Jewish pressure gets holocaust revisionist books removed from Amazon but the holocaust is already broken

I see that a campaign in the world’s media, complaining that there were ‘holocaust denial’ books available on Amazon, and that this was unacceptable amidst a ‘new wave’ of antisemitism has been successful:

Amazon UK has removed four books from sale which question or deny the Holocaust, following discussions with the Board of Deputies.

The titles, including ‘Holocaust: The Greatest Lie Ever Told’ and ‘The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry,’ were withdrawn from sale this week, despite it being legal to sell them in the UK.

This action was the culmination of a broad campaign by Jewish groups to shame Amazon, who really need little persuasion anyway to drop these titles. And you have probably noticed that every few years a ‘new wave’ of antisemitism, or a ‘new antisemitism‘ is announced by Jewish groups, as a justification for some neurotic incursion on the choices of the others.

Of course this latest outrage is not some moral accomplishment, or the righting of some injustice as Jewish groups claim, rather it’s the creation of a considerable injustice, and makes Amazon appear partisan, corrupt and incapable of their job as a retailer.

At the heart of these actions lies Jewish narcissism and Jewish hatred. Jewish groups are looking around to find things that might be a threat to their identity, even though they spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to undermine the identity of other groups, especially whites. They then abuse their collective power to shame companies into complying with their identity. It’s really that pathetic, by presenting the issue as a moral outrage, claiming the retailer is ‘supporting hate’ Jews get to dictate how the world is supposed to see them.

Look, as we all know, the holocaust is used as a weapon:

  • To promote the idea of uniqueness of Jews as victims, and therefore the uniqueness of Jews as people.
  • To instill whites with guilt about pursuing their own destiny.
  • To provide a moral cover for Israel’s crimes in the Middle East.

And it’s been an extremely effective weapon.

Material that interferes with that weapon has long been the subject of attack by Jewish groups who are terrified of different views of the holocaust becoming normalized. I don’t think it’s doubts about the alleged six million they really fear, a but a sense of their weapon, and therefore cultural influence slipping. They dread the day the world isn’t walking on eggshells around their sensibilities.

We do need to take these things seriously though. Every time a book that isn’t favorable to Jewish interests is banned, it’s a symbolic victory for Jewish organizations, and these actions accumulate to form a dire poisoned culture, where everyone is only permitted to have certain thoughts, so it’s critical that we completely reject the idea that banning books Jewish groups dislike is some ‘moral milestone’.

Thinking about holocaust revisionism, I have a lot of time for Germar Rudolf, I think his work is extremely impressive and reasonable, yet in every day life, I don’t care a lot about the holocaust. I think it’s boring, and we hear far too much about it. But if I’m pushed again to think about the holocaust by the inappropriate actions of Jewish groups, I would like to reframe the issue of the holocaust itself.

For some time I have felt that because of the particular way Jews have exploited and abused whatever their collective experiences were in World War II that has included: constantly misrepresenting the period in films, television shows and books, seeking to make a ‘Jew-worship/guilt’ culture of out those experiences for Gentiles with museums and education, pushing governments to institute laws punishingly non-belief, holding up the holocaust as a justification for wars today, and even using it as the basis of an extortion racket, amongst many other issues, I personally think the debate about the extent of the mistreatment of Jews during WW2 can no longer be answered rationally in the toxic environment Jews have created around the topic, and doesn’t require one.

What I’m saying is, Jews have poisoned their own cake by their inability to resist fetishizing and misusing this. Even if it was the worst tragedy in history with a zillion victims, it’s simply impossible to ever truly voluntarily know, because that position is enforced by fear, coercion, brainwashing and punishment, and to accept that position is simply to submit or agree to that ethnic coercion on the topic. No thanks.

So who cares what happened to Jews during the War ? Please count me as a new kind of denier.

Tony Blair: The poison continues…

One thing that caught my attention recently was an article by our old friend, Tony Blair in the New York Times.

Blair has put himself –or is (((being))) put, at the forefront of a so called ‘centrist’ campaign against what he correctly describes as a popular revolt in the West, culminating in Trump’s election and Brexit, which he of course opposes.

While Blair’s new political activity should be a cause for great concern, there is an immediate silver lining to this cloud. It suggests there really aren’t that many people corrupt and debased enough who can actually take on this role. Blair, despite his absolutely soiled track record with the public, finds himself regularly reused as a frontman for the forces of globalization and anti-whiteness.

Blair says:

The modus operandi of this populism is not to reason but to roar. It has at times an anarchic feel. Yet it has also mobilized a powerful media behind it. Its supporters welcome the outrage their leaders provoke.

