‘One ISIS attack every 84 hours’ spurs dread and anger in Europe

CNN: In the past week I have seen flowers and candles carpeting a street in Munich, the tranquility of a small Bavarian town shattered by a suicide bomb and a small church in suburban France sealed off after its octogenarian priest had his throat cut.

Before these horrific events, there was a knife-wielding teenager on a German train. And before that, much deadlier attacks in Nice, Brussels and last November, in Paris.

This year has seen an accelerating pattern of attacks linked to ISIS in Europe and beyond — from Turkey to Bangladesh, the United States to Indonesia. According to the group IntelCenter, which tracks acts of terrorism, there has been a significant attack directed or inspired by ISIS every 84 hours since June 8 in cities outside the war zones in Iraq, Syria, Sinai in Egypt and Libya. CNN’s own tracking of attacks supports that conclusion.

More than half of those attacks have been beyond big cities in places “not traditionally under threat of terrorist attacks,” says IntelCenter. This rash of random, low-tech but deadly attacks has fueled public unease in Europe and eroded faith in governments to tackle the threat of terrorism or discern who might turn to violence.

Politics as usual on Israel

James Zogby: The Republican document is particularly extreme, even bizarre. Finding opportunities to mention Israel in five different sections, the GOP platform: refers to Israel as “beacon of democracy and humanity”; claims that “support for Israel is an expression of Americanism”; “recognizes Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and calls for the American embassy to be moved there; terms the BDS movement “anti-Semitic; “rejects the faulty notion that Israel is an occupier”; and calls for “an immediate halt to all US funding” to entities that admit the Palestinians as a “member state”—singling out the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Because the GOP platform committee specifically rejects any reference to either two states or to recognition of Palestinians as a people, the only time Palestinians are even mentioned in the document is in the context of the funding cut proposed for the UNFCCC.

Trump: The Right’s position on his Other policies ?

The Right understands that in the world of mainstream politics, for political parties and leaders to get elected – courting the approval of the Jewish lobby is nothing new. Any US Presidential nominee who wants to win in the current system, has to have a deliberate strategy to secure support from the organized Jewish community. Indeed many politicians are perceived to have made brazen careers out of little else.

I think a lot of people also accept a degree of compromise in mainstream politics in general. They don’t necessarily like it. But realize ‘tough choices’ are something politicians and their advisory teams are constantly considering to place their candidate in the most central and appealing light to a non-ideological Joe Average voter.

Trump has of course made some very significant concessions, some abrupt policy shifts and in particular – significant appeals to Jewish interests during his campaign.

I’m not really sure what the Right feels about those appeals.

If taken at face value – does the Right feel Trump’s appeals to Jewish power are something that’s going to come home to roost later down the line?

Or are they just strategic hot air that will be safely deep-sixed when in office ?

Should they be considered as necessary annoyances to get his other policies through ?

Is Trump setting up the Jewish lobby with nonsense policies which he will later blame Israel as blocking and then won’t fulfill ?

Do they matter at all ?

Trump’s pro-Jewish positions on the Middle East are ostensibly more zealous than any US government’s including not recognizing a Palestinian statehood and even ‘committing’ to Israel’s illegal settlement building.

As Trump’s campaign developed, his position moved from an organic neutrality on the Middle East to abandoning neutrality in his AIPAC speech:

Trump, the Republican front-runner who has raised eyebrows in debates and interviews by asserting that he would be “neutral” in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians and questioning US aid to the Jewish state, executed a 180-degree turn as he delivered what appeared to be his first prepared campaign speech before an enthusiastic crowd of 18,000 at a Washington sports arena.

Trump’s position switched on Jerusalem:

“Trump declines to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel”:

Donald Trump was heavily booed Thursday after refusing to say whether he recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

then a month later it was ‘Donald Trump Has Decided Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel – The U.S. Has Not’:

The key point here is the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, whatever wishful thinking might be employed by Trump and other Republicans.

Or Trump on Iran:

Well, I just see what is happening and I am so saddened by this Iran deal. It’s one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen under any circumstances, any deal, not just deals between nations. I think it’s a tremendous liability to Israel. I think it’s going to actually lead to nuclear proliferation and it’s going to cause a lot of problems. I will be very good to Israel. People know that. I have so many friends from Israel. I have won so many awards from Israel. I was even the grand marshal for the Israeli Day Parade a few years ago.

