Posted by DanielS on Monday, 03 October 2016 01:37.
Before I post Bill’s lovely, just one editorial note, and you can all guess what it’s going to be about. The (((YKW))) misrepresentation of the crucial notion of post modernity. I cannot blame him for reviling “post modern relativism” as it has been (((presented and distorted))).
Just one caveat on Bill’s comment thus regarding his indispensable experience of (((post modernity))) - White post modernity is a difference that makes a difference in that it recognizes that we are relative to and different from other cultures. Therefore, it seeks to manage our ways given that awareness, as opposed to the oblivious, modernist, narcissistic unawareness of important differences in others - oblivious to that, it proceeds destructively in modernization, in “progress” toward “universal foundations”, a notion that underwrites the liberal upshot of its agenda, the boundless destruction, without a White post modern turn or recognition of the legitimacy and importance of reconstructing our inherent, relative forms.
Of course (((YKW))) are heavily influential in the BBC and take advantage by misusing what modicum of agency that relativism provides, to completely distort and abuse that and what might otherwise be benign and healthy notions of a diverse and multicultural world.
One other note: Auster should be written (((Auster))) to be clear, so that his motives come to attention.
To chronical the role of television (MSM) in the modern age would take a tome.
So what do I mean when I say we’re all a BBC construct now?
I suppose what I’m saying in a roundabout way is the BBC is the most powerful institution in the land, far outweighing the influence of our elected governments. Nobody votes for the BBC, few know their names and yet they have this immense cultural vice like grip on a whole population.
Fortunately for me, my lifespan has almost mirrored exactly that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Born in 1938 you might say I’ve grown up with the BBC, especially with regard to the development of Television. By the onset of 1950’s I was old enough to appreciate this marvel of the modern age. Back in those days I cannot claim to know how television would progress and what role it would play in the future of my country. However, I can say for certain one cannot today measure the distance in years the gulf of character of 1950’s to what television has become today. In a way, myself and those of my generation have had a ringside seat in witnessing the progress and development of post war television from Muffin the Mule to Star Trek?
With hindsight, the 1950’s to me represented the pinnacle of old Britishness. I could give an account of how it was for me, but suffice to say, by the onset of the 1960’s the Britishness I loved so much - had gone. Mostly, I don’t have the time to narrate how this sea change came about, but I did witness first-hand what a vital part BBC television has played in Britain’s downfall. I also heavily note (by passive viewing) the era of the 1950’s is unfailingly depicted by the BBC as oppressively deferential, wishing good riddance and a kick up the backside to the decade. I can only ask did the producers and script writers experience living during the 1950’s? As an aside, television has been given a new task – the rewriting of history. This sinister trait is in conjunction with the complete destruction of white identity. I note postmodern relativism rearing its head here. One man’s meat is another man’s poison! Hmm! Don’t let’s go down that road.
As I commented above, the role of the BBC’s remit from the beginning was to sway the whole of the British public into accepting whatever the BBC were peddling. I used the term normalising the status quo. In a nutshell, the BBC (media) have, over many decades, inculcated into the British viewer’s psyche the acceptance of mass immigration into their living space. With undreamed of success.
Fast forward to the present narrative which is dominating certain sections of the Internet and one can see how successful the media have been. All those here know perfectly well the tactics employed with such professional dedication, I don’t think I need to expand. It has never ceased to amaze me over the years how little comment from bloggers has been on the subject of the role of the media’s devastating contribution to Britain’s demise.
I’ve lost count of the number of my comments saying without the input of British media influence, the elite’s agenda could not have succeeded to the absolute degree it has. The hubris of the media and its hanger’s on knows no constraint, to them they are cock-a-hoop basking in success beyond all expectation. Who can argue with that?
The BBC’s talking heads jubilantly polish their halos and declare Multicultural Britain is a fact and resounding success. Does this mean the media will relax its grip on poor battered Britain? Is it all over? To quote those immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme – It is now!
I asked here some time ago. Before Facebook and Twitter had grown to what it is today, what were the chances of a ‘revealing mail’ going viral thereby highlighting the parlous plight of whites. I’m surprised the media has not been forced to enter this conversation, surely the centre cannot hold – something’s got to give.
I can’t wait for that moment.
As I write this, the political western world (as Blair once opined) is in flux. The kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are still falling.
Question to the BBC …. Who do you think you’re talking to?
I don’t watch television save the BBC news mostly at lunchtime.
From my lofty perch at my computer I note how normal everything seems. Neighbours chatting going about their chores, children ready for school, the postman on his round. This is how it’s always been for all of my life. Neat houses - manicured lawns. Most folk at work, leaving a peaceful dormer suburb to welcome them home at the end of a day’s work. From my window I reflect on the just seen news and ask myself how can this be? This state of affairs is cognisant dissonance on a pandemic scale
More likely than not I’m looking and listening on screen at a non-white face confidently reading from the autocue informing me my nation’s current events and history. Be it political, economic, whatever, maybe even the burning question of reintroduction of Grammar schools or whatever else- to distract the viewer to look the other way.
Do the native Brits watch the news with their eyes wide shut, can’t they see what’s coming down the pike? Perhaps more importantly - do they care?
Recently we had the Olympic Games from Brazil, for which the whole of the BBC’s output for the duration was the glorification of the nation state of these isles. The BBC are very picky as to how they portray the nation to the nation’s viewers, whether to glorify or denigrate. Praise the natives for their tolerance, or amp up the megaphone of racism for such as Brexit. It’s all according in what context our nation is being judged by the media. The BBC basks in the reflected glory of supremacism of team Britain and yet in reality, in the eyes of the BBC we’re all equal, and yet in other quarters, they denigrate our browbeaten population into abject submission.
Our country is on the cusp, it’s reached its tipping point. Old Britain is slowly receding to the water’s edge. Britain already is no more. Alien people in their millions from every quarter of the globe setting sights on reaching Britain, the indigenous Brits, balefully gazing, have no answers.
All of which, leads me to ask again of the BBC, to whom are you addressing? Is it Somali’s, Bangladeshi’s, Syrians, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians or a myriad of other communities from around the Globe? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the native people of this land but I doubt it, for long ago they have been abandoned to a fate we know not which.
I suspect the BBC will respond by jubilantly declaring that Britain is now a multi-cultural, multi-racial society - we are as one. Get over it!
When young Turks straight from uni gather in the newsroom to compile the latest news, how do they decide which community to address?
