Majorityrights News > Category: Liberalism

England suffered one of the most humiliating defeats in their history after Iceland came from behind 2 -1.

Match report

Coach Roy Hodgson resigns ...goes the way of fellow mercenary maiden David Cameron… it’s not really the yang of karma, but hermeneutic feedback of another leak in the hull that needs tending ....all a part of getting your ship in order, England. Along with your Brexit victory there needed to be humbling defeat - albeit on a trivial but symbolic level - a lesson in the integrity of losing with your own men rather winning with mercenaries in international play.

Now, if you are going to lose to a tiny country of 330,000, a country that has the integrity to play with its native White men…

Why not play with your native English men and see how it turns out?

Better to lose with your native men than to win with mercenaries..

The Times, ‘MP’s dying words: ‘I can’t get up, my pain is too much’’, 18 Jun 2016:

Jo Cox’s last words as she lay dying were to tell her assistant that she could not get up because “my pain is too much”.

In a dramatic account of the MP’s final moments, Gulham Maniyar described how his daughter Fazila Aswat, who worked as Mrs Cox’s assistant, cradled her in her arms as she lay covered in blood.

That was the scene of the attack, an attack not just on one MP, but on the institution of parliamentary democracy itself. I open with that quote for context, to remind everyone of the gravity of what we are actually talking about here.

The Occidental Observer has an article called ‘The selective compassion of Jo Cox’, by Francis Carr Begbie, in which he, and I assume the editors at Occidental Observer share his view since they didn’t dissent from it, comes out and trashes the reputation of Jo Cox and tries to style as almost the worst thing that ever happened to the United Kingdom.

It’s truly astonishing to see the amount of hatred being directed toward an MP who was tragically assassinated by a crazed gunman, a woman who most of these writers were unaware of the existence of before she was killed, and who stood on the right wing of the Labour Party. She had also only held her seat in Batley and Spen for one year.

Mind reading and time travelling

The range of criticisms directed against the deceased is pretty wide. For example, Begbie accuses Cox of not caring about the white members of her constituency, because she didn’t comment on the Muslim rape epidemic when it had reached her town. Begbie writes, “of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them”. What was she supposed to say? How do they know what she was or wasn’t thinking about?

Jo Cox became the MP for Batley and Spen in May 2015, everything that preceded her taking that seat could not possibly be attributed to her, yet somehow ethno-nationalist sites across the internet have transformed her into the symbol of everything that is ‘wrong’ with Batley and Spen. That district became more demographically South Asian in 1950 because British businesses decided that they wanted South Asian workers from Gujarat, Punjab, and Kashmir to migrate to West Yorkshire to desperately protect the already-in-fact doomed textile industry which Britain had been maintaining with the use of protectionist policies since the 1880s.

Jo Cox showing up in 2015, cannot possibly be blamed for making the best of the constituency that the bourgeoisie themselves had given her. This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

She only just got there

No article is complete at the Occidental Observer without some kind anti-feminist insinuation, and so Begbie strangely includes this line, “Her constituency seat had been represented by local White men for decades so an all-female shortlist had to be imposed on the local party to ensure an acceptable candidate could be given this plum.” What complete nonsense! No mention at all is made of the fact that the constituency was redrawn multiple times and only came into existence in its present form in 1997. Neither is any mention made of the fact that the ‘local white man’ who held that seat was none other than Mike Wood who held that seat from 1997 to 2015. Mike Wood literally presided over every single development that the Occidental Observer complains about, including the gerrymandering and creation of the constituency called ‘Batley and Spen’, yet no mention is made of this man’s existence! He is merely glossed over as a ‘local white man’, as though that somehow makes everything okay.

Mike Wood presides over Batley and Spen for 18 years, is blamed for nothing. Jo Cox runs it for 13 months, gets shot by some idiot, and suddenly the Occidental Observer has magically discovered that everything is the fault of Jo Cox. Truly breathtaking. Fucking incredible. Maybe Jo Cox is a time traveller, she time travelled to 1997, and to 1950, perhaps?

Middle-Eastern migrant strategy

Begbie also writes of Jo Cox, that “she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria”.

What is dubious about this? Nothing. Begbie is referring to the letter which Cox wrote in a Guardian article on 11 Oct 2015, co-written with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, in which she places the rescuing of civilians at the centre of the parliamentary debate, and advocates for the creation of safe zones inside Syria so that the migrant influx can be stemmed.

