. After all, over two thousand years ago, Aristotle, in his book Rhetoric, told us that some people are simply immune to rational argumentation and instruction, and that such people only learn by swaying their emotions and experiences.
Do we really think that so much has changed in human nature since Aristotle’s time that his point no longer holds true? Of course not. And not only was Aristotle correct, but the left actually epitomizes the type of individual that Aristotle was speaking of (although leftists will no doubt think the same of the right).
So, the point is that when in a war, and the culture war is a war (just a war that has avoided large-scale violence so far), you will almost certainly lose that war if you are unwilling to engage in the use of certain tactics that seem unpleasant and even dangerous to you when not in such a conflict. This is especially the case if those are the very tactics that the enemy finds most painful and effective against them.
And since the left loves to project, then this means that the tactics they use against the right are the ones most likely to be highly effective against them. Hence the need to use the left’s tactics against them.
It must also be remembered that the goal of using the enemy’s own tactics against them is not to rejoice at the damage that doing so causes to them, but rather to educate them through the only means that they learn from: namely, emotional pain. And this harsh education is meant to teach them that using the very tactics that they endorse is ultimately to no one’s benefit.
Thus, if the left stops its illiberal attacks, then so will the right. But if the left does not stop using such tactics, then neither will the right, and so there will be Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). However, better the madness of MAD—as well as the subsequent convulsing break-up of the United States into two different countries—then losing to the left.
After all, if the left does not backdown, even when faced with their own tactics being used against them in a trajectory of mutual destruction, then it is best to know this fact early, so that other measures, such as a push for secession, can get started in earnest.
In the end, it is true that sometimes, responding in kind to extreme brutality can be too heinous to contemplate, but losing a war to someone willing to be so brutal is even worse. For example, just consider what would have happened to the whole world had the United States, in the face of a Soviet nuclear arms race, decided to unilaterally disarm themselves of nuclear weapons after seeing the damage that nuclear weapons caused. Had this happened, North America would likely be a nuclear wasteland today, and everyone in Europe would be calling each other “comrade”.
Well, the left are the Soviets, and their tactics are the cultural nukes of today. Either the right starts to use those tactics in order to bring about a detente based on an understanding of mutually assured cultural and social destruction or else the right will lose. After all, the left has a grip on large swaths of the media, academia, corporations, the judiciary, and the government bureaucracy, not to mention a large voting base, so it is not as if the right has any major advantages in other areas.
Furthermore, as history attests, and as the last generation or so in the United States affirms, the large masses within the country will likely just sway and move with the cultural currents, simply absorbing and largely accepting the cultural changes that come their way from whichever side is stronger. As such, the masses, and the standard conservatives, will not be much help to the right on a day-to-day basis.
Had the West decided not to stockpile “evil” nukes, then Soviet soldiers would likely have marched right through Europe. So sometimes, MAD is the only way to go.
So, in light of all of the above, the right has a choice to make: either act like a “respectable” conservative and most likely lose the culture anyway—as they have been doing for the last few decades—or else fight in a manner that actually teaches the left the hard lesson that maybe we all need to stop such behaviors before we all destroy ourselves and our freedoms.
Recent Comments by Jack Smith
White countries for everyone?
Women Leaders are Causing the Downfall of Western Civilization
Adapted from RooshV
History will record the terrible mistakes of insane female leaders. Look up Angela Merkel, Britain’s Prime Minister, Hillary Clinton, US female military generals, and dozens of other insane female leaders worldwide. Over 98% of female “leaders” are fanatic supporters of parasitic minorities. Do you think that such facts are somehow coincidences? Look up “female leaders” and their records yourself before you start gnashing your teeth and arguing with me.
How many praiseworthy writers have been women? Literally zero. In the latter category, sure there are many who excelled in the craft of producing subpar, commercial drivel, such as J.K Rowling or Agatha Christie but none of the female writers have been able to produce masterpieces that could rival Hemingway’s or even Bukowski’s. That is because female writers notoriously lack the imagination and creativity to segue into unknown realms, to broach new ideas in their work.
Writers aside, how many good female directors have made films worth watching? The truth is, very few and when they did make a decent movie, it was at the expense of a robust screenplay written by a male writer.