A lot of people, some of whom I really admire on the Right, credit Trump with enormous forward-thinking smarts about this kind of stuff. They may be right.

They would see all this as Trump courting the support of the organized Jewish community by announcing some unfulfillable show of commitment to Israel pre-election that’ll be lapped up by US Zionist elements (Jewish and Christian), that will be condemned by most of the international community, and at the same time tempting Israel to finally blow what remains of its cover as a ‘moral state who wants peace and just defends itself from terrorism’. At the same time to Joe Average – brought up on a diet of Israel propaganda soda – it sounds good.

They may be right. Please put me in the camp of ‘don’t know’, as I don’t.

If you think you do then please comment.

France: Diversity has priority over murder.

I haven’t covered all of the attacks recently in Europe. They are so frequent now it’s difficult to keep track of all of them.

The attacks happen because the system wants to keep the status quo which happens to cultivate terrorism. Furthermore terrorism; the slaughter of your people, is a relatively small price to pay for all the rewards the system provides to those who have power within it.

Doing something meaningful about stopping terrorism means doing something meaningful to the system, recognizing its faults and then having to explain why you have denied those faults for so long and demonized or even outlawed those who have had the guts to.

Needless to say, every time there is another murderous attack, the response is never for those with power to question the politics of the system that led to it, or even hold the system to account, but to actually protect the system even harder. To prove a point we are ‘a democracy’ and ‘will stand strong’ against ‘the terrorists who want to end democracy’.

But no one wants you to ‘stand strong’ against terrorism, they want you to enact policies that end terrorism and stop them being murdered. France, like too many states is refusing to do so. It’s actually refusing to save the lives of its citizens because its commitment to diversity is more important a virtue.

France can’t admit that its cherished secular liberal democracy has turned into a pile of festering shit while it was virtue-signalling about how color-blind it is. It can’t accept its ludicrous ideas about absorbing swathes of its old colonies as ‘Frenchmen’ were a mistake, and it can’t accept today that its Jewish-led fetish for African and Muslim immigration is gradually turning France into ‘le monstrous turd of Europe’.

‘Stand strong’ – although it sounds stoic and tough, might well be mangled ugly code for “we will not do anything substantive to reduce terrorism as it means calling the system into question.”

Of course those people murdered by Muslims don’t matter to the system. 86 year old priests in Normandy for God’s sake, with their throats slit in front of their congregation don’t matter. Children run over in Nice don’t matter because France is ‘strong and a democracy in the face of terror’. These murders are a small price to pay for the glorious wonders of multicultural liberal democratic diversity.

Unless of course the victims are Jews – who get their own private police forces (even where nothing happened to them) , and politicians begging for forgiveness for this ‘new wave of anti-semitism’. Perhaps that should tell us something about the nature of this system that is forever being protected.

As for whites, France is actively protecting a failed system that is killing them.

What are ‘decency’, ‘respect’ and law and order ?

Donald J Trump

Donald Trump is certainly shaking up the GOP in his own way, and made an impressive acceptance speech at the RNC. But although Trump is more strident and fearless in his oratory than most, many of the themes of the different speakers at the recent Republican National Convention are quite familiar conservative territory, such as a return to ‘law and order’, ‘safety’, ‘family’ and ‘respect’.

Perhaps aside from Trump himself who’s not really a Republican, you get the impression Republicans feel that it’s almost as if Democrats had laid waste to these ideas, substituting them with something rotten, ineffectual and incurably politically correct.

When conservative politicians talk about these specific values, what do they actually pertain to ? The left and cucks are very clear in their claims about what they mean, but remain hopelessly delusional by asserting that is a ‘bad’. The Right similarly see their interests in Trump.

I think it is entirely accurate to say values like ‘respect’, ‘law and order’, ‘family’, ‘tradition’, ‘making society safer’ all happen to mean overwhelmingly white values, intrinsic to civilizations whites have built for themselves. It also, entirely properly means whites protecting themselves from groups who can’t share those values.

So there are two related but distinct meanings: white tendencies towards civilization and whites’ protection of those civilizations from the harm now being inflicted on them.