I watched a piece recently about the centenary of the Battle of Jutland, I couldn’t help but notice how incongruous it all seemed. A non-white face telling a white nation of its history. Do the BBC do it deliberately?
All of this leads a once homogenous people to disorientation and chaos, without bearing, how can the BBC talk to a whole nation with any degree of consensus? I despair how the British people have allowed this state of affairs to come to pass. To me it defies gravity.
It is manifestly clear the BBC (MSM) have been charged with normalising the situation for the past 60 years. People can’t say they were never warned.
Auster was right, the English have done it to themselves. They didn’t resist - and are still not resisting.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 04 August 2016 08:01.
Mika Brzezinski: Don Black says that she looks like “a bird”
A thought occurs to me in contrast to my long standing position in deference to “the wisdom of the body for its tens of thousands of years of evolution by contrast to social judgment.”
I usually like to take the side of the “abnormal” because, like everybody, I have witnessed ignorant bullying of certain nonstandard types by crassly subjective people - those oblivious to the fact that others may object to the complete dismissal of what really are other valid values (perhaps even necessary from an ecological standpoint) and aesthetics - a recent example: Don Black saying Mika Brzezinski “looks like a bird.” That’s his stupid opinion. I admit that his wife, Chloe, is hot - still, it is a bit weird that she was Duke’s wife first. And I must object as Mike Brezinski is a pretty lady too.
Chloe Hardin-Duke-Black (whatever), here with Duke. She’s definitely cute, too.
I still maintain the wisdom of the body as a correct bias and a correct basis for social critique - especially with regard to bodily shapes, forms, functions that really cannot be helped. And I am on the record as saying that women with big noses and flat chests can be beautiful as well - even though these things can be “helped.” I had a girlfriend who was flat chested and she was quite fine to me. Neither she nor other flat chested women should have breast implants, nor should most women who have bigger noses have nose jobs - there is a such thing as ugly big, but more often such a thing as elegant, impressive, big noses. I hate it when people take the position that “a woman cannot look that way” (when in fact, they can sometimes look better than women with big boobs and small noses). But a contrasting position occurs to me with regard to fat - and the “fat shaming” which I suspect that the YKW are lobbying against.
It is valid too, to an extent, to object to getting heavy handed with fat shaming, along with other arguments against the tyrannical regularity of certain types presented as normal and beautiful - viz., in respect to the fact that it is truly a bit harder for some people, especially as they get older, to stay thin. Another side to it has unfolded before me - though not really a side which in this case that I had been fully against anyway and which would have been discovered if anyone had questioned me.
I just completed an 8 day fast. No food. Plenty of water. Coffee (sorry, I know the pro’s and cons, not going to stop it); vitamins and minerals: vitamin D, Zinc, Omega 3 with B6, Magnesium, Vitamin C pellets); and my one caloric indulgence - over the course of the 8 days, I had a total of 5 small cups of tomato juice.
I did some exercise also - went pretty easy, only pushing myself in a few moments, overall doing slower, steadier activity - like walking. I like doing exercise that gets me somewhere or something done - shoveling a ditch that I need fits the bill - so I did some of that too.
Kardashian - somehow not hard to resist
It wasn’t a really big surprise but it was a little surprised to find myself fatter than I thought that I would still be after this. I don’t look very fat, but I do look like the guy who is perhaps confident, if not a bit too comfortable with himself - more comfortable than I really am in that regard. However, I will not be fat, even if my body does not sense that yet. This is where I am getting to a semi-interesting realization that I had today. Even after having finally eaten 3 ounces of steak, 4 ounces of chicken (with pieces of garlic in it), a cup of blackberries, a half kilo of cherries, an apricot, an avocado, beansprouts, a red and a yellow bell pepper, a small red hot chili pepper, a small amount of coleslaw, a small amount of beet salad, and a half a head of broccoli…
I am not really surprised to find my mind more fixated on food and my brain signaling, “tasty food,” “eat” - even more than when I was in the midst of the 8 day fast - because that is what happened last time that I fasted. My body is saying, “boy, wasn’t that steak tasty” mmm and “that avocado, yum.”
However, I am not starving. My gut is not issuing hunger pains. I believe that these are secondary signals long evolved from the time when food might not be available in days to come, so my body encourages me (and I will now say) a bit stupidly, and not wisely, to eat more and even get fat for the possibility that I may not have access to food in the near future. In these episodes, my body and its biology are “stupider” than my conscious mind and society.
My conscious mind does know that I will be eating again before long - I will fast again tomorrow but then have a modest meal on Saturday and then eat on alternating days until I get to the weight I want, at which point I will figure out a maintenance diet and regime.
But especially when you are NOT starving, not nutrient deprived, will not be, then you know that your body’s sending faint warning signals against these things - necessary and wise though these signals are to have in place - can and should at this time be overridden by conscious intelligence; an intelligence which connects with the social patterns which keep telling me: “hey, you don’t look so bad - but your stomach is sticking out.”
I also have observed that the first thing women instinctively look at is the top of my stomach - (not that I am necessarily trying to pick them up, but I don’t like having social engagement cut off as abruptly as that, either) that seems to be a place by which they can intuitively gauge your age: too old if the top part of your stomach is protruding—probably because its harder for older people to stay thin and that’s a typical indicator.
Jennifer Lopez - a Whitish looking face and a ghetto booty: I can live without it.
Anyway, so while the “fat shaming” can be overdone, it can be underdone as well - and that is a case where conscious and social wisdom can, at times, be wiser than the “wisdom of the body.”
But that’s the thing - people on the right don’t realize that the YKW (as usual) are exaggerating good social positions and critiques beyond all reason in order to make them didactic.
Quoting myself: one evening in McSorley’s Old Ale House, a TV talk show crew came in with a lesbian couple (black and White woman) who were asking men’s opinion as to whether the White girl should get breast implants since she thought that would please her black girlfriend. I was asked my opinion by the production crew. I answered that in particular, “I rather like flat chested women, so my opinion is particularly biased against breast implants for that reason for starters; but there were more reasons to be against it than that; including as part of a more general stance against bodily alteration - I believe that given that our bodies have evolved over tens of thousands of years, that they are bound to be wiser, smarter if you will, than our conscious decision making and should be given the benefit of the doubt against our anxieties and against popular consensus; rather, we should try to learn what our bodies have to teach us about our interface with the social ecology and bring our corporeality to bear in social critique if necessary, rather than the other way around - bending to what may well be a popular fad against the better wisdom of our evolution.” I was told by the couple that my answer was good and they asked me to sign a release; but the bartender, yes that one, asked, “what was that ‘stuff’ you were saying? I don’t think that was what the TV producers were looking for.” I suppose that he was right and that my opinion was not aired.