The simple point I’m making is that, not only does feminism lack the tenacity of a good movement, it sure as hell contradicts itself a lot. With prominent figureheads like Lena Dunham or Emma Watson, the feminist movement has transformed into a cause celebre for rich, uneducated airheads who do not realize that their movement is corrupting the minds of millions, spawning bossy girls whose stupidity should be banned from the leadership ranks, but who in their vain thirst for power and fame, marginalize smart, disenfranchised white men.
It is about time that this reality be reckoned with. Women in power are revolting, because they lack the backbone and intellectual integrity to spearhead game changing movements. Hilary Clinton is a prime example of that.
Moreover, Hollywood commies keep peddling the image of a young, empowered female leaded overcoming obstacles, none of which can compare to the real struggles of the young white men of our generation, who are increasingly silenced and forced into submission by arrogant women who’ve been sold the myth that they deserve the same things as men with far less effort or skill.Shouldn’t white men save themselves? But if they don’t do we let the white tribe go down the drain? NO!
How many more lies will the feminist movement belt out until people finally realize how they’re being conned? There’s something sinister about a young Hollywood starlet advocating for women’s rights and equal pay, all the while sucking dick or worse for the opportunity to get an advance read. There’s something remarkably appalling about selling this sex positive myth to women, who are exploited and dehumanized and led to believe that it’s all about empowerment.
A woman in her thirties who sleeps around and obviously lacks stability is not empowered, she’s broken.
How long will it take for commies admit that their very values put civilized society at risk of extinction, that their nihilistic proclivities are being advertised to gullible human beings who will be the ones affected the most by this drastic destructive change in social construct as white genocide reigns?
Yes, you’ve guessed it. The truth is they never will admit their mistakes, or all the harm they have done because they don’t care.
It is startling that people with no values can advertise themselves as the righteous, enlightened ones in this debate. As get their way more everyday, we are faced with social scourges of epic proportions to say the least, and society is doomed because commie norms favor minority parasite idiots instead of truly qualified white men, prompting widespread intellectual decline. Wait a minute. We have just described America’s ohne kultur!
Stand in solidarity with all the ballsy white men in the world who are demanding revenge for being vilified beyond description, for the simple crime of daring to exist in a world that’s being slowly overtaken by over-zealous, entitled, unqualified women. Are you going to live or let die? Then stand up, organize and fight for liberation in a bloody protracted war of salvation.
White countries for everyone?
Eastern European Women Become More Masculine In America
Adapted from Roosh V
Western culture—particularly American—is toxic to women, causing them to be more masculine. I have stumbled on a research paper written a few years ago that matches that conclusions.
East European Women and the Battle of the Sexes in American Culture (PDF) interviews Eastern European (EE) women who have immigrated to the United States. Let’s begin with an EE woman sharing her views on gender roles:
“I won’t refuse to be a woman in any way. On the contrary, I insist to be treated in a certain way, and I think I deserve it. You cannot have a man walking next to me and I’m carrying something heavy, and he comes and asks me to carry it and I would say, “No, I’ll carry it, because you know, I wanna show you that I’m as strong as you.” Give me a break! Of course he will carry it. He is three hundred pounds more than me, he has muscles… And if he comes, boy I appreciate it! (Bulgaria, age 35, 6 years in the US).”
Only when I got to EE have I begun opening doors for women and helping them put on their coats. If I did this in America I’d be deemed a weak man not worthy of sex, but in EE this is a prerequisite to getting sex. Being chivalrous actually helps me get laid.
In America, a compliment is sexual harassment. You’re a creep who deserves to be fired. You can’t say nice things about her hair, face, or clothing. Even if you don’t work with her, such a compliment will close her vagina faster than a Venus fly trap. Unless you are a retarded negro or Moslem.
East European women feel that in the US gender lines are blurred and the behaviors of men and women are very similar to each other. They are not always able to distinguish between men and women based on appearance, manners, or conversation.
Women acting like men and men acting like women. Denmark called—they want their Jante Law back!
The reason you should not listen to American women talking about “gender roles” is that they are lacking in clear gender. Would you ask a chicken how it’s like to be a cow? You could, but you’d get a better answer if you ask the cow. To find out the characteristics of a woman—a real woman— you have to ask one. They exist in South America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia, in case you’re wondering. Some men tell me that real American women exist in rural Southern areas, but I have not been able to confirm this.
Just because a human being has a vagina, it doesn’t mean she knows what a woman is, just like how the majority of American men have no idea what it’s like to be a man, assuming we define a man as someone who doesn’t sell out his gender and even himself for a chance at masculine pussy.