The causes of this movement are the scale, scope and speed of change. This is occurring economically as jobs are displaced and communities fractured, and culturally as the force of globalization moves the rest of the world closer and blurs old boundaries of nation, race and culture.

Not that the ‘change’ itself is a bad thing. It’s just the ‘speed’ of racial and national blurring that’s the problem. Blair’s view has always been that if you ‘mitigate’ the effects of globalization, i.e: placate whites with more worthless jobs in call centers or government, provide them with more state handouts, devalued degrees, and more CCTV cameras to try to dissuade blacks, Somalis and Muslims from raping white women, the underlying objections will just go away and whites will welcome their displacement and everything will be fine. They will simply exchange their human dignity, race, culture and values for things that will only hurt them more. Just explain to them it’s ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. That’s basically Blair’s modus operandi.

Blair goes on:

The same dynamics are splintering the left, too. One element has aligned with the right in revolt against globalization, but with business taking the place of migrants as the chief evil. They agree with the right-wing populists about elites, though for the left the elites are the wealthy, while for the right they’re the liberals.

This leftist populism is a profound error. It has no chance of matching the populist appeal of the right, and it dangerously validates some of the right’s arguments. This only fuels a cynicism that depresses support for the more progressive parts of the left’s program.

Blair’s entire career has been as a fanatical apologist and Mr Fixit for these elites, and that means trying to nullify any arguments against things elites want, like globalization, white genocide and war. What Blair is really saying here, is that our arguments are extremely sound. They are so sound, that parts of the Left have actually found a way to agree with them. That means they are not a ‘nutty right wing conspiracy’, rather they have an observable objective basis, and that makes them extremely dangerous. One of the strategies of people like Blair is to drive a wedge between the Right and the sections of the Left who have the capacity to agree with us, so there can never be any political consensus against these elites that Blair represents.

But this left tendency has gained from the seeming paralysis of the center. The parties and politicians of the center have become the managers of the status quo in an era when people want change. So, the center — in both its center-right and center-left camps — is marginalized, even despised.

It’s despised because it’s caused immense harm. Firstly, the ‘center’ – center-left or center-right, is really just another version of the Left as far as its most zealous ideological advocates are concerned.

‘The center’ is a consolidation of the power between different vectors; extremes of global capitalism on the one hand and ‘social justice’ on the other, that were once at odds with each other, but are now merged into one toxic blob.

Particularly, the center has become ideologically dominated by the cultural goals of the Left, which rely on the cover it provides to appear less-threatening, utilizing less-obvious language to obscure its intentions.

So this ‘center’ is not really a center as it has a specific direction: towards more immigration, diversity, globalization and degeneracy. It never goes away from it. Sure the center-right will pay lip service to going the other way to get votes from whites, but it never actually does anything.

The term ‘center’ is dishonest as the objectives of its most staunch advocates are not politically neutral. The phrase provides legitimacy and cover, making it seem reasonable and moderate rather than its own kind of fanaticism.

After that, the center is really just a coalition of reality-denying white cucks, virtue-signalling to one another demonstrating how eager they are to flood their countries with hostile raping retards from the Third World, and to appease organized Jewish power.

Even when some of them don’t really want to flood their countries with the Third World, the center-right is so scared of being called racist and bigoted it can’t actually stop it anyway. This means the center is not actually in control of any of its own policies. It’s an empty political position, where many of its representatives hold no political authority of their own, where they have deferred power and choices to other groups and lobbyists, the centrists’ role simply being to appease the demands of those other groups. It’s a form of signalling and obedience.

The question is, will this be a temporary phase, perhaps linked to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and Sept. 11, and will politics soon revert to normal, or has a new political age begun?

There are fragments of truth even in what Blair says. I wonder if Blair too sees 9/11 as a necessary component in laying the foundation for some of things we see today?

The party structures on both sides of the Atlantic have their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the debates engendered by that epoch about socialism and capitalism, the market and the state. These parties have endured because the roots they put down were very strong. But now, there are different distinctions than those simply of traditional right and left.

When I was growing up, people like my dad were conservative; and that meant economically and socially. Today, many such voters don’t fit that old stereotype. They may be pro-private enterprise and conservative on economics in traditional terms, but they’re also socially liberal — in favor, for instance, of gay rights. And there are those who used to vote left, but who are culturally illiberal and now don’t mind voting for parties of the wealthy.

Although they sometimes go under other names like ‘Western values’, it’s race and identity that are now naturally and rightfully emerging as the critical fault lines. Old stereotypical notions of left or right, were indeed once relevant in the near mono-racial era of Tony Blair’s father when everyone was white.