Yes, you read that correctly. I will quote her directly. Here:

The Guardian / Jo Cox MP, ‘British forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria’, 11 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.

What is critical in advancing any military component is that the protection of civilians must be at the centre of the mission. This objective becomes ever more imperative in the light of Russia’s bombing in recent days. We need a military component that protects civilians as a necessary prerequisite to any future UN or internationally provided safe havens. The creation of safe havens inside Syria would eventually offer sanctuary from both the actions of Assad and Isis, as we cannot focus on Isis without an equal focus on Assad. They would save lives, reduce radicalisation and help to slow down the refugee exodus.

The approach of focusing on civilian protection will also make a political solution more likely. Preventing the regime from killing civilians, and signalling intent to Russia, is far more likely to compel the regime to the negotiating table than anything currently being done or mooted. Of course, a military approach by itself won’t work, nor will any of the other components. Only through an integrated strategy with the protection of civilians at its core can we rescue something from this crisis.

[...]

I invite anyone to tell me what precisely is wrong with that. No one can tell me what is wrong with that, because there’s nothing wrong with it. Some may ask, “But isn’t her mention of Assad a problem?” In actual practice, no. Only actions against ISIL could have had efficiacy since we know Russia’s presence in the theatre had already made it impossible for the west to directly attack the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the first place. The way I’ve highlighted bold text in that quotation is entirely deliberate.

Allowing all of the refugees to be contained within safe zones inside Syria and Iraq, would prevent migrants of all kinds—whether they are fleeing from the SAA or from ISIL—from actually feeling the need to cross to Europe, seriuosly reducing the scale of the crisis and accomplishing an objective that people concerned about migration ought to have been able to agree with.

Obviously the conflict should not even be happening. But it is happening and so selecting a solution that does not involve trying to house all the Arabs inside Europe, made her stance significantly better than the ridiculous mainstream stance of ‘just open the borders and absorb all migrants forever’.

This general pattern is similar to the idea that Anthony Zinni suggested.

I’ll quote Anthony Zinni:

TIME, ‘U.S. Military Plan For Looming ISIS Offensive Takes Shape’, 26 Feb 2015 (emphasis added):

There’s only one way to take land, and that’s with well-trained ground forces. That’s why retired Marine general Anthony Zinni thinks the time is right for Obama to acknowledge reality and tell the nation he is sending 10,000 American troops into the fight. Zinni ran the U.S. military in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, and still has business dealings in the region. He’s just back from a trip to Cairo, and he says he’s hearing a growing willingness among regional powers to put troops on the ground to fight ISIS—so long as the U.S. is alongside them.

Rumbles from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates all suggest those nations are willing to fight on the ground. “I think this is all designed to try to push the United States to put something on the ground,” Zinni said Feb. 23. “If we put a couple of brigades in, I think you’d get five or six regional countries. And I think you could twist the arms of the French, the Belgians and maybe even the Brits.”

Two U.S. brigades, with their supporting personnel, would total about 10,000 troops. Zinni says the nations in the region are not coordinating their efforts in an effort to lure the U.S. into the fight on the ground. “But they’re getting scared, and have gotten angry at ISIS’s atrocious behavior and they’re willing to step up,” he says. “It would have to be a whole set of bilateral relationships, and we would have to pull it together.

The U.S. would have to act as the catalyst to make this happen, says Zinni, who was an early advocate of sending U.S. ground troops into the fight. “There’s an opportunity now to put a small piece in terms of ground forces in there, and get a lot more from these countries, and be the glue that puts it together,” he says. “There is no unifying structure and no single entity out there that can bring this all together—it has to be the United States,” Zinni insists.

But what about Obama’s pledge to keep U.S. combat boots out of the fight? “They have a moment here and it’ll blow by if they’re not careful,” he says. Obama “could always say that the situation on the ground has changed, and the willingness of the Arabs to stand up to this gives us this moment,” says Zinni, showing why he’s a better general than a politician.

What Zinni was describing there, is very close to ‘Seek, Destroy, Clear, Hold’, a strategy currently being employed in Operation Zarb-e-Azb by the Pakistani Army with relative success.

