Majorityrights Central > Category: War on Terror

Andrew Auernhemer a.k.a. “Weev”

Weev has been a figure associated with WN for several years now and at MR since at least 2010.

I had given him something of the benefit of the doubt as being on our side, since he was on friendly terms with MR prior to my coming here. Weev was well liked by Søren Renner, who, among other gestures of affinity, posted this sad video at Majorityrights, showing Weev explaining his side of the story around the time of his prosecution, just before going to jail for the ATT hack.

Only a few remarks about Weev stand out from what Søren told me, otherwise I had only a general feel of Weev’s place with regard to WN, based on the impromptu “briefing” that Søren gave me about him and then from what limited attention I paid to Weev after Søren departed MR.

Weev emerged from jail and posted photos of himself proudly showing-off his swastika emblazoned chest. I was disgusted with him for that and for his cooperation with The Daily Stormer. I was also disgusted with Søren for his appreciation of Angln’s approach at The Daily Stormer and I wanted to flush out what mutual position the three might occupy. I posted this picture here at MR, Weev with giant swastika tattoo on chest - - it did serve to get Søren to respond: Søren struck me as both hypersensitive in his response on the one hand and impervious on the other, given the fact that I was not exactly exposing anything heretofore a secret. If they think that this is such a sound approach then it seems to me that it could be easily defended by such I.Q. powerhouses. In fact, Søren departed MR and ended contact with me, suggesting that I was taking it too seriously (while maybe he was the one who was being too sensitive).

But anyway, coming back to the few remarks that Søren had made about Weev. Søren said that “Weev is a Jew’ but he’s OK.”

I didn’t carry much weight at MR at that time and didn’t feel it my prerogative to throw any around. I’d say that I went into a sort of denial about it, but really, with Weev in particular going to jail, he wasn’t going to be much harm to us no matter what or how he was.

I liked Søren, quirky, cartoon character sort of guy that he is, and excuses for this remark were swimming only semi-consciously in the back of my head. Maybe he didn’t mean to say that Weev is a literal Jew, but this was Søren’s way of saying that Weev s “a bit of an a-hole, but OK” - an a-hole who is on our side, if not our a-hole.

Or maybe Weev is only a little bit Jewish of his genetic background, but is really on our side. Even at the time I tended to be very skeptical that people who were any part Jewish could be on our side; but again, he was going to jail and therefore of no immanent threat.

Maybe he isn’t Jewish at all and Søren is just showing off his I.Q. snobbery; or that he will make an exception for a Jew if he is a Wittgenstein or a Weev inasmuch as their “genius” is useful for our side. I don’t think these types of Jews will act reliably in our interest, but in this situation, Søren’s predilection seemed good natured, funny and fairly harmless. Even though Søren could have some susceptibility to favor I.Q. over racial distinction, the importance of the distinction from Jews was fairly well buffered - it wasn’t going to easily float past me, anyway. GW thought Weev is a Jew, though I’m not sure how he came to that opinion.

At any rate, Søren’s participation at Majorityrights decreased during the time of Weev’s incarceration. I was a bit sour on him for his appreciation of The Daily Stormer angle but he was more than welcome by me to post and otherwise participate. I had been and have been busily trying to build up an alternative platform from the standard right-wing, “Hitler and Jesus are us, Jews are White like us too, and should be included if they want.”  I am serious about this platform not taking on that nonsense. So, when Søren suddenly reappeared with a few gratuitously disagreeable remarks and this silly post, I decided to make a post calling to account those popular WN figures - Duke, Anglin and Weev apparently looking to redeem Hitler.

As he hadn’t in years, Søren came on to Skype to chat with me, saying that I was too backward looking, that I was taking it too seriously and that I shouldn’t have brought Weev into it; then he removed me from his Skype contacts and that was the last I heard from him.

OK, before too long Weev re-emerges in the right-wing after coming out of jail, now with a Swastika on his chest and as a big hero of the The Daily Stormer et al., presumably. I didn’t pay much attention to him at The Daily Stormer since that tent of the alternative right-wing tentosphere is fairly circumscribed, buffered buffoonery. However, I started to catch wind of Weev making the rounds of the tentosphere.

With Weev at a safe distance now and making rounds on common subject matter, it was worth a listen to some of what he might have to say at this point. Since he is from Arkansas and has experienced blacks, it is quite reasonable to believe, in accordance with all indications, that Weev is sincere in his dislike of them - he has some sincere common interest with WN. Hell, if he is acting, he does a good job of it and of articulating grievances with Jews too.

But any man who causes the name of a website called “Gay Ni****s of America” to appear on the front page of the website of US presidential candidate (and US president to be) Barack Obama, cannot be all bad. lolllzzzzllllolllzzzzzz indeed.

  On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of US presidential candidate (and future US president) Barack Obama, where the group’s name was caused to appear on the website’s front page.

As another one coming to Dana Anthiochus’ leaky border between White and non-White interests, Weev came to talk with Dana on 25 September 2015 about computer technology, his concerned advice on race and state-of-the-art warfare.

