“We are not afraid” people are just afraid of being called racist

After the latest enriching diversity-violence in London, an old meme quickly reemerged from the cobweb-covered wardrobe of white pathology and UK government propaganda.

‘We are not afraid’ first appeared immediately after the 7/7 bombings in London 2005, attributed to some pleb, but was rapidly adopted as a central piece of government and media propaganda under the Blair government.

You know, sometimes it’s just not appropriate to say you’re ‘not afraid’.

That statement implies you are afraid. Afraid of dealing with the real cause of the problem. You’re afraid of having to confront reality. You’re afraid of all of the accumulated lies you’ve absorbed and consented to spilling out over the floor, and how that will make you look. How are you going to explain them ? How are you going to explain to people in your life that you’ve actually been trying to harm them with these lies ?

You’re deeply afraid of being made a social pariah, of being called a racist. And you would rather people die and get maimed than be called a racist.

You are afraid. You are pathetic.

Terrorism is easy to be brave and stoic with, it’s ‘abstract’, ‘out there somewhere’ and the actual day-to-day risks of death from terrorism are still remote, albeit significantly increased by the presence of non-white populations.

Being brave and defiant towards the idea of a kind of abstract violence that you will probably never have to confront, claiming you will ‘not let it divide us’ allows you to signal your compliance to power, to demonstrate you are a ‘good person’, bypassing the actual reason it happened at all.

It must feel great to be a useful idiot –reinforcing the narrative and taboo of diversity, thereby ensuring more people are victims of terrorism.

The right advice to Londoners, and people in the UK generally is do be afraid.

And if you’re not afraid of getting run over by some worthless hate-filled negro, with a history of racially-motivated serious assault who wants his worthless life to mean something in the eyes of other negroes, and who believed in his worthless shit-brain that Islam makes his hatred righteous, be afraid of acid being thrown in your face, of rape, of remorseless violence. Be afraid of your daughters being dragged into a Pakistani pedophile ring, and the authorities being too afraid of being called racist to do anything – my God they could really have done with the ‘We are not afraid’ meme.

Also be afraid of what your government will do to clamp down on your rights after every new terrorist act, introducing new laws about hate speech, incitement, and pushing for more internet snooping as they will always do – their real target being whites. It’s all part of the enriching effect of diversity.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Black responsible for London attack: Race>Citizenship

So it turns out the London ‘terrorist’, Khalid Masood – born Adrian Elms from Kent, was actually a rather typical violent, maladjusted negro with mixed parents, completely at odds with the very white environment it grew up in, and sought outlets for its own biological tendency towards extreme violence. Islam, which it picked up in prison, provided this creature with a new kind of legitimacy for its own tendencies.

This was a very typical black, who’s unwelcome presence predictably managed to harm a rural community in the UK where it was born, thanks to its race-mixing selfish stupid cunt-whore white mother:

Adrian Elms was born on Christmas Day 1964, in the Dartford area of Kent, to a white British mother and a black father, who were not married. Twenty years later they moved to Tunbridge Wells where they set up home with his stepfather and two half-brothers.

where it notched up a string of convictions for serious violent offenses, which it claims it was driven to, because of ‘muh racism’.

So we come full circle. Islam is a problem, and it has no place in European countries, but blacks are violent anyway, including blacks with white blood, and anything that gives them a further sense of purpose and legitimacy to their violence is only going to escalate their violence. The appalling savagery of this non-human entity predates its involvement in Islam, and it just happened to be, that its final piece of violence was more spectacular and lethal than its previous ones.

We also need to remind ourselves just what a monstrosity race-mixing is, how harmful it is, and how we really need to move to a world where it incurs serious penalties.

I keep reading in the media how Masood/Elms was ‘British born’, but of course all that proves is that nations based on citizenship mean absolutely nothing as the pull of ethnicity and biology is far stronger, and that European nations have to re-establish themselves as ethnically-based, as opposed to ‘values based’ to be meaningful at all, and if they actually want these appalling atrocities to end.

Diversity caused terror in London

What a surprise! Diversity continues to enrich London. This endless supply of new cultural treats is just amazing.

NYT:LONDON — A British-born man who was once investigated for connections to violent extremism carried out the deadly attack outside Parliament in London on Wednesday, according to Prime Minister Theresa May.

London is of course one of the global flagship hubs of racial diversity and ‘tolerance’. Just like other European cities where these policies are pursued, this latest attack is the direct result.

The above video about this latest diversity terrorism by Paul Joseph Watson starts out quite well, but then strays into the ‘Islam needs to reform’ as the answer.

It’s not that Islam needs to reform (which it can’t -reform requires a certain average IQ), it’s that the racial demographic Islam spans needs to be evicted from the lives of white people. Islam should just be thought of as an extension of the race and ethnicity of violent primitive groups who have adopted it, sanctifying all their own backwardism and hatred and violence.

Islam legitimizes their savagery, organizes it, and somewhat shapes it, but they wouldn’t be that different without it.

Oddly enough, it’s probably had a use in keeping those violent primitive groups in check in their own countries, but when you start to bring those groups into European countries the results are a disaster.