The Communist Party mayor of Madrid, Manuela Carmena, has failed in her bid to force the Hogar Social Madrid (“Madrid Social Home,” or HSM) from its premises in the city.
HSM uses the building as a storage venue and accommodation for needy Spanish people—but the group’s opposition to the nonwhite invasion of Europe has put it at odds with Carmena.
As a result, Carmena , who claims to have resigned her membership of the Partido Comunista de España (Communist Party of Spain, PCE), put forward a motion at the most recent Madrid town council meeting to have the HSM expelled from its legally occupied building.
As the council meeting proceeded, about thirty members of HSM demonstrated outside, with two of their most prominent members chaining themselves to the building railings.
The other HSM members unfurled a banner reading “Guilty only of helping our own people.”
Council chairman Jorge García Castaño said that HSM “uses the building to pick up and deliver food, but that is a cover for its violent activities.” These “violent activities,” he claimed, included “assaults, threats, and intimidation against persons on grounds of ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, and propaganda campaigns with slogans such as ‘Terrorists Welcome.’”
Castaño also accused the HSM of “criminalizing the entire Muslim community and the millions of people who, fleeing war, have lost everything.”
Despite the extravagant claims, no members of HSM have actually been convicted of any crimes, and, as the movement pointed out on its Facebook page, the only violence at any of its public appearances had come from the far left.
Despite their efforts, the attempt to evict HSM failed to muster enough votes to pass,
and the organization—which has been evicted from other premises before—is safe for the time being.
The HSM posted a series of pictures on its Facebook page showing exactly what they do at their headquarters—helping the elderly and the needy survive. The brave patriots have sworn to continue their work, no matter what—and are steadily growing in support and activist numbers.
A bronze age burial South Uist, in the Outer Hebridean Western Isles
Mass graves were replaced by individual burials for the elite in the Bronze Age showing a shift in social structure Credit: PA
Half of Western European men are descended from one Bronze Age ‘king’ who sired a dynasty of elite nobles which spread throughout Europe, a new study has shown.
The monarch, who lived around 4,000 years ago, is likely to have been one of the earliest chieftains to take power in the continent.
He was part of a new order which emerged in Europe following the Stone Age, sweeping away the previous egalitarian Neolithic period and replacing it with hierarchical societies which were ruled by a powerful elite.
It is likely his power stemmed from advances in technology such as metal working and wheeled transport which enabled organised warfare for the first time.
Although it is not known who he was, or where he lived, scientists say he must have existed because of genetic variation in today’s European populations.
Dr Chris Tyler-Smith, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, said: “One of the most novel and exciting things we have found in the study is the extraordinary explosion in numbers of males at specific times.
“In Europe there was huge population expansion in just a few generations. Genetics can’t tell us why it happened but we know that a tiny number of elite males were controlling reproduction and dominating the population.
“Half of the Western European population is descended from just one man. We can only speculate as to what happened. The best explanation is that they may have resulted from advances in technology that could be controlled by small groups of men.
“Wheeled transport, metal working and organised warfare are all candidate explanations that can now be investigated further.”
Studying the genomes of people across the world can show how populations have spread Credit: Alamy
The study analysed sequence differences between the Y chromosomes of more than 1200 men from 26 populations around the world using data generated by the 1000 Genomes Project.
The Y chromosome is only passed from father to son and so is wholly linked to male characteristics and behaviours. Mutations reveal which are related to each other and how far apart they are genetically so that researchers can build a family tree.
Dr Yali Xue, lead author from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, explained: “This pattern tells us that there was an explosive increase in the number of men carrying a certain type of Y chromosome, within just a few generations.
“We only observed this phenomenon in males, and only in a few groups of men.”
The team used the data to build a tree of the 1200 Y chromosomes. It shows how they are all related to one another. As expected, they all descend from a single man who lived approximately 190,000 years ago.
The most intriguing and novel finding was that some parts of the tree were more like a bush than a tree, with many branches originating at the same point.
The earliest explosive increases of male numbers occurred 50,000–55,000 years ago, across Asia and Europe, and 15,000 years ago in the Americas.
There were also later expansions in sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe, South Asia and East Asia, at times between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago. The team believes the earlier population increases resulted from the first peopling by modern humans of vast continents, where plenty of resources were available.
Dr David Poznik, from Stanford University, California, first author on the paper, said: “We identified more than 60,000 positions where one DNA letter was replaced by another in a man with modern descendants, and we discovered thousands of more complex DNA variants.
“These data constitute a rich and publicly available resource for further genealogical, historical and forensic studies.”
The research was published in the journal Nature Genetics.
A new study which locates the origin of Yiddish and in fact, the Ashkenazim, in Eastern Turkey is interesting not only for the implications it has for Jewish origins and behavior, but because it has correspondence with the origin of the parent haplogroup of Jews.
However, the hypothesis that Jews have origins other than the Middle East presents problems and opportunities when looking at ways to deal with conflicts with them. When and how did Jews take on attributes that cause us problems? What to do about it based on the facts?
Fausette’s “niche theory” of the development of Jewish virulence traces the origin of their infamous rootless and parasitic behavior to the Babylonian captivity - thereafter, they returned to Palestine/Israel and occupied managerial niches over the sedentary populations; thus evolving a parasitic relation to native peoples.
If we take a look back further along their genetic line, to the origin of J1 in Eastern Turkey, however, their characteristic rootless and mercantile nature might predate and indicate that that Jewish evolution may have imposed itself on the Middle East having already mutated the characteristic form prior to the Babylonian captivity.
Another well known hypothesis of non-Middle East origin of characteristic Jewish peoplehood is The Khazar hypothesis made popular by Arthur Koestler. While Khazaria was much later than the Babylonian captivity and a bit to the east of eastern Turkey, the temperament that the Caucus mutations have given rise-to do have family resemblance to Jewish behavior. Inasmuch as the theory holds true, it could throw some predictive light on them.