Where these pertain to the first meaning, these are values that derive from white cognitive and moral ability, white evolutionary psychology and were simply taken for granted by whites of previous generations.

These white values have declined, not because whites have abandoned them willingly, but as a result of non-white ethnic encroachment on them that they never consented to, notably via racial integration, immigration/globalization and also sophisticated efforts by Jews in the media and academia to denigrate or nullify, and ultimately supplant those values with aggressively anti-white ones. (The second definition seeks to redress this)

Of course these ‘conservative values’ are never described for what they are: as white values – by the people who support them. They are always framed as ‘conservative’ values. But I find that an obsolete political label dangerously evasive of the real demographic shifts and incursions on white people now occurring.

I’m never sure if conservatives are so self-deceived they believe that if they just had everything their entire way, including a better grip on the media, they could get blacks to stop killing and raping and committing other crimes by presenting America to them in some even more wholesome moral way.

I’m never quite sure if they really believe Detroit would be transformed from its current embarrassment – as something very close to a third-world enclave of the United States, to a city of decency, and ‘respect for law and order’ if it could just somehow adopt these conservative values ?

Sometimes you even read that ‘Democrats ruined Detroit’ (with their policies).

But the fact is Detroit was ruined when blacks moved in in large numbers and when whites moved out to get away from black violence. Detroit’s condition today follows predictable, typical patterns of decline in all areas in the world where blacks are present in high numbers.

Detroit might be an extreme example, but it’s only not repeated everywhere in America because the population density of negroes is not that extreme everywhere, not because Detroit has abandoned conservative values, or been insufficiently exposed to them. Since blacks flooded Detroit it simply doesn’t have values at all, the values conservatives talk about are uncontrollably antithetical to negroes.

Moreover, wherever blacks, and many other non-Whites groups are – even in far less density, they are eating away at, and bringing down those very values that conservatives claim to stand for.

When conservatives are talking about a ‘decline in values’ they are really talking about the inability of some non-white groups, with blacks at the top of list, to be part of civilization itself. They are fundamentally talking about other groups bringing white civilization down, dragging it down in the case of blacks, or in the case of Jews poisoning it with anti-white ideas from the top-down.

If conservatives in America really want a return to law and order, decency and respect then they need to aggressively pursue policies to reimpose the demographics and ethnic-biases to what they rightly were at time when America enjoyed those values.

Sure, it’s difficult not to admire a lot of what Trump is doing, but I can’t help feeling that sometime somewhere politicians, leaders and the electorate are going to have to start clearly embracing what these values actually are.

You never know, maybe there’s some hope:

laura ingraham salutes

Diversity murders children again in Munich

CNN: At least nine people were killed and 16 others injured Friday in a shooting rampage at a busy shopping district in Munich, Germany, police said.

Police searched for attackers, thinking there might be three, and found a man who had killed himself on a side street near Olympia shopping mall, police Chief Hubertus Andrae said.

Based on surveillance video and witness statements, police concluded he was the sole gunman, Andrae said.

The unidentified attacker was an 18-year-old German-Iranian who had lived in Munich for at least two years.


Many children were among the casualties.


The gunman in Munich started shooting at a McDonald’s across from the Olympia mall around 5:50 p.m. (11:50 a.m. ET), Andrae said.

A witness who wanted to be identified only by her first name, Lauretta, told CNN her son was in the bathroom with a shooter at the restaurant.

“That’s where he loaded his weapon,” she said. “I hear like an alarm and boom, boom, boom … and he’s still killing the children. The children were sitting to eat. They can’t run.”

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter

Milo Yiannopoulos

Not sure how to categorize this post. On the one hand it is has a feel of entertainment news, and I’m a little wary of stuff that involves clashes within the media itself or non-events on social media. So take that as a warning. On the other hand, there could be something important lurking underneath.

Like a lot of people I have mixed feelings about Milo Yiannopoulos, the flamboyant Jewish-born gay conservative personality of Breitbart News.

And yet, whatever I find difficult to stomach about Yiannopoulos’s debased personal lifestyle, whatever concerns I may have about his ethnic background, his views on Islam, feminism and political correctness (while kinda low risk/’low hanging fruit’) are pretty much sane – in as far as they go – and have made him something of a magnet for the left’s hatred, now culminating in a permanent ban from Twitter.