What does American culture do to relationships? Let’s have a look:
Gender-neutral treatment “sterilizes” relationships between male and female colleagues, and as a result East Europeans often lose interest in interactions with American colleagues of the other sex.
If EE women have maintained what it means to be a normal human female, which is what I argue, and they are unable to have meaningful relationships with Americans, that means that Americans are sterile humans. The American culture is dehumanizing, emasculating, and defeminizing. American feminists are actually effeminate maleshes.
Here’s what foreign women think of your countrymen:
EE women perceive American men as less masculine than men in Eastern Europe.
“That’s why it’s hard for me to date [an American man], because I feel I have to be the man of the relationship.”
American men have become so pussified that the most feminine women in the world feel like men when dating them. In other words, American men act like women. And how do EE women view American women?
EE women perceive American women as more assertive than they are, and they feel that American women “try to be like men,” “boss men around” (Albania, age 22), “try to dominate a lot,” “dress like men” (Bulgaria, age 35), and “expect to be treated the same way as guys” (Hungary, age 23).
American men who travel think American women are masculine. EE women think American women are masculine. How long will it take for these masculine women to put mirrors up to their man jaw and realize what they’ve become? That’s assuming they are not imbued with their own insanity.
Here’s another statement that echoes my thoughts:
Participants believe that promoting gender equality means giving up women’s femininity.
Whenever I bring up the topic of Eastern European women, the first thing an American woman will do is say they are eternally dominated by horrible men, that I’m personally taking advantage of them by being a sex tourist who preys on impoverished women that have no free will. They barely stop short of saying that most EE women are sex slaves. This is despite the fact that they’ve never stepped foot into Eastern Europe. What they’re implying is that EE women are stupid and blind to see the heavenly light that is gender androgyny, of women acting like men. The study addresses this:
EE women are repeatedly told that they are oppressed by men even if they do not feel that way, and they are reproached for their acceptance of politeness from men.
American women are ragging on EE women for accepting compliments and flirtations instead of marching into the Human Resources office and filing a nasty complaint. Crazy American women are so combative they even get into arguments with EE women:
“[The American woman] implied that I didn’t understand what insane American feminism was about. I think I perfectly understand. And the other thing that struck me was her aggressive attitude. We weren’t discussing at a point. She was patronizing. She was telling me that I don’t understand. And I think I do understand. And I backed up, and I thought it was not worth it, because she wasn’t listening to me.”
There is a name for that: the rationalization hamster. She held onto a view that was brainwashed into her from studying a useless major in college and now refuses to change it no matter what. She is even unable to discuss it like a normal adult. While women are not known to use logic like men, I can tell you from personal experience that EE women are much less blind to opposing evidence. An American woman would rather get knifed in her vagina than change her mind concerning gender issues.
I have claimed that foreign women will become less sensual and feminine after living in the United States. The paper confirms this:
As a result the women become cautious around American men and avoid the use of touch during conversation with men entirely…
They seek to avoid cultural misunderstandings by becoming more gender-neutral and more impersonal. One woman from Belarus describes checking the language of her emails five times before she sends them to American men in order to make sure that she does not sound too familiar, because earlier someone broke off contact with her, possibly for this reason. They also avoid touch, gender specific topics in conversation, and sometimes they avoid interacting with American men altogether.
So she touches less, treats all men like coworkers, and withdraws from meaningful interactions. Sound familiar? Do you think you’d be more or less happy interacting with a woman who has these frigid traits? But wait, there’s more:
Because people behave in a gender-neutral way in most public interactions in America, East European women feel that part of their feminine identity is invisible or has to be hidden. They dress is a more informal and less feminine way when they are with Americans, because when they do dress and behave “like an East European women,” other around them seem intimidated and interact with them less.
EE women have no choice but to dress less like a woman so that haters don’t try to isolate her. The reason is because American women don’t want to compete with a woman who, you know, looks like a woman. Even though American women know deep down inside that men like feminine women with long hair, heels, sexy clothing, and pleasing attitudes, they refuse to act that way because they’re lazy, entitled, and want to be valued solely for their hamster brain. Today’s American woman rather masculinize the entire culture of women by shaming feminine behavior and spreading fat-is-healthy propaganda than grow out her goddamn hair.
“I cannot appear in a way that I really am, naturally, because the expectation that you shouldn’t be too personal and you shouldn’t be too feminine.”