I insisted that Kumiko have a listen with me, and render a critique, as these concerns bear upon her expertise. We developed an outline which I will post below. A Weev article has been long on the back-burner, but has become relevant now with Dennis Fetcho’s experience and criticism, if not exposure of Weev.

Though a right-winger himself, Dennis Fetcho has some interesting things to say.

He did a podcast of his own and one with Nick Spero recently to discuss Weev. Fetcho finds Weev’s covering stories risible - Weev being a Christian identitarian concerned with White interests and so on. “Christian Identiy?’, Fetcho says, “before he was a Mormon, he doesn’t know what he is.” But of the fact that that Weev is Jewish and that he was always on “the enemy side” Fetcho is confident. Weev apparently made Fetcho’s life hell, attacking and damaging his websites as he apparently would do any site that was “anti-Semitic.”

Fetcho maintains further, that Weev was not prosecuted by the U.S. Government singularly for hacking A.T.T. as he maintains, but because he was a nuisance who had done the same thing to many people, hacking and trolling them relentlessly as a part of a team that caused many innocent people significant problems.

Now we have Weev’s triumphant return to White Nationalism, with him presenting himself as a cult hero if not integral to their right-wing sites and aspirations. He is treated like a “hero” at The Daily Stormer and other alternative right sites for his recent print station hacking stunt - at least he claims it as his handiwork; Fetcho doesn’t believe that he acted alone to cause the printers at some American universities and some in China to print-out a poster with an anti-Jewish statement, and declaring world wide “White supremacism” with two large swastikas on each side of the text. Fetcho makes the point that this is barely newsworthy. I concur and did not run the story at MR and would not have if not for the implications of Weev’s detrimental involvement with WN.

           
    Weev, “I chose the swastika image because it is a symbol universally recognizable to all printers.”

What good does it do to create a “problem” of printing out anti-Semitic posters with Swastikas, proclaiming global White supremacism into print stations at the heavily Jewish American universities and in China?

It is perfect public relations - for the ADL.

Universities are not known for their skin head types, nor are book worms likely to be roused to enact global Nazism. The universities are replete rather with empowered Jewish folks, who can proclaim that they have a growing problem with anti-Semitism, need to clamp-down and need more assistance from the State.

This kind of vainglory printing-out in China works against projects like MR’s, to build regional alliance between Asia and Europe.

My reaction from the onset would suffice without any elaborate conspiracy. Our eminently noble cause of White sovereignty is only harmed by association with Nazism and “supremacism.” It will only harm Whites, set us against each other and turn-off normal Whites, needless to say how non-Whites would react.

No White advocates were talking in terms of “White supremacism” until Weev brought it back in his talk with Dana Antiochus.

No concerned White advocates subscribe to White supremacism because it is at odds with the separatism to which we aspire - attempting to dominate others is at odds with separatism. In trying to resurrect this concept of “White supremacism” Weev is attempting to brand us with a term as surely as he has branded himself with a corny tattoo as if to brand and represent us with it. He would libel us by associating our cause with the term that Jewish groups have been trying to smear White advocates with for decades - despite the fact that nobody, except for Weev now, promotes the term.

It does no good to Whites, but it does however, serve the interests of the ADL. It divides Whites, turns off normal Whites to our cause, creates the notion that Jews need more state protection on their side, etc.

Coming back to Dana Antiochus’ 25 Sep 2015 talk: Weev pushed the envelope of violence, declared world wide “White supremacism” the way forward and the intimidating idea that drone warfare would make the normal means of fighting for your people obsolete.

My initial impression that this was just a right-winger giving the right-wingers at Renegade what they want - a new Swastika tattoo, some Jew, Jew, Jew, unanimity with Uncle Adolf and you’re good to go.

With Fetcho’s intervention, however, Auernheimer looks more like a provocateur than the friendly rogue, Weev.

Andrew Auernheimer, a.k.a., “Weev”, the suspicious friend of The Daily Stormer and TRS, just so happens to be their Johnny on the spot when their sites have problems.

Fetcho claims that Weev does have some Jewish background, which we (GW and I, DanielS) have reason to suspect as well.

Fetcho maintains that the US government didn’t go after Weev for the singular hacking of ATT accounts incident as he claimed, but rather because he was hacking and harassing innocent people all over the place, including Fetcho relentlessly.

Fetcho renders plausible arguments against Weev’s “great hack” of the printer stations at several universities, and apparently in China as well. He asks first, whether he really did this this by himself? Then takes the premise to what follows by saying that this is not a newsworthy story on its face value (I agree, and had not run it at MR). It accomplishes little of positive value, but does create a “problem” for the Jewish laden universities that requires them to provide a “solution” of clamping down on hate speech. This is an attendant benefit to our enemies by associating WN with Nazism and “supremacism.”

And that is the large point that I believe Fetcho has got very right - there is a close approximation of Zero White advocates who have been claiming “White supremacism” and yet what Auernheimer has been doing re-vitalizes the Jewish smear line of “White supremacism” along with the Nazi association in order to discredit WN and turn people off.

