Category: Free Speech
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 06:15 AM
Within the disorder of modernity, where puerile females are so one-up and so pandered-to, where their base proclivity to incite genetic competitition is in runaway, uncorrected by the homeostatic control of social group boundaries, it is more than dubious to add another exponent to their poison cynicism.
Andy well articulates a view on the cuckold meme in line with my view thus.
That is, I am not going to jump on that bandwagon. It sucks. It is a meme not without some merit, but largely for a-holes by a-holes too cowardly and self centered to see the radical point. The best angle is not for a-hole males, the kind that screw others, including their own people, when they do not have to, to incite other a-hole males, the ones who let others screw their people all too easily, when they do not have to.
Both of these types represent something outside of authentic European masculinity, its optimal level of sublimation and qualtative expression.
Because it is didcactic incitement, it is prone to play into the hands of our enemies as another way to merely blame White men, to perpetuate and take the heat off of our adversaries - our adversaries who know that these marginal men are interfaced with boundary maintenance and are, therefore, to be disempowered, humiliated, their conservative instinct to be disrupted, to remove their correcive function and doubly punish them despite the fact that they are most likely to be victims rather than responsible party victimizers; but who cares? The true culprits have diverted attention from themselves and will be immune to this additional poisoning of our boundry demarcating marginal peoples - with the more forethinking men incited into oblivion, and the narrow alpha male a-holes left standing, this will play into the hands of those who would Africanize our population, have us more stupid, kindred to blacks and mulattoes, more easily controlled.
No, the far more advisable, more valid critique, one which would in fact entail easier and more reasonable compliance ought to be criticism directed at peurile femalenss, a puerile femaleness that is all too used to being panderd to. They ought to be incited to be more decent, cooperative and fair - in a word, to be worthy of being defended as our co-evolutionary women, mature women, if not ladies.
Until such time, these puerile bitches deserve incitement - Mulatto supremacist BJ machines - whatever you might like to call them, let those who do not deserve that label object and let the ones who do deserve that label try to defend themselves.
It is a puerile femalness that is mean beyond belief in its self righteousness; indeed, in its privilege it is getting away with murder, torture, the destruction of the profoundest evolution for the most idiotic reasons, out of ignorant spite, a puerile femalenss whose acts, while on par with rape, are normalized and institutionalized by the right-wing in foolhearty, naive or disingenuous complicty with Jews, as “natural” acts, or even heroic defiance of the “backward” - which, in incitement, we are supposed to adjust to, as the way it is in “universal maturity.”
We all know that puerile females can never do anything wrong.
Scientists and Jews say so.
It is for White men to adust to their infinite wisdom.
If men drag their feet, are unwilling to participate in the paradigm that Jews have outlined, then they are “cuckservatives.”
It is another Jewish meme to blame White men, if there ever was one.
Sure, we should adjust to the predilections of puerile females, as pandered to by Jews, Muslims et al, in the cataclysmic destruction of European peoples and our co-evolution.
We should act into the loop, a Jewish loop, engage in such didactic incitement. Rather obviously, we should not. It is far better that the puerile females of Western nations be subject to incitement, to become mature, decent, responsible women. For those who know American females, as they are, and as it stands, know that typically they are egomaniacs.
Worse, they’re typically the vilest tyrants - manifest through ceaseless pandering of Jews to their one-up position in partner selection. This has put an exponent by their worst inclinations - incitement to genetic competition and appeal of the brute, episodic view of masculinity, a hyper-assertive, unsublimated masculinity more characterisic of blacks and mulattoes.
And we all know what a wonderful way of life that they create. So wonderful, that we should emultate them on penalty of being called a “cuckservative.”
Nice try Mr. Jew.
You won’t find me buying into this Jewish meme of “cuckservative.”
You might, however, hear me chiding these puerile female tyrants that you’ve had integral part in creating as “mulatto supremacist B - J machines.” (I would like to use the full-out word, but I guess you get the drift).
Incitement of White males at this point is more characterisitc of right wing pefidy. To think, they accuse the left of being against nature. But what do they know about White nature? They’re so objective, displaying transcendent, univesal masculine strength - they don’t even need anybody else, just their own individual Herculean strength. What it really is, of course, is their own gang of Jewish marshalled punks, piling-on anyone unfortunate enough to be in a vulnerable position, to need their people, their race, to show off in contrast to them for unworthy females and “the objective measurer.”
But I do get it when it comes to conservatives and the need to drive a wedge against their Jewish designated “conservatism”, which is not conservatism at all, but the propensity to conserve liberalism, to conserve the destruction of Whites. That wedge criticism IS central to our program here at MR.