Being of pragmatic disposition, I tend to be averse to the hypothesis that Jews are of Khazarian origin. The practical reasons to reject the hypothesis that I have in mind are firstly, to go along with the preponderance of genetic evidence which currently organizes them as Middle Eastern peoples. That goes to the second reason to be averse to theories of alternative, e.g., Khazar origins: the purpose to locate Jews both genetically and geographically in order to hold them to account, curb the shenanigans of their sundry diaspora - what Bowery has referred to as their horizontal transmission - which is the idea based on the niche hypothesis that their exiles and border crossings only select for their non-sedentary, parasitic characteristics. The solution that he proposes is that they be compelled to stay in one place and develop “vertical transmission”, a non-parasitic, viz., symbiotic relation with a particular land. Nevertheless, we certainly do not want to propose that their rightful place is among European lands and to allow them to continue their exploits among us; nor would it necessarily do us any particular good to see them return to the lands of ancient Khazaria or somewhere else in the near east, even if that is where they are from.
Even so, while it may not be convenient for those of us who’d like to see them all forced to go to Israel, stay there and perhaps develop some vertical transmission, we might need to have a deeper understanding of their motives and their place (or non-place, as it were) in order to come to a better concept of how to deal with them as they are, and as the facts are, whether in Israel or in diaspora.
I suppose that those who find the Khazar hypothesis appealing might be motivated from the opposite direction - that we might be able to put an end to the trouble that they are causing in the Middle East by denying their warrant to be there; and eventually perhaps diffuse their virulence by its assimilation or dying-off.
Whatever we might want, however, facts won’t necessarily bear it out. Nevertheless, there are important matters of historical punctuation, viz., when and where Jews begin as a people; and there is our capacity to determine how the facts count surrounding any such assertions: Jewish claims are assailable indeed; their claims are within our negotiative control and subject to our agentive preference. Operational verifiability will only assist us to warrantably assert our preferences.
First, let’s take a quick look at the kind of argument that is being made against the Khazar hypothesis:
And indeed, Kevin MacDonald et al. argue persuasively for the genetic and geographical location of the origin of Jews in the Middle East. KM and Duke argue that there’re only one or two (unreliable, they say), genetic studies that endorse the Khazar hypothesis, while scores, they say, verify ME origins.
Patrick Slattery argues that there are two massively difficult conversions that would have to have been made to underpin the Khazar hypothesis: first, a mass of people held to become the Ashkenazi would have had to convert to Judaism. Next and an even greater challenge, is to explain why people who are held to have originated in Khazaria spoke Yiddish - a largely Germanic language
Now, GW has raised very valid points about characteristic temperament and other kinds of special relation that Jews have to the area.
He has responded:
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 16:18 | #
1. The Mosaic faith developed specifically as a survival mechanism in captivity, and developed through the Babylonian and Roman periods as such. For any people which has lost its guarantor of group survival - its land - and faces a permanent exile, with a future holding no more than an inevitable process of persecution and genetic dissolution, a mass conversion to Judaism is a perfectly logical choice.
Groups are capable, under stress, of taking immense decisions, including to suicide en masse. We should not regard mass conversion to a foreign faith as simply impossible.
2. Yiddish is an artificially-constructed language rooted in the languages of the host, particularly in the east, but containing influences from Hebrew and Aramaic which may simply originate in the oral faith tradition.
Again, while it isn’t quite Khazaria, it isn’t far from it either, and looking at this new GPS hypothesis, Eastern Turkey and surrounds show relevance to Ashkenazi origins and behavior after and perhaps before the Babylonian captivity. Interesting also is the fact that this study contradicts Slattery’s understanding of Yiddish as a mostly German derived language. The study below asserts that German words were merely added to an underlying language, the fundamental grammatical structure of which came from the East.
If we are willing to go to more ancient times, well prior to Khazaria, the fountain head of J1 does indicate an origin in Eastern Turkey (neither far nor very different climes from Khazaria) - viz., “the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan.”
The only problem with arguing non-ME origins for Jews is that it seems more helpful to middle-easterners than to Europeans. On the contrary, it could spread them around more and amongst us (e.g., from Turkey up into Eastern Ukraine!) - that is the last thing we might want when we need to quarantine them.
Want or not, however, it might even have some explanatory value for their influence on the margins of the Near East: In the Ukrainian - Russian war, for example; and their predictable role on both sides. Both Ukraine and ancient Khazaria would be appealing targets as a strategic and valuable real estate for them with some historical affinity as well as by being a place to put the products of Jewish men’s whore-mongering - prostitution is legal in Israel but the bastard products are not legally entitled by Israel to citizenship - they are not born of a Jewish mother. Where better to put them? Many of their mothers are Ukrainian or Russian, from these areas.
However, if we can pinpoint some of their characteristics virulence to mutations having occurred along the Silk Road in Eastern Turkey, that might help us to identify other anti-bodies to their virulence.
The origin of the Yiddish language (spoken at least since the 9th century A.D.), and consequently Yiddish speakers, has been debated for the past several centuries, mainly between linguists. While the Rhineland hypothesis suggests a German origin, the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis, proposed by Paul Wexler, suggests a more complex origin starting with Slavic lands in Khazaria, followed by Ukraine, and finally Germany where the language was relexified, i.e., adopted a German vocabulary, but retained its Slavic grammar, which is why Yiddish was oftentimes called “Bad German.”
GPS predictions for the DNA of Ashkenazic Jews (orange triangles) overlap villages whose name may be derived from the word “Ashkenaz” that reside along the Silk Roads and other trade routes. GPS predictions for the DNA of Iranian (yellow triangles) and Mountain (pink triangles) Jews are also shown.
To evaluate these two hypotheses we applied the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) tool to the genomes of over 360 sole Yiddish and non-Yiddish speaking Ashkenazic Jews. This is the largest study of Ashkenazic Jews and the first one to study Yiddish speakers. Surprisingly, GPS honed in an obscure region in northeast Turkey. There we found four primeval villages (one was abandoned in the mid-7th century A.D.) whose name may be derived from the word “Ashkenaz,” suggesting that this was the central location of ancient Ashkenaz.
The search for ancient Ashkenaz has been one of the longest quests in human history lasting at least 1000 years (perhaps second only to Noah’s Ark that has been searched at least since the 3rd century A.D.). This is the only place in the world with these placenames and they cluster within a hub of atrade routes, as can be expected from a nation of traders where linguistic, genomic, historic, and geographic evidence converge.