Moreover, what sincere White Nationalist would hack Chinese printers to announce “global White supremacism” ? Most probably none.

But a Jewish sponsored troll, trying to prevent Chinese and White cooperation just might.

Who is served by associating “White Nationalism” with The Daily Stormer, Nazism and “Supremacism” ?  Jewish groups are served.

Here is the Nick Spero “Circus Maximus” show in which Weev is discussed in the third hour: The first two hours are Lee Rogers, the third hour Dennis Fetcho. Lee Rogers is your standard anti-Jewish right-winger, not much new but no harm if you can ignore his “holohoax” line and his falling on the AH side of the false either/or; moving to hour three, Dennis Fetcho has interesting things to say about Weev.

Again, Fetcho is a right-winger, with those foibles, including the pro-reich, “it was all a holohoax”, 9-11 and all that usual boring right-wing stuff, but the things he is saying about Weev gather sense.

He talks about Weev on his own show as well:

Apr. 2, 2016

  Hour 1
  Garbage World of Hackers

  Hour 2
  Weev and ADL Crafted Messages

Beware of the right-wing: they are full of fools and foolers.

On black hat hacking at red ice.

Weev on identifying companies with unknown liabilities

Weev tells his side of the story to RT

Weev on why he trolls

Weev on the difference between trolling and hacking

Here is an outline of Kumiko’s initial take on Weev’s discussion - with Antiochus, 25 September 2015 - on computer tech, race and state-of-the-art warfare. Since these topics square with her expertise on all counts and with our concerns on all counts, her opinion is quite relevant. This is just an outlne that I took down as dictation from what we gathered at the time (last September).

Weev on the players and the technological transformation of war: “it will be massively a-symmetric and robotic.”

1. Showing ATT its vulnerabilities was a good turn; but revealing the data to (((Gawker))) was tactless.

2 Don’t talk to the police! Weev should not have talked to the police.

3. “Black hat” is the wrong term to self ascribe, it underscores an unduly negative angle that adversaries would attribute to Weev - he should not cop to that, but rather identify as a “Gray hat.”

4. Should not say German patriots are setting fire to refugee camps or that he wants to kill blacks just because they are black.

5. His idea of robotic and drone war is problematic - it does Not render traditional forces obsolete. In certain circumstances you want troops in there in certain circumstances you don’t.

For another significant point of criticism, there are more ways to counter robot and drone technology than Weev is taking into account.

Kumiko has other assessments and critiques of his politics and computer abilities: where he is mistaken, where he could do better.

6. Very important: you still need popular sentiment on your side. It is not enough, especially not nowadays, to think in terms of warfare being so asymmetrical that just one percent or a small percent can fight and win.

7. His view on Christianity, newly reconsidered as it may be, could be reasonable enough: reminiscent of Bohrmann.

8. He is correct that it should not be a false either/or between universalistic Christianity, Jews and Islam. They are all beyond the pale.

9. His association with Anglin and other right wingers is dubious. NS Germany was leftist at its inspiration, onset and groundswell.

10. Assad never offered nor had any intention of stepping down. Russia made a duplicitous offer to take Assad down in exchange for keeping its port but The US decided to try to take him down themselves. The results were still bad but the motives were different than Weev made it out to be.

Regarding Auernheimer’s assessment of the inexorable link between Isis, Israel, The US - the deal with Iran indicates that business interests and geopolitics can override Israeli interests

11. He overstates the exclusivity of White accomplishment in computer technology.

12. His troll of Obama’s website with “Gay n*****s of America” was very funny.

Sometimes I notice stories that are so awful that I almost think it’s some kind of joke, before I realise that it’s actually serious.

Here’s one such example of this:

Daily Mail, ‘Militant teachers demand schools stop promoting ‘British values’ as it makes children from other cultures feel inferior’, 28 Mar 2016:

That moment when memes meet reality.

• Guidelines want to encourage children to appreciate British values
• But teachers reject the move, which they say is linked to colonialism
• Critics have accused teaching unions of waging ‘ideological war’

Teachers are demanding that schools stop promoting ‘fundamental British values’ over claims it could make children think other cultures are inferior.

The National Union of Teachers said telling children about the country’s democracy, law and traditions could encourage ‘cultural supremacy’ and urged a new focus on ‘international human rights’ instead.

Under government guidelines, which are aimed at tackling extremism in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, children must be taught about being a British citizen as well as tolerance other faiths and lifestyles.

However, union leaders said the term was demeaning to other cultures ‘particularly in the context of multicultural schools and the wider picture of migration’.

Delegates passed a motion in favour of campaigning to scrap it during the NUT annual conference in Brighton today.

Christopher Denson, an NUT representative from Coventry, said: ‘We need to fight to reject this notion of British values, to fight for notions of human values and human rights.

‘We have to stand together across communities to bring down barriers, bring down borders, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to fascism and any form of racism.’