It stems the flow of migrants because by holding the zones that have been cleared and rebuilding infrastructure on the fly, it prevents migrants from making dangerous trips to flee the violence, since obviously they could just stay in the location that they are in and receive assistance and protection around the clock.

The political problem is that selling ‘SDCH’ to whiny white western liberal populations is next to impossible, and that’s where MPs like Jo Cox are incredibly useful. She could provide the political and ‘humanitarian’ argument which constituents needed to hear, that the defence sector was unable to convincingly enunciate. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this, but what Jo Cox’s feelings about entirely hypothetical refugees in the United Kingdom were, didn’t frankly matter, given that the part of her plan that takes precedence in terms of the order of battle is that she supported the creation of safe zones in Syria.

No one would have to worry about whether she is or is not going to cuddle and appease Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the United Kingdom, if those migrants had never arrived due to the creation of safe zones in Syria. This is basic logic.

When you’ve been around white liberals and experienced them for long enough, you learn to accept that there are some aspects of their psyche which are biased toward indiscriminate kindness, and this is a bias that is not going to be changed by anyone’s words, but if they are willing to help find common sense solutions to problems then it is fine to link up with them in order to scrape out some limited gains in a bad situation.

What is treason anyway?

Jo Cox was among the best that you could expect from the Labour Party. It would be unreasonable to expect anything greater than what she had offered.

This is why I never had a big problem with Jo Cox, beyond the obvious fact that she’s a liberal. I was deeply saddened the day that she died.

Jo Cox is not ‘a traitor’.

Tom Mair is the real traitor here, and if the death penalty were not unfortunately abolished in the United Kingdom, I would hope that Mair would end up being hung from the gallows until dead. Mair has probably done more to assist our enemies than anyone else in recent years. Perhaps Mair will end up being inexplicably and mysteriously hung from the side of his bedpost using his own clothes knotted into a noose, but I can only hope. Hey, it happens sometimes, at times the CCTV in prisons just suddenly stops working for no apparent reason.

In overview, ethno-nationalists need to get more politically savvy, and stop running to defend every mentally ill white male who makes grief-stricken faces after committing some absurd, stupid, and horrific crime. Tom Mair was not a victim of anything, if he didn’t like the fact that all the South Asian Muslims had been concentrated into one area of that West Yorkshire constituency, he should have exercised some patience and self-control, thanked the stars that self-segregation had occurred and moved to one of the white areas of the constituency instead. He was not being forced to integrate with them, and Jo Cox had only just arrived in the constituency in May 2015 and had literally done nothing to him.

Tom Mair is stupid. This is not even 57-dimensional chess. It’s simple 2-dimensional chess. But he was a fucking idiot consumed by his own sense of entitlement and lack of strategic thinking. He is stupid, he is subhuman trash. And he is condemned.

Excellent article and comments at TOO about the politics and circles of Jo Cox and her husband.

The article casts evergreen light on the nefarious power structure and imminions* of the British political class well beyond doubts as to how the Cox murder would impact the Brexit vote, now that the vote has transpired.

Some pearls from the article and comments:

“Hers was the typical smooth career path of the modern political cog.”

Her political way was paved by becoming a water carrier for wives of the liberal political class. She imbibed and voiced its concerns - i.e., for the plight of anybody** but White native British. To the point where she ignored the rape of British girls that was going on under her nose - crimes being prosecuted, in fact, the day she died. Despite the obvious contradiction of Islam and her liberal politics, she would not say “boo” to Islam because her lucrative political career depended upon support of Muslims in her constituency.

Her husband was in complete alignment with her liberal political madness. He openly discussed ways to pander to those young people, at least those who have not yet been disabused of the PC kool-aid, as a group to counteract growing “national populist anti-immigration sentiment.”

He was such a political apparatchik that on the day that his wife was murdered, he was preoccupied with lambasting the leave campaign as opposed to attending to normal protocols of family bereavement.

Just the kind of tag-team that would flush ordinary White men down the toilet. She the gate keeper to make sure that their voice and concerns were blocked and never to be addressed; only letting through and empowering liberal “alpha males” like Brandon, who would complete the act of flushing normal White men down the toilet.

Both were lavishly rewarded for betraying normal British people.

Now that we have a bead on the patterns underpinning Jo and Brandon Cox’s insane liberalism, it begs the question of who Tommy Mair was in response to theirs and their society’s insanity? Should we dismiss him as merely crazy? Should we shy away from the fact that he had political and native nationalist motivations because his manifestation was of dubious tact?