Evidently, the ancient Ashkenazic Jews were merchants who, together with Iranian Jews, plied land and maritime trade routes and invented Yiddish as a secret language with 251 words for “buy” and “sell” to maintain their monopoly. They were known to trade in everything from fur to slaves. These findings are consistent with historical records depicting Jews as merchants. Indeed, by the 8th century the words “Jew” and “merchant” were practically synonymous. Around that time, Ashkenazic Jews began relocating to the Khazar Empire to expand their mercantile operations. Consequently, some of the Turkic Khazar rulers and the numerous Eastern Slavs in the Khazar Empire converted to Judaism to participate in the lucrative Silk Road trade between Germany and China.
After the fall of Khazaria (10-13th ce) Ashkenazic Jews split into two groups. Some remained in the Caucasus and others migrated into Eastern Europe and Germany that has been incorrectly proposed to be the original land of Ashkenaz. The two groups still call themselves Ashkenazic Jews, however the name became more strongly associated with the latter group. After their separation Yiddish became the primary language among European Jews and underwent relexification by adopting a new vocabulary that consists of a minority of German and Hebrew and a majority of newly coined Germanoid and Hebroid elements that replaced most of the original E. Slavic and Sorbian vocabularies, while keeping the original grammars intact.
Further evidence to the origin of AJs can be found in the many customs and their names concerning the Jewish religion, which were probably introduced by Slavic converts to Judaism, like the breaking of a glass at a wedding ceremony and placing stones over tombstones.
Our study demonstrate the potential of the GPS technology combined with citizen Science to shed light on the forgotten chapters of our history.
University of Sheffield, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences
The sort of alliance that Majorityrights advocates between European peoples and Asia(ns) is Happening. We envisage a coordinated effort to protect our peoples, secure our lands, access to vital resources and to maintain our channels of commerce. Allying our peoples and military stations along that line come with the broader purpose of securing our people against Islamic, Arab and African populations, Abrahamic/Judaic and Jewish populations, power and influence.
A home to military bases for the US, France and soon China, Djibouti may be the most important tiny African state you’ve never heard about.
At the close of another hot day on the coast of Djibouti, a tiny country on the Horn of Africa, workers are clambering over huge concrete cubes beneath a red crane. One by one, the 2,500-tonne blocks are being submerged in the water: part of a plan to stun the shoreline into submission and create a vast new port at the heart of global trade.
“We’re going to fill in the sea,” Abdo Mohammed, the logistics manager for the $590m project, tells me with quiet glee.
Thirty per cent of all shipping in the world passes this point on the north-east edge of Africa, where the water narrows to a few kilometres opposite Yemen. A former French colony that became independent only in 1977, Djibouti sits at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, en route to the Suez Canal — a waypoint between Africa, India and the Middle East. Over the past 15 years, the country has set about capitalising on its location at the nexus of international trade: once completed, the Doraleh Multi-Purpose Port will be the largest of eight ports that together will handle containers, livestock, oil, phosphates and more.
But the geostrategic ambition of the small, authoritarian state — which at 23,200 sq km (8,950 sq miles) is only slightly larger than Wales — does not stop there. The US, several European countries and Japan have all pinned global military ambitions on Djibouti. Now China is set to do the same.
Construction began on the new port in 2013. “But then [last year] we had to change things around,” says Mohammed. He gestures with his phone in the direction of the arid land behind us. “We had to make a new section over there, beside the mountain, inside the port. That’s where the Chinese military base will be.”
The sun, by now a giant orange disc, slips behind the sea. Mohammed’s nonchalant disclosure marks the culmination of the search that brought me here. China is planning its first overseas military base at Doraleh, within a few kilometres of America’s largest military outpost in Africa. As superpowers jostle for strategic influence, this impoverished state, home to fewer than a million people, is helping to shape a new world order.
Djibouti first came to the attention of France when the French navy commandeered its coastline in 1862 as a stop to refuel and restock coal steamers en route to French Indochina. French Somaliland, as the colony became known soon after, opened up the landlocked African hinterland to international trade; in the 1910s, a new railway from Addis Ababa to Djibouti linked Ethiopia to the sea. Djibouti is a barren land of mountains and desert, and its location has always been its most precious resource. Even now, it is more port city than country: by far the majority of the population lives in the seaside capital of the same name.
A military and trading entrepôt that welcomes all comers, Djibouti today oozes espionage chic. It is home to pirate-hunters, soldiers, spies and Arab traders. Conservative Somali culture mixes with the legacy of flamboyant French Legionnaires.
“Djibouti is really experiencing a boom,” says Ahmed Osman Guelleh, the 56-year-old chief executive of GSK Group, a family logistics company that has forged its fortune through shipping. Yet the baking heat makes it remarkable that anything much gets done at all. One US soldier who served here describes it as “a hot hell box in the armpit of Africa”. Temperatures reach into the mid-40s for nearly half the year. Government offices shut down at 12.30, and an entire nation of men, and many women, take up the national pastime: chewing for hours on khat, a bitter leaf so renowned for its amphetamine-like properties that it is banned in Britain and the US.
The drug gives its wired adherents a daily buzz — and mollifying fuzz — they cannot be without. I watched market traders, government officials and on-duty police officers chew khat. Even the 49-year-old finance minister Ilyas Moussa Dawaleh admitted to me that his family has shares in the largest khat importer.
“If Djiboutians stopped chewing khat for seven days, they would overthrow the government,” says one port worker. He is only half joking. Eccentric and appealing as it is, Djibouti is authoritarian and brittle too. President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, a former head of the secret police who has run the country since 1999, will seek re-election for his fourth term on April 8, having altered the constitution in 2010 to allow him to extend his rule. The opposition complains regularly of illegal security crackdowns and the impossibility of free and fair elections.
Flanked by Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia, Djibouti is viewed as a haven in the unstable Horn of Africa and hosts armed forces from around the world. “There’s no country with so many military bases. You can throw stones from one end to the other of Djibouti and find military bases all the way, right next to each other,” says one senior official. France pledged to protect its former colony as part of a post-independence deal; after 9/11 it was joined by the US, which chose Djibouti as its base for rooting out emerging Islamist terror networks in the region. Initially, US troops were stationed on a navy ship but in 2003 they set up in Camp Lemonnier, a rundown French Legionnaires’ base beside the airport. The site has since expanded from 88 acres to 500. In 2014 a 10-year lease nearly doubled the annual rent the US pays Djibouti to $63m, with an option to extend for another 10 years.