The motion said that migrants make a ‘huge economic, political and social contribution’ to the country and that public services and businesses would ‘face severe difficulties’ without them.

It criticised the government for only taking in a ‘minute fraction’ of refugees and vowed to campaign for ‘policies that welcome’ them to the country.

The union agreed to ‘gather and collate’ teaching materials on migrants and refugees for members to use in classrooms from now on.

Mr Denson said he disliked using the term ‘fundamental British values’ in his classroom when many of his pupils had ancestry in countries which had encountered British colonialism.

He said: ‘The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable.

‘And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities.’

He added: ‘It’s our duty to push real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work.’

He said he had requested a week of themed assemblies every year in his school, with topics including apartheid and the rise of Islamophobia ‘in the context of anti-Semitism in the 1930s’.

‘This year we focussed on the migrant crisis in Calais, the Mediterranean and beyond,’ he added.

‘We organised a politics day for Year 8s [aged 12 to 13] in the week before Easter.

‘They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate.

‘Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, ‘refugees welcome, open the borders’.

‘We need to be pushing at every level for anti-racism to be in the core curriculum for every child.’

Many of the activists at the conference said they had been to migrant camps over the channel to take food and provisions.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT said: ‘Schools and teachers play a key role in welcoming migrant and refugee children and young people to this country, and supporting their progress within schools.

‘The NUT condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the current migrant situation, which has exacerbated the suffering for so many, including school-age children and young people.

‘The NUT has produced a guide to Welcoming Refugee Children to your School and has a dedicated section on its website for teaching resources which have been provided by teachers for teachers, on the issue.

‘The NUT will continue to work with Show Racism the Red Card, Hope Not Hate and others, to campaign for Government policies that welcome migrants and refugees to this country. The NUT will also continue to press for anti-racism work to be enshrined within the curriculum of all schools.’

The requirement on schools to teach fundamental British values was introduced in 2014 in a bid to crack down on extremism in schools.

It followed the Trojan Horse scandal, in which state schools in Birmingham were infiltrated by hardliners who tried to impose an Islamic agenda.

Ofsted, the schools regulator, has been penalising schools which do not sufficiently show that they are promoting British values.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘Teachers should not be playing the role of fifth columnists in the ideological war currently being fought over our national identity and our national sovereignty.

‘Teaching children that British values are part of “cultural supremacism” will, at best, make them feel guilty about being British and, at worst, radicalise them in order to ‘make up’ for the sins of their fathers.

‘If one wishes to destroy a nation and build a “brave new world” you begin by indoctrinating and brainwashing the children.

‘This process of ‘re-education’ has started some years ago in our schools and we are, now, seeing its consequences in the suppression of free speech on our university campuses.

‘The notion of ‘value relativism’ - that all views are equally valid - has reached saturation point in our schools.

‘In many classrooms this has led to the views of terrorists being given equal weigh to those of the victim of terrorism. Against this background the latest motions from the NUT come as no surprise, at all.’

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

I’m sure that the Department for Education will be just as speechless as I am right now.

Dugin/Stark interview: Beginning concession to White Post Modernity

Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.

His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.

His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.

However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”

Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -

Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.

These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.

Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.

I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.

“Third Worlders”, “Non-Whites”,  “Asians”... There are DIFFERENCES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

                      “Third World immigration is the real culprit” - TNO

               
                tari-huli images from this site.

               
               
                Photo: Dabiq/Corbis

  Observe the DIFFERENCES, they are NOT TOO COMPLICATED TO DISCERN
               
                   

(Photo: Joshua Roberts—Reuters)

With his address to AIPAC, Trump lost the characteristic equivocalness in his manner of speaking: he brought-out his trump card - unequivocal pandering to Israel ..as we knew he would.

From his talks to “the international press” regarding Jewish concerns prior to his speech and through his speech, he was unequivocal.

1) He was unequivocal in his denunciation of “racism and anti-Semitism.”

2) He was unequivocal in his prioritization for Israel’s security; their borders and identity as a Jewish state for Jewish people.

3) He was unequivocal not only in his denunciation of the Iran deal, but in saying that it must be reversed; and, in asserting that Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program must be stopped, he intimated that he is not averse to Israel’s coveted hawkish solution to dealings with Iran.

4) His unequivocal closer - for those familiar with salesmanship, the closing line of a pitch must “close” (confirm) the deal: Trump proudly asserted that he was “about to become a grandfather of a Jewish child.” Asserting his blood-ties in commitment to Jewish interests.

White Nationalists may be correct that he is the best option in buying them some time. At least he makes noises as if he is going to do something about closing U.S. borders and that he would sympathize with closing the borders of Europe as well.

But toward that end, we are having to take the word of a man who brags about his negotiating skills following these avowals to Israel and Jewish interests.

AIPAC might cooperate to some extent with our domestic issues, including our security, OUR WHITE BORDERS FOR OUR WHITE PEOPLES - U.S., Europe and elsewhere - but only to the extent that coincides with Israeli and Jewish interests more broadly; and to the extent that Trump’s and other regimes would (very incorrectly) treat Jews as if they are White; a specially protected White minority among our lands.