Today, a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat.

Make no mistake, black violence, Muslims blowing themselves up and raping white children are a threat. The sewage of diversity is a threat. The debasing effects of diversity on white institutions is a threat. Unteachable schools, ‘no go zones’ are a threat. Laws to facilitate and protect diversity and to facilitate white displacement are a threat. And white genocide is a very big, very real threat. The ‘open-minded’ people pushing these policies do so exactly because they are a threat, while ‘progressive’ gentile whites who support these policies, or claim to, are damaged goods, hate themselves or are simply not grown up enough to deal with the reality of the world as it is. So their views cannot be accepted as having a legitimate basis. Like it or not, they have to be denied any political say at all.

This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.

Again, because it’s racial. It’s much more fundamental.

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

It’s not enough to ‘acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of voters’, you actually have to STOP doing things that injure them. If you refuse to stop, you will be stopped.

The politics of the progressive center has not died, but it needs reinventing and re-energizing. For liberal democracy to survive and thrive, we must build a new coalition that is popular, not populist.

‘Popular’ means it’s manufactured, spun and where a corrupt media can be relied upon to issue favorable propaganda. But no it has died. It’s died morally and ideologically. The ‘progressive center’ basically means a Jewish and oligarchical center having a disproportionate influence over the policies of white governments to suit their own interests. It means pushing immigration, diversity and selling degeneracy to whites to distract them while it’s happening. The ‘liberal democracy’ Blair espouses, which has to a large extent become an elite ‘dog-whistle’ for white genocide, doesn’t deserve to survive. It deserves to die.

But you know what ? I think it’s great Blair has put himself forward as a champion of ‘liberal democracy’ and left-centrism. It just shows how completely morally bankrupt the mainstream Left is if they will tolerate this soiled wretched perverter as their spokesperson.

This was the same problem that dogged Hillary Clinton in the election. A large swathe of liberal America just couldn’t accept that she was not actually electable. So they told themselves ‘she was the lesser of two evils’. Fuck off.

If I was Blair, I would would be genuinely concerned about this new populism. Last time, when I said the right place for Blair is hanging from a lamppost, I wasn’t being flippant. Blair’s concerns about where this new ‘roaring’ revolt may lead are quite real. If the forces that are protecting and promoting Blair are sufficiently overturned, Blair will inevitably be hanging from a lamppost.

Random thoughts on the Left

Two worlds currently coexist which are completely incompatible with each other. The first is an emerging nationalist, populist and for us, racial world, the other is a globalist, degenerate, anti-white homogenized world.

The overwhelming bulk of mainstream discourse supports the globalist, degenerate, anti-white homogenized world by spreading lies and delegitimizing its primary intended victims: whites.

But when the propaganda of that system no longer works, however loudly it tries, when it’s been peeled away as a ridiculous offensive lie, when more and more people know it’s a lie, that system no longer has a certain future. Change has to come. It’s only a matter of time. And I think we are seeing some signs of that, of which President Trump is obviously a considerable factor.

Naturally a lot of people still want to cling desperately to the old world. To cling on to the lie. They want to believe they are ‘fighting Nazis’ and ‘ending hate’ etc. Some of them really want to believe in a post-racial utopia, even though they strenuously avoid living in it themselves, preferring their gated mono-racial communities. They really want to believe Trump is Hitler just for having some sensible and quite moderate ideas about immigration. It makes them feel good to believe that. Indeed, it makes them feel good to have the approval of Jewish power, and the approval of others who are also under the thrall of Jewish power.

Whether those people can ever be fixed or not, remains an open question, but it’s an increasingly less important one. For now they have chosen their side simply because it makes them feel like bigger, more important people.

Meanwhile, what is becoming clear from some of the violence of the Left, which is nothing new, is that this war won’t be won by reason alone. Our enemies are not reasonable, do not listen to reason, and do not hold reasonable positions. That means they should not be treated reasonably.

I haven’t looked into this in depth, but I strongly suspect Antifa is basically Jews with very priviliged parents on top selling drugs, and underneath a swarm of degenerates and broken damaged young people buying drugs and who are looking for a sense of group belonging. They are looking to ‘fit in’ and will do stuff to please those at the top of their social hierarchy. It’s a pretty pathetic life, full of self-hatred, full of denial, full of pain. I should know. Part of my teenage years were regrettably spent around something not so dissimilar.

Perhaps if the drugs were removed they could see things a little clearer, but drugs on the developing mind + self hatred fueled by Jewish propaganda is a pretty lethal combination.