In the past decade piracy has increased the tiny state’s strategic importance; as Somali pirates took hundreds of crews and vessels captive, costing global trade an estimated $7bn at a 2011 peak, several nations contributed to anti-piracy missions in Djibouti, including Germany, Italy and Japan.
Russia may also be interested in establishing a base. Djibouti’s foreign minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, an articulate 50-year-old with a reputation as the most competent minister in the government, tells me that while Djibouti turned down a request from Iran to host its military here — “because we think that Iran’s policy in the region is not a peaceful one” — it has not declined a similar recent request from Moscow. “Russia is a key player, it is a permanent member of the Security Council,” he tells me in his office. “For Russia we have no problem.”
The country is already so full of military personnel that its small, sandy capital city at times resembles a sprawling garrison. US fighter jets share the same airport runway as commercial airlines at the civil airport. French soldiers in impossibly skimpy, neon-hued shorts jog past brightly veiled women and mosques. The five-star Palace Kempinski hotel, a bubble of exclusivity in the otherwise poor city, serves $5 Cokes and popcorn tossed in truffle butter to crewcuts in uniform. Battle tattoos flash on the biceps and backs of Speedo-wearing soldiers in the infinity pool. Special-forces operatives sip Moscow Mules on the pontoon. International spies and drones operate daily. One western spy told me they enjoyed Djibouti because it is “quirky”.
Despite the multi-force troop presence, when rumours started circulating early last year that China was not only going to build its first overseas military base but that it was going to build it in Djibouti, rival powers were taken by surprise. Western countries and their allies view the prospect of China’s military arrival at a global chokepoint for trade and security with alarm. An anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 was the first time China had sent naval ships on a mission outside its territorial waters in more than 600 years.
For two fundamental reasons, I welcome China‘s outreach to African states (and believe any sane person should, though I must admit that sanity is not a commodity in great supply in the US these days). First, Africa needs all the help it can get and the Chinese have lots of stored up capital. Second, when the Chinese try to attach strings to their aid, before or after, the Africans smell it out rather swiftly. So far, the Chinese have been less than stellar in camouflaging such strings.”
Since then, Beijing has gradually shifted its foreign policy to embrace a more assertive military posture, moving to a strategy it calls “active defence”. Its pursuit of a Djibouti base has been cloaked in secrecy, with public statements short on detail. Some diplomats speak darkly of China’s “100-year horizons”. One senior western diplomat, with a more immediate timeframe in mind, says, “The worst-case scenario is that they [China] develop this web of bases to give them a kind of control over strategic waterways all the way into the Med.”
In financial terms, China is already what one official in the region describes as the “major show” in town. Following the model it has employed throughout Africa — offering billions of dollars in financing in exchange for access to resources — China is helping to bankroll a targeted $12.4bn of spending on huge infrastructure projects including the Doraleh port and a new railway to Ethiopia. Amid the boom in construction, Djibouti’s growth rate is likely to surpass 7 per cent this year. But the investments are having “limited trickle-down effects”, according to the International Monetary Fund. Nearly two-thirds of the population lives in poverty, and half the labour force is unemployed. In the absence of many skilled domestic workers, Chinese labourers have been flown in.
Loans from China for a water pipeline and the new railway from Ethiopia — agreed before talk of a military base — come to $814m, half of the country’s annual GDP. In 2013 the IMF suspended discussions with Djibouti because of its concerns over debt vulnerability; last year it warned of “elevated solvency risks”. Finance minister Dawaleh tells me he recently travelled to Beijing, seeking to negotiate easier repayment plans. Djibouti’s public and publicly guaranteed debt burden is likely to reach 81 per cent of GDP next year, mostly as a result of Chinese financing.
“We don’t want the Americans to leave but the Chinese invest billions of dollars in our infrastructure; that’s what the Americans are not doing,” foreign minister Youssouf explains. “So we are trying to keep the balance to see where our interest lies, as a small country with very limited resources.”
In early 2014, Djibouti and China signed an agreement to allow the Chinese navy — which contributes to international anti-piracy operations — to use its port. Beijing made no official comment when President Guelleh said, last May, that Djibouti was in talks with China to establish a military base. In November, China confirmed only a naval “support facility” destined for Djibouti, with a spokesperson saying, “It will help China’s military further carry out its international responsibilities to safeguard global and regional peace and stability.” Even in February this year, announcing the start of work on the project, China referred only to “logistical facilities” for naval rest and resupply. The Chinese embassy in Djibouti turned down my requests for an interview with the ambassador.
But when I speak to Youssouf, he is candid and happy to provide details of the deal he and President Guelleh have struck with China. “The terms of the contract and agreement are very clear and they are the same for each and every country that requested military presence in Djibouti,” he tells me in his office in the capital.
China will, he says, pay $20m a year for a 10-year lease for the military base, with an option to extend for a further 10 years. There will probably be “a few thousand” troops and military staff at the site, along with its own naval berth at the new port. It would use the base to protect its national interest — monitoring its merchant vessels passing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that leads to the Suez Canal, and for its navy to refuel and restock — much as the French did more than 150 years ago. Youssouf also says that China, which is slated to build a second major airport in the country, would have as much right to use drones as the US and French. China’s foreign ministry declined to respond to faxed questions from the FT about the terms of the new base.
“The Americans have enough technology, enough fighter aircraft, enough drones [here] to control each and every piece of this land and even beyond,” says Youssouf. “Why should the Chinese not have the right to also use those materials . . . to preserve and protect their interest in the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. Why?”
Official comments from those potentially affected are clipped: “We follow the situation about the Chinese base very closely,” says Tatsuo Arai, Japan’s ambassador to Djibouti. Youssouf admits that both Japan and the US have “expressed their worries” to both him and President Guelleh about the arrival of a Chinese military presence so close to their own, and its potential capabilities.
“Those preoccupations and worries expressed by the Americans and others are groundless, for us at least,” Youssouf tells me, deriding the west’s “hypocritical vision of our common interest”.
“We can host Chinese bases as we can host American bases . . . They might have conflicting interests elsewhere but here they cannot have conflicting interests, because the strait of Bab el-Mandeb is vital for each and everyone in the world,” he says. “There is no conflict of interest when it comes to global peace. China has no interest in doing anything [bad]. Everybody knows that nobody can take any action that could jeopardise the maritime traffic . . . This is a vital lifeline for the whole of international trade.