That is a highly suspect deal.

And in exchange for that deal come an array of foreign policies - our side, opponent side distinctions - even more suspect.

About the only consolation to be offered to those who favor Trump in the interest of European peoples is that at least in what she speaks and intends, viz. in her antagonism of Whites, Hillary is even worse. Her rhetoric is even more out of the liberal, P.C., anti-White mold: her disregard for White boundaries more brazen, her commitment to Israel as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever” as ever (as emphatic, in fact), and her war-hawkishness even more flagrant. Every bit as much as Trump shored-up his pro-Israel, pro-Jewish-line..

   
Hillary shored-up her Neo-Con Credentials.

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

In a story that shows that Jewish-American lobbyists and journalists have very little self-awareness, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron thought that it would be a good idea to publish a story in which they made it appear that the US Government was violating some kind of agreement to not spy on ‘allies’, when the NSA monitored Netanyahu’s activities during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The monitoring activities were carried out with the intention of discovering what Netanyahu’s views on the proposed deal were, and what his response to it going forward might be. This monitoring would have been approved by senior figures in the Obama administration, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said.

[...]

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears [...] that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

[...]

Of course, what neither of these persons mention in their article is that monitoring Netanyahu’s communications was both legal and necessary.

Monitoring what other world leaders are doing so that the United States can have good information from which to make policy decisions is literally the mission statement of the NSA. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to prefer a policy on Iran that is directly at odds with that of the United States, and at odds with that of NATO more broadly. The North Atlantic desired to cultivate Iran as a swing-power which could be peeled away from Russia and utilised for offsetting Russian preponderance over natural gas supplies to Europe, and which would perhaps someday be able to frustrate Russian attempts to consolidate its influence over CIS states that have cultural or historical ties to Iran. Israel has different ideas, because Israel has a different set of priorities.

So what are they complaining about? It’s a nonsensical complaint. The Israelis should have expected that they’d be monitored. This of course did not prevent Israel’s most ardent defenders from writing absolutely ridiculous stories for weeks on end about it.

But there was an element of this story that was not touched on and which was almost conspicuously not touched on. The fact that spying on Netanyahu would become the same thing as ‘spying on the US Congress’ was what really ought to have been the story. If spying on Netanyahu is almost the same thing as spying on the US Congress, then that is an indicator of there being a serious problem in the political system itself.

That problem looks like this:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

How Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal. [...]

Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

But you see, according to present and former US lawmakers who have enormous mouths and are suddenly very concerned about the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘civil liberties’, discovering when someone is trying to plunge a knife into your back is just the gravest violation of the privacy of those who are trying to do the plunging.

For example, Representative Ted Lieu, (D-California) who “has consistently voted to curb powers of the NSA”, asserted on twitter that:

If this is true, it is outrageous. #NSA should not be spying on Congress without a warrant.  https://t.co/YYfZbvwozt.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 30, 2015

That’s the part he objects to.

And there was also none other than Pete Hoekstra (formerly R-Michigan), the former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004—2007, took to twitter to complain, saying:

WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

Perhaps Hoekstra is really upset because he shares something common with former representative Jane Harman (D-California), who in 2006 was being lined up to seamlessly replace him, and whose Israeli tricks were foiled by the NSA at that time too:

Wall Street Journal, ‘Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists’, Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, 20 Apr 2009:

[...] Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor—the media mogul Haim Saban—would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

[...]

Much like Hoekstra, Harman also had something to say about supposed ‘abuses of power’ at that time:

Think Progress, ‘Harman: ‘I’m Just Very Disappointed’’, Ali Frick, 21 Apr 2009:

I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years.

She’s one of the people who approved the budget and the legal framework that would supply the NSA and others with equipment and a mandate to watch PCS networks and collect the data under ONEROOF, but then she thought that the NSA and FBI were going to magically avoid collecting signals from her because she’s special?

Whenever Jews or their associates find themselves being treated just like everyone else, they suddenly get very tearful and start talking about how they are so, so, so oppressed. A sad tune needs to be played for them, perhaps, on the tinyest of tiny violins.

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa - resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians - while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being - though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period - that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us - and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. At first blush, I can imagine living with it - it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia - as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

On the other hand, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty.

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defending Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement - beyond ethnonational mandate - on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa - the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors, more secure borders, and more cooperation in resource garnering, management and use. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.

2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.

3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.

5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.

6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.

7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives - particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are no Russian cities larger than 600,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), and only four larger than 300,000, one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above), i.e., an entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere - enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states. 

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow - Berlin - Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate - from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road - accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia - as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference - whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well - including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

READ MORE...

Refugee Resettlement Watch’s 10 Reasons For Moratorium. Appeal To Rep. Goode & Doing good for Doing good - The Golden Rule.