Femininity is punished in America, and all those women who step inside its borders will transform, ever so gradually, to men. The sad part is that this effect is only partly reversible. Whenever I meet an EE girl who acts masculine, I ask her if she has lived in America or Britain. Most of the time, the answer is yes. Even once back in her homeland, she keeps a lot of masculine habits. She was been infected with a virus that has no immediate cure.
In America, you are considered a slave if you go out of your way to please men. EE women don’t feel that way:
“I enjoy certain activities. Why I enjoy them, I don’t know. Their assumption is that if I do cooking every day, I necessarily do it because I’m pressured by my husband. On the contrary, I enjoy to cook for him, and my favorite part of the day is when I serve the meal and we sit next to each other and we talk. I’m not pushed to do it, I’m not pressured to do it, I do it with pleasure, and I don’t want to give it up.”
It’s hard to imagine an American woman cooking for her man every night, let alone once a week.
The kicker is that this paper was written in 2004. Would you say that in the past decade American women have become more or less masculine? Have their attitudes gotten better or worse? If anything, this paper grossly underestimates the damaging effects that American culture does to women.
I’m not happy that we let the feminists and the elite de-feminize women and make them more like men. But for every action there is a reaction, and they are getting their reaction—their pimp slap—right now, of growing numbers of men who refuse to go along with the gender equality bullshit of putting up with women who don’t act like women. We will shame women who act like men. We will make fun of fat whales. We will punish women who have masculine behaviors. They changed the culture, now it’s our turn to do the same.
“I’m an anti-White trapped in a White body!”
IF You Could Be A White Man
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, take Revenge with more hating
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you are tired of minority parasitic crap
.If you will disallow enemies from making you into a sap
If you can change from weakness and humiliation
To a revenge-seeking soldier of the glorious white tribal nation,
Then come forward comrade white soldier, once bogged down in tar
Liquidate those who genocide you now, in a glorious no-quarter white war
If you refuse to sacrifice your identity
and determine to fight through now to infinity
If you recognize establishment evil and what they are
Then come forward white tribal soldier, reach for the liberating white star
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of white distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a White Man, my son!
“I’m an anti-White trapped in a White body!”
The Law of the Jungle For White Wolves
NOW this is the Law of the Jungle — as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back —
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Wash daily from nose-tip to tail-tip; drink deeply, but never too deep;
And remember the night is for hunting, and forget not the day is for sleep.
The Jackal may follow the Tiger, but, Cub, when thy whiskers are grown,
Remember the Wolf is a Hunter — go forth and get food of thine own.
Keep peace withe Lords of the Jungle — the Tiger, the Panther, and Bear.
And trouble not Hathi the Silent, and mock not the Boar in his lair.
When Pack meets with Pack in the Jungle, and neither will go from the trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken — it may be fair words shall prevail.
When ye fight with a Wolf of the Pack, ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Pack be diminished by war.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home,
Not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, but where he has digged it too plain,
The Council shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again.
If ye kill before midnight, be silent, and wake not the woods with your bay,
Lest ye frighten the deer from the crop, and your brothers go empty away.
Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can;
But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!
If ye plunder his Kill from a weaker, devour not all in thy pride;
Pack-Right is the right of the meanest; so leave him the head and the hide.
The Kill of the Pack is the meat of the Pack. Ye must eat where it lies;
And no one may carry away of that meat to his lair, or he dies.
The Kill of the Wolf is the meat of the Wolf. He may do what he will;
But, till he has given permission, the Pack may not eat of that Kill.
Cub-Right is the right of the Yearling. From all of his Pack he may claim
Full-gorge when the killer has eaten; and none may refuse him the same.
Lair-Right is the right of the Mother. From all of her year she may claim
One haunch of each kill for her litter, and none may deny her the same.
Cave-Right is the right of the Father — to hunt by himself for his own:
He is freed of all calls to the Pack; he is judged by the Council alone.
Because of his age and his cunning, because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open, the word of your Head Wolf is Law.
Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is — Obey!
“I’m an anti-White trapped in a White body!”
There are so many “anonymous” on here that its hard to categorize the. I do know that 70% of the commenters on this site are pro-white genocide and love to scream their lying bullshit at us.
Are we a captive audience for more anti-white propaganda.
White people. We must unify, braek our chains, liberate our white tribe and destroy our domestic enemies.