Or is it occasion to look at silenced voices behind the reaction?

* It was too tempting to not go with what started out as a typo to the word “minion” here.

** Excepting, perhaps, if they interfered with Jewish interests..

We must seize this golden opportunity to Leave the European Union and take back control of our borders.

We cannot afford to risk staying in a political organization that is ready to admit Turkey and planning deeper integration.

We have no border controls inside EU. If you want the UK to be able to control migration then vote to Leave EU.

Why we must vote LEAVE in the EU referendum…

READ MORE...

       
        Simpson & Brown’s daughter at age 30 - YKW recombination

       
        Nicole Brown, at age 35, an equally gruesome outcome

        O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior and typical Jewish facilitation -
       
          NPR, “The Perfect Perversity of the O.J. Simpson Case”, 14 June 2016:

          NPR series: there is no doubt that OJ Simpson committed the murders.

There were signs from the very first date he had with the 18 year old Nicole Brown that OJ Simpson was violent.

        Brown’s friend had noticed signs that Simpson had forced himself upon her in the first date..he had ripped open her pants…

...

The series reveals many other facts not previously well known about the case:

Another 9-11 call from Nicole has a policeman arrive. Brown tells the policeman emphatically that Simpson is going to kill her. Brown has a bruise on her face and Simpson tells the policeman that he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want her in his bed, he has two other women.

The policeman tells Simpson that he is under arrest for domestic violence. Simpson goes into his house, ostensibly to get dressed, but races away in his car via a rear exit. The police pursue, but don’t catch him and don’t pursue him afterward.

This is one of the surprising elements of the series: The L.A. Police Department was not eager to prosecute Simpson. They treated him with kid gloves.

The detective who interviewed Simpson after the murder did not ask him to provide a time line of his day - which would have caught him in several lies - basically, because the detective was following The L.A. P.D.‘s tendency to treat Simpson and his celebrity with deference.

       
In fact, in being racial, Fuhrman was an outlier to this culture. He actually had sued the L.A. Police Department for early retirement, claiming psychological disability because he could not stand having to deal with blacks.

The L.A. P.D. won the case, was not compelled to accept Fuhrman’s claim, and told him to get back to work.

Unfortunately for the case against Simpson, Fuhrman was the one who collected Simpson’s glove left at the scene of the murder.

Simpson was advised to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands would swell up. When the glove didn’t fit Simpson’s hand in a demonstration before the jury, it added to the suggestion that Fuhrman’s racism might motivate him to set-up Simpson - a Negro man in an interracial relationship which Fuhrman was known to not like - prosecuting him unjustly by planting the glove as fake evidence.

         
Allowing Simpson to try-on the glove was black prosecuting attorney Christopher Darden’s blunder. Darden was said to have had an affair with Marcia Clarke during the trial.

“If it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was Simpson’s black defense attorney, Johnny Cochran’s famous line, but what was most important in the acquittal was the way he successfully pandered to a majority black jury, Jewish legal system and zeitgeist, by diverting them from the obvious evidence against O.J. Simpson, into “juicestice” instead, presenting the case as an indictment of Furhman and the L.A. Police Department’s early stage ‘Hitleresque’ will to genocide, racism and cover-up of its racism - a particularly effective argument in L.A. following the Rodney King incident.

Key excerpts from Corchran’s closing argument:

Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.‘s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn’t it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don’t take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don’t take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out—that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren’t always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here.

                               
Fuhrman sued LAPD years before, seeking early retirement because he couldn’t stand having to deal with blacks and interracial couples.