I just don’t trust the cuckservative meme. It’s based in a universalist liberal perspecive. It’s an incitement generally biased in the wrong direction, piling on White men who’ve been incited ad infinitum; and as a meme, being slowly nudged beyond reach of normal men; into toxicity for those who would otherwise be best positioned to see the sense of our cause, to swell and empower our ranks. It’s playing into Jewish, liberal and puerile hands, deflecting from their responsibility.
I recently heard that Angelo John Ganucci had been banned from the campus of Boston University.
Well, that’s nothing.
I was banned form campus of The University of Massachusetts at Amerhest no less than four times. I must admit that I got a certain satisfaction in manifesting activism from the other side.
I would walk around campus with a shirt that read:
“Big Mulatto Bro is watching, foil HER Mulatto supremacist dream!”
And sometimes with a shirt which read:
“We have a consensus, black women are ugly!”
That came in handy when encountering interracial couples - because the female was ALWAYS the White one.
I could simply walk in front of them. This was extremely awkward for them and extremely hard for them to respond to.
The black woman, who was being insulted, was not there, the black male was being called-out on the fact that he viewed his own co-evolutionary females as inferior, and the White female, who pretends to be the sensitive social justice warrior, is shown to be the thoughtless pig that she is, e.g., having little or no concern for black women, whose men she is taking away.
Because walking in front of them so that they could read the shirt didn’t involve aggressive and loud verbal confrontation, this did not arouse enough attention from third parties to provide one of the occasions that got me thrown off campus. But it did get a potent message across. It was one of the better strategies that I experimented with.
As I have said in other places, “mulatto supremacism” is a confusing, difficult and all too accurate charge for our enemies to handle; that is why I was prevented from posting an article about it on Wikipedia.
It is difficult for them because it does not confronts Jews, blacks, or miscegenators directly, while it calls dramatic, critical attention to the egregious upshot of PC politics.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 08:53 AM
...Are Nothing New - Alain DeBenoist
Translated from the French by Tom Sunic
A: The new law allows the installation of “black boxes” on internet networks and servers which operate with the technologies of “deep packet inspection” and which enable the monitoring of private conversations on the internet, as well as the interception and scanning of all communications the goal of which is to detect, by means of secretly kept algorithms, all “suspicious” words and every “unusual” behavior. This law also allows, without any need to seek court approval, the wiring up of homes, computer hacking in order to siphon off their contents, the use of portable “IMSI-catchers” (false antenna relays intercepting telephone calls in a specific perimeter), the “key loggers” (software for reading in real time what a person types on his keyboard), vehicle tagging, geolocation of people and objects, etc.
The “black boxes” also allow the analyses of all the “metadata “, that is to say, to keep track of all traces left behind by a person using the phone or the internet. Any data value, being proportional to the square of the data number to which it is connected, the growing collection of the “metadata” thus enables not only how to predict the behavior of a group of individuals with their specific characteristics, but also to prod into every aspect of citizens’ lives: their relationship, their mail, their social networking habits, their banking transactions, their travels, purchases, subscriptions, lifestyle, age, political views, etc.
Hence, this is no longer a matter of targeting someone; rather, it means crisscrossing the entire landscape. Despite the soothing assurances by the authorities, what we are witnessing is a massive surveillance of citizens, even though, the vast majority of them cannot be suspected of being linked with any offense. The emergency rule becomes the rule. Private life no longer exist and civil liberties are under threat of the law which set itself the objective to find out whether each of us knows people who know some people, who know some other people who are not “clean .” As the “republican” tradition demands we are now back at the Law of Suspects of 1793. With good reason citizens keep complaining about not being heard. Well, short of not being heard, they are now being listened to.
Q: We’ve known for a long time that citizens are always ready to give up freedom in exchange for a semblance of security. Hence the birth of the US Patriot Act. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, in fact, uses the same argument: “it is the fight against terrorism.” Last year, Benoît Hamon, added to it: “if you have nothing to hide there is no problem with being listened to.”
A: A historical reminder. On December 8, 1893, in order to avenge Ravachol [a “bomb-throwing anarchist”], who had been guillotined the previous year, the anarchist Auguste Vaillant detonated a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies, causing no casualties. A few days later, the deputies passed the anti-terrorism laws, soon to be known as the “villainous laws” (“lois scélérates”) “stipulating the suppression of the freedom of the press and prohibiting any anarchist gathering, even if held at a private place. The banker and the future French President Casimir Perier stated on that occasion that “freedom of speech does not apply to the enemies of civilization.” Sounds familiar? “Terrorism,” “civilization”, restriction of freedom, all of this can be found there. The “fight against terrorism” is only a pretext — albeit a very old one). None of the measures that were taken pursuant to these new laws would have prevented the attacks from occurring over the recent months. By the way, one does not need to set out a trawl to catch a handful of sardines.