Clearly this contingent of the Left intends violence, and should be treated exclusively as such.

But not all variations of the Left are quite so loyal to all aspects of Jewish power. The anti-globalization and anti-Zionist left, while it may frequently pay homage to notions of anti-racism has been a thorn in the side of Jewish groups for a long time -as a ‘new antisemitism’. It might be useful for the Right to exploit this with the intention to collapse the Left entirely.

Blacks kidnap and torture white disabled man and stream on Facebook

A disabled white guy in Chicago was kidnapped and tortured by negroes and the attack streamed on Facebook for the amusement of other negroes. I haven’t watched it. I don’t need to. The description is enough.

And there’s very little unusual about this attack. It’s just unusual that it was streamed live on Facebook, but now even this is becoming a way for negroes to present their violence to other negroes and earn some ‘respect’.

Again and again on here I’ve written that negroes don’t have the moral equipment to not to do this stuff. These monsters, these shit animals, were not just attacking the person because they were white. They are attacking them because they were white and defenseless and represent an easy victim. They were torturing him because blacks feel gratification from this kind of violence and it’s a central pillar of ‘black culture’. They were torturing a white disabled guy because blacks don’t consider the future and worry about consequences. Because blacks lack empathy. That’s because blacks are not sufficiently human by white standards.

When Hillary Clinton described negroes as ‘super predators’ who have ‘no conscience, no empathy’, a term which ironically and stupidly was used by some MAGA types to convince liberals that Clinton was the ‘real racist’, she wasn’t incorrect. The Washington Post incidentally declared ‘super predators’ as a “now-debunked theory”. Go and watch the video and tell me if you think it was debunked. (Fact check: Blacks are super predators: True.)

Until racial separation happens there needs to be a different standard of law and punishment that applies to blacks that reflects their cognitive and moral realities, their tendencies towards extreme and harrowing violence, their lack of remorse and empathy, and the fact that the more extreme and savage the violence the more it is celebrated as the cornerstone of ‘black culture’.

Some of you will say, “Well not all blacks are like this”, but right now privately a lot of blacks are celebrating this, finding it exciting, inspiring. Or are completely ambivalent to it.

The correct way forward needs to recognize that blacks only naturally understand violence. They don’t adequately resonate with the delicate moral and legal frameworks whites have created for themselves. Blacks tend to see these structures as ‘raciss white man sheet’ that stops them having fun and interferes with their identity.

What the world has done is to try to placate negroes with more ‘stuff’, more gibs, more unearned artificial ‘opportunities’, and more lies to stop them acting like animals so white people can pretend to themselves they are not and can continue to feel smug and righteous. Obviously such a strategy to deal with black violence is neither just nor real.

It’s a lie. It’s a lie with appalling consequences.

In the Daily Mail, Pieres Morgan laments the attack not immediately being declared a hate crime and says:

“Imagine for a moment that a young black man with special needs had been kidnapped, abused and tortured by a gang of smirking white youths?

Imagine watching a video of this black man’s horrific ordeal streamed live on Facebook?

Imagine seeing and hearing the white assailants systematically torment their black victim, physically and mentally?”

Firstly, I think such a crime is unlikely by whites, but Morgan can’t understand the reality that ‘hate’ is not a fair concept. We have to understand hate as a theme in the law, was simply a way for Jews to maintain their ethnic privileges through proxy groups. Hate has never been some universal idea, it’s a specifically anti-white tool to delegitimize any resistance whites might have to their own displacement by other groups. It’s presented in moral universalist terms, but is implemented selectively in ways which exclude whites as victims.

Outside of pointing out the glaring double standard, I don’t believe justice can be achieved in pursuing ‘hate’ as a theme, but by rejecting the concept and coming up with something better that is just.

The answer here is not to worry about ‘escalating tensions’ as Morgan considers but to consider the future. Blacks have to be removed from the white experience, and until that happens the state needs to inflict on blacks the same or worse violence that they inflict on whites.

These are not ‘underprivileged kids’, they are part of a group not sufficiently separated from non-human primates. Blacks do not deserve the same rights.

UN, Israel, Obama, Trump

If Obama really wanted a reasonable political legacy instead of the one he has: as a hollow symbol of diversity that exacerbated black hatred of whites, he should have been doing this stuff as a matter of course:

Reuters: The United States on Friday allowed the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building, defying heavy pressure from long-time ally Israel and President-elect Donald Trump for Washington to wield its veto.