I add “the golden rule” to the title sarcastically - not only to chide those lining their pockets in the name of Christian altruism. This rule that has been passed onto European moral orders altogether disingenuously, from Judaic prescription to Gentiles (Jews do NOT abide by the golden rule), has been as catastrophic as any imbibed of Jewish chimera. This edict from “the sermon on the mount” is completely illogical and self destructive. There is a key distinction that needs to drawn by contrast, which is logical - morally and otherwise: the silver rule.

Note: these articles are being re-posted from the MR News section (5 Dec. 2015) as they bear more attention. Now that Ann Corcoron is taking a break from the excellent work that she’s been putting out, it’s time for MR to pick up some of the slack and forefront her efforts. MR has an added benefit (from our POV) of being able to expound from a distinctly pro-White/Native European, secular perspective.

Noticing the style of the “moratorium” logo and its coincidence with an appeal to Virgil Goode, I couldn’t help but find it reminiscent of Dietrich’s VoR design..

...and also that Virgil Goode represented a unique experience for me, to actually be talking with a Congressman as I produced the Stark interview with him. Congressman Goode stayed available on my Google chat and otherwise in communique with me for several months afterwards. That was funny for me, in a good way. Though it should be normal, how many Congressmen speak openly with our kind? It speaks well of him. Ann Corcoran has placed her appeal in the right direction.

Here is the post of the Stark Interview -

VoR, The Stark Truth: Interview with Virgil Goode,  25 April 2012:

Rep. Virgil Goode

Robert interviews Virgil Goode. Topics include:

• The Constitution Party;
• The need for reduction in immigration both legal and illegal;
• National sovereignty, NAFTA, and the North American Union;
• Foreign policy and the Iraq war;
• Energy independence.

Virgil Goode is the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. He represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District as a Republic from 1997-2009. He previously served in the Virginia State Senate as a Democrat.

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Re-post: Ten reasons there should be a moratorium on refugee resettlement’, 5 December 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

Now that the mainstream media and the public are waking up to the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program and how it has been operating for the last 35 years, I thought it would be a good idea to re-post this testimony I gave to the US State Department (first in 2012 at its annual scoping meeting and repeated in 2013 and 2014).

Anne Richard is the Asst. Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration. Here she testified last month at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Syrian refugees. She needs to produce the hearing record for the 2015 ‘scoping meeting’ which we believe was held in secrecy. Photo and story about Judiciary hearing: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/state-dept-official-syrian-refugees-less-threat-stops-tracking-3-months/

I just mentioned it in my previous post on annual reports.

As far as we can tell, the US State Department did not hold a public scoping hearing in 2015 (for FY2016) because we never saw a notice for it this year. In these ‘scoping meetings/hearings’ they ostensibly seek public input on the size of the program for the upcoming year and they want to know what countries should be the focus of protection.

The ‘scoping’ meeting (like a hearing) was usually held in late spring/early summer of the preceding year. Prior to our attendance in 2012, these meetings/hearings were dominated by the resettlement contractors and their groupies.

One more thing, the State Department does not keep and publish a hearing record for this meeting. The only way we could ever learn what others were saying is to obtain the hard copy testimony by attending in person! There ought to be a law!

Here is my testimony in 2012 (repeated in 2013 and 2014):

Ten Reasons there should be no refugees resettled in the US in FY2013—instead a moratorium should be put in place until the program is reformed and the economy completely recovers.

1)  There are no jobs. The program was never meant to be simply a way to import impoverished people to the US and place them on an already overtaxed welfare system.

2)    The program has become a cash cow for various “religious” organizations and other contractors who very often appear to care more about the next group of refugees coming in (and the cash that comes with each one) than the group they resettled only a few months earlier. Stories of refugees suffering throughout the US are rampant.

3)  Terrorist organizations (mostly Islamic) are using the program that still clearly has many failings in the security screening system.  Indeed consideration should be given to halting the resettlement of Muslims altogether.  Also, the UN should have no role in choosing refugees for the US.

4)  The public is not confident that screenings for potential terrorists (#3) or the incidences of other types of fraudulent entry are being properly and thoroughly investigated and stopped.  When fraud is uncovered—either fraud to enter the country or illegal activity once the refugee has been resettled—punishment should be immediate deportation.

5)    The agencies, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is in complete disarray as regards its legally mandated requirement to report to Congress every year on how refugees are doing and where the millions of tax dollars are going that run the program.  The last (and most recent) annual report to be sent to Congress is the 2008 report—so they are out of compliance for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011.  A moratorium is necessary in order for the ORR to bring its records entirely up-to-date. Additionally,  there needs to be an adequate tracking system designed to gather required data—frankly some of the numbers reported for such measures of dependence on welfare as food stamp usage, cash assistance and employment status are nothing more than guesses.  (The lack of reports for recent years signals either bureaucratic incompetence and disregard for the law, or, causes one to wonder if there is something ORR is hiding.)

6)  The State Department and the ORR have so far failed to adequately determine and report (and track once the refugee has been admitted) the myriad communicable and costly-to-treat diseases entering the country with the refugee population.