As to those who say it does not bother them because “they have nothing to hide”, they certainly deserve the “GPNC” (the Grand Prize of Citizens Naivety). These are the same idiots who watch televised games or who purchase lottery scratch cards at the tobacco store hoping to strike it rich. When uttering these words they give up, of their own volition, their freedom, without realizing that the reasons stipulated by this law (from “collective violence prevention” to that of “the reconstruction or maintenance of banned groups”) are extremely vague. Hence, under given circumstances these legal provisions can enable to place under police surveillance any joint action aimed at changing political, social and economic structure of the country, every social protest movement, all those having dissenting views, or those who took the liberty of challenging, one way or another, the established order, be they the Sivensdemonstrators, or the Notre-Dame-des-Landes protesters, or those taking part in the “Demonstration for All” (“Manif pour tous “).
Q: Our rulers are eager to listen to everyone; yet it is themselves who are also being listened to, particularly by the Americans. How should have the Presidential palace reacted to the recent revelations made by Julian Assange about it?
A: President François Hollande could have demanded that Washington immediately recall Jane D. Hartley, the US Ambassador to France. He could have granted asylum to Julian Assange and even to Edward Snowden. He could have announced that France would withdraw from all talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). He did nothing. He is the vassal of the USA on which he depends now in order to conduct operations in which the French Armed Forces are engaged. Ever since it joined NATO again, having lost all of it independence, France stripped itself of any autonomous decision-making.
Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.
Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.
Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.
It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.
A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.
To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.
People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.
Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.
That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:36 PM
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 02:12 AM
This clip (courtesy of Stan Hess) emerges most pertinent in light of Jewish crypsis; along with their twisting and corruption of terms by which we might otherwise organize and understand our people’s interests - as opposed to Jewish influence:
This is a crucial distinction to hold-up against the games they will continue to play with our terminology - and an example of those manichean language games comes with the latest Stark broadcast: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1319
With Jewish “Haywire”
Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live ...by infiltrating our interests.
These two try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”...with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook - an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language - that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption - especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” - i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”...Haywire says, “we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT.”...er, Mulatto Supremacism
“The Left is the establishment”...Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..
“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried..
...I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” - read, Mulatto Cyborg...
Haywire continues: “I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
On to the matter of looking at us:
Where Lies Don’t Try to Live by crypsis, controlling the narrative, twisting our organizational language games, by infiltrating and misdirecting interests, they might just as well be served by provoking misdirection of our own, to where we are fighting our own. Rather than fighting non-Whites, in a manner perhaps such as this:
As opposed to other right-wingers with whom he may associate and even endorse, just why Ransdell is unoffensive by comparison is beginning to crystallize..
First, contrasting his Rockwell influence..
Rockwell frequently talked about the black issue and the black plague of race-mixing without fretting the rigid paranoia that this was “distracting from the J.Q.”
And who was Malcolm The Tenth anyway? - he would be introduced to American audiences by The Hate that Hating Whites Produced - narrated by Mike Wallace, it was a seminal Jewish documentary instigating blacks to riot and violence against Whites.
An artist / pr man is better suited for a view and treatment of Praxis - negotiating the fluid, reflexive, social interactive world with practical judgement as opposed to rigid scientific instrumentation; and laws - “Our purpose is the Creator’s purpose” ?
Of course “our purpose” should be serving the interests of our race. I’m sure Pierce would have believed that, but he may have wanted to base it more absolutely on scientific law than it could be.
Scientists are indispensable of course, for supplying rigorous information on specifics and broad generalities beyond casual purview, providing critical tools for rhetorical support for what is in fact the appropriate, “human-sized” (scaled) social perspective by which the social artist may dramatize and complete a vision.
But as one might say of Renegade and Daily Stormer, it is not enough to be an artist, one must be a good artist, reflecting good judgment - not always the case in WN.
Typically of the right, Andrew Anglin was one to range from being soft on blacks to showing outright affinity for them until he calculated that normal White men don’t like blacks and despise miscegenation. But this was only a calculation by Anglin, not the feeling the comes from trustworthy interest and concern for Europeans broadly, judging from important difference.
While we need some posture and people who display the power of not being perturbed by these matters, to where they can easily mock them, I will speak for myself, confident that other White men also despise people who try to sell the attitude of studied detachment as the one for our race in general - soft-selling blacks and race-mixing, saying that talking about these issues is a waste of time or a distraction from
If the word “monocausal” regarding the JQ is going to provoke a paranoid response then how about, irresponsibly “single-issued” and correspondingly inauthentic by way of an irresponsibly narrow platform of response. “With Jews we lose” isn’t the same as saying “only Uncle Adolf and nobody should be critical of him; he’s perfect, didn’t do nothin” or “Only NW Europeans, all others be subordinate, be damned and go to Africa.”
Even if he was done-in by a Greek and it bespeaks a little less social aplomb than I may see in him, one nevertheless gets a sense of general goodwill from Rockwell toward his fellow Europeans - I get a sense that his initial inclination toward all of them was friendly, whereas Pierce was rigid.