Trump should be congratulating Obama, or criticizing Obama that it has taken so long. But of course he’s not. He’s basically spouting on about how Israel will be in a safe pair of hands again when he takes over and this will ‘never happen again.’

I love the way Trump has shaken up American politics, the impact he’s made and the way he’s energized the Right. It’s difficult not to, but I don’t believe, as some really seem to, that it’s possible to extract a serious strategy that suits white people out of Trump’s positions on a lot of issues, including Israel. I think people give him way too much credit.

There will be people right now, scrambling to declare that Trump ‘the great negotiator’ is giving Jews what they want, or want to hear with Israel, to buy some more breathing space for white people in America, as a kind of a trade. ‘Great.’

Or they will say Trump is “setting up the Jews” and will “pull the rug out from under them later” and they will claim with absolute straight-faced certainty that the average person doesn’t get this because they “can’t see the big picture of what Trump is doing”.

This strategy– that Trump gets to build The Wall in America, and maybe tinker with immigration if he simply denies or ignores Jewish Israeli crimes in the occupied territories; that Trump can end white genocide by pandering to the Jewish Israel lobby, is a really bad one and it won’t work because collective Jewish demands are not reasonable ones, they won’t ‘stop’ at a certain point, and white genocide is key value of organized Jewry. In any implicit ‘deal’ like that, they will just consume more and more and more like a political Pacman, and what they will consume will far outweigh some watered-down version of The Wall.

Then you have Trump’s policies on Iran, which appear to mysteriously be in accord with Israel’s.

No one knows what’s really going on in Trump’s mind, but trying to please the Jewish lobby will not help whites in the long run and will just continue to dig America and the rest of the world even further into diversity, terrorism and war.

The only way for a patriotic real leader to deal with the Jewish lobby is to refuse what it wants. On this issue, at this moment in time, I’m sorry to say Obama is doing slightly better than Trump.

Fact Checking Hypocrisy: ‘Russia hacking US election’

There is no actual evidence that Russia were behind the email hacking scandal that rocked the US election, which ought to make it fake news on its face, but the allegation comes on the back of a series of ludicrously obvious attempts to delegitimize Trump’s win, Trump’s consituency and Trump himself. The claim is also in sync with a long-standing neoconservative interest to demonize Russia and intensify American aggression towards it.

So let’s consider some questions here.

Even if Russia were involved, what would it actually mean ?

Very little. And it should be of extremely minor moral significance. If anything, Russia should be trying to influence America as it’s constantly threatened by provocative and dangerous US/NATO military escalations on its borders. The implications of this are extremely serious. It would be completely reasonable for Russia to take steps to reduce that military escalation, not only for Russia’s sake but for the rest of the world. Russia is also still being attacked by economic sanctions, a punishment for trying to defend itself from US/NATO advance.

Was the American ‘system’ before the election a precious sacred ‘truth’ worth defending from ‘outside influence’?

No. America, like every historically white country that it effectively leads had gone badly wrong. By the time of the 2016 election, it was off course ideologically, politically, spiritually, heading eventually to civil war and break up and the collapse of its empire if the current path continued unabated. Nobody really knows if Trump will be able to fix it, but he was the only bet, and said a lot of the right of things and grew a movement of supporters behind him.

Meanwhile, all the good stuff about America that was still worth defending wasn’t under threat from Russia, but by a Clinton presidency.

Today, the elite media constantly claim America is no longer a country with an ethnic identity, but it is a ‘proposition nation’ an ‘idea’, the idea being to make Jews happy. Everyone else can enjoy unprecedented freedom to buy more worthless junk to entertain and distract themselves, while the country is gradually replaced demographically, reframed socially, and it’s taught to bomb other states the Jewish/Israel lobby finds objectionable. When most politicians and the media talk about ‘American values’, these are the values they are talking about. When the New York Times is talking about ‘Russia interfering in our democracy’, this is the ‘democracy’ it’s talking about.

Even if the leaks scandal swayed the election result (which is mostly not actually being claimed and there is no evidence for) was Clinton a fit candidate for president ?

No. Clinton was not a fit candidate for US president. She was a symptom of something that had gone horribly wrong. She had too much baggage, and was essentially a shameless corrupt career politician taking advantage of the mess as much as she could. In fact she was so unfit the media could never even really get behind her for fear of losing what little credibility they had left. All they could do was attack Trump and his supporters. Meanwhile Clinton’s alleged grassroots support were not interested in her abilities or policies, merely the fact she was a woman. Like Obama it would have given them some kind of ‘oppressed identity symbol’ warm high.

So if Russia had been involved, it was a completely fair and humane act to seek to contribute to the removal of a bad corrupt candidate from the American political system and the global political stage.