[Ibid. Johnny Corchran’s closing argument] I don’t know how this subject was raised but officer Fuhrman says that when he sees a Nigger, as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked what if he didn’t have a reason and he said that he would find one. I looked at the two marines to see if they knew he was joking, but it became obvious to me that he was very serious.” Now, let me just stop at this point. Let’s back it up a minute, Mr. Harris. Pull it back down, please. If he sees an African American with a white woman he would stop them. If he didn’t have a reason, he would find one or make up one. This man will lie to set you up. That is what he is saying there. He would do anything to set you up because of the hatred he has in his heart. A racist is somebody who has power over you, who can do something to you. People could have views but keep them to themselves, but when they have power over you, that is when racism becomes insidious. That is what we are talking about here. He has power. A police officer in the street, a patrol officer, is the single most powerful figure in the criminal justice system. He can take your life. Unlike the supreme court, you don’t have to go through all these appeals. He can do it right there and justify it. And that is why, that is why this has to be routed out in the LAPD and every place. Make up a reason because he made a judgment. That is what happened in this case. They made a judgment. Everything else after that is going to point toward O.J. Simpson. They didn’t want to look at anybody else. Mr. Darden asked who did this crime? That is their job as the police. We have been hampered. They turned down our offers for help. But that is the prosecution’s job. The judge says we don’t have that job. The law says that. We would love to help do that. Who do you think wants to find these murderers more than Mr. Simpson? But that is not our job; it is their job. And when they don’t talk to anybody else, when they rush to judgment in their obsession to win, that is why this became a problem. This man had the power to carry out his racist views and that is what is so troubling. Let’s move on. Making up a reason. That is troubling. That is frightening. That is chilling. But if that wasn’t enough, if that wasn’t enough, the thing that really gets you is she goes on to say: “Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer sworn to uphold the law.” And now we have it. There was another man, not too long ago in the world, who had those same views who wanted to burn people, who had racist views and ultimately had power over people in this country.

People didn’t care. People said he was just crazy, he is just a half-baked painter. They didn’t do anything about it. This man, this scourge, became one of the worse people in the history of this world, Adolph Hitler, because people didn’t care or didn’t try to stop him. He had the power over his racism and his anti-religion. Nobody wanted to stop him, and it ended up in world war ii, the conduct of this man. And so Fuhrman, Fuhrman wants to take all black people now and burn them or bomb them. That is genocidal racism. Is that ethnic purity? What is that? What is that? We are paying this man’s salary to espouse these views? Do you think he only told Kathleen Bell whom he just had met? Do you think he talked to his partners about it? Do you think commanders knew about it? Do you think everybody knew about it and turned their heads? Nobody did anything about it.

                           
Reaction to the “innocent verdict”: O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior (dindu) and typical Jewish enabling. The glove trick was the idea of Shapiro (in background). F. Lee Baily, O.J. Simpson and Johnny Corchran, react in foreground.

In what is supposed to be prosecuting attorney Marcia Clark’s “closing argument” against the eminently guilty O.J. Simpson (who is merely one expression of pervasive black hyper-assertion, social irresponsibility and violence that needs to be defended against), Clark instead makes it a key point to condemn and condemn ultimately, Mark Fuhrman, a dedicated, competent and fair, career police detective:

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst L.A. P.D. has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by the L.A. P.D.? Yes. Should L.A. P.D. have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there was no such person on the planet? Yes.

This “closing argument” by Marcia Clark is unbelievably perverted - she devoted 41 seconds (1/4th) of her 2:44 second long closing argument to condemning, and condemning ultimately, Mark Furhman, for the innate and necessary capacity that all species have to discriminate on behalf of their own survival - she even explicitly denounces Furhrman’s very existence.

Marcia Clark’s lawyering efforts were thoroughly co-opted by Jewish, anti-White purposes of destroying Whites.

Anti-racism is a Jewish construct that capitalizes on Cartesianism’s rational blindness to prejudices, to the fact that its way of viewing the world is not innocent, that it is hurting and it is killing people - it targets Whites, especially.

       
29 April 1992, during black riots: Blacks pulled Reginald Denny from his truck passing through the riot areas, and then celebrate after having thrown a brick full force, point blank into his head. This was far worse than the incident which sparked the riots, a baton beating that police administered to physically resistant Rodney King, who had been apprehended after a dangerous, high-speed car chase.

Narcissism of (((PC))), still looking for ways to blame it on something other than Islam

The Reuters account is interesting for its reluctance to name Islam as culpable in fostering this kind of character and this kind of act -

Reuters, “Gunman massacres 50 at Florida gay club in worst U.S. mass shooting”, 13 June 2016:

A man armed with an assault rifle and pledging loyalty to Islamic State killed 50 people during a gay pride celebration at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, early on Sunday in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, a rampage President Barack Obama denounced as an act of terror and hate.