“We tried to reassure [the Americans and Japanese ], saying don’t worry, the same agreement we signed with them is the one we signed with you. So there is no reason to worry.”
That sense of equivalence may be precisely what is worrying the US. America, after all, is undertaking in Djibouti what Ambassador Tom Kelly tells me is “the biggest active military construction project in the entire world . . . It’s number one of everything we’re doing.” In his office at the US embassy, a monolith in sand-blown Haramous (what counts as the city’s upmarket district), the 54-year-old Kelly is unambiguous about the country’s vital role, describing Djibouti as “at the forefront of our national security policy right now”.
Geography is important (most who use the term ‘geopolitical’ don’t even know what they are implying by it). From Djibouti, Aden is just across, as is its state, Yemen, where al-Qaeda abounds. The narrowest part of the Red Sea route, south, is there. Jeddah is just up the opposite coast and Mogadishu, another haven for al-Qaeda, is the other way across the landmass. Moreover, the government of Djibouti, unlike most other African states, seems to be either sufficiently worried about its own security or lusting for hard currency, or both, to be one of the few African states willing to host a US troop presence.”
“The greatest threat to the US is terrorism, and we’re right on the front lines here,” he says. “It is an extremely important counterterrorism platform for the United States; within striking distance of two active affiliates — AQIP [al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] and al-Shabaab in Somalia.”
The US runs special ops across the continent as well as drones from Djibouti, protects 16 embassies in the region and fights al-Qaeda affiliates in Somalia, Yemen and further afield. The country is also a key point for monitoring and securing trade routes. At Obock, a sleepy fishing port at the mouth of the Bab el-Mandeb Straits, the US has installed a surveillance centre.
From here, Djibouti can monitor southern access to the Suez, track seafaring traffic, patrol coastal waters and protect maritime borders. The US built a naval pier here in 2009 and conducts counterterrorism training and houses radar equipment in the nearby Ras Bir lighthouse.
The US presence is growing; $1bn is being spent on expanding its base, bulking up its presence for the long term. While the drone site has been moved to Chabelley, 10km south-west of the capital, the main US base in the city still has what operatives call a “secret side”, with a covert compound dedicated to special operations, targeting not only AQIP and al-Shabaab but also the main branch of al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Lord’s Resistance Army and Isis. As US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, Djibouti is now the active centre for what US soldiers at the camp refer to as “g-wot”: the global war on terror.
“Guys who come back can’t believe how much bigger it’s got,” one of the 4,500 troops and contractors living inside the base tells me. Unlike the French, they are allowed to leave the base only rarely during their downtime. Camp conditions approximate to, in the words of one resident, “adultday caree”. US forces eat at Combat Café, watch films at the Oasis Movie Theatre, play ping pong, poker and Xbox 360 in the gaming room, go to the gym and crack gags instructing each other to “have a Djiboutiful day”.
Japanese troops, whose anti-piracy mission numbers several hundred, sometimes visit for a game of soccer or touch rugby to alleviate what one Japanese soldier described to me as a dismal time coping with heat and boredom. Japan’s base also finds ways to remind cooped-up soldiers of home: I was treated to a tour that included a room filled with manga comics, traditional Japanese communal hot baths and the rare prospect of sushi.
The confines of the camp are in contrast to the freer life downtown. My own interest was piqued when a Somali friend described Djibouti as “Mogadishu meets Las Vegas”. The country, which a diplomat calls “one of the sentinels of moderate Muslim societies”, goes more or less by the secular French penal code, a leftover from colonial days. Compared with neighbouring Somalia’s practice of sharia, it is relatively liberal. Women rarely wear the full niqab, some shirk a headscarf completely. They meet for late-night sheeshas, guava juice and gossip beside the quay in the hot night air. Many have boyfriends, even if they shield it from their families.
“You can have your private life in Djibouti. That’s why we’re not like Somalia,” an impassioned 30-year-old woman tells me, saying it was down not to French influence but to “the Djiboutian mentality”. “We are much more open, more free. We don’t talk about sex ever but it goes on out of marriage. As long as you don’t bring shame on your family, your private life is free.”
Djibouti’s nightclubs stay open until 4am, with police carefully shepherding revellers to avoid clashing with the call of the muezzin as worshippers attend morning prayers. I watch a group of five Frenchmen — all swagger, sleeves rolled up, hands in pockets — rolling out of l’Historil, a bar-restaurant, heading for the bright lights of the disco zone. Another group of French soldiers passes through the metal detectors to enter Shams, a nightclub rammed with revellers lit by disco balls. The outlines of the Statue of Liberty and a bare-breasted woman hang on the walls; 13 waitresses stand elbow to elbow serving drinks at the red-lit bar.
While parts of the city and many Muslims are dry, drinking is common. “Everyone here drinks and if they don’t, they drink in private,” one Djiboutian jokes to me over his whisky. Alcohol is sold in bars and the state licenses a clutch of tightly controlled booze importers.
Larry Modi is among them. The Christian son of an enterprising Indian runaway and an Ethiopian woman, the 67-year-old has run a supermarket in Djibouti City for many years. Warm and avuncular, with soft features, big round eyes and greying hair, he greets me at 11.30am with an offer of “champagne?”, pouring glasses for us both. His shop features floor-to-ceiling shelves of beer, gin, vodka and more. He is beloved by generations of soldiers and his office has the military memorabilia — gifts from soldiers serving out their time in this peculiar way station — to prove it; the French made him an honorary Legionnaire.
The cultural quirks of a country that appears to welcome all belie Djibouti’s repressive political climate. A London judge last month, ruling on a corruption case brought by Djibouti, painted a picture of President Guelleh’s regime as “capricious”, “cavalier” and on occasions “reprehensible”. Diplomats whose troops rely on the president’s welcome describe him as the crafty, powerful and impressive leader of a centralised autocracy, one stop short of dictatorship.
Human-rights activists decry a series of abuses. The government routinely suppresses the opposition, “harassing, abusing and detaining government critics”, says the latest report from the US state department, published last year, which also censures Djibouti for conducting torture, arbitrary arrest and detention of demonstrators, opposition members and journalists.
In 2011, the state put down a series of protests that hinted at the beginnings of Arab Spring-like uprisings. In December last year, police clashed with the opposition, killing at least seven and wounding dozens. Today the opposition protests against vote-rigging and harassment.