Coming from Rockwell’s context, even the swastika isn’t offensive. One gets an underlying sense of irony, humor, playfulness of his social artistry and theatrics - that the swastika is not the literal issue, underneath that is the real issue - defense of European peoples. Rockwell almost certainly could have been persuaded that Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans were European as well, satisfied by an agreement to maintain distinctions where one could potentially mix away the other to its demise.
On the other hand, even though HE DID NOT wave the swastika around, one gets the sense from Pierce that that was literally the thing.
In the influence of Rockwell as opposed to Pierce, we have a clue as to why Ransdell bespeaks practical judgment (phronesis) and good will to all concerned Whites, while those beholden to Pierce’s worldview cling rigidly to Hitler’s conflicted, quarter Jew perspective, determined singularly to defend his mother against Jewish assault, with little, or only condescending empathy for Europeans beyond Germanics.
Perhaps I’m being a bit naiive about Rockwell. He was probably a bit rigid too, just not as much as Pierce. The fact that Rockwell was killed by a Greek does say something (perhaps a bit too willing to throw other Europeans under the hate bus?, I don’t know the situation well enough to say).
Perhaps Ransdell will turn out to be one, like Kyle Hunt, who cares and sympathizes only for Hitler’s view and issues in the end.
Still, one can’t help but see better prospects in reasoning with the Rockwell / Ransdell trajectory than the Pierce / Hunt trajectory. For the latter, it is apparently about redeeming Nazi Germany and its scientistic “naturalism”. For the former it is apparently more about our race.
We do hate race-mixing
It’s hard to take Rockwell’s antics too seriously. These were largely publicity stunts; the map was not the territory; it is evident that he could see more than one side. “You want integration? OK, lets have integration!” He proceeds to have his Nazi-clad men make themselves comfortable in a synagogue (LOL). On the other hand, one does not get a sense of humor, irony and underlying good will from Pierce. That is not to say that Rockwell was not seriously committed to some mistaken ideas, but one got a sense of a character more amenable to negotiative correction for having a better feel of Praxis.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 04:46 AM
Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.
The two aphorisms can go well together:
Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.
The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.”
That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.
Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).
Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.
You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?
This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:
To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.
Anti-Racism is Genocide of Whites
...that’s a good one too.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, February 6, 2015 at 01:27 AM
In response to Jewish troll JamesUK on February 05, 2015
Wikipedia is censored to protect Jewish interests.
Proof of their influence on Wikipedia is to be found in videos which reveal Israeli boiler rooms - groups of people put up to spin wiki articles in a jewish way.
I heard of Jewish commentators on YouTube like to Israel but not Wikipedia.
Where are the videos?
In defense of Edgar Steele’s position in, “In defense of anti-Semitism” (excerpted at the bottom of the post), I said:
The i.q. factor has been adjusted for, to show that Jews are vastly overrepresented due to nepotism and other corrupt means.
JamesUK said in response:
I seriously doubt that seeing how the same pattern can be seen in other countries where they have less influence in state positions like in Russia.
But of necessity, I will offer this perfunctory summation: After factors of i.q. are taken into account, matters of Jewish nepotism, hyper-ethnocentrism, incommensurate ways of life and moral standards which do disservice to European interests and ways, Jewish coercion, bullying, bribery, brainwashing all have to be taken into account for what they should not be able to do at any rate - head European nations and peoples (which includes Russians), irrespective of the high i.q. of some Jews.
Regarding Duke and Black, we are not here to defend them, they can defend them- selves. We are here to defend Whites and White patterns that need defending.
They are the most high profile leaders of the WN movement in the US so they are the political representation of what WN believe in the US.
Other WN’s include Pierce and associates who are a mix of terrorists, mass shooters, a would be wife killer and a paedophile.
They are not the only ones who care about European people and not comprehensively representative.
Steele was not a would-be wife killer. That was a set-up.
What motive was there for Steele to kill his wife for non-existent insurance money? On the other hand, if you listen to, or read, Steele’s, “In defense of anti semitism” (an excerpt from the text is provided below, though the link to the site where the audio and text were is no longer available - I wonder why?), there was plenty of motive for Jewish interests to silence Steele.
What a jew you are
WN aren’t “complaining” ab. immigration and jews, we’re noting blockage to our sovereignty, destruction of our well being, deliberately imposed threat to our survival.
You think we should have gone to Hungary?
It must have been a good thing to Not do.
Go to hell.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 07:07 PM
Susan Lindauer, peace activist, 9/11 activist, former CIA asset, and true American patriot, talks to DanielS and GW about power, politics and corruption, immigration, and the future of America and the West. You cannot fail to learn something new from an hour’s conservation with this remarkable woman..