Sorry Paul, but a staunch ‘Western chauvinism’ isn’t going to work, because ‘Western values’ are simply White Values, and some of these attackers are quite happy to eat MacDonalds, take drugs, watch sports, play video games and indulge in all kinds of Western crap, when they aren’t raping white children or running people over in trucks.

Watson does highlight well the absolute disaster of the Left’s position, which is basically “it’s ok for people to be killed to prove how tolerant and open minded we are in our response.”

Being killed or injured by some alien enemy who hates you doesn’t matter. What matters for the Left is maintaining the moral high ground and a glowing aura of piety and tolerance and signaling their ‘open-mindedness’. And this is why the Left is finished. It’s totally intellectually bankrupt and is should be seen for what it is: as the number one enabler of these atrocities. It’s really that simple.

Note that the Left doesn’t even seem to talk anymore about the West’s meddling and war mongering in Muslim countries as a factor in international terrorism. At least there is a component of reality in that, but that ‘high’ has long ago worn off for them and the current conflicts in the Middle East remain too abstract and messy for them to easily identify with as a moral weapon. Now it’s all just down to their own self-hatred, or hatred of us.

Trump must drain the diversity swamp to get policies through

So once again, the price of diversity for a country, even higher IQ diversity, is shown to be extremely high. Two diversity judges: Derrick K Watson, who despite his English name, is a native Hawaiian, and then Theodore D. Chuang have interfered with Trump’s watered-down plan to block Muslims from some countries.

NYT: A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a stinging blow to the White House and signaling that Mr. Trump will have to account in court for his heated rhetoric about Islam.

A second federal judge in Maryland ruled against Mr. Trump overnight, with a separate order forbidding the core provision of the travel ban from going into effect.

I don’t exactly understand how this works, so forgive me if it’s muddled, but reading the NYT it seems a lawsuit was brought about by Hawaiian attorney general Doug Chin (Chinese) in regards to “an individual plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii” (who it was believed) ” had reasonable grounds to challenge the order as religious discrimination”.

So you have a Chinese attorney general in Hawaii, a native Hawaiian judge appointed by a black president, a Chinese judge in Maryland and a Muslim plaintiff. Then you have a Jewish New York Times declaring it a great triumph of morality.

The only good thing I can see about this is it really does illustrate that diversity will tend to coagulate into an anti-white goo to serve its own interests and will pursue those interests through the machinery of state. Diversity, in positions of authority will try to sabotage even implicitly white policy interests.

It’s just not possible for whites to feel good, virtuous and altruistic towards other groups, share what they have with them and be in control of their own destinies.

Whites have to pick one or the other.

It also underlines some of the limitations of civic nationalism, in that totally sane and justifiable policies which appear to discriminate against certain groups will be obstructed simply on the basis of them being discriminatory:

Judge Watson flatly rejected the government’s argument that a court would have to investigate Mr. Trump’s “veiled psyche” to deduce religious animus. He quoted extensively from the remarks by Mr. Trump that were cited in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin.

“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release,” Judge Watson wrote, quoting a Trump campaign document titled “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

I’m not sure what Trump can do to straighten things out, but to fulfill the policies he was voted in on, he really needs more powers. He needs to find a way of melting the coagulated goo of diversity interests out of the machinery of state. And that’s going to be very hard. It’s also hard within the confines of the kind of civic nationalism Trump represents, which while thankfully pushing ideas and values of interests to whites, avoids identifying them as white values.

Trump has come to power with a serious appeal to the American white vote, but non-whites are obstructing his manifesto. He’s finding the swamp needs draining even more that he first thought.

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.

George Lincoln Rockwell

George Lincoln Rockwell

March 9th marked the birthday of George Lincoln Rockwell, and there’s been quite a lot of articles and coverage on him going around. I do think Rockwell was a great and good man, and his assassination an immense tragedy and injustice.

Listening to some of the commentary in this podcast between Matthew Heimbach and Sven Longshanks one can sense the great admiration still held towards Rockwell.

One of the topics discussed was Rockwell’s interactions with black groups. I do think the Right has a tendency with blacks to credit their leadership with more moral agency than they really have.

When we see black goals coincide with our own, we like to say ‘well it’s good if blacks follow their own racial destiny’. Sure it’s fine to say that as a political device, or even to believe as a principle of nationalism, but the problem I have with this, is I don’t accept blacks are really capable of engineering any sort of independent destiny for themselves, especially in America, Europe or any other historically white country.

Blacks will always have a predisposition to disorder and violence, and even on the Right we tend to mistake black rhetorical slickness for black intelligent purpose, and we misinterpret blacks expressing political goals for black ability to maintain those goals over time.

Also, for negroes to be truly free of the white man, would mean them relinquishing the entire support network that provides them with anything at all, including life itself. Without whites, blacks really don’t have anything.

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.

Updates

While I’ve been reading and listening to Rightist material, and picking up what major stories I can, I haven’t been able to focus on writing adequately the last couple of weeks, despite the fact there’s a lot I want to say.

Hoping to correct that now.