Looking at different news stories, I’m still not sure exactly what Yiannopoulos’s offending messages were, other than there were some criticisms made of Ghostbusters black ‘star’ Leslie Jones.

Twitter’s own chief executive Jack Dorsey couldn’t resist the opportunity to virtue-signal and intervened personally in this case to rescue Jones which isn’t a good sign.

Jack Dorsey and Twitter black lives dont matter

Dorsey appears to wallow in the typical smug, liberal, fetishistic coddling instinct towards blacks that many tech industry types have, while Twitter even gave Black Lives Matter their own icon, just not realizing it looked like three differently shaded turds.

By our standards, whatever Yiannopoulos said is unlikely to be particularly harsh, but it’s the fact he has a high profile and a following that makes him aggravating to leftist discourse.

Twitter recently partnered with the Anti Defamation League as part of its “Trust & Safety Council” initiative in stopping ‘online hate’. Although Yiannopoulos is a gay Jew, his lavish support of immigration-unfriendly Donald Trump, and his relatively outspoken criticism of subjects that are definitively Jewish proxies like feminism, Islam, or in this case – his views about a cultural Marxist monstrosity of a movie featuring an obese negro female abomination, could designate him as a problem for the wider Jewish cultural narrative.

If they are prepared to exclude Yiannopoulos it makes you wonder what hope there is for race-real whites.

It is has been suggested for a while that the Right convene its own social media platforms, as these major tech companies are virulent institutions of liberalism, inevitably setting boundaries of discourse that are ‘inclusive’ – meaning ‘exclusive of dissent towards the diversity/multicultural/nation wrecking/shit-pot narrative’

Black murders of police continue in Baton Rouge

JULY 17/BATON ROUGE, La. — Three law enforcement officers were fatally shot and three others wounded on Sunday in Baton Rouge, La., the authorities said, less than two weeks after a black man was killed by the police here, sparking nightly protests.

The gunman, who was identified as Gavin Long of Kansas City, Mo., was killed by the police. Mr. Long was a Marine who served six months in Iraq, according to his service record. He joined the corps in 2005, served five years and was made a sergeant in 2008.

It’s getting increasingly arduous to keep up with black ‘political’ violence on top of black ‘normal’ violence. The situation is clearly getting more serious and we are by no means covering it all here. The recent terrorist-style events are an attempt by blacks to escalate their violence into a kind of guerrilla race war.

The shooting in Baton Rouge – again carried out by a negro with a military history amounts to a black collective psyche gradually shaking off any simulation of ‘progress’ and assimilation, i.e:

the incitement to kill among blacks is working.

Blacks are simply encouraging one another into targeted murders of American police, despite the fact that for decades whites have bent over backwards to try to accommodate blacks and placate and explain away black aggression and dysfunction, even rewarding blacks for their own inability. This strategy has been a lethal mistake. It’s literally cost thousands of lives.

It’s worth a mention that one of the dead in the Baton Rouge killing was black cop Montrell Jackson, pictured above.

When blacks kill black cops, it is surely a signal that blacks not only do not want to be policed by whites, but do not want to be policed at all.

The demand does not amount to ‘don’t kill us’ as there simply isn’t a killing spree by cops of blacks, in fact it’s the complete reverse of reality:

..an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.

It really amounts to ‘don’t police us’.

Whites have to stop accepting the blame for the vast spectrum of sickening black behavior and start dealing with reality now.

The answer is not in placating blacks yet again, trying to reason with them, pretending their unassimilable violence is merely a prejudiced artifact of white racism and that if we just try harder everything will work.

There is no answer in trying to change laws for an easy life – which would actually amount to mollifying black violence and aggression, ignoring black crime and creating more dead whites and cops.

The answer is just accepting that this entire forced relationship between whites and blacks has been an overwhelming catastrophe.

These recent murders do not arise from ‘injustice’ but from serious cognitive differences between whites and blacks and current legal/constitutional frameworks are utterly useless to cope with those differences.

There can never be justice as long as blacks are present.

Non-blacks who are legitimizing black hatred against whites – that means much of the media and BLM-sponsor George Soros need to be understood as literally helping to incite police and white murders.

The entry on Dallas also applies to this latest shooting and goes into more discussion.