So were the American public served by the leaks, were they in the public interest ?


What lessons should America and its allies draw from this affair?

That there is staggering hypocrisy when it comes to this subject. America has been interfering in the elections and political systems of other countries for decades; from the Middle East, to Latin America, to Europe, overturning leaders and movements it objects to either by subterfuge or outright violence, including a significant role fomenting the coup in Ukraine, that led to the current crisis with Russia:

Listening to the US media, even the most diligent news junkie would find it difficult to know that the U.S. State Department played not only a vital role in the violence and chaos underway in Ukraine but was also complicit in creating the coup that ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanuyovch.

These actions have a long tradition of being defended by the New York Times, Washington Post and other media under a variety of smug, benign-sounding slogans such as ‘protecting fragile democracies’, ‘fighting for shared values’, ‘humanitarian intervention’ and a myriad of other industrialized lie-words.

Furthermore the leftist media, as a manifestation of Jewish power, doesn’t even believe in borders for America or countries generally, and doesn’t see illegal immigration into America as having any moral burden. It claims to believe in globalization, global integration and ‘interdependence’, so under those premises, surely it would be completely legitimate for Russia to try to affect American politics –affording the same selective regard of sovereign legality as the leftwing media does.

At the same time, the Israel lobby constantly interferes in American politics, it more or less dictates criteria for any presidential candidate in an election, and wields decisive influence over American foreign policy.

Moreover, Israel has been frequently caught in acts of extreme espionage against its so called ‘ally’ the United States:

Scratch a counterintelligence officer in the U.S. government and they’ll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States. This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S..

The fact of Israeli penetration into the country is not a subject oft-discussed in the media or in the circles of governance, due to the extreme sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship coupled with the burden of the Israel lobby, which punishes legislators who dare to criticize the Jewish state.

As far as I am aware there have been no calls by the entire media to label Israel a major threat to America democracy that ‘must be defended against’, or to punish Israel and its spies, so presumably the likes of the New York Times don’t see it as such…….. for some mysterious reason.

How Jewish power has distorted government policy, policing and social media, Gilad Atzmon

If you wanted a clear example of what’s really going on over at Twitter, and how these unacceptable purges are not constrained to ‘Nazis’, but any opponents of Jewish power and narcissism, you really you couldn’t find a better one than described by Gilad Atzmon, in his article: Twitter joined the Zionist Purge –An Interview with Jo Stowell:

“A Zionist purge is taking place on twitter. The British ultra Zionist Community Security Trust (CST) reported recently that it has been “collaborating” with the social network platform for sometime to stop the so-called ‘antisemites.’ I guess that the freedom to express your thoughts about Israel or Jewish politics is now officially restricted on Twitter. Is this going to make Israeli politics or Jewish lobbying more popular amongst those with a critical eye on politics? I really doubt it.

Every day I learn about more friends who happen to find out about their Twitter accounts being terminated for criticising Israel. The latest one, in an ever growing list of activists, is Jo Stowell, Jo is a genius photographer, a staunch opponent of the Jewish lobby as well as a master Twitterati and a supporter of the right for free speech. I spoke with Jo this morning

GA: I do realise that a score of anti Zionists have been kicked out of Twitter in recent days, can you brief us about it?

JS: Your are correct. I believe that freedom of speech in the UK is basically an illusion. UK citizens have been indoctrinated since birth to think and behave according to a historical political narrative. Anyone deviating from this “accepted” narrative is always labeled a radical, a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, a member of the far left, or far right, a Marxist, a communist, an antisemite, an islamophobe, lunatic, etc. etc.

People seem to have a visceral, as opposed to a cogent, reaction to the question of why Zionist Israelis are the only people on the planet allowed to be nationalist? In fact, you’re not even allowed to question anything about Zionist Israeli politics and power in the UK. The reaction of Twitter to me is clearly proof of that.

Anyone challenging and questioning the perceived “established order” of things is banned from Twitter and, in some cases, arrested, harassed, bullied and subject to intensive abuse (including physical threats of harm). From my perspective, the UK police are powerless to act against this abuse and in some regards are complicit in the inertia.

GA: Can you tell us about the emerging collaboration between the ultra Zionist Community Security Trust (CST) and Twitter?