“There’s a lack of freedom, people are desperate, poor — it creates a lot of discontent. People are patient but there’s a limit,” Daher Ahmed Farah, spokesman for the opposition coalition group Union for the National Salvation, tells me.
Opposition figures such as Farah, a 54-year-old who goes by his initials “Daf”, have been followed, arrested and tortured. They meet and speak with the furtive glances and low voices borne of well-informed paranoia. Daf himself has been arrested more than 25 times since 2013, he says.
When I meet him one afternoon, we go to an empty café until a lone man comes and sits right next to us and, Daf feels, listens in. We lower our voices, move tables, and finally we leave.
That evening, I receive a call from reception to my hotel room. “There are some visitors here to see you.” I was not expecting any. I go downstairs to see a man wrapped in a skirt, wired on khat, and his adjunct dressed in a camel flannel uniform. “Come with us,” says the man in the skirt.
“Hello. Greetings. How can I help?” I ask, attempting a smile. “Police. Come with us.” I say I do not think it wise for us to have this conversation — or perhaps it is an arrest — at night, in the dark, in an unknown location, and could we pursue this tomorrow. They insist.
I manage to alert my back-up contacts before the police take me to what turns out to be the city’s central commissariat. Along with two other men, a colonel questions me at length, asking why I met with the opposition, what Daf said and who introduced us. I demur.
He directs the same questions to me again and again, especially the last, in a bad comedy of repetition, peppering his inquisition with the admission that it is perfectly legal for me, an accredited journalist with the right visa, to meet the perfectly legal opposition. The whole thing lasts four hours.
Back in my hotel room, I do not sleep for what is left of the night. I relate the tale the next day to a diplomat. “It’s intimidation,” he tells me.
In May 2014, Djibouti’s assumption that it was a well-protected island of peace in a troubled region was shaken when al-Shabaab launched a double suicide attack on a downtown restaurant popular with locals and westerners. One person was killed and dozens wounded.
Being targeted not only for sending troops to fight al-Shabaab in Somalia but also for hosting foreign bases — the attack took place in the same month that Djibouti signed its extension agreement with the US — was a shock to a country that had until then considered itself off-limits.
“Djibouti is calm, peaceful — a Djiboutian can never do that, they like peace too much — but, if someone is prepared to die, you can’t stop them,” says a member of the government’s antiterrorism group, which comprises 160 security officers and 600 civilians linked into a reporting network. “It was a wake-up call,” says the agent. “We have totally reorganised policing and protection along the border. Now we pick up communications — we see the value in talking to people and we’re much more alert.”
Djibouti’s belief that it stands to benefit from being the linchpin for an international coalition against terrorism clearly brings its own risks. But foreign minister Youssouf insists that the country has not wavered “from our belief that globalisation means everything”. Djibouti’s security role also helps establish a modicum of leverage distinct from populous, landlocked Ethiopia, on which it has always been seen as dependent. “Everyone said Djibouti would be swallowed by Somalia or Ethiopia but in the end we are the umbilical cord for Ethiopia, and now they and the Chinese see us as that,” says Youssouf, concerned to dispel the notion that Djibouti exists solely to service the Ethiopian economy.
The US has tried to enlist China as friend not foe in the military field in Africa, suggesting integrated operations in areas such as landmine clearance and peacekeeping training. China turned down a request for a joint demining programme but it participates in international anti-piracy missions and some naval exercises. The US hopes to encourage greater co-operation. Djibouti could, if it goes well, become a catalyst for what one observer calls “a joint globalised security architecture”. But the flipside augurs ill: well-armed superpowers jostling in a city of closely guarded secrets, raising the stakes on the militarisation of trade routes and security chokepoints. Managing the existence of both a US and a Chinese military base in the same country “will be a challenge for all involved”, says ambassador Kelly.
For Djibouti, the answer is clear. “For many years Japanese, Italians, Germans, French and Americans are just coexisting in this very small land,” says Youssouf. “So why should it be different in the future?”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 14:02.
Lots of White faces at Bernie rally.
TOO, Sam Dickson, “Black and Hispanic Democrats versus White, Liberal Democrats,” 22 March 2016: With all the attention on Donald Trump, there has been little discussion of the astonishing rift between Black and Hispanic Democrats on one hand and White liberal Democrats on the other.
Hillary Clinton has shut Bernie Sanders out of the Black and Brown voters. She is their candidate. She is catering to them to an astonishing degree. She has endorsed all the fantasies and lies about White cops killing Black males. She has hauled the mother of Travon Martin around, putting her on the stage to endorse her candidacy, and talking about how Lil’ Travon was murdered by George Zimmerman but there was no justice. She has extolled the Gentle Giant.
She made statements about a breaking story about three Black coeds who claimed they were attacked by Whites on a bus who called them “nigger.” When a surveillance video from the bus revealed that the whole story was concocted, Hillary refused to retract her statements or to apologize for joining in false accusations against innocent people.
There is no limit in race-betrayal that Clinton will not go to.
Clinton is now virtually the captive of the Blacks and Browns. They cast about half the votes in the Democratic Party. They are the ones who have given her the nomination.
The White Democrats — even the wimmin — have deserted her and flocked to Sanders in droves.
Sanders has gotten nowhere in his efforts to chip non-White voters away from Clinton.
He is the candidate of the White wing of the Democratic Party.
What does this mean for White Nationalists like us who are thinking in long range terms (like Jews) instead of next weeks primary vote?
For many years I have predicted that there would come a point at which White liberals would realize that their Black and Brown friends don’t have the slightest interest in issues that excite White liberals: gay rights, environmentalism, funding for the arts, conservation, public parks.
No. The Blacks and the Browns are only interested in “The Gimme.”
And increasingly Blacks and Browns will control and dominate the Democratic Party. Already, they are sending the White liberal Democrats to the back of the bus.
The alliance between White liberals and the racist minorities is breaking up. They are splitting.
Add in the fact that there are a lot of White liberals at the local level who have caught on that the Jews are running their own racist ethnostate and that their posturings about fighting racism and their deep, deep concern about the plight of Blacks and the need for open borders are utterly insincere.
At some point our White liberal racial brothers and sisters are going to be up for grabs.
The shizoid nature of Democratic voter behavior along racial lines shows that this is coming.
How can we reach out to them and help raise the consciousness?