7)  Congress needs to specifically disallow the use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government,especially using certain refugee populations to address unrelated foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars, Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to mind.

8)  Congress needs to investigate and specifically disallow any connection between this program and big businesseslooking for cheap and captive labor.  The federal government should not be acting as head-hunter for corporations.

9)    The Volag system should be completely abolished and the program should be run by state agencies with accountability to the public through their state legislatures. The system as presently constituted is surely unconstitutional.  (One of many benefits of turning the program over to a state agency is to break up the government/contractor revolving door that is being demonstrated now at both the State Department and ORR.)  The participating state agency’s job would be to find groups, churches, or individuals who would sponsor a refugee family completely for at least a year and monitor those sponsors. Their job would include making sure refugees are assimilating. A mechanism should be established that would allow a refugee to go home if he or she is unhappy or simply can’t make it in America. Short of a complete halt to resettlement-by-contractor, taxpayers should be protected by legally requiring financial audits of contractors and subcontractors on an annual basis.

10)  As part of #9, there needs to be established a process for alerting communities to the impending arrival of refugees that includes reports from the federal government (with local input) about the social and economic impact a certain new group of refugees will have on a city or town.  This report would be presented to the public through public hearings and the local government would have an opportunity to say ‘no.’

For these reasons and more, the Refugee admissions program should be placed on hold and a serious effort made by Congress to either scrap the whole thing or reform it during the moratorium.  My recommendation for 2013 is to stop the program now.  The Office of the President could indeed ask for hearings to review the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980-–three decades is time enough to see its failings and determine if reauthorization is feasible or whether a whole new law needs to be written.

Information on the three hearings we wrote about and attended are archived here, here and here.  (Those files include posts in which we referenced the hearings/meetings as well.)

By the way, Richard revolved into the State Department from her contractor job at the International Rescue Committee. She had a previous stint at the State Dept.  The revolving door is alive and well between contractor and federal agency involving refugee resettlement.

Come on, you can do it! Say “MORATORIUM”, 5 Dec 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

She could not be “vetted.”

Where are you Virgil Goode?

Did you see that even the NY Times wrote about the female Islamic terrorist, how there was no way to “vet” her or to “screen” her as she came to live among us. Any logical person can see that. There was no d*** data, no biographic or biometric information to tap! And, if asked about any terror connections in personal interviews she certainly didn’t tell the truth.

So, don’t you wonder why only TEN US Senators can see that and that 89 others are so willfully blind. See our post on Senator Paul’s failed attempt at a moratorium on issuing visas to those coming from jihad-producing countries.

And, here see Daniel Greenfield on the killers yesterday.  If you read nothing else from Greenfield’s post, this is the line every one must grasp:

It’s a matter of simple math that as the population most likely to commit terrorist acts increases, so do the acts themselves.

I went back to our archives to see when I first heard anyone suggest a MORATORIUM on Muslim immigration and want to give a shout-out to former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode who saw the San Bernardino slaughter coming 9 years ago!  Learn about how the politically correct harpies at the Washington Post treated him then.  His position, in support of a moratorium on legal (Muslim) immigration to America cost him his seat. We told you more about him here in 2010.

Political correctness is dead! Everyone of you must start saying the ‘M’ word!  MORATORIUM!  Moratorium on Muslim migration to America, NOW!

Thank you Mr. Goode!  Goode is a Trump supporter in Virginia today!

Rep. Virgil Goode

See more to the story below..

...and…

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is responsible for the Somali chaos in St. Cloud’, Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 26, 2015:

If you are angry (about the tension in St. Cloud) and want one entity to blame, it is Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, the primary federal refugee resettlement agency working in St. Cloud!

That supposedly ‘Christian’ charitable organization is directly responsible for the high Somali numbers in St. Cloud, and they are jointly responsible for bringing over ten thousand Somalis from around the world to colonize Minnesota towns in the last ten years alone—Catholic Charities and World Relief MN (now Arrive Ministries)*** helped also.  Of course they have brought many more than 10,000 in over two decades and not just Somali Muslims!

Rumor has it that 1,500 new Somalis are going to be resettled by the Lutherans in St. Cloud this year.  (This is part of former Rep. Michele Bachmann’s district!)

Doing well by doing good? Jodi Harpstead is making over $300,000 a year to seed St. Cloud and other Minnesota towns with Somali Muslims.

These three ‘Christian’ phony non-profits (phony Christians!) could stop the US State Department’s further seeding of the state if they just said NO!  We won’t resettle any more Muslim ‘refugees.’  But they don’t!  Why?

Why? Because it is big business (as we learned from Lutherans in New England)!  They dare not challenge their sugar daddy—the federal government!  And, they must be afraid of the growing power of the Islamists and the Islamist front group—Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—which they are responsible for unleashing on the city of St. Cloud.
So how much money does it take to buy the Lutherans?

Back in 2013 we told you that then Minnesota Lutheran CEO, Mark Peterson, was pulling down a salary of $441,767.