Police killed the gunman, Omar Mateen, 29, a New York-born Florida resident and U.S. citizen who was the son of Afghan immigrants and was twice questioned by FBI agents in recent years, authorities said.

Mateen’s former wife said he was emotionally and mentally disturbed with a violent temper, yet aspired to be a police officer.

Working for the global security firm G4S during the past nine years, Mateen was an armed guard for a gated retirement community in South Florida, and had cleared two company background screenings, the latest in 2013, according to G4S..

Preliminary investigations suggested the attack was inspired by Islamic State militants, though there was no immediate evidence that Mateen had any actual ties to the group, law enforcement officials said.

As the shooting rampage was unfolding, Mateen “made calls to 911 this morning in which he stated his allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State,” said Ronald Hopper, the FBI’s assistant special agent in charge on the case.

Shots rang out at the crowded Pulse nightclub in the heart of Orlando, about 15 miles northeast of the Walt Disney World Resort, as some 350 patrons were attending a Latin music event in conjunction with gay pride week celebrations. Clubgoers described scenes of carnage and pandemonium, with one man who escaped saying he hid under a car and bandaged a wounded stranger with his shirt.

“Words cannot and will not describe the feeling of that,” Joshua McGill said in a posting on Facebook. “Being covered in blood. Trying to save a guy’s life.”

Fifty-three people were wounded in the rampage. It ranked as the deadliest single U.S. mass shooting incident, eclipsing the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech University in 2007.

“We know enough to say this was an act of terror, an act of hate,” Obama said in a speech from the White House. “As Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage and in resolve to defend our people.”

U.S. officials cautioned, however, they had no conclusive evidence of any direct connection with foreign extremists.

“So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre,” said a U.S. counterterrorism official. “This guy appears to have been pretty screwed up without any help from anybody.”

There are really two important stories for White Nationalists that TNO has exposed in an article regarding Trump’s campaign.

First, that Trump has denied affinity with Matteo Salvini, the head of Italy’s anti-immigration party, Lega Nord. This denial came after Trump had garnered Salvini’s support and publicly commended him.

Secondly, what was a (((dead ringer))) from the start about the (((out of no-where))) viability of Trump’s Presidential Campaign has been corroborated by his son - i.e., that Trump’s (((campaign)) gained (((support))) by his agreement to denounce and challenge the Iran deal.

TNO, “Trump Rudely Dumps Italy’s Salvini”, 4 June 2016:

Donald Trump has rudely dumped Italy’s Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini, saying he “never wanted to meet him” and “didn’t even know him”—only a few weeks after meeting and posing with the European populist.

In April this year, Trump met up and posed for pictures with Salvini at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, northeastern Pennsylvania, and, according to the La Repubblica newspaper, expressed the hope that Salvini would become the prime minister of Italy.

Now, however, Trump has completely reversed his positon. In an interview with journalist Michael Wolff published in the Hollywood Reporter (“The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics’ ‘Dark Heart’ Is Having the Best Time Anyone’s Ever Had,” June 01, 2016), Trump has completely distanced himself from Salvini.

In the interview, when asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”

As Wolff wrote:

I ask if he sees himself as having similarities with leaders of the growing anti-immigrant (some would say outright racist) European nativist movements, like Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy, whom the Wall Street Journal reported Trump had met with and endorsed in Philadelphia. (“Matteo, I wish you become the next Italian premier soon,” Trump was quoted as saying.) In fact, he insists he didn’t meet Salvini. “I didn’t want to meet him.” And, in sum, he doesn’t particularly see similarities — or at least isn’t interested in them — between those movements and the anti-immigrant nationalism he is promoting in this country.

Salvini responded:

When asked why Trump would distance himself in this way, Salvini told the La Repubblica that this “makes me laugh…that interview is unbelievable. I assure you, a dozen emails were exchanged in preparation for that meeting. I didn’t jump from an airplane with a hat and flag.”

[...]

Whatever the reason, the reality remains that Trump’s public repudiation of Salvini is a clear indication that the maverick businessman-turned politician is starting to be “brought into line” by the establishment.

Another disturbing recent revelation about Trump has come with the claim by his son Eric that the decision to run for president was driven primarily by the “deal” struck with Iran over that nation’s mythical “atom bomb” project.

Related Story. by Compulsory Diversity News - Dear WN, “before the cuck crows, three times Donald will three times deny ye.”

When asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”