JS: I first noticed the collaboration between CST and Twitter when anonymous vicious “trolls” targeted my tweets by tagging in CST along with Barnet police and/or Metropolitan Police forces. Subsequently, at approximately 1am, I was called by a policeman from Barnet Police Station (which by the way is the head quarters for CST ) who insisted on persistently calling me an antisemite. I was shocked by this action from what I was told was an “officer of the law”. Futhermore, if this was an officially sanctioned intervention, why was my local police force (Avon and Somerset) not the harbinger of such devastating accusations. The officer was dismissive, abusive and unprofessional with me and put the phone down on me when I tried to explain the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Clearly, not someone who was impartial and seeking to find out the facts.

A few days later, however, I was visited by my local police force who said there had been a complaint made against me by the CST. The CST claimed that I was inciting hatred of all Jewish people because of my tweets. I asked how I could offend a ‘charity’ and the policeman couldn’t answer. I also asked for the name of a person that I could apologise to and discuss my thoughts about Zionism and Israeli politics. The policeman refused, stating that he had no actual names and that “his hands were tied.”

So I’ve now concluded, that any Zionist Israeli, or an individual with an affiliated religious belief, in the UK can go to CST claiming to be offended and CST will target, harass and abuse the perpetrator using a network of online trolls and the UK police to do it.

What is most disturbing is that these actions are being instigated by an anonymous organisation. Think about it, a UK government funded “charity”, whose only prerogative is to stifle debate about the action of a certain state and those that affiliate themselves with it, has the power to shut people up in the UK. “

Read the entire article…

9/11 and White Nationalism


Although it rarely gets mentioned, I always felt 9/11 played a significant role in laying the foundations for the white interest politics we see today. Now taken for granted as part of the historical backdrop, 9/11 and the wars that followed opened the door to a vast new world of conspiracy, huge skepticism of government and a focus on which groups were aggressively shaping US Middle East policy.

While there are a lot of younger people involved in white identity activism now – who frankly may have been too young to be affected by 9/11, the effects of the tragedy, coinciding with the growth of the internet laid a framework that was far more friendly to WN ideas than had existed previously.

It should be said that the problems of race, identity, immigration and diversity are extremely real and burgeoning in their own right and tackling them is a necessity, but I do believe 9/11, particularly the swirling world of alternative theories about the event were necessary components in fertilizing the soil in that direction.

And it’s not hard to see why. 9/11 was an atrocity that broke a lot of presumptions, most pressingly for Americans, who had never suffered this scale of attack on their mainland, indeed it was the worst terrorist atrocity in world history. There was a sense -rightly or wrongly- that America had become really quite insulated from the consequences of its own foreign policy up until that point. Moreover, there was a sense that the American public had become really quite disconnected from the forces in charge of them. Those feelings were only enhanced by the military responses to 9/11 and US domestic policy changes following the attack.

For the rest of the world, 9/11 shook politics in malignant but predictable ways, giving European governments an easy excuse to crackdown on their own white populations in the form of ‘anti-terror’ legislation and hastening technological surveillance -both enabled by the misery of diversity and multiculturalism, i.e: no diversity = no need to worry about Jihadists.

It also gave opportunity for politicians like Tony Blair to eagerly jump on to the world stage in an interventionist ‘War on Terror’ with the United States, based on completely fake news promulgated by the establishment media, although even there, it was just too extraordinary to pass off without any objection.

For everyone else, wherever they were on the political spectrum, conspiracy-minded or not, especially if they weren’t well versed in politics up to that point, 9/11 was like a ball of unwinding cotton. The more you kept pulling at the thread the more the unwound cotton would lead you into previously excluded and ‘dangerous’ ideas: explanations about everything that was wrong with the current global political system. Whether some of these explanations were sufficient or not, they were – for the first time in recent memory – manifestly present.

At the same time, questions about Israeli knowledge or even complicity in 9/11 started to shift focus away from terms like ‘globalists’ to Zionists through sites like

Related issues that were once taboo started to find a new and tentative, but curious audience, in particular the holocaust, although decried as a subject by many mainstream 9/11 Truthers, the mood was, ‘If we’ve been lied to about 9/11, what else have we been lied to about ?’

Meanwhile, a host of other activists energized by 9/11’s wars, led by American patriots -more counter-semitic than explicitly white nationalist, and accompanied by American Middle Eastern Christians and Muslims were becoming fierce and vocal critics of Jewish power. The Anti-Defamation League complaining about Israel-centric 9/11 theories, but really summarizing a wider emerging mood wrote in 2003:

The Big Lie has united American far-right extremists and white supremacists and elements within the Arab and Muslim world that are exchanging and repeating information, ideas and conspiracy theories.