We went to a recent audit linked on their website and here are some numbers we found (audit ending September 30, 2014):

They had total revenue of $103,135,439 and received $91,887,312 from GOVERNMENT FEES AND GRANTS.  (Go here and click on ‘financials’ to see for yourself).
That makes them 89% government funded!  That is a government agency not a charity, and surely not a ‘Christian’ charity!

The progressive ‘religious Left’ is living off of the US taxpayer!

Doing well by doing good?

Salaries and payroll accounted for $57,929,172 of your money—your tax dollars for that one year!

Jodi doesn’t pull down a salary as high as Peterson (LOL! War on women?) her predecessor did, but it is fairly substantial none-the-less as we learned from a recent Form 990.  She was compensated with $280,812 and an additional $42,495 came from related organizations (whatever that is!).

Her second in command, Kenneth Borle, made $202,087 and $33,192 (from related organizations).

They have 8 other employees making over six-figure salaries!

Go here for the others in leadership at Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota responsible for building the aggressive and demanding Muslim population of the state.
And if you are looking for more people to blame for what is happening to Minnesota, here is the Board of Directors (do you know any of them?):
Board of Directors

Greg Vandal, Chair
Nancy Rystrom, Vice Chair
Cathy Norelius, Secretary
Sue Haffield, Treasurer *
Bishop Thomas Aitken
Dan Anderson
Mike Anderson
Rev. Dr. Eric Barreto
Ann Beatty
Dr. Paul Dovre
Jon Evert
Nicole Griensewic Mickelson
Rev. John Hogenson
Rev. Dr. Rolf Jacobson
Jen Julsrud
John Mattes
Artie Miller
Joanne Negstad
Joan Wandke Nelson
Rev. Mark Skinner
Bishop Ann Svennungsen
Rev. Mari Thorkelson
Lori Wall

The main office of Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is here (below).  It is time to let them know how you feel, to put the pressure on the organization directly responsible for disrupting St. Cloud.
Good Lutherans especially need to speak up!

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota
2485 Como Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
651.642.5990
800.582.5260

And, according to the US State Department’s handy list of contractors the St. Cloud Lutheran resettlement agency office is here:

LIRS
MN-LIRS-08: Lutheran Social Services Of Minnesota
Address:
22 Wilson Avenue Suite 110
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Phone:
320-251-7700
One more thing!  Tell Rep. Trey Gowdy what he has in store for his community if a refugee resettlement site is established in Spartanburg, SC.

See our complete archive on St. Cloud here.  And, click here, for an enormous archive on Minnesota.  See especially our earliest post (2011), and one of our top posts of all time, when we first learned of the three ‘Christian’ groups swamping Minnesota with Somalis at the behest of the US State Department.

*** An indicator that the heat is on some of these phony Christian organizations is that they are changing their names.  Note that World Relief Minnesota is now Arrive Ministries and Lutheran Social Services of New England is now Ascentria Care Alliance.

Issues of Christianity aside..

Here is Ann Corcoron’s excellent outline of her inquiry into the governmental processes involved.

Ann Corcoran

I wanted to know what was the governmental process that allowed the resettlement of refugees?

Who gave permission?

I have learned about a Federal program that is 35 years old this year - The United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees
has been choosing most of our refugees.

It is under the influence of a powerful Muslim supremacist group called “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

Not surprisingly, a large number of U.S. bound refugees are coming from countries with large numbers of people who hate us: including Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon from Syria, just to name a few.

The U.S. State Department then distributes the refugees to 9 major Federal contractors - six of which are so-called religious charities, but - all are largely funded from The U.S. Treasury:

Church World Services (CWS)

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)

Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS)

International Rescue Committee (IRC)

US Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (USCRI)

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services (LIRS)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

World Relief Corporation (WR)

They are not passing the plate on Sundays for the one billion dollar price tag for the resettlement. And that figure does not include the extensive welfare benefits that refugees receive.

The refugees are then sent to over 190 cities and towns in the US where the 9 major contractors support 350 subcontractors.

The refugees receive help from the subcontractors for up to six months; and the subcontractor then submits paper-work to admit the relatives of the first group.

Many [Muslims] are forming cities within cities, where mosques are being built to consolidate, train and promote the Islamic supremacist doctrine called “Sharia.”

This process of Muslim colonization is called “The Hijra.”

Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world.

He said that they were obliged to do so.

And that is exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of

The UN, The US State Department and the Christian and Jewish groups assigned to seed them throughout the country.

Your tax dollars pay for it all.

We only need to look to a troubled Europe to see the path ahead for America if we can’t stop this migration and stop it soon.

There is no reason on earth that we should have brought over 100,000 Somalis, and another 100,000 Iraqi Muslims to America…

Soon we will be resettling Syrian Muslims in large numbers..

The FBI told Congress recently that they cannot be properly screened.

If you don’t help counter the Hijra, we are, in my opinion, doomed.

Over time this migration will be more devastating to your children and grandchildren and to our country than..

More devastating than any terrorist attack could ever be.