[…]9/11 conspiracies have laid the foundation for the proliferation of similar conspiracy theories about other global disasters. […] Others blame Jews and Israelis for “pushing” the U.S. into war against Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, although I couldn’t find the specific quote I was looking for, the ADL have been highly critical of conspiracy theories in general, believing -correctly- that an atmosphere of conspiracy theories is not conducive to Jewish interests.

9/11 Truth felt like an extremely dangerous challenge to the establishment. You were essentially accusing the United States government of mass murder to launch wars in the Middle East, or even more dangerously, claiming that America was covering up for Israel’s involvement in 9/11 and that the Jews allegedly involved were part of a class too powerful and privileged to bring to justice.

And the more the establishment and lobbyists denounced 9/11 conspiracy theories, the more real and urgent the Truthers’ case seemed to them, the more determined they became to bring the corrupt establishment to justice for its crimes.

Needless to say, the current emphasis about ‘Red-pilling’ new people into race realism is highly reminiscent of 9/11 Truthers ‘waking people up’ to the questions around 9/11, although one would hope it ought to be far less controversial.

Whatever the truth about 9/11, and I suspect we may never know the entire truth, this became the first political red pill for many, and in doing so set the stage for further red pills to come.

Massive purge of right-wing activists on Twitter

Seems there’s been a huge purge of right wing commentators and activists on Twitter. The Washington Times reports:

Twitter suspended several prominent accounts associated with the alt-right movement Wednesday, spurring claims that the company has begun a coordinated crackdown against social media users of a similar ilk.

Among the accounts suspended by Twitter this week are those of author Richard Spencer, his digital magazine Radix Journal and the National Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank he founded in dedication to “the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Especially concerning is that the purge seems to have been urged by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The Southern Poverty Law Center had asked Twitter to remove more than 100 accounts of white supremacists alleged to have violated Twitter’s terms of service prior to this week’s suspensions, specifically including Mr. Spencer’s, SPLC spokeswoman Heidi Beirich, told USA Today.

The SPLC styles itself as a ‘civil rights’ group, while it is in fact essentially a pressure group promoting Jewish ethnic interests, dedicated to attacking right wing and even quite moderate conservative voices, frankly any voices that don’t suit a preferred Jewish narrative.

Interestingly, unlike the ADL, one of the most powerful Jewish lobbying organizations in America, the SPLC do not seem to appear on Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, a body of organizations that Twitter consult with. Some of these organizations are completely reasonable, including groups seeking to prevent child bullying and so on, but others are far more partisan and sinister.

Since the election result there has been considerable alarm within the establishment media, with efforts to blame insubstantial factors such as ‘fake news’ on Facebook for Trump’s win. Although I assume that’s a Jewish/establishment dog whistle which actually means whites/The Right being ‘overly’ prominent and indeed successful on social media.

Based on his previous actions, it seems a reasonable guess that Twitter’s SJW CEO Jack Dorsey sought to make a public demonstration of his commitment to diversity and online ‘safe spaces’ by simply caving in to the demands of the SPLC, and hoping to accrue a few more pro-diversity-approval points in doing so.

It’s a bad development but not a surprising one. The left’s most powerful weapon has always been in silencing its critics, claiming to do so as a moral necessity, either by insidiously constricting the bounds of discourse, or if that fails, outright bans, ‘no platforming‘, fines and in many European countries even imprisonment.

Twitter has clearly been a hugely important tool for the Right over the course of the election campaign, and these bans should be challenged by those affected, but it may also be that nationalists and identitarians now have to have new options ready.

I think it’s important to understand though it’s not just going to end with Richard Spencer and a few high profile altRightists and trolls. This is a war against white people being able to speak up for white interests.

In the future expect to see more measured conservatives, even cuckservatives as well as even left-oriented whites become suspended if they make a comment at odds with the worldview of a Jew, black, SJW, or diverse sexuality/gendered type on these platforms.

An emerging alternative to Twitter is

Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit

Dr Andrew Joyce/Occidental Observer: Quite apart from any ‘conspiracy theory,’ the facts about the legal challenge to Brexit are as follows:

The legal bid appears to have been initiated by Alex Chesterman, a Jewish businessman.

The bid was delegated to the law firm Mischon de Reya, founded by a Jewish lawyer, and that has retained a strong synthesis between its work and that of Jewish interests.

The legal bid has been led by a Jewish lawyer, David Pannick, QC.

In an effort to obscure the staffing and clientele behind the bid, David Pannick approached the Royal Courts of Justice to obtain masking measures for the bid.

This measure was granted by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, also Jewish.

Finally, the legal bid was accepted by three judges at the High Court, two of whom, Terence Etherton and Philip Sales, are Jewish.

Read entire article…